{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1980-09-18","text":"ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,THE PRESIDENT. Although attention is naturally focused on domestic politics, events around the world and here at home still demand my attention and action in ways that affect the well-being of American citizens.,Yesterday we completed the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China with four agreements—for trade, for consulates, for normal airline service, and for textiles. We've opened a new era of normal relationships now between our two great countries.,Also yesterday, the second anniversary of the signing of the Camp David accords, I met with Israeli Foreign Minister Shamir and Egyptian Foreign Minister Hassan Ali as efforts continue in our quest for a lasting peace in the Middle East, which is so important to the future of Americans and to the entire world. They have been, since that meeting with me, conducting negotiations or discussions with our own Ambassador responsible for the discussions for peace.,We're preparing now for preliminary exchanges with the Soviet Union on the control of theater nuclear weapons in Europe. These talks should begin next month, and Secretary Muskie will be addressing this important subject in his discussions with Foreign Minister Gromyko of the Soviet Union in New York in the near future.,We've also been concentrating on the slow, difficult, diplomatic effort to free our hostages in Iran.,Here at home there are some encouraging economic signs. The unemployment rate has been steady or slightly down for the last 4 straight months. Unemployment compensation claims, which is a weekly statistic that we receive, has been encouraging. In the last 2 months we've added some 470,000 new jobs. Housing starts are up now for the third month in a row. New orders for durable goods were up sharply in July, and for the past 90 days retail sales have also shown increases. But—and this is essential—while inflation has been dampened down, it's still a major, continuing concern.,I'm standing firm against any tax reduction in this preelection political climate. But I will press ahead to strengthen our economy, to increase productivity, to revitalize our American industrial system, and to create real jobs.,A tripartite automobile committee is now attacking this industry's problems on a continuing basis. A few hours ago Japanese Minister Tanaka made an encouraging statement in his estimate of Japanese exports of automobiles to this country for the remainder of this year. At the Venice summit conference we discussed with the Japanese the automobile situation, and they are sensitive to this transition period through which America is now going in changing consumer demand for the smaller and more efficient automobiles.,I'm also pleased to note that there are some initial recalls of steelworkers. And I look forward to receiving within just a few days a strong report from our tripartite committee on steel dealing with the pressing problems that face that basic industry so important to our country.,Finally, nowhere is America's progress more important than reducing energy dependence. The results so far have been excellent, far above what we had anticipated. Our imports of oil are down more than 20 percent below last year—about 1 1/2 million barrels less oil imported each day this year. A record number of drilling. rigs are in use. The number of oil and natural gas wells that will be drilled in 1980 will exceed any other previous year. American coal production in 1980 will be the highest in history, and we are now launching the most massive peacetime effort in our history to produce energy from shale, from coal, from the Sun, from farm products, geothermal sources, and many others.,Finally, I'm working with the Congress for the passage of critical bills. I think we will have a good legislative year—in dealing with youth employment, Alaska lands, toxic wastes, pay and incentives for military personnel, deregulation of the American free enterprise system, and the enhancement of civil rights.,In domestic and international affairs, the progress of America goes on.,I will now be pleased to answer any questions that you might have for me.,Ms. Santini [Maureen Santini, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS RONALD REAGAN,Q. Mr. President, in Atlanta on Tuesday, you referred to Ronald Reagan's campaign statements about the Ku Klux Klan and States rights. And then you said that hatred and racism have no place in this country. Do you think that Reagan is running a campaign of hatred and racism, and how do you answer allegations that you are running a mean campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I do not think he's running a campaign of racism or hatred, and I think my campaign is very moderate in its tone. I did not raise the issue of the Klan, nor did I raise the issue of States rights, and I believe that it's best to leave these words, which are code words to many people in our country who've suffered from discrimination in the past, out of the election this year.,I do not think that my opponent is a racist in any degree.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, earlier this week you raised expectations on the release of the hostages, and then you seemed to back off. What is today's prospect for an early release of the hostages, and aside from the Shah's assets, over which we have no control, are all of the latest Iranian demands negotiable?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not changed my position on the prospects for the hostages release. I do not predict an early resolution of the issue, because it's not in my hands, unilaterally. It has to be done through very careful negotiations with the Iranians and quite often because of unilateral decisions to be made by them.,One of the major obstacles to progress in the past has been the absence of any viable government in Iran. Only in recent weeks, in fact in some instances in the last few days, have they had a parliament or a speaker of the parliament who could speak for them, or a Prime Minister. They have had a President for a long time. The President himself, Bani-Sadr, has been consistently in favor of the hostages being released. Now that their government is intact and now that the Ayatollah Khomeini has made a public statement for the first time outlining to some degree the demands to be pursued by Iran, obviously the situation has improved.,Our position has been consistent. We have two goals in mind that have not changed since the first day the hostages were taken. One is to preserve the honor and integrity of our Nation and to protect its interests. That's never changed. And the second goal has also never changed, and that is not to do anything here in this country that would endanger the lives or safety of the hostages nor interfere with their earliest possible release back to freedom.,This is an issue that's been constantly on my mind and on the minds of the American people.,Q. Does an apology rule out the question of honor?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The United States is not going to apologize.,We have long said that there would be a legitimate forum provided for the Iranians, who consider themselves to be aggrieved in many ways, to present their case. We encouraged the United Nations mission to go to Iran, to investigate the situation there, to have hearings in Iran, and to let there be a public exploration of Iran's claims or complaints. At the time we filed our suit in the World Court in the Hague we also invited Iran to participate with us, not in a combative way, but in a friendly way, to give them that forum, which would have been well covered by the world press, to express their concerns or their complaints about us or others in the past. So, this is not a new development at all. Our position has been very consistent.,I cannot predict what will happen in the near future, but we are pursuing every possible legitimate avenue, as we have for many months, to reach some agreement with Iran, with those two constraints that I described to you concerning our Nation's honor and the safety of the hostages, to relieve this problem between us, which is obviously damaging to the United States and also very damaging to the people of Iran.,PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN STYLE,Q. I'd like to return to a portion of Miss Santini's question. There are people who say that in political campaigns you get mean; that you attempt to savage your opponents. They cite Hubert Humphrey, Edward Kennedy, and now Ronald Reagan. Will you tell us why you think this is not correct, and will you discuss your campaign style from that standpoint?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not raised these issues today in the press conference; it's been raised twice out of three questions. And obviously in the heat of a campaign there is give and take on both sides. An incumbent Governor or a President is almost always the subject of the most enthusiastic attacks by those who seek his office, and quite often those kinds of political verbal exchanges from those who seek to replace someone are either accepted as a normal course in a political campaign or ignored. If an incumbent, a Governor or a Congressman or a Senator or a President responds, that's immediately given the highest possible notice as an attack on one's challengers.,So, I try to keep a moderate tone; I try to discuss the issues. And I do not indulge in attacking personally the integrity of my opponents, and I hope that I never shall.,1980 CAMPAIGN DEBATES,Q. Mr. President, the big debate really concerns who will occupy this place next January 21. And since Presidential elections are now federally funded, I was just wondering whether you might consider, as President, inviting your chief opponent, Ronald Reagan, to a debate here in the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to have a debate with my Republican opponent either here at this very spot or in the East Room of the White House or any other forum anywhere in this Nation, and as frequently as possible. We have already accepted three invitations to debate on a one-to-one basis between the Democratic nominee, myself, and the Republican nominee. One of the networks invited us both on a man-to-man basis; I accepted. The National Press Club invited us both to attend the debate; I accepted it. And a women's magazine with its organization invited us both to meet on a one-to-one basis to debate, and I accepted these invitations. So far, Governor Reagan has not chosen to accept this one-on-one debate.,I am very eager to pursue this idea and have no concern at all about the location or the time except that I want it to be anywhere in this Nation and as frequently as possible.,PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LOANS,Q. Mr. President, on July 22, you said that it was inappropriate for your brother, Billy, to serve as a foreign agent and to accept the $220,000 loan from the Libyans. Yet from January of 1978 until March of 1980 you were personally liable for $830,000 to a Saudi-controlled financial institution. And in fact in 1978, contemporaneously with your decision to sell and advocacy of the sale of sixty F-15 jet fighters to Saudi Arabia, you accepted through Carter's Warehouse a loan accommodation from the Saudi-controlled bank which was worth $266,000 to you personally, free-tax dollars.,In light of your statement about the inappropriateness of your brother accepting a $220,000 loan accommodation, why do you think it was appropriate for you to accept what amounts to a $266,000 loan accommodation from a Saudi-controlled financial institution? And why do you think this does not represent an actual or potential conflict of interest, which you said you would rule out in your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never accepted any loans from any organization—,Q. [Inaudible]—a loan accommodation—,THE PRESIDENT. Would you like for me to answer your question?,I've never accepted any loans from an organization that's owned or controlled by any foreign government or any foreign nationals. The only loans that I have gotten were loaned before I became President from American-owned banks in Atlanta, and I have so far paid those loans off as required by the bank itself.,Q. The bank was purchased by the Saudi citizen, and he now owns the bank, Mr. President—,NUCLEAR WARFARE,Q. Mr. President, in the context of your decisions about the MX missile and Presidential Directive 59, I'd like to ask if it's realistic for any American President to believe that he could limit his response to a Soviet nuclear first strike against U.S. missiles if that first strike incurred, let's say, 20 to 50 million casualties. Could you limit your response under those circumstances, or would you have to fire off everything that was left?,THE PRESIDENT. When anyone decides to run for President of our country with any expectation of being elected, the question of the use of atomic weapons has to be addressed, because it's crucial for our Nation, for our allies, and for our potential adversaries to know that, if necessary, atomic weapons would be used to defend our Nation. And that knowledge is the deterrent that would prevent a potential adversary from attacking our country and therefore destroying 100 million or more American lives.,I have done everything I possibly could as President not only to maintain peace-and I thank God we've been successful so far—but to lay the groundwork for continued maintenance of peace and the avoidance of ever having to use atomic weapons. There is a likelihood—I can't say how strong it might be; it's not an inevitability but it's certainly a likelihood-that if an atomic exchange of any kind should ever erupt that it might lead to a more massive exchange of intercontinental and highly destructive weapons that would result in tens of millions of lost lives on both sides. That very knowledge, which I have very clearly in my mind, is shared by the Soviet leaders, and I have discussed this common knowledge with President Brezhnev in Vienna when we signed the SALT II.,The policy of our two countries ever since President Eisenhower and President Truman were in office and everyone since then, Democratic or Republican, has been to try to reduce the dependence on atomic weapons and to have balanced atomic forces and, lately, to reduce constantly on an equal basis the arsenals that we have. I cannot tell you what would happen if an exchange should take place. I would try to defend my Nation's integrity and its security and the integrity and security of our allies without resort to atomic weapons, but if necessary to defend the freedom and security of Western Europe and this country, then I would use atomic weapons. I pray to God that that time will never come, but it's important for our people, our allies, and the Soviet Union to know that if necessary those weapons will be used. The best weapon of any kind is one that's never used, and the best soldier is one that never dies in war.,But the only way I know to maintain peace for my country and for those who depend on me is to be strong and to let potential attackers know that if they should attack us their attack would be suicidal.,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, the new K-Car Chrysler, there little itty-bitty cars are going to cost $6,000. Do we get any quid pro quo from the automobile industry, or can your administration—you've given them billions of dollars in the past year or so and, I think, a half billion dollars more today from air pollution. They've dropped the air bag. Can the consumer get any break in giving out all these Federal funds?,THE PRESIDENT. It's important to America for us to have modern-design cars, small, efficient, that comply with air pollution standards and are safe. As you know in the past, with extremely cheap gasoline, the efficiency of an automobile, its mileage per gallon, was not very important to the American consumer, because gas was so inexpensive.,Lately there has been a change in buying customs by America. There is no doubt in my mind that the automobiles produced today are much more efficient, much more clean-burning, and becoming more sate than they have been in the past, and I don't have any doubt that in 1985 they will continue that steady progress toward a clean-burning, efficient, safer car.,We have provided increasingly stringent standards for safety and for efficiency and for air pollution standards. And I think that's going to continue. But I don't look upon our Government as subsidizing or paying the automobile industry to make these changes.,We have made available loan guarantees to Chrysler because they were on the verge of bankruptcy. The reason the Congress did this, with my full support and approval, was to avoid the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs among automobile workers and to keep a highly competitive automobile industry in our country. These loan guarantees are sound investments by the American Government. We do not anticipate any loss of funds from taxpayers' money with this loan guarantee.,PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' POPULARITY,Q. Mr. President, the opinion polls indicate that you've made quite substantial gains in recent as against Governor Reagan-according to one, marginally ahead; according to one, marginally behind—but certainly in a lot better position than you seemed to be a few weeks ago. Could you give us your analysis of why you think you've made these gains? To what extent you think now that John Anderson will be a factor and your analysis of what you expect to happen in this very volatile period of the next few months, politically speaking?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you all have seen in the last year the extreme volatility of public opinion polls, perhaps more than has ever been the case in the past. I would guess they would be up and down between now and November 4.,My belief is that in a general election campaign for President there is a unique situation that's not extant in the election of any other official in our country nor the nominating process by the Democratic and Republican Parties even for President. As we approach November 4 there is a continual sobering among individual Americans as they approach a decision who is going to control the affairs of this Nation from the Oval Office for the next 4 years and realization that that choice is a profoundly important one for them individually, for their family, for their community, in economic life, the quality of life, war or peace. The issues begin to become paramount.,The personal characteristics of the candidates, as far as attractiveness or speaking style and so forth, in my opinion become less important and the questions come down to: Who cares more about me and my family and my future? Who can deal with the inevitable crises in a more calm and effective way, and who is most likely to keep this country at peace?,So, I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I'll just do the best I can. I think that the essence of it, though, is that the election will be decided ultimately, however, by that very calm, very reasoned, very sober analysis of the issues and the difference in the stand of the candidates on the issues, and not by the excitement or sometimes even the frivolity of the election campaign during the primary season.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, based on guidance you were given by your economic advisers and other information that's available to you, do you think that the country is now out of the recession or that it will be before the November 4 election?,THE PRESIDENT. Some of my economic advisers have told me within the last 2 days that the recession might very well be over. I don't know. Only in retrospect, several weeks after something occurs, can you be sure of that. The technical definition of recession with which you are familiar is really of not much significance. The point is, I believe that we'll have ups and downs during the next few months.,We still have an unemployment rate, although below 8 percent, which is too high. The chances are that it won't vary much for the rest of this year. I believe that the inflation rate, which is still too high, will stay below double-digit inflation the rest of this year. Recovery of our economic system seems to be progressing very well, with housing starts going up, investments going up, and with the number of jobs available to the American people continuing to rise. It's just hard to predict; but I believe that we will have a stable economy with statistics fluctuating from one month to another.,The thing that we must do, though, is to realize that the election pressures cannot be permitted to shape economic policy. We have got to keep inflation under control while we deal with the increase in productivity over a long period of time in the future; build permanent jobs for people in the private industry sector, not in make-work jobs that are very expensive to the American taxpayer; continue to deregulate the American free enterprise system, getting government's nose out of the affairs of American business and American families. These kinds of basic things—to increase productivity, to increase investment, and to have long-range, permanent jobs—are the major challenge that I face as President, and not to have an election-year-type quick fix by promising a major tax decrease that might simply be repaid to the working families of this country by increased inflation in the months ahead.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, yesterday, after meeting with Foreign Minister Berg of Israel and Hassan Ali of Egypt, you said without elaboration that unanticipated progress had been made in restarting those trilateral talks here in Washington on Palestinian autonomy.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. But Foreign Minister Berg said today those initial discussions would not include the issue of Jerusalem. Given the importance of that issue, what progress has been made this week, and what's the cause of your optimism?,THE PRESIDENT. When Sol Linowitz went to Jerusalem and to Egypt a few weeks ago and met with Foreign Minister Shamir and with General Hassan Ali, and also with Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, we were pleasantly surprised after a fairly long dearth of direct contacts between Israel and Egypt to find both nations eager to get back to the negotiating table.,Yesterday, after they left my office, Sol Linowitz, Mr. Shamir, General Ali, sat down to continue top-level negotiations to try to find a basis for carrying out the comprehensive peace.,Following Sol Linowitz' trip to the Mideast, President Sadat announced, both before and after he arrived, that he was eager to see a summit conference later this year. Prime Minister Begin had not until that time made that statement. Prime Minister Begin called me on the telephone to say that the Linowitz mission had been remarkably successful, to thank us for what he had contributed, and to say that he would be eager to meet with me and President Sadat at a summit conference either before or after the American elections were concluded.,We will work that out. I am determined that the prospect for a summit meeting will not interfere with the substantive negotiations that must precede it. And I think the fact that yesterday and today the Foreign Ministers of the two countries are negotiating again in the presence of the American Ambassador assigned that task is indeed encouraging in itself.,RONALD REAGAN,Q. Mr. President, you have been asked several times about some tough language you used in Atlanta regarding Ronald Reagan, and to be fair to you, and before I ask my question, we should point out that some tough language has been used against you in the past by Mr. Reagan and other of your opponents. I recall during an interview with Mr. Reagan he said that you had let our defenses slide and that was a great danger to war. So, I'm not impugning, putting upon you the exclusive use of tough language. But nevertheless I'd like to return to Atlanta and ask this question.,You have said here today that you do not consider Mr. Reagan a racist.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. I believe that to be true. You have said that you do not think he's running a campaign of hatred or racism. But you used all three of those words in connection with the discussion of Mr. Reagan. Do you regret that, or could you tell me how this could happen if you don't attribute any of those characteristics to Mr. Reagan?,THE PRESIDENT. I was speaking to a group at Ebenezer Baptist Church, leaders of a black community all the way from Maryland to Texas, leaders who had been involved in the civil rights movement in years gone by in the fifties and sixties, who had endangered their very lives to bring about equality of opportunity and an end to racial discrimination. Those people understand the code words, the use of the words \"Ku Klux Klan\" and the use of the words \"States rights\" in the South, and my message to them was that the Presidential election is no place for the reviving of the issue of racism under any circumstances. And that's the way I feel about it. It ought not to be a part of the Presidential race.,I was asked later by a newsperson as I was getting on the plane, \"Do you think that Governor Reagan is a racist?\" And I replied, \"No.\" And I do not. And I would hope that from now on after this news conference that we could leave out references to allegations that anybody thinks that I'm a racist or that any of the other candidates in the race for President are racists. I don't believe they are, and I believe it ought to be dropped.,Q. Mr. President, it was your own Cabinet Secretary, Patricia Harris, who first interjected the KKK into the Presidential race. She said in Los Angeles essentially that Governor Reagan was running with the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan and raised the spector of white sheets. So then, how can you blame Governor Reagan—,The PRESIDENT. I am not blaming Governor Reagan. That's just exactly the point. The press seems to be obsessed with this issue. I am not blaming Governor Reagan.,Q. You accused him of interjecting the Ku Klux Klan into the campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. The only thing that I said Governor Reagan injected into the campaign, was the use of the words \"States rights\" in a speech in Mississippi.,I hate, here on national television, to go through the procedure again. What happened was that the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Governor Reagan and stated that the Republican convention could have been written by a Klansman. Governor Reagan subsequently rejected, wisely and properly, any endorsement by the Ku Klux Klan. That was what injected the Klan into the Presidential race.,I regret it. I wish it had not been done. I would like to see it eliminated from the Presidential race. I do not blame Governor Reagan at all for the fact that that endorsement was made, and I admire him for rejecting the Klan endorsements.,HELEN THOMAS [United Press International]. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1980-08-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT, This evening we will extend the press conference time to a full hour to give me an adequate opportunity to present a statement and then to answer more questions than would ordinarily be the case.,BILLY CARTER'S ACTIVITIES WITH LIBYAN GOVERNMENT,In 1976, as a candidate, I made a commitment that explains why now as a President I want to make this statement to the American people this evening. Four years ago our country was deeply shaken by an administration that had betrayed its high trust and had tried to hide the truth from public judgment. I was asked then how Americans' lives would be changed if I was elected President. I answered that I would work to restore the confidence of the American people in the integrity of their Government. Integrity has been and will continue to be a cornerstone of my administration. When questions of propriety are raised, I want to make sure they're answered fully. When the questions concern me, I want to answer them myself.,Questions have now been raised concerning my actions and those of my administration regarding my brother Billy Carter and the Government of Libya. We have made as thorough an investigation as possible, and the facts are available for the committees of Congress and for the public to examine. They will show that neither I nor any member of my administration has violated any law or committed any impropriety. I've today filed a full report with the Congress. I cannot read it all to you tonight, but here are the main points.,Let me first say a word about the U.S. policy toward the nation of Libya.,There are few governments in the world with which we have more sharp and frequent policy disagreements. Libya has steadfastly opposed our efforts to reach and to carry out the Camp David accords to bring peace to the Middle East. Our two governments have strongly different opinions and attitudes toward the PLO and toward international terrorism. Within OPEC, Libya has promoted sharply higher prices of oil and, on occasion, has advocated the interruption of oil supplies to the United States and to other Western nations.,On the other hand, we have substantial trade with Libya. Libya is one of our major oil suppliers, and its high-quality crude oil is important to our east coast refineries. Libya has publicly and privately opposed Iran's seizure and holding of our hostages, and for a time, Libya joined with other Moslem countries in opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.,So for many years, our policies and actions toward Libya have therefore mixed firmness with caution.,And now I'd like to say a word about my brother's relations with Libya. As all of you know by now, Billy is a colorful personality. We are personally close. I love him, and he loves me. Billy is extremely independent. On occasion he has said, \"I don't tell Jimmy how to run the country, and he doesn't tell me how to run my life.\" When I was elected President, Billy was thrust into the public limelight. Media attention made him an instant celebrity. He was asked to make a number of television and other speaking engagements, and he even put his name on a new brand of beer.,And in the summer of 1978, Billy was invited to visit Libya with a group of businessmen and State officials from Georgia. This highly publicized trip occurred late in September 1978. I was not aware that he was planning the trip until after he had left the United States and shortly before he arrived in Libya. When I heard about it, I was deeply concerned that' there might be some serious or unpleasant incident while he was there.,Shortly after he returned from Libya, in October 1978, I saw a message from our charge in Tripoli reporting on the positive nature of the visit. I was greatly relieved, and I sent a copy of that message to Billy. This message contained no sensitive information, was never encoded, and in fact, more than a year ago it was made publicly available by the State Department to a news columnist.,Early in 1979 a Libyan trade mission came to the United States, visited several localities in our country. Billy visited with the Libyans and made a number of controversial statements, which were roundly criticized both by the press and also by the American public. I publicly deplored, in a news conference, some of those comments myself.,As a result of Billy's remarks and his new association with the Libyans, almost all of his scheduled television and other appearances were canceled. His income from these public appearances almost totally disappeared, while his financial obligations continued to mount.,I shared the general concern about Billy's relationship with Libya, and the members of our family were also concerned about some of his personal problems. During this period, Billy entered the hospital for medical treatment. On one occasion while he was hospitalized, he discussed with me the possibility of another trip to Libya, and I urged him not to go, partly because of his health and partly because of the adverse effect it could have on our Middle East negotiations, which were at a critical stage at that time.,By the late summer of 1979, Billy had successfully completed his medical treatment, and despite my advice he made a second trip to Libya. There was relatively little publicity about this trip.,I am not aware of any effort by Billy to affect this Government's policies or actions concerning Libya. I am certain that he made no such effort with me. The only. occasion on which Billy was involved, to my knowledge, in any matter between Libya and the United States was his participation, with my full approval, in our efforts to seek Libyan help for the return of our hostages from Iran. Let me discuss this incident briefly.,On November the 4th, 1979, our hostages were seized in Tehran. In the weeks that followed, we explored every possible avenue to bring about their release. We increased our military presence in the Persian Gulf, we stopped all oil imports from Iran, and we seized the assets of that country. We appealed to the United Nations Security Council and to the World Court. We asked other governments, and particularly Moslem governments, including Libya, to support our position. As is still the case, we explored every official and unofficial avenue of contact we could find to encourage the Iranians to release the American hostages.,Public statements coming out of Libya at that time were not supportive and indicated that our diplomatic efforts to secure their assistance had not been successful. During the third week in November, it occurred to us that Billy might be able to get the Libyans to help to induce the Iranians to release the American hostages. As requested, he talked to the Libyans about our hostages and arranged a meeting with a Libyan diplomat at the White House. I did not attend that meeting, and so far as I'm aware, Billy played no further role in these discussions with the Libyans.,As matters turned out, the Libyan foreign office announced that the hostages should be released, and the leader of Libya, Colonel Qadhafi, also made the direct private appeal to Ayatollah Khomeini that we requested. At least in this respect, the approach to the Libyans was successful; whether it would have been successful if Billy had not participated is a question that no one can answer with certainty.,I made this decision in good faith, with the best interests of the hostages and our Nation in mind. Billy merely responded to our request for assistance, and I believe his only motive in this effort was to seek release of the American hostages from Iran.,And now, concerning Billy's alleged Government contacts on behalf of Libya: There have been many press reports that Billy may have tried to influence U.S. policy on licensing aircraft to Libya or on other matters. I can state categorically that my brother Billy had no influence or effect on my decisions or on any U.S. Government policy or action concerning Libya. Billy has never asked me to take any step that would affect any of these actions or policies. And so far as we have been able to determine after long and extensive investigation, Billy has not made any such effort with anybody in my administration.,Concerning the Department of Justice investigation, let me say this: Under the President's supervision, law enforcement responsibility is delegated to the Attorney General. The President's power of supervision of the Justice Department was abused in the Watergate scandal, as none of us can ever forget.,When I took office, I instructed the Attorney General, Griffin Bell, that neither I nor any White House official would ever attempt to influence the Department of Justice investigations concerning any charges of law violation. When possible conflict-of-interest issues arise, as in the case of a member of the President's official family or his personal family, we take extra precautions to prevent improper interference.,This policy was followed strictly in the present case from the time the investigation began until the final papers were filed on July the 14th. There was no contact in either direction between the Department of Justice and the White House concerning the conduct of this investigation. On July 22d, the White House issued a public statement to this effect.,Two days later, I found a reference in my notes to brief comments which I had exchanged with Attorney General Civiletti about 6 weeks earlier at the conclusion of a long meeting concerning judicial appointments and other matters. I had not remembered these comments, and I decided that they should be made public. While the July 22d statement was technically correct, it clearly required amplification to disclose these brief comments.,To me, integrity does not mean that a mistake is never made; integrity means that when a mistake is made, even though it's highly technical in nature and was inadvertent, it ought to be disclosed. And that's exactly what we did.,In this brief exchange between myself and the Attorney General, which lasted just—less than a minute, I would guess, the Attorney General did not inform me of any detail as to the conduct of the investigation. He told me only about the Department's insistence that Billy file a registration statement and about the Department's standard enforcement policy.,On June 26th, after I returned from the Venice summit conference, my Counsel notified me that Billy's lawyers hoped to resolve this matter by his filing the registration statement, and I called Billy to encourage him to work harmoniously with his lawyers. He said that his lawyers were in negotiation with the Department of Justice, but that he personally did not think that he needed to file a registration statement. On July the 1st, just a few days later, I called Billy again to urge him to accede to the Department's request and to follow his lawyers' advice and make a full disclosure. He did so on July 14th.,It was not until July the 15th that I knew of the two large payments or loans of money from Libya to my brother. So far as we have been able to determine, no one in the White House had any information about the payments or about any evidence relating to such payments until Billy Carter's lawyers informed my Counsel about them on July the 11th, when the court papers were about to be filed. No one in the White House furnished information about the investigation to Billy or to anyone associated with him at any time.,Finally, there's one more rumor that I would like to lay to rest. No payments or transfers of this money have been made to me, and no such payments or transfers have been made to Carter's Warehouse. And I will also see to it that no direct or indirect benefit of any kind will ever flow to me in the future.,To summarize, Billy has had no influence or effect on my decisions or any U.S. Government policy or on any action concerning Libya. Neither I nor anyone in the White House has ever tried to influence or to affect the Justice Department's actions or decisions. Neither I nor anyone in the White House informed Billy of any leads or evidence obtained by the Department. Everything that I and the White House staff did with respect to this case was designed to serve the interests of law enforcement and justice.,I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will have to govern my own relationships with my brother Billy. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policies or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future.,Our political history is full of stories about Presidential families and relatives whom other people have tried to use in order to gain favor with incumbent administrations. In most such cases, the appearance of favoritism has been much worse than the reality. My brother Billy's case is one of many such examples. To keep this problem from recurring, I've asked my Counsel to draft a rule that will bar any employee of the executive branch from dealing with any member of the President's family under any circumstances that create either the reality or the appearance of improper favor or influence.,Now I'd be glad to answer questions, if you have them.,QUESTIONS,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, on the question of propriety, do you think that it was proper for the Attorney General to tell you to urge Billy to register as a foreign agent and to tell you that he would not be prosecuted if he did so? And also, on the question of the money, you told us where the money didn't go. Do you know where the Libyan payments did go and how Billy used the money?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't know where the money went or where it might go. Billy can answer that question, and I understand he's prepared to answer any questions.,I don't think there's any impropriety at all in the conversation that I had with the Attorney General. He did not ask me to take any action. I did not ask him to take any action. He simply informed me-I believe I can quote his words from my notes—that Billy was foolish not to comply with the Department insistence that he file the registration papers. And he said that if he filed these papers truthfully that the normal procedure of the Department was not to punish or to prosecute a person in that category.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, a number of prominent Democrats, Senator Byrd and Mayor Koch of New York among them, have suggested that you might release your convention delegates to vote their preference on the first Presidential ballot. Are there any circumstances under which you would do this, and do you fear that doing so might hurt your chances of getting the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to do this. I ran in all the primaries, all the caucuses. In that intense political competition, I won about 60 percent of the commitments of the delegates in accordance with the decisions that were made by the 19 million Democrats who participated actively in the primaries and the caucuses. These are not my delegates; they are the Democratic voters' delegates.,This so-called open convention, which is a phrase that's been used by Senator Kennedy and others and picked up broadly by the press, is a gross misnomer. What they actually are calling for is a brokered convention, to induce those delegates to violate their signed pledge or oath that they would go to the convention and vote in accordance with the way the voters cast their ballots back home.,There is a requirement throughout this entire electoral process, a decision made by the Democratic National Committee, unanimously, 18 months before the first caucuses, which were in Iowa, that this is the way the rule would be imposed. All the candidates agreed to it and understood it. And also, there was a requirement that in the States there be a line for uncommitted delegates, who did not want to express their preference. Some uncommitted delegates were chosen. That line was put there to give them that option.,What Senator Kennedy and others are now asking for is for those candidates who are elected by the people who wanted me to be the nominee violate their oath and that all the delegates in effect be uncommitted. This puts back 10 years of progress that the Democratic Party has made to democratize a process and to remove control of the convention from the powerbrokers and put it in the hands of people who go to the polls and vote on primary day or go to the caucuses and select delegates. That's the issue at stake. It's a very simple, clear issue.,My position is that the convention ought not to be a brokered convention, but that the delegates should vote the way the voters back home told them to vote. Others who have lost in the primaries now want to change the rules, after the primaries and caucuses are all over, to go back to the old brokered-type convention.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, I've been around a long time, but there are still some questions of a personal nature that are painful to ask. And yet, I feel there is one that must be asked.,THE PRESIDENT. I'll be happy to answer any question.,Q. Accepting your statement that you did not know until mid-July that your brother Billy was getting money,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —you say that you are personally very close to him; you love him, and he loves you; and you know him very well. Having known since September 1978 that he was involved in some way doing some work for the Libyan Government, having known more recently through an intelligence report that he was trying to get oil allocations for an oil company in the United States, did it never occur to you, knowing his penchant for get-rich-quick schemes and making money—did it never occur to you that he might be seeking financial gain from that relationship?,Mr. PRESIDENT. Yes, it occurred to me—not as early as you described.,We have several hundred—I think more than 2,000 Americans who live in Libya. As I said, we have major trade relationships with Libya. It's not a completely outcast nation. There are people who go from this country to Libya on a daily basis.,Billy did go to Libya without my knowledge or approval. I think it was in September of 1978. At that time, I don't believe from what I know now that Billy had any idea of becoming anything as a representative for or a special friend of Libya. He went there with some businessmen from Georgia and some members of the State legislature—not secretly, unfortunately; it was a highly publicized trip.,The first special relationship Billy had with Libya was when a Libyan trade delegation came to the United States, in effect to reciprocate that visit by the Georgians. They came to Atlanta; they came to Washington and some other places. Billy, in effect, acted as their host in Georgia. This was an extremely highly publicized and controversial time, and Billy was severely castigated in the press and by many American citizens, as I said, including myself in one news Conference, for some of the remarks he made.,Following that, I tried to encourage Billy not to go to Libya. In the documents that I filed with the congressional committees this afternoon, there's one letter that I wrote to Billy while he was in the hospital in California—the letter is a matter of record— encouraging him not to go to Libya. Obviously, I was concerned. But I don't have authority to order Billy to do something. It's not illegal for him to make a trip to Libya, for instance. I had no knowledge at all of any payment that was made to Billy. But of course, I was concerned about his relationship with Libya, wish he never had any relationship with Libya.,So, I can't condone what he has done. I'm not trying to make excuses. Anyone who knows Billy knows that no one can push him around. And I think that we used an adequate amount of personal persuasion, when I had the opportunity, then the telephone call from Dr. Brzezinski, warning Billy not that his action was illegal, as known, but that he might cause embarrassment to our country and embarrassment to me. I don't believe that there's anything further that I could have done that would have been effective.,Q. Mr. President, you said just a few minutes ago, sir, in your opening remarks, that neither you nor any member of your administration had violated any law or committed any impropriety.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. But, sir, don't you think that by using your brother, Billy Carter, at least as an emissary to make a contact with a foreign government—don't you feel that perhaps it might have been better judgment to have used a trained diplomat in that capacity?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not in that particular instance concerning the hostages. We were using trained diplomats. Immediately after the hostages were seized, this became an absolute, total obsession of mine, to get those hostages released. We inventoried every possibility of influence on the Iranians to induce them to release our hostages, safely and immediately. We sent messages—and had our diplomats in those countries and contacted their diplomats in Washington—to almost every nation on Earth, every one that we thought might have the slightest semblance of influence with Iran. We especially thought that the Moslem countries, believing in the Koran, having the same religion as the Ayatollah Khomeini, might have a special influence.,We had tried through diplomatic means to get Libya to give us some support in condemning the Iranian action and calling for the release of the hostages. Up through the 18th of November, the public statements coming out of Libya-and these are documented in Dr. Brzezinski's report had been negative, against our position, in effect supporting the holding of the hostages. Some private comments from Libyan diplomats to our diplomats in the United Nations, for instance, had said, \"We would like to help you,\" but the public comments, which were the important ones, were contrary to that.,Under those circumstances, I decided to use Billy to see if he could have some special influence to get the Libyans to help. I had no reticence about it.,That was the same day that the religious fanatics attacked the mosque in Saudi Arabia. It was the same day, I believe, that Khomeini announced that the hostages, American hostages, would be tried and, if convicted, Khomeini said, \"Jimmy Carter knows what's going to happen to them.\" We thought that the hostages' lives were directly in danger.,I saw then and see now nothing wrong with asking Billy and other private citizens to try to help if it's appropriate and legal. The only thing Billy did was to contact the Libyans, whom he knew personally-he does not know Qadhafi, but he did know the charge in Washington—and say, \"We would like very much to have your help in having the hostages released. Will you meet with Dr. Brzezinski at the White House,\" a week from then, which was the 27th day of November.,Billy then met a week later with Dr. Brzezinski and the charge, and we believe that some progress was made. As I said in my opening statement, I cannot say for sure that Billy had anything in the world to do with the progress that was made. But 2 days after Billy contacted the charge, they made a public announcement for the first time, Libya did, calling for the release of the hostages. After that meeting, Colonel Qadhafi himself sent a personal emissary to Khomeini, asking Khomeini for the first time to release our hostages, and then he sent me word that he had done so.,I'm not trying to claim great things from that small involvement of Billy. But Billy came up to Washington, so far as I know, at his own expense on two occasions. He went back to Plains. He never told anybody publicly that he had done it. He never bragged about it. And I have enough judgment to know that that may have enhanced Billy's stature in the minds of the Libyans. That's the only down side to it that I can understand. And that may have been bad judgment, but I was the one that made the judgment. I did what I thought was best for our country and best for the hostages, and I believe that that's exactly what Billy was doing.,COMPETENCE OF ADMINISTRATION,Q. Aside from the questions of legality and propriety, some of your critics say that this Billy Carter case is another example of a general aura of incompetence that hangs over your Presidency—the fits and starts with which the case came out, the corrections, the records, the recollections that had to be refreshed. Do you recognize that there is this charge of incompetence that settles over you, and if so, what are you going to do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I've heard you mention that on television a few times, but I don't agree with it. No, I think the historic record of this administration, years looking back, will show that it was a competent administration, that it accurately represented the ideals of the American people and had many notable achievements. I need not enumerate those now.,But I don't believe that this is a comedy of errors or that we have made many errors—a few, yes. We've made some mistakes, because we were in a hurry to get all the information out. It was much better to have the information come out as we determined it than it would be if we had withheld all information and, in effect, stonewalled the question for 2 or 3 weeks.,It might very well be that in the future we discover some new fact or someone comes up and makes a statement that we didn't know about. If so, we will immediately make that information available to you and the other news media. But I think that's the best way to handle it, and I don't have any concern about having acted other than competently in this case.,PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN,Q. Next week you go before the Democratic Convention to seek renomination, as we all know.,THE PRESIDENT. I remember. [Laughter],Q. Not only given the state of the press conference tonight but looking ahead to such matters as the economy, inflation, growing unemployment, recession, troubles abroad, will you offer yourself to the delegates of the Democratic Convention as a man proposing changes or will you simply say the country should have 4 more years of the same?,THE PRESIDENT. Four more years of the same President, with changes and progress to be achieved during those 4 years.,We have economic problems. I think every nation on Earth has them—some much worse than we. We've made some progress. We've never had as many jobs added, for instance, in the first 3 1/2 years, in any period of our history as we have since I've been in office. Lately we've seen a substantial lowering of interest rates and inflation rate. I think we'll see some more progress made on inflation in the next few months. I believe that we have established a very good working relationship between our country and other nations, opened up new friendships, maintained this country at peace, and so forth. I need not enumerate what I think we've done that is good.,But I believe that the most important part of an election year is to give the American people an opportunity to hear the issues debated, the record assessed for the incumbent, and then to let the American people choose: Do we want the Nation for the next 4 years to be led by the Republicans, or do we want it led by the Democrats? And specifically, do we want it led by Ronald Reagan, or do we want it to be led by the Democratic nominee? And I am expecting it to be myself. And in that process, with, I hope, numerous debates between me and Ronald Reagan on all the issues that are important to the American people, the American people will make a judgment.,This is the way I've always run for office, the way I ran in 1976. I think we have an excellent record to take to the American people and an excellent prospect for an even better life in this country in the years ahead.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, you say you and your brother Billy are close. Have you had any conversations with him since the July 1 phone call, when you urged him to register, and can you characterize those conversations?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not had any conversations with Billy since July the 1st except in a crowd of people at a softball game in Plains, and I went into his service station one day to invite him to play softball the following day. I've never discussed this case or Libya or government or anything of that kind and have not spoken a word to Billy in private since July the 1st, the conversation that I've described to you.,You can ask a followup question, if you like.,Q. Mr. President, do you think you should be discussing it with him?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it's improper for me now to be having a direct conversation with Billy. There have been some communications between us through our attorneys, through my Counsel in the White House and through his attorneys. But they've been completely proper, and records have been maintained of them. And I believe that's the best way to handle this matter until it is resolved.,As I said in the closing part of my statement, even in the future, regardless of the outcome of this occurrence, I will not accept any benefit from the funds that Billy has received. And also, as long as I have the slightest suspicion that Billy is still involved with Libya, I will exclude any sort of relationship between myself and Billy that relates to government matters that could possibly impact on Libya.,Q. Mr. President, I have talked to hundreds of Democrats, and I think that in the White House you have more fear of this affair than there is need for. All people tell me that they have great confidence in you, although they might consider that you had a little bit more heart for your brother than for the Presidency. In your own assessment, did you act as a President or as a brother?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Billy would say that I acted more as a President than a brother, and I think I have. My responsibility, uniquely, is to the Presidency and the upholding of the principles of our Nation, and I'm sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of our Nation. If any member of my family should violate those laws, then I'm charged with the responsibility, which I would not avoid, to see that the law is carried out, no matter if my own family members should suffer. And this is the process that is presently ongoing: an investigation and the decision to be made by the Justice Department, without my involvement.,I have not promoted this incident; in fact, I wish that it had never been promoted by the press and by the interest of the American people. But since it has become a burning issue in the minds of many people, with headlines and evening news stories, sometimes even dominating the day's news events, my commitment has been, the last 2 or 3 weeks, to search out all the facts that I could find and lay them before the American people in two ways: one, through the investigating committees in the Congress, House and Senate; and secondly, here, with a brief statement telling the facts and then to answer your questions. But this group is at liberty to ask me questions about other matters as well as this.,Q. Mr. President, regarding your mention of your responsibility to enforce the laws, since your adviser, Dr. Peter Bourne,1 was never prosecuted for his phony drug prescription taken across the State line, how can you expect the Justice Department to be taken seriously by Billy, regarding admitting he's an agent and telling the truth about the money they gave him?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you could ask Billy whether or not he takes the Justice Department seriously. My belief is that he does. And I don't think anyone in this Nation who has any confidence in our country's laws and the enforcement of them would take the Justice Department any way but seriously. It's a serious matter, and it'll be handled accordingly.,1 Former Special Assistant to the President for Health Issues and Director of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy.,PRESIDENT'S FINANCES,Q. Mr. President, you referred to rumors about some of this money going to you—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I've read that in the paper, and allegations have been made by Members of the Congress. That's why I wanted to answer it.,Q. Do you have any joint economic investments with Billy? I think of the Carter trust or what's left of the warehouse holdings or property. Have you tried to help Billy financially through the blind-trust arrangement, through Mr. Kirbo, and the blind-trust arrangement in—I think he's got tax liens on his house that sort of thing?,THE PRESIDENT. When I became President, I announced to the American people that I was putting my financial affairs into a trust, under a trustee. Legally, it's not a blind trust, because it's impossible for me, as President, not to read news stories and other reports that come from Plains and from the warehouse affairs. But to the best of my ability, I've stayed aloof from that. I've not made any decisions, and they've been handled in accordance with the law, sometimes publicly by my trustee. Also, I pledged myself, as President, annually to release my income tax return, which is prepared by other people—but I have to sign it—and also my financial statement, which I've done each time.\nBut within that boundary, I have not been involved in financial affairs of the warehouse. There is still a relationship between Billy and the warehouse and myself and the warehouse. That Carter's Warehouse has been rented out now ever since the first year I was in office, and I have had absolutely nothing to do with it or its financial condition.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, you have answered our questions very openly. You have said that there were no instances in this matter of illegality, wrongdoing, impropriety. You told one of my colleagues that this was really not a question of bad judgment. You told another colleague it's not a question of incompetence. Given all of that, simply put, how do you think you got into this big mess?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the American press and the public will have to judge how big a mess it is. It's been a highly publicized affair. But if the facts, as I have given them to you, are confirmed, if no one in my administration-and if I myself—have committed any illegal act or impropriety, then I think that's been an investigation and a report that's served itself well.,The Justice Department is investigating still. There have been literally dozens and dozens of people who have searched their telephone records and appointment records and their memoranda of conversations. And the Congress is going to investigate it. So, I believe that this is a good way to go about resolving a question once it's raised.,I do not approve of the fact that my brother has gotten involved in a controversial relationship with an extremely unpopular government. He has, still, certain legal and constitutional rights. If he is found to have violated the law, my belief is and my hope is that he will be treated properly in accordance with the law-punished if he's guilty, exonerated if he's innocent.,But I have seen these things sweep across this Nation every now and then, with highly publicized allegations that prove not to be true. And you and others have participated in the raising of these questions. One incident that comes to mind is Hamilton Jordan, where people, later found to have lied, told stories about Hamilton Jordan, and a thorough investigation, absolutely independently of me, with a special prosecutor involved from the Justice Department, found that the allegations were not true. But for a time it was a highly publicized case, which damaged Hamilton Jordan quite a lot.,I don't know what the outcome of this case will be. But I can tell you that no one in my administration—and I have not been guilty of an illegality or an impropriety in any way, and I believe that the facts in the future will determine that to be the case.,ROLE OF PRESIDENT'S FAMILY,Q. Mr. President, you said in the report that you issued tonight—you confirmed the fact that your wife, Rosalynn Carter, was the first person to initiate the idea of using your brother Billy as the contact regarding the Iranian hostages—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's correct.,Q.—that she called him directly and then informed you later, and you asked Dr. Brzezinski to pursue the matter. I want to ask you what you think that says about her role in this administration and what the public should conclude about it? And secondly, given this regulation that you have asked your Counsel to draft on members of the family and the staff-THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q.—whether you have any second thoughts in hindsight about family diplomacy and the virtues of that, and members of the President's family going to represent him or the country abroad at ceremonies and the like?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have any trepidation about continuing the policy that I have pursued in that respect.,I think it's completely appropriate for Rosalynn to have thought about how we could get the hostages released and to have called Billy to see if he thought he could possibly help. When he said that he might be able to help, she informed me of that idea. I considered it. I'm the one that made the decision, not my wife or Dr. Brzezinski or anyone else. And I decided that it was a good idea. And I told Dr. Brzezinski to call Billy and pursue it, which he did. That was the limit of her role in the entire process.,But I think it's very important that my mother on occasion, my sons on occasion, my wife on occasion participate in international affairs. When Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel, died, my mother went to represent me at her funeral. She also went to the funeral of Marshal Tito, President Tito, and so forth.,So, this is the kind of thing that a President's family legitimately ought to be able to do. With many cultures in the world, many countries in the world, a President's family member plays an extremely important role in demonstrating an important personal relationship, particularly in the inauguration of a new President if I cannot go, for instance, or the death of a prominent member of that national community. I think these kinds of things are completely appropriate.,What I want the Counsel to draft is a rule that would bar any employee of the executive branch from dealing with any member of my family under any circumstances that create either the reality or the appearance of improper favor or influence. That doesn't mean that all the members of my family have to be locked up in a closet and never appear in public, because they play a very useful role. But I believe that their appearances have been proper, when Rosalynn or my mother have attended these kinds of state affairs. And I expect that they will continue to do so.,SECRETARY OF STATE EDMUND S. MUSKIE,Q. Mr. President, Edward Bennett Williams, as you know, is taking a leading role in seeking to undo the faithful delegate rule. Mr. Williams is a close personal associate of the Secretary of State. And we see now signs of the draft Muskie movement—bumper stickers, I wonder whether this has caused some kind of strain between you and the Secretary of State.,THE PRESIDENT. No, it has not. Secretary Muskie has actively attempted to stop this effort to subvert the rules of the Democratic Party and to violate the oath or the promise or the pledge that the delegates have made to follow the mandates expressed in the primaries and caucuses. He has not promoted himself; he's tried to discourage that. He's issued a public statement on the subject. And I have no doubt that this effort is not only independent of him but I doubt whether they are genuinely interested in the promotion of Secretary Muskie. They are probably interested in the promotion of someone else.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, on June 17th, Mr. President, which was 15 days after Attorney General Civiletti found out about the payments and a month before you say you found out about the payments to your brother, you have said tonight that the Attorney General told you, informed you of the seriousness of the possible charges against your brother and told you that it would be foolish, in your own words, foolish for him not to file papers. Was he, do you not.,THE PRESIDENT. That's not exactly what he said, but go ahead.,Q. Well, let me just ask the question.,THE PRESIDENT. Okay.,Q. Do you not see an impropriety there, in the sense of your being told between the lines, even if you weren't told directly about the money, that your brother was in trouble and unless somebody got the word to him to come in voluntarily and file, there could be serious charges filed against him? Is that not the impropriety here?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is no impropriety. That's not what the Attorney General told me, by the way, exactly. He said, first of all, that he could not reveal to me and would not reveal to me any detail or any facts about the investigation that was ongoing. Secondly, he said he thought that Billy was foolish not to comply with the registration act, and third, he said that if Billy did not comply truthfully, then he would not be prosecutable or, I think I jotted down in my notes, punished.,At that time, my understanding is—and this should be confirmed by you from other sources—at that time, my understanding now is that the Justice Department was already relaying this exact same information to Billy's attorneys and therefore to him. I never revealed the conversation to anyone. As a matter of fact, it was a very brief conversation—I have said probably less than a minute in all—at the end of a long meeting with the Attorney General, and several other items were taken up in the privacy of that meeting. But I didn't think about it until days later, and I never revealed any of that information to anyone else and never acted on any information I got.,Q. So if the Justice Department was informing Billy at the same time that you were learning of this from the Justice Department, you're saying, in effect, that there was no need, even, for anyone in the White House to let Billy know that he should come in and voluntarily admit that he was an agent?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not sure-I don't know of any allegation that hasn't been refuted. Nobody in the White House, myself or anyone else, ever gave Billy any information that related to his case, any evidence, or any leads or anything else. So, that question didn't cross my mind.,But from what I know now, looking back on it, after we've investigated thoroughly and I have seen the order of events that did take place, I can tell you that the Attorney General was telling me the same thing, in effect—I've just outlined to you the totality of the conversation, according to my notes—that they were telling the lawyers of my brother prior to that time. I think Billy got those lawyers the 11th or 12th, which was about a week before this conversation took place.,Q. it didn't occur to you that the Attorney General was saying to you between the lines, \"Your brother has taken a lot of money,\" or maybe,THE PRESIDENT. No. No, I never had any indication that Billy was taking any money until I read about it in the newspaper on July the 15th. And the first person, so far as I know, in the entire White House that knew about any money payments was my Counsel, who was informed on the 11th of July, just before those official papers were completed for filing with the Justice Department.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, you said that you were obsessed with the hostages and that's why you called your brother in. Do you have any new ideas for freeing the hostages now?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are pursuing the same kind of degree of effort that we were then.,I think I tried to point out, as best I could remember, a couple of things that were happening at that time—the threat by Khomeini that the hostages might be killed and the fact that the Grand Mosque in Jidda was—in Mecca, I think was attacked by radical believers in the Moslem faith. Those were the kind of things that were causing me great concern.,The approach to Libya, although now it has taken on great significance, here, 9 or 10 months later, was one of a broad pattern of things that I was doing, the National Security Council was doing, everyone in the State Department assigned to this task was doing, and many private citizens were doing. And there was nothing extraordinary about it. It was just one of a broad gamut of things that we were attempting to do in every possible way to get word to Khomeini that it was better for Iran to release those hostages.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, were you aware, sir, of the arrangement with the Charter Oil Company that would have given your brother a commission on oil imported-that he got imported from Libya, when you talked with his friend, Jack McGregor, in the Oval Office?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was not. The only information I had about Jack McGregor was I talked to Billy in the hospital; he told me that his former commanding officer in the Marine Corps was scheduled to come to the White House for a briefing on hospital cost containment. There were about 400 business leaders who had been chosen by my staff without my participation at all.,McGregor, on that hospital cost containment briefing day, came by the Oval Office, had an appointment for a stand-up photograph. We never sat down, even. We stood over by my desk. The records show that he was there a total of 9 minutes. We discussed some of his and Billy's experiences in the Marine Corps, and we discussed Billy's illness and how he was responding well to treatment in the hospital. And McGregor mentioned Billy's financial problems and said he hoped that he would be successful in working out of them. No reference was ever made to anything concerning oil companies or anything of that nature.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, your spokesman, Mr. Powell, has said, in defending your use of your brother as an intermediary—and you have alluded to this as well—that we'd be very surprised some day when we hear of some of the other unorthodox emissaries you've used, channels to other countries to try and secure the release of the hostages. Can you surprise us a little and tell us who they are, who some of them might be? And might we be embarrassed by the revelations of any of their names?,THE PRESIDENT. No, you wouldn't be embarrassed, but I think maybe the surprise ought to come later.,DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE,Q. Mr. President, you have about 300 more delegates than are required for the nomination. And so for another candidate to get the Democratic Presidential nomination, he would need to attract some of these delegates.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Yet you've said if someone did that, they would be subverting the rules of the Democratic Party. And you said last week—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, they would.,Q.—that it would be a travesty if any of these delegates wandered away. So, if someone else is nominated at the convention in New York, would you be able to support that nominee, or would you only be able to support yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always pledged, since the very beginning of my effort, to support the nominee of the Democratic Party if it should not be myself.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, in going back to the conversation with Attorney General Civiletti on June the 17th, you said that the knowledge of—let me say, Justice Department policy in handling foreign agents was general knowledge. Why then, sir, did you need to inquire of the Attorney General whether your brother would be prosecuted if he went ahead and registered as a foreign agent?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't say it was general knowledge. I was not familiar then with the exact policy that the Attorney Generals down through history had followed.,I think this Foreign Registration Act was passed in the 1930's. I noticed an article in one of the Washington papers not too long ago that said that since the 1960's there had been no criminal prosecutions under that act. Ordinarily, what the Department does, I now know, is to confront a person who is suspected or believed to be an agent of a foreign country, present them with the alternatives if they do not file, and require them to file. And that's what Billy's lawyers finally advised him to do, was to file as an agent—I don't know if my brother ever admitted it or acknowledged that he was an agent-but to file as an agent and if he had extenuating remarks to make, to put those remarks in the registration papers. That's what Billy did.,At the time the Attorney General talked to me, I did not know what I have just described to you as a standard policy of the Department in handling these kinds of cases.,Q. Mr. President, what kind of information did our intelligence agencies gather about Billy's activities trying to set up the oil deal with Libya? And specifically, were they concerned that Billy was part of a wide-ranging and massive effort by the Libyans to influence the public opinion and the Government here?,THE PRESIDENT. That intelligence information has been delivered to the Senate intelligence committee. It's of a highly sensitive nature, and I'm not at liberty to reveal it in public.,PRO-KHOMEINI TERRORISTS,Q. Mr. President, you have some more trouble coming, I'm sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure I do. [Laughter],Q. [Inaudible]—this week with that Bayh committee over there. It's been told to about a half-dozen Senators by an intelligence organization from New York City that you and the State Department-,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —and Brzezinski are conniving with Nazarian, the rug dealer, to let pro-Khomeini people come in here and engage in certain terrorist activities in exchange for getting the hostages home. Any truth to that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, ma'am.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, if you were to look at the convention from a slightly different point of view, and you were a delegate heading up to New York next week and you had an incumbent President who's as low as you are in the polls and has the difficulty of a congressional investigation facing him, how would you feel about the prospect of renominating that same President?,THE PRESIDENT. I would feel okay. [Laughter] I would take my written pledge to be very seriously binding on me. If I was from Plains, Georgia, and the voters who went to the ballot box in Plains had voted for a candidate, candidate A, and I was later chosen as their delegate, then I would feel bound to go and cast my vote at the convention in accordance with the way people had voted in Plains, regardless of whether I personally thought at that moment that the candidate I was chosen to support was above the Republicans in the public opinion polls.,I think this time 4 years ago, I was much further ahead of President Ford than I am behind, as I saw in a Newsweek poll, today. But polls go up and down. And when President Ford wound up the campaign, he was very close to me. Also, I think you'll remember that last October the polls showed that I was three or four to one behind Senator Kennedy and if he ran, the almost sure prospect was that he would win the nomination. That has not proven to be the case.,So, the polls ought not to be the deciding factor. The pledge on a written document that a delegate will comply with the votes cast in his own district or area is important. Also, the fact that the Democratic Party, through its national committee, unanimously voted to institute these rules before the primary season even started is also a very important factor. That's what we're trying to protect.,MINORITIES,Q. Thank you, sir.,Mr. President, the problem of oppression of blacks in this country is extremely serious. We've had riots in Miami; we've had riots in Chattanooga. Is there any way that you can begin to address this problem? If you think Billy has problems, you'd better be glad he's not black. But the real issue becomes one of, is there something that you, as President of this country, would do to begin to address these problems before it blows up?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. In the Miami case, I went to Miami, as you know, met with the leaders in Liberty City, and helped to put together a package, working with those black leaders there, that would give them some economic assistance. Through the Community Services Agency and others, we provided food, for instance, at about 35-percent less cost than the supermarket charges. And we've tried to provide jobs. And we've tried to work also—I have personally—with the white and Cuban leaders in Miami, to make sure that there was harmony between the three races.,In addition to that, I sent the Attorney General to Miami to make sure that the apparent absence of complete application of justice for highly publicized cases concerning black citizens was corrected. And the Attorney General directed his people to go into Miami and to make sure that the trials involved were fair.,In addition to that, on a much more broad basis, I have tried to put black citizens in my administration to administer those areas of the Federal Government that were particularly important to a black or minority citizen. We have required by law, with the help of the Congress, that a certain portion of all Federal contracts and the deposit of Federal funds in banks and the allocation of charters for new radio stations and so forth, that have long been withheld from blacks and other minorities, be assigned to them. I've also tried to appoint black Federal judges, who will be here long after I'm gone, to administer justice, to make sure that we didn't have a further deprivation of our black citizens.,So, on a broad range of issues, I've tried to do the best I can and will continue to do the best I can to eliminate any discrimination or any injustice in this country for minority citizens.\nThank you all very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1980-04-29","text":"RESCUE MISSION FOR AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Before answering questions this evening, I would like to say a few words about the rescue mission in Iran.,I share the disappointment of the American people that this rescue mission was not successful, and I also share the grief of our Nation because we had Americans who were casualties in this effort to seek freedom for their fellow citizens who have been held hostage for so long.,But I also share a deep pride in the commitment and courage and the integrity and the competence and the determination of those who went on this mission. They were prepared to do their duty, and they did their duty. I can think of no higher compliment for a Commander in Chief to pay to brave men.,It was my responsibility as President to launch this mission. It was my responsibility to terminate the mission when it ended. This was a decision that was shared completely by the field commander in charge of the rescue team and by the officer in charge of the overall force that was involved in the rescue effort.,There is a deeper failure than that of incomplete success, and that is the failure to attempt a worthy effort, a failure to try. This is a sentiment shared by the men who went on the mission.,Sunday I met with a large group of men who were the core of this effort, and yesterday I visited, in San Antonio area, the five men who were most seriously wounded. They all shared a common message to me and to the American people.,The first message was one of regret, deep regret, that they failed to carry out the mission as planned. The second one was an expression of thanks to me for giving them the honor to attempt to deliver to freedom the American hostages. And the third was a request, expressed almost unanimously by them, to be permitted to try again.,Our Nation does face serious challenges, serious problems, and the meeting of those challenges and the solution of those problems require sacrifice. Sometimes we who are safe consider the sacrifices to be onerous, but I forgot those sacrifices when I looked into the face of these men who are not only willing but eager to give their lives as a sacrifice for others, whom they did not know personally, but in a determination to grant freedom to them.,Our goal in Iran is not to conquer; neither was theirs. Their goal was not to destroy nor to injure anyone. As they left Iran, following an unpredictable accident during the withdrawal stage, with eight of their fellow warriors dead, they carefully released, without harm, 44 Iranians who had passed by the site and who were detained to protect the integrity of the mission.,This is in sharp comparison to the ghoulish action of the terrorists and some of the Government officials in Iran, in our Embassy this weekend, who displayed in a horrible exhibition of inhumanity the bodies of our courageous Americans. This has aroused the disgust and contempt of the rest of the world and indicates quite clearly the kinds of people with whom we have been dealing in a peaceful effort to secure a resolution of this crisis. They did not bring shame and dishonor on those fallen Americans; they brought shame and dishonor on themselves.,We will continue to try for a peaceful solution. As we see the consequences of the actions that we've already taken, economic and diplomatic actions continue to punish Iran, a nation that is suffering from economic deprivation and from political fragmentation because they persist in this inhuman act.,We will not forget our hostages, and we will continue to take whatever steps are necessary and feasible to secure their safe release and their return to their homes and to freedom.\nI'd be glad to answer questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,POSSIBILITY OF FOREIGN POLICY SUMMIT MEETING,Q. Mr. President, would you consider an early summit meeting with your principal allies, who seem to seek some reassurance about the basic thrust of your foreign policy? And I'm talking about a meeting prior to the Vienna [Venice] summit in June.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I see no need for this. There is no doubt among our allies about our basic foreign policy, nor have they indicated any such doubt to me. I'm sure of that.,When we do meet in Venice in June, the primary purpose of this annual meeting is to discuss economic matters-energy, inflation, unemployment, the development of our common resources and a better life for our people. But we have an adequate time for political discussions and for discussions about diplomatic matters, and I see no urgency nor need to meet prior to that time.,TIMING OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, after so many months of restraint, why did you undertake a mission that involved, endangered so many lives, a mission that you said was not feasible all along? And with all due respect, has national pride taken precedence over the safety of the hostages, that is the need to end this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the time that we chose was a proper time.,We devoted those months of our hostages' incarceration to repeated and varied diplomatic efforts directly and through intermediaries, through the United Nations, through our friends and others. We were promised repeatedly by Iranian officials, by the President, the Prime Ministers, Foreign Minister, by a unanimous vote of the Revolutionary Council, even by the terrorists themselves, that the hostages would indeed be released by the terrorists and turned over to control of the Government, at which time further steps could be taken to secure their complete release and their return home.,Beginning back in November when the hostages were first taken; we began preparations for a rescue mission which would have had to be undertaken had the hostages been injured in any way. At the time we began final plans for this particular rescue mission, we had concluded repeated exercises and training of both men and equipment and technique and procedure and had honed it down to a fine operation, which everyone believed had a good chance for success.,Had we waited later, it would have been much [more] difficult to conclude the mission successfully, because of the increasingly short nights and because of the prevailing winds being likely to change, making strong headwinds against our planes and helicopters, and because the temperature of the air made it much more difficult to lift large loads required in this long and very complicated process.,So, we exhausted every peaceful procedure; we waited until the proper moment; we could not logically have waited much longer. And I think the decision was made properly.,TERMINATION OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, this is a Monday morning quarterback question.,THE PRESIDENT. It's not the first one, but go ahead.,Q. This is from the side that says you went too far: What were the odds on the success of the mission? And then the second question, that you didn't go far enough: Why didn't you press ahead with only five helicopters, overrule the guy on the ground?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the mission had to be planned with an optimum number of both men and with the equipment they required in order to ensure secrecy, incisiveness, staying on a very rigid schedule, accommodating unforeseen circumstances. And at the time the mission was terminated, we did it with great regret. There had been a prior understanding among all of us involved in the detailed planning that if we got below six functioning helicopters, the mission to actually go in for the rescue attempt would have been very doubtful of success and ill-conceived. The recommendation came back from the refueling operation in the desert area that since they were down to only five helicopters, that the mission should not be undertaken—the actual rescue attempt. The commanding officer of the entire operation agreed, made this recommendation to me, and I agreed myself.,The people who were on the ground in charge of the rescue team were extremely eager, courageous, dedicated, and determined to succeed. When they recommended that it not be done, that was a major factor in my decision. But I made the final decision.,IRANIAN GUILT AND RESOLUTION OF HOSTAGE SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, you said a great nation like the United States can be forgiving of its enemies without losing face or bringing insult on itself.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. In view of the painful bloodshed and loss of life suffered by so many Iranian people under the Pahlavi rule, by the 53 hostages and their families, and now by the families of the American soldiers killed in the rescue attempt, isn't there some honorable way that the mutual sorrow of the Iranian people and now the American people can resolve this crisis without further confrontation? Can you now, will you now, make a gesture to the people of Iran so that the bloodshed and suffering can be put behind after 27 years?,THE PRESIDENT. It's important for American people and for all the world to realize the tremendous restraint that we have demonstrated. We have tried every possible and feasible effort to resolve this crisis by humanitarian and peaceful means. We are still continuing those efforts.,The fact is, though, that a horrible crime, as measured by international law, by diplomatic custom, and against humanity itself, is being perpetrated at this very minute. The 53 hostages being held are not guilty of any crime. The crime is being committed by terrorists who are kidnaping innocent victims, sponsored by and approved by Government officials themselves. In two votes in the Security Council of the United Nations, unanimous votes, Iran was condemned for this action. And in the International Court of Justice, that decision was confirmed.,We have nothing against the Iranian people, and we still want to see this issue resolved successfully and peacefully. But there is no guilt that I feel on behalf of our Nation for what occurs in Iran.,We were very careful on this particular operation to cause no harm or injury or death to any Iranians. It is a very troubling thing for me that Americans, because of an accident, did lose their lives and were injured. They were not met by any Iranian forces. No Iranian officials discovered the presence of the American rescue team until several hours after the last one had left Iranian soil.,So, we want this issue to be settled, but we cannot deal with inhumane people who have no respect for international law, who violate the tenets of their own religion, and who persecute innocent people who are American citizens and deprive them of their freedom for 6 months. There is no equality about it at all.,We are eager to see this issue resolved, but Iran is the nation which is committing a crime. We have tried to settle this in accordance with international law and peacefully, and we will continue to do so.,AMERICANS KILLED DURING HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, you have noted that Iranian leaders joined in the desecration of the bodies of American servicemen.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right.,Q. Do you think that this will affect our negotiations to try to free the hostages, and what effect do you think it will have?,THE PRESIDENT. The man who supervised the desecration of the bodies was a member of the Revolutionary Council. I think it is accurate to say that other members of the Iranian Government did publicly condemn this abhorrent act and have now promised to deliver the American bodies to intermediaries, to be delivered, ultimately, back to our country. We hope that this commitment will be kept, and I pray that it will.,But the fact that the terrorists participated in the desecration is an indication of the kind of people they are and a vivid indication of the difficulties that we have experienced in getting what seems to be required—a unanimous decision by terrorists, the top officials, the Revolutionary Council, and the Ayatollah Khomeini-before this crime can be terminated.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,SITUATION IN IRAN AND OTHER PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES,Q. Mr. President, why have you permitted the taking of the hostages in Iran to continue to monopolize your time and your attention, when there are other international crises that are equally important to the security of this country and when your preoccupation with what has happened in Iran only seems to make the Iranian leaders more stubborn?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no way that I could possibly confine my activities or my attention to one single facet of American life or diplomacy to the exclusion of others. It has been a major preoccupation of mine and the American people that these hostages are held. But we've had to deal with simultaneous domestic and international problems concurrently.,We have, for instance, met, I think as forcefully as is practicable and advisable, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, mounting economic sanctions against the Soviet Union, marshaling support of other nations for the boycott of the Olympics, letting the Soviets know, with 104 members of the U.N. condemning their action in the invasion of Afghanistan.,I've spent a great deal of time the last couple of weeks, for instance, continuing our negotiations for peace between Israel and Egypt and the establishment of autonomous government in the West Bank and Gaza area. I've worked on inflation problems in our Nation and also on the problem of employment and the dealing with the diplomatic relationships of a routine nature with other countries.,So, we have an ongoing program in this Government that is being well cared for. It's unfortunate that the hostage situation has been the human kind of concern that has been dominant in our consciousness even when we were doing our duties in other matters.,NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND SECRETARY OF STATE,Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a growing impression in this town that your National Security Adviser is gaining influence at the expense of your Secretary of State, even speculation that that may have been a factor in Mr. Vance's resignation. Would you care to comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. That's an erroneous report. I think we have a very good and proper balance of advisers who comprise the National Security Council, who work with me on military and foreign affairs.,I think that Secretary Vance expressed, as an honorable man, very meticulous in his language, his reason for resignation. I regretted his decision. Under the circumstances, I think it was the proper one.,But never in the past and never in the future while I'm here will there be any unwarranted intervention in the carrying out of the foreign policy under the aegis of the State Department. But I reserve the right to receive advice and counsel from my advisers. That's the best way I can make the proper decision once I have all the facts and all the advice that I seek.,Mr. Schorr [Daniel Schorr, Cable News Network].,PHASES OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, you've been widely applauded, judging by the polls, for having made this effort with regard to freeing the hostages. And it seems to me that if there are any lingering misgivings among the American people, it is among those who wonder whether the whole plan could have worked without serious danger to some of the hostages and perhaps to our international interests. Secretary Vance has been too meticulous, in your words, to have expressed objections, but he's supposed to have had objection to the whole operation.,Within the limits of security, could you tell us enough about the further planned phases of this operation, so that Americans will understand that it could have worked?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be inadvisable for me to describe the operation beyond the point that actually did occur. We had intended to place the rescue team in an isolated region within a proper distance of Tehran. And then if everything was satisfactory, if they were undetected, if there was no apparent change in the circumstances within the compound itself, if the weather conditions warranted and equipment was in a satisfactory condition, only then were we to undertake the actual rescue operation.,There's a general consensus, with which I think no one disagrees, that the actual rescue operation would have been the easiest of the three phases; the most difficult, the intrusion into Iran and the placement of those forces; and the second most difficult, the actual extraction of our hostages and men from Iran after the rescue itself from the compound.,But the details of what would have been undertaken is something that I would prefer not to comment on since it did not occur.,MINORITIES AND THE ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, on the economy, the U.S. economy is basically in a recession, and to black Americans that means that we're in a depression. I'm wondering if you would consider naming an advisory team or a special commission to look into resolving some of the problems of blacks in this depressionary state.,THE PRESIDENT. We have such an advisory group, made up of both black Americans who serve in positions of authority and others who happen not to be members of minority groups, who work intimately on this problem in a continuing way.,The decisions to be made in an economy that is suffering from too high interest rates and too high inflation rates is a very complicated one. We have made our decisions based on as thorough an analysis as we could within the Government and with the advice and the counsel of many around the Nation who are not part of the Federal Government. This includes, for instance, the mayors of some of our major cities, who happen to be black, and other minority groups, like those who speak Spanish.,I think the most cruel kind of suffering that is perpetrated economically on a minority citizen and others is the combination of unemployment in a community and inflation, which afflicts every American who is employed or not.,I think the proposals that we have put forward, early last month, to arrest the inflation rate and to start driving down interest rates and the inflation rate is going to work. And we have carefully targeted programs that have not been disturbed, to maintain as high a level of employ. ment as possible during this transition phase from a rapidly growing economy with extremely high inflation and interest rates, to one that is growing not so fast, where employment does tend to creep up and requires Government programs focused upon that unemployment problem.,It's not going to be an easy transition phase, but we've already seen interest rates start dropping very rapidly lately. I think the inflation rate is going to go down this summer, if we are moderately fortunate, and we're going to do the best we can to prevent any adverse effect on those who suffer from unemployment at the same time.,Mr. Schram [Martin J. Schram, Washington Post].,SECRETARY OF STATE VANCE AND HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to follow up an earlier question. Were there aspects of the military plan that we are not familiar with that perhaps provided the basis for Secretary Vance's dissent—perhaps air strikes—and if not, could you tell us what your understanding is of just what his dissent was about?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be better to ask him about the specifics. I think I can say accurately that Secretary Vance preferred that we not take any kind of action inside Iran that might have had any connotation of a military nature. His preference was to wait longer instead of mounting the rescue operation. But I made the decision based on the overwhelming recommendation and concurrence with other advisers. I have no doubt at all in my mind that it was the right decision.,Had the operation been successful or even had it been concluded without complete success, it would have ended a continuing crisis that is destabilizing for the people of Iran, that's causing them immense political and economic suffering at this very moment, and it would have made unnecessary the upcoming economic pressures on Iran, which will be much more severe when our major allies impose those same kinds of economic sanctions on Iran the middle of next month. It would also have meant that we could have begun restoring Iran as an accepted nation in the world structure and remove the reasons for condemnation of them.,So, in my opinion the operation had a very good chance of success, and it would have brought to a conclusion this unfortunate holding of our hostages and ended what is a very destabilizing political situation in that region of the world.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow up on that?,THE PRESIDENT. You may.,Q. Just to be specific, there was no other aspect of the plan with which we are not familiar that provided the basis of his dissent; it was just a broad and general dissent?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that's accurate, but you might want to follow that up with Secretary Vance later. But I believe that to be a completely accurate statement.,RISKS OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, following up on your statement just now, when you were planning the rescue attempt, did you believe that all the hostages could have been removed from Iran safe]y, or did you feel that some could have been killed in the process? And second]y, do you think that the United States would be better off to end the crisis now, even if it means extreme danger to the hostages?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously an operation of this kind would have had some risk, but we were convinced that the hostages could be removed successfully and safely.,HOSTAGE SITUATION AND PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL PROSPECTS,Q. Mr. President, does it seem to you that if you cannot resolve this crisis soon it may cost you your renomination or reelection? And does it seem to you that, as Harry Truman said and as you have said, the buck stops there, that that would be a fair judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. The political connotations of the holding of our hostages is not a factor for me. I've had to make decisions that on occasion might very well have been unpopular, and some that I have made may prove to be well advised in the judgment of the American people. But I've had to make those decisions under the most difficult circumstances, dealing with a nation's leaders who cannot speak for their own country and who constantly change their position and even constantly change their own identity.,But I see no relationship to this effort that I am continuing with the prospects or lack of prospects of political benefit to me or approval in a political circumstance.,EFFECT OF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN,Q. Mr. President, as we look at the situation in Iran in terms of what they may understand you might do, what have you led Iran's leaders to believe would happen if they harmed the hostages? Do you think such fear is saving the hostages' lives now? And if there is such fear, does that encourage you to refrain from further military action that could endanger them?,THE PRESIDENT. In November, I think it was November the 20th, we were constantly hearing from the terrorists who held our hostages that they would be immediately tried for war crimes and executed. We spelled out to the public, and therefore to Iran, the extreme adverse consequences to them if such action should be taken, without being overly specific, but letting them know that there would be serious consequences for their nation and their people. We specifically spelled out one step in that process short of military action, and that was the interruption of commerce to Iran.,Our Nation is firm in its resolve. It's remarkably united. Our people have been surprisingly patient. But I don't think there's any doubt among the leadership in Iran, in the Government or among the terrorists themselves, that it is to their advantage not to physically harm the hostages whom they hold. And I hope they will be convinced as time goes by—not much time, I pray—that the adverse consequences of the action that we have already taken, with diplomatic and political isolation and with economic sanctions, is fragmenting their own structure of government and dividing their own nation and preventing Iran from making the progress that was envisioned when they had the revolution itself.,It's a remarkable commentary on this fragmentation that in spite of the deep commitment of their new constitution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and their public officials, they have not even been able to hold an election in Iran after months of effort.,So, I believe that being joined by our allies in similar kinds of economic sanctions might very well be a factor that would bring the Iranians to realize that it's much better for them to release the hostages unharmed and to resolve this crisis.,U.S. MILITARY CAPABILITY AND HOSTAGE. RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, can you tonight assure the American people that there is no connection between the inability of the American military to retain highly skilled maintenance and technical personnel and the abnormally high failure rate of the helicopters on the rescue mission? And in a broader sense, does this high failure rate worry you if it came to a showdown between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the .Persian Gulf?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no connection, because we focused the enormous resources of our Nation and its elaborate military capability on this particular equipment that was used in this operation. Had there been some shortage of either technicians or spare parts or maintenance capability, it would not have been permitted in the particular case of the helicopters, the C-130's, or the equipment the men took in for the rescue operation. So, there is no connection between those at all.,SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,Q. Mr. President, could you explain why you appointed Senator Edmund Muskie to succeed Cyrus Vance, when Senator Muskie has limited foreign policy experience and holds only a secondary position on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Muskie has more than 20 years experience in the Senate. He's been heavily involved in foreign affairs there as a member, as you point out, of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's played an active role in nationwide campaigns throughout this country as a Vice-Presidential candidate and also as a Presidential candidate himself.,He's familiar with our entire Nation. I think he's highly sensitive about the aspirations and ideals of our country that ought to be mirrored in its foreign policy.,He's also had a remarkable position in the Senate as the chairman of the Budget Committee, where every single proposal made for the expenditure of Federal funds in the foreign affairs field or the military field or the domestic field has to come before his committee for careful analysis before it goes to the appropriations committees.,So, because of that broad range of experience and the esteem with which Ed Muskie is held in this country by Democrats and Republicans and, indeed, because of his international reputation, I consider him to be extremely well qualified to serve as Secretary of State.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1980-04-17","text":"SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Since last November, 53 Americans have been held captive in Tehran, contrary to every principle of international law and human decency. The United States began to implement a series of nonviolent but punitive steps, designed to bring about the release of our hostages.,In January, we received information and signals from the Iranian authorities that they were prepared to enter into serious discussions to bring about the release of the hostages. At that time the United States decided to defer additional sanctions, and then these discussions resulted in commitments from the top authorities in Iran, including a transfer of the hostages to Government control, to be followed by their release.,These commitments were not fulfilled. Earlier this month, April the 7th, I announced a series of economic and political actions designed to impose additional burdens on Iran because their Government was now directly involved in continuing this act of international terrorism.,This process is moving forward. We've imposed economic sanctions, and we have broken diplomatic relations with Iran. Recently a number of other nations have recalled their ambassadors, and these countries are now considering sanctions they may be prepared to invoke in the near future.,Even while these deliberations continue, officials in Iran talk about not resolving the hostage issue until July or even later. We are beyond the time for gestures. We want our people to be set free. Accordingly, I am today ordering an additional set of actions.,First, I am prohibiting all financial transfers by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to any person or entity in Iran, except those directly related to the gathering of news and family remittances to the hostages. * As of today, any such transaction will become a criminal act.,Second, all imports from Iran to the United States will be barred.,*The sentence should end with the word \"remittances.\" [White House correction.],Third, I intend to exercise my statutory authority to protect American citizens abroad by prohibiting travel to Iran, and by prohibiting any transactions between Americans and foreign persons relating to such travel or the presence of Americans in Iran. Again, this authority will not now be used to interfere with the right of the press to gather news. However, it is my responsibility and my obligation, given the situation in Iran, to call on American journalists and news-gathering organizations to minimize, as severely as possible, their presence and their activities in Iran.,Fourth, I am ordering that all military equipment previously purchased by the Government of Iran, which I had previously impounded, be made available for use by the United States military forces or for sale to other countries.,And finally, I will ask Congress for discretionary authority to pay reparations to the hostages and to their families out of the more than $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets in the United States. These assets will be available to satisfy contract and other commercial claims of American firms against Iranian Government entities and to reimburse claims of the United States for the heavy military and other costs we have incurred because of Iran's illegal actions.,If a constructive Iranian response is not forthcoming soon, the United States should and will proceed with other measures. We will legally forbid shipments of food and medicine, and the United Nations Charter, as you know, stipulates interruption of communications as a legitimate sanction. Accordingly, I am prepared to initiate consultations with the member nations of Intelsat [International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium] to bar Iran's use of international communications facilities.,The measures which I am announcing today are still nonbelligerent in nature. They are a continuation of our efforts to resolve this crisis by peaceful means. The authorities in Iran should realize, however, that the availability of peaceful measures, like the patience of the American people, is running out. I am compelled to repeat what I have said on previous occasions: Other actions are available to the United States and may become necessary if the Government of Iran refuses to fulfill its solemn international responsibility. The American hostages must be freed.,Let me say just a few words about our economy before I answer questions.,THE NATIONAL ECONOMY,We have been going through difficult times with high inflation and with extremely high interest rates. We are taking steps to bring these under control, and we are beginning, after only a month of the anti-inflation programs being announced, to make some progress.,However, we are now entering a very difficult transition period when recent economic statistics suggest that our economy has slowed down and has probably entered a period of recession. I believe that any recession will be mild and short, but I'm deeply concerned about how it affects the people of our country.,When I see automobile plant closings or a sharp drop in housing construction or very high interest rates for farmers during the planting season, I know the pain and I know the disruption and the heartache that lie below the cold statistics. But I also know that we cannot substantially reduce interest rates and we cannot make jobs secure until we get the inflation rate down.,A month ago, I set a series of tough anti-inflation measures. The Congress has been doing an excellent job in carrying out its part by cutting down the prospects for Federal spending, leading toward a balanced budget for next year. If we maintain self-discipline, all of us, this program will work to cut inflation, to reduce interest rates, and to restore the conditions for healthy growth, both in jobs and in economic output.,Certain sectors of our economy, of the American people, are particularly hard hit, and within our budget constraints, we are taking steps available to meet those hard times for them.,For farmers—a new emergency credit bill, higher target prices for wheat and corn, and opening up of farm reserves to those previously unable to participate in the storage of grain. This will provide some relief for them.,For housing, I will support an effort to expand the section 235 program, which will build an additional 100,000 units, again within our budget spending limits.,To sustain employment for autoworkers, we are working to encourage more overseas automakers to invest here in the United States. Honda has already announced a large plant. Just today, the makers of Datsun announced their plans to construct a very large plant in the United States. And I hope to sign a bill soon that will enable Volkswagen to open a plant in Michigan. Between this fiscal year and next, we .are budgeting over a billion dollars extra to provide trade adjustment assistance to tide the autoworkers over until new jobs can be provided for them, as American automobile manufacturers produce more of the energy efficient automobiles which are now in such great demand by the American consumer.,We've been working with the Nation's food and drug chains and we now have more than 6,500 food stores and more than 2,500 drug sales outlets who have committed themselves to voluntary freezing of prices on literally thousands of basic items.,In the last several weeks, interest rates have begun edging down, and yesterday they fell more steeply, but they are still very high. And there will be no substantial nor sustained reduction in interest rates until the growing demand for credit is assuaged and until we get inflation under control.,But—and this is very important—the next couple of months, in spite of the good news recently, we will continue to see bad news on inflation. There are some cost increases still in the pipeline that have not yet been reflected in prices to the consumer. After that, starting early this summer, the chances are very good for a sizable drop in the inflation rate. We should have much smaller increases in energy prices this year compared to last year, and mortgage interest rates should no longer be rising—indeed, I hope to see them fall.,There are no quick and easy answers, but there is no reason for fear or despair. Our programs are good, our American economy is strong and sound, and our people are united and determined to meet these challenges together.,QUESTIONS,IRAN: SANCTIONS, DEADLINES, AND ALLIED SUPPORT,Q. Mr. President, what have you accomplished with these sanctions so far? And have you set a deadline before summer for a new belligerent stand? And also, do you have any reason to believe that the allies are going to back up our actions, or are they fair weather friends?,THE PRESIDENT. From the very beginning of the crisis in Iran, brought about by the seizure of our hostages, I have had two goals in mind from which we have never deviated: first of all, to protect the interests of our country and its principles and standards; and secondly, and along with it on an equal basis, to protect the lives of the hostages and to work as best I could under the most difficult possible circumstances to secure the release of our hostages safely and to freedom.,We have had three options available to us: economic, political, and military. So far, we have only exercised the economic and the political measures—in the Court of Justice, in-the United Nations, in our own economic actions which are now inflicting punishment on Iran's economy, and in the marshaling of support among other countries.,I can't predict to you exactly what other nations will do. In recent days, I have communicated with almost all of the major nations' leaders, asking them to take peaceful action, economic and political, to join with us in convincing Iran that they are becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the civilized world and increasingly vulnerable to dissension and fragmentation within and to danger from without, particularly the Soviet Union-the north of Iran.,Recently, our allies and friends have withdrawn their ambassadors to decide what they should do in the future. I understand from some of the leaders that next week they will have another meeting to decide what further steps to take, now that Bani-Sadr, the President of Iran, and others have refused to take action to release the hostages after our allies had demanded directly that Iran take this action.,If this additional set of sanctions that I've described to you today and the concerted action of our allies is not successful, then the only next step available that I can see would be some sort of military action, which is the prerogative and the right of the United States under these circumstances.,IRAN: POSSIBILITY OF FOOD EMBARGO,Q. Mr. President, why didn't you embargo food right now, as some of us had been led to believe you had already decided to do?,THE PRESIDENT. We have considered extending the embargo to food and drugs, which is obviously an item that we could include. We, first of all, are complying with the United Nations Security Council definition of sanctions, and we are encouraging, now, our allies to take similar action.,Secondly, because of decisions made by us, the attitude of the American people, the attitude of shippers of food and drugs, this trade is practically nonexistent. As I pointed out to you today, unless there is immediate action on the part of Iran, these items and the interruption of communications are still available to us for a decision by me.,MOBIL OIL COMPANY,Q. Mr. President, after Mobil was cited as out of compliance with voluntary wage and price guidelines, they still received two multimillion dollar Federal contracts. This seems to indicate that sanctions against noncompliance, especially with regard to the oil companies, can be waived. My question, sir, is: Are further sanctions being considered against the Mobil Oil Company and other companies, and if so, when will that announcement come?,THE PRESIDENT. The previous contracts given to Mobil were decided before Mobil was cited by the Council on Wage and Price Stability. Sanctions against Mobil are being considered. We are negotiating now with Mobil on a daily basis to try to force them, through persuasion and because of the pressure of public opinion on Mobil, to refund to the American people the overcharges that resulted from their pricing policies in 1979.,We have not yet been successful in convincing Mobil to comply with these voluntary price standards so important to the American people and, in my judgment, so important to the stature and the reputation of Mobil Oil as a responsible\nmember of the American economic community.,I cannot predict to you what Mobil will do. If they do not act, we will continue to let the American people know about the irresponsibility of Mobil, and we will also take actions, as necessary, to restrain Mobil, within the bounds of the law, from benefiting from Government contracts.,IRAN: AMERICAN MILITARY OPTIONS,Q. Mr. President, there's been some ambiguity, perhaps partly deliberate, about the circumstances and timing of military measures, if they are to be taken, against Iran. One element of that ambiguity was a remark you made in an interview with the European television last week that suggested that if our allies support us sufficiently in taking sanctions, then it might be less necessary for you to take unilateral military measures. My question is, to what extent does the timing of military measures depend on what our allies do, and to what extent does it depend simply .on the Iranian response?,THE PRESIDENT. It depends on three factors. One is the effectiveness of the accumulation of economic and political sanctions that we have taken against Iran. Secondly, it depends upon the effectiveness of the sanctions to be imposed upon Iran by other nations in the world, including some of our key allies. And thirdly and most importantly, of course, it depends upon the response of Iran to these actions and the condemnation of the rest of the world.\nI do not feel it appropriate for me to set a specific time schedule for the imposition of further actions, which may include military action, but it's an option available to me.,I think our key allied leaders understand the time frame under which we are acting and making our plans, and their decisions next week, I think, will be colored, perhaps, by the messages that I have exchanged with them, both by cable and by direct telephone conversations, which continue.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you have designated Hamilton Jordan as your special envoy on Iran to negotiate on the hostages and that, generally, he has become one of your top foreign policy advisers. Could you explain to us some of these new functions of his and his qualifications for them, and also confirm a report that on one or more of his secret missions he wore a wig and other disguises?,THE PRESIDENT. I've never known about any disguises or wigs. Hamilton is not one of my major foreign policy advisers. He does not claim to be an expert on foreign policy. Hamilton is very valuable to me in the proper interrelation of foreign policy decisions with domestic decisions. He does attend most of our high-level discussions on both domestic matters and foreign policy matters.,Almost every member of the White House staff who is involved directly or indirectly in international affairs and, also, those in the State Department and, perhaps, even those in the Justice Department have been involved at various times in the attempt that we have made to convince the Iranian Government and their officials to release the hostages. This does include Hamilton, but he's not designated exclusively at all to play this role.,IRAN; TIMING FOR RELEASE OF HOSTAGES,Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that there's a statement from Iranian officials that they may not consider the hostage question until July. Without talking about a deadline, is that acceptable? Could it go on that long?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that would be an excessive time for us to wait.,IRAN: EFFECTS OF BLOCKADE ON ALLIED OIL SUPPLIES,Q. Mr. President, despite the compelling objective of obtaining the release of the hostages, what is the possibility that a future military action by the United States, even including a blockade, might be too high a price to pay in terms of the damage to the Allied oil supplies and the further risk of war?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a balance that I will have to assess and on which make the ultimate decision. I have not discussed specific military steps with our allies that I might take. I think they are familiar, through news reports and through just commonsense analysis of those available to us, that the interruption of commerce with Iran is a kind of step that would be available. We announced in November, I think November the 20th, that this was one of those steps that we would reserve for ourselves to take in the future. I think we used the phrase, \"interruption of commerce with Iran.\",It would be severe in its consequences for Iran and much less severe for any particular customer of Iran. Because of sanctions against Iran and because of the fragmented nature of their own economic system and because of their inability to buy adequate spare parts and continue their exploratory operations of the production of oil, their shipments of oil in the international markets have dropped precipitously.,So, a total interruption of Iranian oil shipments to other countries would not be a devastating blow to those countries. It would certainly be an inconvenience; it would certainly be serious. And we have been trying to avoid that kind .of action, and we are still attempting to avoid that kind of action. But I cannot preclude that option for the future if it becomes necessary.,IRAN: TIMING OF U.S. ACTIONS WITH PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES,Q. Mr. President, some of your critics, especially those who work for Senator Kennedy, have suggested that your announcements and actions on Iran, many of them seem timed to influence the Presidential primaries. They cite the announcement the morning of the Wisconsin primary and I'm sure will point out that today's announcements and this press conference come just a few days before the Pennsylvania primary. What's your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like for you to look at the calendar since the first of January and find a time that wasn't immediately before or immediately after primaries. As you know, we have 35 primaries this year in a period of about 5 months, which is an average of 7 primaries per month. And I have never designed the announcement of an action to try to color or modify the actions of voters in a primary. These occurrences are too serious for our Nation.,And the particular instance to which you refer in Wisconsin was a time when we had negotiated for many weeks in anticipation of such an announcement that the hostages would be transferred to control of the Government and subsequently released. That decision came through official action by the Iranian Government, the Revolutionary Council. President Bani-Sadr made the announcement himself early in the morning our time, about noontime Iranian time. It was a completely appropriate time for it to be announced.,But I do not make, and have not made, and will not make decisions nor announcements concerning the lives and safety of our hostages simply to derive some political benefit from them.,RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESIDENCY,Q. Mr. President, it seems a lot of people we've seen don't find your effectiveness too great these days. We find this in the polls and elsewhere. And at least, it's not as high as they'd like, as good as they'd like. My question is this: Is the job today of being President too big, too complex for a President, any President? Are there too many factors outside of your control to be effective?,THE PRESIDENT. The job is a big one; there's no doubt about that. Under any normal circumstances, being President is not an easy task. The greatness and strength of our country, the support of the American people, the derivation, through democratic processes, of authority and responsibility and the ability to act is a reassuring thing to me and all my predecessors who've served in this office and lived in this house.,This year, almost in a unique way, we've had additional responsibilities. I think it's been 25 or 30 years, for instance, since an incumbent Democratic President had to run a political campaign while he was in office. I don't deplore that. The right of my opponents to run is theirs. But that's an additional complicating factor. It was obviously an additional burden for our entire Nation, not just for me, to have American hostages captured in Iran and to have the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan, which was a departure from 25 years of policy on their part not to use their own military forces to cross the borders into a previously undominated country.,The combination of these three factors, in addition to very high interest rates and inflation rates, brought about primarily by worldwide escalation in oil prices, has made this an extremely difficult job even compared to normal times. I don't deplore it; I'm not trying to avoid the responsibilities.,And I believe that the action of the American people so far during the electoral process has not been a complete endorsement of what I have done or what I have accomplished. But I think the results so far, compared to what was anticipated 6 months ago, in spite of these unpredictable kinds of crises that have afflicted our Nation, have been very gratifying to me and an indication that the American people are fairly well satisfied. We've got problems, yes. But I am not despairing, and I am not fearful; I don't think the American people should be either.,IRAN: PROHIBITION ON TRAVEL,Q. Mr. President, do the sanctions that you announced today, sir, bar the families of hostages and other humanitarian-minded Americans from traveling, assuming of course that the terrorists will allow them into the Embassy?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it would unless they had received a specific permit either from the State Department or the Attorney General [Treasury Department]. *,* White House correction.,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, you have just recently encouraged foreign automakers to invest in plants in this country, presumably to hold more jobs here. But in recent days the autoworkers are complaining they've lost a significant number of jobs. They are suggesting putting restrictions on foreign imports, at least as a short-term remedy, and they're planning to be here and lobby for this. I wonder how you feel about restrictions on imports.,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to respond to your question without it being characterized as a criticism of anyone. I remember the first few months that I was President, sitting in the Cabinet Room, over just adjacent to the Oval Office, talking to the leaders of the American automobile manufacturers, manufacturing firms, all of the leaders there, all the firms represented, encouraging them to comply with the impending legislation in the Congress to require the production of small and efficient automobiles for the American market.,Their unanimous reply was that this was an inappropriate thing for them to do, that the market was not there for the small and efficient automobiles. Subsequent events, which could not be completely predictable, have shown that the American people are now demanding, in order to conserve energy, the small and efficient automobiles, precisely the kind of car that we were encouraging them to make 3 years ago or more.,At this moment every single small, efficient automobile that can be produced by American manufacturers have a ready market. Because they are now in a transition period from the large gas-guzzling automobiles to the manufacture of the small and efficient cars, there is a very difficult time for employment and American production, because the market is not there for the big, heavy, inefficient automobiles.,So, to replace the number of cars that Americans could be producing that are small and efficient that are not being produced, foreign imports are coming in at a very high level. There are several things that we could do: prevent those foreign cars from coming in, deprive the American consumer from buying them, which would drive up the price of domestically produced small cars enormously or would result in Americans having to buy the large and inefficient gas-guzzlers which they do not want. I think that would be ill advised.,So, we are trying to carry over, as best we can, during this transition phase minimal damage to the American automobile worker, as I described in my statement, encouraging the American manufacturers to shift toward the small and efficient cars as rapidly as possible and, as an additional thing, encouraging Volkswagen and other foreign manufacturers to come into the United States, to employ American automobile workers, highly trained, to produce the foreign-designed cars during that period.,Later, I have no doubt that the American manufacturers, who are highly competent and who make superb vehicles, will rapidly shift to the small and efficient cars. When they do, I think the foreign imports, even those manufactured here, will have a much more competitive market. But I cannot freeze, now, imports of the small foreign cars that American consumers want, just to protect an industry that is now transferring its attention to the small cars to be manufactured here.,IRAN: SOVIET ACTIONS TO COUNTER BLOCKADE,Q. Mr. President, I would like to get back to the subject of Iran, if we might. There have been published reports that the Soviet Union has already taken some steps to counter the effects of a boycott or a blockade, should you decide to take that route as the days go on. There are reports that truckloads of various food supplies and other commodities are already coming across the Soviet border into Iran. Do you have any independent confirmation of this, Mr. President, and don't you think, if it is true, this would undermine any future type of a naval blockade?,THE PRESIDENT. The fact is that, I guess, historically there has been a fairly substantial level of trade between the Soviet Union and Iran. Before the recent revolution, there were plans afoot for substantial increased shipments of natural gas from Iran into the Soviet Union in exchange for the barter of goods and perhaps hard cash.,The rail lines and the road system which interconnects Iran and the Soviet Union are quite limited in their capacity. They may be used now at capacity; I don't really know the specifics about that. But I think that the quantity of goods that would be interrupted by a possible blockade, which I'm not predicting now specifically will take place, could not possibly be filled or replaced by the limited transportation routes by land, either from Turkey or Iraq or the Soviet Union, certainly not from Afghanistan, at this time.,THE NATO ALLIANCE,Q. Mr. President, I was wondering, sir: Is it your belief the American people will continue indefinitely to provide the main defense of Western Europe, when there's a story in the papers this morning that showed pluralities in both West Germany and Britain now oppose backing the United States in a future dispute with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has never provided the majority of or the overwhelming portion of troops or fighting equipment in Europe for the defense of Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The number of troops that America has, in all, in the European theater is about 300,000. We and our NATO Allies combined have, I think, more than 2 million. I don't remember the exact figure. We have always provided the strategic nuclear umbrella for the protection of Europe, and we've had direct control, as you know, over most of the tactical nuclear weapons.,I saw results of a poll today from Germany that showed that over 80 percent of the people in West Germany, Federal Republic of Germany, favor a boycott of the Moscow Olympics by the Federal Republic of Germany.,I think the NATO Alliance is as strong now as it has been in any time, in my memory, since the war. Under very difficult economic circumstances, the major nations in the Alliance have committed themselves to a real growth in defense expenditures. Under heavy pressure, propaganda efforts by the Warsaw Pact nations, the Allies voted last December to go ahead with a modernization of theater nuclear forces—a very difficult decision. And my own personal relationship with the leaders in those countries, both the heads of state and military and diplomatic, show a very strong commitment to the Alliance and a very strong support for us.,I have sometimes been disappointed at the rapidity of action and the substance of the action taken by some of our allies in the Iranian and the Afghanistan question. But we look at things from a different perspective. We are much more invulnerable than they are to any sort of conventional attack. Germany, for instance, is a divided country. Seventeen million Germans live under Communist rule in East Germany, and Berlin is especially exposed. Most European countries have a much higher dependence on foreign trade than do we.,But I think within the bounds of the limitations and difference of perspective, although I have sometimes been disappointed, I think they have performed adequately. And I believe recently, the last few days, and I believe next week, we will see a strong rush of support to join us in the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, which will be a heavy propaganda and psychological blow to the Soviet Union in condemnation of their invasion. And I believe their support for us in Iran will prove that the premise of your question, that we don't have their support and cooperation, is inaccurate.,INFLATION AND A BALANCED BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, a question on inflation: Did you tell a group of Democratic Congressmen a few weeks ago that you realized that your balanced budget would have only a very small impact on the inflation rate, less than one-half of 1 percent? And if you did tell them that, can you really expect, if the inflation rate stays high, the kind of decrease in inflation that you're talking about? If the balanced budget doesn't really do it, can you really expect them, when OPEC looks at that, when the financial markets look at that, could you expect the kind of decrease in interest rates and oil prices that you were talking about earlier today? Isn't it much more likely that we'll have a recession and with continued high inflation, continued high interest rates, and come out of it with a higher basic rate of inflation than we have now, as happened in '74, '75?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a complicated question. I'll try to answer it briefly.,It is true that by itself, in direct effect, a $15 billion reduction in Federal expenditures, compared to more than a $2 trillion economy, would involve less than a half of 1 percent.,But in my judgment, as I told the congressional leaders assembled in this room, without a clear demonstration of self-discipline on the part of the Federal Government brought about by reduced expenditures and a commitment to a balanced budget, any other anti-inflation components would be fruitless, because we have got to convince the American people, the financial community, business community, labor community, individual citizens, that we ourselves here in Washington running the Government are going to be responsible and not overspend and do our share to get the Federal Government out of the borrowing business in 1981, in order to induce them to join us in a common team effort.,I do believe that we are already seeing some results. In my opinion, the recent news on interest rates, not just the prime rate but most other interest rates, have shown an encouraging turn. I can't predict that it's going to be permanent; I don't want to mislead anyone. But if we can have a limit, a fairly substantial limit, say, a 20-percent increase in OPEC [overall] * energy costs, and some reduction-say, 2 percent—in mortgage rates on homes, we anticipate a substantial reduction in the inflation rate within the next few months. I'm talking about a reduction of maybe 8 percent or more. Those are two big \"ifs,\" but I don't think they're beyond the realm of expectation.,*White House correction.,So, I do believe that a concerted commitment on the part of the American people to the program that we have outlined, and some of them have volunteered to assume, will be effective and that we will have a reduction of interest rates and inflation, and at the same time, we will keep our economy strong. I have a very good feeling about the future this year, about controlling inflation and reduced interest rates.,MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, in the last 10 days, Mr. President, you've talked with the leaders of Israel and Egypt at length about their negotiations on Palestinian autonomy, and you've said, today in fact, that the problems look less formidable now. Can you tell us where the give is and where you see the hope that these two parties might reach agreement by May 26 or any other time in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not able and have never been able to speak for Egypt or to speak for Israel. The negotiation is basically between those two countries. We have faced much more formidable obstacles in the past than we presently face, both prior to the Camp David accords and also prior to the Mideast peace treaty conclusion.,Now we are carrying out the Camp David agreement. When I discuss these matters with President Sadat or Prime Minister Begin, they have never deviated one iota from the exact language and the exact provisions of the Camp David accords. It's looked on almost as a sacred document. There are differences of interpretation about what is actually meant by \"a refugee\" or what is actually meant by \"full autonomy\" and so forth.,But we're now in the process of negotiating how much authority and power and influence and responsibility to give to the self-governing authority, how exactly it will be composed—those are the two basic questions—and how that selfgoverning authority is to be chosen. And once that's decided, Israel is completely ready to withdraw their military government, the civilian administration, to withdraw their own forces and to redeploy them in specified security locations, and to let those new duties and responsibilities be assumed by the Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank/Gaza.,That will be a major step forward. And if we can accomplish that, then the details of exactly how to administer water rights and exactly how to administer land and how to administer other specific elements of security, like controlling terrorism, which are now the difficult issues being negotiated, I think will be resolved without delay.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1980-03-14","text":"ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,THE PRESIDENT. Last night at this time I was participating in a remarkable event, truly historic in the development of our Nation. I was in the Cabinet Room, next to the Oval Office, along with the leadership of the Democrats in the House and the Senate, discussing the features of and the implementation of a comprehensive, anti-inflation program for our Nation. We mutually pledged to assure that this program would be successful, and the Democrats, the leadership, after 10 days of intense discussions and negotiations with my administration, themselves offered adequate cuts in the existing budget to ensure a balanced budget for 1981.,I'm very grateful for this cooperation. And during the same afternoon the Republicans, the leadership there, pledged that if the Democrats would take the leadership they would also cooperate, which I think will ensure that the Congress will guarantee that with our cooperative effort this will be successful.,Just a few hours ago I described the basic elements of this program, to intensify America's battle against inflation. These actions will be painful. They will not work overnight. But they are necessary to preserve the power of the greatest economic nation on Earth.,Inflation is bad in our country, but it's not as bad as that in some of our major allies, Great Britain, Japan, Italy. We have many reasons for this high inflation rate—the unprecedented increase in the price of oil, the fact that we as individuals and a society have tried to beat inflation by borrowing. It's as though we have come to believe that a penny borrowed is a penny earned. Our whole society, beginning with the Federal Government, must live within its means. We must exert discipline on ourselves. We must act decisively, and we must act now. And I will set forth a revised budget for 1981 that will be a balanced budget.,To achieve this goal I will defer or reduce or cancel many new programs which have been proposed recently to the Congress. I will cut expenditures throughout the Government. I will freeze Federal employment immediately, to cut down the total number of employees on the Federal payroll by at least 20,000 between now and the 1st of October. These budget cuts will be difficult politically and also because there will be inconveniences and disappointments among many people. But some sacrifice now will be much less onerous and burdensome, particularly to the needy among us, than the serious suffering that will occur if we don't arrest the inflationary spirals.,We will have a balanced budget beginning in October. To ensure this goal I will veto any legislation that exceeds our spending limit. I will use my powers under the budget acts to hold down budget-busting appropriations, and, if necessary, I will ask the Congress for additional powers to make sure that these goals are realized.,A balanced budget is not a cure-all, but it's a necessary part of an overall commitment. Without a balanced budget commitment there would be no way to put together a credible anti-inflation program. The Federal Government simply must accept discipline on itself as an example for others to follow.,Secondly, our governments have been borrowing, but so have people and institutions in our Nation been borrowing too much. So, credit controls will be implemented, as authorized by me and as administered by the Federal Reserve System of our country, to moderate the expansion of credit, with special emphasis provided, however, to meet the needs of small businesses, farmers, and those who would buy homes.,Third, we'll have improved compliance with our voluntary wage and price constraints. Mandatory wage and price controls will not be used. They have never worked in peacetime. Prices have always continued to rise even under an enormous Federal bureaucracy, and the greatest harm has come to the average American family living on a fixed income with frozen wages while the cost of vital necessities like food and fuel continue to go higher and higher.,And fourth, as I said earlier, the price of imported oil has more than doubled in the last 12 months. Last year's increase in prices of oil alone was greater than all other increases in the price of oil since oil was first discovered many years ago. We simply must cut these imports. We are now approaching the final stages of implementing through law a comprehensive and an adequate energy policy for our Nation. But we cannot meet the goal of reducing imports adequately unless we control the unwarranted and extravagant consumption of gasoline.\nTherefore, to make reductions in oil imports, I will impose an oil import conservation fee, equal to about 10 cents a gallon, to cut down on the use of gasoline. The first year this will result in savings of 100,000 barrels a day of imported oil; after 3 years, about 250,000 barrels per day will be reduced because of this charge. And we will be able, this year, to cut our gasoline consumption, and therefore oil imports, 400,000 barrels of oil per day.,I'll take long-term efforts to improve the vitality of our economy and to increase productivity through tax reductions. But these tax reductions can only come after we have been sure that we can exercise and maintain the discipline of a balanced budget.,There are no quick answers to inflation. There are no easy answers. There are no painless answers to inflation. If so, they would have been carried out long ago. The American people are not going to be deceived on this issue. The projects that I've outlined will involve costs; they involve pain. But the cost is far less in taking action than it will be if we take no action.,I must tell you very frankly that the results will not be immediate. We can expect several more months of very high inflation. But toward the end of this year the inflation rate will begin to drop, I think drop substantially.,The hard truth is that there is no easy way. Americans must do this together.,The final point I'd like to make before I take your answers is that our Nation is strong and vital. We are similar to a superb athlete who has simply gotten out of shape. The American economy has an underlying strength and resiliency. With discipline and restraint and with a willingness to accept, perhaps, some aching muscles at first, our economy can perform again like a champion. In the fight against inflation what is at stake is more than material wealth, it's more than material comfort; what is at stake is whether we as Americans, as a nation, as a people, will control our own destiny. In order to do so we must control inflation. And the Congress and I and, I believe, our entire Nation is determined to make this effort successful.\nThank you very much.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGETS,Q. Mr. President, do you look forward to more than one balanced budget in a row—because if you look for more, we haven't had two in a row since Eisenhower, three in a row since Truman, and four in a row since Herbert Hoover. I just wondered how you look forward to that.,THE PRESIDENT. My hope is that once we establish a precedent of a balanced budget under the present very difficult circumstances, that we will be able to maintain that financial discipline and that budget discipline that we have achieved.,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS,Q. Mr. President, is Israel keeping faith with the Camp David accords and the autonomy talks, when by government policy it continues to confiscate the land of Palestinians?,THE PRESIDENT. There is nothing specifically in the Camp David accords concerning the settlements themselves. There is an agreement in the treaty between Israel and Egypt about settlements that have been established in the Sinai region, which is Egyptian territory. I might say concerning that, that our policy is set by me, as President. There has been no, change in our policy. That policy is guided by U.N. Resolution 242 and 338, the basis of all of our negotiations; by every word in the Camp David accords, signed by me on behalf of our Nation; and by Begin and Sadat on behalf of Israel and Egypt. We intend to carry out that agreement.,Right now we are indulged in some very difficult but very important discussions and negotiations to establish full autonomy on the West Bank, Gaza area. I believe that these discussions can be successful. It's crucial to our own Nation's security that they be successful, that we have peace in the Middle East; and, it's, I think, crucial to the whole region that these discussions be successful.,I might add one other point. It's not easy. We've had tedious negotiations at Camp David. We had tedious negotiations almost exactly a year ago, when we finally concluded and signed the Mideast peace treaty. Our principles are well known by Prime Minister Begin and by President Sadat, and I stay constantly in touch with them and our negotiators to make sure that we are successful.,I believe that we will have peace in the Middle East, with a secure Israel behind recognized borders, with the Palestinian question being resolved in all its aspects, and with peace between Israel and her neighbors.,Q. You say the policy is set by you.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. And this is a question about the recent mix-up on the U.N. resolution. My question really goes to process. The resolution was not the resolution that you wanted. Are you the only one who can determine that it's not the resolution you want? Does your staff not know when it's not a resolution that you want, or is it possible that some of your foreign policy advisers are trying to make policy for you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think anybody in my administration doubts that I'm the one that sets the policy. The U.N. resolution, as it was passed, was not in accordance with the policy that I have established. It was not in accordance with the agreements that I had made with Prime Minister Begin, well understood by President Sadat.,We had agreed among us that we did not approve, as an American Government, of the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza area—that they were an obstacle to peace. But we also had agreed that during the time of the negotiations, we would not call for the dismantling of existing settlements. That was to be resolved as an issue in the ongoing negotiations.,Also, President Sadat, Prime Minister Begin, and I agreed on a paragraph in the Camp David accords concerning Jerusalem. It called for, and we still believe, that there should be an undivided Jerusalem, but that those who look upon those places in Jerusalem as holy places, should have unimpeded access to them for worship.,This resolution in the U.N. violated those two very important and basic principles. Those issues have not yet been resolved. There is nothing in this resolution at the U.N. that established the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza area. That will be established after a Syear interval period, during which full autonomy is enjoyed by the residents of the area. So, the resolution was in violation of my policy.,I might say that I have absolute confidence in Secretary Vance. I have seen him days and days and weeks negotiating to achieve the security of Israel and the peace of Israel. It was an honest breakdown in communications between me and the United Nations. I'm responsible for anything that goes wrong in this Government, and I'm also responsible, on occasion, for things that go right. Secretary Vance is responsible for the State Department. But to say exactly how the communications broke down is very difficult to do.,But I made it known as quickly as I discovered it, that this resolution did violate the policy and disavowed our vote for it.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, the other three times that you proposed a new anti-inflation program, you pledged each time that they would help restrain the rate of inflation, and yet we've seen it climb from 5 percent, when you took office, to more than 18 percent now on an annual basis. What assurance can you offer the American people that the plan you announced today will bring down the rate of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I have absolutely no doubt that the plan that I outlined today, when implemented, will indeed bring down the high rate of inflation which exists today. There are some elements that cause the present high inflation rate-which is a worldwide problem—over which I have no control.,One is the price of foreign oil, when we are importing so much of it. As I said earlier, it has more than doubled in price in the last 12 months. In fact, just 1 month ago, the price of energy in our own Nation increased 7 1/2 percent in 1 month, which is an annual rate of 90 percent. But I can control how much oil is imported at that high price, and we can shift to more plentiful supplies of energy' in our own Nation.,We have not had a balanced budget in 12 years. We've only had one balanced budget since 1961. But I can guarantee you that we will have a balanced budget in 1981, fiscal year beginning October 1.,The Nation is aroused now, as it has never been before—at least in my lifetime—about the horrors of existing inflation and the threat of future inflation. Never in the history of our Nation has there been so much of a common commitment and a common discussion and a common negotiation between any President and his administration and the leaders of the Congress. This is a mutual commitment. It's not just something that I'm proposing to Congress with little expectation of success.,So, there are several elements, including those I've just described to you, that make it certain, in my mind, that we will have a substantial reduction in the inflation rate during this year—the latter part of this year. And I believe that we'll be under double-digit inflation next year.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you two questions if I could, please, about the SALT process—one general, one specific. The first question is, given the fact this is an election year, do you still intend to push ahead with Senate ratification of SALT? If so, when will you ask the Senate to ratify SALT? The second question deals with the Trident submarine. When that begins sea trials in July, I think under the SALT I agreement you will need to begin decommissioning Polaris submarines to stay within the limits of the SALT I agreement. Will you begin decommissioning Polaris submarines when Trident begins its sea trials, or will you opt for technical violation of the SALT I agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. The agreement which we presently have with the Soviet Union, which I intend to honor as long as they reciprocate, is to comply with all the terms of the interim SALT agreement, which is known as SALT I.,SALT II has been signed by me and President Brezhnev. I consider it binding on our two countries. It has not yet been ratified. We will observe very closely to make sure that the Soviets comply with this agreement. I will not ask the Senate to ratify SALT II until I have a chance to consult very closely with the congressional leadership on the Senate side, particularly Majority Leader Byrd and others who work with him, both Democrats and Republicans.,Because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it is obvious that we would not be successful in ratifying SALT II treaty at this time. It is still on the calendar. It will not be brought up until after that consultation takes place. I will also continue to consult with congressional leadership as far as compliance with SALT II is concerned.,But my present intention, within the bounds of reciprocal action on the Soviet Union and consultations with the Senate and, to some degree, the House leadership, I intend to comply with the provisions of SALT II.,Q. Mr. President, I'm a bit confused by that last answer. You both said that you regarded the treaty that you signed as binding on this country and that you would consult on compliance with it. I guess the question then comes down to whether or not the United States, in absence of ratification, would observe the provisions of SALT II and the notion that it's in its own best interests and, I suppose, inviting Soviet comparable action. Is that what you're saying to us?,THE PRESIDENT. Ordinarily, when a treaty is signed between the heads of two nations, the presumption is that the treaty will be honored on both sides absent some further development. One further development that would cause me to renounce the treaty would be after consulting with the Members of the Senate to determine an interest of our Nation that might cause such a rejection, in which case I would notify the Soviet Union that the terms of the treaty were no longer binding.,So, there will be two provisos in the continued honoring of the SALT II treaty. One is that the Soviets reciprocate completely, as verified by us, and secondly, that the consultations that I will continue with the Senate leadership confirm me in my commitment that it's in the best interests of our country to do so.,FEDERAL GRANTS TO CITIES,Q. Mr. President, you've been accused of buying votes in this particular election. With your efforts to balance the budget, will you continue to favor those particular cities and persons within those cities who favor your reelection?,THE PRESIDENT. We have never favored any person or cities who favored my reelection.,FISCAL YEAR 1981 BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, you submitted your fiscal '81 budget just 7 weeks ago, and then we had the January CPI figures and everyone was shocked, of course. My question is, why, sir, could you not have anticipated increased inflation and submitted a balanced budget at that time, the kind of cuts that you announced and the kind of package that you announced today and, as you mentioned a minute ago, arouse the country at that time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, circumstances have changed drastically since we completed work on the 1981 budget, even since I submitted it to the Congress in January. At that time there was a general presumption that quite early this year we would be faced not with rapidly escalating inflation, but with an actual recession. Everyone has been amazed at the strength of our economy, the rapidity with which growth has occurred, of business investments, an actual reduction in unemployment, and other indicators of a very hot economy in spite of the fact that energy prices and other reasons have caused the inflation rate to escalate. So, when circumstances change, as I've just described, we must change our policy.,I think that when we submitted this budget in January it was a very stringent budget. When I ran for President, for instance, in 1976, the budget deficit was over 4 percent of the gross national product. The 1981 budget, as submitted, had cut that 4 percent down to about one-half of 1 percent. So, we've been making good progress in cutting down the budget deficit. But now, because of increasing evidence of uncontrollable inflation and uncontrollable interest rates if we don't take more drastic action, we decided to take the drastic action that I described this afternoon.,PROGRAMS FOR MINORITY GROUPS,Q. Mr. President, the Congressional Black Caucus has labeled your 1981 budget proposal an unmitigated disaster for racial minorities, the poor, and the elderly. And they also say it reflects the level of indifference that the administration has adopted towards the minority community. Could you respond to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. That's not an accurate assessment, but I think it's an accurate report that you just gave on their attitude. We've had a very successful first 3 years in increased programs and increased sensitivity to the needs of the disadvantaged people in our country, including minority groups. We've had an unprecedented increase in jobs. We've had all unprecedented commitment to the urban areas of our country, inhabited by the poor and quite often by minority groups. We've had a 75-percent increase in educational funds from the Federal Government, primarily oriented toward the disadvantaged children and others. So, we've got an excellent record so far, not only in the allocation of funds and programmes for those who need them most but also in the appointment of very knowledgeable and very competent minority representatives, in my administration as a whole, and also to Federal judgeships and other similar positions in the regulatory agencies.,Now, in my opinion, the people in our Nation who will most benefit from controlling inflation are the ones who are most damaged by it, and that's the ones on low incomes, on fixed incomes, who have to face day after day an 18- or 20-percent increase in cost of the things they have to buy on those relatively fixed incomes. There will be some transient inconvenience or disappointment, but it will be much less than the permanent damage to the quality of life of those poor people on the long term if we do not get inflation under control.,So, in my judgment the best thing that I could do for the people about whom I am deeply concerned, the disadvantaged and the poor, is to take every step to control inflation. The cuts that we have put into our plans that will be revealed to the Congress very shortly have been worked out by the very liberal Members of the Congress who helped to initiate those programs in the first place. And as we have put together this package, we have had a special sensitivity for those who are most disadvantaged and have minimized the adverse effect on them by the cuts that will be proposed.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, can you give us some new word on the hostage situation in Iran? Is the administration content to just wait until the parliament is elected, or do you have any plan to resolve this? Do you plan to bring any more pressures on Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not content for the innocent American hostages to be held by terrorists for one single day. This is an abhorrent act in direct violation not only of international law but the very Islamic principles which these militants profess to espouse and to support. We have done everything we possibly could in the last 4 months to honor the principles of our Nation, to protect the interests of our Nation, to try to preserve in every way the health and the lives of those hostages, and to work for their freedom.,I don't know when they'll be released. We have constant negotiations and attempts to provide continuing communication with the leaders of Iran. I believe that when there's a stable government in Iran, which may possibly occur after the elections—the vote, as you know, began today. But our past few days have been characterized by bitter disappointments, because, in effect, commitments that had been made by the newly elected President and administration of Iran were not honored, because prior to these parliamentary elections they obviously do not have the authority to speak and carry out their own commitment. Whether they'll have that authority after the elections are completed I don't know. I certainly hope so.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, how much longer before you will feel that you have whipped, to use your phrase, Senator Kennedy's donkey? [Laughter] Will it take the Illinois primary, or New York? At what point do you feel that you will have this job done?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we've got 35 or 36 primaries, and the rest are caucus States. During this 5-day period, I think, we've got 11 elections. We've done very well recently in those contests, but the acknowledgement of defeat is a judgment to be made completely by my opponents, and not by me. And I have no indication arid no expectation that there would be any termination to their election efforts anytime in the near future.,IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS,Q. Sir, why did we let in over 9,000 Iranians to come here and be citizens of this country after they took our hostages? Was that an accident or what happened?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not an accident. There's a difference between a great and a free and compassionate democratic nation on the one hand, and other countries from which refugees flee, looking for freedom, looking for the right to worship as they please, trying to escape possible persecution. We have screened the immigrants very closely, and in every instance, they have been determined to have a real, genuine, legal interest and reason for coming to our country.,It would not be advisable for us, it would not be humane for us, it would not even be decent for us, in my opinion, when we have an intense confrontation-an extremely emotional confrontation with a revolutionary country like Iran, to refuse to accept refugees who are trying to escape circumstances there and coming to our Nation for a haven. This was a decision made by me, it's in accordance with the American law, and I believe it's in the best interests of our own country to do so.,GASOLINE CONSERVATION FEE,Q. Mr. President, would you please explain how an oil import fee of four dollars and sixty-some odd cents per barrel, and an eventual 10-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline will help fight inflation, rather than create more inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. The immediate result of that will not be a reduction in inflation. It will be an increase in the inflationary status of our country, as measured by the CPI. But what we must do is to cut down on our excessive dependence on imported oil.,This year, we're going to send out of our Nation between eighty and ninety billion dollars of hard-earned American money to foreign countries to buy their oil. As we import that excessive amount of oil, we also import inflation and unemployment. When we reduce our unwarranted demands to buy the existing amount of oil that exists on the world markets, it causes a lessening in demand and therefore tends to hold down prices.,I believe that because of our action in cutting down oil imports and conservation measures, combined with that of other major oil-importing countries, we have already seen some moderation of the price of oil. I have no belief at all that 1980 will see anything like the increase in oil prices that resulted in 1979 when demand exceeded the available supply.,So, we benefit in two ways: One is keeping the money and the jobs in our own Nation, instead of sending it overseas. And secondly, we help to moderate the worldwide price for energy which ;viii have a major effect in cutting down inflationary pressures in our country in the future.,But there will be some transient, temporary adverse effect because of the increase that I will bring about by the conservation fee.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1980-02-13","text":"SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Since the day our Embassy was seized in Tehran, we have had two goals: one, the safety and release of the Americans being held hostage, and the other is the protection of our national interest in this critical area of the world. Since that first day, we have pursued every possibility to achieve these goals. No stone has been left unturned in the search for a solution.,Over the past several weeks, our efforts and our activities have become particularly delicate and intense. Recently there have been some positive signs, although experience has taught us to guard against excessive optimism.,Since mid-November, we and the Iranian officials have been discussing with Secretary-General Waldheim of the United Nations his proposal to send a commission of inquiry to Tehran. We would support steps by the United Nations that would lead to the release of the hostages if the steps are consistent with our goals and our essential international principles. An appropriate commission with a carefully defined purpose would be a step toward resolution of this crisis.,I know that you and the American people will understand that I cannot afford at this delicate time to discuss or to comment further upon any specific efforts that may be underway or any proposals that may be useful in ending this crisis.\nThank you.,QUESTIONS,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. You cut me off at the pass. Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the United States to restore the Shah to the throne in 1953 against the popular will within Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. That's ancient history, and I don't think it's appropriate or helpful for me to go into the propriety of something that happened 30 years ago.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy appears to have taken off the gloves in his direct contest with you, and today some of your closest associates have seemed to do likewise in rebuttal. I wonder, what is your position: Are you going to turn the other cheek to Senator Kennedy, or do you have a rebuttal to his harsh criticisms of the last few days?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the statement that was made today by the Secretary of State and by others in answer to Senator Kennedy's speech last night and his previous statements, I think, were appropriate. There is no cause to prevent an open discussion and a free debate of the issues in a political forum, on a campaign trail, and in a meeting like this. But there must be bounds of both propriety and accuracy in the presentation of views by a responsible official, including a United States Senator and also including a candidate for the highest office of our country.,SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN,Q. Mr. President, if the crisis in Afghanistan is real and as serious as you have said it is—if it is, does the U.S. have the military capacity to cope with it, short of using a nuclear weapon?,THE PRESIDENT. The crisis is a great one, precipitated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for several reasons. First of all, this is a crucial area of the world—to us, to our allies, and to other nations. Twothirds of all the oil exported in the entire world come from the Persian Gulf region. Secondly, it's a highly volatile, rapidly changing, unstable part of the world. Third, the Soviets have been indulging in a steady military buildup over a number of years, which has caused us concern and to which we have reacted since I've been in this office. Fourth, the Soviets—a major departure from anything they've done since the Second World War—have now exhibited a willingness to use their military forces beyond their own borders, in a massive invasion of Afghanistan.,The reaction that I have taken to these steps are appropriate and, I believe and hope, adequate. We must convince the Soviet Union, through peaceful means, peaceful means, that they cannot invade an innocent country with impunity and they must suffer the consequences of their action.,Everything we've done has been to contribute to stability, moderation, consistency, persistence, and peace. We have taken actions on our own, and we have asked our allies and others to join in with us in the condemnation of the Soviet Union and the demand that the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan and to convince them that any further adventurism on their part would cause grave consequences to the Soviet Union.,In my judgment our forces are adequate. We cannot afford to let the Soviets choose either the terrain or the tactics to be used by any other country—a nation that might be invaded, their neighbors, our allies, or ourselves—if-they should persist in their aggressive action. Those judgments would have to be made at the time. But I believe they're adequate.,SENATOR KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, I'd like you to respond directly to two of Senator Kennedy's criticisms. One, he says that you rejected the idea of this commission with Iran until just recently. And two, he says that Afghanistan might not have happened if you'd paid more attention to the signs and had been more resolute in advance; he says the Russians might not have invaded Afghanistan.,THE PRESIDENT. It's not my inclination to respond to every allegation, erroneous allegation, that Senator Kennedy has made, but what you've asked is typical of what causes me the deepest concern. First of all, his statements have not been true, they've not been accurate, and they've not been responsible, and they've not helped our country.,When the hostages were originally seized—an act of international violence contradicting every norm of diplomacy and international law—Senator Kennedy insinuated that because we had given medical treatment to the Shah, that somehow the seizure of our own hostages was not the fault of the terrorists who took them, but the fault of the United States.,Senator Kennedy has also said that the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was not only not very serious but that somehow or another the Soviets were not the culpable party, but the United States was at fault and somehow caused or contributed to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.,And more recently he has insinuated-again, falsely—that some action or lack of action on my part or the United States part had perpetuated the incarceration of the American hostages.,This thrust of what he's said throughout the last few weeks is very damaging to our country, and to the establishment of our principles and the maintenance of them, and the achieving of our goals to keep the peace and to get our hostages released.,SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN,Q. Mr. President, in .Afghanistan again, sir, what kind of regime would be acceptable to you? The Russians have said that if they withdraw, they would leave—I think have left the indication that they would leave a puppet regime. Would you insist on a neutralist regime, or what ideas have you on it?,THE PRESIDENT. What we would like to have, first of all, is a Soviet withdrawal and a commitment, that might be verified and carried out, that the Soviets would not invade another country or use their military forces beyond their borders again to destabilize the peace. We would like to have a neutral country. If there had to be a transition phase during which a neutral and responsible government might be established acceptable to the Afghanistan people, then perhaps some peacekeeping force espoused by the United Nations, maybe comprised of Moslem military troops or otherwise, could be used during that transition phase.,But the prime consideration that I have is to make sure that the Soviets know that their invasion is not acceptable, to marshal as much support from other nations of the world as possible, and to prevent any further threat to the peace and the cause of war. I think through strength we can maintain peace. But we've got to be resolute, we've got to be consistent, and our actions have got to be in a tone of long-range, predictable action clearly understood by the Soviet Union.,DEFENSE SPENDING,Q. Mr. President, you call for an increase of about 5 percent in military defense spending. Some Members of Congress have suggested that that might be too small, given the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Would you support a plan by Congress to go as far as doubling the current 5-percent increase in military spending?,THE PRESIDENT. Ever since the first year I've been President, we've had a substantial and steady increase in spending for defense, because I recognized that we had some defects in our defense capability when I became President. I might add, in complete accuracy, that President Ford had initiated this buildup shortly before he went out of office. It's one I've continued.,In my opinion, the military budget that we have presented to the Congress in recent weeks is the appropriate level of expenditures. It's very carefully matched to how rapidly we can purchase and develop weapons and accurately matched to the ultimate goals of deployment of our troops, the mobility of our troops, and the interrelationship with our allies.,I'm not saying that there would be no fine tuning or some modification to the budget that wouldn't be acceptable to me, but I would resist very strongly any effort—as has been proposed just recently-to cut the defense budget below what I proposed.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, when you say that Senator Kennedy—that his statements have not been accurate, responsible, and that they've not helped our country, and when he and his aides say that your own campaign has been misleading and negative and taking cheap shots, how can that do anything but further and bitterly divide the Democrats? And aren't you both helping Republicans in the general election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might point out to you that I'm an incumbent Democratic President. I didn't ask for a challenger— [laughter] —but have no aversion to a campaign, as was indicated by my opening statement and is further confirmed by the fact that I have to negotiate with many other leaders around the world, including carrying out the principles of the Mideast peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, put into effect very complicated proposals like the grain embargo and a restraint on shipments of high technology equipment to the Soviet Union and the implementation of our commitment that athletes should not go to Moscow to participate in the Olympics as long as Soviet invasion troops are in Afghanistan. These kinds of things are very time-consuming to me.,I'm a campaigner; I'm a candidate. I've had some success in politics as an active campaigner. And it would obviously be much better for me to be on the campaign trail in Minnesota or New Hampshire than to be closed up here in the White House dealing with these issues that I consider to be of paramount importance. And I look forward to the time when the hostages are released and I can go out and campaign actively and recruit votes and delegates to my cause.,But I have no aversion to the issues being discussed, and I think, as has already been pointed out in this press conference, there are sharp, identifiable, wellknown differences between me and the Senator, that have been clearly expressed by me from the White House and also have been expressed by him out in the different parts of the country.,I might say additionally that I have not secluded myself. In the last 2 months I have had cross-examination by news people, open forums. I've made a major speech on the State of the Union and others. I've not hidden my positions at all. My proposals have been very clear. But I look forward to the time when I can campaign without restraint and I can take care of the other issues, if the American hostages are released.,I might add one other personal point. We cannot lessen the commitment of the American people that a crisis does indeed exist as long as 50 innocent Americans are being held hostage by kidnapers. Some attenuation or lowering of the focused attention on the hostages is inevitable, but I, as President, have got to maintain the accurate image that we do have a crisis which I will not ignore until those hostages are released. I want the American people to know it, I want the Iranians to know it, I want the hostages' families and the hostages to know it, I want the world to know that I am not going to resume business as usual as a partisan campaigner out on the campaign trail until our hostages are back here, free and at home.,CAMPAIGN DEBATES,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has made your decision not to debate a major campaign issue. I wonder if you could clarify for the record when you might be willing to debate. If the hostages are released, would you be willing to debate then, or would you want to wait until the Soviets leave Afghanistan? Do you think you will debate your Democratic challengers before the general election in the fall?,THE PRESIDENT. As I've just said, when the hostages are released, I would resume normal campaigning. Whether or not or when a debate would be appropriate would have to be decided in the future, when I assess the invitations received and the circumstances prevailing then.,GOVERNMENT LOANS TO CORPORATIONS,Q. Mr. President, this is an issue on which you and Senator Kennedy agree, and that's the bailout of Chrysler. Now, you know President Nixon bailed out Lockheed, ostensibly to take care of the corporation. That's a traditional Republican ally. Some of your aides indicate that you were more concerned about union jobs at Chrysler.,My question goes, though, that both Republican and Democratic administrations and Senator Kennedy are—this is on the road to socialism, government support, aid, subsidies for these very large corporations; this should be a repugnant trend in our society of free enterprise. Do you favor Congress studying this issue, drawing a line on this issue, or with each corporation—especially in a recession or this threatened recession, further failures-more policies of subsidies, of bailouts for these major corporations?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't adopt it as a policy that we would pursue time after time after time. But I did strongly support the legislation passed to guarantee loans for Chrysler provided they got adequate financing to match what the Government effort would be.,In my judgment the Government loan would be secure. It would require Chrysler to take corrective action and to get financing elsewhere, and required a substantial contribution from the workers in Chrysler to make sure that Chrysler was financially able to proceed as a viable corporation. When that legislation was put on my desk, I signed it with enthusiasm.,1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, you have said, sir, that the Soviets have to be made to pay a price for invading Afghanistan, and your counsel has said that our boycott of the Olympics is not intended to be punitive. How do you explain the seeming difference between these two positions?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no desire to use the Olympics to punish, except the Soviets attach a major degree of importance to the holding of the Olympics in the Soviet Union. In their own propaganda material they claim that the willingness of the International Olympics Committee to let the games be held in Moscow is an endorsement of the foreign policy and the peace-loving nature of the Soviet Union.,To me it's unconscionable for any nation to send athletes to the capital of a nation under the aegis of the Olympics when that nation, that host nation, is actively involved in the invasion of and the subjugation of innocent people. And so, for that reason, I don't believe that we are at all obligated to send our athletes to Moscow.,And I would like to repeat, if the Soviet Union does not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the 20th of this month, then neither I nor the American people nor the Congress will support the sending of an Olympic team to Moscow this summer.,SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION,Q. Mr. President, do you believe that draft-age youth are overreacting to your registration policy with their fears that this will directly lead to the draft?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think they're overreacting. I have not called for and do not anticipate calling for a draft. The best way to prevent having a draft in the future and mobilization of our Nation's efforts, both natural and human efforts, is to be prepared. The registration which I have called for, and which I am sure the Congress will approve, will permit us to save 90 to 100 days, weeks or even months, in a mobilization effort, if it should be called for in the future. We are not advocating the draft; we are advocating registration for a draft.,I might point out, too, that this will marshal an additional discussion and commitment among the American people and a realization that the peace is threatened and that everything that I am trying to do, working with the Congress and others, is to take peaceful action, preventive action, to prevent the Soviets taking further steps that might lead to a war.,Fifty-five other countries in the world that I know about, including most of our major allies, not only have registration but have the active, ongoing draft, and this includes countries like Mexico, Germany, France, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland. Many other countries, 55 of them, have the actual draft. I'm not advocating a draft. So, there has been a gross overreaction. And I think that registration for the draft will help us in other ways that I need not detail, in concert.,1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, if the Soviets by any chance should remove their troops from Afghanistan between February 20 and May 24, when the Olympic committees have to give their decisions, is there any possibility you might change your mind and then support sending the American team to Moscow?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any possibility of that.,YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,Q. Mr. President, your $2 billion youth budget employment program has only $3 million [$300 million] requested for employment in 1981, and $900 million will go for training of these children through the schools that have already passed over these children. And this budget will not become fully operational until 1982. So, isn't this budget deceptive and misleading, as the Black Caucus says?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not. I believe it's accurate to say that the Labor Department and the Education Department will be moving to implement the youth employment program as rapidly as we possibly can. It won't be a lack of money appropriated by the Congress that will slow down the process at all.,I'd like to point out that in the last 3 years we've had notable success in improving the employment situation.. We've had an annual growth in employment of 3 1/2 percent per year since I've been in the White House as President. We've added 9 million new jobs, and of the people who've got new jobs, we've had 50 percent more new jobs for minorities than we have for all other people who've benefited from our employment programs.,So, I think the narrow focusing of the new program on youth and also on minority youth will be a major boon to those who have been deprived too much in the past because of unemployment. It's certainly not misleading and would be implemented as rapidly as the bureaucracy can function, as employers can be identified, and as the training can be provided for these young people who want jobs, but in the past have not been able to get them.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES,Q. Mr. President, as you know, the French have not agreed to go to a Foreign Ministers conference in Rome later this month. The West Germans have not agreed to the Olympic boycott, and there's been some dissatisfaction, I understand, with your administration's reaction to the Japanese. Have you been entirely satisfied with the Japanese, the French, and the West German reactions to your call for punishment and sanctions against the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. In general, I have been well pleased, yes. There's a remarkable degree of unanimity among all our major allies about the seriousness of the Soviet threat into Afghanistan and the actions that must be taken to counter that threat and prevent further aggression by the Soviet Union.,There are nuances of difference. The countries are different; they have different perspectives; they have different forms of government. Some are coalition governments where the Prime Minister has a different party represented in his Foreign Minister and so forth. We do have times when we get aggravated and displeased, for instance, with the French. There are times when the French get aggravated and displeased by us.,The recent disagreement on exactly the time and the composition and the secrecy to be maintained by the Foreign Ministers meeting was unfortunate. My understanding of it was derived from a telephone conversation with Chancellor Schmidt after he met several days with President Giscard d'Estaing. My understanding was that the date and the place had been arranged by them and that I was conforming to their request. That was not the same understanding that the French had. We did not communicate adequately. But that's just a minor difference compared to the major agreements on which we base present and future policy among us allies.,EDUCATION OF PUBLIC ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE,Q. Sir, I wonder if you think that we really need a national effort to try to make people better informed about their need for cooperation to fill these vacancies in the military.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we do need, I think, a better education for this purpose. We've got—as you know, now about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women. And we anticipate, with no changes in present circumstances, that in 5 years, by 1985, we'll increase that by 50 percent, to 12 percent of our total Armed Forces. Women now fill about 95 percent of the different kinds of billets that we have available in all our Armed Forces combined.,I think many people believe that we're going to a draft soon. We have no intention or need for implementing the draft. Some people believe that I've advocated the use of women in combat. I have no intention of advocating to the Congress and the Congress would never approve any legislation that would permit women to engage in actual combat.,So, the need to educate people about what our proposals might be is real, and I believe that when the Congress starts debating this issue, as we decide details about the program for registration, that will create new opportunities for people to understand it better.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM AND OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, the goals of your anti-inflation program, as incorporated within the voluntary wage and price guidelines, attempt to hold down prices, including those charged by oil companies here. However, these goals appear to conflict with the goals of your energy program, which are to conserve oil and relieve our reliance on foreign oil through allowing the prices of gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel to rise. Does your administration, sir, have plans to deal with this conflict, and do these plans include excluding oil company prices and profits from the anti-inflation guidelines?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no doubt that there are many conflicts that presently exist in our very confused energy situation. What we need is a final action by the Congress on the legislative proposals that I have made to them that will give us, for the first time in history, a comprehensive, clear, understandable, legal energy policy.,There are only two ways that we can reduce imports of foreign oil: One is to increase production in our own country, energy of all kinds; and secondly, to improve conservation, to cut out waste. In my judgment the artificial holding down, by subsidies and otherwise, of the price of oil conflicts with both these principles, because if oil is excessively cheap, financed by the general public, then that means that the people use too much of it and probably waste some. And also, it prevents competitive forms of energy, like solar power, for instance, from being developed, because solar power has to compete with an excessively cheap price of oil.,There is no doubt—I don't want to mislead anybody—that everywhere in the world, oil prices and general energy prices have been going up, and there is no doubt that in the future those prices will continue to go up. But every American will be benefited if we cut out waste, continue to conserve, produce more energy here at home, and shift to more plentiful supplies of energy, particularly those that are replenishable, that come directly from the sun.,I might point out that the American people, as the result of partially implementing our new energy policy, have been conserving energy very well. We import now about a million barrels a day of foreign oil less than we did the day I was inaugurated. And in this last year alone, we've cut down consumption of energy overall about 5 percent; gasoline in December was 10 percent less consumed than December a year ago.,We've got a long way to go. But the American consciousness had to be built up that there is indeed an energy crisis; that we do indeed, as you point out so wisely, have major conflicts in our programs in the past that prevented progress; and we need a clear and consistent, well-understood policy to put into effect in our country,,EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,Q. Mr. President, is it the policy of your administration to boycott, wherever possible, States that have not ratified ERA? I'm referring to a memo that—,THE PRESIDENT. No, that's not my policy.,U.S. POLICY TOWARD YUGOSLAVIA,Q. Mr. President, you once said that you weren't sure whether American troops should ever be used to defend Yugoslavia. Marshal Tito is sick. In light of Afghanistan, do you still feel that way?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had close discussions with the Yugoslavian leaders, including Marshal Tito when he was here not too long ago. The overall message that they give to us, which I accept as accurate, is that Yugoslavia is a strong, fiercely independent, courageous, well-equipped nation that can defend itself. If we are called upon to give any kind of aid to the Yugoslavian people in the future, we would seriously consider it and do what, in our opinion, would be best for them and for us.,I've had frequent conversations recently with other major European leaders about the need to strengthen our ties with Yugoslavia and to protect them as a nonaligned country, without being dominated or threatened successfully by the Soviet Union. We'll take whatever action is necessary to carry out those goals, but commensurate with actual need .and commensurate with specific requests from Yugoslavia itself.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-11-28","text":"SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. For the last 24 days our Nation's concern has been focused on our fellow Americans being held hostage in Iran. We have welcomed some of them home to their families and their friends. But we will not rest nor deviate from our efforts until all have been freed from their imprisonment and their abuse. We hold the Government of Iran fully responsible for the well-being and the safe return of every single person.,I want the American people to understand the situation as much as possible, but there may be some questions tonight which I cannot answer fully, because of my concern for the well-being of the hostages.,First of all, I would like to say that I am proud of this great Nation, and I want to thank all Americans for their prayers, their courage, their persistence, their strong support and patience. During these past days our national will, our courage, and our maturity have all been severely tested, and history will show that the people of the United States have met every test.,In the days to come, our determination may be even more sorely tried, but we will continue to defend the security, the honor, and the freedom of Americans everywhere. This Nation will never yield to blackmail. For all Americans, our constant concern is the well-being and the safety of our fellow citizens who are being held illegally and irresponsibly hostage in Iran.,The actions of Iran have shocked the civilized world. For a government to applaud mob violence and terrorism, for a government actually to support and, in effect, participate in the taking and the holding of hostages is unprecedented in human history. This violates not only the most fundamental precepts of international law but the common ethical and religious heritage of humanity. There is no recognized religious faith on Earth which condones kidnaping. There is no recognized religious faith on Earth which condones blackmail. There is certainly no religious faith on Earth which condones the sustained abuse of innocent people.,We are deeply concerned about the inhuman and degrading conditions imposed on the hostages. From every corner of the world, nations and people have voiced their strong revulsion and condemnation of Iran and have joined us in calling for the release of the hostages.,Last night, a statement of support was released and was issued by the President of the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, on behalf of all of its members. We expect a further Security Council meeting on Saturday night, at which more firm and official action may be taken to help in obtaining the release of the American hostages. Any claims raised by government officials of Iran will ring hollow while they keep innocent people bound and abused and threatened.,We hope that this exercise of diplomacy and international law will bring a peaceful solution, because a peaceful solution is preferable to the other remedies available to the United States. At the same time, we pursue such a solution with grim determination. The Government of Iran must recognize the gravity of the situation, which it has itself created, and the grave consequences which will result if harm comes to any of the hostages.,I want the American people to know and I want the world to know that we will persist in our efforts, through every means available, until every single American has been freed. We must also recognize now, as we never have before, that it is our entire Nation which is vulnerable, because of our overwhelming and excessive dependence on oil from foreign countries. We have got to accept the fact that this dependence is a direct physical threat to our national security, and we must join together to fight for our Nation's energy freedom.,We know the ways to win this war: more American energy and the more efficient use of what we have. The United States Congress is now struggling with this extremely important decision. The way to victory is long and difficult, but we have the will, and we have the human and the natural resources of our great Nation.,However hard it might be to see into the future, one thing tonight is clear: We stand together. We stand as a nation unified, a people determined to protect the life and the honor of every American. And we are determined to make America an energy-secure nation once again. It is unthinkable that we will allow ourselves to be dominated by any form of overdependence at home or any brand of terrorism abroad. We are determined that the freest nation on Earth shall protect and enhance its freedom.\nI'd be glad to answer questions.,QUESTIONS,\nWORLD REACTION TO IRANIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, the Ayatollah Khomeini said the other day—and I'm using his words—he doesn't believe you have the guts to use military force. He puts no credibility in our military deterrent. I'm wondering, how do we get out of this mess in Iran and still retain credibility with our allies and with our adversaries overseas?,THE PRESIDENT. We have the full support of our allies, and in this particular instance, we have no adversaries overseas. There is no civilized country on Earth which has not condemned the seizure and the holding of the hostages by Iran.,It would not be advisable for me to explore publicly all of the options open to our country. As I said earlier, I'm determined to do the best I can through diplomatic means and through peaceful means to ensure the safety of our hostages and their release. Other actions which I might decide to take would come in the future, after those peaceful means have been exhausted.,But I believe that the growing condemnation of the world community on Iran will have a beneficial effect.,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. Mr. President, why did you reverse your policy and permit the Shah to come into this country when, one, medical treatment was available elsewhere; two, you had been warned by our charge that the Americans might be endangered in Tehran; and three, the Bazargan government was so shaky that it was questionable whether he could deliver on the promise to protect our Embassy? And last of all, in view of the consequences, do you regret the decision?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The decision that I made, personally and without pressure from anyone, to carry out the principles of our country, to provide for the means of giving the Shah necessary medical assistance to save his life, was proper. At the same time, we notified the Government of Iran. We were assured by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister that our Embassy would be protected, and it was protected for several days, in spite of threats from outside.,Then peremptorily, after Khomeini made an aggravating speech to the crowds in the street and withdrew protection from the Embassy, it was attacked successfully. The Embassy was protected by our people for the length of time possible without help from the host government. No embassy on Earth is a fortress that can withstand constant attacks by a mob, unless a host government comes to the rescue of the people within the embassy.,But I took the right decision. I have no regrets about it nor apologies to make, because it did help to save a man's life, and it was compatible with the principles of our country.,EFFECT ON U.S. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES,Q. Mr. President, we appear to be in a rather dangerous period of international tension and volatility, especially in the Islamic world, and it comes at a time when we're about to embark on our quadrennial election campaign, with all that that will bring. Have you given any thought to whether, following examples of other national emergencies, it may be wise to try to mute the political fallout of this by trying to bring opponents in and outside of your party into some kind of emergency coalition for this purpose?,THE PRESIDENT. We have attempted to keep the political leaders in our Nation informed, both publicly and through other channels. We have given frequent briefings, for instance, on the Hill, both to the Members of the Senate and to the House. We have encouraged all of those who have become announced candidates for President to restrain their comments, which might be misconstrued overseas, and to have a maximum degree of harmony among those who might be spokesmen for our country.,I myself, in order to stay close to the scene here, where constantly changing events could be handled by me as President, have eliminated the major portion of political-oriented activities.,I don't think the identity of the Islamic world is a factor. We have the deepest respect and reverence for Islam and for all those who share the Moslem faith. I might say that, so far as I know, all the Islamic nations have joined us in condemning the activities and the actions of the Government of Iran. So, I don't think religious divisions are a factor here at all.,But I will have to continue to restrict my own political activities and call on those who might be opposing me in the future for President to support my position as ,President and to provide unity for our country and for our Nation in the eyes of those who might be looking for some sign of weakness or division in order to perpetuate their abuse of our hostages.,SECURITY FOR EMBASSIES,Q. What can the U.S. do now, what can it do to prevent future incidents of the nature of Iran? How can you satisfy the public demand to end such embarrassment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is an unprecedented and unique occurrence. Down through history, we have had times when some of our people were captured by terrorists or who were abused, and there have obviously been instances of international kidnaping which occurred for the discomfiture of a people or a government. So far as I know, this is the first time that such an activity has been encouraged by and supported by the government itself, and I don't anticipate this kind of thing recurring.,We have taken steps already, in view of the disturbances in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region, to guard our people more closely, to provide them with higher degree of security, and to make arrangements with the host governments to provide assistance, if it's needed, in the fastest possible way.,Many other nations have reduced severely the number of persons overseas. I think one of the points that should be made is that a year ago, we had 70,000 Americans in Iran—70,000. There were literally thousands of people who were killed in the Iranian revolution, from all nations. We were able to extract Americans from Iran safely. It was a superb demonstration of cooperation and good conduct on the part of the State Department and other American officials.,So, there will be disturbances in the future, but I think we are well protected as we possibly can be, without withdrawing into a shell, from protecting American interests in nations overseas.,My own experience, so far, has been that the leaders of nations have recommitted themselves to provide security for embassies of all countries. I think we've learned a lesson from this instance. But, because it is so unique, in the high degree of irresponsibility of the Iranian Government leaders, I don't believe that we'll see another reoccurrence of it any time soon.,HENRY KISSINGER,Q. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Kissinger has criticized your administration's handling of the situation in Iran. He has suggested that it came about because, partly because of the perceived weakness in American foreign policy, and that it has further damaged America's image as a result.\nHow do you respond?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not respond. There's no reason for me to get into a public debate at this time with former Secretary Kissinger about who is or who is not responsible for the events that took place in Iran.,Obviously, what has occurred could not have been predicted. And for 30 years, our country has had a relationship with a fairly stable government there. The changes took place very rapidly. So far as I know, no one on Earth predicted them.,And I think it's not becoming at this moment and not conducive to better American understanding to get involved in answering allegations that I or someone else may have been culpable and may have caused a further aggravation of a very difficult situation.,Q. Mr. President, just one followup. What role did the former Secretary play in your decision to permit the Shah into the country?,THE PRESIDENT. None. I did not hear at all from the Secretary, former Secretary Kissinger, nor did he contact Secretary Vance at any time during the days when we were deciding that the Shah should come into the United States for medical care to save his life. In previous weeks and months since the Shah was deposed, Secretary Kissinger and many others let it be known that they thought that we should provide a haven for the Shah. But Secretary Kissinger played no role in my decision to permit the Shah to come in for medical treatment.,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. Mr. President, speaking of the Shah, if he is well enough to travel, would you like him to leave the country?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a decision to be made by the Shah and by his medical advisers. When he decided to come to our country, with my permission, I was informed then, and I have been informed since, that as soon as his medical treatment was successfully completed, that his intention was to leave. And I have not encouraged him to leave. He was free to come here for medical treatment, and he will leave on his own volition.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ISLAMIC NATIONS,Q. Mr. President, yes, I would like to follow up Mr. Schorr's [Daniel Schorr, Des Moines Register] question. The consequences of the crisis in Iran is drifting the United States into almost a cold war with the Islamic countries. Watching TV news for 25 days, Americans soon will believe the whole Moslem world is hating them. Moreover, they are not told that the Shiites are a very minor minority among the population of the Islamic world, because the most majority is Sunni. Don't you think you get any help from any Islamic country, and what will your policy be towards the Islamic countries under these circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the premise of your question is completely wrong. We're not approaching any sort of cold war with the Islamic countries. So far as I know, every Islamic country has condemned Iran for its capture of our hostages, and has been very supportive. This includes Moslem nations which, in the past, have not been close friends of ours—Iraq, Libya, and others. So, I don't see this as confrontation at all between our Nation and the Islamic world.,It's certainly not part of the Islamic faith to condone, as I said earlier, blackmail or the persecution or harm of innocent people or kidnaping or terrorism.,So, I think that we have a very good relationship with the people and the governments of the Islamic world, and I don't think it's deteriorated in this instance. In some ways, we've been drawn closer to these people, because they see what has occurred in Iran as something of a disgrace for their own religious faith, and they don't see this as typical of what Moslems believe.,I might add, also, that this is not typical of the Shiite faith, either. It's the misguided actions of a few people in Iran who are burning with hatred and a desire for revenge, completely contrary to the teachings of the Moslem faith.,U.S. REACTION TO IRANIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, there's a feeling of hostility throughout the country toward Iran, because of the hostages. Senator Long said that the taking of our Embassy in Iran, in his words, is an act of war. There are rumors, since denied, that our Navy has been called up for service. I ask you, as our Commander in Chief, is war possible, is war thinkable?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be a mistake for the people of our country to have aroused within them hatred toward anyone; not against the people of Iran, and certainly not against Iranians who may be in our country as our guests. We certainly do not want to be guilty of the same violation of human decency and basic human principles that have proven so embarrassing to many of the Iranian citizens themselves.,We obviously prefer to see our hostages protected and released completely through peaceful means. And that's my deepest commitment, and that will be my goal. The United States has other options available to it, which will be considered, depending upon the circumstances. But I think it would not be well-advised for me to speak of those specifically tonight.,IRANIAN STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES,Q. Mr. President, we have had 55,000 Iranian students in this country. We've been very good to them, very hospitable. Even the new Finance Minister of Saudi Arabia was a student who once demonstrated in Washington against law and order. Shouldn't we be very careful in letting any of these students come in here? Shouldn't we screen them in the future and make them agree that they will not demonstrate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's very difficult for an Iranian citizen or a student to get a visa at the American Embassy in Iran at this time [Laughter] And I think the influx of Iranians to our country now would be minimal.,I'm determined to enforce the law about Iranian students. Some of them have violated the law. They are now being screened; they are being assessed in their commitment and the legality of their presence here. We have already finished this procedure with more than 22,000. About 17,000 have proven to be here completely legally and are indeed fulltime students. Among the other 5,000, about several hundred have already departed; others are now having to prove that, contrary to the earliest evidence, they do indeed have a right to be in our country. If they are here illegally, they will be expelled.,There is one exception to that rule: If a citizen of Iran can prove that if he or she returned to Iran that they would be executed or abused because of their political beliefs, they can seek asylum here. And if that asylum, in our judgment, is justified, we will provide it for them.,But this procedure is going forward in accordance with American law, in accordance with American fairness, in accordance with the full principles of the United States Constitution.,DEADLINE FOR RELEASING AMERICAN\nHOSTAGES,Q. Mr. President, can this crisis go on indefinitely, or ought the Ayatollah Khomeini understand that at some point the American people may demand and other nations may expect that you move forward to resolve it by whatever means you find necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. It would not be possible or even advisable for me to set a deadline about when or if I would take certain action in the future. This is an ever-present consideration on my mind. I'm carrying out all of the duties that normally fall on a President's shoulder, which are adequate, but I never forget one moment that I'm awake about the hostages whose lives and whose safety depend on me. And I am pursuing every possible avenue to have the hostages released.,Any excessive threats or any excessive belief among the Iranians that they will be severely damaged by military action, as long as these negotiations are proceeding and as long as legalities can be followed, might cause the death of the hostages, which we are committed to avoid. So, that's one of the questions that I cannot answer: to set down a certain deadline beyond which we would take extra action, that might result in the harm or the death of the hostages.,We are proceeding, I guarantee you, in every possible way, every possible moment, to get the hostages freed and, at the same time, protect the honor and the integrity and the basic principles of our country. That's all I can do, but I am doing it to the best of my ability, and I believe we will be successful.,U.S. STRENGTH ABROAD,Q. Mr. President, many Americans view the Iranian situation as one in a succession of events that proves that this country's power is declining. How can you assure Americans tonight that our power is not declining abroad, and how are you reassessing priorities for the eighties in terms of foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has neither the ability nor the will to dominate the world, to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, to impose our will on other people whom we desire to be free, to make their own decisions. This is not part of the commitment of the United States.,Our country is the strongest on Earth. We're the strongest militarily, politically, economically, and I think we're the strongest morally and ethically. Our country has made great strides, even since I've been in office. I've tried to correct some of the defects that did exist. We have strengthened the military alliances of our country, for instance. NATO now has a new spirit, a new confidence, a new cohesion, improving its military capabilities, much more able to withstand any threat from the east, from the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, than it was before.,We've espoused again the principles that unite Americans and make us admired throughout the world, raising the banner of human rights. We're going to keep it high. We have opened up avenues of communication, understanding, trade, with people that formerly were our enemies or excluded us—several nations in Africa, the vast people and the vast country of the People's Republic of China. In doing so, we've not alienated any of our previous friends.,I think our country is strong within itself. There is not an embarrassment now about our Government, which did exist in a few instances in years gone by. So, I don't see at all that our country has become weak. We are strong, and we are getting stronger, not weaker. But if anybody thinks that we can dominate other people with our strength, military or political strength or economic strength, they are wrong. That's not the purpose of our country.,Our inner strength, our confidence in ourselves, I think, is completely adequate. And I believe the unity that the American people have shown in this instance, their patience, is not at all a sign of weakness. It is a sign of sure strength.,INVESTIGATION OF THE SHAH,Q. Mr. President, serious charges have been placed against the Shah concerning the repression of his own people and the misappropriation of his nation's funds. Is there an appropriate vehicle to investigate those charges, and do you foresee a time when you would direct your administration to assist in that investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of any international forum within which charges have ever been brought against a deposed leader who has left his country. There have been instances of changing governments down through the centuries in history, and I don't know of any instance where such a leader, who left his country after his government fell, has been tried in an international court or in an international forum.,This is a matter that can be pursued. It should be pursued under international law, and if there is a claim against the Shah's financial holdings, there is nothing to prevent other parties from going into the courts, in accordance with the law of a nation or internationally, and seeking a redress of grievances which they claim.,But as I said earlier, I don't think there's any forum that will listen to the Iranians make any sort of claim, justified or not, as long as they hold against their will and abuse the hostages, in complete contravention to every international law and every precept or every commitment or principle of humankind.,BROOKS JACKSON [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-10-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION; SOVIET\nTROOPS IN CUBA,Q. Mr. President, do you think that you have diffused the problem or issue of the Soviet brigade in Cuba and satisfied those who seek a bigger defense budget enough now to win SALT ratification this year, and if so, how?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe SALT will be ratified this year basically on its own merits. It's obvious to me that the SALT treaty is in the best interest of our country. It enhances the security of the United States; it contributes to world peace; it will strengthen our own alliances; it will preserve our place as a leader of the Western World; it will let it be more easy for us to control the spread of nuclear explosives all over the world.,In my opinion, we have answered the question of the Soviet combat unit in Cuba adequately. I think we've isolated any threat from that unit. We'll increase our surveillance there, and I believe that this obviously has been an important issue for us to address. I believe it's been addressed adequately.,As far as the defense budget is concerned, that still must be resolved. I'm committed to a 3-percent real growth in our defense. I've maintained that position for the last 3 years. It's important to us, to our allies, to American strength. If I see a need for increased defense programs, I would not hesitate to recommend them to the Congress.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to persevere in your support of tight money policies even if it begins to hurt you politically during the primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It's obvious that there are three entities in our Government which have been meticulously isolated either under the Constitution or the law and made independent. One is the Federal Reserve Board, which has a right, through various means, to determine the supply of money by changing interest rates, the reserve moneys that have to be retained by banks that cannot be lent, and so forth. The Congress has the ultimate responsibility on taxation, and the President has the best responsibility on preparing and submitting the budget to the Congress.,There's no doubt in my mind—and this is corroborated by my long discussions the last few weeks with labor, in reaching a labor accord—that I and labor and business and all those who are interested, including the Congress, agree that the number one threat to our national economy is inflation. And I intend to maintain it as a top priority and continue to work against inflation. So, whatever it takes to control inflation, that's what I will do.,I recognize that the inflationary impact falls much more heavily on those who are least able to afford the basic necessities of life. And I also recognize that there are some elements of inflation over which I have no control. The price of energy levied on the world by OPEC in the last 10 months has been an increase of 60 percent. Had it not been for energy price increases, for instance, the inflation rate during this summer would have been the same as it was in 1978 and 1977. So, I can't control energy prices levied on the world by OPEC.,But we'll continue to fight against inflation as a top economic priority.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to Dr. Kissinger's statement that the Soviet troops in Cuba are the first organized hostile force in this hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine that we've accepted? And also, Mr. President, do you feel that the Soviet troops in Cuba symbolize the growing expansionism of the Russians, the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. The troops in Cuba have been there for a long time. I've not read Secretary Kissinger's speech; I've read news reports of it. Its basic premises are compatible with my own: that the presence of a Soviet combat unit there is a serious matter, which I think we have addressed as best we could; secondly, that this is not the most important matter of all, that above and beyond that, it's important to recognize and to do what we can to contain Cuban interventionism or adventurism around the world. As you know, this began primarily with the entrance of more than a 10,000 body of troops from Cuba into Angola in 1975, before I was President.,We do look upon this as a major threat. I have not seen any reports that Secretary Kissinger recommended different moves from the ones that I outlined to the Nation on the evening of October 1. So, we do share a common concern. I think that our response was measured and appropriate. I do not favor the Soviets extending their arm of influence to the Cubans or anyone else around the world.,This has been part of the history of the Soviet Union. We attempt to meet them and compete with them adequately, in my opinion, on a peaceful basis. And in my judgment, if we can control the military expenditures and have equality, have arms control, in my judgment, we can compete with the Soviets on a peaceful basis with an excellent prospect for victory.,The Soviets represent a totalitarian nation; we are committed to peace and freedom and democracy. The Soviets subjugate the rights of an individual human being to the rights of the state; we do just the opposite. The Soviets are an atheistic nation; we have deep and fundamental religious beliefs. The Soviets have a primary emphasis on the military aspect of their economy; ours is much more broadly based to give the benefits of economic growth to individual human beings. So, I believe that in addition to that, our raising a standard of human rights and the honoring of national aspirations, not trying to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, gives us an additional advantage in a peaceful competition with the Soviets.,So, I don't have any fear of or any: trepidation about that intense competition with the Soviets on a peaceful basis. I obviously want the same thing that President Brezhnev wants, that is, the avoidance of a nuclear war. So, we have some things in common, the avoidance of war. We have other things in common, a willingness to compete.,We've got advantages over them that I hope to utilize in the future as we have in the past.,JESSE JACKSON; FLORIDA CAUCUSES,Q. Mr. President, how do you think you'll fare in Florida? And also a second question—,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't hear the first one.,Q. How do you think you will fare in Florida for the Florida caucus poll? And also, will you plan on talking to Reverend Jesse Jackson in response to his meetings with Yasser Arafat?,THE PRESIDENT. Do I have my choice between those two questions? [Laughter],Q. I'd like you to answer both, if you would, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to talk to Reverend Jackson—I presume you mean about his recent trips to the Middle East. He has, or will make a report to Ambassador Strauss, who is our Mideast negotiator.,In Florida, I don't know how the caucus results will come out. This is one of the evidences of an increasingly early attention focused on a Presidential race. I don't think it is in the best interests of our country to start so early. The importance of the Florida caucuses, I think, will be assigned by the press, not by anything that I do. I don't intend to go down there to campaign. We do have people working for me in Florida, which I appreciate. And I think that since this is a first test between myself and other candidates who also are mounting an effort among their supporters, it will be significant.,But I cannot predict the outcome of the caucuses. I've seen no polls, have no indication about what the outcome might be.,VISIT OF THE POPE,Q. Mr. President, clearly the Pope on his visit to the United States and in Washington left an extraordinary impression beyond simply the religious.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Have you reflected on the meaning of the Pope's visit to the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Could you discuss that?,THE PRESIDENT. In addition to being with him in public and when we met with the members of my family in the White House, I had an extensive private conversation with the Pope, and we discussed this particular question. We were both surprised at the degree of warmth and enthusiasm among American people in welcoming the Pope. I expected the welcome to be warm and friendly, but I had no idea that it would be that enthusiastic and that large a number of people, and neither did he.,I think there's an innate hunger in our country for moral and ethical and religious principles, things that do not change during a time of rapid change brought about by a technological revolution throughout the world. I believe there's a hunger for things that are decent and honest, for principles of which we can be proud. I think the Pope as a religious leader accurately mirrors for many people those aspirations and hopes.,I think it shows that this hemisphere is the most deeply religious, perhaps, in the world, certainly the most deeply religious Christian population in the world. We had long discussions about what this meant in other nations, the threat of atheism as espoused and enforced by the state against the inherent desire of people for religious belief.,But I believe this was one of the most dramatic and, I think, potentially the most beneficial visits we've ever had from a leader in the world. I was very thrilled to meet him and believe that his visit will have benefits for our country.,DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. FORCES,Q. Mr. President, in your speech on Cuba the other night, you spoke about wanting to increase the capabilities of our rapid deployment force.,THE PRESIDENT. Forces.,Q. Forces. I wondered if you could say under what circumstances you would be willing to intervene militarily in the Middle East.,THE PRESIDENT. I see no prospect at this point for our intervention militarily in any place in the world. That would be a judgment that I would only make if I thought the security of our country was directly threatened.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, the other night in Queens, in the context of answering the question about your leadership and Senator Kennedy, you said you had never panicked in a crisis. Now, there was some interpretation that this was a reference to Senator Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick. And you subsequently, or Jody subsequently denied it.,Let me ask you specifically, do you think Chappaquiddick indicates that President Kennedy's character is somewhat flawed, and will this be a continued issue in the primaries if he enters?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it was Senator Kennedy to whom you refer. [Laughter],I did not refer to Senator Kennedy's experience at Chappaquiddick in Queens, and I have no desire to comment on it now.,INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY,Q. Mr. President, further on the Fed tight money policy, figures such as the West German Finance Minister Emminget 1 and Democratic Party Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche have charged that this is leading us rapidly towards the Crash of '79. Will you move to stabilize the dollar in the economy by collaborating with Europe on their moves to demonetize gold as LaRouche and others have suggested?,1 Otmar Emminger is president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, the Federal Republic of Germany's equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve System.,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt that that's in prospect, certainly not for this year. We do cooperate with our allies and friends and trade partners in order to stabilize the worldwide monetary system, including at times the interrelationship between currencies from one country and another and sometimes the basic metals. I don't see any threat to the well-being of any American because of a rapidly increasing price of gold, except those who have sold early or bought late. But as far as the average citizen's concerned, the price of gold, whether it's $200 an ounce or $400, has very little impact.,Recently, the Federal Reserve Board has decided to raise interest rates and take other steps concerning the reserve supply of money to be kept on hand by banks. This has resulted in a strengthening of the dollar, which had already begun to strengthen. And I believe that it's well within the bounds of management; it's stable. I noticed an analysis that showed that in the last year the price of the dollar, the value of the dollar, as compared to currencies of all our trade partners, has increased substantially. Among the OPEC nations and their trade partners the value of the dollar, even 'before we made this recent move, had increased 8 percent over the last year.,So, I believe the dollar is stable, I believe the world economy is stable, and I see no prospect of shifting to a rigid price of gold and a gold standard.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Sir, two more political questions in light of Senator Kennedy's prospective challenge of you. One, as you did in 1976, would you be willing to debate the Senator and other candidates in the primaries? And two, if you lost, would you support the Democratic nominee actively? And if you won, would you expect your opponents to do the same for you?,THE. PRESIDENT. That's a lot of conjecture. We don't have any candidates yet who have declared. I look forward to the campaign with a great deal of anticipation and confidence. And I think the normal routine interrelationships among candidates would probably prevail in 1980, as they did in 1976.,There were no official debates, as such, until the general election in 1976, when president Ford and I, as a nominee, were given that opportunity. But I feel at ease about it. I will protect my record, which I think is a good one. And as I say, I look forward to the campaign with anticipation and confidence.,Q. Mr. President, may I follow up? Will you support the winner of the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. My presumption is—,Q. And second, your opponents support you if you win?,THE PRESIDENT. My presumption is that I would support whatever Democrat gets the nomination. I have always voted Democratic.,ECONOMIC POLICY,Q. Mr. President, wholesale prices continue to increase, indicating that there will be further inflation at the retail level throughout the rest of this year and perhaps longer. Most of the predictions that you've made and your economic advisers have made about the economy have proved to be on the low side and are constantly being revised upward, especially with regard to inflation.,Don't you think it's about time for some kind of reevaluation of your economic programs and policies? Are you going to just continue to go along on the same course, or do you think any kind of reexamination of your policy is indicated?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so far the program has been well conceived, and I think it has some very beneficial results. We are all surprised at the rate of inflation, brought about primarily, as I said, by an annual rate of increase of energy prices the last few months of more than 100 percent per year. Also, as I said earlier, if you could discount those energy increases, the rate of inflation would be the same this year as it was the preceding 2 years.,We have cut the budget deficit by $36 billion since I've been elected. We have reduced the total number of employees in the Federal Government. We've reduced the percentage of the gross national product being spent by the Government by 2 full percent, from 23 1/2 down to 21 1/2. We've cut paperwork by 15 percent. We've begun a strong move to deregulate, that is, to get the Government's nose out of the private business sector and the lives of private people. We've had a very stringent effort made to eliminate unwarranted spending, and we've moved when necessary to stabilize the value of the dollar.,We've also proposed to the Congress for the first time a means by which we could reduce the inflationary impact of importing 50 percent of our oil. This has been a long, slow, tedious process, but I think when the Congress does complete its work this year on an energy package, this will remove the single major factor that has been causing excessive inflation.,I don't intend to change our basic policy, and I believe that we've had maybe inadequately assessed results even from the wage-price guidelines.,The wage increases, for instance, this year, the first 9 months of this year, have been lower than they were in 1978. We've had more than a million union workers who have signed contracts within the wage guidelines. And the price standards have also been very effective. For instance, the items that come under price standards have been increasing at only one-half the rate of those that cannot be controlled, like OPEC oil prices.,So, I think in general our policy is an adequate and a good one, and I intend to maintain the thrust of it.,MINORITY EMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, I think earlier this year, you had a memo to the agencies and departments which discussed black institutions and contracts and awards. It seems as though that memo has lost some of its teeth in the process. Is there any way that that could be regenerated so that the employment of minorities in the country and through the colleges can increase?,THE PRESIDENT. We've had some success with the unemployment rate among minorities. Even this past month, as you know, the unemployment rate among women, teenagers, and minorities dropped. And we've been pleased at the average rate of unemployment throughout the country. It's still extremely high, however, comparatively speaking, among, say, black teenagers or other minority teenagers.,In addition to that, we have helped the Congress write a law so that public works projects, when assigned to individual communities, would include at least 10 percent of the total money going into contracts with minority-owned businesses. I set as a goal for our administration a tripling in 1 year of the portion of Federal purchases from minority businesses. It was a billion dollars. I set as a goal for the end of this year $3 billion. I think we'll hit a little below my goal, about $2 1/2 billion.,Also, I think in other ways, like the hiring of black employees or the minority employees, we've done a good job. I think I've appointed more judges, for instance, who are black than all the other Presidents in the history of our country combined. It's not been adequate, but we've made a major step forward. And we are assessing any failures that we've experienced—for instance, in purchasing, where I wanted to reach $3 billion, and we will only reach $2 1/2 billion. I have gotten identified now those agencies that did not meet the tripling goal that I set for them, and they are being especially encouraged by me to meet their goals next year.\nWe are making progress—not enough.,Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,THE NATIONAL SPIRIT,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has suggested that instead of complaining about, I believe, what you call the malaise that the country is experiencing, that what the President should do now is ask the people to roll up their sleeves to try to pull the country out of its problem. And in effect, he spoke of a can-do spirit that harkens back to the 1960's.,THE PRESIDENT. Is this a campaign speech for him or— [laughter] .,Q. No, sir.\nTHE PRESIDENT. Okay.,Q. What merit, if any, do you see in that suggestion that he made, and also, how vulnerable do you think you are on the issue of leadership.?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously there is a degree of malaise in the country. People are discouraged about the current situation. They are doubtful about the future; they are saving less than they ever have been in the past; and they have a serious concern about confidence in one another and sometimes about the Government itself.,When I made my speech to the Nation, I think, on July 15, on a Sunday evening, I pointed this out. But I said that our country is inherently strong, capable, and able, that there is no need for us to be discouraged or disillusioned or divided or doubtful about one another or about our Government processes. We're the strongest nation on Earth—economically, politically, and militarily. We're going to stay that way.,And what I prescribed as a major test of American will and confidence was the evolution of and the passage of an energy program, which had never been done in the history of our country, that would be adequate to meet the challenge before us. I think the Congress has made good progress so far. I predict that before they adjourn this year, that we will have this test of our Nation's will successfully achieved.,So, I believe that through the process of helping one another, having confidence, working on major projects, and letting the Government show that it can be competent to deal with a major problem like this, we can resolve the malaise that has existed in our country. I'm not discouraged. I believe that we can succeed.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. Carter, a few moments ago you said that you thought you probably would like to be the Democratic nominee, in reference to the question on debating. Why are you waiting until December to announce, in view of the fact that Senator Kennedy is probably about to run? Why don't you tell us now that you're going to run?,THE PRESIDENT. I said I was going to make an announcement December 4. I didn't say what it would be yet.,I think that that's not too late. I want to do all I can without being an announced candidate to work with the Congress to get controversial issues decided and also to make plans for the initiation of a campaign year.,There's a tendency in our country to want to move that campaign date earlier and earlier. I believe that what I have decided on a date is compatible with past history. Also, of course, there is a limit to how late one can wait. There are some States that require filing, I believe, around the middle of December.,And so, I think that's late enough to give me a chance to do what I can with this year's Congress; not too late to miss any filing dates if I decide to meet them.,ROSALYNN CARTER,Q. Mr. President, fairly or unfairly, the polls suggest that one of your major political problems is a perceived lack of leadership. At the same time, Mrs. Carter is very visible these days. She's traveling and speaking on your behalf. She's almost on television as much as you are these days.,Do you think it's possible that her high profile in some strange way might ironically exacerbate your political problem? And secondly, is it true that some of your advisers believe that she has too high a public profile and would like her to be a little less visible?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that if you would compare my wife's schedule now with what it was, say, a year ago, it wouldn't be materially different. The difference is that now the press is paying attention to where my wife goes and what she says.,Rosalynn has always been very close to me personally as well as to consult with me on matters of interest to me and to her. In some areas of public life, she plays a very strong role. She's interested in mental health, which he has been since even before I became Governor of Georgia. She's always been extremely interested in the problems of older Americans, and this has been a historic interest for her. And I think since this last year, perhaps, she's especially been encouraging people within communities to act on their own initiative to work together to correct local problems, not to wait for the Federal Government or the State or local government to do everything for them. And those things are not incompatible.,In addition, she is a very effective political campaigner. In 1976 and also in 1970, 1966, 1962, when I've had my other campaigns, Rosalynn has always played a substantial role. And I would imagine that she would continue that as long as she and I share a partnership and I'm in politics.,But I don't think her profile is too high. She's very knowledgeable; she is sensitive about American people's beliefs and feelings. She would never abuse her role as a wife or even the wife of a President. I have confidence that she will do the right thing.,KAMPUCHEA,Q. Mr. President, by all accounts, it appears that in the coming months, a million or more people could die in Cambodia of starvation. I know that you talked about this with the Pope the other day. What, if anything, can this Government do in combination with other groups?,THE PRESIDENT. We've been encouraging the humanitarian granting of aid, particularly food aid, to the people of Cambodia, hundreds of thousands of whom, maybe millions of whom are starving. We are trying to work out with the uncertain leaders of that country—uncertain because it's contested through war—a mechanism by which the United Nations primarily, the Red Cross, and UNICEF could get food into those people who are within Cambodia.,There's also a legal problem in refugee funds, because it hasn't yet been determined legally if a person who hasn't left the country is still identifiable as a refugee. The fact that the country's divided by war creates a complication.,But we are ready and eager to join in with other countries to provide humanitarian aid to all the people of Cambodia who are starving, and we will move on that without any further delay as soon as it's possible to join other countries in this effort.,VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE,Q. Mr. President, have you had any second thoughts as to who your running mate would be? Will it definitely be Walter Mondale?,THE PRESIDENT. Fritz Mondale and I have a very good partnership, and I have no plans whatsoever to change it.,ARMS LEVELS IN EUROPE,Q. Mr. President, going back to your comments about competition with the Soviet Union with regard to arms, would you support NATO deployment of the Pershing missile to counter the SS-20? And if I could add another question there, do you have any reaction to President Brezhnev's conditional offer, too, on arms reduction in Central Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. Our allies and we are carefully assessing the significance of President Brezhnev's statement. However, I'd like to point out that what he's offering in effect is to continue their own rate of modernization as it has been, provided we don't modernize at all.,They have had an actual reduction in launchers the last few years. They've been replacing the old SS-4's and SS-5's with the SS-20, not on a one-for-one basis, but the SS-20 has three warheads, the old missiles only had one warhead. The SS-20 has a much greater range. It can reach our Western Allies' countries as a target even if it's located in the central part of Russia. It's three to six times as accurate as the old missiles which it replaced. And in addition to that, it's mobile; that is, it can't be located specifically and destroyed with a preemptive strike if that should become a desire on the part of allies. They also have replaced older airplanes with the Backfire bomber.,So, it's not quite as constructive a proposal as at first blush it seems to be. I think it's an effort designed to disarm the willingness or eagerness of our allies adequately to defend themselves.,In my judgment, the decision ought to be made to modernize the Western Allies' military strength and then negotiate with full commitment and determination mutually to lower armaments on both sides—the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries—so that we can retain equivalency of military strength, equity of military strength, and have a lower overall level of armaments. This is what we hope to achieve.,I might point out that Chancellor Schmidt said, I believe yesterday or day before, that a prerequisite to a decision by our NATO Allies to take these steps, which he considers to be vital for the security of NATO, is the passage of SALT II.,So, if we can be successful in controlling existing strategic Soviet and United States atomic weapons through SALT II, then we'll move in the next step to reducing the nuclear weapons which don't have intercontinental range. And along with that, we'll continue with our mutual and balanced force reduction effort to reduce conventional arms.,It's an interesting proposal; it's one that might show promise. We're assessing it carefully, but it's not as great a step as would ordinarily be judged at first.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, do you have any intention at all of asking Hamilton Jordan to step down as Chief of Staff if a special prosecutor is named? And secondly, is there any thought in your mind, sir, that his departure might at all benefit your Presidency and your chances for reelection, or would they hurt them?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to remind you, first of all, that the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land. And I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on guilt or innocence of anyone. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the appointment of a special prosecutor has no insinuation in it at all that the person investigated is guilty.,I believe it would be better for me not to go further than that, because I would ordinarily wait until the Attorney General made a report to me and then seek his advice on what the proprieties would be about my own public statements. I think, though, I've described my position adequately to answer your question.,PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION,Q. Mr. President, a question on the Middle East. Do you agree with those such as former Ambassador Andrew Young and George Ball and others who say that it is now time to do away with the restrictions put on our foreign policy by Henry Kissinger and open up a dialog with the Palestinians and the PLO?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not. We will not negotiate with the PLO. We will not recognize the PLO until after the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist and endorses United Nations Resolution 242 as a basis for Middle East peace.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-07-25","text":"NATIONAL GOALS,THE PRESIDENT. My fellow citizens and men and women of the press:,Ten days ago, I spoke to you about my deep concern for the future of our country—about a crisis of the American spirit, which I know to be just as real as the problems that face us on energy or inflation or any other problem of a material nature. But I also know that we can overcome these crises by uniting in a common purpose as we have done so often in the past when our Nation faces a serious challenge. The opportunity which we now have is to seize control of our energy future—to work together to overcome our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil.,Millions of Americans have responded positively to what I said—because they know that I'm telling the truth.,We have lost confidence in our government, and we have lost confidence in many other institutions—all of us know that. But we also know that we can overcome the pessimism, and with patriotism and with hard work, we can move forward together as Americans.,In these 10 days since I addressed the Nation, I have moved swiftly—I do not believe too swiftly—to create a better administration team to work with me, a team that will be unified, a team that will be filled with confidence, a team that will be in good fighting shape to face the problems together.,And during this same period, I have proposed to the Congress a bold program to harness American ingenuity and to harness American strength to lay a groundwork for American energy security. This massive effort will cost a great deal of money, funds that can only come from a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, a tax on profits which the oil companies have not earned.,The American people overwhelmingly support such a tax, a message clearly demonstrated by the action already taken by the House of Representatives of our U.S. Congress, which has passed a bill which will finance the energy proposal that I have made and still leave plenty of new funds, additional funds, for the oil companies to proceed with exploration and production of new oil and new gas within our own country.,Now it is the turn of the United States Senate to act, and there will be a massive struggle to gut the windfall profits tax bill. If this happens, then we cannot reach our energy goals.,I want to serve notice tonight that I will do everything in my power as President to see that the windfall profits tax is passed, because I consider it to be crucial to our Nation's future.,I need your help. I need the help of the people of America. This is a democracy. Your voice can be heard. Your voice must be heard. Those of you who believe in the future of our country, those of you who believe that our energy program must be passed, please speak to the Congress of the United States and especially to the United States Senate, which still has the responsibility to act.,Based on this windfall profits tax on the oil companies, we will have the resources to meet the energy challenge which we must face together in the future. And we will have taken a major step toward uniting our country in the effort to restore our spirit, the spirit of America, and our confidence, our confidence as people in the future of our great country.,Thank you very much. And now I'd like to answer questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,FEDERAL BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, Republicans in the House are talking about introducing what they call a budget of hope, as contrasted to what they call your budget of despair. And their budget of hope, so-called, they say is going to be roomy enough to accommodate a very large election year tax cut for all of us. Now, that might be pretty hard to vote against in an election year. I wonder what you think about it.,THE PRESIDENT. I believe the Congress and the American people have enough judgment to know that you can't get something for nothing, that there is no free lunch involved. This is not a time for wastefulness. It's not a time to destroy our budget. It's not a time to avoid the responsibilities that we all have to make some sacrifice based on a belief and a confidence in the future of our Nation.,I think we will be restoring hope if we pass a program which, by the way, the House has already passed, with the support of some Republicans, with the opposition of others. But I think that the bold proposals that we have made do have the confidence of the American people, do have the support of the American people, and my prediction is that before the Congress adjourns in 1979, we will have this program passed with or without the support of the Republicans in the House.,CABINET CHANGES; 1980 PRESIDENTIAL\nCAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, was it worth it to you to cause some destabilization of the dollar and demoralization of the Federal Government, spreading doubt through the land, in order to repudiate much of your Cabinet? And do you agree with Senator Jackson that your problems will force you to .forgo any reelection plans and hand the Democratic nomination to Senator Kennedy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me answer the first question first.,I felt, and still feel, that I had to make some changes in my Cabinet, as I said earlier, to create a new team to work with me, a team that will be united, that will be forceful and aggressive and confident in facing the problems that we must meet in the months ahead. I have no apology to make for it. Some people thought it was made too rapidly. I had the choice of either dragging it out week after week after week, with speculation and doubt and confusion, or getting it over, in effect, in 48 hours. And I felt that the abrupt action, based on a long and careful consideration, was the best approach.,Senator Jackson. Three or four years ago I was running for President against Senator Jackson. At that time he predicted that he would be the next President, beginning in 1977. His judgment was not very good then.,And now I'm ready for the next question. [Laughter],PRESIDENT'S HEALTH; SECRETARY OF ENERGY,Q. Sir, could you please tell me about your pick of Mr. Duncan as the new Energy Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. That's the second in a line of Energy Secretaries from the Defense Department. Is this a signal to the American people that the White House is going to be taking control of energy decisions, sir, and that in fact the Energy Department is going to be taking a second place? And also, sir, there has been some concern on your health in the recent months? Could you please comment on that, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel perfectly healthy.,The President is the one who makes the basic decisions on policy of the administration, whether it be in health, education, welfare, transportation, housing, energy, defense, foreign affairs. The President, I and all my predecessors seek—all of us seek the widest possible area of consultation and advice, because we desperately want to make the right decisions for our country. That's my motivation.,Jim Schlesinger, the present Secretary of Energy, has done an excellent job in putting together a new department under the most difficult circumstances and putting through Congress the major parts of an energy program that he and I shaped along with the help of many others early in 1977, more than 2 years ago. About 65 percent of that package was passed in November of 1978. At that time, Secretary Schlesinger asked that he be permitted to step down. I asked him to stay on, to help me during this session of the Congress. In February he asked again that he be permitted to step down. Since we had not passed any legislation at that time, because of the efforts of the oil lobby concerning oil, I wanted Jim Schlesinger to stay and help me evolve and present to the Congress the program that I have just outlined to the American people.,Now I've decided to let Jim Schlesinger step down as Secretary of Energy. The change will be made in an orderly fashion. The transition will be done methodically and properly, as soon as Charles Duncan is confirmed.,Charles Duncan is an outstanding manager. He has done an absolutely superb job as [Deputy] 1 Secretary of Defense. I consider him to be qualified to be Secretary of any department in the Government, including that of Defense. I asked him to take the Energy Department, because I think at this point it does need to begin to implement the programs that Congress has already passed and will be passing this year. He's a tough, competent manager. In addition to doing a good job in Defense, he's also had a superb career, educational background, and experience in the management of some of the largest responsibilities in the free enterprise system of our country. I have no doubt that he will do an equally good job as Secretary of Energy.,1 Printed in the transcript.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, sir, what qualifications does Hamilton Jordan have, aside from the loyalty to you, to be chief of staff in the White House, and to what extent will he be making decisions at a level below your level?,THE PRESIDENT. This event, my designation of Hamilton Jordan as chief of staff, has been one of the most grossly distorted of my career in politics. Hamilton Jordan will be chief of staff—chief of the White House staff. Because of Hamilton's knowledge of me, his closeness to me, his superb leadership capabilities, the trust that other people in the White House have in him repeatedly since I've been President, the other top members of my staff have asked me to let Hamilton be chief of staff. Had he been willing earlier, he would have already been chief of staff, like a year or a year and a half ago.,Recently I asked Hamilton again to take over the job of chief of staff. He's agreed to do it. He has my full support, he has the full support of all others who work in the White House with us. He will not be the chief of the Cabinet; I will be chief of the Cabinet. He will not be the chief of the Congress; the Congress is an independent body. We'll have the same relationship with the Congress, with the same people that we have all the time.,Hamilton Jordan will be chief of-the White House staff. That's his responsibility, assigned by me. That's the job he will fulfill, and I have absolutely no doubt, based on his past experience and my knowledge of him, that he will do a superb job.,RELATIONS WITH THE NEWS MEDIA,Q. Mr. President, you were reported to have told some of those whom you saw at Camp David about reservations that you had about the Washington press corps. It was reported that you have expressed those reservations, to use a mild word, even more strongly to the Cabinet last Tuesday. Tonight you appear, tonight, before the Washington press corps and others. You are reported to have said you wanted to speak more to the press outside Washington.,To put the question simply: What bugs you about the Washington press corps? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure that if I said that the Washington press corps was a group of superbly qualified, highly objective, extremely intelligent analysts of the American news scene, that all of you would agree completely— [laughter] —if I said it.,I have nothing against the White House press corps nor the Washington press. My own judgment is that for the first 2 1/2 years, when I felt it was extremely important for me in effect to get acquainted with the American people, to get acquainted with the Washington scene, that I have had, I think, between 50 and 60 press conferences exclusively with the White House press corps. Now I will continue to have interviews with the White House press corps, as we are doing tonight, but not twice a month.,In lieu of that, and I don't think with any reflection on the White House press corps, my decision is now to go to different places around the country. I'll be going to Louisville, Kentucky, area next week. And then sometimes to Miami and Bangor, Maine, and San Francisco, and perhaps Des Moines, Iowa, to have press conferences there and to answer questions both from professional members of the press and also from American people in a townhall meeting format. The Washington press corps will accompany me, the White House press corps, and I will answer questions from you, too.,But I think it's better for me not to have all the questions focused on me by a group that's almost exclusively oriented within Washington as a prime place of their residence and interest, and I would like to let my voice be heard and felt and the questions be heard by me and felt from various places in the country.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow through on part of the thrust of Helen's [Helen Thomas, United Press International] earlier question; as you know, there have been suggestions that in order to restore the confidence that you have talked about in the country, and in order to restore confidence in the Presidency, that perhaps you might consider withdrawing yourself from politics next year, turning your attention primarily to governing the Nation. Now, although recent suggestions come from a Republican Member of the Senate—you have in recent months advocated the concept of a one-term, 6-year Presidency. I wonder if you might have considered not entering the 1980 campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's a compliment to me that Republican leaders are advocating that I not run again. I have considered all the options, and my decision will be announced later on this year.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Mr.. President, are you planning to install any foreign exchange controls or capital controls in order to protect the decline of the dollar, and are you planning any further appointments from the corporate section?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not contemplate taking action of that kind. I think the dollar is sound. In the long run, the principles which will decide the value of the dollar are determined by bow effective we are in dealing with the energy question, how effective we are in dealing with the inflation question, how much we act to resolve the adverse balance of payments, how we deal with the Federal budget deficit, and so forth. The basic underlying economic factors will be what causes the value of the dollar, not some contrived action that I might take to interfere with the normal operation of the international monetary scene.,I have just announced today that I'm appointing Paul Volcker, a highly qualified person, internationally respected as a knowledgeable man on monetary systems, on whom I can depend. There's no doubt that he will work harmoniously with me, with Bill Miller, who will be the new Secretary of the Treasury. And I believe that this new team will be very effective.,I would like to reserve the right to make future appointments from the corporate world or the academic world or the journalistic world or from among mayors and Governors or Members of the Congress. But I can't exclude the corporate sector. But I can't say now where I'll make future appointments from.\nYes. sir. In the back row.,NICARAGUA,Q. Mr. President, I wonder, in looking at Nicaragua, if we are in danger of another Cuba there, and what the White House plans to do in terms of taking some positive steps to assure their safety?,THE PRESIDENT. It's a mistake for Americans to assume or to claim that every time an evolutionary change takes place, or even an abrupt change takes place in this hemisphere, that somehow it's the result of secret, massive Cuban intervention. The fact in Nicaragua is that the incumbent government, the Somoza regime, lost the confidence of the Nicaraguan people. There was a broad range of forces assembled to replace Somoza and his regime as the head of the Nicaraguan Government.,We worked as closely as we could without intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua with the neighboring countries and with the so-called Andean Group in the northern part of South America to bring about an orderly transition. Our effort was to let the people of Nicaragua ultimately make a decision on who should be their leader, what form of government they should have. We also wanted to minimize bloodshed and to restore stability. That is presently being done. We have a good relationship with the new government. We hope to improve it. We are providing some minimum humanitarian aid for the people of Nicaragua, who've suffered so much.,I think that our posture in Nicaragua is a proper one. I do not attribute at all the change in Nicaragua to Cuba. I think the people of Nicaragua have got enough judgment to make their own decisions, and we will use our efforts in a proper fashion without interventionism, to let the Nicaraguans let their voice be heard in shaping their own affairs.,CHANGES IN THE CABINET,Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on the earlier question about Hamilton Jordan.,THE PRESIDENT. Good.,Q. Some of your fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill feel you've misdiagnosed your biggest problem—leading effectively. They claim it lies largely in the senior White House staff, and that the Cabinet shakeup won't cure it. Have any congressional Democrats made that criticism to you directly, and how would you respond to it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they have not. A few have said that in the heat of the publicity focused on the changes that took place over a 2- or 3-day period-and that is expectable—to be expected.,I did not make the rapid changes in my Cabinet without, obviously, some sense that there would be a disturbance in Washington, in the Congress, and otherwise. But I have no doubt that the changes I made are in the best interests of me as President, in the best interests of my administration, which is trying to serve the American people in the finest fashion, and also in the best interests of our country, whom we all serve.,I have had many congratulations given to me by Members of the Congress, and I might say that some of those changes that I did make were long advocated by Members of the Congress.,So, I don't have any hesitancy at all to say that the changes I made were the best, and I don't have any hesitancy to say that I think it was better to go ahead and get it done in about 2 days, rather than to drag it out over a period of weeks or months.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, with the country apparently headed into a recession, and with unemployment expected to go up, what new ideas do you have, sir, to deal with the worsening economy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a time for stability. I think it's a time for the continuation of our present economic monetary and budgetary policies. While I was at Camp David, I invited a fairly large group of Members of the Congress-Democrats, Republicans, from the House and the Senate—to consult with me. And there was almost unanimity there, surprisingly so, that we ought to maintain our commitment, that inflation is the biggest single threat to the American people, both rich and poor, and to the future of our Nation's economy in the months ahead.,There will be a period of slow growth in our country. I believe that next year we'll see this growth restored to a moderate rate. We will watch this situation very closely. Obviously inflation is not the only factor. I am deeply concerned about the chronic unemployment in some of the types of people in our country. We've done the best we could to reduce unemployment. We've had remarkable success in creating 8 million new jobs. I saw some figures the other day that said the unemployment compensation had been slashed 55 percent. But we're going to watch unemployment.,But my judgment now is to maintain our steady course and to dwell as best I can on a balanced growth in the economy as best we can manage, but let us remember that inflation is the biggest threat to all Americans at this time.,WINDFALL PROFITS TAX,Q. Mr. President, related to your earlier statement about energy, there's talk in the Senate about exemptions of the first 3,000 barrels of oil produced daily by independent oilmen from the windfall profits tax. How would this or a plowback provision or other exemptions affect your energy security corporation, the other parts of your bill, and how much room does the Senate have to tamper with the House-passed bill?,THE PRESIDENT. We need the revenues that would have been derived from my original windfall profits tax proposal to the House. The net income from the House-passed bill is roughly the same as I proposed. My proposal was a permanent tax; the House passed a tax that will be terminated in 1990.,There's a threat now that the oil lobby will focus its attention on the Senate. I think it's almost a sure thing. And unless the American people speak out, because of one reason or another claimed by some of the Members of the Senate, we'll see the windfall profits tax robbed under the proposals that you described of about $54 billion, which will make it impossible for us to have an adequate synthetic fuels program, to have an adequate mass transit program, to have an adequate care for the poor people who are severely impacted by rapidly rising energy costs. It would in effect make it impossible for us to meet our crucial energy goals.,And I think that I cannot prevail alone here in Washington with an oil lobby working quietly unless the American people let their voice be heard. But if these exemptions are made, it'll be a grant of $54 billion to the oil companies on top of greatly increased income to the oil companies by the phased decontrol, and they'll be able to spend these new revenues, which 'they have not earned, in order to increase production of oil and gas in our own country.,So, what you describe is a great threat to the very program that is so important to me and to the country.,PATRICIA ROBERTS HARRIS,Q. Mr. President, does Mrs. Harris have your full approval and encouragement to continue such HEW programs as the desegregation of the North Carolina college system, the desegregation of public schools in Chicago and other cities, and the antismoking campaign? And if the answer to that question is yes, why did you fire Secretary Califano?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is yes.,I think the reasons for my replacement of the Cabinet are something that I don't care to discuss publicly. I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for the people that have served in my administration and left.,I expect Mrs. Harris to carry out the provisions of the laws of this country, to represent our Nation in the courts when suits are brought concerning equal opportunity in all its phases, and to be responsible for the health of Americans. And she will have my support just as the previous Secretary had.,I have no doubt that she will do an excellent job both in the administration of that very complicated bureaucracy-Health, Education, and Welfare—and I have no doubt that she has a basic commitment to the service of the constituent groups that are uniquely dependent upon government, particularly HEW. And I have no doubt that she will be a superb teamplayer, able to work with me, to work with the White House staff, to work with the Congress, and to work with other Cabinet members to carry out the policies of my administration, once those policies have been established by me.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Sir, you said earlier that you think that the U.S. dollar is sound. The dollar seems to be taking a pounding on the foreign exchange markets, and it's approaching the low levels that once before you had to launch a dramatic rescue program last November.,In addition to that, you've just named Paul Volcker, a conservative Republican, to head the Federal Reserve Board. How do the poundings that the dollar is undergoing on the exchange markets and your naming of Mr. Volcker square with your earlier description?,THE PRESIDENT. I see no incompatibility at all. Mr. Volcker, by the way, happens to be a Democrat. But he, I think, is a conservative in that he believes in controlling inflation and he believes in maintaining a sound dollar.,I can't guarantee what the exact value of the dollar might be in months ahead. We don't freeze the value of the dollar. That's determined by international monetary considerations. What I said was that the basic value of the dollar will be determined not by the identity of a President or even the identity of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve; it will be shaped by how effectively our Nation moves to meet the energy challenge. There is some present doubt that the Congress will pass the proposals that I have put forward. I have no doubt that the dollar will increase in value when the Congress has passed the programs that I proposed. And, obviously, the dollar will be adversely affected if inflation should increase.,My prediction is that inflation will decrease in the months ahead. And I'm sure that the dollar would be adversely affected if I abandoned my commitment to a responsible Federal budget and start on wild spending programs when they are not needed.,So, basic decisions made of fiscal soundness in our Government is a much more important factor in shaping the value of the dollar than is the identity of officials who might serve in a transient time.,STANDBY GASOLINE RATIONING PLAN,Q. Mr. President, the House of Representatives today amended a standby rationing plan bill to give either House the authority to veto any rationing plan that you would come up with. Now, is that acceptable to you, or if that survives in both Houses, would you veto the legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. This action today by the House illustrates once again the timidity of the Congress in dealing with a sensitive political issue. I criticized the House when they failed to pass the rationing plan a few months ago. The House leadership has now promised me that an adequate rationing standby plan would be passed.,I don't object to the one-House veto if it's done expeditiously. I think only 15 days would elapse. What I do object to are the other restraints that have been placed on the evolution of a standby gasoline rationing plan. Under the proposed plan, even before it got to the floor of the House today, for instance, we could have a 50-percent shortage of gasoline, which would almost devastate our Nation's economy, and unless that shortage lasted for 20 days, I could not implement a rationing plan.,So, I hope that the House and the Senate will rapidly pass an adequate standby rationing plan so that I can develop one, have it on the shelf, if we have a severe and sustained shortage of gasoline, assure that we have equitable distribution. And I have no objection to the House, within 2 weeks, either approving the plan that I have tried to put into being, or if either House wants to veto it, they can do that. But I need the authority to go ahead with a good plan and make sure that it can be implemented rapidly when and if it's needed.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-05-29","text":"ENERGY,THE PRESIDENT. No matter how Americans may differ on energy, we are united on two basic goals: first, to provide every possible means to alleviate the current crisis at all levels of government and in the private sector of our economy; and, second, to get this country firmly on the way toward more lasting solutions for the energy question and to keep it there.,First things first: Today, by Executive order, I'm delegating to all the Nation's Governors the authority to help manage our gasoline supplies over the summer. Using these powers, which I have authority to delegate, the Governors will be able to require that at least some gasoline stations remain open on weekends, to establish minimum purchase requirements, to prevent tank topping, which can convert a scarce surplus into spot shortages, and to impose an odd-even day sales system to reduce crowding and confusion by enabling drivers to buy gasoline on alternate days according to their license plate numbers.,Some of this authority already exists in some of the States, but this action will assure that all Governors throughout the Nation have help in managing the kind of situation that existed this month in Nevada, California, and some other places in our country.,These steps will simply make it more convenient for drivers to purchase gasoline, but they do not save oil or gasoline. While some increased supply and better management may minimize inconvenience, continued care, planning, and conservation will be required throughout the summer if we are to avoid gasoline lines and spot shortages.,As I've said so often, our country faces a long-term, chronic problem in obtaining adequate energy supplies to meet our needs. We have not yet addressed this basic problem. Until we put in place policies that will cut back demand, reduce waste, ensure maximum production of oil here at home, and develop alternate supplies of energy—alternates to oil—we will have to continue to live with the prospect of shortages.,It's necessary to stop aggravating the problem by blaming one another and by seeking out scapegoats. The fact is that the oil-producing countries are holding down supply while the rest of the world has increased demand. Our current difficulties have been made more severe by the stoppage of Iranian production this winter. Over 200 million barrels of oil which the world expected to have was simply not produced.,To meet demand over the winter and the spring, we had to draw down on our own supplies and also our own reserves, and reserve supplies of crude oil now are at very low levels. Since it takes 60 to 90 days for oil to be moved from a country like Iran across the ocean to our ports to be refined and then distributed, we are still feeling the loss of oil from that country even though Iran is producing oil again.,We now expect to see mild increases in oil supply, which should help to alleviate our present spot shortages. But in spite of this improvement, we will at best only have—at best we will only have about the same amount of oil during the summer that we had a year ago. In the meantime, Americans are expecting to use more than we had a year ago. Unless we are able to plan carefully and to conserve properly, spot shortages may exist.,As this Memorial Day has indicated, Americans are able to conserve energy if they are determined to do so. For example, Charles Warren, my Special Representative in California, reports that the use of trains and rapid transit in California was way up.,But I believe this country is capable of doing much more than just getting through the summer. Phased decontrol will begin June 1 to reduce our subsidy of imported oil and to increase domestic production of oil.,I've also proposed a windfall profits tax to capture, for public benefit, a substantial portion of the increased prices of oil resulting from decontrol. And I proposed an energy security fund to protect those who are least able to afford the rapidly increasing costs of energy, to improve mass transportation systems in our country, and to bring the full force of American science and technology to bear on this crucial problem.,These proposals, while not universally popular, are essential to get this country moving firmly on the way to a more lasting solution for our energy problem. I hope that I can have the support of the Congress and the American people for these energy proposals.,And now, I'd be glad to answer questions.,QUESTIONS,OIL SUPPLIES AND PRICES; PRESIDENT'S,USE OF HELICOPTERS,Q. Mr. President, I have a three-part question. What do you say to Members of Congress and the industry who say that decontrol will not lead to greater supplies? Also, what do you say to poor people who cannot afford the needed gas at these higher prices? And why did you use helicopters for two private fishing trips in recent days?,THE PRESIDENT. Can I take my choice of the questions? [Laughter],Q. You can start from the beginning. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'm convinced that the government control of oil prices has not worked. We presently have controls. Oil production in this country has continued to go down about 6 percent per year. Dependence on imported oil has gone up drastically, so that in spite of very rapid increases in the cost of foreign oil, our country has seen its imports now equal about one-half total consumption. This has robbed our Nation of valuable dollars. It's cut our country out of potential jobs. It's created very serious problems in our trade balance, and it's discouraged American production. It's also subsidized foreign oil and made energy seem to be much cheaper for consumers than it actually is.,I think it's better to reduce the Federal bureaucracy and to decontrol oil prices very slowly and steadily—oh, just 1 or 2 percent per month for 28 months—so that we can have increased domestic production and a reduction in imports.,As far as the poor people are concerned, we are only willing to let the oil companies keep, out of each dollar increased in price, about 29 cents. The rest goes to either local or State or Federal governments or to the owners of land where oil is produced.,The income for the Federal Government from the windfall profits tax, brought about by decontrol of oil, will go into an energy security fund. A substantial portion of this fund will be used to pay to poor families for the increased cost of oil and other energy. The rest of it will go, as I said, for rapid transit and to produce additional supplies of oil.,It's much less expensive for me, when I travel from one place to another, to go by helicopter. When I go by highway, because of security requirements, I have a very large entourage, including seven or eight carloads of press who follow me when I go by car. And at each intersection along the highways, the State Police have people there to guard the intersections to prevent my injury in case of an accident. So, it's much less expensive for me to go by helicopter.,TAX REDUCTIONS,Q. Mr. President, election year tax cuts are rather commonplace in this country, and I wonder if we can look forward to a Carter-proposed tax cut in 1980.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I doubt very seriously that we'll have any tax cut in 1980. My own major responsibility is to deal with the inflation question. Part of that, of course, is to be fiscally responsible in reducing the Federal deficit. If we have the option between substantial reductions in the deficit and controlling inflation on the one hand, and having tax reductions for the American people in an election year on the other, I would forgo the tax reduction and insist upon controlling inflation and cutting the deficit.,WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES,Q. Mr. President, United Airlines and the machinists union last week reached a contract settlement that was well over 30 percent, yet another assault on your 7-percent wage guidelines. How long can you expect the American people to sit tight and support a 7-percent guideline, when inflation is running at over 13 percent over the last 3 months and when the big unions are getting fat contracts?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the problem is finding a suitable alternative. I don't maintain that every settlement in the last 6 or 8 months has been under the 7-percent guideline. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, however, that the price constraints and the wage constraints that we have imposed on a voluntary basis have had very beneficial results. Eighty-five percent, at least, of all the wage settlements since we imposed the voluntary standards have been within the 7-percent guidelines. Even those that have exceeded the guidelines, in my opinion, have been much lower than they would have been without the restraints.,We're trying to do three things, and we're going to stick with it: first of all, to have a fiscally responsible government, to cut down waste, and to reduce the Federal deficit; secondly, to eliminate the unwarranted regulations and redtape that's imposed by government on the private sector, which is highly inflationary; and, of course, the third thing is to stick with and to try to induce the American people to support the voluntary wage and price standards.,All of these factors working together will have a long-range, beneficial effect in controlling inflation. In my opinion, a deliberate recession, which is one alternative which would cause very high unemployment, is unacceptable. And mandatory wage and price controls, which have been tried in the past and have never worked, except during wartime, are also unacceptable.,So, we have a good, sound, anti-inflation program. It's going to require some time for it to be effective, but I intend to stick with it.,PRESIDENT'S LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY,Q. Mr. President, many of your legislative initiatives have run into trouble on Capitol Hill this year—hospital cost control, the Panama Canal implementation legislation, oil price decontrol—legislation to extend that—and so forth. To what extent do you believe it is the President's responsibility to exert leadership over the Congress, and to what extent do you believe you've fulfilled that responsibility this year?,TEE PRESIDENT. I think the President has a major responsibility not only to propose to the Congress legislation that's of benefit to the Nation, but also to fight for congressional approval of those proposals. The ones you mentioned as examples are very important to our Nation.,We have already signed, and the Senate has ratified, a Panama Canal agreement, two treaties. Those treaties became effective the first day of April. The Panama Canal Zone will become Panamanian territory on the 1st of October. If the Congress does not act to implement those treaties, then we would have no effective means by which we could adequately defend the Panama Canal between now and the year 2000, nor manage our personnel in keeping the canal open. I believe that the Congress will eventually be responsible and will pass the implementation legislation.,On oil decontrol, which I have proposed—and just described, I think, adequately-my belief is that the Congress will not change that law. The decontrol action that I have taken is in accordance with the law passed by Congress in 1975. There's a great deal of debate going on, and I believe that we will have decontrol, which is good for our country.,Hospital cost containment—here again, the Congress has a major responsibility to deal with this effectively. The lobbying pressure on the Members of Congress by the hospital lobby is extraordinary, but I believe that in the long run, the Congress will see that this is one of the tangible actions that they can take this year to help control inflation. Hospital costs have been going up twice as great in previous years as the inflation rate, a completely unwarranted, additional charge on the American people that ought to be stopped.,And so, I have not given up on any of these programs as far as getting them implemented by congressional action. But I'll bear my share of the responsibility if we fail.,My judgment is that the American people are beginning to feel that their own Government can't deal adequately with crucial issues to the country, like inflation and like energy and like having a peaceful world in which to live. And until the American public gets aroused, we're going to have difficulty in Washington getting action taken.,But I believe the public is becoming increasingly aroused as they see the need for this action, and I predict to you that the Congress will act favorably on these three items. I have no intent to back down. I'll fight for these three programs and others that I've proposed to the last vote in Congress, and I believe that we will win.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, even though it might not be your favorite way of doing things with Congress, why don't you get tough to the extent of saying to Members of Congress individually that, \"If you won't help me on these major programs that I feel are important to the entire country, I won't go along with my administration providing the individual, district-by-district services that you are interested in as a Member of Congress\"?,THE PRESIDENT. I represent those districts also. Every one of the people who lives in any congressional district is my constituent. And I don't think it's right to punish the people of our Nation who live in a particular farming community or city or congressional district because a particular Member of Congress does not comply with the proposals that I make that I believe to be in the best interest of our Nation.,The best approach that I have been able to make—and we've had a very good success in having the Congress approve my proposals in previous years—has been to deal, first of all, with the Congress directly, both as a body and also individual Members of the Congress.,When I do face a serious problem, like with the windfall profits tax when the prediction was we had no chance to get it passed, I take my case to the public as strongly and effectively as I can. I think that's the best way to induce the Congress Members to vote in the best interests of their constituents and mine, not to punish the constituents in a district.,ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES,Q. Mr. President, as you said before, decontrol begins Friday, and the OPEC Ministers meet next month. What do you expect the OPEC Ministers to do? What action do you expect them to take?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I think OPEC has raised the price of oil excessively this year, and I hope they won't raise it any more.,I believe in the long run, they hurt not only our country but every nation on Earth, and especially the poor nations who are destitute to begin with. I think the OPEC nations in the long run hurt themselves by raising the price of oil excessively.,They have always demanded—and I give them credit by assuming that their demand was sincere—that countries, like our own, that use and waste so much energy cut back on consumption. That's one of the main thrusts of the energy proposals that I have made to the American people and to the Congress.,As you know, the major consuming nations in the International Energy Agency this spring have resolved, all of us, to cut back by 2 million barrels per day on our total worldwide consumption. This amounts to about a 5-percent reduction below our projected 1979 rate—reduction in consumption. I'll be meeting with six leaders of other nations in Tokyo the last week in June and, there again, we'll try to deal with the question of consumption in the world being higher than present production.,I would like to see the OPEC nations level off their price, certainly not to exceed the rate of inflation; secondly, to increase production in return for which the consuming nations who waste a great deal of energy would impose and adhere to strict conservation measures.,Increased and sustained supply, a stable price, and reduced consumption is the best all-around approach, but I think there has to be some give-and-take, some recognition of mutual interest between us and OPEC, before we can succeed in stabilizing the energy supply and price situation.,PRESIDENT'S FISHING TRIPS,Q. This past Saturday, unbeknownst to anyone, you took off to Spruce Creek, Pennsylvania, and went fishing.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. Now, you told Helen Thomas [United Press International] at the beginning of the news conference that this saves energy by not having to drag along all the press people and not having us tail along. How many times previously have you been able to escape the news media and travel unbeknownst to anybody?,THE PRESIDENT. Not enough— [laughter] —and it wasn't unbeknownst to the press.,I have a rare opportunity to go fishing or to get out in the woods and swamps and in the fields and on the streams by myself. I really believe that it's not only good for me but for the country, to be able to do that on occasion. I wish I could do it more. But I don't intend to ignore any opportunity to take advantage of a fishing trip when my own work permits it, and I hope the press will understand and the people will understand that I, like the average American, need some recreation at times.,I enjoyed it. I didn't catch as many fish as my wife. It was one of the nicest days of my life, except for that fact [laughter] —and I'm very proud that I had a chance.,RHODESIA,Q. Mr. President, the British, who've been our partners in formulating a policy towards Rhodesia, have recently ruled that the elections there were free and fair. Can you tell me now, does your administration intend to pursue a separate policy there, or will we now agree with the British conclusion?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been consulting closely with the British Government since the new administration under Mrs. Thatcher took over. Secretary Vance has just completed several days of discussions, both with her, with her Foreign Minister, and with other officials.,The new Rhodesian Zimbabwe Government will take office, I think, the 1st of June. Within 2 weeks after that date, I will make my decision about whether or not to lift the existing sanctions. I've given the Congress this assurance. And obviously, my decision would be made taking into consideration those consultations with Great Britain.,RELEASE OF SOVIET DISSIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES,Q. About a month ago, Mr. President, you brought about, helped bring about, a prisoner exchange with the Soviet Union. As part of that exchange, as I understand it, there was an agreement that the families of the Russian dissidents would be allowed immediate passage to the West. However, many of those families have not been released, and there were reports that some of them have actually been harassed. Is that a breach of the agreement? What has the U.S. Government done about it? And secondly, do you have any information on another report that the Soviets are about to release 12 more prisoners, possibly including Anatoly Shcharanskiy?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any information about the second item except what I have read in the news. We have no direct information about that. I hope the report is true.,The Soviets did agree to release the families of the five dissidents, earlier, without delay and without harassment. My belief is that the families will be released. There have been delays. Whether they were brought about by an unwieldy democracy [bureaucracy],1 or by actions of subordinates who weren't familiar with the government policy, or whether it was deliberate, I have no way to know.,1 Printed in the transcript.,There have been some delays. But I think in spite of this, the families will be reunited, and that's one reason that I'm very thankful about it.,Q. You do not see it as a breach of the agreement, then?,THE PRESIDENT. There was some delay, and there was some harassment of the families in my opinion. Whether that was imposed by the government officials or whether it was part of the unwieldy—the Soviet bureaucracy, I can't judge. But I'm thankful that the families will be released.,DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT,Q. Mr. President, John White, the party chairman, Democratic Party chairman, said the other day that he thought the activities of some of those Congressmen promoting Senator Kennedy were divisive and might turn the Presidency over to the Republicans in 1980. Now, do you agree with him? And would it be helpful if Senator Kennedy just today made a Sherman-like statement, as he did in 1974, take himself out of the race?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any quarrel to make with the statement that was issued by John White. No, I do not disagree with his statement.,I don't really have any comment to make about what Senator Kennedy does. He's made statements repeatedly about what he would do.,Let me make this point: No President can expect to have unanimous support, even within one's own party. This has been the case with every predecessor of mine who lived in the White House. But that's not my major concern. I'm not an announced candidate, and I don't intend to make every judgment about what ought to be done for this country on the basis of whether it would or would not lose support by nonpartisan Americans or officials in my own party for an upcoming election.,Some of the decisions that I have to make on inflation, on energy, on foreign affairs, are very difficult to make. I don't believe anyone can accuse me of trying to gain a vote, for instance, by my energy proposals. They've just lost votes, but they were necessary. And if I should ever modify my positions away from what's best for this country in order to pick up support, then I would not deserve to be President. So, I don't intend to do it.,If a few or even a large number of Democrats endorse someone else, that's their business. I'll continue to try to serve the country as best I can and deal with the political question when the election comes along.,STRATEGIC ARMS; MX MISSILE,Q. Mr. President, I know in your Inaugural Address, you dedicated your administration to eliminating atomic weapons from the Earth.,THE PRESIDENT. That's right.,Q. We're on the verge now of making the decision on the MX. I gather it has accuracy, it hits within 100 yards, and it has a doubling or a tripling of the atomic blast power. It could be a very destabilizing weapon in the strategic arms system, and also make SALT III very difficult to achieve. What's your decision on MX?,THE PRESIDENT. The most destabilizing thing that we could have in our strategic relationship with the Soviets would be acknowledged inferiority or a vulnerable strategic deployment of missiles. We have just completed almost 7 years of negotiations with the Soviets to actually reduce the present, permitted number of missiles on each side, to put constraints on the number of explosive warheads that could be on each missile, and to limit the improvement in quality of existing missiles. That is a major step toward my ultimate goal, which I believe is one shared by the Soviet Union leaders, of eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth in the future.,But while we do have heavy deployments of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union—although now being constrained more severely than they were before—we must maintain an adequate level of armaments, and we must maintain the security from attack of the armaments we have.,So, when we do deploy new types of missiles to stay current and to keep our equivalency with the Soviet Union, that, in my opinion, contributes to peace, and this is completely permitted in the SALT II agreement which we have just negotiated.,The agreement on new types of IGBM's is that each side can only have one new IGBM during the life of the treaty. And that was carefully planned in order to provide stability and to stop the enormous buildup which the Soviets have been demonstrating in recent years to catch up with us, since we were originally far ahead. And if we can maintain that rough equivalency with the Soviet Union, maintain an adequate defense, and maintain the security of our own missile systems, that is a major contributing factor to peace.,So, it is not destabilizing. I think it is stabilizing.,Q. Have you decided on the MX?,THE PRESIDENT. Not yet.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, sir, is it feasible in your view to expect the Palestinians and other Arab nations to join the peace process as long as the United States does not put forward some of its own ideas in greater detail about what autonomy is going to look like on the West Bank and Gaza?,In other words, as long as the Israelis are continuing to say there will be no Palestinian homeland, there will be no entity linked or unlinked to Jordan, there will be no Palestinian state, is it not incumbent on the United States, again in this peace process, to come forward with some ideas of its own in order to encourage the Palestinians to join in?,THE PRESIDENT. We've never been reticent about putting forward our ideas both to the Israelis and the Egyptians and to others about what ought to be done in the West Bank, Gaza area. We've never espoused an independent Palestinian state. I think that would be a destabilizing factor there.,I believe the next step ought to be the exchange of views during the negotiations between Israel and Egypt. We will observe the different proposals that are inevitably going to be made; some of them have been described publicly. Then later on, after the negotiations proceed as far as they can do with any degree of momentum, we will reserve the right—requested, I might say, by both Israel and Egypt— to put forward United States proposals to break a deadlock or to provide a compromise solution.,We have been involved in that kind of process both at Camp David and when I went to the Middle East. I think that's one of the reasons that we've been as successful as we have so far.,But for us to preempt the negotiations by putting forward, to begin with, an American proposal, I think, would be counterproductive, and it would remove some of the reasonable responsibility that ought to be directly on the shoulders of Prime Minister Begin and his government and President Sadat and his government.,I might say that this past weekend, I talked personally to President Sadat and to Prime Minister Begin and, this morning, to Secretary Vance. And they were all very pleased and very excited not only at the progress made in El Arish and Beersheba but also at the attitude on both sides toward a constructive resolution of these very difficult issues.,So, at this point, I feel very hopeful that both sides are negotiating in good faith. We'll be there to help them when they need our help.,BERT LANCE,Q. Mr. President, last week an Atlanta grand jury indicted your former budget director, your friend, Mr. Lance, on criminal charges. I'm aware of the fact that the courts have enjoined discussion of this case and won't ask you to do that, sir, but in view of the confidence and friendship you have expressed publicly for Mr. Lance, I wonder if you could share with us your reaction to the indictment and your feeling about Mr. Lance at this time as a person?,THE PRESIDENT. Bert Lance is still my friend. I don't see any benefit to be derived from my commenting on the actions that are presently underway within the legal system of our country.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. Thank you, everybody."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-05-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. It's good to be back in Iowa. I have one brief statement to make before I answer questions.,CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR,Today, I spoke to the Iowa county officials about the need to develop new and innovative approaches to our serious energy problem. No one feels more strongly than I do about the need to harness cost-effective technology to solve our energy problems, but we must never allow ourselves to become the victim of our own technology.,If we've learned anything about the recent accident at Three Mile Island, it should be this: As we develop our Nation's energy policy, the safety of every American must be uppermost in our minds.,More than 2 years before the accident in Pennsylvania, I began an effort to kill the Clinch River breeder reactor, so that this country could have a rational, safe, and responsible nuclear energy policy. This is no time to change America into a plutonium society.,The recent vote by the House Science and Technology Committee to proceed with the Clinch River fast breeder reactor over my consistent opposition is a major, potential setback to this effort. The Clinch River breeder reactor is a technological dinosaur. It's a waste of more than $1 1/2 billion of taxpayers' money. It's an assault on our attempts to control the spread of dangerous nuclear materials. It marches our nuclear policy in exactly the wrong direction.,As nuclear power plays a part in our overall energy policy for the foreseeable future, we must proceed cautiously. We must minimize the risks to our society, and above all, we must not plunge into potentially dangerous, unproven, and unnecessary new technologies which may never produce benefits to offset their costs and risks.,We can avoid that mistake by proceeding with an orderly and scientifically sound breeder research and development program, but our immediate attention must be focused on improving the safety of our current nuclear technology to ensure that a Three Mile Island accident never happens again.,We do not need to build a plant based on a wholly new technology about which far less is known than the nuclear reactors that we currently use.,I want to repeat today my longstanding and consistent request to the Congress to deny the well-financed efforts of the big utilities and the energy companies. We must terminate the Clinch River breeder reactor. We have a far more immediate task at hand?putting our existing nuclear power into order and ensuring safety.,I will continue to oppose the construction of this unnecessary, wasteful, and unsound project, and I urge the advocates of the Clinch River project to reconsider their efforts to salvage this ill-conceived idea.,I also urge all those who share my concern about controlling, and the safety of nuclear power to let your voices be heard in the Congress before it's too late.,And now, I would like to recognize Mr. Bill Baker for the first question.,QUESTIONS,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, I'm from the Clinton, Iowa, Herald. I'd like to ask you what counsel and advice you can offer to those on fixed incomes, particularly the elderly, and all sorts of those workers employed by firms that are conscientiously attempting to follow your 7-percent wage-price guidelines, especially in view of the fact that the inflation rate is now approaching 13 percent.,THE PRESIDENT. I think the inflation rate is going to turn and go down in the foreseeable future, after a few months. We have early indications of that. Also, as you know, built into the social security system, for instance, is an automatic escalator clause to protect our old people from the devastating effects of inflation. Only this week we increased social security payments, I believe, about 9 percent, based on history, recent history, in the inflationary trend.,We are doing everything we can to encourage the anti-inflation fight to be a nationwide fight?not trying to find scapegoats, not believing that the Government itself can do it all.,In spite of the fact that we have cut the budget deficit more than half, we have a very tight budget proposal. We have a sound dollar now. We are increasing exports considerably. Our balance of trade overseas has become very favorable, compared to what it was previously.,We still have some uncontrollable factors. One of those is the price of foreign oil. We're trying to reduce our dependence upon it. Another, obviously, is the high cost of food items which are in scarce supply?fresh fruits and vegetables-caused by a very severe winter in the growing States; very short beef herds, brought about by beef price controls put on by the previous Republican administration; and other factors over which the Government nor private industry nor labor have any control.,But I can say that out of the last 90 wage settlements, 80 of them have been fully within the wage and price standards. And we have carefully monitored the 500 largest corporations, all of them and most of the middle-sized and smaller corporations, and they are substantially within the guidelines in establishing their specific prices. When we identify one that we believe to be out of compliance, we contact them directly. And in almost every case so far, they have voluntarily changed their prices downward and, in one or two cases, have even refunded to their customers overcharges that they had initiated before we caught them in their violations.,So, I think the essence of it is, things look better in the future if we are patient. This is a 10-year inflationary burden. We're trying to turn it downward, but everybody is going to have to cooperate.,And now, I understand that Michael Holmes [Associated Press] has the next question.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,Q. Mr. President, noting Governor Brown's plan for limited gas rationing in California and the ever-increasing demand for energy supplies, is there any way to convince people to voluntarily conserve, or are mandatory controls inevitable?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there is a way to convince people voluntarily to control the waste of energy. I think, first of all, the Congress is going to have to be convinced.\nA few years ago, I was mandated by the Congress, for instance, to develop a standby gasoline rationing plan?not to be put into effect instantly, but to be developed very carefully and to make sure that it's equitable and fair just to have it on the shelf if we do have a nationwide shortage of gasoline. It could then only be implemented if both the President and the Congress thought it was necessary. I think we're going to have to have, perhaps, a few demonstrable shortages, as is now being faced in California, to show that this is necessary.,Another thing that we need to do is to have mandatory savings programs like the setting of thermostats in public buildings, to hold the temperature no lower than 80 degrees in the summer and no higher than 65 degrees in the winter. This saves a lot of energy.,And I believe there's a tremendous desire on the part of American people to go back to those simple forms of energy that I described to the county officials this morning. For instance, 750,000 Americans bought wood stoves last year, a very good move in the right direction.,And we're doing all we can within the Government to encourage Americans voluntarily to restrain themselves. We also have some mandatory laws. I don't have time to go into all of them. One of them is a very stringent law that, year-by-year, will require Detroit and other cities where automobiles are manufactured to give us more efficient automobiles. And we are exploring technology, in cooperation with them and other manufacturers, to make the items that use energy, necessary for us, to be more efficient.,It's a long, tedious process. We've never had a national energy, policy before. The Congress has courageously addressed this very difficult issue, and I believe that the benefits will be obvious in the future. But it's going to have to be a combination of mandatory controls and voluntary, with the heavy emphasis on voluntary.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,AMERICAN PRISONER IN ISRAEL,Q. Mr. President, you were recently instrumental in securing the release of several Russian dissidents. In similar terms of humanity, would you be willing to exert influence on the Israeli Government to secure the release of a young American woman? Her name is Terre Fleener of San Antonio, and she is wasting away in Israeli jails. 1,1 Terre Fleener was convicted of giving information on Israeli security arrangements to members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. She was released from prison on June 30, 1979, after serving 20 months of a 5-year sentence.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not familiar with the case, but before this day is over, I will contact the Secretary of State and ask him to initiate an investigation and seek her release, if it's considered to be advisable.,PRESIDENT'S CANDIDACY FOR REELECTION,Q. Mr. President, Mark Braun, with KCCI-TV in Des Moines. Since Iowa was the State that changed \"Jimmy Who?\" to \"Jimmy Carter\" 3 years ago,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.,Q.?? don't you think it would be appropriate to make your formal announcement right here that you're going to run for reelection? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. No. [Laughter],Q. Any indication one way or the other?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it's best for me, in this time of some excitement about progress and some concern about problems, to remain a full-time President. It's too early for me to get involved in any discussion about an upcoming election.,But I will always remember that my visit?as someone pointed out this morning-to, I think, 119 Iowa cities, and my going on farms at the time land was being broken, corn was being planted, fertilizer applied, cultivation, harvest season, when pigs were being farrowed?I think I got a picture of our Nation, particularly the farm community, that stands me in good stead now. And I also learned about the plight of American farmers under the previous administration that has stood me in good stead in choosing Secretary Bergland and qualified farmers to run the department. But I benefited greatly from my visits to Iowa as a President. But I'll remain a President for the foreseeable future and devote my full time to that job. Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,NUCLEAR POWER,Q. Mr. President, we know your position on the breeder, the nuclear breeder reactor.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. But in light of the information that Secretary Califano presented yesterday on Capitol Hill, that as many as 10 people could die of cancer directly because of the accident at Three Mile Island, have you begun to rethink your attitude about the light water reactor? After all, it was that kind of reactor where this accident happened.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm deeply concerned about it and, as you know, have appointed a special Presidential commission to look into the causes of the accident, to see what mistakes may have been made in the design or operation of the plant, to make more effective the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, also, to make sure that if we have a repetition at any time of a similar accident, that there be a better coordination between private, local, State, Federal officials.,Obviously, nuclear reactor safety is the preeminent concern, and I believe that this is an opinion shared by Americans throughout our Nation. It's not a new concern for me. I've been involved in nuclear power in one form or another since 1952, and I'm familiar with the limitations of it, and I'm familiar with the concerns about it.,It's hard to estimate accurately how many people's lives may have been affected by very low levels of additional radiation. It's hard to quantify them. But if any single person either dies prematurely or has any sort of injury or aberration, it would be of deep concern to me.,But I think we have a proper degree, now, of commitment, through this Commission-which will report very expeditiously, commensurate with a broad range of their discussions and investigations in 6 months?to prevent any further accidents of this kind.,Q. Do you still consider yourself a strong supporter of the concept of nuclear power?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always thought that nuclear power should be used as a last resort in the evolution of energy. But I also recognize that when you use what oil is available, and what natural gas is available, and what coal is available, and what solar energy is available, up until now we have seen a need to use nuclear power.,We now get about 12 percent, I think, of our electricity from nuclear power. Some States, like Illinois, for instance, get a great deal more of their power from nuclear powerplants. And it would not be advisable to terminate this use peremptorily. The thing to do is?those that have to continue to provide needed power?to make sure they are safe and, in the future, to try to have conservation, which we've never emphasized in our country adequately, and to shift to alternative means of power to reduce the necessary dependence upon atomic power which we have experienced in recent years.,GASOHOL,Q. Mr. President, Mike Waring, from the Blackhawk Stations. In your speech this morning, you mentioned the increased spending for gasohol development by the Federal Government. So far, the Department of Energy has downplayed the importance of gasohol. Why do you think gasohol should be developed, and how much can we count on it in the future for downplaying our gasoline usage?,THE PRESIDENT. It's one of those incremental approaches to energy that will be of aid. To decrease the gasoline consumption of automobiles to get 1/2 mile more per gallon has a tremendous benefit over our country. Other nations, like Brazil in some regions, have at least 10 percent of all their automobile fuel consisting of gasohol or similar materials.,I think gasohol has a possibility beyond its actual cost and use, because gasohol can be evolved from waste products that are presently very costly. It's extremely costly, for instance, in the making of, say, paper, where you take the entire tree, minus its bark, and through chemical processes, extract paper. Formerly those gases were sometimes dispensed into the atmosphere. It was a very costly process. The heat had to be generated anyhow, and you were fouling the atmosphere with very precious gases. Now those same companies, through new techniques that they've just learned in the last few years, are condensing those gases and using them in a form similar to gasohol or methanol.,Additionally, animal wastes, food wastes that are resulting from the processing of all kinds of foods, including animals, city garbage, these kinds of things can be used for fuel and to produce gasohol.,I was in India last year and went to a very small town in a poverty-stricken region. One of the most interesting things that the very poor people had there was a small tank, three or four hundred gallons, where they dumped their human and animal wastes, extracted from it gas, through a pipe, to use in several homes for both heating and cooking, and then after this process was over, they drained the remaining sediment off and used it for fertilizing the fields.,So, on a very tiny basis of that kind, with a very small plant, all the way up to a large production plant, I think we have a good possibility in the future.,And we don't know what the future might bring. At even existing levels of price, gasohol may not be economically advisable. But as the price of oil, for instance, in the future goes up?in a very slow process, I hope?then gasohol will become ever more competitive. I think it has a good possibility. It's one of those things that we cannot ignore.,GASOLINE SHORTAGES,Q. Mr. President, do you think Governor Brown was warranted to today authorize the counties of California and the local subdivisions to put in this odd-even gas allocation plan? And is there anything the Federal Government could do to help California out of this sort of abnormal shortage because of the glut of high-sulfur oil, but the lack of the type of oil it needs?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, he was warranted. I'll be meeting with Governor Brown this afternoon when I arrive in California. The proposal that we have made to the Congress for standby authority to implement limited days for purchase can only go into effect after the Governor of a particular State goes through this process presently being experienced in California.,In other words, the first thing is a voluntary conservation measure to cut back on, say, gasoline, 2 or 3 percent, whatever is required. Secondly, the Governor proposes either odd-even days or weekend purchases or some other means to save gasoline. Only after that process takes place does the Federal Government institute a possible weekend closing. We've not yet been able to get the Congress to approve that. But I do think that he has acted properly and I do think he's acted responsibly.,I would do anything within my power to aid Governor Brown in this particular time, with a gasoline shortage. And I would say that this is not the first, it's certainly not the last gasoline shortage that our country will experience.,And we've almost forgotten now what we did see in 1973 and 1974. And this is an early indication of a repetition of gasoline shortages. As I said a couple of weeks ago and again in my energy speech a little bit longer ago, we anticipate gasoline shortages this summer. The California experience is a few months before I thought it would be.,Next summer, we think the shortages are going to be even greater. And one reason is that we have got to have an adequate supply of home heating oil, for instance, in New England, and we have got to have an adequate supply of gasoline and distillate for farm tractors and other equipment to use to produce food.,So, the average motorist is going to be faced with more shortages of gasoline in the future than we have experienced today. And we ought to be ready for it. And we're not yet ready for it.,WOOD-BURNING STOVE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE,Q. Dave Beeder, from the Omaha World-Herald. You said today you were planning to buy a stove for the White House. What room are you going to heat with that stove?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't say I was going to buy it. [Laughter] One of the stove manufacturers? [laughter] ?sent a letter to one of the United States Senators and said they had a stove that they would like to contribute to the American people to be used in the White House or at Camp David. And I have asked for further information about it. And I intend to install it, depending on its configuration and so forth, either in one of the rooms where we live or, perhaps, in my private office in the West Wing. But this is a contribution to the American people, and I might hasten to add that when I leave the White House, the stove will stay there. [Laughter],OIL PRICE CONTROLS,Q. Mr. President, the other day in a news conference when talking about deregulation, you said it wasn't your idea, and you indicated that the reason you hadn't pushed it was because chances in Congress were very unlikely for passage. My question now is, would you support deregulation or an extension of price controls on gasoline if it passes both the House and Senate this year?,THE PRESIDENT. This question concerns me because it has a very complex effect, perhaps, on what Congress does. I don't think there's a chance in the world that the Senate, with a potential filibuster, will possibly pass legislation to extend price controls on oil. If the House and Senate pass this legislation and send it to me, I will certainly not veto it. We will live with it. The thing that concerns me is that there are many people, because of varying motivations, who want to stop the passage of a windfall profits tax. And as long as they can hold out a glimmer of hope that we won't have either?we won't have decontrol, so therefore we need not have a windfall profits tax?I'm afraid that the oil companies might escape the sure implication of a windfall profits tax.,So, to summarize, if the Congress should pass extended controls, I would not veto it, but I believe we need to concentrate our efforts on passage of a real, strong windfall profits tax.,Q. A brief followup. Will you continue to fight it in the House as you did the other day?the extension of controls?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we didn't make an all-out effort to stop it. What we did do was to point out to the Members of the House the argument that I've just described to you, that it's almost impossible to conceive of extended controls passing the entire Congress and, therefore, let's don't sidetrack the congressional effort and let the oil companies escape the imposition of the windfall profits tax.,My judgment is that no matter what the House does, the Senate will never pass an extension of oil price controls. And so, we have got to focus our attention not on a fruitless effort with that legislation, but on a real, genuine test of strength between the American people and the oil companies and get a windfall profits tax passed.,EXCHANGES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FOR OIL,Q. Mr. President, this morning you mentioned that you're going to be talking with Mexican officials this weekend about possibly swapping American grain for Mexican oil.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. I was wondering at this time, would you be willing to take that one step further and speak to the OPEC countries about that kind of a swap?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you know that corn, for instance, or soybeans or wheat is sold to the OPEC countries on a worldwide marketing system. There's a plentiful supply at this time. We have desperately been trying to avoid the kind of confusion that existed when I first came to Iowa. We have increased exports every year to set record levels?last year $27 billion worth of American farm products were sold overseas. This year we hope to reach $30 billion worth. So, I don't think it would be feasible to try to work out any sort of swap deal with the OPEC nations.,But with Foreign Minister Roel, tomorrow at the Cinco de Mayo celebrations in Los Angeles, I will discuss this proposal made by Congressman Neal Smith. That may be a sound basis on which to reach an agreement, because the proximity to Mexico means that we can have special delivery both of oil from them to us, including natural gas in the future, and also grain. But to have a similar swap deal, I think, would probably be infeasible for the OPEC countries as a whole.,OIL COMPANY PROFITS,Q. Mr. President, in the first 3 months of this year, the American oil companies had profits that were twice the average profits for all American corporations. Your Secretary of Energy, Mr. Schlesinger, in a television appearance last month, said that the profits of oil companies are not too high, they're perfectly in line with everyone else. Now, implicit in your windfall tax proposal is the assumption that if it isn't passed, and you have decontrol, that the oil companies will reap very, very high profits. My question to you is, leaving aside the windfall profits tax and the question of decontrol, do you think oil profits are too high now?,THE PRESIDENT. Compared to other corporations, the oil companies' profits are at a high level, not higher than any other corporations. On a comparison between capital investment and return on investment, I think they're running 12 or 13 percent, which is a bountiful return on investment.,If those returns are invested back into increasing American production of natural gas, oil, and other related materials, I think it's a very sound thing for our country. But the decontrol process will give them additional income above and beyond what I've described.,Under the windfall profits tax, of every dollar in increased income from that source, they would only be permitted to keep 29 cents. My hope, again, is that they would take that 29 cents and reinvest it back into the further production of oil and gas.,So, this is what I'm concerned about, and the reason that I think in some instances the profits have been excessive in the past, above what they needed for production, is that some of the oil companies have gone far outside their field, even completely beyond the realm of energy, and bought fast food market chains, or motels and hotels and things of that kind, that have no relation to energy. I want to see them invest their profits back into energy production.,FUEL SUPPLIES FOR AGRICULTURE,Q. Mr. President, in your speech this morning you indicated, or tried to reassure this State they would have the diesel fuel supplies that they need.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. Now, the State Energy Policy Council here doesn't feel that way. They feel that there are going to be some severe shortages in the State as far as diesel fuel goes. And what I'm asking you is, what do you feel that the proposals that you offered this morning to the State association are going to do to alleviate any of these predicted shortages that the State here feels are .definitely going to happen?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would be glad to repeat the things that I said this morning.,First of all, when any shortage occurs on a nationwide basis, I have the authority to establish priorities and to make a limited degree of allocation. And along with hospitals, ambulances, police protection, and fire protection, in the top priority comes food production, agriculture. And if all the items that I described this morning should prove to be inadequate, then I would use that authority of mine to make an emergency allocation of additional fuel oil, distillate, and gasoline to the farmers to get their crops planted, cultivated and, ultimately, harvested.,Secretary Bergland has already determined that under the natural gas legislation passed in 1978, that he will make available to farmers 100 percent of their needs for natural gas, primarily used in the crop-drying season. So, I can assure you that this will be adequate.,If local imbalances occur, then we will give the Governors the authority to take 4 percent of all of the fuel oil and gasoline that comes into the State and allocate it themselves at the State level, where there's more sensitivity about local need, directly to those areas that might have a temporary imbalance. And the other thing that we will do is to permit suppliers of fuel oil and gasoline to borrow on their future allocations if there is a shortage.,Now, I'm familiar with the fact that the groundbreaking season and the planting season in Iowa has been delayed. There's going to be a rush among the farmers to catch up with lost time. And we have already assimilated this. Secretary Bergland, Secretary Schlesinger, and I have made as careful preparations as possible to assure that there is no shortage of fuel in Iowa during this year.,And I've given you the best answer I can, and within the bounds of my authority and human competence and my complete dedication, what I said this morning will be carried out.,Ms. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.,[President Carter's forty-ninth news conference began at 2 p.m. in the Lower Monterey Room at the Des Moines Hyatt House. As he was leaving the room, the President answered an additional question from a reporter as follows.],\n  BRITISH ELECTIONS,Q. Sir, if you'd been asked about the change in the British Government, what would you have said?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked with Mrs. Thatcher within the last hour and pledged her my support and cooperation, congratulated her on her victory. We made arrangements to consult very quickly through the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, who will be named tomorrow, and the Secretary of State, Secretary Vance.,I've already talked to Secretary Vance as a followup, and told him to be prepared for this consultation. She and I will be exchanging messages and letters. We will be meeting with each other next month, at the latest, in Tokyo. And we've made arrangements to have a private meeting so that we can compare the policies of our two nations at that time. In the meantime, our Cabinet members will be consulting even more closely and perhaps more personally.,But I'm obviously convinced that the outcome of the election will not in any way interfere in the superb relationships that have always existed between our countries since I've been in office and for many years before that."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-04-30","text":"ENERGY CONSERVATION,THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody. I have a brief opening statement concerning one of our most important domestic issues, and that is energy.,Last month, I sent to the Congress, as requested by the Congress, a standby gasoline rationing plan. This plan would give us the opportunity to anticipate and to plan for possible gasoline shortages in the future. Without the plan, it would take us 6 or 7 months to prepare such a plan if we were faced with a severe shortage of gasoline brought about by an interruption in supplies.,Tomorrow, the House commerce committee will have another very important vote to determine whether or not we will even have a standby plan to deal with such an emergency. It's imperative for our Nation's energy preparedness that the committee approve this standby gasoline rationing plan.,If, after the plan is evolved, it needs to be implemented, both the Congress and the President would have to approve before it goes into effect. It's a simple matter of common sense for us to do everything we possibly can to reduce our vulnerability to another oil embargo or a Middle East crisis or an interruption in our own domestic supplies. We do not face any of these contingencies now, but we must be prepared for the worst. We must make certain that gasoline can be distributed promptly and fairly in case of an emergency.,No one likes gasoline rationing, and we will avoid it if it is possible. But I will not hide from my responsibility to the Nation, and Congress likewise needs to shoulder its share of the responsibility.,It's not easy to vote for a rationing plan. I understand this. But the tough votes are never easy. The Nation's attention will properly be focused on the House commerce committee tomorrow, and I urge the members of that committee to place responsibility for the Nation's well-being above all other concerns and to vote to approve the standby rationing plan.,I also urge the Congress to pass the three other standby energy conservation plans that I submitted last month. I'm particularly concerned about the possibility that the standby plan for gasoline conservation might be killed. This plan would be implemented only in the States that fail to develop their own plans for conserving gasoline, and then only in case there are severe shortages.,But we face the possibility of gasoline shortages even as early as this summer, and common sense tells us both that my administration and the Congress must do our part if we are to be ready.,Now, Mr. Pippert [Wes Pippert, United Press International], I'd like to answer your questions.,QUESTIONS,OIL PRICE DECONTROL,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you further about the fairness, the simple justice of your gasoline decontrol proposals.,THE PRESIDENT. Good.,Q. First, gasoline already is nearing a dollar a gallon at the pumps. And this will not keep the wealthy from driving, because they can and probably would pay $2 or $3 a gallon. But these prices put a tremendous burden on the ordinary person. Is this fair?,And secondly, you've used strong language in talking about oil companies and the excess profits that they stand to gain from decontrol. Yet an analysis by the Treasury Department shows that when its application on all categories of domestic oil are considered and an adjustment is made for using some of this tax to offset Federal income taxes, the net effect is that the new tax would recapture only about 10 percent of the windfall profits. Is this fair?,THE PRESIDENT. I think in both instances the answer is yes, it is fair, as well as we can devise an equitable plan to deal with an unfortunate subject.,The allocation of scarce supplies of energy must be done in the light of intense public scrutiny and after close consultation between myself and the public, and myself and the Congress. Any action that the Congress can take to make the rationing plans or the allocation plans or the conservation plans more fair, I would obviously be glad to accommodate these improvements.,Now, as far as the net effect of the windfall profits tax is concerned, we decided to decontrol in a phased way the prices of gasoline and other energy supplies based on oil in accordance with the congressional mandate, the congressional law that was passed and approved in a previous administration. I think this is necessary action to be taken. We also recognize that one of the purposes of such action is to increase domestic production. There cannot be a confiscatory tax to take away all the proceeds that would go to the oil producers as the decontrol takes place.,We tried to balance it as best we could, and I believe we've done an excellent job. Whenever a dollar is realized in increased revenue, resulting from decontrol of oil prices, under our proposal, the windfall profits tax proposal, the oil companies would retain 29 cents. That 29 cents out of each dollar is designed to be invested back into increased production of domestic oil and gas. The other part of the dollar would go for Federal taxes, local taxes, and the payment of royalties.,I might say this in closing: I don't claim that this is a perfect proposal. If, during the hearing process and during the passage of legislation, the Congress is able to make the tax more stringent, I would look with favor if the proposals are fair. If the Congress has an inclination to make the tax less stringent—in other words, to let the oil companies keep more of the profits—I would strongly disapprove.,TRADE WITH SOVIET UNION AND CHINA,Q. Mr. President, what are the prospects right now for an early extension of most-favored-nation trading status to the Soviet Union and China?,THE PRESIDENT. I personally favor the extension of the most-favored-nations treatment to both the Soviet Union and China if it can be done in compliance with existing law.,I think it's good for us, for our country, to be able to export more goods, to provide more jobs for our own people, and to improve the relationships between ourselves and foreign countries, including the Soviet Union and China, brought about by increased economic interchange or trade.,So, when the time comes that I think these requirements can be met, I would personally favor the extension of most-favored-nations to these two countries.,Q. Might that time come soon?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope so, yes.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, can you provide any more enlightenment on our ability to verify SALT; and are those within the administration who say this ability is, say, from 1 to 4 years away, are they wrong?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Secretary of Defense made a statement concerning 1 year. That was applying to specifically how rapidly we could overcome the setback resulting from the loss of our Iranian monitoring stations. But in the same brief statement, he replied to a news question that as soon as the SALT treaty is effective, when it's signed and ratified, we would be able to verify the treaty adequately.,There is no doubt in my mind that this is the case. I would not sign nor present to the Congress or to the American people any treaty which in my opinion could not be adequately verified from the first day it's effective. Many of the concerns that we have relate to very complicated questions. For instance, we can't guarantee that every time a test missile is launched by the Soviet Union, that every aspect of that flight can be completely comprehended by us.,There are limits on what we can do. But as the Secretary of Defense has testified publicly, in order for the Soviets to develop any kind of significant new missile, they would have to have like 20 to 50 test launchings. And during that process, it .is a very high likelihood that we ourselves would be able to detect any violation of the SALT treaty.,There's another factor that must be considered. If the only purpose of the Soviet Union in the long, tedious negotiations of a SALT treaty is to have a document that they can violate and that's their only purpose in existence, is to violate the SALT treaty, it would make our problem much worse. But there is an element of rationality and stability, because the Soviets know that if we ever detect any violation of the SALT agreement, that that would be a basis on which to reject the treaty in its entirety; there would be a possible termination of the good relationships between our country and the Soviet Union on which detente is based; and it might very well escalate into a nuclear confrontation.,So, the consequences would be very severe, and that is an additional constraint imposed upon the Soviet Union and on us that strengthens my statement that we can verify. But absent that very important factor, we can still verify to our complete satisfaction the SALT agreement through various means that we have available to us.,Q. Mr. President, you've been quoted by historian James MacGregor Burns as saying that even if the SALT treaty is rejected by the Senate, that you would abide by its terms. I would like to know how far you would go in this. Would you, for instance, abide by the limitations on the range of land- and sea-based cruise missiles? And more generally, don't you think abiding by a treaty that's been rejected by the Senate would amount to thwarting the will of the public?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no inclination to minimize the importance of the constitutional processes whereby treaties are negotiated by the Executive and ratified or rejected by the Senate.,My belief is that the treaty will be sound enough when it's completely scrutinized by the public and the Senate, that it will be ratified. If, because of some factor that I cannot anticipate, the treaty is not ratified, then I would do all I could, monitoring very closely Soviet activities, to comply with the basic agreements reached.,It would certainly not be proper for me, if the treaty were not ratified, to immediately launch our country into a massive nuclear arms race. And the constraints placed on me and the Soviet Union, monitored very carefully by each other, would be a basis on which to constrain ourselves and to avoid such a nuclear confrontation in the absence of a treaty. But I still believe that we will have the treaty.,SOVIET DISSIDENTS,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us, sir, how the list was arrived at concerning which Soviet dissidents would be released in exchange for the two Soviet spies? And in view of this exchange, you're now hopeful of gaining the release of other Soviet religious and political dissidents such as Mr. Shcharanskiy?,THE PRESIDENT. We've not forgotten any human rights activist in the Soviet Union who is being punished or imprisoned.,The recent exchange was the result of long and tedious and detailed negotiations extending, I would say, at least over a 6-month period. The final agreement was approved personally by me and, I presume, by President Brezhnev. The identity of the human rights activists who came here from the Soviet Union was one that was the subject of detailed negotiation, where the Soviets would put forward names and we would assess those names and repeatedly reject them because we did not think they were adequate.,In my final judgment, reached just a week or so ago, I felt that the list of names was a fair exchange and, therefore, approved them. And I cannot tell you any more detail than that about the negotiations.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Have you considered taking your SALT case to the public next year to try to get a Senate that would approve the treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have every intention to conclude the SALT negotiations at the earliest possible moment. No one has ever seriously considered, in my administration, to my knowledge, any slightest delay in concluding the SALT treaty for political purposes or for any other purpose. And my understanding is that if the SALT treaty can be concluded fairly early, that it will be considered as a very top priority by the Senate, and the action by the Senate will be concluded this year.,JAMES FALLOWS,Q. Mr. President, how do you respond to the statements by Jim Fallows, who was your chief speechwriter for more than 2 years, on a number of things, but specifically that while you hold specific positions on a number of individual issues, that you have no broad, overall philosophy about where you'd like to see the country go? And on another point, Fallows says that you signed off personally on the use of the White House tennis courts, but you told Bill Moyers that you didn't. What's the truth about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say, first of all, that I think Jim Fallows is a fine young man. And he didn't express these concerns to me while he was employed by us. This is the kind of question that has to be faced by any President when someone leaves the White House. It's happened many times in the past.,Jim Fallows and I agree on most things. His assessment of my character and performance is one of those things on which we don't agree— [laughter] —and this is unfortunate, but understandable. He left the White House employment with a very good spirit of friendship between me and him, and with no insinuation that there were things about which he was disappointed.,The White House tennis court: I have never personally monitored who used or did not use the White House tennis court. I have let my secretary, Susan Clough, receive requests from members of the White House staff who wanted to use the tennis court at certain times, so that more than one person would not want to use the same tennis court simultaneously, unless they were either on opposite sides of the net or engaged in a doubles contest.,PRICE AND WAGE GUIDELINES,Q. Mr. President, you have said frequently in the past that you wouldn't hesitate to point out people, organizations that are not complying with your wage and price voluntary guidelines and that you think are helping to add to inflation. THE PRESIDENT. That's right.,Q. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, I have not heard you do so yet. Can you today tell us any organization, any labor union, any company that you think is letting the American people down in this regard?,THE PRESIDENT. Every week since we have had our voluntary wage and price standards in place, I have had a meeting with my top economic advisers—an early morning breakfast meeting once a week-at which time we discuss in some detail the degree of compliance both of the top businesses of our Nation and also the important unions of our Nation.,I think the last report that we had was that there were 13 companies who may or may not be out of compliance. We have inquired to the executives of those companies, telling them about our concern. This is done through the Council on Wage and Price Stability.,We then give them a chance to respond either to justify their price, which we think might be too high, or to change their prices if we can demonstrate to them that their prices are indeed too high.,Last week when we had this meeting that I'm describing now, there were four companies that we thought were out of compliance. The only one that we were sure had not at that time achieved compliance was Sears. I called executives of Sears and pointed this out to them, told them that I had seen the data and in my opinion they were not in compliance.,They asked for a chance to meet again with the Council on Wage and Price Stability personnel, and they modified their prices to come into compliance. I do not know at this point of any company where we can prove that they are out of compliance because they modify their prices, or either convince us that they indeed are meeting the guidelines.,Wages—this is a voluntary program, and I do not want to get involved in wage negotiations. Only Wayne Horvitz, who is the Federal mediator, is authorized by me to do so. But we make our position very clear when a major wage negotiation is approaching that we consider this or that demand to be either within or not within the guidelines, and we let this position be known publicly.,I think that this is the proper procedure, and we will continue to do so. It has applied in the case of the Teamsters. It's now applying in the case of the rubber workers. It will apply in the future in the case of the United Automobile Workers. And when they are doubtful about whether a particular proposal does come within the guidelines, they make an inquiry. But neither I nor the Secretary of Labor nor Alfred Kahn nor Barry Bosworth gets involved in the actual negotiations themselves.,We're doing the best we can. It's not perfect, but I think we've made a great deal of progress.,WINDFALL PROFITS TAX,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy, in his speech this afternoon before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, says that you have been intimidated by the oil lobby into throwing in the towel on price decontrol without a fight and that your proposed windfall profits tax is but a token that is no more than a transparent fig leaf over vast profits by the oil industry.,Do you think that's unfair, that criticism is unfair?,THE PRESIDENT. That's just a lot of baloney. [Laughter],I really can't believe that Senator Kennedy said this unless the phrases were taken but of context, because everyone knows who's in the Congress that decontrol is mandated in the present law, controls to be terminated in October of 1981. This is not a decision that I made. I am complying with an existing law. And in order to minimize the impact of decontrol, we are carefully and slowly phasing out controls over roughly a 28-month period.,I have made a proposal to the Congress which, in my judgment, is eminently fair. It lets the oil companies keep 29 cents out of every dollar of increased revenue which they derive from decontrol. As I said earlier in this news conference, if the Congress, including Senator Kennedy, wants to tighten up on that windfall profits tax with their proposals that I consider to be fair, I will gladly support such more stringent windfall tax proposals. I will not support any move in the Congress to make the windfall tax more lenient on the oil companies.,But I have a responsibility as President to make the best judgment on what needs to be done in the future and to comply with the Federal laws when I make decisions for the present. And I'm always amenable to proposals made by Senator Kennedy or anyone else to make the laws fairer or more stringent if the Congress thinks they should be made more stringent.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, on Capitol Hill today, a number of Republican Senators who say that they are uncommitted on SALT II were critical of Admiral Turner, the director of intelligence. They claim that he has been making speeches around the country in support of the treaty, and they feel that he should not get involved in what may become a partisan issue.,What is your understanding of Admiral Turner's role? Is he an advocate of SALT II? And if so, is this at your direction?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I've never asked him to make any such speech. I think, as is the case with almost every major official in the Federal Government—in the executive branch, at least—they are called upon to make speeches on matters of great moment and importance to the people. Even in the case of the CIA Director, responsible for intelligence, he's not confined just to expressing an opinion on collection techniques, most of which are highly secret in any case.,I don't know what comments Admiral Turner has made. I happen to know that he's basically in favor of the SALT treaty.,WINDFALL PROFITS TAX,I might say, to get back to the previous question about the Congress attitude toward the windfall profits tax, this is not an easy question to address, but we've made a lot of progress in the last 2 weeks.,When the windfall profits tax was first mentioned, when I started talking about it back in April, there was an almost unanimous opinion expressed on Capitol Hill that no windfall profits tax could be passed, and those of you in the media reported these comments, and now some of those very same people who said that it was not possible for a windfall profits tax to be passed at all are now quarreling about whether we should take from the oil companies 29 cents out of each dollar, or 25 cents or 24 cents or whatever.,But I think we've made great progress in the last 2 weeks in selling to the American public, and therefore to the Congress, the need for the windfall profits tax just because I have spoken out strongly and fervently and with deep feeling on the subject.,So, we're making good progress. And I'm eager to work with the Congress on how to make my proposals even better.,ENERGY, FOOD, AND HOUSING PRICES,Q. Mr. President, among the inflation figures, the most stubborn seems to be those of food, fuel, and housing, and those also seem to be the least susceptible to controls of any kind. Is there no hope for progress in this area until those prices become so high that people can't afford the things they really need?,THE PRESIDENT. There is some hope in the area.,Fuel, to a major degree, is affected by oil prices established by an international cartel over which we have very little control. However, we can reduce our dependence on foreign imported oil by the implementation of a sound national energy policy. I've worked on that for 2 years.,In food, I would say one of the major leading items in food price increases has been beef. And every agricultural economist, every farmer knows that the main cause for high 'beef prices is sustained high demand and very low sizes of American beef herds. It takes 5 or 6 years to slowly build up your breed cows, and then to have an increased herd to produce more beef.,One of the causes of the present shortage was the price controls imposed upon beef under the Nixon administration, and at the time, the farmers sold their brood cows and heifers instead of keeping them for future beef production.,Pork, because of the short gestation period of swine, and poultry, with an even shorter period of increase in production, can be increased fairly rapidly, and I've been very pleased at how fast those two items particularly are being increased. The production of fish for American consumption is a slower process, because it depends upon the habits and the number of fishing boats and fishermen available in that industry.,So, I think we've got a good prospect in the future for food prices to drop somewhat, or at least the price levels not to rise so rapidly.,This past winter and the previous winter, coincidentally, were two very severe periods of adverse weather, and this additionally affected food in the case of perishable vegetables and fruits.,Housing—we have had in the last 2 years a rate of housing construction of over 2 million per year in spite of high interest rates and high prices. And this has provided an increased demand for lumber, for plywood, for insulation materials, and for all other building materials that go into home construction. Recent statistics, unfortunately, show that the rate of construction of housing is dropping off. This will decrease demand if the trend continues to be less than, say, 2 million per year. And we are trying within the Federal Government to increase the rate of production of timber.,So, although we don't control these three items that you mentioned, there are elements that we can now detect that indicate some hope for the future after several months go by.,ISRAELI SETTLEMENT POLICY,Q. Mr. President, the Israeli Cabinet has recently approved two new settlements on the West Bank. In light of the enormous cost to the United States of implementing the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, isn't it reasonable to expect the Israelis to cease from settlement policy which violates international law? And secondly, why should the American people pay for policies of the Israelis that undermine the peace process and run counter to American foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the position of the United States historically has been consistent, and my own position on settlements in the West Bank, Gaza area and on the Golan Heights, and in the Sinai have my position has been consistent. The Israeli Government knows perfectly well, after hours of discussion on this issue, what my position is.,We do consider the creation of Israeli settlements in these areas as being inconsistent with international law, and, as I've said many times, they are an obstacle to peace. Knowing that, the Israeli Government still on occasion authorizes new settlements. They interpret the law differently from myself.,I hope that the Israeli Government will severely restrain any inclination, either approved by the Knesset or done without legal sanction, in establishing new settlements. But there is a limit to what we can do to impose our will on a sovereign nation.,RHODESIA,Q. Mr. President, the administration position on the Rhodesian election has been, until now, that you are assessing the situation. Can you tell us, though, however, whether you personally are inclined to lifting sanctions against Rhodesia, recognizing the new government there, and if you do do that, what impact do you think that will have on your Africa policy? Won't it cause you severe troubles for what you've been trying to do on that continent?,THE PRESIDENT. I am constrained by the law to wait until after the new government is established before I make a decision on whether or not the recent elections have been adequate in my judgment to lift the sanctions. And we are now going through a very careful process of assessing the conduct of the elections themselves and also the consequences of the election.,I'm not going to comment any further on it than that, but I will say that we have not varied our position that the Government of Rhodesia ought to be established through democratic principles, the election should be held with all parties willing to vote or run for office being permitted to do so, and that this should be based on the one-person-one-vote principle.,We have worked in consonance with most other Western nations—all, so far as I know—and closely with the British, who have a legal responsibility for Rhodesia. We have kept the United Nations informed, and I think that our position is a proper one. But after the new government is installed in office, at that time I will make a judgment under the Case-Javits amendment and decide whether or not I think the elections were enough progress toward those principles that I've just described to warrant the lifting of sanctions. I cannot make that judgment at this time.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-04-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody. One statement about energy, and then I'll answer questions.,ENERGY,First of all, we must move more aggressively to utilize the vast coal reserves in our country. In addition to the three agencies that regulate coal, which I mentioned in my speech to the Nation earlier this week, I've asked Governor Jay Rockefeller, who heads the President's Coal Commission as its Chairman, to hold public hearings within the next 60 days to identify acceptable ways to hasten the substitution of coal for oil.,The Nation's energy policy has been paralyzed for years over the question of controls over domestic energy prices. I have now cut the Gordian knot and put that decision behind us. The question is no longer whether or not we decontrol domestic oil prices; Congress mandated an end to controls effective September 1981. And they will be phased out to avoid a sudden inflationary shock in 1981, and also phased out to provide incentives in the immediate future for increased domestic production of oil and gas.,The issue now is to make sure that the necessary step is carried out in a way which is effective, fair, and equitable. What we must do now is to impose a windfall profits tax on the excess, unearned profits of the oil producers and to use these revenues to create an energy security fund to protect our Nation's energy future.,This tax proposal will be sent to Congress immediately after their return from their Easter recess. And this fund will be used for three critical needs: first, to help low-income Americans meet the increased cost of energy; second, to provide for a better transportation system, particularly mass transit; and third, greatly to expand research and development of alternative future sources of energy, with the same scientific effort that put a man on the Moon.,Even after all other taxes and royalties are taken into account, the windfall profits tax will still leave over $6 billion of new dollars, over the next 3 years, to plow back for domestic oil production and for domestic oil exploration. But I want to issue a warning. We have already begun to hear a good deal of talk from the oil companies about so-called plowbacks. But what this talk covers up is that this proposal, as it will be presented with the windfall profits tax, already provides $6 billion in increased revenue, after all taxes and royalties, to the oil companies over the next 3 years.,The Nation has a right to expect that all of this new income will be used for exploration for oil and gas and not to buy timberlands and department stores.,In addition to this built-in plowback for the oil companies to spend on domestic production, we must also have the windfall profits tax and the energy security fund it will finance. I'm committed to it; the country needs it; it's already clear that the people demand it. And I am also confident that we can get it.,The American people are willing to face the hard reality of the petroleum problem. And they are willing to see oil priced on a realistic basis. But they are not, and I am not, willing to see their sacrifices mocked by a wholly unjustified giveaway to the oil companies, particularly when the needs that would be met by the energy security fund are so urgent and pressing. That's why I am making the passage of this tax and the establishment of the security fund for energy one of my highest legislative priorities.,Thank you, and I would be glad to answer questions.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, you have already mentioned that you've reached some very difficult decisions on energy policy. Don't you at this point face, perhaps, equally painful decisions on inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I don't think there's any doubt that the most urgent remaining issue for us to resolve on the domestic scene is the control of inflation. We have been very disappointed with recent statistics on inflationary pressures. They've been brought about to a great degree by oil prices and energy prices.,I think it's important that we adhere to the strict interpretation and the principle of the voluntary wage and price guidelines. Most of the wage settlements—and there have been hundreds of them in the last 6 months—have been within the wage guidelines. And most of the large corporations, the so-called Fortune 500, have adhered rigidly to the price guidelines.,But we are getting more and more effective in our ability to monitor and to encourage compliance with the guidelines, and I believe it's important that for the next few months we stick with them. I believe that we will see a turn very shortly in the inflationary trend downward, and we will continue to devote our utmost ability to this goal.,Q. Are you saying, Mr. President, that the guidelines should be enough?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's not just the guidelines, obviously. We are also working to cut down, for instance, the Federal deficit, to control inflation. We're also trying to remove redtape and Government regulation which adds to inflation. We're trying to encourage the American people, because of patriotic inclinations, to do everything they can within the family structure and within a business, individually, to cut down on inflation. And we're trying to reduce the importation of excessive amounts of goods from overseas compared to what we export. We're trying to strengthen the American dollar. We're doing everything we can to hold down OPEC oil price increases.,So, these things all go together. And I think there must be a recognition that no single scapegoat can be found and it's counterproductive for any American, including a President, to try to find someone else on whom to blame the cause of inflation. It requires a joint effort, a consistent effort, a persistent effort, and we shouldn't give up just because we have a few weeks of adverse statistics come forward.,NUCLEAR ENERGY,Q. Mr. President, in view of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, and the\ndangers that it exposed to the public—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —are you still as strong an advocate of nuclear power as you were, and are you going to still pursue this business of speeding up the licensing of nuclear plants?,THE PRESIDENT. The fact is that we now derive about 12 or 13 percent of our total energy supplies in the United States from nuclear power. I'll be establishing very quickly a Presidential commission to look into the causes of the accident at Three Mile Island. I've not yet decided on the chairman of that commission, nor the members. But it will be done expeditiously. They will present a report to me and, obviously, to the American people and to the Congress on the causes of the accident and how we can strengthen safety standards, better design techniques, and also operating procedures to make safety better in the future.,There is no way for us to abandon the nuclear supply of energy in our country in the foreseeable future. I think it does not contribute to safety to have a bureaucratic nightmare or maze of redtape as licensing and siting decisions are made. So, I think anything that we can do to clarify the procedure and to make it more open, more clear, more obvious to the American people what the issues are involved, would be a step in the right direction.,ALFRED KAHN,Q. MR. President, Alfred Kahn, your inflation adviser, appears to be constantly making impressions, though not the impression that you want to make or, perhaps, the impression that he wants to make. He says things which in their own terms may seem logical but then produce headlines which indicate floating trial balloons about possible mandatory price controls or perhaps predicting a recession. Do you think there is anything more that you can do now to set straight what it is that Mr. Kahn does that produces so much confusion?,THE PRESIDENT. It's obvious that neither Alfred Kahn nor I have discovered an ability to control the headlines. [Laughter],I think he does the best he can under very difficult circumstances in putting forward to the American people the options that we have to control inflation. The particular recent incident to which you may have referred said that there are two unacceptable alternatives. One is mandatory price and wage guidelines, and the other one is a deliberate recession that would cause very high unemployment. Those are unacceptable to me.,I might point out, as a matter of interest to the public, because this is quite often not recognized, the President of the United States does not have the authority to impose mandatory wage and price guidelines. In 1973 President Nixon did have that standby authority, and he used it. I do not want such standby authority, and there would be no way, in my opinion, for the Congress to pass such legislation. I think it would arouse tremendous opposition in the Congress, including filibuster, and so it's a prospect that I don't think will be materializing at all.,If the Congress should attempt to grant standby wage and price authority, mandatory wage and price authority, I would resist it.,Q. Is your confidence in Mr. Kahn as a spokesman diminished?,THE PRESIDENT. My confidence in Mr. Kahn as a spokesman is undiminished.,INCOME TAX SURCHARGE,Q. Mr. President, we've heard a lot of talk recently about balanced budgets, and you've stated that's your goal. I'm wondering if you'd consider asking Congress for an income tax surcharge similar to the one former President Johnson asked for in the mid-sixties. You have a similar economic situation, demand-oriented inflation. If you could get an income tax surcharge, you would automatically wipe out your budget deficit, and it would make all these folks who want the balanced budget, you know, put up or shut up, so to speak. Or is this sort of thing not politically possible?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think it's advisable. Because of inflationary pressures, the income revenues inevitably go up year by year. Even before I became President, there was a routine reduction of income tax rates from time to time. And for me to ask for an increase in the income tax rate would be both inadvisable for the well-being of the Nation and, also, I think, impossible. So, I would not consider doing that.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, a question on SALT. Secretary Vance and Ambassador Dobrynin have met several times in the last few days. Secretary Brown and Dr. Brzezinski made some major statements last week. Would you tell us now, or give us your assessment of the current state of play on SALT, any detail you could give us on the remaining issues and the prospects for a Soviet-American summit?,THE PRESIDENT. After many mistakes, I have promised the public that I would not predict a date for a summit or for the conclusion of the SALT negotiations. But I can tell you that persistently we have made progress. There has never been an interruption in the negotiating process, there's never been a setback nor a delay. Recently, there have been additional steps toward concluding a SALT agreement. There are still a few issues that remain to be resolved, clarifications in the stance of the United States negotiators and the Soviet negotiators.,My guess is that we will not approach the question of where or when a summit meeting between myself and President Brezhnev will be held until after we resolve these remaining SALT differences.,HANDGUN CONTROL,Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you supported tighter controls on handguns. The White House helped draw a gun control bill last year. Now there are reports that the White House has abandoned lobbying efforts for gun control on the Hill. Can you tell us whether you do still support stiffer gun controls and whether an administration bill will go to Congress this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we'd be glad to cooperate with the Congress on this. Last year, the Treasury Department issued a routine requirement concerning the registration of the serial numbers, I think, on certain types of handguns. The Congress not only rejected that idea, but they removed from the Treasury budget, I think, $4 1/2 million that could have been used to administer that program. I think that indicates the attitude of the Congress.,So, although I do favor increased safety of the American people because of this step, I think to pursue it aggressively in the Congress would be a mistake. But we will cooperate with the Congress.,LOANS TO CARTER'S WAREHOUSE,Q. Mr. President, about the peanut warehouse business, you have said and your spokesmen have said that no money was diverted into your '76 Presidential campaign for those loans. My question is, did you know in 1976 or anytime thereafter that the terms of the loans might not have been complied with, that is, that the bank might not have been repaid on the schedule and according to the terms that the loans were set out in?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never known, nor do I now know, of any illegal action taken at Carter's Warehouse. There have been allegations widely discussed in the press and verbally by some people about the channeling of loan funds to Carter's Warehouse into the campaign itself. I don't know of any evidence that's ever been put forward to the public from any source that could form a basis for those allegations. Those allegations are absolutely and totally untrue.,A special investigator has been now appointed to look into allegations about which there are no bases, so far as I know. We will cooperate completely with the special investigator. And I hope that his work will be thorough, and I hope that he will expedite a conclusion.,There is nothing at Carter's Warehouse that I know of or have ever heard of that would arouse any conviction in the mind of the special investigator that illegalities were present.,BALANCED BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, you brought up the matter of cutting Federal expenses as a means of controlling inflation.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. This fits into quite a bit of activity in this area over quite a number of months, going back to Proposition 13 in California, efforts to amend the Constitution to get a balanced budget.,I wonder if I could ask you if, given your campaign pledge to balance the budget before your first term ends, whether you will, in fact, next January, submit a balanced budget?,THE PRESIDENT. My hope is to do so. Obviously, you can't predict what economic circumstances will be. We have cut down the budget deficit that I inherited by more than half, I think better than 55 percent. And there's a growing inclination, not only on the part of the American people but also the Congress, to cooperate in my efforts to balance the budget. So, that is my intention. But I can't predict all economic circumstances to guarantee it to the American people.,It would be a very attractive accomplishment politically. It would be completely compatible with my own economic and political philosophy. And it's a goal that I aspire to achieve.,ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY,Q. Mr. President, 3 months have passed since the Guadeloupe summit, where you and the Western leaders made a pledge for an urgent economic aid to Turkey.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Where does the matter stand now, and what is the American Government doing on this subject? Would you give us some information?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. At Guadeloupe, the decision was made by all four of the leaders there that Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and his government would take the leadership in trying to approach the Turkish economic problem from a multinational basis. We have cooperated with Chancellor Schmidt. We've also advocated to the Congress just recently that a total increase above and beyond our loans and grants of about $150 million would be added to our budget request.,We anticipate that Germany and, perhaps, other countries would more than match this allocation of our own aid to Turkey. We don't yet know what the outcome will be. We will certainly discuss this again at the Tokyo economic summit when we arrive there in June. And the Congress will make a decision on this matter unilaterally in our own country.,WINDFALL PROFITS TAX,Q. Mr. President, by decontrolling domestic oil prices without your hoped-for excess profits tax, and seemingly a lot of opposition to it in Congress and elsewhere, aren't you taking a heck of a chance on the good will of the oil companies and their desire to supply the Nation with oil, as opposed to making more and more money? And why should they be more inclined to do that now and to invest in exploration and development now than they were when they reaped their first windfall back in the early seventies?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not depending on the oil companies to get the windfall profits tax passed. My prediction is that they will not support this tax. [Laughter] But I believe that the tax will pass.,There's a different mood in the country now than there was when I proposed the crude oil equalization tax. There were several obstacles to the passage of that tax. One was that I had a multiplicity of responsibilities in energy, because it was a comprehensive package. I couldn't focus on one particular part of it. Secondly, if the Congress had passed the crude oil equalization tax that I proposed 2 years ago, they would at the same time have had to be responsible for decontrol. I have taken that responsibility on my own shoulders, as mandated by the Congress, to be accomplished by September of 1981.,I think the Congress is much more willing now to prevent the oil companies from reaping this great windfall from unearned profits. And I believe that the American people can focus much more accurately and intensely on this one basic issue.,One of the reasons that I decided to take the action which I announced on television the other night was to narrow down the focus of congressional debate, primarily on that one issue—should we or should we not let the oil companies capture about $15 billion which they have not earned, or should we retain a substantial portion of that to meet the needs of the American people?,That's the basic issue. And I think because the issue is so clearly defined and the mood of the country has changed and I can focus on that issue with the full resources of my own office, I believe that it will pass.,OIL COMPANY DIVESTITURE OR NATIONALIZATION,Q. By way of followup, Mr. President, are you any more in favor of divestiture or even nationalization now than when you were first asked about it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I'm not in favor of nationalization. I think there is some exploration to be done on the subject of divestiture, particularly in horizontal divestiture, so-called, where there have been allegations made in the past, some of which I believe, that some of the major energy companies have invested—for instance, oil companies have invested in coal mining and then used their ownership of new coal mines to reduce production of those mines, therefore, to minimize competition and also to control prices.,I think the horizontal divestiture area should be explored thoroughly, but I am not in favor of nationalization of the energy industry in this country.,REINSTATEMENT OF THE DRAFT,Q. Mr. President, do you have a comment about the reinstatement of the draft? There are many young Americans that are worrying that the draft is going to be reinstated, sir. Do you have a comment on that, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any immediate prospect that we would want to reinstate the draft. We are meeting the needs of our regular Armed Forces adequately with the present voluntary recruitment program. There are some problems in the Reserve forces which we are trying now to address. We will continue to assess the needs. We do have the authority, as you know, to register persons for a draft in the future, if it's needed.,I would like to say that if we ever do institute a draft, I would like to make it universal in its scope. I don't think that just because someone is wealthy enough or influential enough to go to college that they ought to be excused from being susceptible to the draft. But at the present time, I see no immediate prospect of reinstitution of the draft.,PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS,Q. As a born-again Christian, Mr. President, what is your position on prayers in public schools?,THE PRESIDENT. My preference is that the Congress not get involved in the question of mandating prayer in school. I am a Christian; I happen to be a Baptist. I believe that the subject of prayer in school ought to be decided between a person, individually and privately, and God.,And the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. And I personally don't think that the Congress ought to pass any legislation requiring or permitting prayer being required or encouraged in school. Sometimes a student might object even to so-called voluntary prayer when it's public and coordinated. It might be very embarrassing to a young person to say, \"I want to be excused from the room because I don't want to pray.\",So, I don't know all of the constitutional aspects of this very difficult and sensitive of questions, but I think that it ought to be an individual matter between a person and God.,GASOLINE RATIONING,Q. Mr. President, we are still in a crisis that is, as you called it, a moral equivalent of war. Why not move to rationing? I mean, wouldn't that be the fair way of doing it? And isn't the American public now ready for that kind of a sacrifice?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the gasoline shortages are so severe that they warrant rationing. But we have asked the Congress for standby authority to impose rationing if and when it is needed in the future. Prior to then, though, we will pursue both voluntary and some mandatory conservative measures.,My own inclination is to let the States make the first effort to meet reduced gasoline consumption standards. If they don't, then we would turn to other measures, like the closing of service stations on weekends and so forth. But I would rather let the people do it voluntarily first, let the States do it secondly, and hold in reserve gas rationing for some time in the future.,I hope it would be a distant future, and I hope that we'll be so conscious of the need to produce gasoline in our own country, to have more efficient automobiles, to move toward carpooling and the use of mass transit, that we would not require gasoline rationing.,CONSTRAINTS ON OIL COMPANIES,Q. Mr. President, in your opening statement today, you said that the American people have the right to expect that the oil companies will use the profits they do receive to develop more oil.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Beyond the right to expect, is there or do you have in mind any way to compel the oil companies to do that, to use those profits for production and development and research?,THE PRESIDENT. The oil companies will get, after the windfall tax is levied, about $6 billion in increased revenue or income in the next 3 years. That money should be plowed back into increased production of oil and gas. And I would favor any constraints placed on the oil companies by the Congress or administratively, within my own sphere of influence, to encourage that use of increased revenues for oil and gas production.,Q. Would you require it?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would be glad to put restraints on them. I don't know if you could require it in every instance, but I would certainly favor either laws or administrative actions to put constraints, so that they would plow back that oil into energy production.,As I said in my opening statement, for them to take that money and use it to buy circuses or to buy timberlands or to buy motels or department stores, I think contravenes the need of our country, and it contravenes the purpose that I and the Congress have in mind when we give them that additional income.,ITINERARY FOR EAST ASIAN TRIP,Q. Mr. President, you said that you're going to the economic summit conference in Tokyo in June, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, in June.,Q. Will you also be going to South Korea? Will you also be going to any other countries?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know yet.,Q. You are uncertain about South Korea?,THE PRESIDENT. That's right. We've not decided on the itinerary yet.,MIDDLE EAST,Q. Within the last few hours, Mr. President, a terrorist bomb was exploded in Tel Aviv, and Israel has bombed Lebanon. Isn't there likely to be even more violence in the Middle East than there was before the treaty, and what can you do about it? And would you be willing to stop arms sales, all arms sales to the Mideast?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I would not be willing to stop all arms sales to the Middle East, because I think the countries there must have an adequate means of defending themselves—Israel, Egypt, and others.,Secondly, I believe that the terrorist bombing is a longstanding problem. It's not something that just has arisen because the treaty has been signed. I think the terrorism threats are counterproductive. My own hope is that the best way to alleviate this constant dependence on death and hatred and destruction and terrorism is to prove the viability and the advantages of the peace process.,I would like to see, as early as possible, but by the end of next month, all the borders open between Israel and Egypt, a free passage of students and tradesmen, diplomats, tourists, and for the demonstrated advantages to Israel and Egypt to be very apparent to the citizens of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and to the Palestinians, wherever they live, hoping to convince them that that's the best approach to achieve their own purposes and goals-that is, peace and a realization of the right to control their own future.,But I don't think there's any doubt that terrorism will continue in the coming months. I hope it will wane as it's proven that the peace treaty is permanent and that it is going to work.,An immediate step that will tend to convince everyone that it is permanent and cannot be disrupted by terrorist acts will be the quick ratification of the treaty by the Egyptian Parliament and the exchange of the documents themselves. And then the return of El Arish and the first part of the Sinai to Egypt—I think that will be a step in the right direction.,ENERGY CONSERVATION AT THE WHITE HOUSE,Q. Mr. President, in your speech last week, you asked the American people to cut back on the use of energy. Do you and your family have any plans to do likewise? And if so, could you elaborate on that a little bit, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we comply with the thermostat settings and have ever since the first time I began to work on that in 1977. We've shifted, as you know, the White House fleet of cars to smaller and more efficient automobiles. Our travel is pretty much official, except for rare vacations, which we hope to take on Easter.,I hope we can set an example for the rest of the Nation. We have just begun the construction of a solar heating unit on top of the West Wing, just behind the Oval Office, this month, which will be completed before the end of April.,So, we are trying to do a few personal things to demonstrate our belief in the principles that I described the other night.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-03-25","text":"Held in Dallas, Texas,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, President Wasilewski. Dr. Stevens, Mayor Folsom, officers and members of the National Association of Broadcasters, friends:,This afternoon, instead of giving a long speech, I thought I would make just a few brief remarks and then turn the rest of the time over to you for questions.,I think it's only fair for a change that an elected official offer the broadcasting industry equal time. [Laughter],It's hard for me to believe that less than 60 years ago, our country was served by only three full-time radio stations, or that only 30 years ago, television was a fledgling pioneer which most people expected to fail.,Today, you bind America together with instant communications. You shape our culture, our language, our perception of ourselves, and our understanding of the entire world.,What you see and say and show is reality for millions of Americans. They may never visit Jerusalem in Israel, or Cairo in Egypt, never set foot on the Moon, never even go to Washington, D.C., or come here to Texas. But the people of our country know what these places look like, and they participate in important events because of the communications you provide.,When I grew up, we had no electricity on our farm or in our home. And I remember vividly sitting outdoors at night with my family gathered around a battery-powered radio, hooked to the battery in my father's car, listening to the news or Glenn Miller or a political convention,in some distant city. Broadcasting in those days opened up new worlds to us, just as it has done for millions of other people.,All over the world, broadcasting is helping to break down barriers of time and distance, of misunderstanding and mistrust, of hatred, that have separated and divided the world's people one from another. I wonder whether the people of Israel and Egypt would have taken that final step towards peace and reconciliation had they not been able to see the faces of each other on television or heard the voices of each other on radio, when there was a prospect for peace and they saw within their own hearts, through the broadcast medium, that others in a country that was completely distant and alien also were willing to take a chance on peace and an end to war.,And tomorrow, broadcasting will bring to the entire world a truly historic sight: Prime Minister Menahem Begin and President Anwar Sadat signing a treaty of peace.,REGULATORY REFORM,I believe the public interest can best be served by a broadcasting industry which is healthy, independent, and diverse. And I will also continue to support vigorously opportunities for minority ownership and a strong public broadcasting system free from political control.,I applaud the hard work and the leadership of your chairman, Don Thurston, on behalf of the NAB minority ownership fund. My administration will continue to work with the FCC and the Congress to encourage diversity and independence in your industry, instead of Government paperwork and controls.,As broadcasters, you have a special sensitivity both to the benefits and to the burdens of Government regulation.,Tomorrow, I'm submitting to the Congress a comprehensive proposal to reduce, to rationalize, and to streamline the regulatory burden throughout American life. And I want to speak to you very briefly about that legislation today.,The call for regulatory reform is not a demand that all regulation be abolished; it's a call for common sense. And I believe that most Americans do support responsible regulation to provide equal opportunity for employment, a clean environment, safe drugs and food, a healthy workplace, and a competitive marketplace.,Because of responsible regulation, the air we breathe is cleaner today; our automobiles are safer and they burn less gasoline; millions of American workers have won new protections against injury and cancer. And I understand that for the first time in 20 years, fish are now swimming in places like the Connecticut River and the Houston Ship Channel. Both the American people and I, as President, are determined to continue the progress that we've made toward these social goals.,Our challenge is to pursue the legitimate goals of regulation in ways that are rational, predictable, and effective. For far too long, we have acted as if we could throw another law or another rule at every problem in our society without thinking seriously about the consequences of it.,When I came to Washington a little more than 2 years ago, I found a regulatory assembly line which churned out new rules, paperwork, regulations, and forms without plan, without direction and, seemingly, without supervision or control.,With the best of intentions, 90 separate regulatory agencies were issuing 7,000 new rules every single year. These rules affect teachers, truckdrivers, broadcasters, farmers, small business, and local government. But no one had stopped to say, \"Does each of these rules make sense? Does it do the job? How much does it cost, and is there a cheaper way to achieve goals just as effectively?\",The FCC now requires 18 million man-hours each year from broadcasters to fill out the paperwork imposed by its rules and regulations. Perhaps you've noticed this already. [Laughter] But Chairman Charlie Ferris is working to reduce that load through a zero-based review of every FCC rule and regulation.,I know that he will succeed in this effort to reduce paperwork. He has my full support. And he also, of course, needs your support.,For too many Americans, today's contact with government at every level means a bewildering mass of paperwork, bureaucracy, and delay. And the costs of compliance with government regulations has been steadily on the rise. It eats up productivity and capital for new investment. It adds to inflation, and the burdens often fall most heavily on those who are least able to bear those burdens—small businesses, local government, nonprofit organizations.,Our society's resources in this country are vast, but they are certainly not infinite. Americans are willing to spend a fair share of those resources to achieve social goals through regulation, but they want their money's worth. They will not support—and I will not permit—needless rules, excessive costs, duplication, overlap, and waste.,It's time that we take control of Federal regulations in America, instead of regulations continuing to control us. As President, I take the management of the regulatory .process as seriously as I do the goals it's intended to achieve.,The legislation which I will submit to Congress tomorrow will continue and streamline our own reform efforts and expand them to every independent regulatory agency. It will accomplish five major goals, which I will list very briefly in closing.,First, this legislation will make sure that the costs and benefits of all major regulations and rules are weighed before they are issued. From now on, regulators will have to get the job done at the least possible cost, and they will have to justify the bill to the American people.,Secondly, this legislation will help us to clean up the enormous backlog of rules and regulations that have accumulated over the years, but have long since outlived their usefulness.,By deregulating airlines last year, we saved consumers $2 1/2 billion in reduced fares. We have brought record profits to the airline industry, and we have begun, for the first time in my memory, to dismantle a Federal bureaucracy.,Third, it'll put a brake on the regulatory assembly line. It will make sure that Government plans ahead, that the American people know what new rules are going to be proposed, and that regulations are developed not in the secret inner sanctums of the bureaucracy, but under the supervision of senior officials who are accountable to the people, to me as President, and to the Congress.,Fourth, this legislation will end needless delays and endless procedural nightmares which have plagued too many Americans for too long. It should not have taken 12 years and a hearing record of over 100,000 pages for the FDA to decide what percentage of peanuts there ought to be in peanut butter. [Laughter] I would have used that example even if I had grown soybeans and wheat, by the way. [Laughter],And finally, this legislation will open up the rulemaking process. It will ensure that all Americans have a voice—consumers and small business, local officials, State governments, certainly, you—not just the best financed and the best organized interest groups.,In regaining control of the regulations that govern our lives, we can also regain our faith in self-government. Together, we will reaffirm that our future depends not on fate or accident or impersonal forces beyond our control, but on our own decisions as a free people in the freest democracy on Earth, which I am determined to see become even more free.,Thank you very much. I'd now like to answer some questions.,QUESTIONS,RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES,Q. Mr. President, George Allen of KLGA, Algona, Iowa. Iowa is corn country, and Iowans are concerned about the lack of appropriations to test and develop gasohol as an energy source. Are you planning any actions from the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The testing and the use of gasohol and other energy sources derived from replenishable materials is a very high priority for us. We are increasing every year the allocation of funds for that purpose. The Congress is now considering, as you know, some mandatory, step-by-step increment increase in the amount of gasohol that has to be mixed with gasoline. We are considering this proposal. It's being sponsored by, I think, Senator Church and others. The final decision is yet to be made.,Within the next week, I will make a decision about the regulatory process for the Government in energy prices, as you know. And by September of 1981, the present authority for regulation of oil prices expires. Any additional income that is derived from possible taxes in the future on which I've not yet decided would certainly be channeled into new energy sources, as well as conservation and the enhancement of our American domestic production. Gasohol and other similar replenishable sources of fuel will certainly be near the top of the list.,BROADCAST INDUSTRY DEREGULATION,Q. I'm Katherine Broman, president of Springfield Television in Springfield, Massachusetts. And you were up visiting us a few years ago.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, and my wife was there last week.,Q. That's right. You have taken my question and practically answered it before, because I was going to ask you about deregulation of the broadcast industry. But let me ask you, can you give us a timetable as to when we are going to be free of some of the paperwork that you have discussed?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Charlie Ferris, who is here with me today and will stay until Wednesday to answer your questions specifically, can give you a better time frame.,This legislation that will be proposed to the Congress tomorrow covers not only the FCC but all other independent regulatory agencies, and I've already covered the regulatory agencies under my control or influence already.,As you know, most of these agencies have to be under the control of laws themselves, because the President, of necessity, has no control over them.,We've already made a great deal of progress. In the health field, for instance, HEW has already eliminated more than 300 specific reports that have to be brought in in health. In 1 day last year, OSHA eliminated 1,000 regulations as a wonderful gift to the American public and to the President.,And Charlie Ferris flew from Washington to Oklahoma, now down here with me yesterday and this morning, and he is absolutely determined that the FCC will equal the achievements that I have just described. He's got my support and my help.,So, in a generic sense, because of legislation and in the FCC itself—which has an equal determination administratively-we will make that progress that I've described to you.,I might point out that many of the regulations that presently are burdensome have been proposed and supported and are still supported by the broadcasting industry itself. So, we've got to be very careful as we remove regulations not to interfere in the orderly processes of your industry. But I can assure you that my own direct Presidential influence and interest is in it for political benefits to myself, if I succeed, as well as what I detect to be in the best interests of our country.,FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVILEGES,Q. Mr. President, I'm Dick Chapin with KFOR in Lincoln, Nebraska, and I'd like to ask the question if you believe that broadcasters are entitled to the same first amendment privileges as are the newspapers?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a hard question for me to answer, because it has so many ramifications. [Laughter],Q. It surely is.,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, the Federal Government doesn't license newspapers and assign a certain spectrum to them within which they can operate. And for me to say that I would want to remove all regulation of the Federal Government in assigning frequencies or issuing licenses to the broadcasting industry would not be—I mean, I would have to say no. But as far as interference in the content of news programs, as far as honoring the principles of the first amendment, obviously I would say yes. I can't answer your question any better than that, because it has such far-reaching ramifications.,But there are so many wide differences between the newspaper industry and the broadcasting industry—spectrum is just one example—that I can't say that I would give the same identical freedom to the broadcasting industry as newspapers. But I think we'll have less restraints on your industry when I go out of office by far than existed when I came into office.,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, my name is Wade Hargrove. I'm general counsel for the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters. Despite your commendable efforts to control inflation and not unduly burden the country with wage and price controls, none of these efforts, or in fact the efforts of your recent predecessors, really seemed to have worked. Where do we go from here?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's too early to say that the efforts have not worked. I think it's going to take 3 months or so, still, before the full impact of what we have tried to do with voluntary wage and price guidelines can be accurately assessed.,I can tell you without any fear of contradiction, for instance, that in the last 2 or 3 months, wage settlements throughout this country have averaged well within the guidelines that we've established. Also, we have monitored very closely the Fortune 500 businesses, the 500 largest businesses in our country. As far as we know, there have been none of those large companies that have violated the price standards.,Now we're expanding the coverage to the medium-sized and smaller companies, many of whom have not even felt that the voluntary guidelines apply to them. We will identify in the very near future four or five companies which have indeed violated the guidelines. They have a 10-day appeal period during which they can prove that they have complied. If they don't prove that, then we'll identify them. Any company so identified will have their names made public, so that the general populace, the consumers, can take action accordingly.,In addition, because of prudent purchasing practices, we will terminate or sharply reduce any Federal purchases from those companies involved. In addition, we will greatly beef up, within the next few weeks, the number of personnel who are monitoring these companies to make sure we have a broader base on which to predicate our future decisions.,I might say that some of those larger companies, within the guidelines which were deliberately somewhat flexible, have utilized the guidelines to their own advantage. That was predictable. We were not surprised at that. They took advantage of every loophole in the guidelines themselves. Now, with 2 or 3 months' experience which we have, we will tighten up those original issued guidelines to make them conform more stringently.,I'd like to add one other thing: Many of the inflationary pressures that are now becoming obvious in our country exist worldwide. Neither I, as President, nor any other head of state nor any government has control over the price, for instance, that exists worldwide for things like copper, aluminum, oil.,Beef is in short supply throughout the world. Our present import quota, for instance—we are having a difficult time even meeting the quota, whereas, 8 or 9 months ago, every time I talked to anyone from Costa Rica or New Zealand or Australia, what they wanted was a higher beef quota. Now they can't even meet the quota that they have for us.,So, many food items, many commodity items, energy, are at a high price all over the world.,Domestically, it's very difficult to lay the blame on anyone for an increase in lumber prices. No single company arbitrarily says, \"I'm going to increase my price for lumber or other building materials—wallboard, for instance, or insulation materials.\",We have sustained in the last couple of years a very high level of home construction, about 2.2 million homes per year. And because of the demand for houses, we're just short on supply. I'm not particularly concerned about the high profit margins that were revealed last quarter, because we need to have a reinvestment of those profits back in higher productivity, increased jobs, to meet some of the short supply demands.,We're now very near maximum capacity in some of our industries. So, I think it's too early to say that we ought to abandon this program because we do have bad CPI index figures this week.,I am not considering—no one in my administration dares to propose to me and never has proposed that we have mandatory price and wage controls. But I am determined to do the best I can, within the broad guidelines established, to get industry and labor to comply with controlling wage and prices. And I'm going to do my part as President.,I'm working toward a balanced budget. We've already cut down the deficit that existed when I ran for President, which was $66 billion, to considerably less than $30 billion next year.,I'm working on a balanced budget. So, I'm going to do all I can to bring in the kind of demonstrated achievement that would inspire the American consumer, business, and labor to cooperate with me. And I'd like to remind all of you here that as you established your own prices for advertisement or for other things that you market, that you help to join in a partnership to bring control of inflation.,But I'm not about to abandon a very tough posture on controlling wages and prices on a voluntary basis, and I believe that we can and will succeed.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE TREATY,Q. Mr. President, Bill Sims, Wycom Corporation, Laramie, Wyoming. First of all, forgive me, sir, before my question, if you could leave a little piece of paper with your name on it at the podium, a big fan of yours would love to have it. [Laughter],My question, sir: With sometimes conflicting reports coming from the Middle East almost daily, how can the American public be sure that the agreement you will sign this week is not just window dressing? Sir, does this agreement really have meaningful significance to the world?,THE PRESIDENT. I think perhaps a hundred years from now, 50 years from now, what occurs tomorrow may be the most significant occurrence during my own term of office as President. We are a nation at peace. It's a notable achievement for a country as large as ours to be at peace.,In the Mideast, war there not only afflicts the lives of everyone involved, but it's a constant constraint on the quality of life when the people in Egypt, people in Israel—who deeply desire to live in harmony with their neighbors—have never been able to do it since Israel was founded.,When I go back 8 or 9 months to assess what did exist then and see where we stand now, it's almost unbelievable. Sadat said when I was in Egypt recently that what we achieved at Camp David was a miracle, that he never expected either Egypt or Israel to reach an agreement when he went there.,I think that we now have a posture where our excellent friends, the Israelis, and our excellent friends, the Egyptians, can be friends with one another. We're going to have a short period of time—I believe it will be short—with threats and posturing and possibly some acts of terrorism mounted against [by] 1 those who oppose peace in the Middle East.,1 Printed in the transcript.,But my belief is that if we can open those borders and have thousands of students going back and forth between Cairo and Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv and Alexandria, and tourists going to visit the Pyramids and coming to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, and open trade and commerce, that the people themselves will so deeply appreciate the difference in their quality of life and their attitude toward life, that no matter who the leaders might be in the future, this peace will be permanent.,We're going to not stop here. We've got to address the very difficult question of the Palestinian problem.,The Israelis are committed to this proposition, the Egyptians are committed to this proposition, and so are we. But I think as we let the other Arab entities-the PLO, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis—see the tremendous benefits of the peace between Israel and Egypt, it's going to be much easier to bring them in the process and therefore achieve what I dream about—which may not come during my own term of office, but I'll continue to work for—and that is a comprehensive peace throughout the Middle East.,So, I think it is very significant, it is permanent, it's a first step. But as Sadat says, it's a foundation for what we all dream for—that comprehensive peace in the Middle East. I think it's a very good step.,TAXATION OF COMMERCIAL BROADCASTERS,Q. Mr. President, I'm Forrest Amsden, King Broadcasting Company, Seattle, Washington. There are a number of proposals in Congress and emanating from sortie members of the regulatory commissions for a high spectrum tax on commercial television and radio stations, as high as perhaps half or three-quarters of a million dollars a year for a television station in, let's say, Dallas. These funds would be used for a number of social purposes not really affecting broadcasting, and also for public broadcasting. Have you a position on this?,THE PRESIDENT. My administration has no intention of introducing legislation like that. As you know, Senator Fritz Hollings and Barry Goldwater and others in the Senate, Congressman Van Deerlin in the House, have introduced legislation similar to what you've described. I have not interpreted that legislation to want to channel those funds into social programs, however.,We've not yet taken a position on it. I've not seen a detailed analysis of what they have proposed. So, I really can't answer your question any better than that. We will monitor it. I'll listen to my advisers. I'll certainly hear from you, I'm sure, and we want to make certain that the legislation is not onerous on you.,I believe that there are some tradeoffs that might have been proposed in the legislation, which you did not mention. There may be some fees assessed for the use of spectra, but on the other hand, there will be an additional freedom for your own industry to operate in. And I believe, in addition, there were some more extended times for the licenses to be prevailing, that sort of thing.,But I'm not trying to say what my position is. I've just read about it very briefly in preparation for this visit. We've not yet taken an administrative position, and I doubt if I will take one until the hearings have been completed and we see more clearly the attitude of the Congress and the attitude of this organization as well.,Maybe one more question, and then they tell me my time is up.,Q. Len Hensel, WSM in Nashville, Tennessee. Sir, Mr. Amsden stepped on my question. But while considering that same proposal, I would appreciate it, sir, if you would consider what we call the repugnance of commercial broadcasting financing public broadcasting from taxes as opposed to the general fund.,THE PRESIDENT. I will certainly consider that. [Laughter],Q. Thank you.,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, I'm Carol Rosenweig, and I'm here with my husband, Saul, who is also a president. He's president of ATO Communications, which owns WILX-TV in Lansing, Michigan. He also was in your Naval ROTC class at Georgia Tech.,My question deals also with inflation. Washington places much of the blame for inflation on business and labor. But since the Government controls the printing press and is by far the biggest spender in the Nation, I'd like to ask you, doesn't the primary responsibility for inflation really lie with the Federal Government and just filter down to the rest of us? [Applause],THE PRESIDENT. That seems to be the most popular question so far. [Laughter],Q. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say the answer is no. [Laughter] But let me explain.,One of the causes for continued inflationary pressures, which have existed at an extraordinary level for the last 10 years or more, is a natural inclination on the part of Americans to find a scapegoat.,I felt, when I ran for President in 1975 and 1976, that the Federal deficit was entirely too high. I established then as one of my major goals the balancing of the Federal budget. We've made a great deal of progress. By the 1980 fiscal year budget, if it's adopted the way I presented it-and it may be even better when the Congress and I get through with it—we will have cut the deficit by over 55 percent. This is major progress in times of heavy demand for governmental services.,And, as you know, I have taken the step of strengthening our own Nation's security commitment and defense commitment in NATO and other places.,It's obvious to me that industry, all employers, labor, the government at all levels, and consumers are in this together. And until each one of us does our part, we'll never find a resolution of the problem.,Last night I was in Elk City, Oklahoma. A farmer stood up and asked me if I didn't think that business was responsible for inflation because last quarter profits were 26 percent higher than they had been a year before. And then I asked him what his profession was. He said he was a farmer. I said, \"Do you realize that in 1978 net farm income was up 30 percent? Would you say that the farmers were responsible for inflation?\" And he very quickly said no.,The point is I'm doing all I can as head of our Government to control inflation. You need to do all you can within the area of your own influence. But if your own prices and charges go up more than our guidelines, you will have directly contributed to inflation and have hurt your own country.,And it's a responsibility that each of us ought to accept. I certainly accept my share of the responsibility as President. I hope you will do the same. I hope all business and labor will also take responsibility, and the consumers as well. Only by assessing it as a partnership and not trying to find a scapegoat can we possibly succeed. But I am absolutely determined and I am absolutely convinced that if we work together we can bring inflation under control.,Let me say in closing that I have thoroughly enjoyed being with you. I hope that you listened very carefully to my opening remarks, because I recognize that perhaps there is no other industry on Earth that has a greater impact on the consciousness of people and, therefore, a greater impact on the evolution of our Nation in a positive direction.,What the rest of the world thinks about America is primarily determined by you. And I think the honesty, the integrity, the accuracy, the freedom of the American broadcasting industry is absolutely crucial to making our Nation, which is the greatest nation on Earth, even freer and greater in the future. In that respect, you and I are also partners.\nThank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-02-27","text":"EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,THE PRESIDENT. In my 2 years as President, I've spent more time and invested more of my own personal effort in the search for peace in the Middle East than on any other international problem. That investment of time and effort was and is appropriate because of the great importance of peace in that region to our own country and the vital importance of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt to those two countries.,Some progress was made in the talks at Camp David last week, 4 1/2 days of talks. I do not share the opinion that the proposals that we put forward were contrary to the Camp David agreements of last September or that they would make an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty meaningless.,Based upon the developments of last week and the recommendations of all the parties involved, I had hoped to be able to convene without delay negotiations at a level which would permit the early conclusion of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, as a first step toward a wider settlement for the entire Middle East.,I regret that such direct negotiations are not possible at this time. I'm concerned about the impact of this development upon the prospects for peace. However, it was the belief of all those at Camp David—Secretary Vance and all the negotiators from Israel and Egypt—that the conclusion of an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty is an urgent necessity. I share that view completely.,If we allow the prospects for peace that seemed so bright last September when we came back from Camp David to continue to dim and perhaps even to die, the future, at best, is unpredictable. If we allow that hope to vanish, then the judgment of history and of our own children will of necessity, and rightly, condemn us for an absence of concerted effort.,For that reason, I spoke personally this afternoon with Prime Minister Begin and with President Sadat. I've invited Prime Minister Begin to join me as soon as possible for a frank discussion of all the issues involved. I'm hopeful that these talks will lead to an early resumption of direct negotiations.,Prime Minister Begin has accepted my invitation. He will be arriving here Thursday evening for discussions with me.,I will then consider asking either Prime Minister Khalil or President Sadat to join in further discussions. I recognize that the public interest in this matter is intense. However, I have made it clear in the past that any premature public discussions of these very sensitive issues serve no useful purpose. For that reason, I will have no further comments to make on the Mideast peace negotiations this afternoon, but I will be happy to answer any further questions on other matters of interest to the American public.,QUESTIONS,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Well, Mr. President, I really think you should answer a couple of questions. One, are you saying that Camp David is back on track or you are trying to get it on? And also, were you led to believe by your own advisers or by the Israeli officials that Begin would come, or did you labor under some false assumption on your part?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't have any other questions to answer on that subject. I think I've covered it adequately. And Prime Minister Begin is making a simultaneous announcement in Israel, and I don't think it would be constructive for me to answer any questions further.,INFLATION AND ENERGY PRICES,Q. Mr. President, does the escalating price of oil and gasoline, which is continuing-does that cause you to have any second thoughts now about your prediction of inflation for the year?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously, the unpredictable shortage of oil on the international market, caused by the Iranian disruption of supply and other factors, have caused the price of energy to go up faster than we had anticipated. This adds inflationary pressures. The situation with supplies and prices is serious; it's not critical.,I have made proposals to the Congress for standby authority to take action, when necessary in the future, on a mandatory basis. Early next month we will present to the Congress, also for their approval, matters that I can take—action that I can take to deal with the temporary Iranian disruption.,As you know, we had in 1973 about a 2-million barrel-a-day shortage brought about by the embargo. We now have a shortage of about 2 million barrels per day. But I think it's accurate to say that our own country and the international consuming nations, including us, are much better organized to take care of these changes that have been taking place. So, inflationary pressures do exceed what we had anticipated. I think we are much better prepared to deal with them.,CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY,Q. Mr. President, some of your critics are saying that you are exhibiting weakness and impotency in your conduct of foreign affairs, that is, in your reaction to crises around the world. And although you argue that your policy is one of prudent restraint, is there not something to the idea that the perception itself adds to the problem of this country's interests? And, if so, is there anything you can do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously, perceptions have some importance in political terms and also in diplomatic terms. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States is adequately protecting its own interests, that we are adequately protecting the interests of our allies and friends as commitments bind us to do. We've had no complaints about them in this respect. And I think that an exercise of prudence in trying to contain our regional disputes and combat among other nations is in the best interest of our own country.,We are a strong nation, the strongest on Earth—militarily, politically, economically. I'm committed to preserving that strength of our Nation, even enhancing it. And I think it would be completely improper for us, for instance, to inject ourselves in any active way into the combat that's presently taking place among Communist Asian nations, or to try to intrude in a completely unwarranted fashion into the internal affairs, political affairs, of other nations. And I have no intention of making these foolish decisions and taking foolish action to the detriment of our Nation's interest, just to assuage some who criticize me because we have not become actively involved in these kinds of circumstances.,SECRETARY BLUMENTHAL'S TRIP TO CHINA,Q. Mr. President, given all of that, when the United States was displeased with the action that the Soviets had taken in the Shcharanskiy case, we held up the sale of some oil-drilling equipment to the Soviets. Given the fact that we have condemned the Chinese attack into Vietnam, why is it that Treasury Secretary Blumenthal is now in China negotiating new trade agreements with the Chinese?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's a completely different circumstance. We've not had any bilateral disharmony between ourselves and the Chinese. We are changing our interest offices into embassies on the 1st of March, and I need a major representative of our country to be there when that change is made. Our new Ambassador, Leonard Woodcock, has just recently been approved by the Senate yesterday and will not be able to arrive on time.,We do not agree with many of the actions that the Soviets take in dealing with other countries. We've not let that disrupt our bilateral relationships with the Soviets. Our SALT talks, for instance, have never been interrupted nor delayed. And we have expressed our very firm disapproval to the Chinese about their crossing the Vietnamese border, and we have expressed our strong disapproval to the Soviets and to the Vietnamese for the Vietnamese crossing of the Cambodian border.,But for us to terminate bilateral relationships because a major country, the Soviets or the Chinese, do something contrary to our desires would certainly be counterproductive. And I think the trip to China to establish relationships with the Chinese for the future by Secretary Blumenthal is proper and was well-advised.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, your brother, Billy, has made some remarks concerning Jews, and I wonder, sir, if you deplore or condemn those remarks. I also have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. I might say, first of all, I don't have any control over what my brother says or what he does, and he has no control over what I say or do.,I know Billy and have known him since he was born, and I know for a fact that he is not anti-Semitic and has never made a serious, critical remark against Jews or other people in our country. To the extent that any of his remarks might be interpreted as such, I certainly do not agree and do not associate myself with them.,Billy is my brother. He's seriously ill at this point. I love him. I have no intention of alleging to him any condemnation that I don't think is warranted, and I would say that I disassociate myself and my brother, Billy, from any allegations of remarks that might be anti-Semitic in nature.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,Q. Mr. President, you have outlined now the authority you'd like Congress to give you for mandatory conservation of fuel, but could you outline for us which steps you would take first and just how serious you regard the situation right now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Congress has 60 days during which time they can decide whether or not to approve the standby authority that I have requested. What might be done first would remain to be seen. We don't have any present intentions of implementing any of those measures. We are asking for a complete rationing system on gasoline as a standby measure-which I think is a substantial improvement over the ones previously proposed—the right to prohibit the sale of gasoline on weekends, the right to control public advertising, and so forth. But I can't say at this point, not knowing the degree of shortage in the future of energy, and particularly gasoline, what I would do. But I think those standby rights that I could exercise if necessary are important, and I'll just have to make a judgment when the time comes.,PUBLIC BROADCASTING,Q. Mr. President, you were generally complimentary in your reaction to the Carnegie II report, which was released on public broadcasting recently. Specifically, I'd like to know, do you support the concept of a spectrum fee, of asking broadcasters to pay for their fair share of the use of the public's airwaves?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I've not studied the issue well enough to answer the question.,AIR AND WATER POLLUTION STANDARDS,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Schultze was testifying before Congress today about proposals to change pending regulations. I'm wondering, have you decided to delay or postpone major air and water pollution regulations?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no. We have an excellent record on the enforcement of the air and water pollution standards and, also, on the strengthening of those standards. It's important, however, that the regulations be administered in the most effective way and that economic considerations be taken into account when necessary. The regulators, Doug Costie and others, know that they have authority to consider that item and then to make their judgments accordingly.,I have not interfered in that process. I have a statutory responsibility and right to do so, but I think it would be a very rare occasion whenever I would want to do so. But we are certainly not going to abrogate nor to cancel the enforcement of the air and water pollution standards.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, recently Secretary Brown was in the Middle East and met with the leaders of those countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. And you have expressed the need and the desire for the United States to strengthen the defensive perimeter of that part of the world to safeguard the flow of oil. There have been public reports that the Saudi Arabian Government has refused an offer by the United States for the stationing of U.S. troops. I can't vouch for that report, but could you tell us what your plans are for that area and what we would be willing to do to safeguard the world's oil supply?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no desire to open military bases in that area or to station American troops in Saudi Arabia. And this proposal has not been made. That part of the report was erroneous. However, we do want to strengthen the combined responsibility and capability of our friends and allies who seek moderation and peace and stability to preserve the integrity of that region. Secretary Brown visited Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel for this purpose, and his trip was very successful.,It's important also for those nations and for others in that region to know that we have a real interest, a real national interest in the stability and peace of that region and, particularly, for the supply of oil, the routes through which the oil is delivered to ourselves and to our allies and friends throughout the world.,But any sort of action that we take would be contributory to peace, would not encroach on the prerogatives of individual nations. And we do not intend to become involved in the internal affairs of another country. We have no plans to establish military bases in that region.,PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, is Governor Brown talking sense or is he talking nonsense when he advocates his constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the convening of a constitutional convention to pass such an amendment would be very ill-advised, contrary to the best interests of our country. It would be a radical departure from the historic procedures that we have always used to amend our Constitution and might result in unlimited amendments which would change the basic thrust, the philosophy, and the structure of our Government itself. So, I would oppose very strongly any call of a constitutional amendment [convention] for that purpose.,I might say that there are other ways to do this. I have been a strong advocate for a balanced budget, and I'm doing all I can this year and will do it in subsequent years to reach a balanced budget. In my opinion, that's a subject that ought to be addressed through this kind of action and not through a very restrictive constitutional amendment.,Another thing that I would like to point out is that there would be a necessity for the careful drafting in such a constitutional amendment for exceptions. We would, obviously, have to deal with very serious economic circumstances if they did prevail, extremely high unemployment rate, or an extremely deep depression. In addition to that, we would have to meet the needs for national security if our Nation was threatened.,So, I consider the balancing of the budget to be best addressed by those of us who are working for it, within statutory limits that presently exist. If a constitutional amendment should take place, the constitutional convention process would be the worst imaginable route to that goal.,GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN,Q. If I may follow, do you think that Governor Brown would be a worthy adversary for you next year?,THE PRESIDENT. If I were looking for an adversary— [laughter] —then I would say that he or many others would be worthy.,OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, half a dozen OPEC countries have announced, or are threatening to do so, some kind of oil price hike in the last couple of weeks. It gives the impression that the United States is at their mercy and that we are helpless. Are we?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no control over prices that other nations establish for their products, including oil. This is a subject that I have addressed as forcefully as possible, since April of 1977, when we presented to the Congress a comprehensive energy proposal. Our best approach is to reduce exorbitant waste of oil and other energy products that presently exists in our country, to increase the production of oil and gas and other energy products within our Nation, and to use our legitimate influence when it can be exerted to minimize any increase in prices. But we cannot control other nations in this respect.,I might say that we are much better able now, as a world consuming community, to deal with these increases than we were back in 1973 and '4, when the price was quadrupled overnight without any warning, and before the consuming nations were working in harmony to provide reserves on hand, to increase exploration and production, which has since then occurred in the North Sea, in Mexico, obviously, in Alaska, and other places.,But we have no control over it. We deplore it. We would like for them to hold down the prices as much as possible. Our best response is to use energy in our own Nation efficiently, to cut out waste, and to increase our own production.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,Q. Mr. President, in view of what you've just said about the energy situation, why are you uncertain about whether you will impose the new conservation measures as soon as Congress gives you the authorization? It would seem that the country might be waiting for some sort of signal that things are really serious and that consumers must cut back.,THE PRESIDENT. If the Iranian production is not restored, then we would face a half-million-'barrel-a-day shortage, more or less, possibly increasing later on to 700,000 barrels a day. By the first of next month, in addition to the request to Congress that I've just put forward, we will have measures outlined for taking this action when it is necessary. As a matter of fact, we don't want to have stringent restraints placed on our economy that might cause very severe disruptions, high unemployment, and very adverse reactions not only in our country but throughout the world.,But with the standby authority, then I would have the responsibility, as authorized by Congress, to take action based upon the severity of the need.,We have, I think, a matter of judgment to be made in that respect. But to commit myself ahead of time to greatly constrain the American economy when it's not necessary would not be in the best interest of our country.,IRAN,Q. Mr. President, what is our Government doing, if anything, 'to try and influence the new Iranian Government to increase production, keep prices down, and, generally, how would you describe the relationship between our Government and the Khomeini government?,THE PRESIDENT. The Khomeini government has made it clear ever since it came into power, through our direct negotiations with Prime Minister Bazargan and our Ambassador and through their emissaries, who have even today talked to Secretary Vance, that they desire a closeworking and friendly relationships with the United States.,They have also announced that oil production in Iran will be increased and that, very shortly, exports will be recommended. And my own assessment is that they have strong intentions to carry out both these goals and that they are capable of doing so.,Q. Mr. President, there is, or there appears to be starting a public debate on the question, \"Who lost Iran?\" I noticed that former Secretary Kissinger was suggesting that your administration should bear some responsibility; former Under Secretary of State George Ball suggested that the Nixon-Kissinger administration did much to destabilize Iran with their billions in sophisticated military hardware. My question was, I suppose, do you agree with Ball? Who lost Iran, or was Iran ours to lose in the first place?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's obvious that Iran was not ours to lose in the first place. We don't own Iran, and we have never had any intention nor ability to control the .internal affairs of Iran. For more than 2,000 years, the people in the Iran area, the Persians and others, have established their own government. They've had ups and downs, as have we. I think it's obvious that the present government in Iran, as I just answered, would like to have good relationships with us. I don't know of anything we could have done to prevent the very complicated social and religious and political interrelationships from occurring in Iran in the change of government. And we'll just have to make the best of the change.,But, as I say, we cannot freeze the status quo in a country when it's very friendly to us. When the change is made by the people who live there, we do the best we can to protect American interests by forming new alliances, new friendships, new interrelationships, new trade relationships, new security relationships, perhaps, in the future, with the new government, and that's the best we can do.,But to try to lay blame on someone in the United States for a new government having been established in Iran, I think, is just a waste of time and avoids a basic issue that this was a decision to be made and which was made by the Iranian people themselves.,ISRAELI ACCESS TO OIL,Q. Mr. President, in view of the fact that we have some arrangement to support Israel in the event that they have oil shortages, do you view Iran's lack of desire to supply oil to Israel as creating problems for us in terms of our support for Israel in securing secondary sources?,THE PRESIDENT. When the supply of Iranian oil to Israel was interrupted, I immediately notified Prime Minister Begin and the Israeli Government that we would honor our commitment to them. So far, the Israelis have been able to acquire oil from other sources in the Sinai, and also on the world markets from different countries.,We will honor that commitment. I think that the total Israeli oil consumption is only about 1 percent of 'the consumption in the United States. So, even if Israel should have to depend upon us for a substantial portion of their oil, we would supply that oil from our country or from sources in other nations without disruption of the American economy.,PRESIDENT'S WEEKEND SCHEDULE,Q. Mr. President, in view of the decision for Prime Minister Begin to come here Thursday evening, do you still intend to go to Los Angeles on the weekend? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it will be possible for me to go to Los Angeles if Prime Minister Begin comes, as presently planned, and if he and I are off, for instance, at Camp David negotiating.,FARMERS' DEMONSTRATION,Q. Mr. President, a number of the Nation's farmers have been here for the past few weeks now,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I've heard that. [Laughter],Q. — protesting prices. And apparently they don't seem to feel that they're getting much sympathy from the administration. The demonstrations have continued tying up traffic. The other day, a goat was tossed over the White House fence and some farm equipment, and damage has been done to the Mall. How do you feel about the farmers' presence here, and do you agree with the suggestion that they perhaps should go home\nnow?,THE PRESIDENT. You know, people have to stand in line to demonstrate in front of the White House. There are several demonstrations every day. And this is part of a free society, that this is permitted.,I think the farmers have a legitimate right to demonstrate their views or even their displeasure against the Congress action or against the action of this administration, as long as they do it within the bounds of the law. And I think that in some instances, the farmers' demonstrations have caused unwarranted hardship or interference in the right of working people here in Washington to go to and from their homes. When this does occur, in my opinion, the farmers' demonstrations are counterproductive.,We have tried to provide the farmers with a forum here and to honor their desires as much as possible. I deplore, and many farmers throughout the country deplore, the damage that has been done to Washington—the chopping down of trees for firewood, the breaking of the bottom of the Reflecting Pool, the turning over of some of the shelters for people using rapid transit systems. Those things are deplorable. And I'm sure that almost all of the farmers who are actually here with their tractors did not want to see those things happen, either.,Secretary Bergland has made a policy of meeting not only with the farmers from a particular community or State but also with the congressional delegation who represented those particular farmers. And I think there's been a good exchange of ideas. I think we understand the farmers' desires and their complaints. There is no possibility, in my opinion, that the Congress would increase on a flat basis the parity support prices to 90 percent, which is a basic demand of the farmers here.,But they are welcome to stay as long as they demonstrate peacefully and legally. And I honor that right and indeed would cherish it.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-02-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have two or three brief statements I'd like to make before the questions.,THE SITUATION IN IRAN,First of all, I'd like to say a few words about Iran. Over the past several months, we have observed closely the events unfolding there. Our objective has been and is a stable and independent Iran which maintains good relations with the United States of America. Our policy has been not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran and to express our firm expectation that other nations would not do so either.,We hope that the differences that have divided the people of Iran for so many months can now be ended. As has been the case throughout this period, we have been in touch with those in control of the Government of Iran, and we stand ready to work with them. Our goals are now, as they have been for the past few months, to ensure the safety of Americans in Iran, to minimize bloodshed and violence, to ensure that Iran is militarily capable of protecting her independence and her territorial integrity, to prevent interference or intervention in the internal affairs of Iran by any outside power, and to honor the will of the Iranian people.,These have been our hopes and our goals, and our involvement there has been, as you know, minimal during the last few months.,The curtailment of Iran's energy supplies is of special interest to the people of our country and to the world. This underscores the vulnerability about which I spoke when I presented our proposal for a comprehensive energy plan to the Congress in April of 1977.,The net shortfall from the curtailment of Iran's energy production is, on a worldwide basis, about 2 million 'barrels per day and for the United States a curtailment of about one-half million barrels per day. To put this in perspective, it comprises about 2 1/2 percent of the current American consumption.,Most petroleum stocks were fairly high at the beginning of this winter season, and while we are, therefore, in no immediate danger, the stocks here and throughout the world continue to be drawn down.,I want to emphasize and support the call that Secretary Schlesinger made for voluntary conservation of oil within our Nation by all Americans. If we would honor the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, set thermostats no higher than 65 degrees in homes and buildings, and limit discretionary driving, voluntarily, and shifting to carpools and to rapid transit systems, we could offset the current reduction in Iranian supply of oil to our country.,A prudent public response early and on a broad-scale basis will make sure that any interruption in our economic system will be minimal in the future.,INFLATION,I'd like to make a brief statement about inflation, because last month's increase in the wholesale price index emphasized again a very clear message to our Nation, that we cannot shrink from making tough decisions which are needed to bring inflation under control.,The demands of special interest groups, no matter how legitimate or benevolent, must be resisted. The Congress must hold the line on Federal spending this year. We have steadily reduced the Federal deficit over the past 2 years, and we will continue to reduce the Federal deficit further. The Congress must act as well to pass long overdue legislation to contain hospital costs.,The American people badly need relief from this punishing, excessive inflation. I said when I announced our wage-price guidelines last fall that inflation might very well get worse in the short run before it got better. The January wholesale price index obviously bears out that prediction. But we do not expect such large increases in the wholesale price index to occur in the months immediately ahead.,All available evidence indicates that the guidelines which we've established are beginning to take hold. The first major wage settlement by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers and by others since then have fallen within the 7-percent guideline figure. The overwhelming majority of major corporations have pledged to comply with the voluntary guidelines, and we expect the others to follow suit.,The staff of the Council on Wage and Price Stability, now well-organized, will vigorously monitor all pricing decisions to ensure compliance. The Congress must do its part in enacting legislation that we have proposed, real wage insurance. American workers who have restrained their own wage demands deserve this protection from our Government.,For more than 10 years now, we have lived with rising inflation. Now the program that we've set in force is beginning to work, and if we all do our part, we can succeed in reducing inflation in our country step by step.,I'm determined to use the full authority of my office to make this effort succeed. And I believe the Congress and all Americans are ready to do their part.,VISIT TO MEXICO,The last comment I have is about my Mexico state visit. Two years ago, President Jose Lopez Portillo of Mexico became the first head of state to visit me at the White House. This was no accident, but a carefully considered judgment, because I wanted to demonstrate the importance which I have placed from the very beginning on our relationships with our neighbor Mexico, the neighbor which shares the North American Continent with ourselves and with Canada.,About 40 hours from now, I will depart for Mexico City to return President Lopez Portillo's visit and to renew our own personal dialog as part of the consultations and negotiations which have continued, since his visit, among our Ministers and top Government officials.,We will be discussing some very important and very difficult problems, including trade, energy, and border issues. I'm looking forward to extensive discussions of global and regional problems, as well. As you know, Mexico plays a vital role in the entire world on a number of crucial issues, such as economic development, arms restraint, and nonproliferation. These issues are very important, both to President Lopez Portillo and to me.,Inevitably, there are differences in outlook between two such diverse and important neighbors as Mexico and the United States. But these differences are dwarfed by our common concerns, our common values, and our areas of cooperation.,I view this trip above all as an opportunity to listen and to learn. I want to hear President Lopez Portillo's views, and I want to relay my own views to him. We will be working together toward an even better future relationship between our two countries.\nThank you very much.,Frank [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,U.S. RELATIONS WITH IRAN,Q. Mr. President, do you see much realistic hope of entering into a mutually productive relationship with the new Government of Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I see continued hope for very productive and peaceful cooperation with the Government of Iran. This has been our posture in the past, and it will continue to be our posture in the future.,In the last few hours, our Embassy has reported that the followers of designated Prime Minister Bazargan have been very helpful in ensuring the safety of Americans, and we've been consulting with them very closely. So, I believe that the people of Iran and their government will continue to be our friends and that the relationship will be helpful to us.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH TAIWAN,Q. Mr. President, you said in an interview over the weekend that a future President has the option of going to war and protecting Taiwan. Senator Jackson says you should be more restrained. My question is, would you go to war to protect Taiwan?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no intention of going to war. The relationship that we have with Taiwan is one based on mutual interest, and I wanted to point out that no future decision by myself or my successor is prevented. But our country is one that believes in peace, and I have no anticipation that there will be any requirement for war in the Western Pacific.,Q. Mr. President, on the same subject of Taiwan, two related questions. You had earlier said that no resolution by Congress was necessary and suggested that almost any resolution that might come out of Congress which would give any kind of reassurance to Taiwan might not meet with your approval. I wanted to ask you, in the first place, whether you've changed your mind in any way about that, whether there is any kind of resolution from Congress which might be accepted by you? I have in mind particularly the approach of Senators Kennedy and Cranston.,And secondly, there remains confusion resulting from your January statement that you had pursued the goal of getting from the Chinese Government a commitment for peaceful solution of the problem of Taiwan. And, as you know, that resulted in some misunderstanding, which you might like to clarify.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, to repeat what I said in the last press conference, I think we pursued the goal of getting a maximum commitment possible from China about the peaceful resolution of their differences with Taiwan successfully. We did get the maximum, in my opinion, that was possible.,I have never said that I would not accept any resolution from the Congress. I have said that I don't think a resolution is necessary, because the legislation we proposed to the Congress, in my opinion, is adequate.,I could not accept any resolution or amendment to the legislation that would contradict the commitments that we have made to the Government of China, on which is predicated our new, normal relationships. And I think that any resolution or amendment that would go as far or further with the defense commitments to Taiwan would be unacceptable.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,Q. Mr. President, you had a relatively optimistic statement about the energy shortfall a couple of minutes ago, I thought. But isn't it more likely that in fact you're going to have to go to such measures as Sunday closing of gasoline stations? And as Senator Jackson said, the price of gasoline may go up to a dollar a gallon and we'll have long lines. Wouldn't it be better to sort of warn the American people about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the situation is not crucial now; it's not a crisis. But it certainly could get worse. For instance, if we experience a worldwide shortage to the extent that our sharing commitment would be triggered, this would mean an additional shortage in our country that would go from 2 1/2 percent up to 4 percent. And if the Iranian production is not restored in the next number of months, our shortage in this country could go as high as 5, 6, or 7 percent, under which circumstances we would have to take more strenuous action.,But I believe the first step is to implement fully the new legislation that we now have on the books and to encourage the American people, as we have been for the last 2 years, strictly to enforce voluntary conservation measures. One thing that's concerned me recently is the move on the part of some ill-advised State legislatures to raise the speed limit above 55, up to 65 or more. This would result in a termination of Federal funds allocated to them for highway purposes.,But I think there has to be built in the American consciousness a realization that we can accommodate these potential shortages in oil production on a worldwide basis if we carry out a shifting from oil to coal or natural gas, under some circumstances, or to solar power, other sources, and if we restrain our wastefulness in the consumption of oil as much as possible.,WELFARE SPENDING,Q. Mr. President, in your 1976 campaign, you pledged a program that would relieve the heavy burden of welfare costs on a number of States and communities.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Your new welfare program apparently will take effect in fiscal 1982. And yet, last year in communications with Congress—and I believe it's the administration's stand now—you still oppose emergency fiscal relief that would bridge the gap between the situation that occurred in '76 in your comprehensive program. Why is that?,THE PRESIDENT. That's not an accurate assessment. Last year, we did propose\nto the Congress substantial relief to major local areas, cities and counties, through our countercyclical aid proposal, which was focused on those communities that need the aid most. This proposal passed the Senate, but we were not able to get it out of the House Rules Committee, nor voted for favorably in the House in time to pass it.,We have resubmitted legislation for countercyclical aid which is now pending in the Congress, which I hope will pass. It's included within a very tight and restrained budget.,I think it's accurate to say, also, that some of the cities that were being burdened excessively by welfare costs, under the new administration—mine, working with the State and local governments-have severely, substantially reduced their welfare expenditures. And, of course, a part of this is because the unemployment rate has dropped substantially. But if you check the amount of money now being spent by New York City on welfare with what it was 2 years ago, you'll find substantial improvements there, substantial reductions in tax burdens for local people in paying for welfare, in addition to the countercyclical and other aid we've allocated already to local governments.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,U.S. RELATIONS WITH IRAN,Q. Mr. President, do you think that this Government should have been better prepared for the takeover by the Khomeini forces in Iran? And, also, in retrospect, do you think it was a mistake for you to embrace the Bakhtiar government as you did?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, had we had an exact prediction of what was going to happen. It's not the policy of our Government to go into the internal affairs of another people or country and try to determine who should be their leaders. This is contrary to the philosophy of our people. I think we've tried it once in the past in Vietnam and failed abominably. I think no one in this country of any responsibility wants to do that to a country, including Iran.,We have worked with the existing government. We worked closely with the Shah when he was in his office. We have worked with Bakhtiar, who was chosen, as you know, by the Iranian Parliament in accordance with constitutional provisions. Now Mr. Bakhtiar has resigned, and Mr. Bazargan is their Prime Minister. And the Majles, the parliament, has also resigned.,We will attempt to work closely with the existing government. But we have never tried to decide or to determine for the Iranian people or any other people on Earth who their leaders ought to be or what form of government they should have since I've been in office.,Q. But why did we have to make any statements of support for the Bakhtiar government? Why couldn't we just say nothing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have statements of support and recognition for 150 nations on Earth. When we establish relationships with a government or a people, this is part of the diplomatic process. And when the governments change, quite often without delay, sometimes with a few days delay until the situation is clarified, we very quickly establish relations with the new government. But this is something that's historically been the case, and it's what we have pursued in Iran and what Ave will pursue in the future.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, when Vice Premier Deng of China was in the United States, he made a number of anti-Soviet statements. In particular, on several occasions he said that the Soviets are seeking world domination. I wonder if you agree with that statement, and if you don't, I wonder what is your view of the Soviets' global intentions?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never tried to exercise censorship on a head of state or major official who came to our country. I didn't try to tell Mr. Deng what to say when he had press conferences. I didn't try to tell him what to say when he was meeting with the Members of Congress. I did not try to write his banquet toasts for him. And I think it's accurate to say that Mr. Deng's statements in our country are certainly no more noteworthy than the statements that he's made within his own country and that he's made in other nations. The position and attitude of the Chinese towards the Soviet Union have been very apparent to all of us for many years.,We have some areas where we disagree with the assessment of the Soviet Union as expressed by Mr. Deng. Our purpose, our goal, I would say, perhaps the most important responsibility I have on my shoulders as President is to preserve peace in the world, and especially to have good, sound relationships with the Soviet Union, based on a common desire for peace, which I am sure they share. We are working now every day to try to hammer out a SALT agreement with the Soviet Union. They have negotiated in good faith. So have we. This does not mean, however, that there are not areas of contention and areas where we have peaceful competition with the Soviet Union. This is expectable, and I think it will continue for many years in the future.,I don't have any inclination to condemn the Soviets as a people or even as a government. We'll explore in every way we can a way to carry out the purposes and honor the principles of our own Nation, to compete with the Soviet Union's people and government leaders peaceably when necessary, but to seek with them as much friendship, cooperation, trade as possible under those circumstances.,VISIT TO MEXICO,Q. Mr. President, in that you're going to Mexico, I'd like to ask a question on that subject. Given their new-found oil reserves and given the fact that you want to discuss such things as illegal aliens and trade, don't they have you pretty much over a barrel—pardon the bad pun- [laughter] —on the matter of illegal aliens, which they don't consider illegal, and on their protective trade rules, if we want any of their energy?,THE PRESIDENT. That's one of the reasons for going to Mexico is to explore the possibilities for resolving these acknowledged differences of opinion between our people and theirs. My goal will be to protect the interests of my Nation and the people whom I represent, and at the same time, obviously, to deal with the Mexicans openly and fairly and to understand and to honor the sensitivities that exist within that great country.,I'm sworn by oath to enforce the laws of our Nation, including immigration laws, to stop smuggling at the border, and in many areas those goals are compatible with the desires of the Mexican people and the Mexican Government. They've cooperated with us superbly, for instance, in stopping the illicit traffic in heroin. And I believe that this is one indication of how we can cooperate.,We are very proud of the recent discoveries of oil and natural gas in Mexico. Obviously, a burgeoning, improving economic situation in Mexico will provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs that will lessen the pressure on some of them to seek employment in our country. And I want to make sure that we minimize any illegalities relating to the border, and I want to make sure that when people are in our country, whether they are here as citizens or not, that we protect their basic human rights.,Another question about energy that you asked—a decision on how much to explore, produce, and sell oil and natural gas is a decision to be made exclusively by the Mexican people. We are interested in purchasing now and perhaps in the future even more oil and natural gas from Mexico. We'll negotiate with them in good faith. We'll pay them a fair price. We'd like to have those policies be predictable on delivery dates and also on price schedules. And we'll try to be a good customer. But we have no inclination to force them to give us a special privilege nor to do anything that would be damaging to the well-being of the Mexican people.,I don't see that these statements that I've made are incompatible with going to Mexico to meet with Lopez Portillo, to talk to his Congress, to talk to his people. I think the best way to resolve differences which do exist is in a framework as I have just described to you.,POLICY MAKING PROCEDURES,Q. Mr. President, you campaigned on a platform of sunshine in government. And in the last few weeks you've been telling your advisers not to reveal what goes on in the decision making process-some of the confusion and some of the disagreement.,THE PRESIDENT. I've never told them that.,Q. Can you enlighten us as to what you have told them? Are the reports in the paper wrong about you telling them to sort of cool it on that?,THE PRESIDENT. As has always been the case with Presidents and, I guess, other executive leaders, I have to have two basic relationships with my advisers and my subordinates that sometimes are incompatible. One is, I have to have the widest possible range of advice and counsel, tough debate, sometimes even open criticism as I evolve in my own mind a basic decision to be made on an important subject for the well-being of the people of this country. Then once I make that decision—and most of the controversial decisions are very difficult ones—once I make a decision, I expect my policy to be carried out with loyalty and with enthusiasm. When I make a policy decision that might be contrary to the advice received by some subordinate, if that particular subordinate cannot carry out my policy, then the only option for them is to resign.,There have been very few instances where I have permitted a deviation from that policy. I have never told my people who work under me in the State Department, NSC, Defense, Treasury, Housing, or anything else, not to have contact with the press. I do, however, have to insist upon a degree of teamwork, once a decision is made that relates to a sensitive issue like the Middle East or like SALT negotiations or like the relationships with Iran in recent months.,That's what I have admonished them to do, to have a free expression of opinion and to let me have their individual opinions up until the time I make a decision; once I make a decision, to comply with it.,Q. So, you do not object if members of your administration talk to reporters and tell them about the differences within the administration on a policy as it is moving up towards a final decision?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that's always appropriate. I wouldn't want to stand here and tell you that everybody that works in the Government is free to go and express their own personal opinions through the press as a policy is being evolved. Some of these decisions are based on highly secret information, either the attitudes of a foreign leader which cannot be revealed without embarrassment or based on security matters which, if revealed, might work contrary to the best interests of our country. So, I'm not going to issue a blanket permission for anybody in government to have a free access and to express their own views to the press.,I think that the policy that I have laid out is well understood by my people who work with me, both before and during and after a decision is made. And I think that I've described it about as thoroughly as I can this morning.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,Q. Mr. President, do you think that-well, you've spoken a lot about the energy legislation that has been passed by Congress and you also talk about enforcing wage and price guidelines, as well as implementing people's own voluntary efforts to reduce energy usage in the country. But my question is, most of the people, from our standpoint here, seem to feel that we are definitely not in an energy crisis per se. They still haven't been quite convinced. And then, when you say,THE PRESIDENT. You mean the White House Press Corps or the— [laughter],Q. No, no, I'm talking about the average American citizen.,THE PRESIDENT. Okay. You said the people here,Q. And then you talk about—well, you asked the poor people in the country about the energy crisis, and you asked whether or not they would be inclined to reduce, cut down on their usage of lights—,THE PRESIDENT. What's your question?,Q. —or adhere to the 55-minute-power—my question essentially is, how are you going to enforce implementation of voluntary understanding of the energy crisis, the situation that we are in? And how are you really going to impress upon the people to voluntarily hold back, cut back on their energy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, one obviously persuasive factor is the rapidly increasing prices of energy, which exercises economic restraint on people's wastefulness. When a person's electric power bill or heating bill goes up in a home, they are naturally more inclined to insulate their home, to cut down the thermostat, and so forth. When the price of gasoline goes up here and in other countries, people are naturally inclined to move toward more efficient automobiles or to reduce the unnecessary use of automobiles.,In addition to that, there's a patriotic element involved. When a President or other leaders call on the American people voluntarily to join together to enhance the economic well-being of the entire Nation, that has a good receptivity among the people of our country, now and in the past.,We have passed about 90—I'd say, 65 percent of the comprehensive energy proposals that I made to the Congress. Some of those are mandated by law, that there have to be shifts away from oil to coal, to solar power, and to natural gas, and to nuclear power, in some instances. Also, there are encouragements built into the law that now give people tax reductions if they shift toward a better insulation for their homes, for instance.,And the last thing is that we have mandated more efficient automobiles, that each year, step by step, the entire automobile production industry, here and abroad, have to comply with much more strict standards on automobile efficiency.,So, a combination of all those things, voluntary, patriotism, and mandated constraints, are the sum total of our energy policy.,THE FEDERAL DEBT,Q. Mr. President, your budget advisers are projecting sizable and rapidly growing budget surpluses after fiscal '81. This is sort of an old-fashioned idea, but I'd like to ask you, have you given any thought to using some of this money to reducing the Federal debt, which is now at $800 billion?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, when you have a budget surplus, that in itself reduces the Federal debt. The surplus is used to pay off existing debt. Those projections, however, many years in the future, 4 or 5 years in the future in some instances, are predicated on a fairly stable number of Federal programs. They do include basic welfare reform and an evolution into a comprehensive health program. But what the security needs of our country might be in the future or what other social programs might be, implemented by myself or my successor as President and by the Congress, are hard to predict.,But when we do build toward a balanced budget and then a surplus, those surplus funds would inevitably go into ,.educing the Federal debt.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate that at some point in time you're going to have to call a three-way meeting between yourself, President Sadat, and Prime Minister Begin to get this Middle East peace process locked up and that that might be a natural outcome of the Foreign Ministers' meeting that's coming up?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that the reality of having a Mideast peace settlement is one of my fondest hopes and dreams and my greatest commitment. I have probably spent more of my personal time on trying to have peace in the Middle East than any other single issue.,We made tremendous strides forward at Camp David, as you know, and we expected at that time to rapidly conclude the remaining 5 percent of the issues that had not then been resolved. That has not proven to be as easy as we thought. I think an inevitable next step is to have the Foreign Ministers of Israel and Egypt come here to meet with Secretary Vance—I might visit with them briefly-in an attitude of mutual commitment and flexibility and in a maximum state of isolation from public statements or commitments, which quite often form a very serious obstacle to progress.,If that hope is realized, there would be no need for any further summit conference. But I would guess that in this case that Mr. Khalil and Dayan would go back to Egypt and to Israel to report progress and to seek confirmation of their negotiated positions from their own government leaders, including President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin.,If that effort is not completely successful and the final peace treaty terms are not concluded, then if there's adequate evidence of flexibility and desire on the part of President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin, then I would certainly consider favorably having them here for a summit meeting.,But our hope is that the Foreign Ministers can be successful, provided they take advantage of our recommendation and routinely go back to Israel and to Egypt to seek further guidance during the negotiations themselves.,OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, remembering the revelations that followed the 1973 oil crisis about how the major oil companies ganged up on the American people to reap huge profits, I'd like to know what assurances can you give us in light of what's happening with the cutoff of oil from Iran and the recent announcements of curtailed deliveries by domestic companies that such is not being practiced on the American people again?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we have very strict laws concerning the pricing and delivery of oil, both that that's imported and that that's produced and sold within our own country. The laws will change the circumstance in May, and the control of oil prices will be terminated, I think, in September of 1980 [1981] 1. What will happen then, I don't know, but I don't have any evidence now that there is a violation of either the law or proprieties in the pricing or distribution of energy products.,1 Printed in the transcript.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-01-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND TAIWAN,Q. Mr. President, the United States has acknowledged that there is one China, and Taiwan is a part of it. And, remembering the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as an underpinning of the Vietnam war, my question is, are you concerned that the congressional resolutions regarding Taiwan's security may infringe on China's sovereignty and, two, may involve us at some future point in Asia again?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I'm not concerned about that. I could not approve any legislation presented to me by Congress that would be contradictory or that which would violate the agreements that we have concluded with the Republic of China—the People's Republic of China. I, myself, am committed to a strong and a prosperous and a free people on Taiwan. We intend to carry on our diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China as the Government of China, but we'll have trade relationships, cultural relationships with the people on Taiwan. And I believe that the legislation that has now been presented to the Congress is a good foundation for this.,But I don't see this as an opening for bloodshed or war. I think the statements made by the Chinese leaders since the announcement of intentions to establish diplomatic relations have been very constructive and have indicated a peaceful intent.,Q. Are you speaking also of the Kennedy resolution, which will be introduced on Monday, or only your own resolution?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't read the so-called Kennedy resolution. I really don't believe that any resolution is needed. I think our legislative proposal and the announcement made about normalization, the combination of those two is adequate.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, on Tuesday you said that we would have a SALT agreement if the Soviet Union continued to negotiate in good faith.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Do you have any slight doubt in your mind on that score?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I've been in office now 2 years, and we've been negotiating with the Soviets almost full-time on a SALT agreement. Prior to that time, 4 additional years of negotiations were conducted with the Soviet Union. My understanding is that prior to the time I came into office, and since I've been in office, they have negotiated in good faith.,They are tough bargainers; we are, too. We have tried to evolve an agreement with the Soviet Union which would, first of all, be verifiable, which would preserve the security of our Nation and even enhance it, which would control nuclear weapons, and which would lay a basis for increased friendship between us and the Soviet Union and let us control or reduce the threat of the proliferation of nuclear explosives to other nations throughout the world. I think that we and the Soviets have those goals in mind. And I hope and expect that our progress will continue.,Now we're negotiating every day at Geneva and supplementing that negotiation through diplomatic channels, both here and in the Soviet Union.,Q. Could you say whether they have hardened their position in the last month or two?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they have not hardened their position in the last month or two. I think their positions, along with ours, have been adequately hard. We have negotiated very firmly, and there has been a steady progress. There has never been one time since I've been in office when we've had a recess in the efforts, nor a retrogressive action when we were discouraged. We've been making steady progress, and we still are.,IRAN,Q. Mr. President, the shipment of 200,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel fuel to Iran—doesn't that really amount to the interference in Iran's internal affairs that you have said the U.S. will not now be part of? And would you stand for a similar such action from any other nation? And may I please follow?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see the shipment of fuel supplies to Iran in any way as an interference in the internal affairs of Iran. These shipments of energy supplies and, I'm sure, food and other goods to let the people of Iran have a better life, I think, are very good and constructive and proper. We do not have any intention of interfering in the affairs of Iran, the internal affairs of their government, and we don't want any other country to do it either.,Q. To what extent do you accept a congressional investigating committee's finding that you and your top foreign policy advisers must share responsibility with the CIA for the downfall of the Shah?,THE PRESIDENT. The situation in Iran now, politically speaking, is very sensitive, and I can't think of anything I could say about it that would contribute to the hopes that we have that Iran would settle their problems peacefully, that bloodshed would be prevented, and that any political change in their government would be conducted in an orderly fashion in accordance with the Iranian Constitution. So, I don't intend to make any statements about the impact of what we have done or will do on Iran.,As I said earlier, we do not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. We do not want any other government to do it either.,SELECTION OF FEDERAL JUDGES,Q. Mr. President, from your experience so far, sir, with selection committees for Federal judges, do you think they're working out all right? And if you don't, how would you like to change them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the ones that we have appointed—I have myself appointed to choose Federal circuit judges—I think have worked fairly well. They've certainly been an improvement over arbitrary selections on a political basis or without adequate assessment of merit.,We have tried to induce the Members of the Senate to do two things: One is to choose a list of potential judge appointees on the basis of merit, but also to take into consideration the fact that for many years there have been discriminatory practices in the appointment of judges—against minority groups, those who speak Spanish, for instance, those who are black, and also against women. And those two, that combination of efforts, merit and a correction of past discrimination, are the bases on which we're trying to make these appointments. I hope that the Senators will cooperate. In some instances they have, not yet enough.,PRESIDENT'S 1980 CANDIDACY; THE NEW FOUNDATION,Q. Mr. President, a couple of related political questions, since a lot of people are trying to jump in already to run against you in 1980. Will you promise now to debate your Republican opponent in 1980, on television as you did in 1976, assuming you run and that you are the nominee of your party? And second, who thought up 'the slogan \"New Foundation\"? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. On the first question, I really don't want to get involved in answering questions about the 1980 campaign. I think it's too early for me to do it. I would rather address my attention and the attention on me on my present duties, not some future campaign.,Secondly, I think the new foundations question or basis for the State of the Union speech is a good one. We got into a discussion about what theme we should pursue during the preparation of that speech. Many of the decisions that we have made and are making do not pay off in immediate political benefits, but it's an investment at the present time for future dividends for America. And some of the decisions that Congress has made in approving the programs that I advocated were really difficult for them politically.,Some of the decisions that I am making right now, in having a tough and stringent budget for 1980, may not be politically popular, but I think in the long run the control of inflation will pay rich dividends for our country. And the fact that we are building a foundation for future progress was the reason we chose that as a theme for the speech.,Q. Mr. President, to follow up on the previous question, sir. For 2 years you avoided the use of a slogan similar to New Frontier or Great Society or whatever. And now you've used it often enough this week to indicate that you'd like to make this your motto. Why did you make that change, and, secondly, do you think this slogan will survive the way some of the others did?,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt if it will survive. [Laughter] We are not trying to establish this as a permanent slogan. It was the theme that we established because of extreme logic, which I've just described in the previous question, for one State of the Union speech. I think it accurately describes what I wanted to project to the American people. I think we did it very well.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, have U.S.-Soviet relations been impaired in any way by the Deng visit? Any unhappiness being expressed by the Soviets over the visit?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I don't believe so. My own belief is that the Deng visit and the normalization of relations between ourselves and China will not only help the people of our two countries but will provide for stability and peace in the Western Pacific or the Asian region and, also, the entire world. And my hope and expectation is that the Soviets will agree that that assessment is accurate, that this will not be a destabilizing factor in the future, but a stabilizing factor, and that world peace will be enhanced.,We will be cautious in not trying to have an unbalanced relationship between China and the Soviet Union. And if there has been some concern expressed by some sources—and I'm not familiar with them—I don't think they are well advised.,MINORITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, in the last few days you have taken on various steps in the area of education, focusing on increasing Federal assistance to black colleges, specifically. I think you have even issued a memorandum to Federal agency heads, and you have also endorsed the new department of education.,My question is two-fold: One, what kind of increases can black colleges expect from the Federal Government in this time of overall restraint in the budget? And secondly, how will you seek to enforce and implement the civil rights laws that exist in the education area?,THE PRESIDENT. I think last year we increased total Federal allocations for education about $12 billion? This was for the preschool programs, for Title 1 education for disadvantaged students who were in the public schools, and, also, a very large and, I think, well-contrived allocation of new funds for student loans. These will, obviously, apply to all students, both black and white, some emphasis on disadvantaged children.,*"}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1979-01-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody. I have a brief opening statement to\nmake.,FISCAL YEAR 1980 BUDGET,Last fall, when I outlined the administration's commitment to control inflation, I set as a goal for ourselves the submission of a budget for 1980 fiscal year with a deficit of less than $30 billion, which would be substantially more than a 50-percent cut compared to the deficit that I inherited.,The budget will be submitted to Congress this coming Tuesday. I have more than met that goal. As a matter of fact, the fiscal year 1976 budget deficit was more than 4 percent of our gross national product. In 1980, we will have cut it down to 1.2 percent of our gross national product. We had an earlier commitment also to reduce total Federal spending down to 21 percent of our GNP by fiscal year 1981. We will have met that commitment 1 year earlier.,This has been a very difficult budget to prepare because of those stringent goals. But I felt it was necessary, and I believe the Nation agrees with me that it is necessary, to restrain Federal spending.,We have not neglected the needs of the disadvantaged Americans, poor Americans, and those who are unemployed. As a matter of fact, the total allocation of funds for the poor will be increased by $4 1/2 billion by 1980 fiscal year, and we will have a total of about $11 billion designed for jobs and job training to sustain the high employment rate in our country.,So, to summarize, the budget commitment will be to control inflation. It will be very austere, stringent, tough, fiscal policy, but fair to the American people and oriented to help those who are most disadvantaged have a better quality of life.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,IRAN,Q. Mr. President, what will the posture of our Government be now toward the various contending factions in Iran that even continue to vie for power over there?,THE PRESIDENT. We have very important relationships with Iran—past, present, and I hope, in the future—and I expect in the future. They have been good allies of ours, and I expect this to continue in the future.,In accordance with the provisions of the Iranian Constitution, a change in government has 'now been accomplished. Under Mr. Bahktiar, whose government we do support, the Majles, the lower house of parliament, and the upper house, the Senate, have approved his government and his Cabinet.,We have encouraged to the limited extent of our own ability the public support for the Bahktiar government, for the restoration of stability, for an end of bloodshed, and for the return of 'normal life in Iran.,As you know, the Shah has left Iran; he says for a vacation. How long he will be out of Iran, we have no way to determine. Future events and his own desires will determine that. He's now in Egypt, and he will later come to our own country. But we would anticipate and would certainly hope that our good relationships with Iran will continue in the future.,Q. Mr. President, a month ago at a news conference, you said the Shah would maintain power. How could you be so wrong, and is it typical of our intelligence elsewhere in the world? And are you in touch with Khomeini in case he winds up at the top of the heap?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's impossible for anyone to anticipate all future political events. And I think that the rapid change of affairs in Iran has not been predicted by anyone, so far as I know.,Our intelligence is the best we can devise. We share intelligence data and diplomatic information on a routine basis with other nations. And this is a constant process whenever a problem arises in a country throughout the world.,I have confidence in the Iranian people to restore a stable government and to restore their economic circumstances for the future.,No, we have not communicated directly with Mr. Khomeini. Our views have been expressed publicly that he support stability and an end to bloodshed in Iran and, no matter what his deep religious convictions might be—and I don't doubt their sincerity—that he permit the government that has now been established by the legal authorities in Iran, and under the Constitution, to have a chance to succeed. We do know that the Iranian military and many of the religious and political opponents to the Shah have given their pledge of support to the Bahktiar government. And that's our hope.,And I would like to add one other thing. We have no intention, neither ability nor desire, to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran, and we certainly have no intention of permitting other nations to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran.,Q. If we had had better intelligence in Iran, is there anything that we could have done to save the Shah? And there's a second part to that question. You just referred to Iran as allies. Would you authorize new weapons shipments to the Bahktiar regime?,THE PRESIDENT. Even if we had been able to anticipate events that were going to take place in Iran or other countries, obviously, our ability to determine those events is very limited. The Shah, his advisers, great military capabilities, police, and others couldn't completely prevent rioting and disturbances in Iran. Certainly, we have no desire nor ability to intrude massive forces into Iran or any other country to determine the outcome of domestic political issues. This is something that we have no intention of ever doing in another country. We've tried this once in Vietnam. It didn't work well, as you well know.,We have some existing contracts for delivery of weapons to Iran, since sometimes the deliveries take as long as 5 years after the orders are placed. Our foreign military sales policy is now being continued. We have no way to know what the attitude of the Bahktiar government is. We've not discussed this with them.,After the Iranian Government is stable, after it assuages the present disturbances in Iran, then I'm sure they'll let us know how they want to carry out future military needs of their own country. It is important to Iran, for their own security and for the independence of the people of Iran, that a strong and stable military be maintained. And I believe that all the leaders of Iran whom I have heard discuss this matter agree with the statement that I've just made.,Q. Still on Iran, Mr. Carter, there is a suggestion that if Iranian oil supplies do not begin flowing again, perhaps within 2 months, there may be a shortage and perhaps a price increase for us. Does our intelligence indicate that might happen, or is there such a prospect as you see it?,THE PRESIDENT. We derive about 5 percent of our oil supplies from Iran in recent months—much less than many other countries, as you know, who are more heavily dependent on Iranian oil. I think an extended interruption of Iranian oil shipments would certainly create increasingly severe shortages on the international market.,So far, other oil-producing nations have moved to replace the lost Iranian oil supplies. If this should continue, it would just reemphasize the basic commitment that our Nation has tried to carry out in the last 2 years, that is, to have a predictable energy policy, to reduce consumption of energy in toto, certainly, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to eliminate waste of oil.,I don't think there's any doubt that we can cut back consumption of oil by 5 percent without seriously damaging our own economy. And I would hope that all Americans who listen to my voice now would do everything possible within their own capabilities to cut down on the use of oil and the waste of all energy supplies.,I think that this restoration of Iranian oil shipments is a desire by all the religious and political leaders in Iran who have an influence over the future. We have seen since the OPEC price increases, even before the Iranian supplies were interrupted, some shortage of spot shipments of oil.,The present price of oil, even with increased production from other suppliers, is now slightly above the established OPEC price. But our hope is that oil prices will go down, at least to some degree, as Iranian supplies are reintroduced.,NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR WOMEN,Q. Mr. President, as I think everyone knows, you've had some problems with your women's advisory committee recently. I'm wondering how you can get a new and effective committee in view of the fact that you seem to feel that if they issue public criticism of you, you don't want them on the committee.,THE PRESIDENT. I have no aversion to public criticism. Someone who runs for President and who serves in this office for 2 years becomes acclimated to that environment as a matter of course. And I think there's hardly an interest group in our Nation who doesn't at one time or another severely and publicly criticize the President and the administration. That's not part of it at all.,There were and are about 40 women whom I personally approved to serve on the advisory committee. Their function is to work with me, hopefully in harmony, to achieve mutual goals, goals of enhanced opportunities for women, for the elimination of any discrimination against women, to assure that every decision made by the Government, in the executive branch or Congress, has at least as one factor to be considered how we can best meet the needs of women, and to overcome the suffering that they have experienced because of past legal and other discriminatory actions.,This is a good function for the Committee, and it's a need that I have to continue. I have no quarrel with, no problems with the Committee itself. I did select and appoint Ms. Abzug to serve as the Chairperson of the Committee last year, and it didn't work out well.,The Committee has never been well organized. Their functions have never been clearly expressed to me. There has not been good cooperation between the Committee and the Cabinet members or my advisers or me, and I felt it was necessary to change the Chairperson, whom I had appointed personally.,It's a prerogative of the President. And we'll do everything we can now under a fine, new Chairperson of the Committee to restore its effectiveness and to make. sure that I and the women throughout the country, and particularly in this group, work to achieve those mutual goals which we share.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND TAIWAN,Q. Mr. President, on your negotiations with China over normalization of diplomatic relations, did you at any point ask the Chinese to provide a binding, written pledge that they would not try to seize Taiwan by force? And if you did request that, why didn't you get it? And if you didn't, why didn't you ask for it? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Yes. One of our goals in the negotiation was to get a public commitment on the part of China that the differences with Taiwan would be resolved peacefully. This was not possible to achieve. The final outcome of that was that we would make a unilateral statement Chat we expect any differences between Taiwan and China to be resolved peacefully, and the agreement was that the leaders in China would not contradict that statement.,Since the announcement of normalization, Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping and others have made public comments that substantiate the statement that I have made. It's a matter internally for the Chinese to resolve, but I think Mr. Deng has made several statements saying that it ought to be resolved peacefully.,We were also insistent upon the fact that the treaty between us and Taiwan would not be peremptorily or immediately canceled or abrogated. The treaty will be terminated in accordance with its own provisions, with a 1-year's notice to Taiwan. The Chinese did not agree with this originally, but they finally accepted that fact.,Another insistence that we had, which was finally agreed to, was that we would go ahead with normal trade, cultural relationships with Taiwan and also that existing treaties other than the defense treaty would continue in effect.,One point on which we did not agree with the Chinese was that we will, after this year, continue to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan to provide for their security needs. The Chinese leaders do not agree with this policy, but they understand that it is our policy and, knowing that, they went ahead with normalization.,So, there were some differences between us, but I think this is one of the major achievements for peace in the world and, particularly, to cement our relationship with the nations in the Western Pacific. And I think we had a very good outcome for the long negotiations.,THAILAND,Q. Mr. President, next month you are going to meet, supposedly, with the Prime Minister of Thailand, who is the head of a nation that is now threatened by the Vietnamese. I need to know two things, if you could. One, what is the U.S. prepared to offer Thailand to ease their concerns about the Vietnamese? Will it be money, economic aid, military weapons, or American-piloted aircraft? Number two, have you personally been in touch with the leaders of China and the Soviet Union to see what they plan to do to help ease the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very interested in seeing the integrity of Thailand protected, the borders not endangered or even threatened by the insurgent troops from Vietnam in Cambodia. We have joined in with almost all other nations of the world in the United Nations in condemning the intrusion into Cambodia by Vietnamese forces. This obviously involves the adjacent country. of Thailand.,Mr. Kriangsak will be coming here to visit with me, and during that time, we will reassure him that our interests are in a stable and secure and peaceful Thailand. We have continuing trade relationships with Thailand. We provide them with some military arms for defensive purposes, as have been negotiated for a long period of time.,We don't detect any immediate threat to the borders of Thailand. In some instances, the invading forces into Cambodia have deliberately stayed away from the border itself. And, of course, the Chinese give Thailand very strong support. The Soviet Union has expressed their support for Vietnam, as you know. And in our efforts, along with others in the United Nations, we have warned both the Vietnamese, and also the Soviets, who supply them and who support them, against any danger that they might exhibit toward Thailand.,FORMER PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON,Q. You have invited former President Richard Nixon to the White House for the dinner for Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. During your campaign, you said Mr. Nixon had disgraced this country, and about a year ago, you said that you thought he had indeed committed impeachable offenses. Why are you honoring him in this way now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the consequences of the Watergate actions by President Nixon have already been determined by the Congress and by the actions of Mr. Nixon himself, having been pardoned by President Ford.,In preparing for the upcoming visit by Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping, I felt that it was a fair thing and a proper thing to invite both President Nixon and President Ford to the White House for the banquet at which Mr. Deng will be honored. As you know, as President, one of the major achievements of President Nixon was to open up an avenue of communications and consultation and negotiation with the Chinese, which resulted ultimately in normal relationships.,I think it's entirely proper that he be there. In addition to that, the Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Deng himself, had asked for an opportunity to meet with President Nixon and to express their thanks personally to him for the role he played in opening up Chinese-United States relationships.,So, I have no apology to make. I think it was a proper thing to do, and I'm very pleased that President Nixon has accepted our invitation.,FISCAL YEAR 1980 BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, in your opening statement you mentioned that you had succeeded in your goal of holding the budget deficit to $30 billion. Some critics of your budget policy say that goal was set rather arbitrarily early in the budget process and that, in fact, if the deficit had been a little higher, say $35 billion, that a lot of the current cutbacks could have been avoided and with only a marginal impact on the war on inflation, maybe, perhaps two-tenths of 1 percent.,How was that figure set? And why you 'not choose to make such a decision, knowing that there would be a great deal of opposition to the budget cuts among many constituencies on which you will have to depend next year in the election?,THE PRESIDENT. That commitment that I made, I think in October, to hold the budget deficit down to $30 billion or less was very carefully considered and, as a matter of fact, was hotly debated among us when I was getting ready to present to the American people a program for controlling inflation. The basic argument was roughly between $32 billion as a goal for the deficit versus $30 billion, and I finally decided to choose the most stringent figure.,We will, by the way, exceed that goal by about $1 billion. This budget, when it's examined in its entirety over this coming weekend, for revelation on Monday, the 22d, I think will be seen by any fair person as meeting the legitimate needs of those who are most dependent on government, on meeting the defense needs of our country, on being well-balanced, on being fair, and contributing greatly to controlling inflation.,I think it's important that the Government set an example. We can't ask business, labor, and private Americans to make any sort of sacrifice in controlling inflation if the Federal Government doesn't set an example. And if I have to err on one side or the other, I would be more likely to set a stringent example than I would to have the allegation made that we were not sincere about controlling inflation.,I might add one other thing. There's an erroneous premise that exists in this country that to control inflation hurts poor people. The ones who suffer most in our Nation from rampant inflation are those who have fixed incomes that can't be changed, those who are unemployed, those who are poor, or those who can't move from one job to another, looking for a better life as circumstances change. So, I think to control inflation is the best thing that I can do for those with relatively low incomes and who are most dependent on government.,So, a combination of those two, controlling inflation and having a fair budget, is a very good goal, and I'm just glad that we were able to make it.,CIGARETTE SMOKING AND TOBACCO PRICE SUPPORTS,Q. Mr. President, in a speech last August 5, in Wilson, North Carolina, you spoke of making the smoking of tobacco even more safe than it now is. This past week the Surgeon General's department came out with a report saying that smoking of tobacco is not safe at all and, in fact, is positively hazardous to health. Will you continue to support Federal price supports for tobacco, and why?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I intend to continue to support those Federal price supports.,I think it's a completely legitimate action for the Government to point out the dangers of smoking, and I don't have any way to dispute the arguments, one side or the other, derived from scientific examinations, experiments, and from medical analyses. I think it's important that people know the dangers of smoking. Because of these revelations in the past with the first Surgeon General's report and, hopefully, to be escalated with the recent revelations of dangers of smoking, those who do smoke cigarettes now have safer cigarettes to smoke with less nicotine and less tar. And I think the progress that has been made has been derived primarily from that purpose. There's been some slight reduction in the cigarette consumption per capita in our country.,So, I do intend to continue the program for stabilizing tobacco prices for the farmers who depend upon that for an income. But, at the same time, I have no criticism—in fact, I support the role of the health authorities in our Nation who point out the dangers of smoking.,DOMESTIC OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, given your concern over inflation, which you've reemphasized today, it is still your intention this year to propose some variation of the wellhead tax or take some other action that would have the effect of raising domestic oil prices?,THE PRESIDENT. Ultimately, domestic oil prices will have to be raised substantially. As you know, the law changes twice, as fixed now: once in May of this year and, again, I believe, in October of 1981, when all controls go off of oil prices. Exactly what schedule that decontrol might take and what compensatory tax assessments might be passed by the .Congress-those decisions have not yet been made. And I'm not prepared yet to announce decisions that haven't been made. But we'll be consulting with Congress and trying to assess how we can balance the inevitable increase in oil prices to constrain consumption and, at the same time, to have a minimal adverse impact on inflation.,It's a difficult decision. Those two decisions work against one another. But I'll have to make them eventually, and I will announce them later on when I decide.,INTELLIGENCE SOURCES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, do you see any danger of our losing our intelligence listening posts in Iran? And if we do lose those posts, will we have enough backup capability so that you can assure Congress that we can verify a new SALT agreement if you get one?,THE PRESIDENT. There is obviously, in any country where we have intelligence sources, a danger for those sources to be modified or lost. We had this occur, as you know, a few years ago in Turkey, when we had an embargo against the sale of military weapons to Turkey. And this has happened from time to time in an evolutionary way.,We have constantly been able and determined to provide increasing capability for surveillance which would allow us to compensate for those changes that are inevitable in any changing society.,So, I can assure the public and the Congress that no matter what happens to the specific intelligence sources in Iran, we can adequately compensate for their change and provide adequate verification for the compliance by the Soviet Union with SALT agreements.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. There seem to be a lot of people who think that the Soviets now are gaining a military edge over us.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Now, isn't this perception basic to the problem of getting a SALT treaty ratified?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the perception is accurate. I think that militarily, we are certainly equal to or superior to the Soviet Union in our own capability. Certainly, in addition to that, we have harmony with our neighbors, which the Soviet Union lacks. And our allies are free and independent and tied to us philosophically with a deep commitment, as is the case with NATO and other alliances. The Soviets can't match that dependability and independence among their allies.,Economically, politically, I think our systems are superior to the Soviet Union. There is no doubt, however, that the approval of the SALT treaty by the American people and by the Congress will certainly be influenced by perceptions that we are indeed now and we will indeed in the future be secure and that our military strength and capability in its totality will be adequate to meet any Soviet threat. And there is no doubt that we will be able to meet any such threat now or in the future.,SOVIET REACTION TO U.S.-CHINESE RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, following up again on China, shortly after your announcement last month, you said in a television interview that President Brezhnev's response in a private message to you had been positive.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. TASS then took issue with you, and this week in an interview published in Time, Mr. Brezhnev said that it was like playing with fire to encourage China's militancy. In view of these statements, do you still feel that the Kremlin is positive about your China policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I have reread the original dispatch that I got from President Brezhnev, and I've also read the TASS statements, and happen to have read last night the interview with President Brezhnev in Time. I think my interpretation of Brezhnev's original statement was accurate. He did point out the fact that they had relationships with China that could be contributory to peace. He expressed in his original statement a desire or an intention to monitor future relationships between ourselves and China and expressed some concern about a possibility of our using this new relationship against the Soviet Union.,This is not our intention. We never intend to use our improved relationships with China against the Soviet Union or the relationships with the Soviet Union, which I hope to improve, as a factor to endanger or to threaten China. So, that was a proviso put in his first dispatch.,But I think, still, in balance, it was constructive. It was certainly constructive and positive, compared to the anticipation that I had from the Soviet Union.,PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, Governor Brown of California has called for a constitutional amendment requiring the Federal Government to balance the budget. If Congress rejects the amendment, he says the States should initiate a constitutional convention to get it started. How do you feel, sir, about the wisdom or feasibility of this proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, one of my political philosophies and economic philosophies and one of the commitments of my own administration all have been to reduce the Federal deficit and to work toward a balanced budget.,I think it would be extremely dangerous for a constitutional convention to be assembled for this purpose. Many legal scholars and others believe that such a convention would be completely uncontrollable, that the Constitution could be amended en masse, with multitudes of amendments originating therefrom. It would be a radical departure from the policy of amendment of our Constitution that we've experienced for the last 200 years. And I think an amendment to our Constitution ought to be a very cautious, careful thing.,I personally prefer that amendments be carried out to the Constitution—originating in the Congress, and then ratified by the States—as we have used so well as a policy for the last 200 years.,It would be also a serious matter, a difficult matter, to devise a constitutional amendment prohibiting any deficit spending without adding provisos that would let us deal with unanticipated military or security needs and unanticipated needs when we have a deep depression for keeping our people at work and providing for large numbers of those who might be poor or hungry or needing services.,So, I think this is something that ought to be approached very gingerly, very carefully. And if there is any constitutional amendment, it ought to be done in accordance with practices that we've used in the past.,The final thing I'd like to reemphasize is that I intend to continue to work for a balanced budget, and I believe that this is the best approach to it.,MEXICAN OIL AND NATURAL GAS,Q. Mr. President, with Iran off-line now on oil production, and your worrying about spot shortages, there are a lot of scientists who see Saudi Arabia down there, and Mexico. Yet we seem to be turning our back on natural gas production in Mexico; some question about whether they want to have substantial gas in the American market. How do you reconcile that?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very interested in Mexican oil and natural gas to be purchased by our own Nation. The decisions, however, on how rapidly to produce and to market their oil and natural gas is a decision to be made by Mexico. They are understandably very independent in this respect, and we would not try to encroach on their independence nor try to encourage them to more rapidly produce gas and oil than they themselves desire.,We have immediate needs and also long-range needs, sometimes not quite the same. In the immediate future, the next few months, there is no urgency about acquiring Mexican natural gas. We have at this moment a surplus of natural gas in our own country, and the statements made by the Secretary of Energy were related to that fact.,He has encouraged large users of oil and gas to use gas instead of oil, but, for instance, new powerplants to be built in the future have to be designed to use coal. And we also have the problem of using efficiently gas produced in the 48 States of our country and, in the future, how to bring the natural gas that is available from Alaska down through Canada to our Nation. It's a very complicated thing. And when I go to Mexico next February, this will obviously be one of the matters that I will discuss.,But I'm not going down there to negotiate the price of natural gas. We'll be talking, myself and President Lopez Portillo, more on long-range strategic approaches on how we might best provide a good market for Mexican oil and gas that they want to sell to us.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-12-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, everybody.,I do not have an opening statement, so, Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, can you confirm reports that a tentative agreement has been reached on SALT with the Soviets, that you may meet at the summit with Brezhnev in January? And also, if these are true, can you say what caused the breakthrough?,THE PRESIDENT. We've made good progress on SALT. I can't say that we've reached agreement. A statement will be made later on today by the State Department and by the Soviets simultaneously about a possible meeting of the Foreign Ministers.,I think that there has been steady progress made in the last, almost 2 years. I can't recall any time when there was a retrogression or a pause in the commitment to reach a SALT agreement. Our position has been clear. We have harmony, I believe, among the Defense Department, State Department, and the White House on what should be the United States position. If the Soviets are adequately forthcoming, we will have an agreement without further delay. If they are not forthcoming, then we'll continue to negotiate.,Q. And how about the summit?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that as we approach the time when we are sure that the items have been resolved that are still under negotiation, at that time we will have a summit meeting. And at that summit meeting we will discuss not only concluding the SALT agreement officially but also have a broad agenda of other items that are of mutual interest to us and the Soviet Union.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,GASOLINE PRICES,Q. Mr. President, do you lean toward or against the decontrolling of gasoline prices at this time of high inflation? It's a two-edged sword, I think.,THE PRESIDENT. It is, and it's one that I haven't yet decided upon. When I presented my comprehensive energy plan to the Congress in April of 1977, inflation, although important, was not the preeminent issue in my mind.,The Secretary of Energy, my own advisers in the White House, and Alfred Kahn, who's responsible for the anti-inflation program, are now assessing all the ramifications of the pricing of gasoline, and, of course, the Congress will be involved in the decision also. But I've not yet reached a decision about what the administration's position will be.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, the other day you took a very serious view of Israel and Egypt going past the 17th of this month without concluding a treaty—that's the date they themselves set for it. Now, with 5 days left, what's your belief, or hunch, as to whether they'll meet that deadline? And do you still think it's sort of a \"now or never\" proposition?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it's now or never. And you very accurately described this deadline date as one established by Israel and Egypt in the most solemn commitment at Camp David.,Secretary Vance reports to me, from Cairo, good progress having been between him and President Sadat. He has not begun further negotiations with the Israelis yet because of Mrs. Meir's funeral.,He will return to Egypt, try to his discussions with President Sadat, and then go back to Israel for discussions with the Israelis.,I consider the deadline date to be quite important. If the Egyptians and Israelis cannot keep a commitment on a 3-month conclusion of a peace treaty when they themselves are the only two nations involved, serving as a mediator in the process, then I think it would be very difficult for them to expect the terms of the treaty they are negotiating to be carried out with assurance. It sets a very bad precedent for Israel and Egypt not to reach a conclusion.,I think the differences that presently divide Israel and Egypt are minor, certainly compared to the resolution of major differences in the past. And ! believe that President Sadat has reconfirmed his intention, his commitment, to Secretary Vance to conclude the negotiations without further delay. My hope is and my expectation is that the Israelis will have the same attitude.,THE NATIONAL ANTHEM,Q. Mr. President, this may sound like a frivolous question, but I hope you won't think so. But the National Anthem is played at every trashy football game and baseball game and wrestling match and boxing. Don't you think that downgrades it quite a bit to do that incessantly?,THE PRESIDENT. That's not any more frivolous a question than I have gotten in the past. [Laughter] And I think it is a very good question.,I personally don't think that frequent playing of the National Anthem downplays its importance. No matter how often I hear the National Anthem, I'm always stirred within myself toward more intense feelings of patriotism and a realization of what our Nation stands for. And I think for audiences at sports events to hear the National Anthem played is good and not contrary to the influence that the National Anthem has on all of us.,ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS,Q. Mr. President, at year's end, how do you assess the last 11, 11 1/2 months, the pluses and the minuses as you see them, the hits and the errors—and, particularly, would you speak a little bit about the errors?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a completely nonbiased analyst, I would say that the pluses far outweigh the minuses. I think any analysis of the accomplishments of the 95th Congress, including those made by the news media representatives here, have been positive, that the accomplishments were substantial, much greater in the final stages of the Congress session than had been anticipated earlier in the year.,We've still got a lot of unfulfilled expectations and hopes. We have not successfully addressed the question of inflation. It's been greater during the second half of the year than we had anticipated. We have been pleasantly surprised at maintaining the higher and higher level of employment, preventing the unemployment rate from going up. Last year we had 660,000 new jobs created in America in spite of some slowing down in the national economy, which was expected.,In international affairs, our country has injected itself, I think wisely, into regional disputes where we have no control over the outcome. But we've added our good services, in some instances with almost no immediate prospect of success. My own reputation has been at stake and that of our country.,In Nicaragua, I think instead of having violent and massive bloodshed, we now have the parties negotiating directly with one another for the first time on the terms of a plebiscite and whether or not there should be general amnesty. In Namibia, we are making some good progress, I believe. The South Africans have now accepted the terms set up by the Secretary General of the United Nations. We are waiting for SWAPO to respond? Cyprus, very minimal but steady, increasing prospects. Mideast, you're well acquainted with that. And I think that on SALT and other major international items we have made steady progress.,*In fact, SWAPO accepts the relevant United Nations resolutions on Namibia. The President's intention was to call for their continued support. The United States is waiting for South Africa to indicate in definitive terms its acceptance of the proposal and a date for the arrival of the United Nations transition assistance group. [Printed in the transcript.],So, in balance, I'm pleased with the last 11 months and don't underestimate the difficulties still facing us.,Q. One followup.,THE PRESIDENT. One followup.,Q. Wouldn't you say that your inability to move faster towards your social goals, those social goals that you spelled out during the campaign and since, wouldn't you call that a distinct minus?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't. I think we've made excellent progress in social goals. I've just commented on the fact that we've had large numbers of new Americans at work. We've had a net increase of about 7 million in the number of jobs held by Americans. We've reduced the unemployment rate a full 2 percent. We've had a 25-percent increase in the net income of farmers. We've increased exports there. We've had a stabilization of the American dollar, which was surprisingly effective. We also, of course, recognize a continuing problem that's been of greater importance lately for inflation.,So, I think, on balance, the performance has been positive; although we still have very great problems ahead of us.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONFERENCE,Q. Mr. President, the Democratic Party just spent what seems to some people an enormous amount of money to hold a mini-convention. And I just wonder, some people are already saying perhaps the money would have been better spent in congressional campaigns or Senatorial campaigns. Do you think that was worth the money, and how do you feel about midterm conventions in general?,THE PRESIDENT. For the first time in, I think, more than 10 years, the Democratic National Committee this year did make substantial contributions to the campaigns of congressional candidates. This was a step in the right direction.,This midterm conference was mandated by the 1976 convention. There was no way I could circumvent that mandate. I personally did not favor the midterm conference when it was decided upon in 1976. I was pleasantly surprised. I think, in balance, the conference was worth the money.,My understanding is that additional funds have been raised in Memphis and in other places to adequately pay for the cost of the convention.,I believe it is very important for me, as a President, and also as head of the Democratic Party, to have my success and failures assessed objectively and openly by Democrats representing the grassroots of our party around the Nation. I think that was done in a very forthcoming way. I've observed the deliberations, participated in them with a great deal of interest, and I think in general the policies of my administration were endorsed.,The one single issue concerning budget matters, which was highly disputed, and on which the more liberal members of the party concentrated their efforts, showed that my policies were endorsed by, I think, more than 60 percent. So, I'm very pleased with it. And I don't think there was anyone who went to the conference who couldn't say in its closing hours that they had an adequate opportunity to express their views, either supportive of me or contrary to what I have done.,So, I feel very pleased about it.,NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE,Q. Mr. President, to what extent do you feel bound or influenced by the resolution passed by the midterm conference on calling for enactment of national health insurance in the next Congress?,And specifically, will you seek to have comprehensive legislation passed in the next Congress to take effective phases, or will you go at it one piece of legislation at a time?,THE PRESIDENT. The midterm conference decision was compatible with the 1976 convention decisions on the Democratic Party platform concerning comprehensive health care. I favor that campaign commitment and the platform commitment.,There are differences about how to implement a national health care system. Under any circumstances, those policies espoused by Senator Kennedy, those policies espoused by me—the first major implementation or financial assessment for that purpose would be made in 1983. It's necessarily a slow process. I think it's better done step by step, recognizing the ultimate goal and moving as we can afford it and as we can implement it in a very carefully conceived, methodical way, bringing on board the Congress, and also bringing on board, for support, the American people and the different interest groups involved.,So, I think that the policy expressed by the midterm conference was compatible with my own, and that's what I intend to carry out.,OIL INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, this goes to your general attitude with the oil industry. Last week, consumer advocate Clarence Ditlow blocked a multimillion dollar price increase in unleaded gasoline by your administration, said you were ignoring the aspect of destroying catalytic converters.,There's been a major increase in home heating fuel at a time when there's a glut of home heating fuel, particularly here in the Northeast—we've had a very mild winter. It looks like some very high-level deep-sixing of criminal actions against oil companies in Texas is going on at the Energy Administration, gone on for more than a year now.,And lastly, your Justice Department's testimony from the Antitrust Division going along with oil industry acquisition of uranium companies, solar development companies, and coal companies—all of these were decisions that seemed to be opposed to what you promised as a candidate.,Could you give us a general view? Have you changed your view to the oil industry since becoming President?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I've not changed my views at all. We want to have the principles of the national energy plan carried out effectively. The Congress has now given us legislative authority to carry out 60, 65 percent of what I did propose. Any violation by the oil companies of regulations or law will be prosecuted enthusiastically by me, by the Justice Department, and also by the Department of Energy. And, obviously, we are very deeply dedicated to the enforcement of the antitrust laws.,I'm concerned also about the growing investment by the oil companies in competitive areas of energy supply. I expressed this during my own campaign, and I still feel very strongly about this. I think that the Congress itself is now prepared to move more effectively to modify the law when necessary to minimize abuse. But I don't consider my administration at all reticent about carrying out the policies that I espoused during the campaign when I ran for President, and I certainly don't consider them to be reticent at all in enforcing the law.,PRESIDENT'S 1980 CANDIDACY,Q. Mr. President, a yes or no question, and then, if I may, a followup. In your own mind, have you decided yet whether or not you'll seek a second term?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. [Laughter],Q. You know my followup question. [Laughter] When will you share it with us and the American people?,THE PRESIDENT. Later. [Laughter],Q. Later means—,THE PRESIDENT. It means later.,CONSUMER BOYCOTTS; FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING,Q. Mr. President, your anti-inflation fighter, Mr. Kahn, yesterday suggested that one way to fight inflation would be to have organized consumer boycotts against firms which violate your wageprice guidelines. And another suggestion he made was that the Government might consider reducing or withholding Federal revenue sharing money to cities or States where officials in those cities and States violate the wage guidelines.,I was wondering, first of all, would you support a reduction of Federal revenue sharing money to a city or State which didn't observe or which violated your wage-price guidelines? And how do you feel generally about the Government backing consumer boycotts?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't personally favor any organized boycotts. I think that the posture of a prudent purchaser is one that applies to me as President and also ought to apply to the average consumer who is buying retail items and who should be conversant with the relative compliance of suppliers with our wage and price guidelines—the price guidelines in this instance.,As far as withholding revenue sharing funds, I think this would be illegal under the present law. We have had very good response from Governors' and mayors in applying the same policies of a prudent purchaser so that the mayor, for instance, would be restrained against buying items from companies which patently violate the price guidelines. And we are encouraging mayors to take this action, and Governors as well.,I might say that we encourage them with very good results, very good successes. But as far as withholding revenue sharing funds, this would require an act of Congress, and it's not possible under the present law.,Q. Could you reduce Federal revenue sharing funds to a State which didn't comply?,The PRESIDENT. No, we could not do that under the present law.,TRADE WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES,Q. Mr. President, we seem to be headed for a record trade deficit this year, at a time when a major new market for U.S. exports is opening in Communist China.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Now, there are a number of restrictions in U.S. trade laws which inhibit our trading with Communist countries, some aspects of the Export-Import Bank Act, the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act.,My question is, do you intend to try to change and remove some of those restrictions next year?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly assessing the advisability of maintaining administrative restraints.,Of course, we have to put trade in a proper perspective. We can't assess trade itself completely separated from our overall relationships with Communist countries, particularly those who are potential adversaries of ours, like the Soviet Union.,We want to have increased trade with the Soviet Union and with the People's Republic of China. I think the statistics will show that recently we have had increasing trade with both those countries, compared to last year or several years ago.,If we, in the future, have normal relationships with China, diplomatic relationships, this would open up increased opportunities for trade with those people. In this present time, short of diplomatic relations, we still have major trade missions going to China, Chinese trade missions coming to our country. And I think that this is bearing good results.,We have one more point, and that is security restraints. If there is a sale of high technology items to the Soviet Union, or the People's Republic of China, proposed, then not only do the Commerce Department and the State Department and the National Security Council assess this, but I refer it to the Defense Department as well, to be sure that we are not deliberately or inadvertently giving to those countries a means by which their military capabilities would be greatly escalated. This would be contrary to the existing law.,But within the bounds of those restraints, we are attempting to improve our relationships with the People's Republic of China and with the Soviet Union. And in the process, as part of a stream of increased interrelationships, improved relationships, enhanced trade.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, to follow up the earlier question on the Middle East, you said last week that if Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat had been able to negotiate together on some of these questions over the past few weeks, that there would not have been some of the problems that have arisen. My question is, if all else fails, would you consider calling the two leaders back to Camp David or some other place to negotiate directly with you to resolve this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say that I don't have any present plans to do that. If all else failed and I felt that we could get together again, I would not hesitate to do so. But I don't envision that taking place.,THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow up on the question raised by Mr. Schieffer [Bob Schieffer, CBS News] and Mr. Hurd.1 Do you sense, Mr. President, that there is a widening schism in the Democratic Party between yourself and Senator Kennedy, who emphasized in Memphis the need for finishing the great agenda of the Democratic Party, as he put it? And do you have any plans to try to conciliate your differences with him or with the labor leaders, who have generally opposed your economic policies?,1 The reporter meant to say Ted Knap of the Scripps-Howard News Service.,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I don't consider there is a schism, a growing schism in the Democratic Party at all. And as a general principle, and almost entirely, Senator Kennedy and I communicate well; we have a good relationship. We espouse the same ultimate goals. We have some differences, which are expected, on exactly how to achieve those goals.,I have a unique perspective in this country as President. I have to look at a much broader range of issues than does Senator Kennedy. He is extremely interested, for instance, in the comprehensive health program, having devoted several years of his legislative life to that position.,Also, I think it's accurate to say that Senator Kennedy represents a family within the Democratic Party which is revered because of his two brothers and the contribution of his family to our party. There's a special aura of appreciation to him that's personified because of the position of his family in our Nation and in our party. This makes him a spokesman, not only in his own right but also over a much broader and expected constituency. I recognize it, and I have no objection to that.,I was with Senator Kennedy the night after the Democratic Conference adjourned, I think on Monday (Sunday)2 night. And the following morning in a nonrelated way, the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Mcintyre and my own Domestic Adviser, Stu Eizenstat, met with Senator Kennedy and his staff to try to resolve differences. The differences are minor.,2 Printed in the transcript.,So, I think this is a healthy situation to have within the Democratic Party. And I think that the Congress will be the ultimate judge of whether my budget, as proposed, is fair and balanced and adequate. I have not changed my goals whatsoever. The Democratic Conference endorsed those goals, either unanimously, or with a 60-percent margin on the most controversial of the issues. I am going to have an adequate defense. I'm going to meet our obligations to our allies around the country [world]. And I'm going to cut the budget deficit down below $30 billion, and I'm going to do the best I can to meet the social needs of our Nation. I'm committed to that. That's what I'm going to do. And I have no aversion to an open and public debate, because I think my positions are sound.,But the differences between me and Senator Kennedy are very minor.,IRAN,Q. Mr. President, what will be the domestic and international effect if the Shah fails to maintain power in Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. I fully expect the Shah to maintain power in Iran and for the present problems in Iran to be resolved. Although there have been certainly deplorable instances of bloodshed which we would certainly want to avoid, or see avoided, I think the predictions of doom and disaster that came from some sources have certainly not been realized at all. The Shah has our support and he also has our confidence.,We have no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran, and we have no intention of permitting others to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. The difficult situation there has been exacerbated by uncontrolled statements made from foreign nations that encourage bloodbaths and violence. This is something that really is deplorable and, I. would hope, would cease after this holy season passes.,I think it's good to point out that the Iranian people for 2,500 years, perhaps as long as almost any nation on Earth, have had the ability for stable self-government. There have been changes in the government, yes, sometimes violence, but they have a history of an ability to govern themselves. And because of that and other factors which I've just described, I think the situation in Iran will be resolved successfully.,OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, to what extent are you concerned over the prospect of the OPEC nations raising the price of oil this weekend—reports are it'll be in the neighborhood of 5 percent—the impact this would have on inflation? And do you contemplate any future actions to curb oil imports?,THE PRESIDENT. Most of our problems with the adverse trade balances can be attributed to oil imports, although we have other problems as well. I certainly hope that the OPEC nations will decide not to raise the price of oil. If they do, I hope it would be minimal.,We have tried to convince them that this is in the best interests of the world economy and also in the best interests of the OPEC nations themselves, to have a stable world economy with a minimum of inflation in the future. We're trying to set a good example in our own Nation, both in controlling inflation and also in stabilizing the value of the dollar on which the price of oil is based. The countries in the OPEC nations have suffered somewhat, because for a time the dollar value was going down very rapidly. It has recovered since the first of November.,So, I would hope, first of all—to repeat myself—that there will be no increase in the price of oil. If they must increase the price of oil, I think it ought to be minimal for their own benefit and for the benefit of the world.,EMPLOYMENT AND REVENUE SHARING PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, at the Memphis convention some of the mayors expressed concern over the possibility of sharp reductions in employment programs like the CETA program. And also they expressed concern over the possible lack of support, not by you particularly, but by Congress, for programs like the revenue sharing program which is very important to the cities.,Do you foresee, keeping in mind you haven't made your final budget decisions, sharp reductions in either the CETA program or in revenue sharing which is devoted to the cities?,THE PRESIDENT. It depends on what you mean by sharp reductions. I have to say that there will be some tightening of the budget in almost every aspect of American life. There will be some programs that will be expanded; others will be basically kept at the same level. The decisions have not yet been made. I'm conversant with the problems of the cities.,I don't think any administration has ever had a closer consultative relationship with the mayors than our own has had. In the evolution of our urban policy earlier this year, the mayors were full partners in the process, along with Governors and other—and local officials.,So, I can't say. The revenue sharing legislation is a multiyear authorization, and we support the carrying out of the revenue sharing at its present level until this present law expires. I can't foreclose the possibility that it might be modified in the future. My own attitude has always been that with a given amount for revenue sharing, that a greater portion of it should go to the cities and local governments than to the States. That's one modification in the revenue sharing laws that I would espouse.,But the exact level of the CETA programs and other job programs will have to be decided in the next couple of weeks, and I personally favor as much as possible keeping job opportunities open for Americans.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-11-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press]?,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, if worse came to worse and I know that you don't anticipate this eventuality—but if the choice came down to continuing the fight against inflation and reconciling yourself to being' a one-term President, which choice would you make? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I would maintain the fight against inflation—and at the same time I would like to add a comment that I believe this is exactly what the American people want. Instead of being an unpopular act, I think it would be a popular act to maintain it. I think we will be successful in leveling off the rate of inflation and then bringing it down, and I don't see any adverse political consequences from doing so.,I'd like to add one other point, and that is that the decisions are not easy ones. As we go into a very tight 1980 fiscal year budget, I'm beginning to see more and more clearly how difficult it will be. But I intend to do it.,DEFENSE SPENDING; WEAPONS SYSTEMS,Q. On that subject, Mr. President, do plan to stay with your pledge to increase your defense budget by 3 percent despite your anti-inflation drive? And also on defense, there are published reports that you're going to change your nuclear strategy to focus more on massive retaliation. Is that true?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me answer the last part first. Our nuclear policy basically is one of deterrence; to take actions that are well known by the American people and well known by the Soviets and other nations; that any attack on us would result in devastating destruction by the nation which launched an attack against us. So, the basic policy is one of deterrence.,We, obviously, constantly assess the quality of our own nuclear weapon systems as times change, as technological advances are made, and as the change takes place in the Soviet Union's arsenal. We keep our weapons up to date; we improve our communications and command and information systems. But we will maintain basically a deterrent policy rather than to change the basic policy itself.,The other answer to your question is that our goal and that of other NATO nations is to increase the real level of defense expenditures. This is our goal. Each expenditure on defense, each system for which we spend the taxpayers' money will be much more carefully assessed this year to make sure that we are efficient and effective in the funds that we do expend.,Over the last number of years, including since I've been in office even, the percentage of our total budget and our gross national product that goes into defense has been decreasing. And at the conclusion of the budget cycle, when I make the budget public to the Congress and to the people in about 6 weeks, I know that I'll be responsible to make sure that the social and other domestic needs of our Nation are met, our international obligations are fulfilled, and an adequate defense is assured, and that there be a proper balance among these different, sometimes conflicting, demands.,So, I'll be responsible, and I will assure you and other Americans that when the budget is assessed that I will carry out my responsibilities well.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about China. What is your timetable for reaching full normalization of relations with China, and have the recent events that are now going on in China—have those altered that policy? And do you envision China as a potential military\nally at any time against the Soviet\nUnion?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have any intention of selling any weapons to either China or the Soviet Union. We are improving our relationships with the People's Republic of China as time goes on, even short of complete diplomatic normalization. Our goal, however, is to move toward normalization in accordance with the Shanghai Communiqué agreements. The attitude of China, the domestic situation in China, has changed, and we watch it with great interest.,TAX REDUCTION BILL,Q. Mr. President, the austerity budget you're now working on is for spending that begins October 1 of next year, as I understand it. In view of that, and in view of the inflationary pressure we have today, would it have been more effective to veto the tax bill, which would have had an immediate impact on the inflationary economy, rather than waiting until next October?,THE PRESIDENT. No, in balance, it would not have been good for our country. It might have had some tendency to control inflation, but at the same time, I think it would have added a tremendous additional tax burden on our people and restrained greatly the normal growth that we anticipate maintaining throughout next year.,Our growth rate will be reduced somewhat, to maybe below 3 percent. I don't think we'll have a recession. But we took that into very careful account as we put together our overall anti-inflation program.,So, in balance, I decided to sign and to put into effect the tax reduction bill. I think in spite of that, maybe compatibly with that, we'll still be successful in adequately fighting inflation.,STRATEGIC WEAPONS SYSTEMS; CIVIL DEFENSE,Q. Mr. President, is it correct that you have decided to go ahead with the M-X mobile missile and the Trident II in the next budget? And will you comment on the suggestion that that decision, if you take it, the decision on civil defense, is actually a part of a plan to sort of pull the fangs of the anti-SALT people, that it's part of a SALT dance, rather than an independent action?,THE PRESIDENT I don't think it's part of a SALT dance. I have not decided yet on what types of new weapons systems, if any, we will advocate in the 1980 fiscal year budget for our strategic arms arsenal.,The press reports about a $2 billion civil defense program have been completely erroneous, and I have never been able to find where the origin of that story might have derived. No proposal has even been made to me for a civil defense program of that magnitude.,We are considering the advisability of pursuing some civil defense assessments, including the fairly long-term evacuation of some of our major cities if we should think a nuclear war would be likely, which is obviously not a very likely project in itself, a proposal in itself.,But I have not yet decided when to move on the M-X or if to move on the M-X, what to do about making sure that our present silo missiles are secure. The Soviet missiles, as have ours in recent years, have been improved in their quality, particularly in their accuracy. And this makes the one leg of our so-called triad more vulnerable, that is, the fixed silo missiles.,We are addressing this question with a series of analyses, but I've not yet made a decision on how to do it.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,Q. Mr. President, what do you think about Richard Nixon beginning to speak out on the public issues? Could this become a problem for you?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mr. Nixon has the same right to speak out as any other American, and it doesn't cause me any concern.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, there have been a number of reports about the problems that the people who are running your anti-inflation program have been having, and we are now being told that the wage and price guidelines are going to be modified in some cases. How satisfied are you at this point with the way the program has gotten off the ground? And how concerned are you that some of this early confusion is going to make it more difficult to get people to comply with it?,THE PRESIDENT. I am satisfied with the way the anti-inflation program has commenced. Alfred Kahn, who is heading up the entire program, until a week or 10 days ago—I've forgotten the exact time-was completing his service as the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and it's only been that brief period where he's been full-time on the job.,In accordance with the law of our country, whenever new proposals are promulgated from an administrative point of view, as have been the anti-inflation proposals, they have to be published. And after a certain period of time for requisite public comment among those who are most directly affected by a regulation, then the regulations are made final. The time for that public comment has not yet terminated. It won't be until the end of this week. So, as is always the case, as is required by law, we are now in the phase of letting the public and interested groups respond to the proposals that have been made.,I might say that we are moving expeditiously on the anti-inflation effort. My guidelines, expressed to the public in an evening television address, have not been modified at all. Obviously, with more than a thousand different kinds of decisions to be made, there will be some flexibility. And the reason for this public discussion, as I say again, required by law, is to let special groups that might be affected in an unanticipated way have an opportunity to present their case before the regulations are made final.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON; HUMAN RIGHTS,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on Mr. Sperling's [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor] question and ask a more specific Nixon question, if I could.,He was at Oxford University today, and he said of your human rights policy, quite critically, that it is designed to win a lot of publicity and votes, but it won't achieve results. I was wondering if you'd care to respond to that criticism. And secondly, do you see the events in China as an outcome of your human rights policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I could make a career out of responding to all the criticisms- [laughter] that are made and comments made by other political figures, even including ex-Presidents. I don't intend to do so.,I personally think the human rights policy of our Government is well advised and has had broad-ranging, beneficial effect. I don't claim credit for the American human rights policy when political prisoners are released from certain countries or when those countries move toward more democratic means, or even when—as is in the case of China now—there are public and apparently permitted demands or requests for more democratic government policies and enhanced human rights.,But I think our policy is right. It's well founded. It's one that I will maintain tenaciously, and I think it's demonstrated around the world that it's already had good effect.,RELIGIOUS CULTS,Q. Mr. President, I want to ask about Guyana. Do you think that the nature of that cult says anything about America? And secondly, what can the Government do to avoid future Jonestowns?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I obviously don't think that the Jonestown cult was typical in any way of America. I think these were people who became obsessed with a particular leader's philosophy. They were obviously misled; a tragedy resulted. It did not take place in our own country. In retrospect, all of us can deplore what did occur.,It's unconstitutional for the Government of our country to investigate or to issue laws against any group—no matter how much they might depart from normal custom—which is based on religious belief. The only exception is when there is some substantive allegation that the activities of those religious groups directly violate a Federal law.,I might point out that Congressman Ryan and other Congressmen did go to the Justice Department several weeks or months ago to go into the so-called brainwashing aspects of a few religious cults around the country. My understanding is that the so-called People's Temple was not one of those thought by them at that time to be indulging in brainwashing. It was a recent, late development that no one, so far as I know, was able to anticipate or assess adequately.,So, I don't think that we ought to have an overreaction because of the Jonestown tragedy by injecting government into trying to control people's religious beliefs. And I believe that we also don't need to deplore on a nationwide basis the fact that the Jonestown cult, so-called, was typical of America, because it's not.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, where do we stand on a Middle East accord between Egypt and Israel, and what can you or are you doing to try to bring the two parties together?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are negotiating and communicating with both the leaders of Israel and Egypt on a constant and sustained basis. I have been dissatisfied and disappointed at the length of time required to bring about a peace treaty that was signed by both Israel and Egypt. I've already outlined in the past my assessment of why this delay has taken place, as contrasted with Camp David. I'm not dealing directly with the principals simultaneously, and a lot of the negotiation has, unfortunately, been conducted through the press because of political reasons, domestically speaking, or other reasons.,Although I'm somewhat discouraged, we are certainly not going to give up on the effort. Tomorrow, I will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mr. Khalil, who's coming, I understand, with a personal message to me from President Sadat.,We have a need, obviously, to get a treaty text pinned down and approved by both governments, and to resolve the very difficult question of the so-called linkage, whether or not certain acts in the West Bank, Gaza Strip have to be taking place at the same time the Sinai agreement is consummated.,But regardless of temporary disappointments and setbacks that we've experienced since Camp David, they are no more serious nor of any greater concern than some that I experienced at Camp David. And we will continue to pursue our efforts to bring about a peace treaty there.,My reason for what optimism I keep is that I know for certain that both President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin want a peace treaty. I know that their people want a peace treaty. And I think as long as this determination on their part is extant, that our own good offices are very likely to be fruitful. So, I will continue the effort, no matter how difficult it might be in the future.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, it seems that we are all being asked to settle basically for our present standard of living, something that we don't find easy to accept after all these years of expecting more. And does it seem, indeed, from your anti-inflation program, that either one has to get a promotion or increase his or her productivity greatly; otherwise there could be no more money? And how important is an acceptance of that to the success of your wage-price standards?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we anticipate that America will continue to be strong, viable, prosperous, progressive, growing in the quality of life of our own citizens measured in a multifaceted way. We don't anticipate a recession or depression next year. The free enterprise system of our country will still reward outstanding effort or outstanding ability, or perhaps good fortune on occasion, and I see no reason for despair at all.,Most people, many people, look upon an effort to control inflation as a negative or adverse factor in our country's life. I don't look on it that way. It takes a strong, viable, dynamic, confident nation to deal successfully with the question of inflation.,This is not something that has recently arisen as a problem. The last 10 years we've had an inflation rate of about 6 1/2 percent, and I just think now it's time for us to make every effort we can to correct it. But I don't think that the American people need to fear that if we are successful in controlling inflation that their lives are going to be constrained or less pleasant or prosperous in the future.,My belief is that to the extent that we are successful in controlling inflation, the quality of life of Americans will be enhanced, not hurt.,SOVIET MIG—23'S IN CUBA,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the MIG's in Cuba. Have you come to a decision yet on whether the MIG23's in Cuba represent any increased threat to the United States? Have you asked the Russians to take them out? And do you believe the 1962 understandings with the Soviet Union have been violated?,THE PRESIDENT. There have been MIG-23's in Cuba for a long time. There is a model of the MIG-23 that's been introduced there late last spring which we have been observing since that time.,We would consider it to be a very serious development if the Soviet Union violated the 1962 agreement. When we have interrogated the Soviet Union through diplomatic channels, they have assured us that no shipments of weapons to the Cubans have or will violate the terms of the 1962 agreement. We will monitor their compliance with this agreement very carefully, which we have been doing in the past, both as to the quality of weapons sent there and the quantity of weapons sent there, to be sure that there is no offensive threat to the United States possible from Cuba.,I might add that we have no evidence at all, no allegation that atomic weapons are present in Cuba.,IRAN,Q. Mr. President, is there any reason that you feel that the Shah is justifiably in trouble with his people?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the Shah understands the situation in Iran very clearly and the reasons for some of the problems that he has experienced recently. He has moved forcefully and aggressively in changing some of the ancient religious customs of Iran, for instance, and some of the more conservative or traditional religious leaders deplore this change substantially. Others of the Iranian citizens who are in the middle class, who have a new prosperity brought about by enhanced oil prices and extra income coming into the country, I think, feel that they ought to have a greater share of the voice in determining the affairs of Iran. Others believe that the democratization of Iran ought to proceed more quickly.,The Shah, as you know, has offered the opposition groups a place in a coalition government. They have rejected that offer and demand more complete removal from the Shah of his authority.,We trust the Shah to maintain stability in Iran, to continue with the democratization process, and also to continue with the progressive change in the Iranian social and economic structure. But I don't think either I or any other national leader could ever claim that we have never made a mistake or have never misunderstood the attitudes of our people. We have confidence in the Shah, we support him and his efforts to change Iran in a constructive way, moving toward democracy and social progress. And we have confidence in the Iranian people to make the ultimate judgments about their own government.,We do not have any intention of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran, and we do not approve any other nation interfering in the internal affairs of Iran.,DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,Q. The General Accounting Office is currently working on a report to Congress criticizing the Department of Energy intensely for failing to follow through with enforcing some pricing regulations on oil, and, in particular, failing to follow up on some oil fraud situations in Texas that GAG says Department of Energy was aware of 2 or 3 years ago.,What do you think about that, and what do you intend to do to increase the Department of Energy's enforcing actions?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not familiar with the particular late development that you described, if it is a late development. I know in the past, earlier this year, on several occasions the Department of Energy has taken very strong action to require some of the oil companies to repay consumers or to pay actual fines when they have violated the laws of the American Government.,My own position is probably predictable to you. I will do everything I can to enforce the law and to assure that any members of my Cabinet or any agencies enforce it also. But I'm not familiar with the specific allegation that you described.,Q. If I could follow up, the General Accounting Office report is supposed to come out sometime in December. This is a new report-,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I see.,Q. which is going to say the Department of Energy has consistently failed to respond to these previous reports.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would obviously want them to comply completely with the law and do it very rapidly.,CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION,Q. Mr. President, I was looking at the employment figures for the Federal Government. It looks like there are 6,000 more employees now than when you took office, and depending on how you look at it, it looks like there's a net increase in Government agencies—I don't mean advisory commissions, but Government agencies. Now, what's happened to your program to streamline the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we've streamlined it considerably. I would like to go out of office having had no increase in the total Federal employment in spite of the natural and inevitable growth in services delivered to the American people. Some of the mandated programs that I ask Congress to approve by law are expanded by the Congress in a proper way, but more than I would originally have proposed. And sometimes a program is put forward by the Congress that I did not advocate, that I accept, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes with enthusiasm. But I think that we have made the Government much more efficient.,The new move toward civil service reform is a good example of that potential progress in the future. It's a new law that's just gone into effect. In addition to that, we've put forward five or six reorganization plans, all of which have been approved overwhelmingly by the Congress.,So, my expectation and my goal is to complete my own service as President with substantially enhanced delivery of service to the American people and with no increase in the total employment of the Federal Government.,INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,Q. Mr. President, when you came to office, there was a lot of criticism of the intelligence agencies about the methods they were using, and now since the Iran thing there's a good deal of criticism, it seems, about their evaluation.,How concerned were you about the intelligence evaluations in Iran? And could you give us a general comment about what you think the state of the intelligence arts is today?,THE PRESIDENT. I've said several times that one of the pleasant surprises of my own administration has been the high quality of work done by the intelligence community. When I interrogate them about a specific intelligence item or when I get general assessments of intelligence matters, I've been very pleased with the quality of their work.,Recently, however, I have been concerned that the trend that was established about 15 years ago to get intelligence from electronic means might have been overemphasized, sometimes to the detriment of the assessment of the intelligence derived and also the intelligence derived through normal political channels, not secret intelligence; sometimes just the assessment of public information that's known in different countries around the world. And recently I wrote a note-which is my custom; I write several every day—to the National Security Council, the State Department, and the CIA leaders, and asked them to get together with others and see how we could improve the quality of our assessment program and also, particularly, political assessments.,Since I've been in office, we have substantially modified the order of priorities addressed by the intelligence community in its totality. When I became President, I was concerned, during the first few months, that quite often the intelligence community itself set its own priorities. As a supplier of intelligence information, I felt that the customers, the ones who receive the intelligence information, including the Defense Department, myself, and others, ought to be the ones to say, \"This is what we consider to be most important.\" That effort has been completed, and it's now working very well.,So, to summarize, there is still some progress to be made. I was pleased with the intelligence community's work when I first came into office, and it's been improved since I became President.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank, very much. Thank you, everybody."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-11-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I'm glad to be in Kansas City, and I would like to call on Mr. Scott Feldman [KNBC-TV, Kansas City] for the first question.,FARM SET-ASIDE PROGRAMS,Q. Thank you, Mr. President. It's been suggested that American farmers would be immensely helped if the Government were to drop its set-aside programs and urge farmers to produce simply everything they could, while at the same time the Government would push agricultural exports even harder.,My question to you, sir, is would you consider dropping the farm set-aside program, and how far will your administration go in demanding in world trade talks that the United States not open its market any wider to foreign goods unless those countries let in more American farm goods?,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Feldman.,I think it's highly likely that we will have set-asides. On a nationwide basis, we have had very good crop in corn, this year in particular, averaging for the first time over 100 bushels per acre.,The policy of our own Government, my administration, has been to try to increase farm income, and we've increased farm income about 25 percent.,We've also, every year, set records on farm exports. We have gotten recent information that the worldwide feed grain stocks are fairly high, but we anticipate very large exports of farm products this coming year.,I would say a moderate set-aside program, continued storage of farm products under the farmer's control, not so that the middle grain dealers can make the extraordinary profits as they have in the past, no embargoes on the shipment of farm products in the future, as they have been under previous administrations-this combination, I think, is the best to pursue.,I don't believe that the erection of tariffs or trade barriers would help us at all in the agricultural economy, because we export so many more agricultural products that we import. But we have recently signed a bill—as a matter of fact, in Kansas—passed by the Congress, that would improve greatly our opportunity to export farm products in the future with additional loans for those that might purchase our farm products, with additional opening of farm export offices to represent our farmers in foreign countries where markets are possible.,Mr. Pippert [Wes Pippert, United Press International].,RESULTS OF THE ELECTION,Q. Mr. President, I'm very interested in your assessment of the election, and a couple of specific questions: Why did Democrats do so poorly in this region of the Middle West; and secondly, with regard to Congress, how much does the more conservative nature of the Senate jeopardize approval of a SALT agreement, either as a treaty or as an executive agreement? And will the new makeup of the Senate make you hesitate to introduce such legislation as urban aid and welfare reform?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope I can remember those four questions. Well, in the first place, I think the Democrats did fairly well on a nationwide basis. We lost some very key races, some of them in the Midwest. I'd say one of the most serious was the loss of the Senate seat, Dick Clark in Iowa. But I just rode in from the airport with the new Governor-elect of Kansas, who happens to be a Democrat.,I think there was a general expression around the country of approval for the Democratic Party and its policies. I don't look on it as a referendum of whether I've done a good job or not. We retained well over 60 percent of the Members of the House of Representatives, Congress, about 60 percent in the Senate, and about 60 percent in the Governorships.,The election of Republican Senators and their effect on the SALT ratification—I think both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans favor an agreement with the Soviet Union which would limit the threat of nuclear arms in the future. We have been negotiating the SALT II agreement now for almost 2 years, even longer, including the time my own predecessors spent on this effort. And I believe that if the SALT treaty is well balanced—and it certainly will be—it will be infinitely superior to no treaty at all and much better than the SALT I agreement under which we presently live.,So, I believe that we will have a tough fight in the Senate, as we've always anticipated, but I don't anticipate that partisanship will play a role in the passage or ratification of the SALT agreement.,I would never be hesitant about presenting any sort of controversial legislation to Congress because I feared failure. If I had had this inclination toward fear, I would not have been able to sign an energy bill this morning; we would not have had the Panama treaties ratified; we would not have had many achievements that we've already realized.,So, I wouldn't let the makeup of the Congress, which is still heavily Democratic by the way, prevent my introducing bills that I thought were good for the country.\nMr. Brooks Jackson [Associated Press].,DEFENSE SPENDING,Q. Mr. President, as you draw up the budget for next year, which you will be doing the next few weeks, you're facing the choice between, to some extent, guns and butter. We've committed to our NATO Allies to let the military budget grow. At the same time, you want to hold down, decrease the Federal deficit to $30 billion or below.,Is it true, as reported, that you've decided to let the whole military budget grow by about 3 percent faster than the rate of inflation while ordering a $4 billion, $5 billion cut of the projected gross of social programs? And if so, where are those cuts going to come from—Amtrak subsidies or Federal pensions or farm programs or where?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've been working on the 1980 fiscal year budget for months. I had my first hearings, preliminary hearings with the agency heads last April or May, and now almost daily, I meet with the Office of Management and Budget on future decisions to be made in the budget itself. I won't make final decisions on the fiscal year '80 budget until sometime next month, after meeting with the heads of the different agencies and departments of the Federal Government to let them appeal, in effect, decisions that the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, and I have made together.,There's no way that I can cut down the ability of our Nation to defend itself. Our security obviously comes first. And we have encouraged our NATO Allies in particular to increase their expenditures for a joint defense of Europe, and therefore us, by 3 percent a year above the inflation rate. I intend to honor that commitment. The final figures, though, on individual departments, and clearly the Defense Department, have not yet been decided.,I might point out I will meet my goal, which I announced in the anti-inflation speech a couple of weeks ago, of having a budget deficit less than half what it was when I was running for President. The budget deficit will be below $30 billion. It's going to be a very tight, very stringent, very difficult budget to achieve, but I will achieve it. And I'm sure Congress will back me in this effort. I'm also continuing a freeze on hiring of Federal employees. I have limited this year, with the Congress approval, the pay increases for Federal employees—there is no increase at all for executives in the Federal Government. And I'll do other things as well to control inflation.,I consider it to be my top domestic commitment, and I don't intend to fail.,MEAT IMPORTS,Q. Mr. President, Jim Fitzpatrick, Kansas City Times.,Do you intend to sign the meat import bill, and if not, why not?,THE PRESIDENT. The bill has not gotten to my desk yet. And I expect to receive it tomorrow or Saturday. I'll make a decision then.,I might point out that I'm strongly in favor of the countercyclical approach to beef imports, where on a predictable basis, when the supply of beef in this country is high, that imports would be lower, and vice versa.,There are some factors that concern me about the beef import bill. One is the—I understand to be a severe limitation on the President's right to make decisions in case of emergency. But I'll have to assess the bill in its entirety. If I should make a decision against the legislation, however, because of the feature that I just described to you, then I would work with the Congress to include early next year a countercyclical approach. I think it's a very good approach. And I'll just have to make a decision before the end of this week.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,REVENUE ACT OF 1978,Q. Mr. President, the tax bill that you have signed contains cuts in capital gains taxes, which is the opposite of what you would have liked. It also contains cuts for people in the middle-income level, who are making between $10,000 to $15,000 a year. That is not going to be enough to offset the increases in social security taxes.,Why did you sign the bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there were many features about the tax bill which were not my original preference. The reforms included in the bill—and they're substantial-did not measure up to what I asked the Congress to do. The final reduction in capital gains taxes was substantially below that approved by either the House or Senate. It was as low as the conference committee could go.,I think that we do need tax reduction, and the bill involves about $21 billion in tax reductions—and a part of it, by the way, is the continuation of the present tax reductions, which would have increased $13 billion, roughly, had I not signed the bill at all.,We did the best we could in the last few days—as a matter of fact, the last few hours—of the congressional session to make the bill more acceptable to me. In balance, it was acceptable. It was necessary. And I think that we do benefit greatly from the fact that the people of our country will not be saddled with $20 to $30 billion in increased taxes at the first of next year, had I not signed the bill.,I've not given up on my hope that we can have additional reforms in the future. And I think the capital gains reductions were reasonable, compared to what the House and Senate had both considered.,SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS,Q. In line with that, Mr. President, last week in Kansas City, Senator Eagleton expressed concern over the social security tax increase, the bill that was passed. He termed it as a bad bill and one that needed to be reviewed. Do you agree with the review and possibly a reduction in the social security tax increase?,THE PRESIDENT. The original proposal that I made to the Congress last year, in 1977, was that the social security be handled slightly different from the way it was and that we have a reduction, as you know, in social security payments. The Congress—and I approved, finally—decided that the social security system was in such imminent danger of bankruptcy that it had to be saved; and it was saved by increase in rates.,I have no present plans to advocate a substantial change in the present legislation. If so, if I did have a reduction in social security payments, that reduction would have to be made up by allocations of funds from the general Treasury. I know for a fact that Senator Long, head of the Finance Committee in the Senate, is strongly opposed to this procedure. And I think even if I desired it, it would be highly unlikely that we could achieve it. It's one of the options that we will consider, but I certainly have no present plans to do so.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, considering George Meany's reaction to your anti-inflation proposals, and in view of the fact that negotiations are coming up in a number of industries, major industries, during the next few months, what do you intend to do to keep the unions involved to adhere to your 7-percent wage cap?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Meany did not reject the voluntary wage and price standards that I proposed. He expressed a preference that the Congress be called back into session to impose an extensive, mandatory Government wage and price standard throughout the entire free enterprise system of our country. I do not have any intention of doing this. And if I attempted it, I have no feeling at all that the Congress would approve.,In the absence of that, Mr. Meany, I think, made clear in one of the Sunday afternoon talk shows that he did encourage individual labor unions to cooperate, within the bounds of their desires and what's best for their own members. So, I've got, I'd say, a minimal, at least, degree of support from the AFL-CIO president. Of course, he recognized, as do I, that we have international presidents, themselves, to make decisions. There are several thousand bargaining units in the country. We've gotten fairly substantial encouragement from the UAW, one of the major labor unions, and also from the Teamsters, who will be negotiating a contract next year.,I'm determined, as is Alfred Kahn and other members of my administration, to make the anti-inflation package work. I don't intend to back down. I'll do everything I can that's legal within the bounds of my own authority and my influence with Congress to assure that the anti-inflation package is successful. And I think that most labor members, in organized unions or otherwise, feel that it's much better for them to control inflation than it is to let it run rampant, even if they were to get some small increases in-temporary increases in wages that are then overcome by increased inflation.,Everybody wants inflation to be controlled, including the members of labor unions.,Q. Mr. President, Stan Karmack, KCMO, Kansas City. We have confirmed with the Hershey Corporation this morning that the price of a Hershey bar is going up 9.3 percent. Since that is above your wage and price guidelines, will you try to put the bite on the Hershey bar? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. If the report is true, then I would disapprove it strongly. We do have some persuasion that we can exercise. I would hope that the Hershey Company and all other companies would comply with our policy proposed, that any increase that they implement would be at least one-half percent below the average of their increase for 1976 and 1977. I'm not adequately familiar with the Hershey prices in the past to see if this is in compliance with it.,But through purchasing policies of the Federal Government, through competition, through the disapproval expressed by myself, other leaders of our Nation, and individual consumers, I would hope that any deviation from our policies could be controlled.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, question on the Middle East. Do you agree with President Sadat's view that the two agreements, the one on the West Bank and the agreement now being negotiated for peace between Israel and Egypt, have to be linked in some way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's never been any doubt in my mind, nor President Sadat's, nor Prime Minister Begin's, that one of the premises for the Camp David negotiations was a comprehensive peace settlement that includes not just an isolated peace treaty between Israel and Egypt but includes a continuation of a solution for the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and ultimately for the Golan Heights as well. There is some difference of opinion between the two leaders about how specifically it should be expressed in the Sinai treaty.,I personally favor the presently negotiated language, which in the preamble does say that both nations commit themselves to carry out the comprehensive peace agreement as was agreed at Camp David. This is a matter for negotiation between the two leaders.,I have heard President (Prime Minister) 1 Begin say in my presence that he did not desire a separate peace treaty with Egypt. And, of course, this is also the opinion and strongly felt view of President Sadat.,1 Printed in the transcript.,We've been negotiating on the Mideast peace agreement for months. I have personally put hundreds of hours into it. We have reached, on more than one occasion so far, agreement on the text between the negotiators themselves. When they refer the text back to the leaders at home in Egypt and Israel, sometimes the work that has been done is partially undone. But I think that the present language as approved by the negotiators is adequate, and our presumption is to adhere to that language as our preference. But I would like to point out that we are not trying to impose our will on the leaders themselves or on those nations, and we hope that they will rapidly reach a conclusion.,There's no doubt in my mind that this kind of difference in language and how a linkage is actually expressed is a matter for negotiation. It does not violate the commitments made at Camp David, no matter what the decision might be as reached jointly by Egypt and Israel.,FARM SET-ASIDE PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, may I retrack to the '79—Sam Nelson, Commodity News Service-may I retrack to the '79 feed grain set-aside program?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. You said you plan on a moderate program. Is a 20-percent acreage set-aside considered by you moderate, and do you plan to wait until the November 15 deadline to make your announcement?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not plan to wait until the November 15 deadline. I intend to move on it as quickly as I can. We did want to wait until after today, because as you know, this is the date on which we get November crop estimates. And we wanted to have that information available before we put the final touches on the decision.,I would not want to give you any figure yet, because I haven't decided. But I will try to decide that either this week or very early next week. I don't intend to wait until the 15th.,RESULTS OF THE ELECTION,Q. Mr. President, looking at the won-and-lost column of the Democratic candidates for whom you campaigned in this election, how would you assess your impact in these races?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say when they lost, I had a substantial impact. When they won, they did it on their own merit. [Laughter],Q. Mr. President, may I follow up? Seriously, do you believe that in modern times that a President coming into a city to campaign for a candidate really does sway the voter one way or the other?,THE PRESIDENT. It's hard to say. My time to campaign around the country is very limited. There are hundreds and hundreds of candidates, as you know. I think I tried to help roughly 50 candidates for the Congress, in the Senate and House, including Governors, I believe. And a few more than half those won. But I couldn't say that my presence either caused a victory or a defeat.,We did choose for my own presence those elections in almost every instance where there were marginal prospects for victory. When you go into a State, for instance, like California, it's obvious that (governor Brown was a heavy favorite. There were other Democrats running for the Congress, for instance, in the Sacramento area, whose elections were quite doubtful, and the same thing applied all over the country.,So, I don't think the President has too much of an impact on an individual race. The major purpose of my last swing was to encourage American people to get out to vote. The vote turnout was higher than we anticipated. It was not nearly high enough. I think three voters out of eight went to the polls. Five voters out of eight did not. But that was the primary purpose of my last swing, to help Democrats, yes, but to get out a large vote. I doubt that my presence had much of an impact on the outcome of those who won.,AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, Steve Saunders from KBCM Radio. You've already mentioned the countercyclical measure and the set-aside program. But aren't you playing with the profits of agriculture, maybe one of the only facets of our economy by itself that can help with the inflation problem, the devaluation of the dollar problem, and the balance-of-trade deficit, all in one, by not signing the countercyclical bill, by waiting until this late for that set-aside program, when most farmers wanted it earlier, and by allowing about 50 percent of the world's reserves of grain stocks to build up in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. No. [Laughter] We inherited a situation in the agricultural communities that was very depressing and of great concern to me. The farmers were actually faced with another depression. The Congress passed, with bipartisan support last year, a comprehensive agriculture bill. It went into effect the first day of October 1977. Since then, farm income has increased $7 billion this year compared to last year, a 25-percent increase in farm income.,In spite of very depressed prices in 1977, the exports hit an all-time record. This year, we expect to export over $27 billion, which is substantially above the all-time record set last year. We'll continue this balanced approach.,The farmers will have to do some sacrificing along with all other Americans. We can't concentrate all of our government's effort and ignore inflationary pressures, erect trade barriers just to protect farmers. I'm a farmer myself, and I never have met a farmer who, in a showdown, wanted to do something deleterious or harmful to his own country just for selfish advantage.,I think we've been very fair with farmers; I continue to be fair with the farmers; and of course my own stand is corroborated by the action taken by the Congress. And my decisions will be made very shortly, before the statutory limit, after the information on production that was received today, with which I'm not yet familiar. And I'm not waiting until the last minute.,The reporter with the large diamond ring on her finger. 2 [Laughter],2 Ann Compton of ABC News had recently announced her engagement to be married.,NATIONAL ENERGY BILLS,Q. Mr. President, you said when the energy bill finally passed that you were not pleased with all aspects of it and that you would work year after year to try to improve it. What specifically will you propose in January to change the energy bill that you signed today?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know yet. As was pointed out this morning in the signing ceremony, this is one of the most difficult legislative tasks that the Congress has ever undertaken, possibly, in the history of our country. It's complicated; it's contentious; it's very difficult to understand. It has international implications, and politically I don't think anyone could win from it. It was not something that's politically attractive.,The proposal that I made originally with substantial taxes imposed on oil, the taxes to be refunded to the American people immediately, would have saved additional oil consumption. The bills that I signed this morning will result in savings of about 2 1/2 million barrels of oil per day by 1985. The original proposals would have saved an estimated 4 1/2 million barrels per day. So, we've got about 60 or 65 percent of what we asked for. But we do now have a comprehensive energy policy for the first time.,As we go into the implementation of this legislation, we'll obviously have some accomplishments, which means that regulation can be reduced. We'll obviously find some defects, I'm sure, in this complicated legislation, that I'll try to correct. But I've not given up on my original proposal that there should be a constraint on the excessive consumption of oil and therefore the excessive importation of oil. How we'll go about it, I don't yet know.,THE PRESIDENT'S RELIGION,Q. Mr. President, you're in the Bible Belt of the United States. And I was wondering if it's made a difference to you that you're a born-again Christian, in the last 2 years in office?,THE PRESIDENT. I think my religious beliefs are well known. And in my own opinion, a deep religious faith is a very sound basis on which to make difficult decisions and to have some assurance that you are doing the proper things. But I've been very careful not to interrelate my Christian beliefs with my responsibilities as President. But it is a great personal gratification for me to have that religious faith.,NICARAGUA,Q. Mr. President, you're being confronted with a growing number of pleas to help bring about a mediated peace in the Latin American country of Nicaragua. Is the U.S. going to act to prevent further bloodshed and repression, or do you feel that your hands are tied because you don't want to interfere in the internal affairs of another country? What can you do?,THE PRESIDENT. We are participating actively and daily in the negotiations to bring about a settlement in Nicaragua. I get daily reports from Mr. Bowdler. He was one of the three major negotiators there. We're working in harmony with two other Latin American countries in this effort.,We are trying to bring about a resolution of the Nicaraguan question. And I think you know in the last few weeks since these negotiations began, the bloodshed has certainly been drastically reduced. It's one of the most difficult tasks that we've undertaken.,And we proposed others to be the negotiators at first. We were unable to find an acceptable group. With our absence, both sides—I guess all sides, there are many more than two—wanted the United States to be negotiators. So, we are negotiating actively now to reach an agreement in Nicaragua to control bloodshed, to minimize disputes, and to set up a government there that will have the full support of the Nicaraguan people.,RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS,Q. Mr. President, Bill Stilley of Raytown and William Jewell College Radio Station, KWPB. Missouri voters defeated the right-to-work amendment Tuesday. And I was wanting to know what effect do you see will this have on the right-to-work movement in efforts to repeal section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley?,THE PRESIDENT. I think obviously the outcome of the vote in Missouri will have a great effect on attempts that might have been made in other States to repeal right- to-work or to establish right-to-work laws.,This is a matter that I doubt the Congress will address in any concerted fashion during the coming year. So, I don't think that the Missouri decision will have a great effect on the National Government. It's a very highly controversial issue. The Missouri people spoke, I think, clearly, by a 3-to-2 margin. And I think this would be certainly a discouragement for an attempt in other States to impose right-to-work.,MR. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I've enjoyed being here. And I'm going now to speak to the 50th anniversary of the FFA organization of our country, of which I was a member early in my life."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-10-10","text":"LEGISLATION IN THE 95TH CONGRESS,THE PRESIDENT. I have a brief statement to make to begin with.,As all of you know, we are approaching the end of the 95th congressional session with a great deal of work still to be done. We are searching for a fair tax bill that would be simple, equitable, progressive in nature. The Senate, after it completes its deliberations on the tax bill, will take up the full employment and balanced growth legislation, which expresses in clear legislative terms a commitment that has been longstanding in our Nation, that any American has a right to a job and this right must be balanced with stable pricing structures.,The passage of this legislation was very greatly needed, and I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on it. The House has already passed it overwhelmingly.,The most important bill left in the House is on energy. We've been working on a comprehensive energy policy for our Nation now for 18 or 20 months. The most important single element in the energy package is natural gas—a difficult, complicated, highly debated question.,In addition to that, we will have bills designed to conserve energy, to shift to coal—a more plentiful supply of energy-utility rate reform and, also, energy taxes and credits to encourage people to take actions to make their houses more efficient and their businesses more efficient and to save energy throughout the Nation.,The most important single portion of this legislation is on natural gas. Because of our excessive dependence on foreign oil, we've seen the value of the dollar decline. Large sums of American money have gone to foreign nations unnecessarily, and the excessive imports have caused at least 1 percent to be added to our inflation rate.,The vote on these bills in the House will come at the end of this week. The natural gas bill will result in a decrease by 1985 of 1.4 million barrels of imported oil per day. I believe that this vote is the most important that will be cast by the Members of the Congress during this year, and it will be a measure of the effectiveness of the Congress, of our government, and also a measure of achievement for the year. I sincerely hope that the House Members will vote affirmatively on the natural gas legislation and other packages of the energy policy for our country at the end of this week.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS\nTAX LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, you mentioned taxes. Almost certainly the tax bill you get from Congress will significantly exceed your own goals. Do you think that a tax veto is inevitable?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the goals that the tax bill will exceed—I presume you mean the amount of money that it will cost the Treasury, right?,The House bill is within the guidelines that I established for the cost to the Treasury. I think it would not be excessively inflationary. The Senate is still deliberating on the tax bill so far as I know, unless they've just recently finished it, and what they are considering would not be satisfactory in its present form. If the House and Senate conferees, the rest of this week, can get together and take the best elements of both the House bill on the one hand and the Senate bill on the other and combine them, then we can have an acceptable tax bill to present to me and which I will sign.,The bill must be simple, fair, equitable, progressive in nature, that is, putting the tax burden where people can most afford it and a substantial reduction in tax burden on our people. If it meets those requirements, then I will sign it. But at the present time, the issue is still in doubt.,Q. Would you hesitate to veto it if it doesn't meet those criteria?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not hesitate to veto it if it does not meet those criteria.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS; ISRAELI OCCUPIED LANDS,Q. Mr. President, are the separate peace talks that open on Thursday between Israel and Egypt linked in any way to negotiations on other Arab lands under Israeli occupation? And have you ever answered King Hussein's questions concerning the clarification on the sovereignty issues?,THE PRESIDENT. The two discussions on the Sinai, which relates to Egypt and Israel only, on the one hand, and the West Bank, Gaza Strip discussions on the other are not legally interconnected. But I think throughout the Camp David talks and in the minds of myself, Prime Minister Begin, and President Sadat, they are interrelated. We have been trying to induce the Jordanians, and to some lesser degree, so far, the Palestinians who live on the West Bank, Gaza Strip area to participate in the talks.,We hope that they will both participate, along with the Egyptians and the Israelis. There's no doubt in my mind that while the negotiating teams are in Washington, we will discuss both the Sinai questions leading to an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and also the questions concerning the West Bank and Gaza Strip.,I have not yet responded to the questions that King Hussein sent to me. I saw him on one of the television programs reading the questions. They're in the process of being assessed by the State Department, and I presume when they get to me—,Q. They were given to you privately, were they not?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they were not. I've not yet received them personally. But I do know basically what's in them. It's important that this be done expeditiously, and I will not delay it, but it'll be several days.,ARKADY SHEVCHENKO,Q. Mr. President, what is your view of the Shevchenko defection case, in which a high-level Russian defector had his whereabouts revealed by a paid woman companion who says that the funds for her companionship came from the CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. If the figures the woman quoted were accurate, which they aren't, it would be highly inflationary— [laughter] —contrary to my policy there.,But Mr. Shevchenko, I understand, had large sums of money paid to him by the United Nations when he terminated his service there and, I understand, had other bank accounts as well. I've also heard that he's writing a book, or more than one book, and will receive in the future substantial advanced payments for that authorship.,The payments that we have made to him, the CIA, I'm not familiar with completely-I'm sure that Admiral Turner would be glad to answer that question. But they don't equal what the woman said was paid for her services or favors.,RESIGNATION OF PAUL WARNKE; SALT NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, does Mr. Warnke's resignation have anything to do with the idea that perhaps he's not the right man to try to sell this treaty to the Senate? And second, to the SALT treaty, can you say today that you will submit a SALT agreement to the Senate for ratification, or are you still holding out the possibility that you might just do it in an executive capacity?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Warnke came to help us with the SALT negotiations as Director of the ACDA organization with the understanding that he would only stay for a limited period of time.,At that time, last year, we thought that we would have a SALT agreement in 1977. Several months ago he told me that for personal reasons he would still like to step down. Quite early this past summer I induced him to stay on. He will be the head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency until after Secretary Vance's upcoming trip to Moscow, after which he will step down. I wish he would stay on. He's a very good man, and he will be available to testify to the Congress even after he returns to private life.,I have not yet decided how to submit the agreement or the treaty to the Congress. I think it would depend upon when it was concluded, but my preference would be to submit it as a treaty.,(2. But you don't rule out the other, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. My preference is to submit it as a treaty.,RHODESIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, will you see Ian Smith now that he's in the United States? And there's a second part to that question. Are you aware of any agreement Henry Kissinger made with Smith, such that the United States would give Rhodesia full diplomatic recognition and an end to sanctions in return for a trend toward majority rule?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not familiar with that executive agreement. I do not intend to see Mr. Smith. He's had a meeting with the Members of the Congress who invited him over and also had, I think, a 2-hour meeting with Secretary Vance. There's no reason for me to meet with him.,I think that the essence of it is, what we're trying to do is to end the bloodshed in Rhodesia. We've not caused the bloodshed. We've not caused the war. But we have put forward publicly, without any secrecy about it, along with the British, to the frontline Presidents, to the patriotic front, to the Smith regime, our proposals that there be all-parties conferences where people that are in dispute can get together and talk and try to work out a means by which free and democratic elections can be held in Rhodesia, so that anyone who is qualified can run for office and let the people of Rhodesia decide what kind of government they want.,This is a proposal that Mr. Smith and his regime have not been willing to accept. But this is what we propose. If the parties in dispute prefer a different proposal and agree upon it, we would have no objection to that.,REVELATION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION; SALT NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, we are currently prosecuting a former CIA warrant officer for allegedly selling a manual on one of our spy satellites to the Soviets. Can you tell us whether or not the Soviets having that manual has in any way compromised U.S. security, and whether or not it has affected our SALT negotiations because it might make it more difficult for us to verify their strategic weapons systems?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to comment on that particular case. Whenever the Soviets discover any information about our classified material, it's obviously potentially damaging to our country. It has not affected our SALT negotiations. I stated publicly, I think for the first time a President has done so, down at Cape Kennedy, Cape Canaveral, two or three Sundays ago, that we did have aerial surveillance. And I think that it's important for the American people to know that in the past and present and in the future, that our aerial surveillance capability would be adequate to affirm that the agreement on SALT, those in existence and those in the future, would be adequate.,So, the revelation of any secret information or classified information is something to be avoided. It has not affected the SALT talks. Our ability to verify compliance will be adequate in the future.,VASCHENKO FAMILY,Q. Mr. President, a family of Russian Pentecostals, the Vaschenkos, are seeking asylum and are lodged in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. They said in letters that have been smuggled out that the embassy is bringing subtle, emotional pressure to expel them into the hands of the Russians, probably at great risk. Did you direct the embassy to seek their ouster, or are you willing to give them asylum and visas?,THE PRESIDENT. They are Russian citizens, as you know, and have been in the embassy in the Soviet Union, in Moscow, the American Embassy, for months. We have provided them a place to stay. We provided them a room to live in, even though this is not a residence with normal quarters for them. I would presume that they have no reason to smuggle out correspondence to this country since they have the embassy officials' ability to transmit messages. I have not directed the embassy to discharge them from the embassy,\nno.,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, the current underlying inflation rate is between 7 and 8 percent. Under your new anti-inflation program to be revealed soon, could we expect that rate to drop very much next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would hope so. I've been working on the anti-inflation package for a number of weeks, as you know, as you may know. I think that when the Congress completes its work, then I'll be able to put the final touches on the anti-inflation program and reveal it to the public and pursue it aggressively.,My best effort at this moment in dealing with inflation is to be involved in the passage or the modification of laws during these last few days of the congressional session. And this is what I've been trying to do, sometimes with private meetings with conference committees, sometimes with individual Members of Congress, on a rare occasion with a veto of a bill that I found to be unacceptable.,But I would hope and I believe that the anti-inflation proposals that I make, along with a tight constraint on budget spending by the Congress and myself, would be adequate to bring down the inflation rate next year.,EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,Q. Mr. President, when do you think the ERA amendment will be fully ratified?,HE PRESIDENT. I don't know. We've been very pleased to have the Congress extend the time for 3 years. But that's a decision on ratification for the States to make. So far, 35 States have ratified it. Three more need to do so to make 38, or a three-fourths majority. But I'm not qualified to predict when those three States might take that action. I hope without delay.,DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,Q. Mr. President, how high a priority do you still set on the creation of a department of education—first, at this session of Congress and, if it doesn't happen at this session, then the next one?,THE PRESIDENT. I have advocated and have worked hard this year for the establishment of an independent department of education. I don't think that education in our country has gotten an adequate hearing in my own administration or previous ones, because it has been a part of HEW, with health and welfare the dominant portions of that Department.,I think at this point, it's unlikely that the bill will pass this year. The Senate did pass the bill. The House was not able or willing to take it up. But I still have it as an important goal of mine to establish this department.,I think it's important that a more efficient delivery of educational opportunity to children in our country be achieved. I think the primary control of the schools, obviously, ought to be at the local and State level, but I think it'll make it more effective.,Q. In that connection, does it trouble you that the Congress appears to be wanting to drop Headstart from that department?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that issue has already been resolved. We don't want to do anything to weaken Headstart, and I believe it's been a belief on the part of those who've managed Headstart in the past that it ought not to be part of the education department. And when I was a young man, just home from the Navy, I headed up the Headstart program in Georgia the first year, believe in it, and want to strengthen it, not weaken it. But I don't believe that it's likely that Headstart will be a part of the new department of education.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, to follow up Helen's [Helen Thomas, United Press International] opening question on the Middle East, you said there was no doubt that the subject of the West Bank would come up in the talks as well as that of Sinai. One of the Egyptian delegates has indicated that the Egyptians might be unwilling to sign a peace treaty without evidence of Israeli flexibility on the future question of settlements on the West Bank. Have the Israelis given any indication yet—for example, have they yet responded in this question of the exchange of letters and come around to the U.S. position on the future settlements in the West Bank?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that your opinion accurately expresses what President Sadat has told me. I don't think he would let any single element of the West Bank, Gaza Strip settlement prevent a conclusion of a treaty between Egypt and Israel.,And I think the Israelis have been very forthcoming, in my experience with them at Camp David over long days of negotiation, concerning the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I think they're acting in good faith to set up an autonomous governing entity in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, to withdraw their military government very expeditiously. And I think the settlements issue still remains open, but it's subject to a negotiation.,And last time I had a press conference, I read the statement that Foreign Minister Dayan made in Israel—which I think is adequate—combined with a cessation of settlement activity altogether, between now and the time the self-government is set up.,The role of our Government—our position has always been that the settlements in occupied territory are illegal and are an obstacle to peace. I've not changed my opinion. But to summarize, I don't believe that this one issue, if unresolved expeditiously, would prevent the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.,IRAN,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about Iran. How do we view the situation involving the Shah there now? Is he secure? How important is it to U.S. interests that the Shah remain in power? And what, if anything, can the United States Government do to keep him in power?,THE PRESIDENT. The strategic importance to our country, I think to the entire Western World, of a good relationship with a strong and independent Iran is crucial. We have historic friendships with Iran. I think they are a great stabilizing force in their part of the world. They are a very important trade partner. They've acted very responsibly.,My own belief is that the Shah has moved aggressively to establish democratic principles in Iran and to have a progressive attitude towards social questions, social problems. This has been the source of much of the opposition to him in Iran.,We have no inclination to try to decide the internal affairs of Iran. My own hopes have been that there could be peace there, an end to bloodshed, and an orderly transformation into more progressive social arrangements and, also, increased democratization of the government itself, which I believe the Shah also espouses. He may not be moving fast enough for some; he may be moving too fast for others. I don't want to get involved in that specifics.,PRESIDENT'S POPULARITY IN WESTERN STATES,Q. Mr. President, could I just ask you a political question? You've been making a rapid rise in the polls lately, but some Democrats out in the West don't seem to believe that. Governor Lamm said something to the effect that you're about as popular in the West as Sherman in Georgia— [laughter] —and he said he was not even sure you would feel welcome there, was not sure it would be of benefit to Democrats out there even if you came out to campaign for them. I was just wondering, sir, how do you think that situation has developed?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think my popularity with Governor Lamm has fluctuated very much since I've been in office. It's always been about the same as you've just described. [Laughter] But I've been to Colorado to campaign in his presence and, also, for Senator Haskell and the congressional delegation, and was well received there.,I think it's accurate to say that most of the Western Governors and, I think, most of the Members of the Congress from the West have been strongly supportive of the basic positions that I've taken on issues that were highly controversial. And I feel at ease and I feel very welcomed when I go there.,Obviously, public opinion polls go up and down. They went up substantially at the end of the Camp David agreement; I think it's inevitable that they'll go down somewhat. But I can't modify my own positions on issues or my basic commitments to the American people on the basis of public opinion polls. And if I happen to be unpopular with a particular Governor or a group of people, I'll just have to accept that and do the best I can.,TAX LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, I know you've answered one tax question, but what do you think of the $142 billion, 5-year tax cut bill passed by the Senate? Do you think there are enough safeguards in it against inflation? And what do you think of the concept of passing annual tax cuts so far for as long as 5 years ahead?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm really not qualified to answer that question, because I've not studied the actions that the Senate has taken in the last few hours. It would be very difficult to consummate as farreaching and as controversial and as innovative a concept as that in the last few hours of a congressional session.,This is something in which the House has not been involved, and for that to be analyzed completely as to its impact on the American taxpayers in such a short time would be very difficult.,In general, I believe that the Senatepassed bill has a much greater tax reduction than I can accept and has some features in it which I cannot accept.,My hope is, as I expressed originally, that the House and the Senate conferees, over the next 2 or 3 days, can reach an agreement, extracting the most acceptable elements from the House bill, combining them with the most acceptable elements of the Senate bill, so that I can sign the final bill as passed.,If not, then there will be no tax bill this year, because I will veto it. The only option would be for the Senate and the House to come back in a special session after the election, which I would not favor personally.,If this should occur, and I hope it won't occur—a veto—then, of course, early next year tax reduction would again be at the top of the agenda so that it could be passed as soon as possible, making some provisions of it, as appropriate, even retroactive to the first of the year.,But my hope and expectation is still that the House and Senate conferees can meet and resolve the differences between them. I will be meeting tomorrow with the chairmen of the two committees from the House and Senate, and, hopefully, the three of us can agree on an acceptable package.,RHODESIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, a followup on the Rhodesia question. You indicated that if an all-parties conference would take place, this would be an advantage to possibly settling the problems in Rhodesia. Would you host such a conference in the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no preference about where it should be held. I think it would be better, perhaps, to hold it where the parties to the conference prefer.,Two or 3 weeks ago, I instructed Secretary Vance to propose to the frontline Presidents and others that an all-parties conference be held in New York. This was not acceptable to some of them, and the idea was not carried to completion.,But the important thing is to get the members who are in dispute, who head armed forces that are killing each other in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, and the surrounding areas, and bring them to a table to talk about the differences and try to resolve them.,I believe that this is the best approach. And, as I say, we are not wedded to a particular plan, although I think that the Anglo-American plan, so-called, has been accepted in its basic elements by all the frontline Presidents and, on occasion, major parts of it by the Smith internal group and also the patriotic front. It's a good basis for negotiation.,So, we're doing the best we can to end the bloodshed and to bring peace without any tendency to force people to come to a certain place or to force people even to accept the elements of the settlement that we think are best.,FEDERAL BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, there was a time when you spoke of a balanced Federal budget by 1981, and now the Senate is talking of that as a factor in whether or not there would be a gigantic tax cut. If and when do you ever see a balanced Federal budget, and how important is that any more as a long-range consideration?,THE PRESIDENT. I still have a balanced budget as a goal, an important goal. You have to judge very carefully how much you can reduce taxes, which takes money away from the Federal Government that it could use to balance a budget on the one hand, and how much that tax reduction would stimulate the economy to bring in additional revenues at a lower tax rate.,I've been trying to bring' the Federal deficit down. As I've said many times, when I was running for President in 1976, the deficit was $66 billion. The Congress is very likely to pass a budget this year of about $38 billion deficit. So, we've cut down the deficit $28 billion already, in just 2 years. And I would hope that this trend would continue downward. The 1980 budget deficit, I hope, would be even less—you can't predict what the economic forces will be—and then the following year, I hope to get it down further.,I would certainly like to have a balanced budget, but it depends to a great degree on the strength of the economy and what tax reductions we give. By the end of this year, if things go well on the tax bill, we will have reduced taxes on the American people $25 billion. Had we not given a tax reduction, of course that would be additional revenue to help balance the budget. So, you have to balance the budget itself on one hand, how much deficit you have, against tax reductions to the people to keep jobs available and the economy growing. That's a very difficult thing to do. We are just doing the best we can. It's unpredictable what will occur.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the future of the dollar, sir. Do you feel that the inflationary—anti-inflationary steps that you plan to take after Congress leaves, combined with making good on the pledges at Bonn which would occur if Congress acts on your energy plan, would that in sum be sufficient to turn the dollar around, or do you feel you have to do more than that in order to stem the erosion of the value of the dollar against other currencies?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you have to do more than any two particular items. I think the most important thing the Congress can do is to pass an energy package to give us an identifiable American energy policy. I think this would restore confidence in our Government, confidence in our people—more than anything I can think of, among foreign nations who trade with us and who trade in our currency and therefore cause it sometimes to go down in an unwarranted degree.,Obviously, controlling inflation is another very major step forward that we can take to strengthen the dollar. We have done other things as well. We're trying to increase our exports to reduce our balance of trade deficit. We have sold additional amounts of gold, which is predictable policy now, and I think this helps to strengthen the dollar.,And one of the most important things that is occurring outside of our control, but modified in a beneficial way at Bonn, was to strengthen the economies of our major trading partners, notably Japan and Germany. As their economies are stronger, they can buy goods more from other countries, including ourselves.,So, I think all these factors combined would lower our trade deficit and lead to a stronger dollar.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-09-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to comment first on two very courageous actions that have been taken recently.,CAMP DAVID AGREEMENTS,The first is by the Israeli Knesset, their parliament, late last night, when they voted overwhelmingly by more than a 4-to-1 margin for peace in the Middle East, including the removal of the Israeli settlers from the Sinai, which is Egyptian territory.,This is a continuation of the courageous action that has already been demonstrated by Prime Minister Begin, who led the parliament debate, gave his full weight to this peace move, and by President Sadat who cooperated at Camp David in making it possible.,Since the Knesset vote, I have talked to Prime Minister Begin; also, just a few minutes ago, since lunch, to President Sadat. Both of them agree that there are no remaining obstacles to proceeding as rapidly as possible to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.,I'm very proud of this action on their part. We will cooperate again as full partners in the negotiations to conclude the final terms of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.,NATURAL GAS LEGISLATION,The other courageous vote that was taken yesterday was by the United States Senate, under the great leadership of Majority Leader Robert Byrd and committee chairman, Senator Scoop Jackson, to approve the natural gas legislation. This is a bill that will provide the centerpiece for establishing a United States energy policy. It's very good for consumers, particularly in those States that are faced with a very urgent shortage of natural gas in years to come. It's also fair to producers. I think it would make us much less dependent upon imported foreign oil.,And I congratulate the Senate on this action. Now the House must act on the same legislation. I hope that they will do so expeditiously and expect that this will be the case.,RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTE,One other report, briefly: We have not been successful, after 28 hours or more of negotiation, to reach a settlement between the striking railway workers and the rail lines. We now have almost a complete shutdown of rail service in our country. I have just recently issued an order establishing an emergency board which will take over the responsibility for negotiating a settlement between the workers and the railroads themselves.,This is necessary action. I think it's accurate to say that both sides do want a settlement. The differences between them are relatively small compared to what they were originally. This will take the railway workers back on the job. If there is any opposition to this action, then I would not hesitate to go to Federal court to enforce it. And I believe that this is the first step to getting our railway service back into operation in our country.,Mr. Pippert [Wes Pippert, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS; PRESIDENTIAL TRIP TO MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, what will you do to make Prime Minister Begin comply with your understanding that Israel must eventually withdraw from the West Bank and, further, to build no settlements there during the 5 years of negotiation? And will you consider a Christmas trip. to the Middle East for the signing of the peace treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. There's nothing that I can make Prime Minister Begin do. He's an independent leader of an autonomous and independent nation, and I can only use persuasion and depend upon the mutual trust that exists between me and him.,There were 20 or 30 very crucial issues that were obstacles at the beginning of the Camp David negotiations. This was one of them. And I would guess that it was after midnight Saturday, less than 24 hours after the final agreement was signed, that we reached these agreements.,There are two elements of the dispute. One is at what time will the agreement not to build any more settlements be concluded. Prime Minister Begin's interpretation is that this is to be maintained, the prohibition against new settlements, during the negotiations concerning the Sinai with Egypt. My very clear understanding is that it related to the negotiation for conclusion in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, of the establishment of a self-government.,The other question concerns whether or not Israel would initiate new settlements after this negotiating period was concluded and the self-government was established. I think the best answer to that is that this is an honest difference of opinion.,The best answer I can give is to quote from a statement by Foreign Minister Dayan, who was with us at that midnight meeting, and this is a statement he made at the Ben Gurion Airport on the 19th of September, when he arrived in Israel. \"Let us not delude ourselves\"-I'm quoting him—\"I have no doubt that when we enter into deliberations with the other three parties concerning what is to happen in the area in the 5 years of transition\"—that's the West Bank, Gaza Strip—\"this question will come up and will be discussed and agreement will have to be reached on this subject.\",So, the degree of participation of the residents of the West Bank has still got to be determined. But it's an honest difference of opinion. It would certainly be no obstacle to the progress towards peace.,But I can't say that we've resolved it yet. There's no personal animosity between myself and Prime Minister Begin. I certainly do not allege any improper action on his part. It's just an honest difference of opinion, which I think will be resolved.,As far as my going to the Middle East is concerned, nothing would please me more than to participate in the signing of a peace treaty at an early date. But that's still to be negotiated. The only request that President Sadat made of me in the entire Camp David proceedings was that I come to Egypt. I promised him that I would sometime in the future.,AIRBASES IN THE NEGEV,Q. May I follow up? If Prime Minister Begin persists, would you consider cancelling the U.S. agreement to build airbases in the Negev for Israel?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The letter to Israel concerning the two airports to be put in the Negev—I have already directed that that letter be sent to Israel. It's not being sent from me to Prime Minister Begin; it's being sent from Defense Secretary Harold Brown to Defense Minister Weizman.,We have not agreed to build the airbases. We've agreed to consult with the Israelis and participate in the cost of those rebuilt airbases, to the degree that we negotiate in the future. We will certainly participate in the cost, the degree to be determined in the future.,PRESIDENT'S RATING IN THE POLLS,Q. Mr. President, I'm sure you've been enjoying your big resurgence in the polls lately, but I wonder if you're fairly confident you can keep them up there.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not sure about that. I hope so. My interpretation is that the polls have been much more accurate the last week or two than they were before. [Laughter] But I'll do the best I can.,I think it's not an accurate conclusion that the culmination of our efforts on, say, natural gas, civil service reform, and other major endeavors in the Congress, is the result of the Camp David accords. Obviously my own reputation as a capable leader was enhanced by that agreement, but we've been working very long months to bring about the conclusion of some highly controversial issues. And I will continue to do the best I can, but my actions will never be predicated on what is the most popular. But I'll do what I think is best for our country, and I'll take my chances on whether the people approve or not.,CAMP DAVID MEETINGS; HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL,Q. Mr. President, it was recently reported that you said in a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus that a Camp David-type meeting on the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment bill would be ill-advised.-,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's correct.,Q.—-causing John Conyers to storm out, as everyone knows. And I was wondering, first, why would such a meeting be ill-advised, and secondly, if Camp David meetings are to be focused on international affairs, might such a meeting take place involving the principal ones in South Africa and Rhodesia, where these situations could be equally as violent and turmoil could equally exist?,THE PRESIDENT. I've been in office now for 20 months. I've faced many very difficult issues, in foreign affairs and domestic affairs. I've never called a caucus or a meeting at Camp David except once in my life. This was a unique set of circumstances where I felt that extended negotiations over several days—as you know, it turned out to be 2 weeks—in almost complete seclusion, was absolutely necessary to reach an agreement.,I would guess that this might never again occur. It may on very rare occasions. But I don't ever intend to use a Camp David meeting to settle matters that ought best to be resolved within the Congress, where they can best handle them. I will use my utmost influence to determine the outcome of those deliberations in the Congress.,As far as the Humphrey-Hawkins bill goes, I think it's very important that this bill be passed. It's a full employment commitment of our country, which I share. We have helped to get the bill passed through the House. It is now on the Senate calendar. I talked to Majority Leader Byrd since lunch about this. He's proceeding as rapidly as he can. He's trying to get a time certain, an agreement by some Republican Members of the Senate to vote on the Humphrey-Hawkins bill.,But it's just not appropriate and I think it would be ill-advised for me to take a, group of Senators or Congressmen in the last 2 weeks of the session up to Camp David to spend a week or two in seclusion. It's just impractical.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, we hear reports that you feel pretty good about how the SALT negotiations are coming along these days. How close are we to a SALT agreement now?,THE PRESIDENT. The issues that divide us and the Soviet Union on SALT have been constantly narrowed over the last 18 months of negotiation. Now the issues are quite few.,I also talked to Secretary Vance since lunch. He's been meeting today and yesterday with Foreign Minister Gromyko of the Soviet Union. I think that both men are negotiating aggressively and in good faith to reach a conclusion of the differences.,I don't know what the outcome will be. It takes two to reach agreement. We hope to conclude a SALT agreement this year, and I will be meeting with Foreign Minister Gromyko Saturday to capitalize upon the progress that I hope that Vance and Gromyko are making now. I don't see any insurmountable obstacles. But if the Soviets are forthcoming and cooperative and are willing to compromise some of their positions, we will have an agreement.,FRAUD BY WELFARE RECIPIENTS,Q. Mr. President, it's been reported this week that some Federal employees who are on the payroll and also drawing welfare benefits have been charged. It's also reported outside of Washington recently that the Federal Government has made what amounts to a conscious decision not to pursue fraud by individual welfare recipients and leave that instead to the local and State governments. Are you aware of this policy, and do you approve of it?,THE PRESIDENT. When I came into office, we were determined, I and my administration, I think shared by the Congress, to proceed aggressively to eliminate fraud from government. We've got a problem in GSA. We've had good success in other areas, including the rooting out of people who have tried to defraud the Government by drawing welfare payments when they were on a payroll and didn't deserve it, according to the law.,My own inclination would be to let the Justice Department decide whether or not an indictment and a prosecution should be pursued or whether a repayment of the funds with some penalty would be adequate. I'm not familiar with the individual cases. But the fact is we have initiated, for the first time, an attempt to root out these violators of the law and to make them provide some recompense to the Government that's according to what is proper and right.,I wouldn't say that every case ought to be pursued as a criminal proceeding, to put them in jail. Sometimes they might be discharged from their job, sometimes to repay the money, sometimes to pay a penalty. If it's a gross case, I would favor them going to jail.,INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES,Q. Mr. President, the Fed's discount rate is now nearly 10 percent. You're about to announce some top anti-inflation measures. How can any anti-inflation program be credible when you have interest rates this high, and do you think 10 percent interest rates is the proper way to fight inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. The discount rate is not that high, but I think it's too high and I wish it was lower.,There are three entities in the Government that have a great individual, independent impact on either controlling inflation or enhancing inflation. One is the President and my Cabinet members—in the preparation of the budget, do we advocate reducing the deficit; do we advocate spending too much.,The other one is the Congress, who makes the final determination on the budget and also prescribes, to a major degree, tax policy. The third, of course, is the independent Federal Reserve.,My own hope is that our present efforts to control inflation will be so successful that those interest rates now, as determined by the Federal Reserve, can be brought down.,When I came into office, we had a budget deficit of almost $70 billion—I think, $66 billion. By the end of this congressional session, I hope that we will almost have brought that down below $40 billion, maybe even lower. We're cutting down the Federal deficit. We have a very tight constraint on spending. This is important in controlling inflation.,I'm going to be very persistent in my own role as President in holding down unwarranted spending in individual bills that come to me from the Congress. I think the time for wasteful spending is over. And I think if we can show that we can get inflation under control through those actions by me and the Congress, that would be an inducement for the Federal Reserve to start bringing the interest rate down.,But each one of those elements of our Government—Federal Reserve, Congress, President—are independent. I can't control the other two. I can set a good example; that's what I'm trying to do.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, going back to SALT, the military is pushing an idea of digging a lot of holes in the ground for our landbased intercontinental ballistic missiles. So, you truck them around; the Russians never know which hole the missile is in. The theory is the Russians have to hit all the holes in order to get all the missiles. Do you think that's a good idea, and how does that affect the SALT negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. That is one among many ideas. I think over a period of time, it has become obvious that our fixed silotype intercontinental ballistic missiles are becoming more and more vulnerable because of the accuracy of the Soviet missiles—ours are even more accurate—and the MIRVing of the Soviet missiles, where they have many warheads on each missile—which we've had for a long time.,The so-called multiple aim points, or many silos for each missile, is one idea that has been put forward. It has some very serious defects. I can only mention two at this time. One is, how do you verify that all the holes don't have missiles in them? It's obvious that we would be keeping the agreement, and we would not violate it. We don't know that that would be the case on the other side. And I believe that we would find, as we proceed further with it, that it would not only be very difficult if the Soviets adopted this same policy, but very expensive as well.,But that is one option that we are considering. And I would guess that by the end of this year, we would have gone through all the options including that one. And at that time, certainly at the time that SALT II agreement is reached, I will explain to the American people in the most careful and complete terms what our future plans for adequate strategic strength will be, probably going for the next 5 years.,That's just one of the options now. It has some very serious defects. It's being considered.,LEBANON,Q. Mr. President, there's a report that you are working for a settlement in Lebanon and that Syria and Israel would be involved. Could you verify this, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a subject that President Sadat raised with me several times at Camp David. It's one in which we've been involved, as you know, for many months.,There's a tragedy in Lebanon that the rest of the world has not adequately addressed, including ourselves. The suffering of the people of Lebanon, through no fault of their own in almost every case, has been extraordinary.,Obviously, the responsibility for resolving the Lebanon question rests primarily on the shoulders of those who live there. My commitment has been to strengthen the Sarkis government, politically, economically, and militarily. We gave them some aid so that the President of that country can control the affairs of the country itself. When we were flying back from Camp David on the helicopter, President Sadat and I were talking about this; Prime Minister Begin joined in the conversation. All three of us committed ourselves to renew our support for the Sarkis government, the Lebanese Government. So, they have the prime responsibility.,The next two nations, I would say, that are the most intimately involved are Syria, which has large forces in Lebanon—invited in by the Lebanese Government because they cannot maintain order by themselves under existing circumstances- —and Israel, who obviously wants a stable government, stable people on their northern border.,Other countries more removed geographically also have an intense interest and influence in Lebanon. I would say two of them would be Saudi Arabia and Egypt.,More distantly, other countries that have a direct historical interest, like the United States and France, would be involved. All this could be done under the aegis of the United Nations.,But I think it's time for us to take joint action to call a conference of those who are involved, primarily the people who live in Lebanon, the different factions there, and try to reach some solution that may involve a new charter for Lebanon. I'm not in favor of a partitioned Lebanon. I'd like to see a unified Lebanon, at peace, with a strong enough central government to control the situation there and protect its own people.,PRESIDENTIAL VETOES AND INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, I understand that you're considering vetoing the public works/water projects bill and, in addition to that, that you're considering vetoing four other bills—tuition tax credit, surface transportation, tax cut bill, and Labor-HEW. Can you tell us, is this part of your anti-inflation program? Will you veto the bills? Or is this a President Carter who has come down from Camp David and is now trying to show that he can handle his own Congress as well as the Israelis and the Egyptians?,THE PRESIDENT. 1 don't want to show that I can handle the Congress. What I want to do is to work in harmony with the Congress. I think we've done that to a substantial degree, a provable degree.,The legislation to which you refer causes me deep concern, because some of it is wasteful, some of it has elements in it which I consider to be unconstitutional. And my own objection to certain features of that legislation has been well known to the Congress and also to the public.,The public works bill has now passed the conference committee, and both the House and Senate have adopted the conference report. This bill in its present form is completely unacceptable to me. And I will decide whether or not to veto it when it gets to my desk. It's up to the leaders of the Congress to decide when to submit it to me. My objection to some of its features are well known.,I think that we have got to establish a policy in Washington, the Congress and I, particularly in these crucial days when inflation is our number one concern, at least on the domestic scene, that will be an example for the rest of the Nation to follow.,If we continue the age-old policy of pork barrel allocations in the public works bill, this is a horrible example to set for the rest of the country. It would make it very difficult for me to control inflation if the Congress and I couldn't set a good example for the rest of the Nation. So, I'm willing to meet the Congress on this issue—we have an honest difference of opinion with some of the Members of the Congress—and have it resolved in a constitutional and appropriate way.,If it involves a veto, the Congress has a right to express their displeasure by attempting to override my veto. I'm going to do the best I can, if I do veto the bill, to get enough votes to sustain my veto. There have been some allegations made that the Congress might try to connect this bill with the energy bill. I don't believe they will do that. The proper way for the Congress to express its displeasure over the veto of the public works bill is to try to override the veto. I believe the energy legislation is too important for any responsible Member of the House of Representatives to connect it with the public works bill.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, President Ford said this week that you made a mistake last year in concentrating on unemployment rather than inflation. Do you agree with that, first of all, and secondly, do you wish that you had moved sooner to do something about inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't agree with that at all. When I was running for President, after I became President, I never singularly attacked the unemployment problem without also trying to deal with the inflationary problem. President Ford left me with a $66 billion deficit. We've tried to turn that around and cut down deficit spending. We've been remarkably successful.,At the same time, we have provided the American people with a much better life, better education programs, better housing programs, better transportation programs, substantial tax reductions—$6 or $7 billion last year; perhaps as much as $20 billion this year.,I believe that we have seen in 1977 a very substantial reduction in the inflation rate. The last 6 months of 1977 the inflation rate was down quite low, 4 1/2 to 5 percent; an average for the entire year of about 6 or 6 1/2 percent. It grew this year more than we had anticipated for several reasons, the most important of which was the high food prices that occurred the first 6 months of the year.,We have always had a very strong anti-inflation program. Since we have had very good luck so far, success in bringing down the unemployment rate, adding 6 1/2 million new jobs, bringing the unemployment rate down about 25 percent already, we are now able to focus our attention much more specifically on inflation.,It's much more of a threat now than it was a year ago. But I'm determined to deal with inflation as effectively as we have already proven we could deal with unemployment.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, you said in your opening statement that both President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin said there are no remaining obstacles to concluding the Sinai treaty. Have they set a date yet for starting these talks? And how long would you estimate that it would take to go through the formalities that still remain?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that we could commence the talks within 2 weeks, but no specific date has been set. Both Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat today, when I talked to them on the phone, on their own initiative said that they were expecting us to be full partners, as I was at Camp David, and they could see no obstacle to the peace talks beginning without delay.,I think it will take 2 weeks to prepare for the talks. There are some official responsibilities that President Sadat has in his own country that will take place and be concluded within 2 weeks. But that would be the approximate time frame. I'm not trying to be presumptuous, because no date has been set.,Q. If I could follow that up, Prime Minister Begin is supposed to be sending a letter dealing with the Israeli position on the West Bank. Has that letter been received yet? And would any delay on that letter perhaps hold up these talks on the Sinai?,THE PRESIDENT. Prime Minister Begin has sent me a letter expressing his position, and I've also sent him a letter expressing my position. Now I think the next step would be for me and him, in good faith and in a friendly, cooperative attitude, to try to work out the differences between us.,Q. Will you make those letters available?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll think it over. I can't answer because I would really—it suits me okay for the letters to be made available, but I can't unilaterally release the letter that I sent to him or received from him without his approval.,My own inclination is to let all the correspondence be made public that relates to the Mideast settlements. We've done that so far, even when we had differences of opinion. But I would have to get his permission before we could release the letters.,STEEL INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, your trigger price program for steel has managed to reduce the foreign imports. But foreign steel still takes a large part of the U.S. market, and the floor under steel prices does drive up the inflationary forces. What modifications, if any, do you plan in your trigger price program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the steel trigger price program went into effect, I think, only in May. We've only had a few months of experience with it. So far, it's been very successful.,We've had a net increase this year of, I think, 24,000 jobs in the steel industry alone. And in spite of a fairly dormant construction industry we've had 5-percent increase in the shipments of domestic steel. I understand that the Japanese steel exports have actually gone down this year. The most important measure, I think, of success so far is that a year or so ago the steel industry plants were only being used at about 76-percent capacity. Now that use has increased to almost 90-percent capacity. So, we've got a very vigorous steel industry now.,I think the price of steel has been held reasonably well under control. We are obviously fine-tuning the trigger price system as we get more experience with it. There are special kinds of steel that might be involved. And we have some problems still in Europe, because the steel price, as you know, is based on Japanese cost. But I think we've stopped the unwarranted dumping of foreign steel on our American market. I think we've protected the jobs of steelworkers, and we've added a new degree of prosperity to the steel industry.,I believe that the second quarter this year, compared to the second quarter of last year, steel industry profits were up 71 percent, which means that they have a lot more to invest back into more modern plants and more jobs for better steel production in our country.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us a little more, sir, about the nature of your participation in this next round of talks? You mentioned full partnership. Will you be personally involved with that, or will Secretary Vance be?,THE PRESIDENT. I would guess that I would not be personally involved, except in a case where the leaders of the other two nations were involved. If there was a dispute about a particular drawing of a line, or a phased withdrawal, or something of that kind that could not be resolved at the Foreign Minister or delegate level, then I would get involved if necessary.,I wouldn't want to see the talks break down because of any timidity on my part. I consider it to be one of the most important responsibilities that I have. I would guess, though, that the negotiations will be carried on at a fairly high level, below the President and Prime Minister level.,I understand from Prime Minister Begin that the leader of his delegation will be Foreign Minister Dayan. I don't know yet who will head the Egyptian delegation, and I've not yet decided on the American delegation leader. But it'll be at a fairly high level.,And the principles for settling the Sinai disagreements have all been resolved. Now the details, which I don't think are going to be highly controversial, are the only things remaining to be resolved. The exact decision of whether a particular road intersection or a hilltop would be at the first withdrawal line, those are the kind of things that would be settled. And I believe we have a good relationship between the two leaders that wouldn't cause a deterioration in the negotiations.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I enjoyed it."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-08-17","text":"VETO OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION BILL,THE PRESIDENT. I have one statement, and then I'd like to answer your questions.,As President of the United States, my ultimate responsibility is to the protection of our Nation's security, and as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, it's my obligation to see that those forces are operationally ready, fully equipped, and prepared for any contingency. Because I take these responsibilities seriously, I submitted this spring a defense budget designed to improve our military preparedness and calling for increased spending in real terms, above and beyond the cost of inflation, especially for enhanced readiness and for the urgent requirement of strengthening our NATO forces.,Because of these same obligations, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, I have decided to veto the defense authorization bill which the Congress passed last week.,This is not a question of money. The Congress has reduced only slightly the amount of money that I recommended for our Nation's defense. It's a question of how that money is going to be spent, whether it will be concentrated in the most vital areas of need, or diverted to less crucial projects.,We must have the strongest possible defense within the budget limits set by Congress. We cannot afford to waste our national defense dollars. We need better maintenance and logistical support, more research and development, a more flexible Navy. And we need these improvements now, not 8 or 10 years in the future. The defense authorization bill does not meet any of these requirements.,There are four particularly disturbing areas in which this bill, by cutting into the muscle of our military request, could weaken our defenses and erode our contributions to NATO.,This bill, for instance, cuts $800 million for weapons and equipment for our Army forces, undermining our commitment to NATO at the very time when our allies recognize the urgent need to improve the power and the readiness of our forces in Europe.,This bill would also cut $200 million for Air Force weapons and equipment which would add flexibility and strength to our military forces, not only in NATO and this country but throughout the world.,This bill would also cause a cut of half a billion dollars, $500 million, from readiness funds. This is an unglamorous part, but it's necessary for expenditures for ship overhauls, weapon repairs, spare parts, personnel training, and the logistical support which guarantees that we can move our forces and have them act immediately when they're needed.,And this bill also cuts very heavily from military research and development funds. I had requested a substantial increase in these funds to sustain our position of technical excellence in a world where circumstances change rapidly and where weapons are increasingly dependent on advanced technology. The bill that has passed the Congress could lead to an actual decrease in these funds for next year.,The ultimate effect of this bill would also weaken our Navy by aggravating the dangerous trend away from a larger number of different kinds of ships which can maintain our military presence on the high seas, and toward a disturbingly small number of ships which are increasingly costly.,What the Congress has done with the money being cut from these vital areas is to authorize a fifth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which we do not need. This would be the most expensive ship ever built. Its purchase price, even estimated now, would be at least $2 billion, and the aircraft it would carry and the extra ships required to escort and defend it would cost billions more in years to come.,In order to use our dollars for their maximum effect, we must choose the armor, artillery, aircraft, and support that will immediately bolster our strength, especially in NATO. By diverting funds away from more important defense needs in order to build a very expensive nuclear aircraft carrier, this bill would reduce our commitment to NATO, waste the resources available for defense, and weaken our Nation's military capabilities in the future.,I will be glad to cooperate with Congress in passing a more responsible bill, and I urge the Members of Congress to face that duty as soon as they return from their recess. The Nation's interest and my oath of office require me to veto this bill and to seek a stronger defense for our country.,Mr. Gerstenzang [James Gerstenzang, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS\nCAMP DAVID MEETING ON THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, your direct involvement in the Middle East summit conference next month is seeming to be a high risk gamble. Could you say what led you to take this step and what are the risks? What happens if this effort fails?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say, first of all, that we don't act just as a noninterested mediator or message carrier in the Mideast negotiations. Our own national security is vitally involved, not only in maintaining peace around the world but especially in the Middle East, and we have devoted our utmost effort to bringing about a peaceful resolution of the longstanding Middle Eastern disputes.,I have met in small groups and privately with Prime Minister Begin and with President Sadat on many occasions. I think I know them both quite well, and I am absolutely convinced that both men want peace and the people in both nations genuinely want peace.,All of us were pleased last November when the exchange of visits took place, Sadat going to Jerusalem, Begin going to Ismailia. It was one of the happiest few weeks of my career as President not to be involved in those negotiations and to see them face to face, trying to work out the differences between them.,Since then, the interrelationships which brought us such high hopes last winter have deteriorated rapidly. In spite of our best efforts, recently, those peace talks broke down completely, not only at the high level of the Prime Minister and President but even at a lower level involving cabinet officers themselves. Even when Secretary Vance had scheduled a trip to the Mideast, we could not get the leaders to agree to meet.,It is a very high risk thing for me politically, because now I think if we are unsuccessful at Camp David, I will certainly have to share part of the blame for that failure. But I don't see that I could do anything differently, because I'm afraid that if the leaders do not meet and do not permit their subordinates to meet in a continuing series of tough negotiations that the situation in the Middle East might be much more serious in the future even than it is now.,So, I decided on my own, and later got the concurrence of my top advisers, including Secretary of State Vance and the Vice President and others, to invite both those men to meet with me at Camp David. We do not have any assurance of success. I do not anticipate being completely successful there and having a peace treaty signed in that brief period of time. But if we can get them to sit down and discuss honestly and sincerely their desires for peace, to explore the compatibilities among them, to identify very clearly the differences, try to resolve those differences, then I think we can set a framework for peace in the future.,It may result only in a redetermination or recommitment to continue subsequent negotiations. We might make more progress than that. But we will go there as a full partner in the discussions, depending primarily, however, on the two national leaders themselves to work out the differences between them.,I pray and I hope the whole Nation, the whole world will pray that we do not fail, because failure could result in a new conflict in the Middle East which could severely damage the security of our own country.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Mr. President, you're said to be very deeply concerned about the dollar. Is there a dollar crisis? What are you going to do about it? And why haven't you done something yet? And I have a followup. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I am deeply concerned about the dollar. And I have asked Secretary of Treasury Mike Blumenthal and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bill Miller, and others to consult with one another and to give me advice on steps that can be taken by them and by me.,There are some factors that are encouraging in the long run. Recent monthly data have shown that our balance-of-trade deficit is going down. I believe that we've made good progress in seeing an increase in the economic growth of other nations overseas so that they are better able now and in the future to buy our goods than they have been in the past, when we were growing fast and we could afford to buy their goods.,The Congress can contribute. The single most important thing that Congress can do to control inflation and also to ease the pressures on the dollar and to reduce our severe adverse trade balance is to pass an energy bill. I've done everything in the world that I could do and so have my Cabinet members and all my staff members and many hundreds of people around the country to induce Congress to go ahead and act on a comprehensive energy bill. They have not yet done so. They've been working on it since April of 1977. We still have hopes that the Congress will act successfully.,Another underlying problem, of course, is inflation, and we are dealing with that on many levels. One, of course, is to hold down the size of the Federal deficit. We've made good progress there. I know that when I ran for President in 1976, the Federal deficit was in the sixties of billions of dollars. By 1978, it was down to the fifties of billions of dollars; '79, the forties of billions of dollars, low forties; and by the 1980 fiscal year, I am determined to have it down in the thirties of billions of dollars.,We are eliminating excessive spending and demonstrating to our country and the rest of the world that we are determined to hold down inflation. But it's a tenacious thing. It would be erroneous for me to insinuate to the American people that it's easy and that we're going to solve it overnight. Everybody has got to help. But if we can top it out, the inflationary curve, this year, I think that will send a good signal to the world monetary markets.,So, we have a combination of problems, some of which we are addressing successfully, some of which are very difficult, but we are all working in concert. And I believe that the underlying economic strength of our Nation will prevent a further deterioration in the status of our Nation and a further deterioration in the dollar, particularly if the Congress will act and if we can act in this administration to address those questions that I've just described.,CAMP DAVID MEETING,Q. Mr. President, back to the summit and whatever preparations may have been made. I want to push one step further, if I may. Is there an agreement or an arrangement or even a slight arrangement already in place before you go into this big meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in my letter to both Prime Minister Begin and Sadat, I outlined some of the principles on which we should meet—not negotiating principles, but the need, for instance, to lessen the vituperation that had been sweeping back and forth between government leaders, to express in a positive fashion their determination to come to Camp David with flexibility and with an ability on the part of those government leaders to act.,The immediacy of their response—they did not delay at all, when they read my letter, to say \"I will come to Camp David\"—is indicative of good faith on their part. But I do not have any commitment from them to change their previously expressed positions as a prerequisite or prelude to coming to Camp David.,RELATIONS WITH THE CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, your Agriculture Secretary was quoted as saying earlier this week that you intended to retaliate against the cheap shot artists in Congress who oppose some of your programs. What is your attitude toward Congress as you come up to the Labor Day recess?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that in general, the Congress has been very cooperative and very constructive. I think any analysis of the accomplishments of Congress last year in the domestic field would be favorable. We addressed the most difficult questions of all successfully. The energy question was put off until this year and still has not yet been addressed.,In foreign affairs this year, I think the Congress has acted with great judgment and also with great courage to deal with some longstanding questions involving sales of weapons to the moderate Arab nations, approval of the Panama Canal treaties, removal of the embargo against Turkey, and so forth.,I have never discussed this subject with the Secretary of Agriculture, and he's never discussed it with me. But I certainly don't have any animosity against any Member of Congress. I do not have a list of Congress Members who are worthy of punishment. I have no inclination to do that; it's not part of my nature. And I think it would be counterproductive if I attempted it.,OIL IMPORTS,Q. Mr. President, earlier this year, you suggested that the time might come when you would have to move administratively to impose import fees or quotas on foreign oil. My question is, are we near that time, and if Congress should adjourn this year without passing what you consider to be a substantial energy bill, will you do it?,THE PRESIDENT. That's an option that I will maintain open for myself. Obviously there are several options that can be exercised, the most advantageous of which to consumers, to oil producers, to our own country, and, I think, to the rest of the world, is to pass the energy proposal as I presented it to the Congress-to impose a tax on oil, to reduce its waste, and to encourage more use of American oil in the first place, and to distribute the revenues from that tax back immediately to the American people. This would be a very constructive attitude.,The second one would be in the absence of congressional action, for me to impose, through Executive order under the present law, either import quotas, limiting the amount of oil that could come in, or import fees, which would charge extra for oil coming into the Nation. And, of course, the other option, which is one that I think would be at the bottom of the list, would be to permit the oil companies to unilaterally increase the price of their oil very high and to let the consumers pay for it to the enrichment of the oil companies themselves.,So, that's a list of the options that I can think of at this moment that exist for me. And my preference, of course, is for the Congress to act. But I cannot foreclose the option that I have to act unilaterally through Executive order if the Congress does not act.,MARGARET COSTANZA,Q. Why do you think Midge Costanza felt obliged to resign, and do you have a new appointee to take her place?,THE PRESIDENT. Midge resigned without any encouragement from me, and, matter of fact, I asked Midge to stay on. She left in very good spirits. She has announced to the press and has told me privately that she has several very good offers to utilize her superb services. And she's worked very closely with us, no later than yesterday, as a matter of fact, in the White House West Wing to help us choose a successor to take her place. So, I think that describes the situation quite accurately.,Q. Do you have a nominee for her replacement?,THE PRESIDENT. We have several ones whom we are considering. We have not yet made a choice.,U.S. TRADE WITH THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Do you plan to continue selective trade sanctions against the Soviet Union, since some allied nations, such as France, are unwilling to cooperate in technological boycotts?,THE PRESIDENT. We obviously don't have any inclination to declare a trade embargo against the Soviet Union to stop all trade. It's to the advantage of our country to have trade with the Soviet Union. I think embargoes that have been imposed in the past by previous administrations, for instance, an unannounced and unilateral stopping of shipments of feed grains and food grains and soybeans overseas, has been very detrimental to our country. I do not intend to do that. But we'll assess each individual sale on the basis of several criteria, one of the most important ones of which is, does this sale contribute to an enhancement of the Soviets' military capability and is this country the only reasonable source of a supply for that particular item? And we have a very well established procedure in the Government for carrying out that analysis. And I believe that my own cancellation of the sale of a very large computer a month or so ago was well-advised, but we'll have to consider each one of those additional items as they are proposed on its own merits.,It takes a long time for a decision like that to get to my desk. Most of them are simply canceled before they ever arrive-even come in to my attention. The Commerce Department and others assess it; the State Department has to approve it before it comes to me. But we'll have to assess them on an individual basis.,DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION VETO,Q. Mr. President, getting back to energy and the veto today, Senator Jackson was suggesting today, that this is going to be a big problem for the energy bill, now that you've vetoed the defense bill, because he says the aircraft carrier was kind of the glue that held that thing together, and it took them 6 months to get the bill. And he says now it's going to be a problem, and he says we've got so many headaches and this is another one. It seems rather significant to me, in that he's the man that is carrying that energy bill for you.,THE PRESIDENT. I met this morning with Senator Jackson and others to go over the reasons for my veto. He did not disagree with the reasons that I expressed. I have not had a single adviser who told me that we ought to go ahead with the nuclear aircraft carrier. The only concerns that anyone has expressed to me is that it might create additional work for Congress in correcting an error that I think they made, or that it might cause me political problems in having vetoed a bill and had a confrontation with Congress.,I don't desire to do anything with Congress but to cooperate with them. We are working now in the House, which will first take up the veto, since the bill originated in the House, to make sure that we can sustain my veto on the basis of its own merits. I don't see any reason to link the building of a nuclear aircraft carrier, which will be completed maybe in 1987, with the approval of a conference committee report on natural gas that's been negotiated now for almost 16 months.,Q. Yes, sir, but are you confident someone up there might not see it?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot guarantee that nobody considers it, but I can tell you this: It won't be the first problem we've had with the natural gas bill. [Laughter],TUITION TAX CREDITS,Q. Mr. President, the Congress appears bent on passing some sort of tuition tax relief this year. I'd like to know what your current position is now as regards to Congress passing tuition tax relief for parents with children in universities and your position on parents with children in parochial schools. Is it your intention to veto any tuition tax relief that comes down?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not favor the tuition tax credit approach to college students, and I even more strongly oppose on constitutional grounds Government financing of the elementary and secondary schools which are privately operated.,On the tax bill, I am not satisfied with the bill that the House has passed. It does not meet the basic criteria that I set for fairness, for equity, for simplicity, for progressivity and the efficient enhancement of capital investment funds.,A veto is a prerogative that a President is given under the Constitution. It's not an abnormal authority. It's one that should be a routine part of the interrelationship between the White House and Capitol Hill. And it's not only a pleasure to have that authority to make my own leverage more effective but it's a duty that falls on me. And I want to keep that option open. And I reserve the right after a bill gets on my desk to either veto it or sign it. I have no reticence about vetoing a bill that I think is contrary to the best interests of our country. My hope is that Congress would pass a bill after close consultation with us that would be acceptable.,My position on the tax credits is clear. I have not changed my position at all. I don't think anybody's position on the tax bill, the tax reduction bill, is clear. It is very, very confused, and my hope is that the Senate will correct some of the basic errors that the House made; if not, that in the conference committee the bill can be made acceptable to me. If it's not acceptable to me, I will have no hesitancy about vetoing it.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,Q. Mr. President, during a recent interview you made the point that both we and the Chinese are patient on the subject of establishing full diplomatic relations. My question concerns the extent of that patience on your part, whether now it might be something indefinitely on the back burner or something you would like to see accomplished between now and, let's say, the end of 1980?,THE PRESIDENT. The normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China has always been a goal of my administration. It was a goal of my predecessors under the general provisions of the Shanghai Communiqué, that was signed by President Nixon on his historic visit to China.,The pace of negotiations must be one that's mutually set. We have a very good representative in China, Leonard Woodcock. They have a very fine representative here, a new representative not known as an ambassador, in Washington whom I've not yet met.,But we are constantly exploring ways to have better relationships with China. First of all, no matter what our relationship is with them on a bilateral basis, we want China to be a peaceful nation, to be secure, and to have their beneficial effects felt around the world. Secondly, we want our bilateral relationships with them to be better, to enhance trade, communications, student exchange, and so forth, whether or not we have diplomatic relations as such. And then, of course, the final thing is to hope for diplomatic relations when we're both willing to proceed expeditiously and when we're both willing to accommodate one another's wishes.,I can't tell you what the pace of that might be. It's not something that I could unilaterally impose upon them, and I have to judge by what their response might be.,I think there's a new impression—certainly that I have of the leadership in China—that they are more outreaching now, they're more outgoing.,The present visit of Chairman Hua, for instance, to Romania, is a good indication and an almost unprecedented thing for them to go out into the Eastern European world, and perhaps even other countries as well later on, to make visits.,So, I think that they are reaching out in a spirit of friendship. If they do, I will respond in good faith. I just cannot give you a time schedule.,RELATIONS WITH THE CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, aside from the merits of the defense bill, which you've covered, some of your advisers are saying that part of your reason for vetoing it is a desire to undo the impression that you're a pushover, so to speak, when it comes to dealing with Congress. Do you think that you have been too willing in the past to go along with what the Members of Congress wanted, and how much does this veto have to do with an effort to make you appear tougher?,THE PRESIDENT. That really is not a factor involved in it. There have been times in the past when I've had a major difference with Congress—at least with a number of Congress Members—and have ultimately prevailed. Some of the foreign affairs debates which I just described a few minutes ago are examples of this. Early in the session last year, there was a great opposition in Congress, particularly the Democratic leadership, against reestablishing a reorganization authority for me. And they did it reluctantly, but now it's assumed to be a routine thing.,There have been cases when I have erred on the side of not vetoing a bill. I think that last year I should have vetoed the appropriation bill that authorized unnecessary water projects. If I had it to do over again, I would have vetoed it. But that's one of the rare occasions when I think I have been too lenient in accommodating the desires of Congress. But the Congress is now trying to reimpose those water projects on me as President and even additional ones that are worse.,So, I think that I've had a fairly well-balanced approach to Congress. We have close consultations with Congress on a continuing basis. I don't have any fear of the Congress. I'm sure they don't have any fear of me.,ADM. HYMAN G. RICKOVER,Q. Mr. President, in your book, \"Why Not the Best?\", you described Admiral Rickover as having had a great influence on your life. I wonder if in light of the veto, Mr. President, that you did discuss your decision against a new nuclear carrier of the Nimitz class with Admiral Rickover, and what that conversation consisted of?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I did not discuss it with him. When I had my first visit with Admiral Rickover after becoming President, it was obvious to me then and now that he's a very outspoken person. He presents his case to the Congress in an effective way, and he has a great influence on them and on me.,He pointed out then that his inclination was not to try to influence my decision on individual items in the defense budget, that he knew I had special problems as President and a special perspective that he could not have himself. And because of our close relationship in the past-which still exists, by the way—he was going to refrain from that particular aspect of my responsibilities.,He does meet with me quite frequently, and we have very frank discussions, but, I think, more in general terms. And he's not had any inclination to try to influence me on this particular matter.,Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].,ROBERT T. GRIFFIN AND GEN. SAMUEL S. WALKER,Q. Sir, I want to point out to you to see if you think this is not an injustice. Robert Griffin of General Services Administration, the number two man, was fired because of his conduct there. And then a job was created for him by you, giving him $50,000 a year. Then we have a four-star general out in the Pentagon, Walton Walker, with an exemplary record, and he's having to get out of service and take retirement, which will cost the taxpayers a lot of money, simply because his position at NATO was abolished. They gave it to a Turkish general to ease the tension over the arms embargo, and there's no other four-star slot for Walton Walker, so a good man has to get out of the service. Don't you think that's an injustice?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll try to respond as best I can. [Laughter] In the first place, I don't know of any item that's been reported by the press in a more distorted way than the one relating to Robert Griffin. Griffin was not fired because he's incompetent. He was not fired because there was any allegation about his honesty or integrity. He was moved from the General Services Administration because he was incompatible with the director of the General Services Administration, Mr. Solomon. He was not promoted. He was transferred to another position with the same salary exactly and the same pay grade exactly. He is not a member of the White House staff. He works for the Special Trade Representative, which is not in the White House at all.,There's been a general distortion of what happened in that respect. I have no apology to make for having moved him out of GSA. I have no apology to make for having put a good man with great integrity and great knowledge in a productive job.,The general to whom you refer was recently promoted to four-star status. He was assigned to Turkey to fill a position. NATO leaders, not completely controlled by us, decided that that position would be filled by a non-American. It was no reflection on General Walker at all. There is no other four-star position in the entire Armed Forces, and he was offered a three-star position. He decided that in place of going back to a three-star position, which he had just recently occupied, that he would prefer to resign. And he is a good man also. There's no reflection on him; there's never been any reflection on him.,I've looked into both these cases myself. I'm familiar with both of them, and I can tell you that there's no reflection on either man. And they were given jobs, offered jobs compatible with their rank. General Walker performed superbly in Turkey, and I regret that he did not stay in the Army as a four-star general.,MR. GERSTENZANG. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-07-20","text":",THE PRESIDENT. Good evening, everybody. Before I answer questions, I'd like to make one brief comment. Dr. Peter Bourne, out of consideration for my administration, has submitted his resignation this afternoon, which I have accepted with regret.,Dr. Bourne is a close friend of mine and my family. He's an able and dedicated public servant. Because of this unfortunate occurrence, he has left the Government. 1,1 Dr. Bourne, the Special Assistant to the President for Health Issues, resigned following the disclosure that he had issued a drug prescription for an assistant without using her real name.,There are some allegations which will be the subject of investigation, and because I would not want my comments inadvertently to affect or to influence those investigations, I will have no further comment on this subject this evening and will not answer questions on this subject.,I'll be glad to answer questions on other items.,QUESTIONS\nU.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, you seem to be embarked on an eye-for-an-eye diplomacy with the Soviets, and they're accusing you of blackmail in terms of human rights.,My question is how far in the direction of reprisals do you plan to go, and what do you intend to accomplish?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a deep commitment in our Nation to the enhancement of human rights, not only here but around the world. The Soviets, when they signed the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement voluntarily, along with 35 or so other nations, committed themselves to certain principles to be honored among their own citizens—the right of citizens to emigrate from the Soviet Union, the right of families to be united, and the right of the government in a legitimate way, even, to be criticized by their citizens.,The recent trials in the Soviet Union have been aimed against Soviet citizens who were monitoring compliance with the Helsinki act, which the Soviets themselves signed. And we, along with voices throughout the world, have expressed our displeasure at these actions.,I have not embarked on a vendetta against the Soviet Union. I know that we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. I would like to have better relationships with the Soviets. We have continued our discussions with the Soviet Union on SALT and other matters. We would like to even enhance trade with the Soviet Union. But we have to let our own foreign policy be carried out.,I might add that in addition to those highly publicized dissidents that have been tried recently, Mr. Shcharanskiy, Orlov, and others, that there is a Lithuanian named Petkus, who has also been tried and sentenced, and when I was in East Germany recently—West Berlin-there have been two men tried in East Germany, a Mr. Hubner and also a Mr. Bahro.,I met with the six leaders of other Western democracies. All of us are concerned about this move in the Soviet Union to punish dissidents for monitoring compliance with the Helsinki agreement. But I would like to have better relationships with the Soviet Union. We have expressed our displeasure, I think, in a very moderate way.,CAPITAL GAINS TAX,Q. Mr. President, the House Ways and Means Committee seems intent on improving one of the capital gains tax cut proposals that you said here on June 26 that you saw no possibility you could accept. Would you veto the Jones or Steiger amendments, or would you accept some sort of compromise such as cutting the capital gains tax only on the sale of homes?,THE PRESIDENT. We put forward to the Congress a tax reduction and tax reform proposal that I think is adequate and necessary. First of all, it would reduce the tax burden on the American people substantially. It would permit an efficient formation of increased capital to invest back in plant and equipment and to provide better jobs for the American people. It would protect the average homeowner, the average working family against shifting the tax burden on their shoulders and away from the shoulders of the very rich, the very powerful, and the very influential. And it would also result in a simplification of the tax system.,These are principles that I feel very deeply about. In my opinion, as I expressed at the last press conference, I believe, the Jones and Steiger amendment would violate some of those principles. I will have to wait until the final tax package is placed on my desk, after it's been considered and complete action from both Houses of the Congress is concluded. At that time, I will decide whether or not that tax bill is in the best interests of our country. If it is not, I will veto it.,FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM,Q. What are you going to do, Mr. President, to save your civil service reform? Or is it snagged now hopelessly in Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. The reorganization plans in the House and Senate that relate to civil service has been approved overwhelmingly. The House recently took action, I think 36 to nothing, to approve it. This is a key element. The Senate passed the reorganization proposal relating to civil service very strongly in the committee. The only thing they changed was one element concerning veterans preference.,The House Post Office and Civil Service Committee has passed a bill last night after long debate and some delay with some very adverse attachments to the bill, which we hope to get removed either in the Rules Committee or on the House floor or in conference.,This is a crucial element of my attempt to control the bureaucracy in the Federal Government, and it's such a burning issue in the minds of the American people, to finally do something about waste and control of the Federal bureaucracy, that I really am convinced that the House Members and Senate Members of the Congress will not go home to face election not having acted upon it.,So, because of that, I believe that the unsatisfactory amendments will be re. moved, and I predict that the civil service reform bill will be passed because it's so badly needed and 'because the American people and I demand that something be done.,OIL PRICES,Q. You told the economic summit conference in Germany that the price of domestic oil in the United States is too low and the heart of your energy program is to raise it. But how would conservation justify the hardship that would have on American consumers and its own inflationary effect as well?,THE PRESIDENT. The long-run impact of excessive oil consumption and waste is one of the major contributing factors to the underlying inflation rate that we have now. We simply use too much oil, we waste too much oil, we import too much oil. One of the reasons is that the price is extraordinarily low. And I'm committed to a comprehensive energy package that I put to the Congress 15 months ago in April of 1977.,The Congress has still not acted finally on any one of the five crucial elements. Conference committees have completed work now on four of the five, almost completed. And the Senate has acted on one of those elements. The one that the conference committees have not yet considered is the crude oil equalization tax.,There are four basic ways, if I can remember them all, where we can increase the price of oil just to the world level price to discourage waste. One is to let the oil companies decide how much they should raise the price of oil, which I think would be very bad for the American consumer. Two other ways are for me to impose quotas or oil import fees which would result in administrative difficulties but which is presently permitted under the law.,The fourth way is much preferable, to impose a crude oil equalization tax to raise the price of oil and, within that act of the Congress, to restore that money collected immediately back to the consumers of this country. There would be no net shift away from the consumers of money. But the price of oil would be raised to encourage conservation.,That's my preference, and I still hope and believe that the Congress will take action accordingly.,Mr. Bradley [Ed Bradley, CBS News].,AMBASSADOR ANDREW YOUNG,Q. Mr. President, what effect has the statement made by Ambassador Andrew Young had on your human rights campaign, and do you agree with him that there are political prisoners in the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. The statement by Andy Young was unfortunate, and I do not agree with it. I don't think there are thousands of political prisoners in this country. He went on to explain what he meant, that 10, 15 years ago during the civil rights demonstrations and debates, that he and others were imprisoned because of their belief that the laws of the United States should 'be changed. They were changed. We made great progress, which Andy Young pointed out.,This is a subject that I've discussed with Andy Young. He knows that I disapprove of his statement. I do not agree. We have, I think, persisted in our human rights commitments in spite of that statement, and I've discussed this with Andy Young. And I don't believe that he will make a similar statement again.,The fact of the matter is that Andy Young has been and is very valuable to our country. He's opened up new areas of communications and mutual trust and cooperation, among the nations of Africa in particular. At almost the same time when Andy made that unfortunate statement, he had been remarkably successful in bringing about a conclusion of the Namibian question, which could have exploded into a very unsatisfactory conflict in southern Africa.,So, I know that Andy regrets having made that statement which was embarrassing to me. I don't believe he will do it again.,NATIONAL HEALTH CARE,Q. Mr. President, you have been promising for the last 6 months to provide the American people with some sort of national health insurance. Are you going to provide that to the people this summer? Are you going to propose something and send it up to the Hill this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. By the end of this month, I will have a directive to the Secretary of HEW to consult with Governors, with mayors, with Members of the Congress, with those who provide health care in our country. And expressed in that direction to him will be the principles on which a comprehensive health care system will be established in our country.,The Congress obviously will not have time to take action on this comprehensive proposal this year, but I want the American people and the Members of Congress to know the principles under which it will be formed.,One of the very discouraging aspects of our present health care system is the enormous increase in costs that have burdened down the American people. The average increase in cost of health care per year has been more than twice as much as the overall inflation rate. I can't think of anything the Congress could do that would benefit consumers more than to pass the hospital cost containment bill that we proposed and which the Commerce Committee in the House voted down or gutted with an unsatisfactory amendment this week.,This will cost the American consumers over the next 5 years $56 billion in unnecessary health care costs and will cost the American taxpayer, through Federal expenditures, $19 billion. This is an extraordinary and unnecessary burden on the American people, but the Commerce Committee was not able to deal with it.,So, we've got to control costs even under the present system, and this year the American people will know the principles and the framework for a comprehensive health care system that cannot be acted upon this year but, I believe, the Congress will consider next year.,DR. BOURNE,Q. Mr. President, I hope that this doesn't fall within the area of legal issues that you prefer not to discuss tonight, but the health of the President himself has always been a matter of great concern to the country.,Can you say whether any of the prescriptions that were signed by Dr. Bourne were substances that went either to you or members of your family?,THE PRESIDENT. Dr. Bourne has never given me any treatment of any kind.,Q. None of those substances went to you?,THE PRESIDENT. No, sir.,PUBLIC EMPLOYEE STRIKES,Q. Mr. President, the city of Washington is vexed right now by a subway strike. We're facing a possible mail strike. Philadelphia has had a sanitation strike, Louisville, a police strike. There have been fires accompanying a firemen's strike in Memphis. How long do you think the people are going to stand for this, and what are your thoughts about strikes by public employees?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I deplore the circumstances that finally result in a strike. We obviously prefer that through regular legal bargaining procedures that disputes can be settled without disruptive strikes. This evening, for instance, we are waiting with great interest the outcome of the postal workers' negotiations, and we hope that they will be resolved successfully before midnight, which is the deadline. If they are not, then legal procedures provide a mechanism by which some extension can be granted.,But I deplore strikes, but recognize the right of workers to conduct labor negotiations; if they aren't successful, sometimes strikes are advisable. But I prefer, of course, to see the disputes settled without strikes.,ARMS EMBARGO AGAINST TURKEY,Q. Mr. President, during your summit in Bonn, did the Western leaders bring up the subject of the Turkish embargo? And if so, what was your reaction? Could you tell us, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Every member of NATO, including five of the members who were there with me—the only exception is Japan, who's not a member of NATO—are deeply interested in removing the embargo against Turkey. This embargo was imposed, I think properly, 3 years ago. The results that were expected have not been realized. It has not resulted in any progress being made in resolving the Cyprus dispute of restoring the human rights of the Greek Cypriots, who have indeed suffered and who suffer today. It's driven a wedge between Turkey and the rest of the NATO countries, between Greece and NATO, between Turkey and Greece, between us and Turkey. And I hope that the Congress will act expeditiously to remove the Turkey arms embargo.,And there is a unanimous belief that this is the proper action within NATO, with the exception of Greece. And I believe that this action will in the long run benefit Greece as well. It's a very important subject, the most important foreign affairs subject that the Congress will consider the rest of this session.,ANTI-INFLATION POLICY,Q. Mr. President, Barry Bosworth, your Council on Wage and Price Stability head, says that there will be a restructuring of the anti-inflation program in the administration. The feeling is that the present program isn't doing the job. Is that at your instigation, and are you happy with the anti-inflation program?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not at my instigation. We are doing what we can from the President's office, trying to control inflation. We are cutting down the Federal budget deficit. In 1976, the budget deficit was in the 60 billions of dollars. In 1978, it was in the fifties of billions of dollars; in 1979, in the forties of billions of dollars. I hope that in the next time we can bring that down at least to the 30 billions of dollars.,We are being very constrained on the Congress in not having excessive expenditures. We also have announced that the wages of Federal employees, blue-collar and white-collar employees, will be limited to about 5 1/2 percent. I've put a complete freeze, from my own sense of responsibility, on executive salaries. There will be no increase this year.,We have tried to induce business and labor to have less of a price or wage increase this year and the next year than they did in the 2 preceding years. So, we're trying to do everything without mandatory controls to limit inflation.,One of the most serious needs to control inflation is to cut down on the waste of energy. This puts an enormous burden on the American people. And I hope that the Congress will act here. As I said earlier, Congress has not acted yet on the civil service reform legislation or on hospital cost containment. Airline deregulation is another bill that's being considered by Congress that will control inflation.,So, we have a comprehensive program that we put forward. In some cases, the Congress has acted, in other cases they have not. But I think the more the American people's interest is built up and the more political influence they use themselves as individuals on Congress to act against inflation, the better chance we'll have to succeed.,I think some business leaders have complied with our request; some labor leaders have acquired to our request, some have not. But we are building momentum, and I believe that we can at least let inflation top off this year. Someone's got to control it. It's got to be a partnership between the American people, the Congress, and myself. I'm doing all I can.,U.S. PARTICIPATION IN 1980 OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, do you agree or disagree with those who urge that American athletes boycott the 1980 Olympic games in Moscow as a protest against Soviet treatment of dissidents?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a decision that will be made by the United States Olympic Committee. My own hope is that the American athletes will participate in the 1980 Olympics.,RODRIGUEZ CASE IN DALLAS,Q. Mr. President, Ben Reyes, a Mexican American in the Texas Legislature, said today that you called him to express your embarrassment about Attorney General Griffin Bell's decision not to initiate Federal prosecution of the Dallas policeman who shot a 12-year-old Mexican American boy while handcuffed in the rear seat of a patrol car.,Are you embarrassed by this politically sensitive decision, and did you either ask the Justice Department to prosecute the case or express your disapproval when Mr. Bell declined prosecution?,THE PRESIDENT. When I was in Texas a few weeks ago, I studied the details of this case. It's one of about 150 cases that the Justice Department has been reexamining to make sure that there was no deprivation of the political rights or criminal justice rights or civil rights of people because—who are minorities or who speak Spanish.,I think the Justice Department has done a good job. This was a particularly disturbing case, because the person killed was only 12 years old. He was handcuffed, in the custody of police officers. At that time, I called Griffin Bell, the Attorney General, and told him I was deeply concerned about it and asked him to look into the case personally. He promised me that he would, and he did.,I did not ask Griffin Bell nor his subordinates to either prosecute or not prosecute. This is a legal decision over which the President has no control. It's one made by the Justice Department officials themselves. They have decided not to prosecute this case further.,It's a very complicated legal issue. The primary reason that they quoted was that there was an enthusiastic prosecution of this case by the State officials. The relatively low sentence, I think a 5-year imprisonment for this death, was granted by the jury, and because of that, the Justice Department decided not to prosecute under the present provisions of the law. But I have no authority nor inclination to direct the Justice Department to reverse their decision.,SOVIET DISSIDENTS,Q. Mr. President, are you aware of any negotiations under way for the release of Anatoly Shcharanskiy or Alexander Ginzburg?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not specifically. I think it would be inappropriate for me to talk about the negotiations that go on between ourselves and other governments about release of prisoners in general or specifically.,Q. In principle, is the United States willing to negotiate the release of these men?,THE PRESIDENT. We would like to see the prisoners released, but I can't go into that now.,POLITICAL PRISONERS,Q. Mr. President, there's been a lot of talk about this term \"political prisoner.\" I'd like to follow up Ed's question. What is your definition of a political prisoner? Do you believe that Ben Chavis of the Wilmington 10 is a political prisoner or not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's hard for me to define in a brief period of time what is a political prisoner. I think that if there is a commission of crime involving violence, damage to another person's property or health or life, and if they are prosecuted for that under the rules of our Government, that would certainly not come under the categorization of a political prisoner. What we deplore in the Soviet Union is the prosecution of persons who speak out, even in accordance with international agreements that have been signed by the country involved.,I might add very quickly that the Soviet Union is not the only country guilty of that.,DR. BOURNE,Q. I, too, have a question about the Bourne case, which does not touch on the allegations against him. And it is simply this: whether you agree with Dr. Bourne, as he stated in his letter of resignation, that the attacks on him were really designed to harm you through him.,THE PRESIDENT. I would prefer not to answer that question.,THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCES,Q. There have been some published analyses that you've lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 in your interest in your warehouse firms. If those allegations or analyses are true, are you considering replacing your friend, Mr. Kirbo, as trustee? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I would rather have made a profit on the warehouse last year. When I was sworn in as President, I agreed with the public and Mr. Kirbo and others that I would not become even knowledgeable about the details of the operation of my former businesses. And I don't know what caused the loss. I am authorized to sign the tax return, which showed the loss, but I'm not contemplating changing the trustee.,MARIJUANA,Q. Dr. Bourne, about 6 months ago, helped initiate a report of the National Institute on Drug Abuse that said paraquat, one of at least 13 herbicides being used on marijuana in Mexico, caused lung fibrosis when smoked by marijuana consumers here in the United States. The report went on to say that maybe we should halt this spraying program.,Right now in the Congress, Senator Percy has a bill which would outlaw the future expenditures of money, men, or DEA material to Mexico to spray marijuana which is later harvested, brought to the United States, and smoked. My question, sir: Are you willing to support Senator Percy in stopping the spraying of paraquat and other herbicides on marijuana in Mexico?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not familiar with the bill. My understanding is that American money is not used to purchase the paraquat. I think Mexico buys this material from other countries, and they use their own personnel to spray it with. My preference is that marijuana not be grown nor smoked. It's an illegal—,Q. What about the $13 million a year that's being channeled into Mexico now that's being used with the helicopters to go out and spray the fields, or DEA, Drug Enforcement Administration intelligence that goes out to help eradicate these fields?,THE PRESIDENT. I favor this relationship with Mexico. When I came into office, about 75 percent, for instance, of all the heroin used in our country was coming from Mexico. Because of the work of Dr. Bourne and the officials at the DEA, the drug enforcement agency, we and the new President and officials of Mexico, President Lopez Portillo, we've mounted a very successful campaign, and now we've almost stopped the flow of heroin, for instance, from Mexico into our country.,Marijuana happens to be an illicit drug that's included under the overall drug control program, and I favor this program very strongly.,PRESIDENT PARK OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA,Q. Thank you, Mr. President. There is the press speculation in Japan and South Korea that you would invite General Park Chung Hee of South Korea to Washington in next January for talks. Could you comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of any invitation that is planned for President Park. I would certainly have no objection to meeting him, but we have not extended an invitation to him so far as I know.,U.S. SALES TO THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how you're leaning on the sale of the Dresser equipment to the Soviet Union, and what are some of the factors involved in the decision?,THE PRESIDENT. We have taken all the action that I intend to take for the time being. We terminated the sale of a very advanced computer to the Soviet Union-roughly a $6 to $7 million sale—which would have provided a quantum jump in computer capability, multiplying the speed of the computer, I think, 20-fold. And this was supposed to have been bought by TASS, one of the Soviet news agencies, to, I think, handle the requirements for the 1980 Olympics. This was far in excess of what they needed for that purpose.,And I've put under the control agreement in our country, where different Government agencies assess the need for sales equipment that would result in increased oil production in the Soviet Union. On the particular case to which you refer, I have not cancelled that.,This sale of technology—the Germans will install it—was approved, I think, the last day of May, before we reassessed this proposal. There is still pending one element of this sale, some kind of arc welding, that I have not yet approved. I've not decided what to do about it.,AMBASSADOR YOUNG,Q. Mr. President, News Secretary Powell has indicated that in the future when U.N. Ambassador Young speaks out on issues such as human rights, that perhaps this will be a subject for discussion at the White House beforehand, perhaps indicating that he might require your prior approval on a number of topics. Will this be the case?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. I trust Andy to realize that he will be more careful in the future. It would be almost a full-time job for me if I tried to assess- [laughter] —if I tried to assess every statement that Andy Young and other Ambassadors make, or other officials who have the same opportunity to consult directly with the press.,And I don't intend to get into the censoring business. I have to trust the sound judgment of those—I've made mistakes myself, and I've tried to correct them in the future. I think in this particular case Andy made a mistake. And I think he'll try to correct it on his own initiative.,THE WILMINGTON 10,Q. Mr. President, members of your administration, including yourself, have often cited the findings of Amnesty International with regard to political prisoners in other countries. Why is it, then, that you do not accept the group's finding with respect to Reverend Chavis and the Wilmington 10? And also, sir, are you not aware or concerned that what is called by some black leaders a dichotomy in your human rights policy with respect to foreign dissidents and with respect to human rights in this country is threatening your black constituency?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been concerned about human rights violations in our own country as well as others. The Justice Department reassessed the case of the Wilmington 10 after the Governor decided the action to be taken this past year. Now, so far as I know, there is no legal basis for further action on the case by the Justice Department.* The attorneys for the Wilmington 10 have the right to appeal to the Federal courts on their own initiative, and I presume that they can, under a habeas corpus request or some other. But so far as I have been able to determine from the position of the Presidency itself, having no direct responsibility for it, the case is still being considered, appeals are still permissible under certain Federal codes, and I believe that the justice system in our country has worked well.,BROOKS JACKSON [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,*In fact, the Justice Department is analyzing the situation to determine whether it should enter the case. [Printed in the transcript.]"}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-06-26","text":"TAX REDUCTION,THE PRESIDENT. At the beginning of this year, I proposed to Congress substantial tax relief for almost every taxpayer in our country. I also asked that some important and long-overdue reforms be made in our unfair and very complicated tax laws.,Last week it became clear that the Congress is seriously considering a tax bill that contains no major reforms at all. That's bad enough, but this new congressional proposal is even worse. It actually attempts to take a step backward through some version of the so-called Steiger capital gains amendment. This proposal would add more than $2 billion to the Federal budget deficit. Eighty percent of its tax benefits would go to one-half of 1 percent of the American taxpayers, who make more than $100,000 a year. Three thousand millionaires would get tax reductions averaging $214,000. The other 99 1/2 percent of our taxpayers would not do quite so well.,For instance, a middle-income family making between $20,000 and $30,000 a year would get a tax reduction from this proposal of less than $1. And the working man or woman who makes $20,000 or less a year would get no more than 25 cents.,The American people want some tax relief from the heavy burden of taxation on their shoulders, but neither they nor I will tolerate a plan that provides huge tax windfalls for millionaires and two bits for the average American. That underestimates the intelligence of the American people.,My proposals to reduce the taxes paid by large and small businesses so that they can invest in new investments, new businesses, new equipment, new jobs, is a much more fair and effective approach than providing huge tax giveaways to millionaires. Both businesses and also American working families deserve a real tax cut this year, and our tax code barely needs to be made simpler, fairer, and more effective.,I'm working hard for tax reduction and tax reform, but only Congress can pass laws. I'm still confident that in response to the obvious desires of the American people, the Congress will act responsibly on the tax package I have submitted. The American people expect and deserve no less.\nThank you very much.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, could you give us your current assessment of Middle East peace prospects at this time, when Israel and Egypt are again apparently at an impasse?,THE PRESIDENT. My experience in dealing with the Mideast peace proposals leads me not to be surprised when we have temporary setbacks or rejections from one side or the other.,I thought the Israeli Cabinet response to our two basic questions was very disappointing. And I notice that this weekend the Israeli Cabinet rejected an Egyptian proposal that has not even yet been made. It's not in final form, I understand. It certainly has not been presented to us to present to the Israelis. It's already been rejected.,Our commitment to pursuing a comprehensive and effective peace agreement in the Middle East is constant and very dedicated. We will not back off on this. After we receive the Egyptian proposal when it's put in final form, we will be sure to relay it to the Israelis, as the Egyptians will request, and then both proposals, the Israeli proposal, the Egyptian proposal, will be on the table.,At that time it might be appropriate, if the Israelis and Egyptians agree, for a meeting between their Foreign Ministers, perhaps, and our own Secretary of State. I would hope that at that point we could make real progress toward searching out the common ground on which they might stand and alleviating the differences that still remain. But I can't predict the rate of progress. It obviously will require good faith and some flexibility on both sides.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, in the current war of words you've said you are not going to let the Russians push us around, and Mr. Brezhnev says that you're pursuing a dangerous policy by playing the Chinese card.,My question is, are they pushing us around and are you playing the Chinese card?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're too strong and powerful and deeply committed a nation to be pushed around. Our economic, military, political strength, the basic principles on which our Nation is founded, are too strongly held and preserved by the American people to permit us to be weak enough to be pushed around.,As I said in Annapolis, and as we've had as a constant policy, we want to be friends with the Soviet Union. We want to have rapid progress made on the SALT negotiations, the comprehensive test ban, increased trade, better communication. Some of the things the Soviets do cause us deep concern. The human rights questions within the Soviet Union in violation of the Helsinki agreement, their intrusion, along with the Cubans, into Africa, these things do cause us some concern and create in the American people some doubt about the Soviets' good and peaceful intentions. But I have a deep belief that the underlying relationship between ourselves and the Soviets is stable and that Mr. Brezhnev, along with myself, wants peace and wants to have better friendship.,We are not trying, nor will we ever try, to play the Soviets against the People's Republic of China, nor vice versa. We have some very important relationships with the Chinese that need to be pursued. There are worldwide common hopes that we share with the Chinese. We have bilateral relations that we want to expand-trade, exchange of science and technology, and so forth—and at the same time, we want to have peace with the Chinese, almost a billion people. These are the goals that we have maintained during my own administration, the same identical goals as were evoked clearly by President Nixon and President Ford.,So, we won't let any temporary disharmonies or disputes about transient circumstances delay our pursuit of peace with the Soviet Union, nor our ability nor commitment toward better relationships with the People's Republic of China.,Q. Mr. President, to follow that up, you are consciously not linking the progress in the strategic arms negotiations to Soviet behavior either in Africa or the dissident problem. There is a suggestion made by a member of the National Security Council staff that there should be linkage, however, between trade with the Soviet Union and the transfer of technology to the Soviet Union and their actions throughout the rest of the world.,Do you favor using trade and economic incentives as a means of moderating Soviet behavior?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not heard that proposal that you describe. As you know, the Soviets have arrested an American businessman. 1 We've had a very hard time trying to determine if there is any grounds for his arrest, and the Soviet press, which is a spokesman for the Soviet Government, has already condemned him without a trial or even without thorough investigation. This kind of an episode naturally causes concern among the American business community, who does look upon the Soviet Union, as do I, as a good place for the sale of American manufactured products, American farm and agricultural products, and other things. But we've never tried to threaten the Soviet Union, we've never held out the prospect of increased or decreased trade if they did or did not do a certain thing that we thought was best.,1 Francis Jay Crawford, an employee of the International Harvester Company, was detained by Soviet authorities for alleged currency violations.,We try to pursue peace as the overwhelming sense of our goals with the Soviet Union, and I think that's shared in good faith by President Brezhnev.,So, I think the word \"linkage\" is sometimes inappropriately used. It's obvious that there is a good factor in progress with the Soviet Union if the American people, the Congress, the business community feel that they are acting in good faith toward us, that they have friendly attitudes toward us, they treat our citizens over there, trying to enhance trade, with respect and with fairness. And all of these things are tightly interrelated. But I think the word \"linkage\" is one that's inappropriately used.,TAX REDUCTION LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, in your opening remarks on the tax legislation and the Steiger amendment, the implication is strongly there, but you stop short of actually saying you would veto legislation with the Steiger amendment. Will you veto such legislation if it comes to your desk?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I said neither the American people nor I will tolerate a plan that does what the Steiger amendment does. I think that's clear enough. I don't see any way that I could accept a major tax proposal of this kind that did cost the Federal Treasury $2 billion, and increase the budget deficit that much, and channel almost all of the money to the very rich people. So, I don't see any possibility of my approving such a plan.,CIVIL RIGHTS PROSECUTIONS,Q. Mr. President, your Justice Department has set up a dual prosecution policy in cases of police brutality where the victims' civil rights may have been violated. But there seems to be some confusion over when the dual prosecution policy should be used. I wonder if you could clarify.,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt it, but I'll try. When I came in office and when Griffin Bell became the Attorney General, there was a concern that we shared about the mistreatment of minority citizens in this country—blacks, those who speak Spanish, and others. I believe that at the present time, we are investigating about 192 cases of that sort. Each case has to be assessed on its own merits.,There is a duality in culpability among those who commit some crime. I'm speaking in generalities now. One is the actual criminal case where you punish someone for abusing another person. Sometimes the abuse extends to the death of the victim. Another element of criminality is the violation of the American civil rights act, where a person's rights are deprived, even the loss of life.,If in the judgment of the Attorney General-and he makes the judgment, I don't—the original case is not adequately pursued, nor the punishment, if meted out, adequate for the crime, if there's a gross abuse of that, then the Attorney General reserves the right to enter the case and try the perpetrator of the crime on the basis of a civil rights violation.,This has been historically the case, but we've revived that issue. And without referring to a specific case, this is our policy. As I said, to repeat myself, each case has to be decided on its own merits, though, and the Attorney General makes that ultimate decision.,Q. If I could follow up on that for a minute, in the Rodriguez case in Dallas it's been reported that Drew Days at the Justice Department decided not to prosecute that case, and that you talked to some Mexican Americans while you were down in Texas and promised that Attorney General Bell would go ahead and look into it himself personally.,Why was that decision made? Why was it decided that Bell would go ahead and prosecute when Days had decided not to?,THE PRESIDENT. There was an erroneous press report, which sometimes occurs in our Nation, which indicated that Drew Days had made a decision and that he had recommended to Mr. Civiletti, who pursues criminal cases, that this case not be pursued further.,We inquired of Mr. Days about the accuracy of that report. He has not yet made a decision about whether he would recommend any further Justice Department involvement. And I asked the Attorney General, which is appropriate, to look into the case himself. This is a case of high interest to the Spanish-speaking community in the Southwest, and again, his decision would be made on the basis of the merits of the case. But Mr. Days has not made any decision on his own. He has not made any recommendation to Mr. Civiletti, which was erroneously reported by the press.,DAVID G, GARTNER,Q. Mr. President, it's been reported that you've asked David Gartner to resign from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and it's been rumored that he has told you that he wouldn't. Are these things true? And if so, what are you going to do about them?,THE PRESIDENT. I might say I don't know Mr. Gartner. He's one of the roughly 700 people that we recommended to the Congress be appointed to positions of importance. In assessing the factors in his case during the last week or so, both 'I and my staff members, after consultation with the Vice President, who does know Mr. Gartner well, we have decided Mr. Gartner ought to resign.,He has not committed a crime, he has not violated the law, but the image of impropriety, resulting from the acceptance by his children of a substantial gift, leads me to think that it would be better if he did resign. I understand that Friday, Mr. Gartner called my staff members and said that he did not intend to resign.,So, the description that you made is substantially correct. I do not have authority to remove Mr. Gartner from office once he has been confirmed by the Senate. But I think he should resign. The decision now is up to him.,Q. Mr. President, so there's no further step that you feel you can take at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. No, except to encourage him to reconsider and resign.,Q. Well, sir, it was my impression at your last news conference here that you had already assessed the case, because you seemed at that time to indicate that you saw nothing wrong with the circumstances surrounding all of this. What has caused you to change your mind?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have looked into it much more thoroughly than I had before I came to the last press conference. The report I made last time was basically accurate, that he had reported voluntarily the acceptance of the gift to his children, that the Senate Agriculture Committee had been thoroughly conversant with this fact, and that the Senate committee and the Senate itself had confirmed him, that he had not committed any crime. I believe, though, in light of the fact that there is an allegation of impropriety on his part, with which I agree, that he should resign.,EUROPEAN TROOP REDUCTIONS,Q. Mr. President, along with the recent tougher rhetoric from Moscow, there's also reportedly been an important concession by the Soviets that the talks over reducing the number of NATO and Warsaw Pact troops faced off in Europe, I wonder, in light of that, what are the prospects now for an agreement of those talks?,THE PRESIDENT. The prospects now are much better than they were a month ago. We, along with our NATO Allies, have been pursuing what we call the mutual and balanced force reductions in the European theater for a number of years in the talks at Vienna. And the Soviets, this past 2 weeks—I think within the last 2 weeks—replied in a very affirmative way. Over the weekend President Brezhnev made a speech, I think at Minsk, where he said that this was a major reply on the part of the Soviet Union. He thought that we should assess it very carefully. So, I don't know what the future results should be.,There is a difference in estimate of the number of Soviet forces in the Warsaw Pact region, Eastern Europe, compared to what we think they have there. We think the Soviets have a superior force in the number of men, the number of tanks, to us. The Soviets' estimates are considerably lower.,We are negotiating now with the Soviets to see where the disparity lies. And what we want is to have a balanced reduction, so that at the end of this reduction the two forces will be roughly equivalent to each other and that they will be at a lower level than before. So, I would say it's a step in the right direction, and we will pursue it.,CRITICISM OF FOREIGN POLICY,Q. Mr. President, last week in Texas, in the course of defending Mr. Brzezinski, you criticized the Soviet Union and Cuba for attacking him, and you also criticized special interest groups, which presumably are domestic organizations. Many people think that you had reference to the Jewish community, which has been critical of Mr. Brzezinski.,Could you explain, sir—there are two parts to this question—who or what special interest groups do you mean, and what limits, if any, do you think there ought to be on the criticism of officials like Mr. Brzezinski involved in the making of foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's open season on me or officials in the Government, as you well know, and I think that's part of the American system, which I don't deplore. I didn't have any particular special interest group in mind. I said \"special interest groups\" and then following that specifically referred to the Cubans, the Soviets, and their apologists. And that is an adequate example, I think, of special interest groups to whom I refer.,The point is that I make the ultimate decisions in foreign policy. There is a minimum of disagreement between the National Security Council and the State Department. I do get advice from various sources, both in and out of Government. And obviously, in a complicated issue, I get recommendations that sometimes are at variance with one another. But when I make the final decision, then I want to be and am the one responsible. I make the judgment and neither the Secretary of State nor Dr. Brzezinski makes those judgments.,I think it's easy for someone who disagrees with a decision that I make to single out Dr. Brzezinski as a target, insinuating that I'm either ineffective or incompetent or ignorant, that I don't actually make the decisions, but that my subordinates make them for me. And it gives an easy target for them without attacking the President of the United States.,But I've noticed that President Brezhnev, Mr. Castro, and others always single out Dr. Brzezinski as their target. It's not fair to him. I think it overly exaggerates any possible disagreement that the State Department and the National Security Council have, even in the formative stages of a decision. And it takes away from the fact that in this country I'm the President, I make the decisions, and I want to be responsible for those decisions once they are made.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, what precisely is our position with relation to the Soviets? It isn't always easy for us to discern the precise position. Is it hard-nosed or is it conciliatory or is it somewhere in between? I wonder whether you could refine your answer on this a bit.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know any clearer way to express it than I did in the speech I made in Annapolis a few weeks ago, which I very carefully wrote myself, and a speech that I went over with my advisers, almost every word in it.,We want to be friends with the Soviets. We want to improve our relationship with the Soviets. We want to make progress, and I might say we are making progress on a SALT agreement, on a comprehensive test ban agreement, the prohibition against attacks on one another's satellites, the reduction in the level of forces in Eastern and Western Europe, which I've already discussed, and so forth. These discussions, these negotiations, are going along very well. We're making good progress. And as I said in my speech in Annapolis, I believe that Mr. Brezhnev wants the same thing I do. He wants peace between our country and theirs.,We do, however, stay in a state of competition. This is inevitable. I think it's going to be that way 15, 20 years in the future. We want to have accommodation when we can mutually benefit from that accommodation. We are willing to meet the Soviets in competition of a peaceful nature.,When the Soviets commit some act with which we disagree, I have to make a judgment whether to be quiet about it or to speak out openly and acquaint the American people with the facts so that Americans can understand the interrelationship between us and the Soviet Union.,As I said, I think in an interview with a Dallas newspaper a couple of weeks ago, though, our relationship with the Soviet Union overall is stable. It's not in danger. There is no present threat to peace.,The negotiations are proceeding in good faith. There's no cause for alarm. And I think this is pretty much a normal circumstance. I would hope that when we conclude the SALT and the comprehensive test ban negotiations, hopefully without too much delay, that Mr. Brezhnev and I might meet personally and to ratify the agreement that's basically been hammered out.,We are much closer to an agreement than we were a few weeks ago. We've made good progress.,Q. No chance of a meeting before then?,THE PRESIDENT. I have extended an almost standing invitation to Mr. Brezhnev to come over and meet with me. My belief, however, is that he will not meet until the prospect for an agreement is quite imminent. But I welcome this. And I feel quite at ease about our relationship with the Soviet Union, although there are public debates, public disputes, sometimes public disagreements.,ANGOLA,Q. Secretary of State Vance has said that we want to cooperate with the Neto government in Angola, and we just sent a diplomat over to Angola to do just that, talk to them. But a few weeks earlier, the CIA Director had been up on Capitol Hill trying to get approval from the Senate for a plan to back-door weapons to the rebels in Angola. What is the consistency in these two positions, and would you have approved that plan?,THE PRESIDENT. There was never any plan put forward to send back-door weapons to the rebels, because that would have been in violation of the American law. And I don't believe any responsible person in my administration would have violated the so-called Clark amendment, which prevents us from either direct or indirect involvement in the internal affairs in Angola.,Our relationship with the Angolan officials has been a fairly consistent one. Ever since I've been in office, we have had negotiations or consultations directly with Angolan officials. This is important, first of all, because we want to have peace in southern Africa. And Mr. Neto, who is the leader of the Angolan Government, has some influence on other African leaders, particularly the leaders of SWAPO, where we want an agreement in Namibia. Also, we have wanted to hold the Angolan leaders responsible for any future possible invasions into the Shaba Province in Zaire.,I also would like to see the Cubans begin to remove their troops from Angola. And a few weeks ago in New York, their Foreign Minister, the Angolan Foreign Minister, met with our Secretary of State and suggested additional consultations, which is a continuation of what we've done all the time.,We have no desire at this point, no plans to normalize our relationship with Angola. But we have never contemplated getting militarily involved in Angola, directly nor indirectly, and this present visit by Mr. McHenry 2 to Angola is part of a series of consultations with them.2 Donald F. McHenry, Deputy U.S. Representative in the United Nations Security Council.,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow that up. I'm not quite sure what you are saying when you say there was no plan presented to the Senate. The CIA Director, Mr. Turner, did present a document, a written plan, to Senator Clark to try to see if Senator Clark thought that this would be acceptable, and would not violate the Clark amendment. The plan called for sending arms through a third country to the rebel forces in Angola.,Did you know about that meeting? Did you know about that document? And since others around the administration did, would you have approved it?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't have any idea that the CIA Director had even talked to Senator Clark about it. My impression of it from the news reports and from subsequent information was that he went to consult with Senator Clark to see within the bounds of the law what involvement would be possible in Angola. But I had no knowledge of that, nor have I ever intended to send weapons to Angola, either directly nor indirectly.,TAX REDUCTION LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, to get back to the opening statement on capital gains tax policy, as you know, Mr. President, the House Ways and Means Committee is considering the so-called compromise proposal advanced by Congressman Jones of Oklahoma, which would set capital gains, I believe, at a 35-percent maximum rate and also eliminate the so-called alternative tax.,My question is, is the Jones compromise equally unacceptable as the Steiger proposal to you?,THE PRESIDENT. When I referred to the Steiger amendment or proposal, I was also referring to the Jones proposal, which is a version of the Steiger amendment. Both these proposals apply basically to the desire of some Members of the Congress to remove part of the income of very wealthy taxpayers from the minimum tax.,A few years ago, the Congress very wisely said that if there were loopholes or provisions in the tax law that let a wealthy person avoid paying any tax, they would at least have to pay some tax under the new minimum tax laws. And the Steiger amendment and the Jones amendment, part of it, refers to that basic principle. I disagree with the Steiger and Jones proposal.,Ms. Woodruff [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,Q. If these proposals, if these plans, the Steiger bill and the Jones bill, are as onerous as you suggest, then why have so many Members of Congress, including so many Democrats, come around in support of them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we don't have any clear indication of that. They do have enough support to cause me concern. My guess is that when the Congress becomes acquainted with which taxpayers in our country benefit—that is, the very wealthy taxpayers—and how they give no relief to the average and middle-income families, my guess is that the Congress will reject this proposal.,Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied that your tax cut and your tax reform plan were sufficiently fair for middle-income taxpayers?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think they were eminently fair, and my preference, of course, is that my original proposal would be adopted. My guess is that the Congress will not adopt my tax reform proposals in their entirety.,WHITE HOUSE VISITORS,Q. Mr. President, sir, you've extended White House hospitality to a variety of people, including jazz musicians and prizefighters. Could you tell us why you haven't invited Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or in another category, Howard Jarvis or, in another category, your fellow Southern Baptist Convention speaker, Anita Bryant, or do you approve of—disapprove of the positions of these people?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't have any inclination now to say whether I approve or disapprove of what they do. I'm sure they've all done things of which I do approve and they probably have all done things of which I disapprove. But there are,Q. You wouldn't subscribe to original sin, then. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. There are 220 million people in America, and there's a limit to how many we can invite. [Laughter] But we'll continue our invitations in the future and maybe somedays get around to those whom you offer as a possibility.,Q. Anita Bryant said to the Southern Baptist Convention that Midge Costanza came down and intruded herself into the Dade County ordinance struggle.,Was that at your direction or was that Midge's kind of spontaneity?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't know that she went to Dade County. If she did, it was not at my direction.,NATIONAL HEALTH CARE,Q. Mr. President, given the seriousness of the inflation problem, do you still plan to offer a comprehensive national health program, and if so, when? What's your current thinking on that problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Within the next few days I will direct the Secretary of HEW to comply with principles that I outlined to him in the preparation of a national health proposal. The implementation of it, and the passage of it by Congress before it's implemented, will have to accommodate budget constraints and the attitude of both the Congress and the American people.,I do favor a comprehensive health proposal. Now at this time, the high inflation rate and the very tight budget constraints would not permit immediate implementation of it. It might take many years before the final plan is completely put into effect.,After I give these instructions to Mr. Califano, then he will be consulting with Members of the Congress who are particularly interested and will be consulting with Governors and interest groups like the hospital administrators, doctors, and so forth, to work out not only the specifics of the proposal but also the rough time schedule that we would follow in their implementation.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Cormier."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-06-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody. I have two brief statements to make before I answer questions.,ARMS EMBARGO AGAINST TURKEY,The most immediate and urgent foreign policy decision to be made by the current legislative session is in lifting the arms embargo against Turkey. The points that the Congress intended to underscore 3 years ago, when the embargo was imposed, have all been made, but now the embargo is not contributing to a settlement of the Cyprus dispute, nor is it helping to improve our relationship with our allies, Turkey and Greece. It's driven a wedge between those two countries and has weakened the cohesiveness and the readiness of NATO. It's thereby harmed our own national security interests in the eastern Mediterranean, an area which is crucial to the defense of the southern flank of Europe, and also our own access and that of others to the Middle East.,It's important to implement an effective policy in this area of the eastern Mediterranean-Greece, Turkey, Cyprus area. We have three purposes, all of which are equally important: first, to serve U.S. and NATO security interests, as well as the security interests of Greece and Turkey as nations; second, to improve the relationship between Greece and Turkey; and third, to facilitate progress toward a Cyprus settlement.,I'm asking the Congress to support me in enacting the full program, which, in addition to removing the embargo against arms sales to Turkey, provides for military sales credits to both Turkey and to Greece, provides for economic aid to Turkey, and provides further funds for relief and rehabilitation for refugees in Cyprus.,Both Greece and Turkey are valuable friends and allies of our own. Lifting the embargo is essential to our hopes for peace and stability in the eastern region of the Mediterranean. And I hope that the American people and the Congress will give me their support in the realization of U.S. interests in this critical area of the world.,INFLATION AND FEDERAL SPENDING,The domestic issue that I would like to pursue is that of inflation. Last week I emphasized how important it is to hold the line on Federal budget expenditures as a series of appropriations bills are considered by the Congress during the next few weeks.,I cannot make this point too strongly, nor repeat it too often, because much of the fight against inflation from the perspective of the Federal Government itself depends on Congress action in the days ahead. Unless the Congress is responsible, the Federal deficit will rise at a time when it must and can be reduced. Unless the Congress shows restraint in spending, it will set the worst possible example for our workers and businessmen, whom I've asked to restrain their own wage and price increases in order to hold down inflation.,Unless we recognize the limits on our ability to spend in the Federal Government, then both American citizens and those in foreign countries will see that we cannot take the difficult decisions that are necessary if inflation is to be controlled.,I'm concerned in particular at this time about the public works appropriations bill that the House will begin voting on tomorrow. That bill, as passed by the Appropriations Committee, would add not only $1.4 billion in spending over the life of 46 new water projects, but it also continues spending for the unsound water projects which the Congress agreed not to fund last year. It would waste far too much of our taxpayers' money, and we just can't afford it.,With the help of many of the House Members who are also concerned about the inflationary impact of the public works bill, we will be working to eliminate the unnecessary spending proposals for water projects in that bill. Unless they are eliminated, I intend to veto it.,And now, I'd like to recognize Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,CUBAN INVOLVEMENT IN ANGOLA,Q. Mr. President, do you think that Fidel Castro is lying when he says that there's been no Cuban involvement in the recent invasion of Zaire? And since you made the charge, contrary to Castro's word, do you have proof that he did not attempt to restrain the rebels?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't really desire to get into a public dispute with Mr. Castro through the news media. The facts are these: In Zaire, the Cubans now have more than 20,000 armed troops plus other support personnel—in Angola, excuse me. They also are deeply involved in the ministries of the Angolan Government itself, and they have substantial control over the transportation facilities in Angola—the seaports, the airports, and so forth.,In the southeastern (northeastern)1 part of Angola from which the Katangan attack was launched, the Cubans have around 4,000 or more troops. They are a heavy influence, both with all personnel in Angola, including the Katangans, and also, of course, with the Neto government itself.,1 Printed in the transcript.,There's no doubt about the fact that Cuba has been involved in the training of Katangan people who did invade. We have firm proof of this fact. And the knowledge that Cuba had of the impending invasion has been admitted by Castro himself.,This was a story published, I think, in Time magazine the last week in May, and later Castro informed one of our own diplomats that he knew about the impending invasion ahead of time and that he attempted to notify President Neto in Angola and was unsuccessful. (Castro informed one of our own diplomats that he knew about the impending invasion ahead of time and that he attempted to notify President Neto in Angola and was unsuccessful, and there was a story printed in Time magazine.) 2,2 Printed in the transcript.,The fact is that Castro could have done much more, had he genuinely wanted to stop the invasion. He could have interceded with the Katangans themselves. He could certainly have imposed Cuban troops near the border, because they are spread throughout Angola, to impede the invasion. He could have notified the Zambian Government of this fact. He could have notified the Organization of African Unity. He could have notified the world at large that an invasion designed to cross and to disturb an international border was in prospect. And he did not do any of these things. At the present time, Mr. Castro has still not condemned the invasion of Zaire by the Katangan rebels. So, there is no doubt in my mind that just on the basis of these facts alone, my statement is true.,Rather than look backward, I would like very much for Mr. Castro to pledge himself and for the Neto government in Angola to pledge themselves to prevent any further crossing of the Angolan border which would permit future invasions of Zaire.,And, of course, we would also relish the withdrawal of Cuban troops in the future, both there and Ethiopia, and support for the American, British, and other efforts to bring about peace in the southern part of Africa.,Q. Would you be willing to see him on that subject?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think it's appropriate for me to see Mr. Castro now.,TAX REDUCTION,Q. Mr. President, Proposition 13 would appear to have sent some politicians into shock, including some in this town. You don't appear to 'be in shock, but I wonder if the California vote will have any influence on your possibly reassessing your own policies and approaches.,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously we will have to observe very carefully the developments in California in the future as the full impact of Proposition 13 is felt. It will reduce property taxes perhaps as much as 60 percent in California.,One of the reasons for the decision made by the citizens of California is that property taxes there are very high, compared to those in other parts of the Nation, most other parts of the Nation. The property valuations have increased rapidly, and the taxes levied have increased rapidly. That, combined with the well-known fact that the State government had accumulated $4 1/2 or $5 billion or so in surplus funds, I think, combined to increase the desire of California people to impose this limit on property taxes. Those factors would be unlikely to prevail in other States of the Nation at this time. But the 2-to-1 margin of approval by the California people to restrain public spending and taxation is obviously a message that's been well received and observed by all of us throughout the country. I think this is not incompatible with the fact that we want to hold down spending, we want to reduce taxes at the Federal Government level.,There will be some indirect impact on the Federal Government now and more direct influence in the future, because there's no doubt about the fact that unemployment will go up in California, as government workers are laid off because of stringent budget requirements. And, of course, our unemployment compensation payments will have to increase. Also, I think we have about 50,000 CETA jobs, comprehensive education training administration jobs worked out jointly with local governments. Many of those may be in danger.,We have no way yet to anticipate what other consequences will accrue. But all of us are concerned about the budget levels, about unnecessary spending, about more efficient operation of government, and about lower taxation. These were proposals that had already been made by us here in Washington. But I think they strengthen support now in the Congress for those considerations.,COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,Q. Mr. President, the head of the Community Services Administration testified yesterday in Federal court that some of your top aides, including Frank Moore, asked the CSA to cut off funds to the Zavala County Economic Development Corporation. Why did your administration want to cut off funds to this Texas-Mexican American group?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there has been—I don't know many details about the proposal, but I do know that the Governor of Texas had complained earlier about the way the funds were managed, and this question was raised with the CSA. Later after the CSA, following an investigation, decided that some of the funding should be either cut back or terminated unless the management was improved, the people involved in the Zavala County effort tried to get the Federal Government to reverse its decision.,When that request was refused, the Zavala County officials went to court. A decision was made by Grace Olivarez, the Administrator of CSA, that the Federal Government position was the proper one. And we are prepared to go to court and to have the full information revealed to the court, and let the court decide whether it should be administered or not.,Q. I would like to follow that up.,THE PRESIDENT. Please do.,Q. Why did you claim executive privilege on the nine memos regarding that, from various aides to you and so forth?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think as a general rule, when I have a wide range of advice coming to me following the complaint of a mayor or a Governor or a State legislator or some other responsible official, when some of the complaints are based on hearsay or allegations or personalities or specific criticisms of the qualifications of administering officials, it would not be appropriate to reveal all those memos to the public.,This is something that's been honored for generations in our Government. And I think that if there was a possibility that those kind of confidential memoranda would later be made public, when they have to be very frank and open and free expressions of even contradictory views, there would be a tight reluctance on the part of my subordinates to give me free advice, because they would have to assess every document presented to me or every expression of opinion to see whether or not it could stand up to scrutiny later on for public analysis maybe 2 years later.,So, I think the confidential privilege of having my own subordinates give me free advice without their memoranda being revealed to the public is something that I would have to preserve.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,CUBAN AND SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN AFRICA,Q. Mr. President, other than being critical of the Cubans and the Russians for their involvement in Africa, what can this Government do specifically to discourage any further involvement in the future? And specifically, have you made a decision about any possible retaliatory action against the Cubans, in the way of trade or travel restrictions, or against the Soviet Union because of the recent activities in Africa?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't contemplate any retaliatory action. As you know, we have a trade embargo against Cuba at this time, and we do not have diplomatic relations with Cuba. We do have a representative in Washington and in Havana that provides us communication service, if nothing else.,We are doing the best we can to acquaint the world with the hazards and the consequences of increasing involvement of the Soviets and the Cubans in Africa. I think it's accurate to say that they take advantage of local disturbances and move in with massive intrusions, both of military weapons, which contribute to further bloodshed among Africans themselves, and when they are permitted by the local government, they send in large quantities\nof troops. There are now more than 20,000 troops by Cuba in Angola. This number has increased in the last 12 months. And we believe that in Ethiopia there are more than 15,000 Cuban troops there now, even though the armed combat in the Ogaden area between Somalia and Ethiopia is over.,I think drawing public opinion to this, not only in our country but around the world, has been relatively effective. We now have the prospect of a further armed outbreak between Eritrea and Ethiopia. And I would hope that our expressions of concern would induce the Cubans not to become involved in that fighting itself.,I think it's time for the Cuban troops to withdraw from Ethiopia. Ethiopia has been heavily armed now by the rapid intrusion of Soviet weapons to them after Scumalia did attack in the Ogaden area. I think Ethiopia is perfectly capable of defending themselves without Cuban troops, and it would certainly be contributory to world peace if Cuba would withdraw. But I think other than acting in a way to acquaint the world with their actions, the only other thing that we can do is, through peaceful means, to provide some strength to nations that do want to be autonomous, that do want to see African problems settled by African people themselves.,And we have provided a limited amount of economic aid, some limited military aid on occasion. The other thing that we are trying to do is involve multinational organizations to help in controlling outside intrusion into Africa.,The Organization of African Unity is a good organization, but it's been relatively reluctant in the past to deal with very controversial issues. And quite often the African nations themselves are divided on the controversial issues. The United Nations is one to whom we have turned, and we are working under the auspices of the United Nations in trying to deal with the Namibian question. I think you know that in Rhodesia and Namibia, we are working with other countries in trying to bring about majority rule and a peaceful settlement. We have had no help at all from either the Cubans or the Soviets, trying to deal with these very sensitive questions.,So, I think these brief things that I've outlined are some of the things, short of armed involvement—which we do not intend to do—to bring about some lessening of the Cuban-Soviet intrusion into Africa.,Q. I have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead.,Q. President Nyerere has been critical, at the same time, of our involvement in Africa. There are people in your own administration who have been critical, who think that we've made too much of the Cuban activities. Is there a possibility that all the recent criticism may in some way endanger potential resolution of other more serious problems in Africa, like Ethiopia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think any military disturbance in Africa, when exacerbated by the intrusion of foreign troops and weapons, tends to spill over across other borders. One of the things that made it so important to draw the line on Cuba and, hopefully, the Katangans in the future, in the violation of Zairian borders, was that principle of leaving those international borders undisturbed.,I think the reason that Nyerere expressed concern was that he thought that we were supporting a so-called pan-African force, that we were developing a strike force of some kind that could be used whenever called upon to go to anywhere in Africa to try to intercede militarily to bring about peace.,This is a proposition that we have never considered. Our only involvement has been for the Shaba province in the southern part of Zaire to try to stabilize the situation there. And, as you know, we've only provided logistical support to other nations; we've not provided any troops and don't intend to. So, that's the limit of our involvement, and I don't think we'll go any further than that.,DAVID G. GARTNER,Q. Mr. President, in light of your code of ethics pledge never to appoint anyone with a conflict of interest or even the appearance of conflict, how do you justify appointing former Humphrey aide David Gartner to the commission regulating commodities, when he had accepted for his children $72,000 in stocks from a major commodities dealer, Dwayne Andreas? Did you know these facts before you made the appointment?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't.,Q. How do you justify it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I believe that the Senate committee and the full Senate did have this information before they decided that Mr. Gartner was qualified. Also he has pledged himself not to become involved at all in the consideration of any matter that related to that particular company. So, although I didn't know about it before I submitted his name, we knew about this before the Senate committee and the Senate at large considered his appointment.,It was approved overwhelmingly, as you know.,Q. You believe it does not constitute a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict?,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. I think that the circumstances and the facts have been made known thoroughly, so far as I'm able to tell. In spite of this, accommodating this, the Senate did approve his appointment, and he has pledged himself not to become involved in any matter that related to that particular company.,TAX REDUCTION,Q. Mr. President, to get back to Proposition 13, sir, today Budget Director Mcintyre called it wishful thinking to suggest that communities in California could ask the Federal Government to bail them out of difficulties with their local payrolls and so on. How do you—there was an indication that he was speaking for you on this. Was he, and how do you feel about that? And if you were to get such requests from localities, what would you tell them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, within the constraints of the presently existing programs for transportation, education, for air and water pollution control, crime control, and the LEAA, CETA jobs for public service and training, of course we would be glad to help the communities of California on the same basis as we help the communities around the country. And if there should evolve a crisis in a community, after careful assessment, within the bounds of the law and administrative procedures, we would obviously help them.,The Federal impact of the California decision will be felt long in the future. I think with a $5 billion surplus that presently exists in the State government for several months in the future, this can be used, as Governor Brown has very wisely proposed, to deal with those special needs.,Following that time, of course, we'll have to assess what role the Federal Government might play. But I don't think there would be any possibility of our passing a specific law just to deal with California. The reason for the interrelation on taxes, for instance, is to prevent double taxation. And I think even with the reduced taxes on property in California, the taxes, for instance, in States like Georgia or Alabama would still be quite a lot lower than those in California.,So, we still have no means, no inclination to single out California for special Federal programs just because they have lowered property taxes.,PRESIDENT'S FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES,Q. Mr. President, as a Presidential candidate you often cited the need for timely financial disclosure as a means of avoiding conflicts of interest, or appearance of it. And yet, as President, you have not yet released your income tax filing from last year, nor your 1976 nor your 1977 net worth statements, as you pledged to do. My question is, what are your plans with regard to disclosure?,THE PRESIDENT. Jody Powell now has all those data, and they are available for release. The reason we held this up is because we had an Internal Revenue Service audit of my 1975 and 1976 tax returns. I've forgotten the exact figures, but one of the years we had no change at all in the tax return. The other one, when I was Governor, I put in normal contributions as a State employee into the retirement system. When I got the money back at the end of my service as Governor, there was a $350 increase in value because of interest earned, and we did not pay income taxes on that. We owe $160 back taxes.,In the analysis of that year, however, the Internal Revenue Service found that there was owed to me from a previous year either $5,000 or $6,000—I've forgotten the exact figures—in back taxes. So, I will have to pay $160, approximately, to the IRS, and I will get a $5,000 or $6,000 refund that I had not known about. [Laughter] But that confirmation from the IRS just came to us this morning, and my wife came over at lunch and told me about it. That's what Jody has been waiting for. It's good news.,ARMS EMBARGO AGAINST TURKEY,Q. Mr. President, Turkey has openly stated that she is in a very bad situation in a military incapability. What is the alternative of the U.S. Government if the embargo is still not lifted and if Soviet Russia proposes a military aid to Turkey in this very desperate situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I would guess that Turkey would be reluctant to turn away from her historical alliance with the Western nations, those nations of NATO. Obviously we are not the only source of weapons or supplies for Turkey. And even under the present provisions of the arms embargo, the Congress last year did approve the sale, I think, of some F-4's, some fighter planes to Turkey; about $90 million worth.,Turkey has been very greatly disturbed because of the arms embargo, brought about, I think, 3 years ago by the fact that Turkey did violate the American law in using American-supplied weapons to go into Cyprus. I think that it's accurate to say that the Congress had good intentions 3 years ago when the embargo was enforced in hopes that it would have beneficial results.,The fact is, as I said earlier, it has not had beneficial results. It has driven a wedge between Greece and Turkey, between Greece and the United States, between Turkey and the United States, and it's weakened the alliance of Turkey and Greece toward NATO, and has, I think, brought into a deadlock or perpetuated a deadlock on Cyprus.,So, we've tried it; it didn't work. And my guess is that we will continue, we and the other NATO Allies, to include Turkey in all the plans—we will give them adequate supplies for their own defense within the capabilities of our nations and in compliance with the law.,My hope and my expectations are that the Congress will remove the embargo this year.,RIGHT TO PRIVACY,Q. Mr. President, on May 24, your Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Civiletti, urged Congress to pass a law that would require an American citizen to go to court to protect the privacy of his own personal records, and he said that to expect the Government to show reasonable cause to believe that a crime was involved was \"just not realistic.\",Now, as a leader in a world campaign to expand human rights throughout the world, how do you justify your administration's trying to punch holes into individual rights here at home?,THE PRESIDENT. My analysis of the attitude of the Attorney General is that he has been a foremost proponent of protecting individual rights. He has never deviated from this commitment so far as I know. I'm not familiar with the particular case to which you refer, and I'm hesitant to comment on it without being more thoroughly familiar with it. But if you would provide it to the Press Secretary, I'll be glad to try to answer it more definitively.,WILMINGTON 10,Q. Mr. President, Congressman Don Edwards has suggested that the administration file a friend of the court brief for the Wilmington 10, since no action has been taken on the part of the administration. Do you plan to follow up with a court brief, and if not, why?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. As you recognize, the case has been in the past in the Federal court. My understanding is that this group through their attorneys have now filed in the Federal court for some relief. And I think the Attorney General in the past, the Justice Department has inquired into the proper treatment of these defendants. But I don't believe that the Attorney General has ally intention that—certainly that he's relayed to me—of joining in as a party to the Wilmington 10's application in court.,FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR NEW YORK CITY,Q. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Banking Committee will begin to consider the proposal you made to provide long-term Federal loans for New York City. How do you feel about the statements by some Senators that the banks and the unions in the city have not done enough and actually should be required to do more as a condition for further Federal aid, and about the apprehension by some Senators that this would allow excess spending by other cities?,THE PRESIDENT. My own belief is that the requirements placed on New York City, through their own volition and also because of the requests of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Blumenthal, are adequate. And the House of Representatives considered this matter very carefully and voted with a margin, I think, of more than 90 votes to go along with both short-term financing and also long-term financing.,My own belief is that the long-term financing is preferable. This would not endanger the Federal Government at all. We would not lose a penny on the guarantee of those loans; in fact, we would gain somewhat from interest paid by New York City on the guaranteed loans of the Federal Government. And I think it would remove the requirement that New York City act on an emergency basis in just 2 or 3 years at the most, when if they were given 7 or 8 years to work out of their problems, with careful constraints and monitoring of their actions, this would be a much more businesslike approach.,It would also let the labor unions, with their retirement funds, private investors, the banks, and others in New York, the sale of bonds themselves, which would be guaranteed by the Federal Government, and action by local and State officials to be much more carefully planned and much more harmonious.,So, for all practical purposes that I have been able to consider, I think that the long-range guarantee of those borrowed funds, those debts of New York City, is the best approach. My hope is that even though the committee may be much more averse to the proposal, that on the Senate floor itself, that the vote will be favorable and that the Senate will emulate what the House has done and approve those loan guarantees for New York City.,HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION,Q. In addition to the impending trial of Anatoly Shcharanskiy, who you have very vigorously denied was a CIA agent or had any intelligence functions, the Soviets have now arrested and imprisoned Vladimir Slepak, who you cabled in a telegram November 1976 you would make a cardinal element of your policy when you were elected, his defense and the defense of other Soviets who have been accused.\nDo you regard the arrest of Mr. Slepak and some of the other Soviet actions in this field as a personal response to your human rights campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't believe it's a personal response to a campaign that I have launched on human rights. I think the fact of the matter is, long before I came in office, the Soviet Union voluntarily signed the agreement at Helsinki, the last portion of which guaranteed certain basic civil rights within the boundaries of individual nations.,It's not as though other nations were intruding into the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union voluntarily agreed to meet certain standards on the protection of the rights of its own citizens. There was set up a group within the Soviet Union and other countries to monitor compliance with the agreement, which the Soviets themselves had signed, and a substantial portion of that group in the Soviet Union have now been either harassed or imprisoned or tried, and I think this is something that is continuing.,I don't believe that it's an attack on me. 1 think it's a matter, as I said in my speech in Annapolis, of whether or not the Soviet Union can stand internal dissension and monitoring of the actions of the government by private citizens or private citizens groups.,I have expressed in the strongest possible terms, both publicly and through diplomatic channels, our concern about the actions of the Soviet Government. And I believe that even though they obviously have a right to make decisions within their own country, this works against the best interests of harmony and peace between the Soviet Union and other countries, because they look with concern upon the attitude of the Soviet Union towards its own citizens and they see in these actions a violation of an agreement, a solemn agreement, which the Soviet Union voluntarily signed.,Q. May I follow that up, Mr. President? Some of the people who have been arrested have said you have ceased to talk about particular cases, that you just speak now about human rights in general and that has left them victim to the Soviet crackdown.,Have you, in fact, ceased to come to the defense of people like Mr. Slepak and Mr. Shcharanskiy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you just mentioned three cases, and—maybe you mentioned four. I've commented on all of those, and I think that it's important for the world to monitor what goes on in the Soviet Union. I have not avoided a reference both publicly and privately to the Soviet Union on specific cases, and I intend to continue to do so.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-05-25","text":"Held in Chicago, Illinois,THE PRESIDENT. It's always good for me to visit Chicago, one of our most beautiful cities and, perhaps, the best managed large city in our country or perhaps the world. This afternoon I have a brief statement to make, and then I'll be glad to answer any questions that you might have.,U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,Our action to help rescue those who have been threatened in Zaire has virtually come to an end. Our transport aircraft, having completed their mission, will be returning to their bases within the next few days. I know that I speak for all Americans in expressing my abhorrence and distress over the violence and the killing that resulted from the Katangan invasion from Angola into Zaire. As great as the human tragedy was, it could have been much worse for the European nationals and for the Zairians, and the consequences much more severe for that country, if we had not joined in with our allies in a common effort.,Our action in Zaire was an appropriate and measured response to the situation. In this endeavor, we demonstrated both our ability to cooperate with our allies and our willingness to consult fully with the Congress before taking any actions. I imposed strict limits on the scope of our involvement, and they were rigorously observed. I'm gratified that we had the full support of congressional leaders before and during the rescue efforts in Zaire.,The Government of Angola must bear a heavy responsibility for the deadly attack which was launched from its territory, and it's a burden and a responsibility shared by Cuba. We believe that Cuba had known of the Katangan plans to invade and obviously did nothing to restrain them from crossing the border. We also know that the Cubans have played a key role in training and equipping the Katangans who attacked.,Our action to support the rescue efforts in Zaire was taken pursuant to present law and under my constitutional powers and duties as Commander in Chief. However, the tragedy in Zaire as well as other recent developments has caused me to reflect on the ability of our Government, without becoming involved in combat, to act promptly and decisively to help countries whose security is threatened by external forces.,Our military and economic assistance programs are one of the most important means of assisting our friends. Some of the legislation governing these foreign aid programs has the effect of placing very narrow limits on where and when they can be used. Some of these limitations, though they were enacted many years ago and under special circumstances, continue to be entirely appropriate and advisable today. Others may be outmoded. For that reason, I have concluded that we should review the full range of legislation which now governs the operation of these programs. I've asked the Secretary of State to conduct this review and to consult with Congress constantly in preparing the study for me. We want to take a careful look at whether our legislation and procedures are fully responsive to the challenges that we face today.,I will meet with the congressional leadership myself in the near future, so that we can reach a joint decision on the appropriate steps to be taken.,As for the Clark amendment, which prohibits action in regard to Angola, I have no present intention of seeking its modification, nor that of any other special piece of legislation. Any proposal for modifications will await our review of all restrictions and consultations with the appropriate committees of the Congress.,In the meantime, the existing provisions of law will, of course, be faithfully observed by me. But also in the meantime, we must resist further restrictions being attached to legislation now before the Congress.,As we consider new legislation, it is vital that we recognize our need to be able to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. The foreign assistance legislation now pending in Congress contains several proposed restrictions on Presidential authority in economic and military aid programs. While I am prepared to report to Congress and to remain fully accountable to the American people, I will oppose further restrictions. I do so not necessarily because I intend to exercise my authority in the areas in question, but to preserve Presidential capacity to act in the national interests at a time of rapidly changing circumstances.,I believe that the congressional leadership and the American people will support this position.\nThank you very much.,I'd like to now call on Melody McDowell for the first question.,QUESTIONS HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL,Q. Melody McDowell, Chicago Defender. Critics of the Humphrey-Hawkins bill maintain that those who would stand to benefit would largely be going from one form of welfare to another, because the jobs that are being sold out are not those that would allow for marketable skills. Along those lines, what kinds of programs have you or do you plan to institute which would allow those who are impoverished to receive not only a job but also to gain marketable, career-oriented skills, particularly among black youth where the unemployment rate is disproportionately higher than any other group?,THE PRESIDENT. The Humphrey-Hawkins bill does not include specific programs designed to reduce unemployment. The Humphrey-Hawkins bill devises a system by which the President, the Congress, State and local governments, the private sector, can work together with a common goal of reduced unemployment over a period of years.,This legislation puts a constraint on me, as President, when I put forward a proposal to Congress, when I put forward a budget, for instance, to explain to the Congress how it will be impacted by and how it will help the unemployment rate in the country.,In the last 16 months, since I've been in office, we've seen a dramatic reduction in the unemployment rate. We've added a net increase of 5 1/2 million jobs; the unemployment rate has dropped from about 8 percent down to 6 percent on a nationwide basis. We still have a very high unemployment rate, however, as Melody pointed out, among young people, minority groups, and, in some areas, women. We have sharply focused Federal programs to put people back to work. And the National Alliance of Businessmen, the labor organizations, and others are also helping us, for instance, with veterans, with minority groups, and with young people.,Sixteen months ago, one of the highest unemployed groups in the country were Vietnam veterans. They now have a lower unemployment rate, because of these specially focused programs, than the average American who are in their age group.,And as we've put the general populace back to work, we can focus much more narrowly now on those who are the so-called hardcore unemployed, that is, the last ones hired and the first ones to be fired.,So, the Humphrey-Hawkins bill has nothing in it that would put excessive constraints on the American public or government. It gives us a framework by which we can plan together to continue to bring down an unemployment rate that has been improved but which is still too high.,SOVIET POLICIES AND SALT,Q. Mr. President, Frank Cormier, Associated Press. Former President Ford suggested today there should be an interrelationship between progress on the SALT and Soviet willingness to show restraint in Africa. Do you agree with this position?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I read President Ford's statement that he made today, and I think that his analysis is that we ought not necessarily to let Soviet action in other areas interfere with the progress of SALT. But he pointed out, and I agree, that unless the Soviets do honor the constraints on basic human rights, unless they also honor constraints on their involvement in places like Africa, that it will have a strong adverse effect on our country and make it much more difficult to sell to the American people and to have ratification in Congress of a SALT agreement if it should be negotiated between me and Brezhnev and those who work under us.,So, I never have favored the establishment by me or Brezhnev of a linkage between the two, saying that if the Soviets and the Cubans stay in Ethiopia, for instance, we would cancel the SALT talks. I think that the SALT agreement is so important for our country, for the safety of the entire world, that we ought not to let any impediment come between us and the reaching of a successful agreement. But there is no doubt that if the Soviets continue to abuse human rights, to punish people who are monitoring the Soviets' compliance with the Helsinki agreement, which they signed on their own free will, and unless they show some constraints on their own involvement in Africa and on their sending Cuban troops to be involved in Africa, it will make it much more difficult to conclude a SALT agreement and to have it ratified once it is written.,Q. Mr. President, Wes Pippert, UPI.,THE PRESIDENT. I'll get you next, Wes. Let me get—,ILLINOIS MILITARY INSTALLATIONS,Q. Mr. President, Dick Kay, WMAQTV. One of the Democratic candidates you are here in Chicago to campaign for, Alex Seith, says Illinois will be crucial to you for reelection in 1980, that your popularity is on the wane here, and that one thing hurting it is the possibility of closing at least three bases in Illinois—Fort Sheridan, Great Lakes Naval Station, and Chanute Air Force Base. I wonder, sir, if you are going to have any private conversations with local Democratic officials to heat up the relationship, so to speak, and if you have any comment on the possibility of those bases staying open?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have to say that I flew from Washington to Chicago on Air Force One with several members of the Illinois delegation, I think almost all the Democrats. They very quickly brought up this subject and discussed it thoroughly with me. And I have already had a chance to discuss this with Mayor Bilandic on the way in from the airport and with Adlai Stevenson, the Senator, who was with us also.,There's no doubt that if, say, these three major bases were closed under my administration, it would be a severe political blow to me. I think it's accurate to point out, though, that we'll make the decision in the final analysis not on the basis of political considerations, but on the basis of what's best for the national defense of our country now and, prospectively, in the future. The fact that these bases are on a potential list to be assessed has no significance at all.,For instance, if we have three major Marine recruit training facilities in our Nation and the Defense Department decides that we only need two of them and will close one, they put all three on the list to be assessed, so that after their assessment is complete, they will present to me and to the Congress proposals for the closing down of a base or changing its character. But before that is done, there will be 9 or 10 months of very careful analysis, plus a very careful study being done, which will continue for a long period of time, about the economic consequences to that area and to the country if it is closed down.,So, you've got the military assessment of need, a very long list—very few of the bases will actually be closed in the final analysis, not more than a third or so—and the economic consequences if a base is closed. So, I recognize the political consequences. But even then, I'll have to make a final judgment, and so will the Congress, on the basis of what's best for our country, not how much a local community might react adversely if a decision is made against them.,PRESIDENT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ILLINOIS DEMOCRATS,Q. Sir, will you have any private discussions to warm up the political relationship with the Cook County organization?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've already begun those discussions. I was met by many of the candidates for office at the airport. All the Members of the House of Representatives are running for reelection, as you know. I met with them today. I've already met and ridden in and been up in my hotel room with Mayor Bilandic, who also happens to be here. Obviously, one of the reasons that I came here to Chicago is not only to meet and address the legislature tomorrow morning, which will be a bipartisan effort, but to help the Cook County Democrats and the Illinois Democrats win in the fall.,And my heart's in it. There is no difference of opinion between me and the Democratic candidates or leaders here about what should be done by the Illinois people in the elections this fall.,U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, a question about Africa again. Can you be more specific in the kinds of changes you would seek in this review? For instance, how do you feel that your hands are tied in extending aid to these nations in Africa? And further, under what conditions would you want to be able to extend aid, lethal or nonlethal, to such groups as the opposition forces in Angola?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have no intention of getting involved in the conflict in Angola. This is not my intention at all. But the Congress has had an increasing inclination recently, beginning long before I came in office, to impose one-House vetoes and to put very tight constraints on what countries we could give any aid to and prohibit even World Bank loans for countries, say, that produced competitive crops in the United States. For instance, last year the Congress attempted to impose a prohibition against any loans by the World Bank against a country that produced sugar products because it competed with sugar produced in our own country, or to prevent any aid being given to a country that produced tung (palm) 1 oil because it competed with soybean oil grown in our own country.,1 Printed in the transcript.,That means that we are prohibited from giving much needed friendship, mutual support, building up a trade relationship, giving aid when it's necessary to countries that might desperately desire our help, but be forced, because of an absence of it, to turn to the Soviet Union or to turn to Eastern bloc countries to help them sustain themselves.,There's a borderline region where I think the President ought to exert leadership and authority, keeping the Congress and the American people informed about countries that are not democracies, that might be socialistic in nature, but who don't want to be dominated by the Soviet Union or the Eastern bloc countries.,Some of them are already very good friends of ours. For instance, we are prohibited, except in the special circumstances, from giving any aid to Zambia. President Kaunda was here this past week. He's a very fine African leader whose friendship we want. Tanzania is another one. President Nyerere is one of our good friends now. He wasn't 3 or 4 years ago. Another one that would be an even more borderline case would be Mozambique, with Machel being the President.,I think that many of these African leaders are very strongly nationalistic in their attitude. They don't want to be dominated by us or anyone else. But if we are prevented from giving them any aid of a peaceful nature, even food, then they've got to turn somewhere else. And it ties my hands too much. It might be that when the Congress passes an amendment like this on a foreign aid bill that the reasons are sound, but then times change. Maybe after a year or 2 years, when that provision is still on the law books, there might be different leaders or different political circumstances there. I can't act to deal with the changing circumstance.,I might say that this problem was raised not by me with the Congress but by congressional leaders with me. And I'm not going to advocate any changes in present law until we have thoroughly discussed it with the congressional leaders in both Houses, both Democrats and Republicans. But I am opposing any tightly restraining amendments that are now being proposed by the Congress on the foreign aid legislation that we are considering this year.,BARGE CANAL FEES,Q. Mr. President, if Congress sends you a public works bill with fees on waterway users at the level set by the Senate recently, will you veto that bill, as Secretary Adams said you would? And if so, sir, what alternative solutions would you propose for problems of Alton Lock and Dam 26?,THE PRESIDENT. I would veto the Senate-passed bill, yes. We asked the Congress to impose water user fees so that we might get back a part of the cost of operating locks, dams, other very expensive waterway facilities, and, also, to get back part of the cost of the original capital investment.,In my opinion, at the present time, the barge traffic has a major advantage over other forms of transportation. Also, these facilities, when they are modified or built anew, cost very great sums of money. And I believe that it's proper for the Congress to pass a law that would let very modest user fees be imposed so that those who do use those facilities that are built by the taxpayers all over the country at least partially share in the cost of them. This is the case with other forms of transportation. I think it ought to be the case with water user fees as well.,U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, I suppose most of these restrictions that were written into the law were written with the idea of keeping the United States from becoming bogged down in another Vietnam. And I wonder, sir, do you see a comparison in the choices you now face and the choices that were faced by President Kennedy and President Johnson back in those early days when we began to get in just a little ways and then more and more came on? What differences are there in this situation than what they faced?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think there's any comparison at all. In my opinion, if President Johnson, President Nixon, President Eisenhower, Kennedy were in office now, having experienced the Vietnam war, they would be very cautious and very careful not to become involved again militarily, and I have that deep feeling myself. We are talking here about the kinds of amendments that I described to Wes Pippert a few minutes ago, an amendment that says we cannot either give any aid or even vote in the World Bank Board of Directors for a loan to a foreign country, just because their form of government might be different from ours or because they've had some past or even present human rights violations or even because they produce competitive crops that might be competing with crops grown in the United States.,And there's a trend in Congress that is building up that puts too much constraint on a President to deal with rapidly changing circumstances. We do not want to send military forces into Africa to meet the challenge of Soviet and Cuban intrusion. The Soviets and Cubans are eager to give either military aid, and even the Soviets send Cuban troops into a country to fight.,We don't want to do that at all, but if we can't even give a shipment of wheat or give a sound commercial loan or vote for a loan by the World Bank to that same people or that same country, it means that I can't compete at all, even peacefully, with the Soviet or Cuban military action in those countries. That's what concerns me very deeply.,I might say that it's not just my concern. I had a long conversation yesterday with President Ford. He, I think, perhaps is at least as deeply concerned as I am, and the congressional leaders share this same concern.,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, when you were in Illinois campaigning, you said in Springfield and other places that if you were elected, we could depend on your doing something about inflation. And now we hear we're going to get a 9.3 for April and maybe the same for May. I wonder, sir, if you cannot control it, what political consequences will be to you and, secondly, would you consider taking a $20,000-ayear pay cut as suggested as a symbol for the Nation by Arthur Burns? 2,2\"Former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Federal Reserve System.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't remember Mr. Burns volunteering to take a pay cut when I was in Government. [Laughter] We have imposed zero increase on all executive pay in the Federal Government in the executive branch. The Congress is now considering imposing the same zero increase in high-level pay for Members of Congress and members of the judiciary as well. I think that's well-advised.,It's obvious to me, looking back historically, that a year ago or 16 months ago, the primary concern in our country was unemployment. But my goal has been, as President, to bring down both unemployment and inflation. Last year we experienced about a 6-percent inflation rate—6, 6 1/2 percent. Now our projections for this year are that it might be 6 1/2 or 7 percent. I think the 9 percent that you referred to is a temporary aberration brought about primarily by high food costs because of bad weather.,We are doing everything we can now to cut down the rate of inflation, short of wage and price controls, which I do not ever intend to impose, barring a national calamity. And we've gotten good support so far from some of the major business leaders and the labor leaders, as well. General Motors, for instance, A.T. & T. have already publicly announced that they are going to hold down the price of their products and also put tight constraints on executive salaries and other salaries over which they have control.,The worst economic problem, the worst domestic problem that we have now is inflation. And I had a meeting this morning with my Cabinet officers to tell them that the 1980 fiscal year budget, which I'm now considering in its early state, will be very tight, with severe cutbacks than what we had anticipated recommending to the Congress next January.,I'm perfectly willing to meet any special interest group, no matter how benevolent, and hold my own in spite of the political consequences. And that includes business, it includes labor, it includes education, it includes transportation, it includes farmers, it includes all those groups who are very sincere and very good Americans, but who have to recognize that this year, at least, and perhaps next year as well, we have got to constrain inflation.,And I'm willing to take the political heat to do it, because it's very difficult for any one of those groups to agree to join in a common effort. But I think if we can get a spirit of deep concern, which I feel, and a common willingness to sacrifice, then I can meet my commitments to the American people and hold down inflation.,As you know, the Government does play a major role. It sets a tone and it controls the depth of the deficit, and it orients where spending programs are implemented and how much taxes are collected. We've already cut back our tax proposal, which will result in a decrease in the deficit for next year of about $10 billion below what we proposed in January.,So, I'm determined to fight inflation. I can't do it by myself. It's going to take all Americans to help, but I recognize that I have the leadership role.,COMMUNISM AND AFRICA,Q. Mr. President, Walt Rodgers, with AP. It was just about a year ago at Notre Dame University you told Americans it was time to end their inordinate concern and alarm with communism. You seem to have fallen into that same preoccupation in Africa. My question is, what is America's vested interest in Africa, and why is it so important that we oppose the Soviets and Cubans on that continent?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have no fear of communism and no inordinate concern about communism. I'm not preoccupied with the Soviet Union. I don't fear them. I see the inherent strength of the United States economically and politically and militarily, and I'm determined, as President, to maintain that strength, which is, in almost every respect, superior to that of the Soviet Union.,We are concerned that the Soviets don't impose upon themselves the same constraints that we do. They have no reticence about becoming involved militarily in internal affairs in Africa.,I think the Organization of African Unity, the United Nations, the OAS in this hemisphere, and other similar regional and worldwide organizations can handle those disputes either within a country or across international boundaries without military forces being sent there. And that's the subject of my concern. And I feel that one of my responsibilities and one of the authorities that I have is to raise public awareness of it.,I think that Cuba, for instance, claiming to be a nonaligned country, is probably one of the most intensely aligned countries in the world. It's a joke to call Cuba nonaligned. They have military alliances with the Soviet Union, they act at the Soviet Union's direction, they are economically dependent upon the Soviet Union, they act as a surrogate for the Soviet Union.,And so, I think it's important for me as President, not being preoccupied or fearful, to let the world know what the circumstances are, because I think it's contrary to the hope that we all have for peace.,Q. But what's our vested interest in Africa?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a major vested interest in Africa. Our trade relationships are there. It's a tremendous developing continent. It goes all the way from ancient and highly developed civilizations, as you well know, in Egypt, in the northern part of Africa, through a burgeoning black population in the southern part of Africa.,In the past, we've not had an adequate interest there. And almost by default, because we came in ]ate or because we were not involved in a friendly, normal trade relationship where mutual trust and mutual friendships existed, we saw those countries turning to Marxist countries or Eastern countries for their support and their friendship. I think they would rather have a balanced relationship between us and the Soviets. I think in many instances they would rather have a democratic friend than to have a totalitarian friend. And I want to make sure they have that option.,VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,Q. Basil Talbott of the Chicago Sun Times. Recent polls have shown your popularity dropping. I guess the Harris poll released this week showed that either Senator Kennedy or former President Ford could beat you if the election were held today. And there are some reports that your aides have urged you to get out around the Nation and try to bolster that image. I wonder if your trips to places like this—is that one .of the purposes for this trip? And if it is, does that mean that you're a candidate for reelection? And whether you are or not, are you concerned about these polls?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not a candidate for reelection. That's a question that I'll decide much later.,I've never been particularly excited about very good polls, and I've never been particularly concerned about very poor polls. They go up and down, as you well know. And quite often, polls vary among themselves at a particular time.,We've tried to address the crucial issues of our Nation without being fearful about political consequences. In some cases, they are long overdue in being addressed. Reorganization of government, welfare reform, energy policy, the Turkey arms embargo, which is now coming up, Mideast arms sales, the Panama Canal treaties-these things are not easy to do. And I could very well make every decision that I have confronting me on the basis of how it would affect me in the polls. I don't think that's the best leadership attitude for me to have. But I am concerned about it. I wish my popularity in the country was much higher.,And obviously, one of my duties as President is to get out among the people throughout the country, because I learn in the process. And in having these regional press conferences like this, talking to your legislature tomorrow, meeting with Democratic people tonight, and so forth, which I've done periodically ever since I've been in office, even when my opinion poll results were very high, I think it helps me to understand our country better.,So, I'd say it's a combination of hoping the people will understand and therefore like what I do, or at least sympathize with me and, in the process, let me learn more about the country.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-05-04","text":"Held in Portland, Oregon\nTHE PRESIDENT. Good evening, everybody.,First of all, let me say that it's a great pleasure to be back here in Portland. I've come west on this trip to talk about the most pressing issues that we've faced-energy and environment, urban policy, agriculture, jobs, inflation, criminal justice, tax reform—and also to listen to what westerners have to say. Our national agenda is a full one. We have a lot to discuss and a lot to do.,FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM,One of the things at the very top of that list is making our Government work better. Reform of the civil service is the single most important step that we can take to ensure that the Government does what it's supposed to do meet the needs of the American people with a minimum of waste and a maximum of efficiency.,We all want a government that is worthy of confidence and respect. That's what civil service reform is all about. Westerners have an extra stake in the efficiency of the civil service in the Federal Government, because the Federal Government plays a larger role in the life of this region than perhaps in any other. For example, the amount of public land in the West gives you a special stake in Federal decisions in the way they are implemented.,Since so many critical decisions are made in Washington, and Washington is physically remote from the West, responsiveness of our Government depends upon the ability to learn your needs and to give them a full and a fair consideration. A government whose capital is a whole continent away has to be that much more alert and responsive and competent.,Two months ago, I submitted to the Congress a comprehensive program of reform for the civil service. My aim has been to clear a path for honest, hardworking, and industrious civil servants, and to give them the tools to get the job done.,I want to reward competence and dedication. I want to clear out the incompetence and the unresponsiveness that cheat the American taxpayer and give all governments a bad name. And I want to make government more effective by establishing clear assignments of responsibility and authority.,We need to put the work ethic back in public service, and we need to put merit back in the merit system.,We are trying to do that in a way that honors and protects every Federal employee's rights, while giving managers in the Federal Government the authority that they need to do their job.,It's virtually impossible now to discipline those Federal employees who fail to perform. This is an issue of efficiency and good management, but it goes beyond that. It's also an issue of the performance and the vigor, the very life of our democratic system.,I think the American people in the West and all across the country are going to be watching how the Congress handles this very difficult but very important assignment to reform the bureaucracy of our Government, the keystone of which is to make the civil service work better.\nMr. Cadera.,QUESTIONS,TIMBER PRODUCTION,Q. Mr. President, Jim Cadera, the Oregonian. Soon you will receive recommendations from your staff on implementation of your proposal to increase lumber supplies by cutting more public and private timber. Will you allow a variance from the policy of even-flow in national forest timber harvesting if it is recommended? And I have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what I am interested in, first of all, is to sustain the rate of harvest for our national forests on a constant basis in the years ahead. I would not want to have a crash program to harvest too much timber at this time. We now waste probably 6 billion board-feet of timber every year. So, we want to improve the efficiency of harvesting the public lands timber that we have now. We also want to make sure that after the logs are harvested, that the output of them is increased in efficiency, and we want to assess whether or not we need to improve or increase the harvesting on private and State lands.,But no matter what the recommendations are to me, I would increase production only to the extent that we could do this and have a constant future of sustained production in our national forests.,FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL,Q. Will you order the Office of Management and Budget to increase Forest Service job ceilings to allow intensive management and dramatically increase timber harvesting?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's one of the things that we'll be addressing within the next few weeks. We have, in the past, been putting out for sale 11, 12 billion boardfeet of lumber per year. And if there is a decision made to increase this harvest rate and to sustain our permanent harvest capability, then it might call for additional forest personnel. But I think, in any instance, what personnel we have working in our national forest needs to do a better job to enhance production of the forests that we have. There are about, I think, 300,000 acres of national forests in Oregon, Governor Straub told me, which was over-harvested in the past, which is now relatively nonproductive. This kind of over-harvesting in past years needs to be corrected. So, to improve the efficiency of production of the acres we have is a very important element, and it may take more personnel. If so, I would not hesitate to put them to work.,PRESIDENT'S INCOME TAXES,Q. Mr. President, have you resolved the IRS audit of your 1975 income taxes, and did you have to pay income taxes in 1977 and, if so, how much?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I had to pay income tax in 1977. I don't remember the exact figure, but it was a substantial amount. The 1975 audit, so far as I know, has not yet been completed. The last time I heard about it, the prospect was that it would be accurate within a couple hundred dollars.,NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL,Q. Mr. President, Boyd Levet, KGW, Portland. Federal officials tell us that there will be no permanent nuclear waste disposal program until the middle 1980's. Nuclear plants across the Nation will have filled their temporary storage facilities by then. What do you propose to do in the interim, and would you impose a storage site on a State that decided that it did not want to have a storage site?,THE PRESIDENT. We've had nuclear power for peaceful purposes now for more than 30 years. And I think you know that in addition to that, we've had the production of atomic materials for weapons even earlier. There never has yet been a workable Federal policy for disposing of nuclear wastes on a permanent basis in Richland, Washington, for instance, where early supplies were produced.,I visited there often while I was in the Navy, and the underground storage there has sprung some leaks in recent years that have been detected.,We are now looking into the prospect of storing nuclear wastes in underground caverns which are, perhaps, saltdome-type enclosures in some parts of the central Southwest.,We have also many commercial producers of atomic power who store their own spent nuclear fuel rods in various kinds of enclosures, both on the surface of the ground, in water tanks, and also buried underneath the surface of the ground.,By the end of this year, Dr. James Schlesinger will present to me a comprehensive proposal for a permanent waste disposal plan.,And to answer the last part of your question, I would not try to store nuclear wastes on any private lands in a State where opposition existed. There may be some very large military areas owned by the Federal Government where storage would be proper, and where there may be some opposition in a State. But we are trying to work that out now. One of the places we are looking at, for instance, is in New Mexico, and the process is including close consultations with local and State officials. It's a difficult problem that has not been resolved anywhere in the world yet.,NUCLEAR POWERPLANT SITING,Q. Mr. President, I'm Pat Wilkins from KATU, here in Portland. I would also like to ask a question about nuclear power, but it goes beyond the storage of nuclear waste.,I'm told by antinuclear groups here that their national goal is to shirt clown all nuclear plants. The tactic so far has been the same tactic that was used to shut down the Vietnam war—civil disobedience. Now, so far as our Trojan nuclear plant is concerned, that has so far resulted in about 200 arrests, and the consequent legal costs threaten to break the back of the tiny county trying the cases against them.,Now, more than that, the issue of nuclear power seems to be enlarging into an issue that could be seriously divisive for the people of the country as a whole. What I would like to know is, is this in your thinking, and do you have a plan to cope with such possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, our national policy is to permit planning, siting, and construction of nuclear powerplants. Obviously, this is a decision to be made by local and State officials. I think when I ran for President in 1976, there were referenda on the ballots in 22 States of varying forms to restrict the production of nuclear power in those States. In almost every instance, those referenda were voted down by the people who were residents of that area.,We have, I think, some very good existing regulations which protect the public from the siting of nuclear powerplants in places that are dangerous. And I believe that the best solution to this problem is for people to abide by the law and for the local or State governments and people, through referenda, to decide whether they want nuclear powerplants there.,Obviously, the State legislatures could pass a law prohibiting it. When I was Governor of Georgia, I did approve the construction of a nuclear powerplant in Georgia. It was located in a place that was acceptable to the environmentalists, of which I considered myself to be one. So, I think the best way to handle it is for people to abide by the law, let local and State officials work out the location of powerplants, and if people object to their being constructed at all, through the legislative process or through referenda, to prohibit their construction in a State.,PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGNING FOR DEMOCRATS,Q. Mr. President, concerning your trip out here to the Western States and the upcoming congressional campaign, some Democrats have been quoted as saying you may prove more a liability than an asset in the upcoming campaign. Assuming you disagree with that, sir, how do you respond, and how active will you be in the congressional campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if I bad beard that from any Democrat, which I haven't, I would certainly not require them to attend the political rallies and the events in which I participate. I have no control over Members of the Congress. But I've never heard one say that. As a matter of fact, hardly a day goes by that some Members of the Congress—Governors don't request that I go with them to campaign in their States. I've been in two States so • far already on the trip; one in Colorado, where there was a very strong and constructive relationship between me and the congressional delegations, some of whom were running for reelection, the Governors involved, and I think there's a very warm reception for me also.,So, I feel very good about the trip; don't think I'm a political handicap for Democrats who are running for office. If any of them think so, then their proximity to me is a voluntary matter.,NATIONAL WATER POLICY,Q. Connie Thompson with KOMO Television in Seattle, Washington. With growing pressure on your administration not to drastically reform the Nation's water policy, and also in light of the critical water supply picture, what, or how much of a reform do you plan to make in the Nation's water policy? What would be the reasons for any changes in your earlier plan for reform in that policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Long before I became President, there was a growing series of conflicts in this country concerning the use of water—conflicts between native Americans and white Americans; conflicts between environmentalists and those who desire increased power production from damming up free-flowing streams; conflicts between agricultural users, primarily for irrigation, and the producers of minerals and, particularly, fuel, like coal—and many of these longstanding disputes had begun to reach a crisis stage, resulting in interminable lawsuits, divisiveness, arguments, debates. And also, there had never been created in our country a comprehensive water policy that was evolved through close consultation among those conflicting groups.,We had never, either, had a way for Governors, mayors, Members of Congress, the President, the Cabinet, to consult with one another, to say, this is what we hope to do in the future with the water supplies that we have. And we've never had a way to set priorities on the expenditure of Federal and .other funds.,Quite often we have approved, in the Congress, dams and other water projects that had a very low benefit-cost ratio. Sometimes they cost much more than the total benefits ever to be derived from a water project, because a Member of Congress had enough seniority or influence or the patience to wait for his or her project to get to the top of the list and be financed with public funds. There's a limited amount of money that can be spent for these very expensive water projects. And I want to be sure that when we do approve a project—and there will be many approved, I'm sure, in the future under my administration and others-that the most needed projects are the ones that get funded first, and that we don't continue to waste money on projects that are not needed and that are wasteful and, sometimes, even dangerous.,So, I think the evolution of the water policy is a very constructive thing. It's long overdue. We will have the water policy options presented to me when I get back to Washington. This next week my own staff and Secretary Andrus will be meeting with the staff, Members of Congress, and also the Governors, and the following week I will meet with the Western Governors. And then I will make a decision on what the water policy of our country should be. Many of those decisions will have to later be considered by Congress.,But I think the whole process is a very constructive one, long overdue, badly needed, to be sure we do harness water and use water to the best advantage in the future, protecting the interests of the people who are involved.,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Are you willing to compromise on the number of warplanes you propose to sell to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in order to achieve congressional approval of those sales? And the second part of my question is, do you see the same linkage between Saudi Arabian support of the American dollar and oil prices that Sheik Yamani did last week when he looked at the sale?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Sheik Yamani has recently denied saying what was reported from him about a close interconnection between continued involvement with the American dollar and friendship between Saudi Arabia and the United States and the sale of warplanes to Saudi Arabia. I think he's denied that.,I think the proposals that we have made to Congress—to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel for warplanes—ought not to be changed at all, and I hope and expect that the Congress will approve this proposal as we submitted it.,Obviously, there will be a lot of hard work to be done in the Congress. We'll be presenting testimony to the House committee on the 8th and 9th of May—and we've also testified yesterday for 6 or 7 hours in the Senate committee. I think we will win tills proposal because it's right, it's good for our country, very badly needed.,One of the most crucial elements of a permanent maintenance of peace in the Middle East and the security of Israel is for us to have a relationship with the moderate Arab nations, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where they depend upon us to keep our word and where there is a clear recognition of the friendship and mutual trust between our countries.,We have provided these planes for Saudi Arabia, not to attack Israel; they are a defensive type of airplanes. And the Saudis have ordered configuration or appurtenances on the planes, fittings on the planes that are defensive in nature. So, they are designed and needed to defend Saudi Arabia. I see no reason to change any of those proposals.,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, Ted Natt of the Daily News in Longview, Washington. Today there was more bad news about the economy. The wholesale price index went up a larger than usual amount. Do you have a point in your mind beyond which you'll take stronger action on inflation than you've taken thus far and, if so, what is it, where is that point?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't intend to impose wage and price controls. We are consulting now with labor and business leaders to get them to reduce their rate of increase of both wages and prices below what they did the last 2 years. We call that deceleration of inflation. And I'm going to be very strict in vetoing any proposals that the Congress makes that would increase the deficit that we already face for next year's fiscal budget, 1979.,My own admonitions to the American people—I spoke to the lawyers today and asked them to hold down their rate of fee increases. They have increased professional fees, maybe news people included, in the last 5 years, even more than oil prices have gone up. And so, I think that this is going to be a matter for all Americans to address. Everyone wants other people to be the ones to take action to hold down inflation, to hold down wages, to hold down prices, but it is going to have to be a common effort. And I'll do everything I can within the power of the Presidency to hold down the inflation rate.,A year ago, my primary consideration was putting American people back to work. And the Congress rallied with me, the American people, the private business sector rallied with me, and we've had remarkable success in the last 15 months in bringing the unemployment rate down.,We added more than 4 million jobs last year. I think the unemployment rate. in Oregon went down 3 full percentage points. And now we're going to address the same degree of determination to holding down the inflation rate without abandoning our effort to further reduce the unemployment rate.,Q. Mr. President, to follow that up, if I may: General Motors' response to your deceleration program was to announce an average increase of about $100 on each, or most, new model lines. A.T.&T.'s response, with estimated profits this year of $5 to $6 billion, was a statement by Chairman deButts that A.T.&T. probably would need a rate increase this year. And the response of several unions has been that they do, indeed, consider the coal settlement as a pattern for wage increases next year of 10, 12, or 13 percent.,In the light of that, what possible assurance can you give the American people that there is going to be any progress in fighting inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't guarantee success. The only thing I can do is the best effort in my power. I can't mandate action by those people involved. That's not compatible with what I've heard from Tom Murphy, who is head of General Motors, or Mr. deButts, who's head of A.T.&T. My hope is still that from the automobile manufacturers—Ford, General Motors, and others—that they will hold their price increases below the 6 percent average for the last 2 years.,And we have two major labor settlements this year, as you know—railroads and Post Office employees.,We're going to do the best we can—I, Bob Strauss, and others—to hold down those wage settlements below the average that they got for the last 2 years on a nationwide wage-rate basis. And I believe we have a good chance to succeed. But it's going to take the concerted effort of all Americans to hold down the inflation rate. It's not something that government can do by itself. It's not something that one labor union can do by itself, nor one major corporation.,There's a common goal that we share not only with Americans but also with other countries. But it's a top priority in my economic package this year to hold down the inflation rate, and I hope that we'll have equal success as we did with unemployment last year.,INDIAN LAND CLAIMS,Q. Mr. President, I'm Randy Lewis, KEDO Radio in Longview, Washington. You mentioned native Americans a while ago. And that brings me to a question that's quite serious in the State of Washington, where there is growing resentment toward some land claims that native Americans are making, claiming treaty rights. There's also resentment that the Federal Government is taking an active role in supporting these land claims against the property rights of non-Indians. Are you aware of this feeling, and do you think there is a reassessment of this Federal role needed?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'm aware of the feeling, of course. As you know, the disputes between native Indians and other Americans have been growing in recent years, primarily through the Federal courts. The ruling in this area concerning harvesting of fish between Indians and other Americans has been one of great importance to me and, I know, of high interest to all the people in this area.,We've had our Secretaries of Interior and Commerce working with the Department of Justice, trying to evolve a compromise between Indians and other Americans to try to take this case out of court.,We had a similar case that came to a head in Maine. I appointed Judge William Gunter to work out a compromise between the Indians and other residents in that area, and, hopefully, we can reach a solution there.,The Federal Government is charged with the responsibility of representing the Indian claims. Secretary Cecil Andrus, Department of Interior, is in the audience here.,And this creates an additional problem for us, but what we want is fairness and equity between native Americans and others. The case is not one that I can resolve from the White House. We can use our good offices as an intermediary, sometimes add negotiating services, and the members of my Cabinet can work with all elements involved. But even then, we have to get permission from the judges in the Federal courts to intercede, even to that degree.,Congress has acted in several instances with legislation which I have signed into law. But it's a longstanding problem. It's one that I hope we can resolve in the next few years. There are high disputes on both sides, and great quantities of money involved. It's a serious problem, one that we did not create, but it's been growing in importance for decades.,That's about the best answer I can give you. I don't know an easy answer to it.,ANGOLA,Q. What is your view, Mr. President, of the South African military action against Angola taken today, and what can the United States do in this case?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, our Congress and my predecessor in the White House finally reached an agreement that we would not intercede in Angola, a decision with which I agree. We are not about to send American troops to Angola to participate in a war in that western African country.,We want to see peace maintained. There have been so-called UNITA forces under Savimbe, operating in the southeastern part of Angola ever since the last war a couple of years ago. President Neto, who heads up the government in Angola, has been quite concerned about this. There are about 20,000 Cubans, also, in Angola supporting the Neto government.,Savimbe has denied to some of the European leaders with whom I've talked any supply of weapons or supply or other armaments from South Africa. I think he does get supplies from some other sources, not from us. But we have no intention to intercede in any war in Angola.,PRESIDENT'S POPULARITY IN POLLS,Q. Mr. President, Don Porter, KGW TV News, here in Portland. Sir, before you arrived much was written and said and made of the fact you are perceived by critics to have been unresponsive to problems of the West. Today, there's a new national poll that shows only 29 percent of those questioned think you are doing a good or excellent job as President. Presumably, you don't agree with these perceptions. My question is, do you think these perceptions hamper you in what you are trying to accomplish, and if so, do you have plans to try to counter them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, one of the ways to counter them is to come to places where my policies might 'be in dispute or misunderstood and try to clarify the issues that are very difficult to solve and which involve not only me but involve the Congress, the Governors, mayors, and private citizens of our Nation.,We have addressed some issues that are very difficult to resolve. The unemployment rate was very high, the inflation rate was very high, the growth in our country was quite low and disturbing. We didn't have a strong enough relationship with the countries of Africa and Europe. The Middle East dispute has been going on for 30 years. We needed very badly and still need to have a SALT agreement with the Soviet Union. And we had been negotiating on the Panama Canal treaties for 14 years before I became President.,And we've tried to address these issues as strongly and as openly and as aggressively as is humanly capable to do. In addition to that, we've tried to bring some order out of chaos of some of the problems in the Federal Government—with welfare reform, the creation of a Department of Energy, to have a comprehensive energy policy for the first time, to put the civil service back in the proper working order, and all of these 'things cause some disturbance in the political structure of our country.,I feel very sure that almost all of the attempts that we have made are in the best interests of the American people. And I believe that as they are understood, that the present low rating in the polls will be improving. So, I am hopeful that my popularity in the polls will go up. I think any politician would feel the same, but I'm satisfied with the administration's progress so far. I've also found a very good reception on this trip to the West—better, I might say, than the last time I was out here.,Let me get Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, this week you and some members of your administration have indicated there is not a new SALT compromise reached when Secretary Vance was in Moscow. Could you tell us what the United States has on the negotiating table in terms of SALT negotiations and whether the chances are better than remote that you and President Brezhnev would meet this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not discussed any time for President Brezhnev to come here to the United States to meet with me. We extended him an invitation in the early days of my administration, because the last visit had been by President Ford to Vladivostok in the Soviet Union. I think the essence of it is that he is likely to come over here when we see a SALT agreement imminent, so that he and I, perhaps, can resolve the last, very few remaining issues that the negotiators can't resolve themselves.,Our determination is that any SALT agreement would protect the ability of the United States to defend itself against any conceivable attack. We would also insist upon the maintenance of equivalent capability, destructive power, between the nuclear armaments of our country and the Soviet Union. And on top of that, any SALT agreement would have to provide for adequate proof, verifiability of the other nation carrying out the terms of the agreement.,This is a very complicated subject. We have made a lot of progress in the last year, and my hope is that we can reach an agreement this year. But there are still several issues that have not been resolved.,Q. Have you put number figures, can you put number figures on what the United States is proposing at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the American proposal has been revealed 4 or 5 months ago with the number of MIRV's that can be kept, the number of landbased missiles that can be kept by each side, and the total number of missiles of all kinds that can be kept. That's our proposal, but we've not reached agreement on all those matters, because they are interrelated. Any yielding on our part involving one of those figures would have to result in an equivalent advantage to our country by the Soviets yielding on a comparable figure.,We have not reached any point yet for revealing the details of our recent discussions with the Soviet Union.,HELEN THOMAS [United Press International]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-04-25","text":"CIVIL SERVICE REFORM,THE PRESIDENT. Before I became President I realized and was warned that dealing with the Federal bureaucracy would be one of the worst problems I would have to face. It's been even worse than I had anticipated. Of all the steps that we can take to make government more efficient and effective, reforming the civil service system is the most important of all.,The civil service reform proposals which I submitted last month will return the civil service to some system of reward and incentive for the tens of thousands of superb public servants who want to do a good job for the American people. This will also give managers a chance to manage. It will reward excellence, good service, dedication, and will protect employees' vital and legitimate rights.,It will also expand the protection against political abuse that employees need in order to do their jobs well and will make our civil service one of the most dependable and one of the most effective and honest in the whole world.,Nearly everyone in our country will benefit from the civil service reform proposals. For those in private business, it will mean faster government action, less intrusion in the private sector of our economy. For taxpayers, it will mean that we get more for the money that we pay. For those who depend on government for help, it will mean better services to them, quicker, more effective.,And most of all, for the civil service employees, for the Government employees, it will mean that they can do their jobs better and more effective. They only have one life to live, and sometimes in a sacrificial way they want to dedicate their lives to public service, and this will let them do a better job.,When criticism and debate in the Congress lead to a stronger plan, then I'll support those changes. But I will object very strenuously to weakening our proposal. And I do object also very strenuously to false accusations, specifically one that's been raised recently that this will intrude into the privacy of public servants and injects politics and possible abuse into the system to damage those who serve the Government. In fact, to the creation of a merit protection board and an office of special counsel, political abuse is specifically removed.,I know that everyone wants a better government, particularly those of us like myself who are responsible for leadership and management of the United States Government.,In a way, I believe that our Nation is being tested these days. We have a period of relative calm, free from great crisis or threat to our national security, and we are being tested to see whether or not we can take advantage of this opportunity for improvement.,It will reveal, I think, whether we can deal with conflicting, narrow special interests and act in the national interest of our country.,Civil service reform is now before the Congress. It will test me and the Congress as well, and I believe that the Congress will give the right answer to the question: \"Can we have a better government?\" I think we can.,QUESTIONS,OIL IMPORTS,Q. Mr. President, where do you stand now on the possibility of imposing, by Executive order or administrative action, oil import fees, and how soon might you act? I understand a couple of your advisers are suggesting a May 1 deadline.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no one has suggested a deadline that early. As a matter of fact, we have just finished the fourth major element of a five-part, comprehensive fuel or energy program with natural gas deregulation. And now this is being recommended to the complete conference committee.,The next step is the crude oil equalization tax, which will be addressed by the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee in the House, representatives of them in a conference committee.,I've talked to the chairmen of both those committees about the crude oil equalization tax, the fifth element of our major proposals.,It's too early, I think, to consider administrative action. I still hope and expect that the Congress will act and will complete the fifth element of our energy plan and present the entire package as it should be to the Congress in one body.,ENHANCED RADIATION WEAPONS,Q. Mr. President, President Brezhnev has offered to not build the neutron bomb if you agree or the U.S. agrees to do likewise. Is that the word you're looking for to halt the program?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The Soviets know and President Brezhnev knows that the neutron weapon is designed to be used against massive and perhaps overwhelming tank forces in the Western and Eastern European area.,The Soviets, over a period of years, have greatly built up their tank forces and others, stronger than have the NATO Allies. The neutron weapons are designed to equalize that inequality, along with many other steps that our country is now taking.,The Soviets have no use for a neutron weapon, so the offer by Brezhnev to refrain from building the neutron weapons has no significance in the European theater, and he knows this.,We are strengthening NATO in other ways. Ourselves, our NATO Allies will meet here in Washington the last of May with a recommitment, which is already well in progress, for a long-range strengthening of NATO in all its aspects.,But this statement by Brezhnev concerning the neutron weapon has no significance at all.\nBob [Bob Jamieson, NBC News].,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, are you going to heed the calls of the congressional leadership of your own party and delay the formal submission of the package sale of warplanes to the Congress or break it up in any way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've not been asked by the leadership in the Congress to delay. I have had one Senator who came to see me about holding off on this proposal. Secretary Vance and I have been in close communication, both with one another and with leaders in the Congress, for a number of weeks concerning the arms sales package that will be presented to the Congress very shortly. This package will be presented in individual, component parts to the Congress. It's the only legal way to do it.,The Congress will act on those major sales proposals individually to Israel, to Egypt, and to Saudi Arabia. Each one is important. Each one completes a commitment that has been made by either me, or, even in the case of the Saudis and Israel, our predecessors for these sales.,I look upon them as a package, and if the Congress should accept a portion and reject another, then my intent is to withdraw the sales proposal altogether. But the Congress will not receive nor act on these proposals as a package. They have to act, according to the law, on individual items.,These proposals are in the national interest. I think it's important to our country to meet our commitments. The one that's perhaps the most controversial is the sale of F-15's to the Saudi Arabians. This was a promise that was made to the Saudi Arabians in September of 1975, to let them have a choice of F-16's or F-15's. They want these weapons for defensive purposes.,I recommitted this Nation to provide these planes both last year and again this year. And my deep belief is that, since in the Middle East our preeminent consideration is the long-range and permanent security and peacefulness for the people of Israel, that to treat the moderate Arabs with fairness and with friendship and to strengthen their commitment to us in return is in the best interests of our own country and of Israel.,We are negotiating or discussing these matters with the Congress. But there will be no delay of the sales proposal beyond the point where it can be completed by the time the Congress goes into recess-maybe 2 or 3 days, no longer than that.,Q. Mr. President, do you think it proper or do you think it right for the Foreign Minister of another government to interfere in the legislative processes of this Government? I'm talking particularly about your Middle East arms package here, legislation which you've said is in the best interest of the United States. Do you think it's right?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have made my decision about the arms sales package after very careful consideration, a close study of decisions and opinions expressed by my predecessors in the White House, careful consultation with the State Department and our Defense Department, our military leaders, and I made my recommendation to the Congress—I will make it shortly—on what I consider to be in the best interests of our own Nation with a well-balanced and friendly attitude toward our allies and friends in the Middle East.,In each one of these instances, the arms sales proposals were made as a result of requests by the governments involved. And I think that's the basis on which the decision should be made, by my making the request to the Congress, by Congress considering my request for approval of the sales on the best interests of our country as judged by me and the Congress.,TAX REDUCTION,Q. Mr. President, many Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee, including the chairman, are urging you to scale back your net tax cut to something under $20 billion. And the Federal Reserve Chairman today suggested that you delay the effect of whatever tax cut until next January 1st, all because apparently they feel that it's inflationary now, looking down the road.,Will you consider either of those suggestions?,THE PRESIDENT. No. A $25 billion reduction in taxes on the American people would not be inflationary. It is, in my judgment and the best judgment of the economic advisers who work with me, about the right figure. We only have about an 82-percent utilization of our production capacity now. We do not have excessive demand as a cause for inflationary increases in prices of our products.,We have a cycle of wage increases, price increases that kind of grow on one another. And I don't believe it would be advisable and I do not intend to change my recommendation that the net between the tax reforms and the tax reductions would approximately equal to $25 billion.,I think that the best time to make it effective is the 1st of October. I hope that the Congress can act rapidly enough to make the reduction effective then.,The last quarter's results of growth in our national products showed some leveling off. It needs to be kept strong and vigorous. If this tax proposal does not go through, by the end of 1979 it would cost every family in America, on the average, $600 in income, about $40 billion in reduced income, because of a constrained economy that did not continue to grow.,And if the tax reduction of $25 billion was eliminated, it would mean that we would have a million more people out of work by the end of the first 12 months after the tax reduction than we would have otherwise.,So, for all those reasons and others, I think the $25 billion in tax reduction on our people, which is needed and which would help them, is about the right figure.,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, just to follow up on the Middle East thing, I would like to pursue it just a little bit more maybe from a slightly different angle. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Dayan, has suggested that Israel might be willing to give up its own fighter planes in your package if the sales were stopped to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.,Now, in the light of your own professed interest in cutting back on foreign arms sales, would you consider withdrawing the entire package to prevent a new escalation of the arms race in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not. As I said earlier, the process through which we sell arms—and this sales proposal would be completed 5 years in the future, by—I think the last deliveries would be 1983—is initiated by a request from governments, foreign governments, that we permit the sale of arms to them. As I said earlier, we committed ourselves to help Saudi Arabia with arms sales to protect themselves in September of 1975.,At the same time, approximately, in the fall of '75, our Government committed to help Israel with their proposal by making arms sales available to them. Obviously, if any nation withdrew its request for arms sales, that would change the entire procedure.,I have never heard of Foreign Minister Dayan's statement that they did not need the weapons or would withdraw their request for weapons until today. Mr. Dayan is on the way to our country. He will be meeting shortly with the Secretary of State and others, and I think only after very close consultations with them can we determine whether or not Israel desires to go ahead with the arms sales commitment that I've made to them.,But I do not intend to withdraw the arms sales proposals after they are submitted to the Congress, and I do not intend to delay.,Q. If Mr. Dayan did in fact tell you that Israel would withdraw its request, would you then be willing to pull back the whole package?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't imagine that happening, and I would rather not answer a hypothetical question of that kind.,MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. You mentioned that Mr. Dayan is coming. I just wonder, sir, do you have any reason at all to feel optimistic that the negotiations between Israel and Egypt can somehow be brought off dead center?,I know Mr. Atherton's been in Cairo, and you've had consultations. What is the outlook now?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have reason to be optimistic, but I can't predict success anytime soon. This has been going on for 30 years.,I think compared to a year ago, for instance, remarkable progress has been made. After the visit of President Sadat to Jerusalem, there was a remarkable sense of excessive hope or euphoria that swept the world, that peace was imminent. Since then, I've met extensively with President Sadat and with Prime Minister Begin and also with the Foreign Ministers of the two countries involved. And there's still hope that we can move toward a peaceful settlement.,I think if there were not hope, that Foreign Minister Dayan would not be coming to Washington to meet with our own officials to explore further avenues for progress.,As you know, since Prime Minister Begin was here, Ezer Weizman, who is the Defense Minister of Israel, has been to Egypt twice (once) 1 to meet with President Sadat. So, discussions are going on and explorations are continuing.,1 Printed in the transcript.,And I am firmly convinced that both the Israelis and the Egyptians want peace. They both are concerned about the terms of peace. After years of hatred and even active combat, there's still an element of distrust about the future intentions of each other.,But I am hopeful that we can continue to make progress. My commitment is deep and irreversible. As long as I'm in the White House as President, I will continue to pursue, without any slacking of my interests or commitment, the avenue toward peace.,And I anticipate that now and in the future there will be temporary periods of discouragement and withdrawal of the negotiating parties. So, I think every evidence that I have both publicly and privately known is that both sides want peace and the progress toward peace is steady.,VIEWS ON THE CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, last week you used very strong language to criticize Congress for wasting a year on energy legislation, and you also urged Congress to be more responsive to the public desire for tax reform.,Since this allegedly laggardly, unresponsive Congress is controlled by the Democrats, and since congressional elections will be held this fall, doesn't this constitute an attack on members of your own party?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't characterize it as an attack. I think it was an accurate description of the fact that for 12 months Congress had had a very good energy proposal before it and had not acted conclusively on it.,The day after I made that statement, the negotiating team within the conference committee did resolve to their own satisfaction the question of the regulation and pricing of natural gas, one of the most difficult political questions that ever addressed Congress. This has been kicking around now for at least 30 years. I think Truman vetoed the first natural gas deregulation bill. I think it's a step in the right direction.,Now, out of the five major categories of proposals I made to the Congress a year ago, four of them have been resolved at least at the conference level, and now the remaining issue is the pricing of oil.,We, last year, imported $45 billion worth of oil, too much, and I believe the Congress is beginning to see that the public supports action on the energy legislation and that when they do act it will help our whole economy.,I think that one of the reasons that the stock market has gone up, I think almost 75 points in the last 2 weeks, unprecedented rise, is, among other things, a new commitment to fighting inflation and the apparent willingness of Congress now to act on the energy legislation—those two things.,So, I'm not attacking the Congress, but I reserve the right to point out the inactivity of Congress, which I think on occasion does inspire them to act more rapidly.,UNEMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, a few days ago you met with some top executives of big corporations to discuss inflation. Did you discuss unemployment at the same time? If so, could you tell us about that as it relates to unemployment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we did discuss unemployment. I pointed out to the executives who were here that in the last, I'd say, 12 months, because of the good action on the part of the Democratic Congress in putting into law our stimulus package, that we had had a dramatic drop in the unemployment rate, and that a year ago, they, around that table, including myself and the members of my Cabinet who were there, had been almost completely committed or concerned about unemployment. That is now going in the right direction. I think the last 3 or 4 months show that the unemployment rate is at 6 percent or a little above, almost 2 full percentage points less than it was 15 months ago, when I became President. This has got to continue.,We also discussed the fact that the focusing of Federal programs concerning reducing unemployment can now be placed upon those who are most difficult to employ—minority citizens, women, and others who are the last ones hired and the first ones fired, and the young people who also have a very high unemployment rate.,So, we are not slackening off at all on the employment question. The programs that we put into effect are still in effect. They are getting more and more specifically effective with different groups as time goes on. My belief is that the unemployment rate will continue to decrease, particularly among those groups that I've just described and, at the same time, we can tackle inflation with a much higher concentration of our own effort and commitment and public awareness.,The two are not in conflict. We've seen that when the last administration, which happens to have been Republican, concentrated on inflation by letting unemployment go up, it did not work. So, I believe the best thing is to do what we've already done, and that is to try to hold down inflation and bring down unemployment at the same time. That's what we are trying to do.,LOBBYING ACTIVITY IN CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, in view of the increased lobbying on the Hill, witness the Panama Canal and your civil service reform and all of this, can you support Senator Kennedy's new expected legislation on lobbies?,THE PRESIDENT. I strongly support the lobby control legislation that's now before the Congress. I'm not sure that I know exactly the terms of Senator Kennedy's own bill. The Congress will vote this week, the' House of Representatives will vote this week, on a very effective lobby control bill, a lobby reform bill, and I support that strongly.,It was one of the themes that I pursued during my own campaign for President. We've been actively involved in drafting it in the strongest possible terms, and I do support it.,INTEREST RATES,Q. Mr. President, were you surprised last week when the Federal Reserve raised the short-term interest rate, and have you any reaction to it?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't have any prior knowledge that the Federal Reserve was going to raise the interest rates. I do get a report frequently and regularly about the supply of money and how much it is increasing. I understand after the action was taken, because of an explanation by the Chairman to Charlie Schultze, that the reason they did raise the interest rates was because the money supply was increasing more rapidly than they desired or thought was advisable for our country. And obviously, as you know, the Federal Reserve Board is completely independent of me. They have no reason to consult with me before they make a decision, and don't do it as a matter of policy.,But I think that the interest rates ought to be kept as low as possible, and as you know, I can help to control that by the form of economic proposals I make to the Congress, the budget levels and so forth. And the Congress can help to determine that by the rate of taxation and the size of the deficit, and the Federal Reserve primarily by controlling in indirect means the supply of money.,But that's an independent action. I did not know about it ahead of time. I understand the reason that they did it. I would like to do everything I can—I know that Bill Miller would, too—to hold down interest rate levels.,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, your spokesmen have said that there will be written assurances from Saudi Arabia and Egypt that they will not use the warplanes against Israel in any future conflict. And further, various administration spokesmen have pointed out that the Saudi Arabian Government will be dependent on the U.S. for technical support for these planes, and this support could always be cut off in the event that a future conflict would start and that the Saudis desired to use the weapons against Israel.,Is it your understanding that both types of assurances will be in effect?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we would not sell the planes to the Saudi Arabians if we thought that the desire was to use them against Israel. I'm completely convinced that the Saudis want their airplanes to be used to protect their own country.,The Saudis have informed officials in our Government that they do not desire to deploy them at Tabuk, which is the airfield nearest to Israel, and I know for a fact that the configuration of the weapons on the F-15 that the Saudis have offered is primarily a defensive configuration. And for those reasons I feel sure that the problems that you described are adequately addressed in the proposals that I've made to the Congress and in the statements that the Saudis have already made.,NEW YORK CITY,Q. Mr. President, the long-term loan package for New York City is in a great deal of trouble on Capitol Hill. I'm curious, sir, just how much of a commitment are you prepared to make to push for that legislation in the coming weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's one of the major goals of our administration to have economic aid for New York City. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mike Blumenthal, has discussed this since the first day, first few days that we were in office, with the mayor of New York, Beame, and now Koch, and also with Governor Carey and other officials in New York—the labor leaders, the bankers in New York City, and others. We've also had close consultations with the committees in Congress.,We have proposed a package that I think would alleviate New York City's short-term and long-term financial problems. But a major part of the responsibility has got to fall upon the people in New York City itself.,Unless New York is willing to commit themselves and to prove to us that they can and will balance the budget through careful consideration of how money is expended to the levels of taxation involved, unless the leaders in New York City, both in and out of government, prove to us and the Congress that they will operate or cooperate together to put New York City back on a sound basis, I don't think it's possible for the Congress to pass the New York City legislative proposal that we have already submitted to the Congress.,I think that, so far, indications are that all persons involved—ourselves, the congressional leaders, and the New York City officials in and out of government—are committed to this common goal. So, I believe the Congress will pass the legislation. I think the proposal we made will help to solve New York City's problems without costing the American taxpayers anything. And I believe that it will bring all of us together in a much more cooperative way.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,TAX REDUCTION AND REFORM,Q. Mr. President, if I could just follow tip on an earlier tax question, how unfair do you think the tax burden is that this country now places on the middle class? And if you do think it's unfair, then why are you so insistent on pushing tax reforms that most people believe are going to hit the middle class the worst and on resisting a rollback in social security taxes that would also penalize the middle class?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me answer your last question first.,One of the things that we had to do last year was to bring the social security system out of near bankruptcy into a sound economic position. Two of the three major reserve funds for the social security were on the verge of bankruptcy, and the Congress had to increase the social security payments to keep the social security system sound. They acted courageously and properly in that respect.,In order to make sure that the taxpayers in all categories, with very few exceptions, have a net reduction in their taxes this year, even after paying increased social security benefits, that's where the tax reduction proposal comes in.,If the Congress should not act in accordance with my request and lower income taxes, then there would be a net increase in taxes paid by the middle-income groups.,Another factor that has not yet been adequately publicized is that those very people who pay high income taxes, those $20, $25, $30,000 citizens having that much income per year, will also get greater benefits when they retire. So, in a way it's kind of an investment for them.,We have a lot of abuses in the system that ought to be eliminated. Last year, for instance, one medical doctor, a surgeon, owns a yacht, and he took a $14,000 tax credit, tax exemption, for entertaining other doctors on his yacht. This is legal under the present law. Most American citizens don't have a yacht, and when they go for a small pleasure ride, if they do have a small boat, they can't deduct it as an income tax deduction. And when that doctor didn't pay his $14,000 in taxes, other average, working American families had to pay his taxes for him.,We've another instance that I recall from the statistics I've read, that one businessman charged off 338 lunches last year, more than $10,000 in 'so-called business lunches, more than many American families make in all. And the average, working American had to pay that guy's taxes for him. I think that's a gross abuse of the average American family. And that's the kind of corrections that we're trying to put in.,On Capitol Hill now there is concentrated an unbelievable number of highly qualified, very intelligent, very effective lobbyists trying to induce the Members of Congress to preserve those special privileges for people who have them because they are so powerful and so influential, now and in the past, that they could carve out for themselves some special deal in the income tax laws of our country at the expense of the average American family. That's where tax reform comes in.,So, tax reduction is important to make sure we don't put an extra tax burden on our people, even counting social security. Tax reform is necessary to let our tax code be simple and fair for a change. Both those changes, both those recommendations are urgently needed.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-04-11","text":"EUGENE C. PATTERSON. Mr. President, we would like to request that you respond to questions of the members of ASNE, and I will recognize John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor to ask the first question.,ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,MR. HUGHES. Mr. President, whatever the reaction to your economic speech here today, it seems clear that this administration faces a continuing image problem. You, sir, came into office with an image of freshness, with promises of efficiency and reform, and above all, with promises to run an open administration, close to the public. But after 15 months, the polls seem to indicate declining public hope in your administration.,Some of our newspapers criticize you for being indecisive and above all had said that the Presidency, far from being open, is increasingly dependent on a small group of intimate advisers.,Whether these charges are fair or unfair, sir, are you concerned by this dramatic shift in image, and if so, how do you hope to redress the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't agree that there is a dramatic shift in image. I think the poll results have been fairly stable for the last 4 or 5 months. And as has been the case with previous Presidents, after the flush of victory is over and the very difficult responsibilities descend on the shoulders of a President, the high expectations of the people that the. problems would be resolved overnight tend to cause a deterioration in public expectancy and sometimes a feeling of discouragement.,We have deliberately addressed some of the more difficult and intransigent, even historic, problems of our country. And we are having, I think, good progress in resolving most of these problems.,In domestic affairs, we've begun to reorganize the Government. Every proposal that I put to the Congress so far has been accepted. We formed a new Department of Energy. The Congress has now been working for 12 months on a comprehensive energy policy.,These are the same matters that were addressed when Harry Truman was President back in 1948—deregulation of natural gas, dealing with excessive energy consumption. They are extremely controversial, very difficult.,We've put forward our proposals on economic stimulus. And I believe that last year we achieved a remarkable degree of success in meeting the goals that we had set for our administration, with unemployment dropping drastically, as I've already pointed out, inflation holding steady, good economic growth.,We've, I think, helped to revitalize the interest not only of our own country but our European allies in the strength of NATO, a recommitment to a longrange military program that will recement that Alliance.,We are dealing with a very difficult Middle East problem. And I think if anyone would take an inventory of what did occur a year ago, what circumstance did prevail, the progress that has been made—although success is still doubtful—is notable.,We are making good, steady progress on the SALT negotiations, a subject that has been a matter of public international debate for decades. I think that we have a good prospect this year of having a success in that respect. For the first time, we are addressing actual reducing the number of atomic weapons held by ourselves and the Soviet Union.,We are making good progress along with the British and the Soviets with a comprehensive test ban, for the first time prohibiting, if we are successful, the testing of any atomic explosions, either military weapons or peaceful devices, an unprecedented attempt at a very difficult subject.,I think it's accurate to say that a year or so ago, almost everyone felt that the nuclear genie was out of the bottle, that many of the nations that don't have atomic explosive capability were on the verge of achieving it through the free sale of reprocessing plants around the world. I think that's now been stopped.,I think our effort to put forward an image of our country that would give us a source of pride in human rights has had a profound impact around the world. I don't think there's a single leader of a nation anywhere that's not now constantly aware of the question of \"how my country, how my actions are measuring up against international standards in preserving basic human rights.\",So, we've got a lot of things that we haven't yet solved. We are trying to deal with them—energy, inflation, continued government efficiency, welfare reform, tax reform. But I think the Congress has had a notable achievement.,I feel at ease with the job, I've enjoyed it. I roll easily with the punches of criticism, whether I think it's deserved or not deserved. Our poll status is holding steady at this point. And I think with a few successes, which I do predict, maybe the polls would even go up a little.,So, I think in general, I could characterize our administration as dealing with some of the most difficult questions that face our Nation without restraint and without attention being given to the political consequences of possible failure, and I believe that the successes in the future will prove that we were right. I'll keep the other answers briefer.,MR. HUGHES. I think my colleague from Boston, Mr. Winship, might like to take that a little further.,THE PRESIDENT. Tom, good to see you.,VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,MR. WINSHIP. I can't resist saying how satisfying it is to all of us to finally see you live, if it were, at an ASNE convention. As you remember, I think we had a couple of encounters, rather shaky telephonic communications, once from the opposite sides of a picket line in Washington and once from Honolulu. And it's nice to see you here.,My question: You've been in office 15 months, roughly. How comfortable do you feel in the job, what is your biggest surprise that you've encountered in this job, and do you definitely plan to run for reelection?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to your last question is no, I don't definitely plan to run for reelection. I've not addressed that question at all.,Secondly, my biggest surprise—I guess you mean in the nature of a disappointment—I think I have found that it's much easier for me in my own administration to evolve a very complex proposal for resolving a difficult issue than it is for Congress to pass legislation and to make that same decision.,The energy legislation is one example. I never dreamed a year ago in April when I proposed this matter to the Congress that a year later it still would not be resolved. I think I've got a growing understanding of the Congress, its limitations and its capabilities, and also its leadership, which was a new experience for me altogether, never having lived nor served in the Federal Government in Washington.,As far as my attitude toward the job is concerned, I like it. I've got a good staff. We have now evolved, I think, a good means by which we address major issues and let everyone's views be known. We sometimes have, contrary to what Mr. Hughes said, too open an examination of our debate process and decisionmaking process, where the news media quite often takes a preliminary proposal by a Secretary or a matter that we are considering as a final judgment, and I only make one judgment, which is then released to the press. That's been a problem for us. I think I've got an outstanding Cabinet. After this first 15 months, there is none on the Cabinet that I would have preferred to have changed. I'm very satisfied with them. I hope they're also satisfied.,So, I like the job. I feel at ease with it. I'm doing the best I can with difficult problems. All Presidents have shared them. And I think, compared to my predecessors, we've done okay.,WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS,Q. Mr. President, I'm Abe Rosenthal, the New York Times. In your speech you've taken a position against imposed wage and price controls.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. And yet in your speech, you yourself impose wage controls on the Federal part of the work force. That's not very voluntary. And you also talk about a Federal pricing policy. Do you have any mental tripwire at which point you will say that this country must have an imposed wage and price control policy, that the inflation has gone too high and that voluntarism simply has not worked?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not. I think even if inflation should continue to escalate and reach a very high level, that wage and price controls, mandatory wage and price controls, would be ill-advised and also counterproductive. I don't think they would work. The only instance in which I can think wage and price controls might be applied would be a case of national emergency, like an all-out war, some tragedy of that kind, where normal economic processes would not be at work.,I don't think that my dealing with the wages of people that I appoint or whose executive management is my responsibility is under the category of wage and price controls. I think that the normal processes of wages will be observed, and I hope that the Federal Government can break the deadlock that now exists between the private and public sector by setting an example.,I think that what I have proposed in the top executives in my own staff members having no increases this year, and a 5 1/2-percent increase for the white-collar- workers of the Federal Government, is reasonable. But I can't imagine any circumstance under which I would favor mandatory wage and price controls.,WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES,Q. Mr. President, Dick Harwood with the Washington Post. To further clarify your remarks on this question of wage and price restraint, are you proposing that the 5 1/2 percent should be a standard for private wage settlements this year? And are you proposing any numerical ceiling or guideline on price increases?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the level that I have set as a target for the private sector and it's a voluntary compliance provision-is to take the increases for the last 2 years and have the 1978 increases be less than that 2-year average. And that would apply to both prices and wages. Once we turn the corner on inflation and start with a slight downward trend instead of a continued upward trend, I think we'd have a very healthy result throughout the country without anyone suffering.,As I pointed out, all of us anticipate continued inflation. We make our plans accordingly and therefore perpetuate the inflation rate. There's an underlying inflation rate that has existed in our country now for a number of years of 6 to 6 1/2 percent. I certainly don't want to see that underlying inflation rate increase. I would like to bring it downward, and we've set that as a goal for ourselves.,Last year we met this goal, both in inflation and also in the unemployment rate, and also in national growth rate. But I think that if everyone would voluntarily comply with the standard that I've described to you, it would be an extremely beneficial thing to our country, and no one would suffer in the process.,TUITION TAX CREDITS,Q. Mr. President, Christy Bulkchoy, Danville, Illinois, Commercial News. You expressed concern about the tuition tax credits that are in Congress.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Do you intend to veto the bill if it reaches you as proposed, or do you see an acceptable level of tuition tax credits?,THE PRESIDENT. My present intention would be to veto any bill that was costly and which was unconstitutional. All of the proposals that I have seen in the Congress so far are both costly and unconstitutional, particularly as they apply to elementary and secondary schools. But until I see legislation actually on my desk, I couldn't give you a firm commitment that I would veto it. But unless those two provisions are corrected, that I've just described as potential defects, then I would veto it.,Q. The second question I asked was, do you see a possible compromise on a level that you would consider acceptable?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't favor tuition tax credits under any circumstance, even if it was at a very slight level, because this would inevitably rapidly grow with each succeeding budget; and the first thing that you know, tuition tax credits would be the major Federal expenditure for all education in the United States. And so, I think that tuition tax credits itself, as a subject, is very detrimental to the future of education in our country.,It gives the credits to those who need them least, and it makes the average parent who is a working class person, particularly who has his children in public schools, pay for high tax benefits for families in a higher tax group who have their children in private schools. So, I think whole concept is fallacious, and I don't like it.,SOCIAL SECURITY FINANCING,Q. Mr. President, Jim Squires with the Orlando Sentinel Star. You did not mention a possible veto of the rollback in Congress of social security taxes. And there is a report that you might accept that rollback if it were tied to a proposal that would levy a crude oil tax and devote the revenue to financing the social security project.,Could you tell me if that report is true and if you would veto the bill if it passes in its present form?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've made it clear to the congressional leadership in the House and the Senate that I do not favor any modification in the social security laws or financing' structure this year.,The Congress, I think last year, very courageously passed social security legislation that would bring order out of chaos and put the social security reserve funds back on a sound basis for 25 or 30 years in the future. They were on the verge of bankruptcy. Also, those who are particularly affected with higher social security payments, beginning next year—not this year, by the way—are those in a higher income group who will have their retirement benefits increased.,The tax reform proposals and the tax reduction proposals submitted to Congress this year will in almost every instance more than compensate for any increase in social security payments.,So, for all those reasons, I do not favor any social security legislation this year. I can't say unequivocally that I would veto any such measure that came to my desk. My guess is that the furor that was originally raised about social security benefits, after more careful examination by the American people and the news media, has now ceased to be a burning issue. And my prediction is that the Congress will not send to me any legislation on social security.,Q. Do you see any possibility of compromise with the energy bill, of a tie between those two?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at this moment, I don't.,MINORITY GROUP OPPORTUNITIES,Q. Mr. President, I'm Bob Haiman from the St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. President, this is the tenth anniversary of the report of the Kerner Commission on race problems in America. And those who look at that report and its allegations and what's happened since '68 are inclined to believe that there's been some progress for black Americans, but not much. The Carnegie Corporation, in trying to account for why we still seem to be moving toward two separate and unequal societies in this country, last night issued a report which said—very briefly, one sentence—and I quote, \"It's because there seems to be no leader who is capable of evoking the nation's latent sense of conscience and mobilizing it to action.\",My question, sir, is, could you be that leader, should you be that leader, are you that leader, and if you are, then how do you plan to lead?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's incumbent on a President to speak for the Nation and particularly to speak for those citizens of our Nation who are deprived, who are needy, who are poor, who are noninfluential, who are inarticulate, and who suffer because of the past discriminations that have fallen upon black people and other minority groups, and who still have their own families devastated by poverty and unemployment out of all proportion to their percentage of the national population.,We have increased greatly the economic benefits, at least the job opportunities of minority groups since I've been in office, not only in the appointments that I've made to major leaders for positions of executive authority but in other ways.,For instance, we set as a goal for the first year of our administration to have more than $100 million in Federal deposits in black-owned banks, minority-owned banks. We've reached that goal. The Congress passed legislation requiring that in the public works program, a $4 billion program, that 10 percent of this money be spent with businesses owned by minority stockholders as a dominant stockholding group. That goal has been exceeded.,We have now proposed to the Congress-and I predict immediate passage, no delay—a complete reorganization of the equal employment opportunity functions within the Federal Government. We are struggling to bring up the unemployment [employment] rate among minority citizens. And I think that in the housing area, in our urban policy program that we just put forward, all these things have been done.,So, to measure my own effectiveness as a leader in this respect is something that I am not able to do. I don't think we've achieved notable success as yet. But I think I, combining my voice with congressional leaders, those in private business, the minority organization leaders who are very evocative and very effective, the sum total of that, plus, obviously, editorial support from all of you, can make a difference.,My own belief is that minority groups have prospered in this country the last 10 years, compared to their previous circumstances. But they have a long way to, go, and I feel responsible to make sure that they go that long way toward equality of opportunity in our country.,U.S.-CHINESE RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, Bud Smyser from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. I would like to ask about your China policy and about Taiwan in particular.,The present Peking Government says that it will not use force in the near term to settle the Taiwan question, but it will not rule out the use of force for the indefinite future. Does this reservation by Peking pose an insurmountable obstacle to our full diplomatic recognition of Peking?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not acknowledge any insurmountable obstacle in reaching the goals expressed in the Shanghai Communiqué, which is binding on us—and which I fully support—and binding on the People's Republic of China leaders. We recognize the concept that is shared in Taiwan and on the Mainland that there's only one China. We recognize that it's for the best interests of our own Nation to have full diplomatic relationships with China. And my hope is that over a period of months-we are not in any big hurry; neither are the People's Republic of China leaders-that we will completely realize the hopes expressed in the Shanghai Communiqué.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,Q. Mr. President, Al Fitzpatrick from the Beacon Journal in Akron, Ohio. you mentioned in your speech that conserving energy and that we all ought to conserve energy. I think many people have done just that. But how does one justify saving energy when those monthly utility bills continue to rise?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the rising monthly utility bills is an additional incentive to save energy, and not a contrary factor. Obviously, when we consume more energy than we produce in our country, it means that there's a pressure on limited supplies and competition for those available supplies, and the prices go up. As the price of coal and oil go up to the consuming homeowner, they also go up to the utility companies that produce electric power.,Many utility companies around this Nation have an automatic escalator clause where, without any approval by the regulatory agency in a State, they can pass on those increased fuel costs to the consumer. Obviously, the more we can hold down our consumption of energy, the more we can save on our monthly fuel bills and the more we can hold down the increase in oil, natural gas, and coal prices.,One of the additional problems with the lack of conservation is that we've now increased our oil exports [imports] to $45 billion a year, and they comprise about 50 percent of all the oil we use. If we should have—and heaven knows, I hope we never have—another oil embargo where those supply interruptions would afflict our Nation, it would be a much more serious problem to our national security, to our own economic prosperity, and, even, national existence than it was back in 1973, when that temporary interruption took place.,So, we've got to do at least two major things, among others: Each one of us conserve the energy that we consume by every possible means; and second, to increase the production of available supplies in our country of energy—coal, which can last several hundred years, and particularly those replenishable supplies derived from wood, from solar sources, from geothermal supplies, and so forth.,SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE BERGLAND,Q. Jean Alice Small, the Daily Journal, Kankakee, Illinois, Mr. President. Recently it was reported that the Secretary of Agriculture Bergland is considering resignation from his Cabinet post because of your position on agriculture and the farm bill. May I ask if this is true? And in reference to your Cabinet, do you plan to make any Cabinet changes in the near future or after the election?,THE PRESIDENT. That report was absolutely erroneous. There was no basis for it at all. There has not been any difference of opinion between myself and Bob Bergland about agricultural policy. At the Cabinet meeting Monday morning, Bob Bergland said that, as was the case when Mark Twain said the report of his own death had been exaggerated, that he had never contemplated resigning from the Cabinet. And as a matter of fact, if Bob Bergland and I have ever disagreed on a basic agricultural policy, I'm not aware of it.,I contemplate no changes in my Cabinet. Nothing would please me better than to finish 4 years with the same Cabinet I presently have.,Q. Thank you for straightening it out.,FBI INDICTMENTS,Q. Mr. President, Bailey of the Minneapolis Tribune. Sir, the Attorney General said yesterday that 68 FBI agents will be disciplined but not prosecuted in connection with the burglary indictments, conspiracy indictments that were handed down yesterday.,Two questions related to that: Will the names of those 68 agents and the discipline applied be a matter of public record; and second, the decision not to prosecute them apparently was based on the theory that they were following orders. I wondered whether you regard that as an appropriate reason for deciding not to prosecute a law enforcement officer who violates the law?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know whether or not they will be, whether their names will be made public. I'll have to ask the Attorney General about this. I don't know the legalities of it. I think that Griffin Bell made the right decision. He made it on his own—without consultation with me, by the way—to prosecute the ones who issued the orders.,Obviously there are some instances in the military and otherwise when a heinous crime, when committed by someone under orders, should be punished. But I think in this case the Attorney General made the right decision.,MR. PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-03-30","text":"Held in Brasilia, Brazil,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm very delighted to be here in Brasilia to participate in a live press conference, and I will alternate questions between the Brazilian and the American press.\nI'll begin with Mr. Bonfim.,U.S.-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS,Q. [in Portuguese] Mr. President, at the beginning of your administration there was a clear tendency to isolate and treat Brazil coldly in favor of democratically elected governments, elected by the people.,Yesterday at the airport you stressed the need for cooperation between Brazil and the United States as equal partners. Who has changed, Brazil or you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I certainly have not changed. The experience that I have had in Brazil as Governor of Georgia before I became President made Brazil the most important country to me. I and my wife visited it frequently. We had a partnership arrangement between my own State and the State of Pernambuco.,We studied the background, the history, the culture, and the government of Brazil. And there has not ever been any inclination on my part or the part of my administration to underestimate the extreme importance of Brazil as a major world power, nor to underestimate the extreme importance of very close and harmonious relationships between the United States and Brazil.,There are some differences of opinion between ourselves and Brazil which have been very highly publicized. But on the long scale of things, both in the past history and in the future, the major factors which bind us in harmony with Brazil far transcend, are much more important than the differences that have been published between our approach to human rights, for instance, and the subject of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.,But our commitment to Brazil as a friend, our need for Brazil as a partner and a friend has always been the case and is presently very important to us and will always be that important in the future.,Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, in recent days, you've seen the use of American military supplies to invade a country and to cause untold suffering to hundreds of thousands. Some say this is the violation of U.S. law. In view of the facts that you have before you, is it a violation; and two, has it caused you to reassess your warplane package for the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. Are you referring to the Lebanon question?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, when the terrorist attacks in Israel precipitated the countermove by Israel into Lebanon, which has been a haven for the Palestinian terrorists, the United States took the initiative in the United Nations—I might say, without the approval of Israel—to initiate United Nations action there to expedite the removal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.,We have obviously attempted to comply with the law, and this is a matter that we are still addressing. The other part of your question?,Q. Has it caused you to reassess your package of warplanes for the Middle East, and how do you say you have attempted to comply with the law?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're attempting to terminate as rapidly as possible the military presence of Israel in southern Lebanon through United Nations action. I believe this is the proper way to do it, rather than unilateral action on our part, which would probably be unsuccessful in any case to get Israel to withdraw. The presence of United Nations forces, the French, the Swedes, and others, I believe, is the preferable way, and it marshals the opinion of the entire world, through the United Nations, against the Israeli presence being retained in Lebanon.,This has not caused me to reassess the American position on the sale of warplanes and other equipment to the Middle East. This is a very well balanced package. It emphasizes our interest in military security of the Middle East. It does not change at all the fact that Israel still retains a predominant air capability and military capability. There is no threat to their security. But it also lets the nations involved and the world know that our friendship, our partnership, our sharing of military equipment with the moderate Arab nations is an important permanent factor of our foreign policy.,U.S. COMMERCIAL BANK LOANS TO BRAZIL,Q. Mr. President, from Jornal do Brasil. The American commercial banks are the main Brazilian source of external credit. It seems to some people in Washington that sooner or later a Congressman may try to establish a link between the commercial banking loans and the human rights policy. I'd like to knew your opinion about this subject.,THE PRESIDENT. Brazil is a major trading partner of the United States in commercial goods and also in loans and, I might say, timely repayments. The debt of Brazil is very manageable. The loans of the American banks to Brazil are sound. Additional loans are being pursued by the American banks as an excellent advantage for their future investments in Brazil, based on the strength of your country. It would be inconceivable to me that any act of Congress would try to restrict the lending of money by American private banks to Brazil under any circumstances.,This would violate the principles of our own free enterprise system, and if such an act was passed by Congress, I would not approve it.,FREE ENTERPRISE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,Q. What comes in the first place for you: the private enterprise and the private system or the human rights policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they're both important to us. And I don't see any incompatibility between a belief in a free enterprise system, where government does not dominate the banks or the production of agricultural products or commercial products on the one hand, and a deep and consistent and permanent and strong belief in enhancing human rights around the world.,I might say that the American business community, the Congress of the United States, the general populace of the United States supports completely a commitment of our Nation to human rights. It's a basic element of our national consciousness that has no violation at all or no conflict between human rights on the one hand and the free enterprise system on the other.,NAMIBIA,Q. Mr. President, tomorrow you fly to Africa. What can you tell us today about the revised five-power proposals on Namibia?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, under the auspices of the United Nations, our own country, Canada, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany have been working jointly to present to South Africa and to the so-called SWAPO organization, South West Africa Political Organization, a compromise solution to restoring majority rule in Namibia.,We have presented this proposal this week to the South African Government, which now controls Namibia, and also to the SWAPO leaders. We are hopeful that if the proposal is not completely acceptable to both those parties, that it will at least be acceptable enough to prevent unilateral action on the part of South Africa to hold elections in complete violation of the United Nations resolutions and in complete violation of the principle of restoring majority rule to Namibia.,I can't tell you what the outcome of those consultations will be. I will get a more complete report when I arrive in Lagos. Ambassador Young has been in Africa now for about a week. This is one of the reasons that he is there. And I will be glad to give you a more detailed report after I get additional information.,NUCLEAR ENERGY AND NONPROLIFERATION,Q. Mr. President, now that you have a broad nonproliferation act in your hands, do you expect you can persuade Brazil to give up reprocessing and enrichment technology being acquired from Germany? And in that case, what are the carrots you might specifically use to further the power of your arguments in your meetings with President Geisel?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we strongly favor the right of any country to have part of its energy supplies come from nuclear power. As you know, our country has been the leader in the evolution of atomic power for peaceful uses, and we would do nothing to prevent this trend continuing, both in Brazil and in other countries around the world.,Our own nuclear nonproliferation policy, however, tries to draw a distinction between the right and the meeting of need of countries to produce energy from atomic power on the one hand, and the right of the country to evolve weapons-grade nuclear materials through either enrichment processes or through reprocessing.,We have no authority over either West Germany nor Brazil, nor do we want any. But as a friend of both countries, we reserve the right to express our opinion to them, that it would be very good to have, and possible to have, a complete nuclear fuel system throughout a country without having the ability to reprocess spent fuel from the power reactors. In the United States, for instance, in the last 25 years or so, on several occasions major investments, multibillion-dollar investments in all, have been made in reprocessing plants. So far as I know, for the civilian nuclear technology, all those plants have now been abandoned as being non-economical.,So, this is a difference that does exist between Brazil and the United States. The right of Brazil and West Germany to continue with their agreement is one that we don't challenge, but we have reserved the right and have used the right to express our concern, both to the Brazilian Government and to the West German Government.,I think it's accurate to say that the European nations have now announced that in the future, they will not make reprocessing plants part of their overseas sales inventory. And we are very deeply concerned about this. Of course, Brazil has announced that they have no intention of producing nuclear explosives. Brazil is a signatory to the Treaty of Tlatelolco. So far, however, Brazil has retained a caveat that it will not apply to them until all the other nations sign it. And Argentina, Cuba, France, Russia have not yet signed the Tlatelolco Treaty.,We would hope that every effort would be made by Brazil and other countries, as it is on the part of our own country, to prevent the spread of nuclear explosive capability to any nation which does not presently have it.,Q. Mr. President, what are the carrots?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have no specific carrots to offer, except that we are making available to countries—and now in a much more predictable way with the new congressional law—enriched uranium, which is suitable for production of power but not suitable for explosives, and technological advice and counsel, both in the use of uranium, with which Brazil is not blessed as a natural resource, and also thorium, which we have in our own country and which Brazil already has.,The new thorium technology is a much safer one to provide power without going to plutonium. Recently Brazil—and I think very wisely—signed an additional agreement with West Germany which would open up advice and technological ability to use thorium. But the right of Brazil and the advisability of Brazil to have a very advanced nuclear power capability is one that we don't dispute, but on the other hand, approve.,I might add one other point, and that is that we see a clear need for all nations to sign the nonproliferation treaty. We're signatories of it; so are the Soviet Union, the Germans, most of the countries in the world. And this, combined with International Atomic [Energy] Agency safeguards, is a good guarantee within a country and throughout the developed and developing world that there will not be a trend in the future toward other nations developing nuclear explosive capability.,PRIME MINISTER MENAHEM BEGIN,Q. Mr. President, have you or any other top U.S. officials—Dr. Brzezinski, for instance—suggested that Prime Minister Begin may not be the Fight man to head that government in the present circumstances? And apart from what may or may not have been said, do you now think the Begin government can make the hard decisions necessary to move the peace process forward?,THE PRESIDENT. I can say unequivocally that no one in any position of responsibility in the United States administration has ever insinuated that Prime Minister Begin is not qualified to be Prime Minister or that he should be replaced. This report, the origin of which I do not know, is completely false.,I think that Prime Minister Begin and his government are able to negotiate in an adequately flexible way to reach an agreement with Egypt, later Jordan and other of the neighboring countries. This is our hope and this is also our belief. We have not given up on the possibility of a negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East.,Under the Begin government, with him as Prime Minister, recently arrangements have been made between Israel and Egypt for Ezer Weizman to go to Egypt again, which will be a continuation of the probing for a compatibility. I think it is obvious now that with the issues so sharply drawn, that key differences remain that must be addressed on the side of Israel. The things that are of deepest concern is Israel's refusal to acknowledge that United Nations Resolution 242 applies clearly to the West Bank, their unwillingness to grant to the West Bank Palestinians, the Palestinian Arabs, a right to participate in the determination of their own future by voting at the end of a 5-year period, and so forth, for the kind of affiliation they would have with Israel or Jordan or under a joint administration. And this is a problem for which I have no clear solution yet. But I believe that the Begin government is completely capable of negotiating an agreement with Egypt.,FUTURE TRAVEL PLANS,Q. I am from Channel 13, Argentina. In connection with your visit now in Latin America, do you expect in the future-do you consider the possibility of another visit to the other countries of Latin America, as in my case, to Argentina, and do you have an eventual date for this visit?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not yet set any date nor made any plans for future visits. As you may know, I have visited Argentina in the past, and so has my wife. And this year, this past year, Secretary of State—our Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, visited Argentina, too, and your own leader, Videla, came to visit us in Washington. I have no plans now for any additional trips anywhere after I return to Washington.,PRESIDENT'S MEETINGS IN BRAZIL,Q. What's the purpose of this meeting that you are having in Rio with Cardinal Arns and five other people? I mean, what specifically are you intending to discuss with them and hear from them?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any agenda prepared for my visit with Cardinal Arns and the others. In a diverse society like you have here in Brazil, it's important for me to visit with different persons who represent different views. I will have thorough discussions, as you know, with President Geisel and his administration, and I want to meet with as many other people as I can. I have, by the way, met and talked to Cardinal Arns previously in the United States. I think this is typical of leaders who visit other countries. I noticed, for instance, with some interest, that when President Geisel visited the Federal Republic of Germany recently, he not only met with Chancellor Schmidt but he met with the leaders of the opposition parties.,And as a leader of a nation, I reserve the right to meet with whom I please. And I think this is a constructive thing, which will give me a much better overall understanding of what exists in Brazil. And I think the right of people to speak to me as a foreign visitor is one that's important to Brazil to preserve and to cherish. And I am thankful that I have that right when I visit your country.,INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, when you return from this Latin American and African trip, do you have any specific plans to combat the number one concern of the American people? I refer to inflation. Specifically, do you have any changes in mind in your, up to now, voluntary program of price and wage restraints?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. My administration, during the last couple of weeks, has been evolving a complete analysis of what we can do, both through administrative action, through public statements, through working with the business community and the labor community, and through congressional action to control inflation, which is becoming an increasingly important problem for us.,I think the Consumer Price Index figures that were released this week, the day we left Washington, were much better than we had anticipated, but still a cause for concern.,So, when I get home, one of the first acts that I shall take is to make public the decisions that we are now putting together.,Q. Will they change the voluntary nature of the program, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll address the details when I get back home.,GENERAL FIGUEIREDO,Q. [in Portuguese] I'd like to know whether in your meeting with General Figueiredo yesterday you discussed the program of the political opening up of the Brazilian Government and the implementation of that plan?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not have an opportunity to discuss any matters of importance with General Figueiredo. I only met him very briefly in a larger group of people, 30 or 40 people, and in the receiving line when I came into the airport. So, I've not had a chance to discuss this with him.\nAnn [Ann Compton, ABC News].,STEEL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, despite some jawboning pressure from your administration, U.S. Steel has raised its prices again. How does that fit in with your overall plans on inflation that is going to have some substantial impact nationwide?,THE PRESIDENT. It fits in very poorly. [Laughter] I think the prices that were announced by U.S. Steel, as their plans, are excessive. And although I've not been thoroughly briefed on what the Council on Wage and Price Stability has recommended—I will get that report today-but I think any such increase, as I've heard, approximately $10 a ton, is excessive and does cause additional, very serious inflationary pressures in our country, and I think is much greater than would be warranted by the recent coal settlement.,BRAZILIAN POLITICAL PROCESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS,Q. [in Portuguese] I am from the State of Sao Paulo. My basic question was the same as he asked, but I'd like to know how you view the succession here in Brazil, and how do you view the problem of political and civil rights in Brazil?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the type of succession and the process through which you choose your leaders, or your leaders are chosen, is one to be decided in Brazil. I'm not here to tell you how to form your government. I have no inclination to do that. The Brazilian people are completely aware of the process, and that's a judgment for you to make.,Brazil, like the United States, is struggling with the very difficult question of identifying human rights and civil rights violations, enhancing the democratic processes, and also encouraging confidence among the people in my government, in the United States, and in the government here in Brazil and other countries.,The differences that have arisen on the human rights issue is not based upon the lack of commitment to enhance human rights. I think great progress has been made in your country and also in ours. We do have a sharp difference of opinion, however, on how the human rights issue should be addressed, how specific allegations should be investigated, and what action can be taken to correct any defects that exist in your country or mine or others.,We believe that this is an international problem, that the focusing of world attention and world pressure on us and other countries is a very beneficial factor, that high publicity should be given to any proven violation of human rights. It's a commitment that our Nation has that I want not to abandon but to enhance and strengthen.,Brazil, on the other hand, also struggling with the same problem, trying to give greater human rights, does not believe that the international organizations and multinational opinions should be marshaled. However, I do note that recently Brazil did vote for an increase in the financing of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.,We think that when an allegation is made in our own country, in Brazil, in the European countries, or wherever, that some responsible delegation from the Inter-American Human Rights Commission or the United Nations should go in, get the facts, make the facts public. If there is an actual violation, this would be a great incentive to the government involved, ours or yours or others, to correct the defect. If the allegation is false, then the exposition of the error or the false allegation would be good for the world to know.,So, I think this is a very deep and important consideration. One of the best things about the development on human rights in the last year or so has been the worldwide attention to it. It was kind of a dormant issue for too long, and now I doubt that there's a world leader who exists that doesn't constantly feel the pressure of considering the human rights questions-to analyze one's own administration, one's own country, what the rest of the world thinks about us, and how we could correct any defects and prevent allegations in the future, either true or false.,POSSIBILITY OF MIDDLE EAST VISIT,Q. Mr. President, with the new movement which is now apparent in the Middle East question, is there any possibility of a Middle East stop on your way back home?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. No, I have no intention to stop in the Middle East. I'll go from here to Nigeria, from there to Liberia, and then back home.\nMaybe one more question.,U.S.-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS,Q. [in Portuguese] The restraint of your public words until now, your specific desire to meet with the new President, all these facts amount to a virtual blessing of the Brazilian regime. Is your interest in civil rights and political dissidents fading away, or are American economic interests in this country so strong that Brazil is already a special case?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might say that the history, the culture, common defense requirements, trade, common purpose binds the people of Brazil—all bind the people of Brazil and the people of the United States together in an unbreakable commitment, regardless of the identity of the leaders in our own country or yours. The people of Brazil and the United States are bound together. There is no lessening of our commitment to the principles that you described. The basic freedoms to democratic government, to the protection of human rights, to the prevention of nuclear proliferation—these commitments are also very deep for us.,Obviously, the overwhelming responsibility when I come to a foreign country, no matter where it is, is to meet with the leaders who are in office. But I also will be visiting the Congress this morning. I'm sure that I will be meeting the chairman of a Senate foreign relations committee who's also a candidate for President.,We've already pointed out I will be meeting with religious leaders, and I hope that in this process that I'll have a chance to get views from all elements, at least some of the major elements of the Brazilian society. But I'm not endorsing any candidates, and I think that the overwhelming sense of my visit already has been that the strength of our friendship and the mutuality of our purposes, now and in the future, far override any sharply expressed differences of opinion on even the major and very important issues of human rights, nonproliferation, trade, and so forth.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-03-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have two brief statements to make before I answer questions.,THE COAL STRIKE,Three days ago, I appointed a Board of Inquiry whose purpose under the Taft-Hartley Act was to investigate the negotiating stalemate, and we know that this has closed our Nation's coal mines.,This morning, the Board presented its report to me. Its finding was that an impasse does exist and that the situation is serious. This morning, using the authority of the Taft-Hartley Act, I directed the Attorney General to seek this afternoon a court injunction which will order the miners to return to work and the operators to open the mines during the 80-day cooling off period, during which time negotiations will proceed.,The welfare of our Nation requires this difficult step, and I expect that all parties will obey the law. The Federal Government will use its resources to minimize the national economic and social dislocations caused by this labor dispute.,The Department of Energy and the State Governors will improve the distribution of energy resources by moving our supplies of coal to places where the need is most urgent. The relief agencies of the Federal Government are prepared, if necessary, to act in a coordinated fashion to assist local areas which are particularly hard hit.,This is a time for cooling off. We will do everything in our power to be sure that it does not become a time of confrontation. The law must be enforced.,I have met this afternoon with the Attorney General and have asked him to assume personal direction of Federal law enforcement activities in this area.,The Secretary of Labor just informed me that he has asked the Board of Inquiry, as an extension of their duties, to go into the coal mining areas and consult with the miners, to encourage compliance with the law and to return to the negotiating area.,There is no easy solution to this problem. What is required from all of us now is reason, patience, and a willingness to cooperate with one another and to obey the laws of the United States.,I'm confident that with the support of the miners and the coal owners, the mine operators, and the American people, and all public officials, that we can resolve this dispute without further damage to the well-being of our Nation.,SOMALI-ETHIOPIAN CONFLICT,I have another statement to make. Last night, I was informed by President Siad Barre of Somalia that he was agreeing to withdraw his forces from the Ogaden area, the occupied areas of Ethiopia, and just the last few minutes, he confirmed this commitment to me with a public statement.,I welcome President Siad Barre's announcement of this decision. The United States hopes that this decision will result in an immediate halt of the bloodshed in that area of the Horn of Africa. We hope that the Organization of African Unity can move quickly to assist all parties to terminate hostilities, to agree quickly on rules that can be observed so that Somali forces can retire rapidly into their own territory and to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored among the civilian population.,As soon as Somali forces have withdrawn completely, and as soon as Ethiopian forces have reestablished control over their own territory, withdrawal of the Soviet and Cuban combat presence should begin.,The United States looks forward to the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from the two countries, Ethiopia and Somalia, at an early date. We stand ready to assist the Organization of African Unity in working out the basis for negotiations between Ethiopia and Somalia which would ensure the territorial integrity of all countries in the region and the honoring of international boundaries.,QUESTIONS,U.S. ASSISTANCE TO SOMALIA,Q. Mr. President, does that Somalia announcement cause you to look any more favorably on Somali requests for American arms, assuming they go through with it?,THE PRESIDENT. We notified Somalia many months ago that as long as they were in occupied territory, that there would be no consideration on our part for defensive arms of any kind. I think it would require a tangible demonstration of the carrying out of this commitment on the part of the Somalians, and also a renewed commitment not to dishonor the international boundaries of either Ethiopia or Kenya, before we would be willing to discuss with them economic aid or defensive arms supplies.,In this case, working with the Organization of African Unity and the Congress, we would consider this in a routine manner, but not until.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, there seem to be conflicting signals on what you would do if miners do not return to work. Would you consider seeking legislation to seize the mines, or do you have any other alternatives?,THE PRESIDENT. My firm belief and my firm commitment is that the Taft-Hartley Act will be enforced, that this will be adequate to assure supplies of coal to our country to avoid an additional crisis, and that it will also be an adequate incentive to bring the bargaining parties back to the negotiating table for successful resolution.,I have absolutely no plans to seek congressional action authorizing seizure of the coal mines.,U.N. RESOLUTION 24-2,Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, the State Department today reaffirmed that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 remains, in our view, the bedrock of our effort to bring peace to that area and more or less served notice on the Israeli Government not to take any decision to renounce that. Could you state for us what your understanding or your interpretation of Security Council Resolution 242 is and what your understanding of the Israeli position on this is?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, United Nations Resolution 242 was passed about 10 years ago. Since then it has been endorsed with practically no equivocation by our own country, by the entire international community, by the Israeli Governments, and by the Arab countries who border on Israel. It calls for the withdrawal of Israel from territories occupied in the 1967 war. It calls for the restoration of security of Israel behind recognized and defensible borders. And this has been the basis on which all of our efforts since I've been in office, and also my predecessors' efforts, have been based.,For any nation now to reject the application of 242 to the occupied territories, including the West Bank, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, would be a very serious blow to the prospects of peace in the Middle East.,In addition to the principles that I've just described to you, we've also been working with complete commitment and with some substantial success, particularly in the case of Egypt, to ensure that Israel will not only be blessed with a cessation of hostilities but also with a full restoration of peace, open borders, diplomatic relations, free trade, exchange of tourism and students, and cultural exchanges. This is a prospect that we still have. But the abandonment of United Nations Resolution 242 as it applies to the West Bank and other occupied territories would be a very serious blow to the prospects of peace and a complete reversal of the policy of the Israeli Government and other governments in the area.,LIAISON WITH JEWISH AMERICANS,Q. Mr. President, have you given thought to abolishing the job of liaison with the Jewish community—the task of the job?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have many members of our administration who work directly with Jewish Americans who are interested particularly in the Middle East and other similar matters of interest to other groups in our country.,I meet frequently with groups of Jewish Americans who come to the White House. So does the Vice President, the Secretary of State does at the State Department, Dr. Brzezinski, Hamilton Jordan, Stu Eizenstat, and so has Mark Siegel.,So, we have a concerted effort to present our views and to receive the views of those interested parties. And I think one of the most crucial elements of a successful achievement of peace in the Middle East is to continue those consultations, and we will of course do that.,Q. But isn't it discriminatory at all-isn't it discriminatory? I understand there are some 2 million Arabs in this country. Do you give this kind of consideration to them?,THE PRESIDENT. I have also met, I should have said, with Arab leaders from all over the country on the same subject.,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, you have spoken many times of the commitment that the United States has for the security of Israel. In 1975, in September, the Sinai II agreement said specifically that the United States would promise to give advanced aircraft, such as the F-16, at an unspecified time and number, to Israel.,Now, why is that promise of the United States now made part of a package deal? In other words, why is it tied to approval for aircraft to other countries, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are honoring completely the commitments made to Israel in the fall of 1975 concerning an adherence on our part to the adequate defense capabilities of Israel, including advanced aircraft like the F—15 and the F-16.,Some orders of this kind have already been placed, accepted, and deliveries are in prospect. Some planes have already been delivered. And the proposal that I've made to Congress on the arms sales package is compatible with that commitment.,In the fall of 1975, commitments were also made to the Saudi Arabians, to provide them with advanced aircraft, to replace their present Lightning planes which are becoming obsolete.,Later, in the Ford administration in 1976, in the fall, a commitment was made to them to send Defense Department officials to Saudi Arabia, to give them some assessment of the characteristics of the F 15's and F-16's, with a commitment then made that they would have their choice between the 16's and the 15's.,When Crown Prince Fahd came to our country last spring, I repeated this commitment, that had been made by my own predecessors in the White House, and so the sale of F-15's to Saudi Arabia is consistent with the commitment also made in the fall of 1975 and repeatedly reconfirmed.,The sale of the F-5E's—a much less capable airplane, by the way—to the Egyptians is, I think, a very legitimate proposal, because Egyptians in effect have severed their supply of weapons that used to come from the Soviet Union and have cast their lot with us, which is a very favorable development in the Middle East, one of the most profound developments of all.,I have no apology at all to make for this proposal. It maintains the military balance that exists in the Middle East. I can say without any doubt that the superior capabilities of the Israeli Air Force, compared to their neighbors, is maintained, and at the same time, it reconfirms our own relationship with the moderate Arab leaders and nations for the future to ensure that peace can be and will be maintained in the Middle East.,EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS,Q. Mr. Carter, on the same subject, we've seen reports in recent days from the Middle East, from both Cairo and Jerusalem, that in effect President Sadat's initiative has come to an end, that it has come aground. We also see reports from Jerusalem that ministers in the Israeli Government have decided that there is no deal to be made at this time. Could you give us your assessment of where this stands and where you think it's going to go?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as is the case in the White House and in the Congress, and in the United States, there is a difference in Israel, a very heated debate in prospect and already in progress about what should be done to bring about peace in the Middle East. There are, obviously, differences also between nations, between Egypt and Israel, between Israel and their other neighbors.,So, I would say that in comparison to the situation a year ago, the prospects for comprehensive peace in the Middle East are quite good. We would hope that there could be an immediate resolution of all the differences. That's not immediately in prospect.,Prime Minister Begin will be coming to visit with me this coming week. I know him very well. I've met with him twice before. He is a very strong advocate, a very dedicated advocate of the position of the Israeli Government. He's a forceful and outspoken person. And I'm sure after our meeting, we will at least understand each I other better.,I hope we can move another step toward peace. I had an equivalent opportunity this year to meet and to have long discussions with President Sadat.,So, I would say that there's been a great deal of progress made. Just looking at the changes from the viewpoint of the Israelis, we have now the major Arab nation who has recognized Israel's right to exist, right to exist in peace, right to exist permanently, has offered the full definition of peace which I described earlier. They have been meeting directly and personally, Begin and Sadat and their representatives, which was not in prospect at all a year ago.,There are still differences between them—relatively minor differences in the Sinai, more major, strategic kinds of differences involving the Palestinian question and the implementation of U.N. 242. So we've got a long way to go.,It's a difficult question that's been one of the most challenging, I guess, in the last 30 years for the world, to bring about peace in the Middle East. But I'm not discouraged about it. We're going to stick with it. And even though it takes a lot of time and much abuse and much debate and many differences expressed by all public officials, I intend to stay with it. And I believe the American people are deeply committed to two things: One is the security of Israel under any circumstances, and secondly, the achievement of comprehensive peace.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, do you agree with the position of the coal operators as stated in the latest contract on both the issues of the right to strike and pension benefits? And can you explain why or why not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would rather not single out any particular aspect of the contract for my approbation or rejection. There are issues of that kind that have been in deep contention. The coal operators want to eliminate the possibility of wildcat strikes and to increase production. The coal miners want the security of their retirement funds, and they want to have continuation of health benefits without contributing to the fund out of their salaries. Those have been the major items in contention. And I don't want to comment on the degree of my approval of them.,One item on which there has been general and early agreement is the wage package, and this, I think, would be a basis for a resolution of the differences. But I don't want to comment as a President on my approval or disapproval of individual items.,Q. One followup: Do you think the miners should have gone along with the contract as it was last submitted?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I was hoping that they would. As you know, there have been two contracts negotiated between the mine leaders and the coal operators. One was rejected by the bargaining council. The other contract was approved by the bargaining council—39 members, ostensibly representing all the miners throughout the country—and rejected by the membership.,But I was hoping that those contracts would be accepted. I've never gotten involved in saying that a particular provision should be in or out of the contract, but one that's freely negotiated. I was obviously hoping that it would be approved.,U.S.-ISRAELI RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, Mark Siegel, one of your aides, quit today, and you accepted his resignation with regret. He cited as his reason, differences with your Middle East policy.,His resignation, to many, symbolizes the split in the American Jewish community over the internal debate that's going on over our Middle East policy. And with Begin coming, I wonder if you could tell us what differences there are between the two of us, what your position will be on these differences, and a comment on the report that you're going to pressure him to make significant concessions?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any intention to pressure Prime Minister Begin. I don't have any desire to do it and couldn't if I wanted to. He's a very strong and independent person representing a strong and independent nation. Our role has been that of an intermediary. And one of the most pleasant respites that I have had since I've been in office was the brief time when Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat were negotiating directly and I was out of the role of carrying messages back and forth.,This is, however, a situation that has now deteriorated to some degree since President Sadat went to Jerusalem. Both the military and the political talks are now interrupted—we hope temporarily.,One of the things I will be doing is to repeat to Prime Minister Begin personally the request and the negotiating positions of President Sadat. And we've tried to do this through our ambassadors and through our negotiator, Mr. Atherton 1 in the Mideast, and I think perhaps I can do it perhaps a little more effectively.,1 Alfred L. Atherton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.,But the differences that exist between them are well known. In the Sinai, as I said, they are relatively easy to resolve-the Jewish settlements, the placement of Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and some continuation of Israeli control over some airfields or aerodromes, and the rapidity with which Israel would withdraw from the Sinai itself.,In the West Bank, Gaza Strip, this involves implementation of U.N. Resolution 242 and some resolution of the Palestinian question. We do not and never have favored an independent Palestinian nation, but within that bound of constraint, how to give the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, Gaza Strip some voice in the determination of their own future, is an issue still unresolved.,That outlines very briefly the situation that we're presently in.,TAX REDUCTION,Q. Mr. President, in the past, you have indicated an interest to make taxes in the upper brackets more equitable. Yet in your present tax message, there is nothing to have a limit of 50 percent on all taxable income, including dividends and interest as well as earned income at the present. Is there still hope that this is going to be done?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there will be an alleviation of the tax burden on almost every American under the tax proposal that we put forward to the Congress.,Within the constraints of a $25 billion net reduction, you can't make this an allinclusive proposal. I would say that most of the reductions are not at the $200,000 or $250,000 or higher level. Most of the reductions are in the low- and middle-in' come family tax payments.,I think, though, that in general, the proposal provides greater equity. It eliminates some of the unwarranted tax privileges that have existed too long. And of course, the net effect of it is the substantial reduction in both personal and corporate taxes.,But the higher income families that you've described, above $100,000 income, would not be benefited on a percentage basis nearly so much as the middle- and lower-income families.,RHODESIA,Q. Mr. President, in view of the great amount of discussion that's going on now about internal Rhodesian settlement, which excludes the Patriotic Front, is it possible in your view to have a settlement of the Rhodesian crisis without including Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe?,THE PRESIDENT. I would doubt that we could have a permanent settlement without including the right for all the nationalist leaders to participate. That would include Mugabe, Sithole, and would also, of course, include Nkomo as well. Muzorewa, the other leader, was here yesterday and met with Secretary Vance. We have had a meeting, yesterday afternoon, between myself, Secretary Vance, and the Foreign Minister of Great Britain, David Owen. And we reconfirmed our position, which has been consistent, that the Anglo-American plan is the best basis for a permanent resolution of the Rhodesian or Zimbabwe question. It's one that is substantially supported by the frontline presidents, presidents of those nations surrounding Rhodesia. And it has not been accepted completely by Nkomo and Mugabe, the Freedom Force leaders outside of Rhodesia.,We hope now that we can have a conference of all the interested nationalist leaders to try to work out the disparity between the internal settlement proposal, which is not adequate, and the so-called Anglo-American plan, which we believe to be adequate.,We've not rejected the individual component parts of the so-called internal settlement plan. To the extent that they are consistent with the overall Anglo-American plan provisions, they are a step in the right direction. But I think that it must be that any permanent settlement would include the right of all the interested nationalist leaders to seek the leadership of Rhodesia.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, what are your plans if the coal miners refuse to obey Taft-Hartley and return to work? What do you do then?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the injunction, if it is granted—and the hearing for a temporary restraining order in commencing now, about 3:30—it's a far-reaching injunction. It prevents the interference of any law violators with those who want to go back to work. It prevents a picketing against those who are complying with the law and mining coal. It requires the coal mineowners and the mineworkers to recommence negotiation efforts. It prevents the interference with the transportation of coal in any form, and it provides a legal mechanism by which the Federal law enforcement officials and the State and local law enforcement officials can provide for the protection of lives and property.,I believe the coal miners to be law-abiding and patriotic citizens. And I believe that a substantial portion of them, an adequate proportion of them, will comply with the law. We also have modified the historic provisions of the Taft-Hartley law by encouraging the operators and the mineworkers to negotiate during this period regional settlements based on the wage package which was in general agreement from the very beginning weeks of the negotiations themselves. So, I believe that the law will be obeyed.,I might say .one other thing. We've got about, I think, 82 percent of the mineworkers who are not now working. We are still producing about 50 percent as much coat, and the reserve supplies of coal are down below, December 5, only about 45 percent. So, I believe that if we can get a moderate number—hopefully all, but a moderate number—of coal miners to go back to work, that we can prevent a crisis evolving in our country.,The distribution of existing energy supplies—electricity, oil, natural gas, and coal—will also help to alleviate the problem. The injunction has broad coverage, and I think the sum total of all I've described will be adequate.,MARK SIEGEL,Q. Mr. President, to come back to the Dr. Siegel resignation, Dr. Siegel, as I understand it, resigned for two reasons: One, he was being asked to defend administration policy in the Middle East, and two, he was unable to affect that decisionmaking process within the White House.,Does his resignation cause you to have any doubts about his not being able to have played a more prominent role in forming that policy? And two, does it cause you to wonder about the entire decisionmaking process in the Middle East within the White House and its future implications?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to both your questions is no. Mark Siegel is a fine young man and an excellent employee, and he's done his job well in the White House, dealing with one of the most difficult issues that I've had to face as President, an issue on which there is sharp disagreement in the White House, sometimes disagreements between myself and the Secretary of State or myself and the Secretary of Defense or myself and the national security adviser, myself and my own staff.,But we resolve those differences as best we can harmoniously. When there is continued disharmony, I make the final decision about the administration policy. But this is an issue that's almost inherently a subject for dispute and disagreement.,As I pointed out earlier, there is a sharp public dispute in the Israeli Cabinet itself, not limited to a difference between parties in Israel. And obviously there are sharp disputes between Israel and her neighbors. But I think that we are now addressing these difficult but crucial issues which are easier, politically speaking, to leave alone in a proper fashion.,We're not trying to impose our will on anyone. But I have to say that within the White House, when there is a continuing disagreement, that I make the final decision. That's what I was elected to do.,I think that Mark Siegel has had a strong input in his conversations and negotiating sessions with the Vice President, with Hamilton Jordan, with Dr. Brzezinski, and on occasion with me-not very often directly with me. But he has a perfect right to decide whether or not he prefers to continue performing that service. To explain the administration positions to very interested American Jewish groups has been a difficult task for me as well as him. And I honor his right to make that decision.,I don't think that we have a breakdown in communications and consultations within the White House. And after constant reconsideration, I believe that our policy on the Middle East is the proper one.,NATURAL GAS DEREGULATION,Q. Mr. President, are you willing to accept energy legislation that in a few years would lead to the deregulation of natural gas?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am. This was a campaign statement and commitment of mine that I thought natural gas should be deregulated. In my speech to the Congress last April 20, I repeated this hope, and I think that a long, phased-in deregulation process without any shocks to our national economy would be acceptable.,DAVID MARSTON,Q. Mr. President, it now appears that there were some significant deletions in the Justice Department affidavits on the Marston case, bearing upon his competence and upon the nature of politics in Pennsylvania. And this has led to new charges of a coverup by some people high up in the Justice Department, or at the very least, some incompetence on the part of Justice Department people.,What is your assessment of how your Justice Department has handled this? If I may ask my followup before I sit down, are you irritated by the delay in naming Marston's successor?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the answer to your last question is no. You know, because of the high degree of attention focused on this particular appointment, the almost natural delay has been a matter of some interest. But it takes a long time to screen many applicants to make sure that we satisfy the desires of the judges in that area, of the responsible lawyers in that area, and that we satisfy ourselves that there's an adequate FBI check of their background, that their financial status is good, that there's nothing that can be brought up later on that would be embarrassing to the appointee when a thorough discussion or investigation is made. It's a time-consuming process.,I'm not dissatisfied. We are moving as rapidly as we can on that. I didn't know anything about the information presented to the congressional committees. I think in retrospect it would have been better to go ahead and include the statement of the FBI agent.,INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY; INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us why you think the dollar is declining abroad? What are you going to do about it, and do you think it's time for more tougher measures to curb inflation here in the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is a matter with international implications. I had a long talk this morning on the phone with Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. This was one of the subjects that we did discuss. And German and American officials will be meeting this weekend to try to have a common approach to eliminating, or certainly reducing the disorderly marketing of the currencies of the world.,We have had a policy of intervening in the monetary markets only when disorder did occur, when there were fluctuations that were not warranted or that caused us some concern. I think recently the value of the dollar has been fairly well stable-with the deutsche mark, at about 2.02.,One of the things that has been pointed out to me is that the factors that caused a lowering of the dollar's value, compared to some of the stronger currencies—Swiss francs, Japanese yen, German deutsche marks—in this past year are being alleviated.,Higher interest rates in our country now, caused by various factors, now make investments in the United States more attractive than they were last year. We had a high increase in 1977 in the amount of oil imported. My guess is that this year, we will not have that increase in imported oil.,Last year, we had a much higher increase in our gross national product, a much more vigorous economy that made it possible for us to buy foreign goods better than foreigners could buy our goods.,I think the difference was about a 3-percent rate of growth. Because of the more vigorous economics in some of our foreign trading partners' countries this year, that difference is certainly likely to narrow.,Chancellor Schmidt told me that the last quarter in 1977 in Germany the GNP growth was 6 percent. This was higher than he had anticipated, and he didn't think that it was going to be maintained constantly, but he was pleased with that.,So, I think those factors all point to the very good strength of the dollar and, on a long-term basis, it being fairly well priced, compared to foreign currencies.,But any shocks to the market, any disorderly marketing will require us to intercede, and I will do so.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-03-02","text":"INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY,FRANK AUKOFER. Oddly enough, we have questions that don't relate to what your speech was about, Mr. President.,The first question, which has been in the news much lately is—this comes from James Cary of the Copley News Service—what are you going to do about the deteriorating dollar and the basic cause of its collapse, soaring foreign oil imports? And a related question, by Joseph Slevin of the Slevin Economic Report, saying that European financial officials say the U.S. should defend the dollar more vigorously.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank. I spent a lot of time studying about the American dollar, its value in international monetary markets, the causes for the recent deterioration as it relates to other major currencies. I can say with complete assurance that the basic principles of monetary values are not being adequately assessed on the current international monetary markets. There are three that I would like to mention specifically.,First of all, the attractiveness of investment in our own country compared to other nations is rapidly increasing. One of the reasons is the higher interest rates that can be paid on investments in our country.,Another one is the rapidly increasing consumption of oil that occurred during 1977. This caused us a great deal of concern. In 1978, we will not have that circumstance. Present trends and future projections show that at the worst we'll have a leveling off of imports of foreign oil, one of the major causes of legitimate deterioration in the quality of the dollar.,And the other point is the degree with which American economic recovery or growth compares to potential purchases of our own goods. In this last year, our own rate of growth was about 3 percent greater than the average of our major trading partners. That difference will be substantially less in 1978. We will still have adequate growth, but our major trading partners will have better growth than they had last year.,So, these three basic causes in 1977 for some lowering in the dollar's value will be much better in 1978. We do move aggressively and adequately to prevent disorderly market circumstances when that need is obvious to us. We'll continue to do that. But my own belief is that these basic principles that assess the legitimate value of the dollar have not been adequately observed recently. My guess is that in the future over a longer period of time, what I've just told you will be observed, and the dollar will remain in good shape.,THE COAL STRIKE; ADMINISTRATION'S PERFORMANCE,Q. We have a number of questions on coal. This one from Richard Strout of the Christian Science Monitor. Do you feel that the administration waited too long before intervening in the coal strike?,THE PRESIDENT. No. [Laughter],Q. On another subject— [laughter] recent public opinion polls—this from Judy Woodruff of NBC—show a continuing decline in the rating people give you for your job performance as President. How concerned are you that your administration is perhaps developing a reputation for fumbling and ineptitude because of incidents like the Marston firing or for a failure to exert leadership because of the stalemate on the energy bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I might say that we have had to deal, and have decided to deal, with some longstanding, very difficult, controversial issues that in some instances had not been adequately addressed by my predecessors. I say that without criticism.,But obviously we needed a comprehensive energy policy years ago. No one has ever proposed it to the Congress from the White House until last April 20. This needs to be acted upon immediately by the Congress. The House completed its action last August. We still have not been able to break a deadlock in the Senate energy committees. Hard work is going on on that right now. It's one of the contributing causes to the lowered value of the dollar overseas. I think if we can get a resolution of the natural gas issue alone in the conference committees, immediately there would be a restoration of confidence in our Nation's will to act on a difficult question and our competence to deal with those complicated issues.,Obviously, we have addressed other measures that are difficult as well. We've had remarkable success, I think, in the last year in holding down the increase in inflation, in reducing substantially the unemployment rate, in having a carefully predicted increase in our gross national product. We've got a good record on budget preparation, cooperation with the House and the Senate, and we have learned in this last year.,There is some criticism that we acted too late in the coal strike and too early by others. My own deep commitment is that whenever the collective bargaining system can function, government ought to let it function. And I think, had we precipitously imposed our will in the coal strike deliberations, that effort would have been counterproductive. I don't know what the miners will do this weekend. I hope they'll vote affirmatively on the negotiated settlement. But I think it was not an exhibition of irresoluteness on our part. It was a carefully balanced judgment about what we should do.,We have addressed some questions on the Middle East that in the past had too long been ignored, trying to bring about a comprehensive settlement there. This is a very difficult, complicated issue over which we don't have control. We have encouraged direct negotiations with Israel and the major Arab countries. We've been successful in seeing that occur because of the action by foreign leaders, between Begin and Sadat, something that was hoped for for generations, or at least for decades. We've seen a recognition of Israel's right to exist by Egypt, and progress has been made; obviously, not yet have we been successful.,So, I think that the polls show that my own personal popularity is very high. The assessment of how successful our administration has been is disappointing, but it's a partnership between us and Congress, between us and the nations in the Middle East, between us and the coal miners and the coal operators. And government doesn't have the unilateral, autocratic control over some of these very difficult issues.,So, I'm concerned that there has not been a resolution of all of these major confrontations and disputes. But we're making good progress, and I'm not disappointed at the progress that we have made. I'm certainly not disappointed at our willingness to tackle issues that have historically been difficult to resolve.,NEW YORK CITY,Q. You mentioned your predecessors; this question relates to one of them. It's from Paul Healy of the New York News.,Mr. President, 2 years ago President Ford said from this podium that there would be no emergency Federal financial aid to New York City, prompting the famous Daily News headline, \"Ford to City: 'Drop Dead.'\" Yet President Ford later supported a loan program to the city that seems more generous than the one outlined on Capitol Hill today by Secretary Blumenthal. What is your response to this?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, as you know, the Congress moved well to prevent bankruptcy of the New York City government. We've had very close personal consultations with the mayor and other city officials, the banks, the unions, the Governor, and the congressional delegation here in Washington.,Yesterday afternoon I talked to the mayor, Mayor Koch, to the Governor, Governor Carey, and to Senator Moynihan, yesterday and this morning to Secretary of Treasury Mike Blumenthal. I think the proposal that has been put forward is basically adequate. It's obviously not everything that the New York City officials would want.,We believe in sharing the responsibility between the Federal Government—with the guaranteed loans—and those other entities that I described, local lending institutions, the unions' trust fund, the city government, and the State government.,This does provide a long-range guarantee of loans. It's not month by month or even year by year. Secretary Blumenthal recommended a 15-year period during which we would guarantee up to $2 billion in loans. I think it's a very reasonable and also very adequate proposal, and it's one that we are not presenting to the Congress idly. We intend to fight for it. And I know that there's a great deal of concern in the Congress that this might be a proposal that's too generous. I think it's adequate, not overly generous, and one that's worthy of our support. And it will get our support.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Later this month you'll be meeting with Prime Minister Menahem Begin from Israel. Dick Ryan of the Detroit News asks: What do you hope to achieve during your meetings with the Prime Minister?,THE PRESIDENT. This will be my third meeting with Prime Minister Begin since he's been the leader of Israel. In addition, I communicate with him fairly frequently by personal letter, by diplomatic message, and on occasion by telephone. And both our own Secretary of State and other officials and his secretary of state and other officials come here frequently. Defense Minister Weizman will be here shortly to consult with me and with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and others.,We are looking for some common ground on which the Egyptians, the Israelis, the Jordanians, the residents of the West Bank and other areas can agree.,This is a difficult and sensitive question. As you know, the Gaza Strip has had an affiliation in the past with Egypt, the West Bank with Jordan, both now occupied by Israel. And we hope to search out at the top level of government some resolution of the differences on specifics relating to the Sinai and also on a statement of principles relating to the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, hoping at that time that Egypt and the Jordanians and the Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank, Gaza Strip would be satisfied to conclude perhaps some agreements and to proceed with further negotiations leading to an ultimate resolution of the issue, based on United Nations Resolution 242.,One of the crucial elements of any progress in the Middle East is a cleaving to the commitment that U.N. 242 is a basis for continued negotiations and a solution. The abandonment of that would put us back many months or years. So, this is what I hope to accomplish with Prime Minister Begin, to frankly discuss with him my previous agreements and discussions with President Sadat, to encourage direct negotiations to be resumed, and to search out common ground, based on advice given to me by Secretary of State Vance and also by Mr. Atherton, on the latest possible language changes that might be necessary to let Egypt and Israel agree. So, this is what I hope to accomplish, and I believe the personal discussions will be good.,I would much prefer that the personal discussions be carried on between Sadat and Begin. But in the absence of that possibility at this moment, we hope to restore it and act as an intermediary.,CIVIL SERVICE REFORM,Q. There are several questions here related to the civil service reorganization. This is a combined question from Mary McGrory of the Washington Star and Mark Goodin of the Houston Post.,The first part is, what sort of protection will the Office of Special Counsel provide for whistleblowers? And the other part is that Frank Snepp, the ex-CIA agent, is the most famous whistleblower of all, writing a book exposing incompetence and treachery. After a report to the Inspector General produced no results, you're prosecuting him. How does this encourage whistleblowing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'd like to respond to those completely unbiased questions. [Laughter] I don't look on Frank Snepp as one of the greatest whistleblowers of all times. He signed voluntarily a contract, later confirmed this agreement with the Director of the CIA, that before his book was published that it would be examined to assure there were no revelations of secret material. And I have not read the book; don't know the substance of it. I don't believe that he has revealed anything that would lead to an improvement in our security apparatus or the protection of Americans' civil rights.,But the Attorney General has decided that when a contract is signed that it ought to be honored. If everyone who came into the CIA or other highly secret organizations in Government felt free to resign because of a dispute or to retire at the end of satisfactory service and then write a book revealing our Nation's utmost secrets, it would be very devastating to our Nation's ability to protect ourselves in peace or war and to negotiate on a confidential and successful basis with other government leaders.,So, I believe-that this is important as a distinction to be drawn. The Special Counsel will be there, independent from me, to protect through the courts, if necessary, those who are legitimate whistleblowers and who do point out violations of ethics, or those who through serious error hurt our country. And this is a function that's not presently extant. I think it will be a step in the right direction, and there will be presentation after investigation to both the public and, if necessary, to the mechanism by which employees' rights are protected and, on an appeal basis, to the courts themselves.,SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN THE HORN OF AFRICA,Q. Mr. President, this is from Warren Rogers of the Trib of New York. With the Soviets active now in the Horn of Africa, and with other strains in U.S.-Soviet relations, what hope do you have for early resumption of SALT talks?,THE PRESIDENT. The SALT talks have never been discontinued or delayed. They are ongoing now, and the Soviet involvement in the Horn has not interrupted that process. We do not initiate any Government policy that has a linkage between the Soviet involvement in Ethiopia-Somalia dispute on the one hand and SALT or the comprehensive test ban negotiations on the other.,Obviously any negotiation, if concluded successfully at the executive level, would have to be ratified by the Congress, who would be heavily influenced by opinion of the American people. And the fact that the Soviets have over-armed to the teeth, the Somalians who then use Soviet weapons to invade Ethiopia and now are overarming Ethiopia and directing their military effort has caused a threat to peace in the Horn area of Africa.,We have added our own importunities for a peaceful resolution and our own caution comments to the Soviets. They have assured me directly through Foreign Minister Gromyko that the Ethiopians would not cross the Somalia border. We have sent a delegation to meet with President Mengistu, who assured me personally that they would not cross the Somalia border.,We have three hopes there that we trust and certainly hope that the Soviets will honor.,One is a Somalian withdrawal from the territories which they occupy in eastern Ethiopia, in the Ogaden area; secondly, a removal from Ethiopia of Cuban and Soviet troops; third, a lessening of the tensions that exist between those countries and an honoring of the sometimes arbitrarily drawn international boundaries in Africa.,And we would hope that the OAU, the Organization of African Unity, would become more successful in their efforts to resolve this dispute in a peaceful way. But at this time, Somalia is the invading nation. We have refused to send any weapons into that area or permit third countries who bought weapons from us to transfer them into that area, and I think our policy is completely accurate.,The Soviets' violating of these principles would be a cause of concern to me, would lessen the confidence of the American people in the word and peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union, would make it more difficult to ratify a SALT agreement or comprehensive test ban agreement if concluded, and therefore, the two are linked because of actions by the Soviets. We don't initiate the linkage.,U.S.-BRITISH AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT,Q. Mr. President, we have several questions related to the Braniff Airways lowcost service between Dallas and London, one from Ross Mark .of the Daily Express of London, and another from Roy Bode of the Dallas Times-Herald.,First of all, have you received a recommendation from the CAB for retaliatory action, and do you plan to take such action against the British carrier? And secondly, do you believe that the British Government is abiding by its commitments in the Bermuda II airline agreements?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not received a recommendation from the CAB at this moment. When the recommendation gets to me, I, by law, will have to act and will act immediately.,I don't know enough about the issue, the details of the British Government ruling, to know whether or not they have violated the agreement that was concluded this past year. My guess is, knowing the British, that they have not violated the agreement specifically. But, as you know, an agreement can't be that detailed to anticipate every individual ruling that will be concluded by the CAB on our side or its equivalent agency on the British side. I don't know much about the issue yet.,But if there is a violation, we would express our concern directly to Prime Minister Callaghan. And when the CAB gives me a report and a recommendation, the chances are that I would honor it.,We have had notable success in 1977 in increasing competition, particularly in international routes of air carriers. We have encouraged the additional competition of American airlines in this area, as well. We hope to get the Congress to act on substantial deregulation in the airline industry within our country. I believe that we've made notable success already, and we have withstood a tremendous pressure from the British to have more Government protection, which would be contrary to competition in the agreement that we reached last year.,SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS,Q. At the risk of showing favoritism, I'll ask a question from Jack Cole of the Milwaukee Journal. Would you support legislation to reduce social security payroll taxes by transferring the hospital care and disability portions of the program to funding by general Treasury funds?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that 1978 is the time to further modify in any substantial way the social security law which was just passed this past year. Our own recommendation to Congress in 1977 did involve some transfer of funds and some use of general funds from the Treasury if the unemployment rate and/or the inflation rate caused excessive drains on the reserve funds. I think the Congress was very courageous and acted properly in increasing social security payments into the funds to maintain the integrity of the system itself.,Had they not acted, we would be in a crisis stage right now. We are convinced that the recommendations that I have made to the Congress to lower income taxes will compensate in almost every instance for the increase in social security tax payments that were passed by a previous administration, and also increased this past year.,So, I don't think 1978 is the proper time to change it. I think that the principles of partial use of general funds under certain circumstances is a sound one that we did advocate, and transfer of moneys from one fund to another is a principle which we would also espouse when the time comes, if it does, for additional changes in the social security law. That's what we recommended last year.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, we thank you very much for appearing here today, and I have one final question for you for which I'll take full responsibility.,In view of the 33-page, so-called Jordan report, is there any truth to the rumor that you're planning a White House conference on etiquette in singles bars? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. This is a matter that had not previously come to my attention until just before this press conference. [Laughter] I've known Hamilton Jordan a long time, and I have discounted the story because they said he was drinking amaretto and cream. [Laughter] The White House conference is certainly worthy of consideration. My own personal advice would be that perhaps in the future Hamilton might substitute peaches for the amaretto. [Laughter]"}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-02-17","text":"Held in Providence, Rhode Island,THE COAL STRIKE,THE PRESIDENT. It's nice to be here in New England, in Rhode Island, and I'm very proud to have a press conference here for the Nation.,I've just talked to the Secretary of Labor about progress on the settlement of the coal strike. They are making good progress. No final agreement has been reached.,I've been in coal mines in Pennsylvania and other places to see the miners at work. I know that they are hard-working and patriotic Americans. They and the industry leaders both recognize that there is a tremendous responsibility on their shoulders, because the future of the unions, the future of an effective collective bargaining process, the future of the coal industry, and the we]fare of our Nation depends upon the success of these negotiations.,They've been bargaining now, steadily, since they began at the White House a day and a half ago. They continued in their discussions until 2 o'clock this morning, and then after that, management with the Secretary of Labor from 2:30 until 5 in the morning. And I've asked them to stay at the bargaining table until a final agreement is reached.,I have confidence that they will be successful, because they and I want to avoid the necessity for me, as President, to take more serious action if the bargaining process is not effective. The whole Nation is looking to them with hope and with confidence.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Before I answer your questions, I'd like to cover one other point that's very crucial to New England, and that is the Nation's economy. In many ways, our economy last year was good. The inflation rate went down, and wages, profits, production, housing starts, real income, investment all went up.,Four million new jobs were created, an all time record, and many of these jobs, I'm glad to say, were in New England. Employment here in New England last year went up 5 1/2 percent. The unemployment rate dropped 3 full percentage points, from 8 1/2 percent down to 5 1/2 percent. But unemployment and inflation is still higher than I'm willing to accept, and so my top priority this year on the domestic scene is still the economy.,I've asked the Congress to help me put into effect a coherent program to make more jobs and to bring inflation closer under control. We need a cooperative anti-inflation effort, with voluntary action being taken by industry and by labor to keep wages and prices from pushing each other up.,We need an expanded jobs program to help those who are hit hardest by unemployment. Next week I will send to the Congress legislation that would reauthorize the $12 billion Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, provide for 725,000 public service jobs and for a billion dollar youth employment and training program.,Also, we need tax reduction and tax reform. They go together. They add up to $25 billion in net cuts in the income taxes Americans have to pay, and they are also designed to create an additional 1 million new jobs. Seventeen billion dollars of this tax cut will be for working families in our country, personal income tax reductions, and the rest in corporate tax reductions.,Corporations will also receive higher tax credits for investing in the sort of new plants, new equipment that will make New England and the rest of the Nation competitive with aggressive foreign exports.,But we can't have these cuts in taxes unless we help pay for them by eliminating some of our unnecessary and unwarranted income tax subsidies. Two of these are the deferral subsidy and the DISC subsidies. Both have a particularly bad effect in New England, where competition from abroad has had such a terrible effect on businessmen and on workers alike.,The deferral subsidy sets a situation in effect where multilateral corporations pay lower taxes on foreign profits than they pay on their U.S. profits. This amounts to subsidizing corporations to export jobs overseas. The so-called DISC subsidies are just as bad. They let U.S. corporations set up dummy corporations to handle foreign exports, so as to keep from paying U.S. taxes on half their profits. Both these giveaways go overwhelmingly to a few of the largest multinational corporations, and both mean that the average taxpayer has to pay the bill, more taxes, just to take up the slack caused by these subsidies. And both cost America, and particularly New England, jobs. Both loopholes should be closed.,As for the famous three-martini lunch, I don't care how many martinis anyone has with lunch, but I am concerned about who picks up the check. I don't think a relatively small minority has some sort of divine right to have expensive meals, free theater tickets, country club dues, sporting events tickets paid for by heavier taxes on everybody else.,If the Congress will help me by getting rid of these tax loopholes and by enacting the entire economic program, we can have a good start on correcting unemployment and inflation.,The economy won't turn around overnight, of course, any more than an ocean liner can turn around on a dime. The job will require slow, careful planning, not dramatic master strokes. It will require small corrections, of course, that we adhere to very patiently. It will require careful planning, careful adjustment, careful tuning and cooperation.,The machinery of the American economy is sound. We have a lot to be thankful for. It's worked well despite severe shocks, but it can work better, and that's our major goal in this country this year.,And now, I'd be glad to answer your questions.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Do you think that Congress will go along with your decision to send sophisticated fighter jets to the Middle East? And can you give us your rationale for including, for the first time in these sales, Egypt and Saudi Arabia along with Israel?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think Congress will go along with the proposal to sell a limited number of airplanes in the Middle East. F-15 planes are already being delivered to Israel, and in the new proposal Israel will receive additional F-15's and F-16's, very advanced fighter planes.,We have for a long time sold military equipment to Saudi Arabia, one of our closest allies, staunchest friends, and economic partners. This is the first time we've sold F-15's to Saudi Arabia, but they have other advanced equipment.,The first planes will be delivered to Saudi Arabia not this year or next year, but in 1981 or 1982. The planes that we have agreed to sell to Egypt are the F5E's, not nearly so advanced a weapon as the F-15's or F-16's. But as you know, a few years ago, Egypt, which is now one of our staunchest friends and allies, severed their close relationship with the Soviet Union and, in effect, became an ally of ours. And I don't believe that there's any danger of this relatively short-range, not advanced fighter causing any disruption in the peace between Egypt and Israel.,So for those reasons, I am advocating to the Congress that they approve these sales, and I believe the Congress will agree.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, without asking you to announce a deadline for a coal settlement, can you give us any clue as to the extent of your patience with the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the country is suffering already from the consequences of the coal strike. I have asked the Secretary of Labor and I've asked the negotiators from the workers and from the coal operators to stay at the bargaining table in constant sessions until they reach an agreement. There has been some progress made to date.,As you know, there is a division within the labor union itself. But the bargaining council, which consists of 39 members, is being kept as close as possible to the negotiating team that represents labor. We hope that when an agreement is reached that this will be in such a form and with close enough consultations ahead of time that it will be presented immediately to the membership of the United Mine Workers for approval.,So, I think that all of us are determined. I've met personally at the White House with labor and management in the coal industry, and I can testify to you that they are sincere in wanting to reach an agreement.,Q. Would you be willing to see it go on for another week?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't think we could afford another week of negotiations. I would hope that they could conclude their negotiations within the next few hours or a day or so.,DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR NEW\nENGLAND,Q. Mr. President, Dan Rea, WBZ-TV, channel 4, in Boston, Westinghouse Broadcasting. Last week, as I'm sure you very well know, New England was hit with a very bad blizzard, and hundreds of thousands of hourly production workers in Massachusetts lost wages, wages that will be made up in some part by the State unemployment compensation fund. But the difference between the unemployment compensation fund and their total salaries in some families is up to $100 or $125. Is the Federal Government prepared to do anything for these workers?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, your own State and others in New England that were so heavily damaged by the snowstorm and also by the actions of the seas and wind have been declared major disaster areas. This involves several elements of aid. One was an immediate dispatching here of Sea Bees and members of the other military forces to actually help in the clearing of the highways and the restoration of normal life in your economy.,I have also authorized personal loans for those who have damage to their homes, those who have serious economic problems, and we've worked very closely in harmony with the State and local officials on this element as well.,These loans are at very low interest. Sometimes the interest payments are almost nonexistent. We hope that there can be some additional economic aid, if necessary, granted within the bounds of the law. But I don't know of any specific feature that would permit us to compensate workers for lost wages.,(The President's disaster declaration for Massachusetts, as well as for Rhode Island, does provide for the full legal amount of Federal unemployment compensation benefits to workers unemployed by the disaster.) 1,1 Printed in the transcript.,I think most of the industry here that employs people has now been restored to full employment almost to full employment-but with that one exception, I think we are providing the maximum amount of aid that can be under the U.S. law.,Q. Ed McHugh, Worcester Telegram. Considering how deeply some of the New England States are already in hock to the Federal Government, do you consider it proper for some of them to convert their unemployment insurance programs into disaster relief funds for people who lost wages during the storm?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know enough about the answer to give you a response. I think in every instance of this kind, the primary responsibility has got to be for the Governor or local officials in the State to make a judgment on what's best for that particular area. And if a Governor or a legislature or a mayor has made that decision, I would not want to contradict it. Whether the unemployment compensation payment is more crucial—at that one moment during or immediately following a disaster—or whether it's more important to correct the consequences directly if there's a disaster in physical terms, I would not want to judge. That's a decision the Governor will have to make.,NUCLEAR POWERPLANT CONSTRUCTION,Q. Steve Bascade, WJAR-TV in Providence. The Federal appeals judge, Mr. President, has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the approval of a cooling system for the nuclear plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire, part of his reasoning based on the fact that opponents of the plant didn't have access to all the relevant information.,My question: How much say should people have over construction of a plant, and should they specifically have veto power in a referendum to oppose a nuclear plant if they so wish?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, there are now no legal prohibitions at the Federal Government level from proceeding with the Seabrook plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not yet given a license. But the Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that the cooling system, as proposed, was adequate.,I do think that a State, or the people within a State, should have the right to determine the degree of shifting to nuclear power as a source for energy. As you know, some States have had referenda on this subject. This is a prerogative that the State legislature and the Governor and, in some instances, through referenda, can be accomplished.,But the Federal Government does not have and would not want to have the right to prohibit the construction of a nuclear powerplant in a State if the Federal laws were met. But I do think that in New Hampshire or Vermont or other States, that the legislature certainly should have a right to set the standards by which those plants should be built.,Q. What about the voters themselves in a referendum not the legislature, the individual?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that depends upon whether or not there's a provision for a referendum to override a State law. As you know, in California, for instance, there is an initiative by which citizens can pass a law absent the legislature taking a stand.,But I think that—I know New Hampshire fairly well, having visited there several times during 1976, and I know how close your members of the legislature are to the people. I think there are just a very few people per member of the House. And I think that your legislators are adequately responsive.,U.S. ATTORNEY LINCOLN ALMOND,Q. Mr. President, Jim Roberts, WEAN News in Providence. We have a U.S. attorney here, Lincoln Almond, who's a Republican. You have not yet fired him, but Tom Murray of Newport has been recommended to take his place.,During your campaign, you promised to take the politics out of the selection process for U.S. attorneys. Can you tell me first of all if you intend to replace Mr. Almond and, if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. This matter has not come to my attention yet. Ordinarily, I wait until the Attorney General gives inc a recommendation about a replacement before I get involved in the process.,The number of Republican U.S. attorneys still in office now, I think, are about 25 out of 90-something. I think during the last 8 years, before I came in office, there was never a Democrat appointed to a U.S. attorneyship. But we've tried to keep in office those who were doing a good job, and when we have made a replacement, I believe in every instance that the selection has been made on the basis of merit.,Whether or not that particular person is going to be replaced, I do not know.,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, given the tension that already existed over the Israeli settlement policy, do you have any second thoughts about the timing of your announcement to sell warplanes to Egypt, or was the timing of that announcement and our public statements about the Israeli settlement policy a message to the Israelis to become more flexible in the current negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. The two were not interrelated in my decisionmaking process. When I was in Saudi Arabia early in January, I told them that shortly after the Congress reconvened I would send up a recommendation for military sales to the Middle East.,Every time I've ever met with Prime Minister Begin, both in the public sessions, that is, with staff members, and also in my private sessions with just him and me present, this has been the first item that he's brought up: \"Please expedite the approval of the sales of military planes to Israel.\",I think that the timing is proper. We're not trying to shortcircuit the allotted time for the Congress. As a matter of fact, we will not begin the process until after the Congress reconvenes, the Senate reconvenes. So there will be a full 50 days for the Congress to consider the matter. Twenty days after this coming Monday, I'll send up the official papers.,So, I don't think it's a bad time to send it up. I recognized ahead of time that there would be some controversy about it. And we did give it second and third thoughts before I made a decision about the composition of the package and the date for submitting it.\nMr. Bradley [Ed Bradley] with CBS.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, back on the subject of the coal talks, does that 2-day deadline that Secretary Marshall talked about yesterday-is that still in effect? And if at the end of that period they have not reached agreement, you can invoke the Taft-Hartley Act, but the miners have said they will not mine the coal and the Army can't. If you do invoke those provisions and they refuse to mine coal, what can you do, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's all spelled out in the law. The miners, the coal operators, the Secretary of Labor, I, the Attorney General, the Governors all would like, if possible, to avoid an invocation of the Taft-Hartley law and to let the coal dispute, through collective bargaining, lead to a new and acceptable contract. So there's no rigid time limit.,If it's obvious to me that progress is being made, then my preference would be to keep the bargaining process going.,In the last 24 hours I have detected progress, and we have not yet been able to get a final settlement. Even after a settlement is reached at the Labor Department, even after the bargaining council, who represents the coal miners, approve the terms that have been derived with the negotiating team, it would still have to be submitted to the union members back home for their approval. So that would take 2, 3 weeks. And I think it would probably take an additional week or so before coal could start flowing to its destination after it has been mined.,So we still face a substantial delay. And I recognize that it's one of the most serious problems that I've faced as President. And I believe that the negotiators do, too. But I'm not trying and don't want to predict exactly what will happen in the future. And I don't want to set a rigid time limit on anyone. But I have had the urgency of this question imparted by me personally and constantly by the Secretary of Labor during the negotiating times.,HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL,Q. Mr. President, Robert Goldman, University of Rhode Island. You're an advocate of the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. Will the bill help with providing job opportunities for college graduates?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, if passed—and I think it has a good chance to be passed—would provide enhanced job opportunities for college graduates as well as others. It would set a goal of a 4-percent unemployment rate, and it would permit me to judge when this was in conflict with a control of inflation.,It would also bring into being a much closer coordination of effort between the President, the Federal Reserve Banks, the Congress, and others in the Government and in private industry to work together.,It would require me to submit to the Congress an economic plan over several years, 4 or 5 years, that would ultimately lead to the realization of those goals. So, I think the planning concept, the involvement of all the elements who determine the outcome of our economic goals, would be a step in the right direction itself, and it would put a heavy emphasis on the reduction of unemployment.,INDIAN LAND CLAIMS,Q. Mr. President, John Day of Bangor News. Mr. President, last October you were quoted as saying that Judge Gunter's recommendations for settling the Maine Indian suit were fair and equitable.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. The new proposals which your task force has recently recommended have been severely criticized. What leads you to believe that the new recommendations are more fair and equitable than the old ones submitted by Judge Gunter, the difference being that the new recommendations call for substantial contributions from the private landowners of the State as opposed to no contributions under Judge Gunter's proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, Judge Gunter's proposal concerning the Maine land issue involving the Indians was not accepted by the Indians. And when it was rejected by the State, the landowners, and the Indians, then I appointed a task force headed up by Bo Cutter (Eliot Cutler), who happens, coincidentally, to be from Bangor, Maine, to try to work out an agreement.,We have now reached an agreement as far as the Federal Government is concerned, represented by me, and the Indian tribes. It would not require any further negotiation nor litigation by any landowner in Maine who owns less than 50,000 acres of land.,It does leave up to the State of Maine and, I think, 14 landowners who have more than 50,000 acres, an option without any constraint on them—they can either accept the negotiated settlement, they can negotiate further for a better settlement for themselves, perhaps, or they can continue to litigate in court.,The reason that I got involved in it, reluctantly, I might say, was because almost every piece of property in Maine was potentially tied up in a lawsuit, could not be bought or sold, and I could foresee a very serious economic consequence to Maine unless I made some effort to address it.,This settlement would cost the Federal Government about $25 million. But I would like to point out, too, that we are bound by law—that is, the Department of Interior, represented legally by the Attorney General—to represent the Indians.,And this is a recent development, brought about, as you know, by the discovery of some old treaty papers, I think in 1971, and we've tried to expedite the process. But there is no constraint on the large landowners nor the State to accept the settlement that we have evolved. That's up to them.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, as you know, the coal strike has passed all records in length.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Do you feel that the negotiators have really reached a point of being irresponsible in not reaching a settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't ascribe irresponsibility to the negotiators.,When the negotiations broke down, when the bargaining council refused to accept for presentation to the miners the first agreement, that's the point at which I decided to intercede.,I invited both sides to come to the White House, which they did, and the union expanded their negotiating team from six members to nine members to try to bring in some of those who did not agree with the first settlement, to more closely assure that when another settlement was reached the miners would accept it. Now we are keeping the bargaining council in an adjacent room to the negotiators themselves, and there's a constant interrelationship of communications with them.,But I believe that all of the negotiators and the bargaining council, on behalf of the union, are negotiating in good faith.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, Joshua Resnek, the Chelsea Record, Chelsea, Massachusetts. Earlier you said that the machinery of our economy is sound despite shocks. However, shortly before the American Revolution, the great economist Adam Smith wrote about governments like our own which incessantly spend far more than they raise in taxes and which, as a result of such practices, are doomed to inevitable bankruptcy.,First, I'd like to ask you if you agree with economic reasoning like Mr. Smith's. And second, will your administration continue to spend moneys it is clearly incapable of raising?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my goal, as you know, is to balance the budget. This year we are faced with a deficit that's about $15 or $20 billion higher than it would have been because we're trying to give a tax break, tax reduction, to the American people. In every instance, you have to make a judgment on that.,One of the reasons that we are giving the tax reduction is because the taxes are too high; another one is that it would result in a stimulated economy, a million more people at work and paying taxes rather than on the Federal dole. And so you have to make a judgment.,We have expectations, with some fairly accurate projections, that the budget deficit next year, fiscal year 1980, will be considerably below 1979. And if the economy continues to progress, then I have good hopes that in 1981 we will reach my goal. Obviously, I don't have complete control over the economy. But I've not given up in trying to carry out the principles that Adam Smith espoused in your quote.,MIDDLE EAST ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, arms to the Middle East, I want to ask a kind of a philosophic question. How do you rationalize the idea of selling weapons, more sophisticated weapons of war, with the argument that they would help to bring about peace?,And does it bother you that these more and more sophisticated weapons are being sold to both sides and that if a new war were to break out, it would be a more violent confrontation than any in the past?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we are not introducing new weapons into the Middle East. F-15's are already being delivered into the Middle East. Also, I have pledged myself to cut down on the volume of weapons each succeeding year as long as I'm in office, barring some unpredictable, worldwide military outbreak. This year there will be less weapons sales than last year, and this will include, of course, the Middle East.,I think it's very good for nations to turn to us for their security needs, instead of having to turn to the Soviet Union as they have in the past. I'm talking specifically about Egypt. And you have to remember that Saudi Arabia has never had any active aggression against Israel. Saudi Arabia is our ally and friend. Egypt is our ally and friend. Israel is our ally and friend.,To maintain security in that region is important. Egypt has other threats against its security. The Soviets are shipping massive quantities of weapons into the Middle Eastern area now, into the Red Sea area—Ethiopia, into Syria, Iraq, Libya-and we cannot abandon our own friends. So, I don't think that it's wrong at all to ensure stability or the right to defend themselves in a region with arms sales.,We are continuing multinational negotiations with other sellers of weapons to get them to join with us in a constant step-by-step, year-by-year reduction in total arms sales. If they do, I think the world will be much more peaceful in the future.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-01-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have two brief opening statements to make.,DOMESTIC PROGRAMS,The first one involves the major domestic programs that we will pursue in 1978. I would like to review briefly for you my proposals for reforming the tax system, for reducing taxes, for continuing to reduce the unemployment rate, and for preventing and controlling inflation.,These proposals are the centerpiece of the administration's economic program for 1978. Economic policy depends for its success on a very careful balance between different interests, between sometimes conflicting national needs, between doing too much on the one hand, doing too little on the other. To modify one element of a balanced plan can often destroy this balance and can aggravate our economic problems.,I want to emphasize four elements of our proposals that carefully preserve this balance.,First, there's tax reductions. We propose a net tax reduction of $25 billion designed to create almost a million new jobs by the end of 1978. (The President meant to say 1979.) 1 If they are enacted, the economy should continue to grow at a rate of about 4 1/2 to 5 percent, and unemployment should fall below 6 percent by the end of next year. For the vast majority of taxpayers, these reductions will offset the increase in rates that was necessary to prevent bankruptcy of our social security system. For 1978 there will be three times as much tax reduction as there is tax increase for the social security system. And the same ratio, 3 to 1, will prevail in 1979.,1 Printed in the transcript.,Second, our tax reform proposals allow us to have an immediate tax reduction while making substantial progress toward comprehensive reform, a simpler and a fairer tax system. Without these needed reforms, we would not be able to afford so large a tax reduction. They comprise about $9 billion in savings, at the same time providing equality and fairness.,Third is jobs. I've asked for over $700 million more in new funds for youth jobs and, in addition, have asked the Congress to continue the high level of public service jobs for 1979, which is about twice as much as a year ago. In addition, I will shortly forward to the Congress a $400 million program to encourage private businesses to hire the hardcore unemployed. We are balancing the need for public service jobs with the need for private opportunities to reduce unemployment.,And fourth, inflation: Our program is voluntary, requiring the cooperation of government, business, labor, and all our citizens. I've asked each group to hold its increases in wages and prices below the level that it averaged in increases for the last 2 years.,This fair and flexible program and voluntary program will not stop inflation overnight. But it's our best hope for bringing it under control. We simply cannot let inflation overtake us without taking action.,In sum, we proposed an economic program which is balanced. It will not please everyone. As I said in my State of the Union address, we cannot do everything for everybody. We must be willing to face difficult decisions.,In developing our economic program, we've made difficult decisions, and we propose an economic proposal or program that will sustain growth, that will increase employment, and reduce inflation.,SOVIET COSMOS SATELLITE,The other thing I would like to do very briefly is to outline the history of the Soviet satellite, the Cosmos 954. This satellite, which had a nuclear power source on it, was launched on the 18th of September, last year. It was obvious to us later on that the Soviets were having trouble controlling the satellite. On the 19th of December, we set up a small task force in the White House. On the 6th of January, we felt that control had been lost, and I decided personally to notify the Soviets on the 12th of January that we were aware of their problems, to offer our help in monitoring the path of the satellite, and to begin preparing jointly to predict where it would fall and also to prepare for handling it if it should contact the Earth.,The Soviets replied that it was designed so that it would be destroyed as it came back into Earth, and it was designed also so there was no possibility of an atomic explosion.,On the 17th and 18th of January, we notified the key congressional leaders, some of our allies around the world who were capable of joining us in a tracking effort. And the Soviets a day later, on the 19th, repeated their comment it will not explode.,On the 22d of January, we went back to the Soviets to ask them to give us an update to confirm the information we had from monitoring sources. And on the 23d of January, the Soviets notified us that it would probably enter the atmosphere the following day, which is the 24th.,Early on the morning of the 24th, I was notified that the satellite would enter the atmosphere quite early. We did not know whether it would hit between Hawaii on a very high curve up to the northern part of Canada or the western coast of Africa, because sometimes the satellites can skip from one place to another as they enter the atmosphere. It, as you know, entered the atmosphere in Canada.,I immediately called Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, informed him about the approximate location, which later turned out to be accurate. And on the 29th, as you know, just recently, the remains of the satellite have been recovered.,The last satellite we put into Earth orbit with an atomic power source was in 1965. This satellite at the conclusion of its useful life was raised into a higher orbit that has a lifespan of at least 4,000 years.,I think we need to have more rigid safety precautions assured among all nations in Earth-orbiting satellites. In fact, we would be glad to forgo the deployment of any such satellite altogether and will pursue that option along with the Soviet Union.,The only time a satellite needs a longlasting power source that's free of the use of solar energy, which can be derived from the Sun, is when you go into deep outer space. For instance, if we send a probe to the outer planets, there would not be adequate source of energy from the Sun to trigger our solar cells, and we might need power from atomic sources then.,But I see no reason for us to continue with the option of nations to have Earth orbiting satellites unless much more advanced safety precautions can be initiated.,QUESTIONS\nU.S. ARMS SALES IN THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, since I assume the subject will come up when you meet with President Sadat, could you give us a general outline of your view toward our helping Egypt acquire arms?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been, of course, facing the continuing prospect for a number of years of providing some weapons into the Mideast, heavily to Israel, also to Saudi Arabia, to Iran, and to some degree, the nonattack weapons to Egypt.,All these nations have requests to us for weapons. They've been committed to those nations to some degree by my two predecessors and reconfirmed in some instances by me.,The National Security Council will make a report to me early this week recommending from the State Department, from the Defense Department, from the national security adviser, what weapons to recommend to the Congress. After that point, the Congress will have a 30-day plus a 21-day period to respond affirmatively or not. I will decide later on this week what to recommend to the Congress.,The Egyptians have, in the past, requested F-5E fighter planes, one that is used extensively around the world for export purposes primarily, and Israel and Saudi Arabia have requested other weapons. They have some F-5's.,U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID MARSTON,Q. Mr. President, have you seen anything improper in the handling of the Marston affair? Have you learned any lessons from it and all of its ramifications, and do you contemplate any changes in procedures for appointing and removing U.S. attorneys?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, I see nothing improper in the handling of the case. I made a campaign commitment that any appointee to a position as U.S. attorney or a judgeship would be appointed on the basis of merit, and this campaign commitment will be carried out.,There has also been a statement made by me during the campaign that, all other factors equal, that I would choose someone for those positions, or even for the Supreme Court, whose basic political philosophy was compatible with mine. The fact is that at this point we have about one-third of the U.S. attorneys around the country who are Republicans. I think when I took office, only three Democrats were in office. And I don't think that Nixon or Ford appointed any Democrats during the 8-year period. So far as I know, they haven't.,I think that the Attorney General has handled the case as well as possible. I explained to you at the last press conference what I knew about the facts then, and so far as I know, there is no impropriety at all. I understand from the Attorney General that he has now received recommendations for five highly qualified nominees to take over that responsibility. He will begin interviewing them tomorrow. And the likelihood is that he would make a selection this week.,Q. Mr. President, but isn't it time to depoliticize the Justice Department, and in that direction, how about an end to the political firings of Federal judges and prosecutors wholly apart from seeing to it that their Democratic replacements are highly qualified?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we've moved strongly in that direction. Obviously, a Federal judge is not subject to be removed. The Constitution gives the President a responsibility to appoint those officials if confirmed by the Senate. And, of course, a U.S. attorney can be fired or discharged from office only by the President himself. That does not apply to Federal judges. They, as you know, serve for life.,We have, I think, moved a great step in that direction. Over a period of many generations, the Members of the Senate have become heavily involved in recommendations for judges. Now, since I've been in office, we have set up selection boards for all circuit judges. And I think in 15 States the Senators—which is a new development—have now set up selection boards to recommend highly qualified district judges. But I agree with you that this is a move that we should make.,I think you will notice that when we have made selections for, say, circuit judges or when we've made two selections now for Director of the FBI, there were Republicans involved, I think, in both cases for the FBI.,Q. But how about setting up an independent blue ribbon committee that would monitor firings, as well as appointments, deciding each case on the merits, not on politics?,THE PRESIDENT. The Attorney General in 'the speech in May, and preceding that in March, advocated that this general procedure be followed. I don't remember the exact text of that speech. But I believe in every instance when the results have been made known that there has been no criticism of the person chosen. In some instances, U.S. Senators have specifically come forward and advocated that a Republican U.S. attorney be kept in office.,I remember once in particular in New York that Pat Moynihan said to keep the Republicans in office, and we've done so.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, do you have a clear idea now from Prime Minister Begin as to whether or not he will authorize new settlements in the West Bank and in the Sinai, and do you believe that Israel over a period of time ought to phase out those settlements in return for real peace?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've covered this many times. Our position on settlements in the occupied territory has been that they are illegal, that they are an obstacle to peace. When Prime Minister Begin was over here and when Foreign Minister Dayan was here, this question arose. And my understanding of their commitment was that no new settlements would be authorized by the government, that any increase in settlers would be an expansion of existing settlements as much as possible within the aegis of the military.,The Geneva conference agreement is that civilians should not go in to settle permanently in occupied territories. I think the Israeli Government has not authorized the Shilo settlement other than as an archeological exploration project. And I've not yet heard from Prime Minister Begin directly, but I have had information that this is a policy of the Israeli Government, that this is not an authorized settlement.,U.S. ATTORNEY MARSTON,Q. Mr. President, just to sort of complete the record on that Marston case. On the morning of January 12, according to your statement at the Justice Department, you learned that a Member of Congress was of investigative interest to either the Justice Department or the U.S. attorney. Later that day at your news conference, you said, \"As far as any investigation of Members of Congress, however, I'm not familiar with that at all, and it was never mentioned to me.\" Do you see any conflict there?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. I think if you read the question to which I referred, it's obviously related to whether or not I had known anything about any investigation in November. And the answer was no, no discussion ever had been made. The only inkling I had at all that Mr. Ellberg was involved with an investigation was that Frank Moore mentioned, just as I was leaving my office to come over for the press conference, that his name had been raised in conjunction with an investigation. I was not told at that time and had no idea that he was being investigated himself, Eilberg.,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us-this question goes more to philosophy, I guess, than anything—could you tell us why you felt compelled to respond to a phone call from a Congressman in Philadelphia to, as you put it, expedite the removal of a U.S. attorney, one of more than 90 in the country? And secondly, do you really believe that these actions by your administration over the last 2 or 3 weeks with regard to Mr. Marston square, really square with the commitment you made in your campaign to remove the Justice Department from the spoils system traditional to American politics?,THE PRESIDENT. To answer your last question first, yes, I do think that our actions are compatible with my campaign statements, which I've said earlier. On an average day, I get either personal letters from Congress Members or telephone calls about 10 or 12 inquiries or requests for the replacement of a public official or the appointment of someone to fill a vacancy. In most instances, as relates to the Federal judiciary, the inquiries or recommendations come from U.S. Senators.,In historical terms, when both Senators are Republican Senators, then the Members of Congress and the Governors are consulted on who are qualified people and so forth. This was a routine matter for me, and I did not consider my taking the telephone call from Congressman Eilberg, nor relaying his request to the Attorney General, to be ill-advised at all. If it occurred now, I would do the same.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, do you have an overall view of the final borders you would like to see for Israel? Do you expect Israel to return to the 1967 borders in all aspects, especially in East Jerusalem?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't have a map or a plan that ought to be the final border delineation between Israel and her neighbors. I have always operated and made my statements under the framework and within the constraints of United Nations Resolution 242, which calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories.,Israel interprets this language differently, of course, from the Arab neighbors. The Arab neighbors say that Israel ought to withdraw from all occupied territories. Israel says that there's some flexibility there and that the thrust of U.N. Resolution 242 is an exchange, in effect, for portions of the occupied territory for guaranteed peace.,The three elements that I've pursued is, one, a delineation of final borders; secondly, a feeling or conviction on the part of the Israelis that their security was preserved, which would involve both their own military strength, the delineation of the borders, and the attitude now and in the future of their neighbors.,The second question, of course, is the definition of real peace. What does peace mean? Does it simply mean a cessation of hostility or belligerency, or does it mean open borders, trade, tourism, diplomatic exchange, the location of ambassadors, and so forth?,I've taken the more definitive definition as my own preference. And the other thing, of course, is to deal in all its aspects with the Palestinian question.,But I have never tried to put forward in my own mind or to any of the Mideastern leaders a map in saying this is where the lines should be drawn.,THE COAL STRIKE,Q. Mr. President, Energy Secretary Schlesinger has expressed some recent concern about the duration of the coal strike. I wonder what extent you share that concern and whether you might see the necessity to use Taft-Hartley.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are very hopeful that the coal mine operators and the United Coal Workers will expedite a resolution of their differences. This past weekend the news was not good. I see no immediate prospect of having to exercise the Taft-Hartley provisions. It only provides for the President the authority to intercede if the national security is in danger. And we certainly have not arrived at that point yet.,There are some things that we can do, and I've discussed them with the entire Cabinet this morning and, of course, with Secretary Schlesinger in particular. The gaseous diffusion plants for the production of atomic fuels, for instance, are heavy users of energy. We are reducing the power consumed by them.,There is a need for citizens who live in the heavily hit regions, because of the snowstorms, to cut down on consumption of energy because transportation won't let even the available supplies come into those regions. But I have no present intention at all of trying to intercede nor to exercise my authority under the Taft-Hartley Act.,NUCLEAR-POWERED SATELLITES,Q. Mr. President, regarding your concern about satellites and the safety precautions, in taking this up with the Russians, will you try to dissuade them from their practice of putting nuclear reactors into space in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, certainly in Earth orbit. I think that this is something that we should explore. There are two factors though. One is to try to evolve a sure-fire safety requirement that would prevent a recurrence of any atomic active material reaching the Earth or the atmosphere where human beings might breathe it. If we cannot evolve those fail-safe methods, then I think there ought to be a total prohibition against Earth-orbiting satellites.,I would favor at this moment an agreement with the Soviets to prohibit Earth orbiting satellites with atomic radiation material in them.,SOVIET COSMOS SATELLITE,Q. Mr. President, do you have any idea what the deal is on that satellite up there? We get all these reports. One day it's not radioactive; the next day it is. Do you have any late information about just what the status of that thing is? Or whether there is any danger?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I know nothing at this point that hasn't already been put into the press. One, I do know that they've located a crater, about a 9-foot dimension, that it is radioactive, and that a search group from one of our own helicopters working with the Canadians is at the site. But the configuration of the remains of the satellite or whether or not they are now retrieving it from the riverbed where it's located, I do not know.,UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS,Q. Mr. President, last August in your immigration message, you said you were not considering reintroduction of a bracero-type program for the temporary importation of farm workers.,Last week, Secretary Bergland down in Mexico City had an airport press conference at which he apparently gave some Mexican newspapers the idea that we were considering such a program and were considering importing 3 million braceros, and they've been writing a lot of stories about it. He has tried to deny it. Could you state your position on it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no plans whatsoever to reinitiate a bracero program. Our own proposal to deal with the undocumented workers or illegal alien question has already been submitted to the public, and that encompasses what we proposed. It does not comprise a bracerotype program.,SOVIET SATELLITE CAPABILITIES,Q. There are reports that the Soviets have or soon will have the capability to disrupt our sending of military orders by satellites. Can you tell us whether they are accurate or not?,THE PRESIDENT. My information is that that report is not accurate.,NAZI DEMONSTRATION IN SKOKIE, ILLINOIS,Q. Mr. President, there's a group of American Nazis in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago, which is contemplating a march that's in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, and there might be victims there of the Nazi concentration camps from World War II. Do you have any plan to use the moral weight of your office to try to discourage this kind .of a march?,THE PRESIDENT. I deplore it. I wish that this demonstration of an abhorrent political and social philosophy would not be present at all. This is a matter that is in the American Federal courts, as you know, and under the framework of the constitutional guarantee for free speech. I believe under carefully controlled conditions the courts have ruled that it is legal and that they have a right to act this way.,We have the same problem, as you know, in other parts of the Nation—in the South with the Ku Klux Klan, and others. And I don't have any inclination to intercede further. I think it's best to leave it in the hands of the court.,PLANS FOLLOWING TERM IN OFFICE,Q. Mr. President, is it true that you plan to become a missionary after leaving office, and if so, how soon after leaving, for how long and where— [laughter] and if I can pursue it, have you discussed this with Mrs. Carter? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, I discussed it with my wife, who was a member of the Sunday school class that I taught yesterday morning.,I have, as a Baptist layman, been part of a group that advocated an expanded church mission program, but I've not decided whether or not I would want to be a missionary after I complete my term as President.,DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE,Q. Mr. President, on March 15th of 1976, you told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that the American people have had their fill of covert manipulation. The Executive order you signed last week, January 24, provides a procedure for the NSC to approve covert manipulation. Now, I'm wondering, if the American people have had their fill of covert manipulation, why you are continuing to provide this procedure for allowing it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that the Executive order would permit, as you call it, covert manipulations. It does permit the surveillance of certain groups in the United States. The only way that an American citizen can be put under surveillance, clandestine or secret surveillance, is as a result of an order by a Federal judge with a warrant.,If someone is strongly suspected of being an agent of a foreign power, working against the security of our country, then with the approval of the Attorney General to assure that it is a proper function and with my own approval, too, that is permitted.,But that's no departure from any past.,Q. I am talking about Section 1-302. It says the SCC, the Special Coordination Committee, \"shall consider and submit to the President a policy recommendation, including all dissents, on [each] special activity.\" And then Section 4-212 defines special activities as \"activities conducted abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives... which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly\"—which seems to be a covert operation.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, covert, as you know, has a meaning of nonpublicized or secret. Under any circumstances where we feel that it's necessary to have a so-called covert action of any kind overseas, then it has to be decided in the White House. The President is notified and approves it personally. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General are involved, and the congressional intelligence committees are also informed. And so, this is a very careful prevention of any abuse if that should ever become necessary.,PARITY FOR FARMERS,Q. Mr. President, could I ask you about the farmers' demands for 100 percent parity? They've been outside the White House gates several times recently.,Have you ever stated that you are flatly opposed to 100 percent parity, and if so-if not, what are your views on that specific demand; secondly, what would 100 percent parity cost in terms of increasing the Federal budget; and thirdly, what would it cost the American consumer?,THE PRESIDENT. I would guess, to guarantee 100 percent parity for every farm product would cost $20 or $25 billion in the Federal budget. It would also mean that the price of American farm products would be extraordinarily high and that they would be noncompetitive in international markets.,I think the request for or demand for 100 percent of parity is not well founded. There needs to be some flexibility obviously, and that's what is provided under the 1977 agricultural act.,This act, I believe, will go a long way toward meeting the legitimate needs of the American farmer. It only became effective the first day of October 1977. It's not been effective yet for a crop season, and we, in implementing that bill, will have greatly expanded financial benefits for the American farmer, increased support prices and target prices.,Also, we've had a very fine and successful effort for foreign sales, and in establishing a reserve supply of feed grains and food grains primarily held and controlled by farmers, I think will bring some stability to the marketplace and prevent the wild fluctuations which hurt the farmer and consumer. But 100 percent of parity, in my opinion, would be too costly.,TAX REDUCTION AND REFORM,Q. Mr. President, your Treasury Secretary this morning told the Ways and Means Committee that you would rather swallow a cut in your tax cuts rather than increase the $60 billion deficit. How are you going to deal with Chairman Ullman's intention to trim the reforms and probably trim the tax cuts, too?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, Chairman Ullman is obviously entitled to his opinion, and I have never claimed that we had complete compatibility of opinion between myself and the chairmen of the committees either in the House or Senate.,As I pointed out in my opening statement, our entire economic package is a well-balanced one, and without the tax reforms which comprise about $9 billion, it will not be possible to have even a $25 billion tax reduction without a very serious additional Federal deficit. I think the Federal deficit is enough. I wish it was much lower. And I intend to reduce it year by year until the end of my term.,We could have had about a $20 billion lower Federal deficit had we not advocated a tax cut. But there you have to balance off the advantages from a tax cut that's substantial and reducing the Federal deficit in a very rigid way. I think we made the right choice.,We also have to deal with the jobs programs, and we had an increase in Federal spending to put our people back to work, to cut down the unemployment rate. At the same time, we can't stimulate the economy too much or we'd run into increased rate of inflation.,So, those four factors have to go together, and I think we've put them together in a very careful way. If the Congress should change any of those factors, which I hope they will not, then we'd have to use our own influence in the Congress and with the American people to try to induce them to accept some reasonable alternative which would still keep a balanced economic package.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1978-01-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. It's nice to be back home. It's nice to start a new year. I have a brief statement to make before I answer questions.,ENERGY LEGISLATION,Much has been said about the messages that I carried on behalf of the American people to leaders of the nations which I visited on the recent trip. But it's also important to focus on the message that I received from them and brought back home.,They are looking to our country to see whether we have the will, the resolve to deal squarely with our energy problems, which are also becoming their problems. It's clear that our willingness to curb the enormous American national appetite for imported oil will be a consideration, for instance, in future OPEC oil prices.,As a nation, we are increasing our demands for foreign oil. We may have conservation forced on us by unexpected and rapid increases in oil prices in the future. Our consumers and our industries will pay more and more to foreign countries, and with those dollars that go overseas we are, in effect, exporting American jobs.,In Paris and in Brussels, our own allies expressed concern about whether we can and will enact strong energy legislation. If our own economy is not strong, if our strength is being sapped by excessive imports, then we can't provide the kind of leadership and stability on which the economic well-being of the Western democracies rests so heavily.,The United States has had and is still faced with a very large trade deficit which has led recently to exchange market disorders and exchange rate speculation. It's clear that our heavy dependence on imported oil is a main part of our trade problem and that our failure to adopt a comprehensive energy program has badly weakened confidence in our ability to deal with that problem.,Almost every foreign leader stressed the importance of our energy program in terms of our responsibilities for international monetary order and the maintenance of the integrity of the dollar.,We all recognize that while the energy program will not reduce our oil imports overnight, that it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil over the long pull and also permanently. It would improve our trade position, our national economy, the strength of the dollar in a fundamental way.,I believe that we do have the resolve and the national will to deal with the energy problem. The debate in the Congress,has been long and divisive and arduous. It has at times tried the patience of all of us. And delay has deferred action, unfortunately, on a number of other important national priorities.,But when we do succeed—and I believe we have an excellent chance to succeed early in this session—we will have accomplished something in which we can take pride, not just here at home but before the other nations of the world as well.,Thank you. I'd like to answer any questions you might have.,QUESTIONS,ENERGY,Q. Mr. President, in connection with energy, has there been any kind of a compromise reached on natural gas pricing? Do you think you'll get an energy program? And if you don't, what unilateral steps will you take? And I have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. A followup to all three of those questions?,Well, there was a substantial amount of progress made by the conference committees just before Christmas. I think that many of the consumer-oriented House Members were willing to accept a compromise that was acceptable to many of the Senators. The problem has been and still is that there are nine Senators for and nine Senators against any sort of proposal that has been made up until this time.,Dr. James Schlesinger has been out on the west coast to meet with the chairman of the committee, Senator Scoop Jackson. I have talked to Senator Jackson on the phone. And he's told me that he has a redetermination to exert his own leadership and profound influence in bringing about a resolution of the present deadlock.,My guess is that the Congress is beginning to realize—many of them have long realized—the importance of this legislation. It will be the first order of business. It's the first priority for this year's work. And it is holding up other very important matters that the Congress is interested in.,So, I think the answer to your second question is that, yes, there will be a compromise reached. It will be acceptable to me and to the country. And I think it will come very early in this session.,The third thing, what will I do if the Congress does not act, is something that I'm not yet prepared to answer. There are authorities that I have and Dr. James Schlesinger has as head of the Energy Department that would be much more unsettling to our Nation's economy—the imposition of import charges on oil that we hope to avoid, and I think the Members of the House and Senate want to avoid those kinds of disruptive actions just as much as we do.,The present laws are inadequate to deal with the increasing problems of the energy demand, which are met so excessively by imports of oil. I think we do need to have passed adequate incentives. What we have proposed to the Congress would give oil producers for new oil the highest price in the world, and it would mean that in natural gas, there would be a substantial increase in prices to the producers, compared to what we have had in the past.,I think our proposal is fair and well balanced, and I think there's a growing consensus within the Congress that this is a basis on which to reach an agreement. And I hope to avoid having to take administrative action that would be damaging to the economy in order to protect us in the future.,Q. My followup was simply, were you surprised at the NAACP's opposition to your program, and do you think it'll have an impact?,THE PRESIDENT. I was surprised. I talked to the president of the NAACP this morning, Benjamin Hooks. He said the major thrust of their report was that they want to have a sustained growth in the economy and therefore provide additional jobs for people in our Nation. But I disagree strongly with the conclusion the NAACP reached, that the way to do that was to channel enormous sums of money, $40, $50, $60, $70 billion into the pockets of those who own the major oil companies, out of the pockets of consumers.,I want to have a strong economy, too. But I don't think that's the right way to do it.,SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN AFRICA,Q. Mr. President, everywhere you traveled, except Poland, we were told that you and the leaders talked about Soviet and Cuban penetration in the Horn of Africa, but we only got very generalized and vague statements on this. Can you enunciate the depth of our concern, and what can we do about it except jawbone?,THE PRESIDENT. We've taken a position concerning Africa that we would use our influence to bring about peace without shipping arms to the disputing parties and without our injecting ourselves into disputes that could best be resolved by Africans, both those parties that are in dispute and the Organization of African Unity. The Soviets have done just the opposite.,They, in effect, contributed to the war that's presently taking place between Somalia and Ethiopia. They sold excessive quantities of arms and weapons both to Somalia and to Ethiopia. The war began using Soviet weapons, and now they are shipping large quantities of weapons, some men, and they are also dispatching Cubans into Ethiopia, perhaps to become combatants themselves. We have expressed our concern to the Soviets in very strong terms.,We have shared the concerns that we feel with the leaders that I have visited, both the cumulative group of countries that join with us in the NATO alliance, and specifically with France, the Middle Eastern countries, and India. We've had unanimous response from them sharing our concern about the Soviet Union's unwarranted involvement in Africa. I am very concerned about the loss of life now.,Our hope is that the Somalians might call publicly for negotiations to begin immediately to resolve the Ogaden dispute. One possibility, of course, would be to go to the Security Council of the United Nations or to the permanent members of the Security Council. But the basic negotiation ought to take place between those two nations themselves.,So, I think that there are things that we can do to express our concern publicly, to offer our good services in support of the African nations who are responsible, to support the Organization of African Unity, and in the United Nations to let our voice be heard. But I hope that we can induce the Soviets and the Cubans not to send either soldiers or weapons into that area and call for and achieve a rapid initiation of negotiations.,INTEREST RATES,Q. Mr. President, on another subject, will Miller, as head of the Fed, mean lower interest rates?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I want lower interest rates, and I know the Fed does also, I'm sure, including Chairman Burns and certainly William Miller, who will be Chairman in the future, I hope.,We have here a problem in stabilizing the value of the dollar, which is the basis for most international trade on the one hand, of preventing excessive inflation, which is compatible with that, and still having interest rates low enough to encourage businesses to invest in stocks, to encourage them to create jobs with expansion, and to make sure that we have an economy that's stable and predictable.,So, I think that both Chairman Burns and Miller would like to have lower interest rates.,I hate to repeat myself again, but I think that until the question of energy is resolved, the uncertainty about this subject and the realization that our excessive imports of oil or adverse balance of trade is going to be permanent, those two things are going to contribute to the deleterious effects of increasing interest rates and also uncertainty in the stock market.\nMr. Bradley [Ed Bradley, CBS News].,U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID MARSTON,Q. Mr. President, you promised during the campaign to appoint U.S. attorneys strictly—without any consideration of political aspects or influence—strictly on the basis of merit. May we first of all assume that is also your standard for removing political attorneys, U.S. attorneys, and if so, why are you removing the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, David Marston, who on the surface seems to have a credible record, which includes the prosecution and conviction of a number of prominent Democrats?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the answer to the first part of your question is certainly yes. I intend to make sure that all the appointments that are made to Federal judgeships and also to U.S. attorneys are made on the basis of merit. And I think until each appointment is observed very carefully—who was in office compared to who is the replacement for that person in office—that it would be hard to criticize a particular instance.,I have recently learned about the U.S. attorney named Marston. This is one of hundreds of U.S. attorneys in the country, and I was not familiar with the case until it became highly publicized. The Attorney General is handling the investigation of the replacement for Mr. Marston. I think the focusing of attention on this case will certainly doubly inspire him to make a selection that will be admirable and a credit to him and to me, and I've not interfered in it at all.,Before I first heard about Mr. Marston, the Attorney General had already decided to replace him. We have encouraged the Members of Congress, Democratic Members of Congress, not to be involved in trying to influence the Attorney General about who should be the new U.S. attorney there.,I'd be glad to answer a followup question.,Q. Is it the Attorney General's feeling, sir, that he has not done a good job?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't say that Mr. Marston has or has not done a good job. He was appointed at the last minute under the previous administration. He was not a practicing attorney, had never had any prosecuting experience. And the only criticism that I've heard about him was that he had a very heavy commitment to calling press conferences and so forth when he obtained evidence or when a grand jury took action in an indictment. I think this is not unique in the country.,I've not discussed the case with the Attorney General and asked him specifically what was wrong with Marston. I don't know who he will recommend to me for the replacement. But I can assure you that when the replacement is announced, that there will be the emphasis on the quality of the replacement, his qualifications compared to the incumbent. And I have absolute confidence that the Attorney General will do a good job in that respect.,FUEL PRICES,Q. Could I have a followup on energy? You have said that you want a fair energy bill from Congress.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do.,Q. And you've indicated, repeated today again, a warning about funneling undue amounts of money from the pockets of the consumers to the oil companies. Yet your Energy Department has told some northeastern Congressmen that it will no longer continue weekly monitoring of home heating oil prices, that it will not monitor fuel prices at the refinery gates, and that if the prices to consumers do go up unduly this winter, they'll take action next winter. Now, how does that protect the consumers against a ripoff?,THE PRESIDENT. If what you say is true, then I don't see that it does protect the consumers adequately. I'm not familiar with that statement, but I will find out an answer for you and let you know the answer. 1,1 On the following day, the White House issued the following announcement:,The President said during his press conference that he would look into a question concerning monitoring of home heating oil prices by the Energy Department.,In July 1976, price controls on home heating oil and diesel fuel were lifted. A one season price monitoring system was instituted by the Ford administration for the 1976-1977 winter season to ease the transition to the free market.,That monitoring system expired, and work has been underway on a new system for some time. In accordance with Federal rulemaking procedures, a proposed regulation outlining the new system was published in September. Public hearings were held, and the final regulation establishing the new system is expected to be signed this week.,In the meantime, the Department has continued to monitor home heating oil prices through the Energy Information Administration. No significant increases in home heating oil prices have been detected in this heating season.,U.S. ATTORNEY MARSTON,Q. Mr. President, if I could pursue the Marston question-,THE PRESIDENT. Please do.,Q.—one step further. There have been reports that, first of all, Mr. Marston is in the midst of an investigation which involves two Democratic Congressmen from Pennsylvania. And there have been reports that at least one of them has sought to contact the White House or you yourself to, in effect, get Mr. Marston off their backs. I wonder if you are aware of any such contacts or intents, however informal, and what your reaction to such a contact would be.,THE PRESIDENT. The only contact I've had with any Congressmen directly was, I think, Congressman Eilberg called me and asked that we look into it. At that time, the Attorney General had already decided to make the change. When I talked to the Attorney General about it, before Eilberg had let his views be known on the telephone call, he said that the replacement would be made and that he hoped that the Democratic Congress Members who had shown an interest in it would not be involved in trying to decide who would be the replacement.,And this has been an assurance given to us by Mr. Eilberg. As far as any investigation of Members of Congress, however, I'm not familiar with that at all, and it was never mentioned to me.,Q. Could you tell me, sir, what reason Mr. Eilberg gave for asking you to look into it? And what do you mean by \"it\"?,THE PRESIDENT. He wanted the replacement process to be expedited. The decision had already been made to replace Mr. Marston, and I think the Attorney General can answer your question better specifically. And my importunity to Mr. Eilberg was that it would be better if the Congress Members would let the Attorney General make the selection on the basis of merit alone. And that was Mr. Eilberg's comment to me, that he had no interest in who would be the replacement at all, but he thought that because of the confusion there that the decision that the Attorney General had already made ought to be expedited. And I feel the same way. I have complete confidence that the replacement will be chosen on the basis of merit and not politics.,TAX CUT,Q. Mr. President, with signs now that the economy is improving, why should the tax cut that your administration is proposing be any larger than an amount necessary to compensate for the increased energy taxes and social security taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the tax proposal that I intend to make to the Congress will have an effective date of October 1. We anticipate, if projections hold true, that the first two quarters of 1978 will show very good economic progress in the growth rate, in the controlling of unemployment and inflation. But we believe that by the end of the third quarter, October 1, there will be a need to sustain the economic growth that we think we'll experience.,We are not trying to deal with an economy that's tottering or on the verge of collapse or in any danger. We have basically a very strong national economy.,The goal that we've set for ourselves for 1978 is a 5-percent growth rate. We were very fortunate in 1977 in reaching the goals that we set for ourselves, both in unemployment, as you know, and also in the growth rate. But we believe that a substantial tax reduction is needed for that purpose.,There are two other reasons. One is I want to reduce the portion of our gross national product that is collected and spent by the Federal Government. In my opinion, it's too high. It's approaching 23 percent. And by the time I go out of office, I would like to have that down to no more than 21 percent. And also with the encroachment of inflation, it moves people into a higher tax bracket with paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes just because their dollars that they earn are cheaper and they get more of them.,So, with inflation, you have, in effect, the imposition of higher and higher tax rates to the American people if the laws don't change. So, for that reason also, I want to reduce the rate of taxes paid by the American people.,So, I think that a substantial tax reduction is needed in 1978, and I believe the Congress will agree. So, we intend to do all three things, to compensate for increases in social security tax, to keep the economy moving strongly, and also to compensate for the effects of inflation.,STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE,Q. Mr. President, when talking about the aggravation of oil imports, the U.S. Government's strategic petroleum stockpile—I think your decision is to acquire 1 billion barrels of oil—,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. — on the world market. Now, the GAO and others have recommended that we use oil we already own, in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, and that would save, I think, as you're going now, to about $20 billion you're going to spend in foreign oil. We could reduce this by half, a $10 billion saving if we used our existing naval supplies. Why don't we do that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are, in effect, increasing the production of American oil to cut down on the amount that we have to purchase. At Elk Hills, at Teapot Dome, we're trying to increase the importing of oil to the continental United States from Alaska. We're trying to maintain the production of oil, sour oil, to some degree in California, in addition to reducing overall consumption of oil and energy and shifting to coal.,And at the same time, it's very important to us to have stability in the world oil market and protect us from some interruption in the future over which we have no control.,So, we've set a goal for ourselves that by 1985, we'll have a billion barrels of oil stored in a secure place in salt domes in the United States so that we can have an 8- or 10-month supply in case overseas oil is interrupted in coming to us.,So, the sum total of what we propose is to do exactly what you describe. Whether domestic oil actually goes into the supply system of our country and foreign oil goes into the underground storage is really of no consequence, because the overall consumption of oil plus the import or use of oil to build up our reserves is the factor that controls how much we import.,Q. Well, my question is—what it goes to the point of—the $10 billion savings. We already own the Elk Hills naval oil reserve.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when we sell that oil, if it's on the commercial market, the Federal Treasury gets the money back for that oil. So, there's just really swapping dollars. It may be very difficult to transport the oil from Elk Hills and identify a particular gallon or barrel of oil that has to go into a salt dome in Louisiana.,Q. Well, they talked about swap arrangements, particularly with Japan. Japan would be very happy to have that very sweet Elk Hills oil, and they'd give us their Mideast oil.,THE PRESIDENT. I understand. But we're trying to do what I've just said, build up the adequate supply of oil for reserve and cut down consumption and imports at the same time.,Sarah McClendon [McClendon News Service].,U.S. BORDER PATROL HELICOPTER,Q. Who did you say? [Laughter] I thought you were looking over there.,Sir, I have a question I want to take up with you. On January 5, a helicopter, a border patrolman on board, was shot at from the Mexican side of the border, and according to Immigration Service, no plans are being made to make a formal, big, major protest on that through the White House or the State Department to the Mexican Government. The families and the border patrolmen are very concerned. They think if you don't make a major protest, you'll get this again.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I will certainly look into it. We have only recently begun to use helicopters on the border patrol. We have in Mexico, however, in close cooperation with the Mexican Government, used our helicopters for the detection of poppy fields that produce heroin and other hard drugs in Mexico.,And my understanding was that the helicopter fired at was in the process of trying to destroy heroin poppy fields.,Q. No, sir, it was on this side of the border. The helicopter shot at was on this side of the border, was shot at from the Mexican side.,THE PRESIDENT. I understand.,Q. This has happened before with airplanes, but not helicopters. It's very dangerous with the helicopters.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, until this past year we have never used helicopters for that purpose. But we are now.,U.S. ATTORNEY MARSTON,Q. Mr. President, to come back to the Marston matter for a minute, without gainsaying yours and the Attorney General's intention to appoint someone at least as qualified as he is, it's still not clear to me why he's being removed in the first place. Could you expand on what you've said already a little bit?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think I've covered that at least as far as I am able to. I've never looked into Mr. Marston's qualifications. I depend upon the Attorney General to assess the quality and the performance of duty of the U.S. attorneys around the country. And when he decides that a U.S. attorney needs to be replaced, then he makes the judgment about who ought to be the replacement.,He made, quite early in this past year, a decision that Mr. Marston should be replaced. I've never asked him to delineate all the reasons. And my only involvement in it at all was to expedite the process.,As I've told you, I have complete confidence in the Attorney General's judgment. I think he will recommend to me someone who will make me and him proud and particularly since there's been such a large focusing of attention on the case the last few weeks. And why the publicity has accrued to that case, I'm not sure. But I want to make sure now that when this selection is made, it ;rill be a superb person. And I hope and expect that it will be a man who's at least qualified, perhaps better qualified, than Mr. Marston, or perhaps a woman.,SMOKING,Q. Your Secretary of HEW wants to spend $23 million to persuade Americans to stop smoking, while there are people on your staff, Mr. President, who smoke in public like chimneys. Could you explain this apparent contradiction? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't see the contradiction there. I can't deny that the Secretary of HEW, who's responsible for the Nation's health, points out, as have his predecessors for 15 or 20 years, that smoking is a danger to health. The U.S. Surgeon General, as you know, years ago confirmed this in tests. Now, I happen to think that that's his responsibility. And it's not his responsibility to tell a particular American citizen whether they can or cannot smoke.,Q. I understand, sir. But would you ask your White House staff to set a national example? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. No, sir.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. When you were in Egypt meeting with President Sadat, President Sadat emerged from that meeting saying that your views and his on the Middle East were essentially identical. Does that mean that you think the Israelis should withdraw from all 20 settlements they have in the Sinai plus their West Bank settlements before there can be peace in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's not for me to decide the specifics of an ultimate settlement, either between Israel and Egypt, or Israel and Jordan, or Israel and the other nations involved or the Palestinians.,I think that it's accurate that President Sadat and I see the Middle East question almost identically. I've not been involved and don't intend to get involved in the military settlement that's now being negotiated in Cairo. The position of our Government is now and has been that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal and that they contravene the Geneva conference decisions that were made.,The U.N. Resolution 242 is the basis for the ultimate decision. All the nations involved have espoused 242, and 338 later on, which set up the Geneva conference with ourselves and the Soviets as chairmen. We have in that language that says Israel will withdraw from occupied territories.,Combined with that requirement, though, is that Israel will have secure borders, including a realization of security from the attitude of her neighbors. So, this is an extremely complicated subject, as you well know. I can't say that on every specific instance that President Sadat and I will agree on details. We didn't discuss those details.,And I think that it's best for us just to add our good offices when we can, support both men as they go to the negotiating table. Secretary Vance will be in Jerusalem with the foreign ministers of the two countries involved, and our position on the settlements has not changed.\nFRANK CORMIER [Associated Press].\nThank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-12-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO POLAND,THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. Dzien dobry.,It's a great honor for me to be here in Poland to reaffirm and to strengthen the historic and strong ties of friendship and mutual purpose which exist between our two countries. I have had very fruitful discussions with First Secretary Gierek and the other officials of Poland on bilateral questions, on questions involving NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, matters relating to SALT, mutual and balanced force reductions, and general commitments to peace in the future.,This morning I had a chance to visit memorials to the brave people of Poland, and particularly of Warsaw. I doubt that there is any nation on Earth which has suffered more from the ravages of war. In the Second World War the Nazis killed 800,000 people in Warsaw alone and 6 million Poles. And I was able to pay homage to their courage and bravery.,I also visited the Ghetto Monument, a memorial to Polish Jews who stood alone to face the Nazis but who will forever live in the conscience of the world.,This afternoon I would like to answer questions from the reporters assembled here. There were a few who wanted to attend who were not permitted to come. Their questions will be answered by me in writing. And now I would be glad to respond to questions, beginning with Mr. Wojna [Riczrd Wojna, Tribuna Ludu].,QUESTIONS,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q [in Polish]. Mr. President, Poland and the entire world has attached great importance to the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Could you answer what is your assessment of the chance for a prompt conclusion on SALT talks and in other discussions on strategic matters, and how in this respect do you assess the latest pronouncement by Leonid Brezhnev in an interview for the Pravda Daily?,THE PRESIDENT. In the last few months, the United States and the Soviet Union have made great progress in dealing with a long list of important issues, the most important of which is to control the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons. We hope to conclude the SALT II talks this year, hopefully in the spring. We have resolved many of the major issues. A few still remain. We have made good progress in recent months.,At the same time, we have made progress for the first time in establishing principles on which there can be a total prohibition against all tests of nuclear explosives in the future. We've made progress on prohibiting additional military buildup in the Indian Ocean, recently commenced talks to reduce the sale of conventional weapons to other nations in the world. And I will pursue this same subject with President Giscard next week.,In addition, the Soviets and we are making progress in how we can prevent the use in the future of chemical and biological warfare, and we hope that we can reinstigate progress in the mutual and balanced force reductions which have been stalemated in Vienna for a number of years. So, I would say that in summary I am very encouraged at the new progress that I have witnessed personally among our negotiators.,When Foreign Minister Gromyko was in Washington recently, in a few hours we resolved many of the difficult issues. Our negotiators are at work on all those subjects at this present time. There has been no cessation of effort. And I believe that 1978 will see a resolution of many of these issues.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,THE MIDDLE' EAST,Q. Mr. President, are you likely to go to Egypt next Wednesday, and if you do, will it be primarily because President Sadat has urged you to go, or for some other purpose, or why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have a standing invitation from President Sadat to visit Egypt that he extended to me on his trip to Washington. And he's reemphasized it several times since that date. We have had no discussions with President Sadat on that particular visit to Egypt while I'm on this trip. We will try to keep our schedule flexible. If it's mutually convenient and desirable, we would certainly consider it. But we have no plans at this time to stop in Egypt next Wednesday or any other time on this trip.,I might say that our own relations with the Arab nations, including, certainly, Egypt, are very good and harmonious. There has been no change in our own position relating to the Middle Eastern talks. And we communicate almost daily with the Egyptian and Israeli leaders. And as you know, I will be meeting King Hussein in Tehran on our next stop on this trip.,Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. You said you often don't intend and don't desire to dictate the terms of a Middle East settlement.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. This is true.,Q. And yet President Sadat seems to think that you have pulled the rug out from under him and that you are in fact dictating terms when you are backing an Israeli military presence on the West Bank at Gaza after there would be a settlement.,THE PRESIDENT. We don't back any Israeli military settlement in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank. We favor, as you know, a Palestinian homeland or entity there. Our own preference is that this entity be tied in to Jordan and not be a separate and independent nation. That is merely an expression of preference which we have relayed on numerous occasions to the Arab leaders, including President Sadat when he was with me in Washington. I've expressed the same opinion to the Israelis, to King Hussein, and to President Asad, and also to the Saudi Arabians. We have no intention of attempting to impose a settlement. Any agreement which can be reached between Israel and her Arab neighbors would be acceptable. to us. We are in a posture of expressing opinions, trying to promote intimate and direct negotiations and communications, expediting the process' when it seems to be slow, and adding our good offices whenever requested. But we have no intention or desire to impose a settlement.,Let me go back to the Polish side. Yes, sir.,RELIGION,Q [in Polish]. I will speak Polish. Let me welcome you not only as the President of the United States but as an eminent American Baptist. I am a Baptist myself. I am preoccupied with editing a Baptist magazine in Poland, and I would like to express my gladness that you have been elected to the post of the President of the United States, as a man, as a believer who is not ashamed of it and of his evangelical convictions. This prompts me to wish you and your family the best of the very best in 1978 and also in your activity in strengthening peace the world over.,And now over to our question. We all know that you are a practicing Christian, as every Baptist should be--as every good Baptist should be. And I would like to ask whether your religious convictions help you in executing the job of a President of such a big country. Can you quote an example in how the evangelical principles helped you in solving any complicated problem?,And the second question, we the Polish Baptists live in an extra-Catholic country, and on occasions we are discriminated against. As a believer, as a Baptist, can you influence the change of a situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the United States believes in religious freedom. And I'm very grateful for the degree of religious freedom that also exists in Poland.,Dr. Brzezinski, my national security adviser, and my wife, Rosalynn, had a visit with Cardinal Wyszynski this morning and did this .as an expression of our appreciation for the degree of freedom to worship in this country.,This is a matter of conscience, as a Baptist and as an American leader. We believe in separation of church and state, that there should be no unwarranted influence on the church or religion by the state, and vice versa. My own religious convictions are deep and personal. I seek divine guidance when I make a difficult decision as President and also am supported, of course, by a common purpose which binds Christians together in a belief in the human dignity of mankind and in the search for worldwide peace--recognizing, of course, that those who don't share my faith quite often have the same desires and hopes.,My own constant hope is that all nations would give maximum freedom of religion and freedom of expression to their people, and I will do all I can, within the bounds of propriety, to bring that hope into realization.,POLISH AUTONOMY,Q. Mr. President, during those Presidential debates, in a celebrated exchange, President Ford claimed that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. And you replied, \"Tell it to the Poles.\" Well, now that you're here, is it your view that this domination will continue almost into perpetuity, or do you see a day when Poland may be actually free? And if so, how would that come about?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is obviously a decision for the Polish leaders and the Polish people to make. Our nation is committed to the proposition that all countries would be autonomous, they would all be independent, and they would all be free of unwanted interference and entanglements with other nations.,The Polish people have been bound very closely to the Soviet Union since the Second World War, and they belong to a Warsaw Pact military alliance, which is, of course, different from the NATO relationship to which we belong.,My own assessment within the European theater, Eastern European theater, is that here, compared to some other nations, there is a great religious freedom and otherwise, and I think this is a hope that we all share and cherish. I think this has been the or, gin of the Polish nation more than a thousand years ago, and it's a deep commitment of the vast majority of the Polish people, a desire and a commitment not to be dominated.,Q. You don't deny that they are dominated here, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I've commented all I wish on that subject.,CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE,Q [in Polish]. Mr. President, what is the potential for realization of the Helsinki Final Act as an integral entity, especially in the view of the Belgrade meeting? And what is your opinion about Chancellor Schmidt's 1 proposal to repeat in one or another form the meeting on the top level?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Helsinki agreement, which calls for cooperation and security in Europe and which has, as a so-called Third Basket component, an insistence upon maximum enhancement and preservation of human rights, is an agreement that is important to the Poles and also to our country and other signatories of that treaty.,1 Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of the Federal Republic of Germany.,We believe that the Belgrade conference has been productive. This is a question that must be approached on a multinational 'basis. The treaty terms provide for open and frank criticism of other signatories when standards are not met. There has been a free exchange of opinion between ourselves and the Soviet Union and indeed all the nations involved.,We hope that this session will come to a rapid and successful conclusion and that there will be repeated scheduled meetings based upon the Belgrade conference that would be held in the future so that all nations who participated in the Helsinki agreement and all those who didn't become signatories would have a constant reminder before them of the importance of cooperation, mutual security, the sharing of information, the recombination of families, free emigration, and the preservation of basic human rights.,So, I hope that this will be a continuing process scheduled repeatedly and that this issue of human rights will never be forgotten.\nYes, Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,HUMAN RIGHTS,Q. Mr. President, then how satisfied are you that your concept of the preservation of human rights is currently being honored here in Poland?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland, as I've said, much better than (some) 2 other European nations with which I'm familiar. There is a substantial degree of freedom of the press exhibited by this conference this afternoon; a substantial degree of freedom of religion, demonstrated by the fact that approximately 90 percent of the Polish people profess faith in Christ; and an open relationship between Poland and our country and Poland and Western European countries in trade, technology, cultural exchange, student exchange, tourism.,2 Printed in the White House Press Office transcript.,So, I don't think there's any doubt that the will of the Polish people for complete preservation and enhancement of human rights is the same as our own.,Q. What steps, then, do you believe should be taken here in Poland to come closer to reaching your concept?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think Poland shares with us a commitment, which is sometimes embarrassing for us and them, to have our own faults publicized evocatively at conferences like the one in Belgrade, where there's a free and open discussion and criticism and a singular pointing out of violations of high standards of human rights preservation. We have been criticized at Belgrade, sometimes legitimately; sometimes, I think, mistakenly. The same applies to nations in Eastern Europe and to the Soviet Union.,And I think this is the best thing that we can do at this point, is to continue to insist upon a rigid enforcement and interpretation of the human rights section of the Helsinki agreement.,ENERGY,Q [in Polish]. Mr. President, the Polish Radio.,The United States is facing an energy crisis which is also an international problem. How can you see the possibilities of solving that crisis, like a multilateral conference, a European conference or bilateral agreements, and are you of the opinion that the cooperation between the United States and Poland in this respect is possible?,THE PRESIDENT. One of the worst domestic problems that we have is the overconsumption and waste of energy. I have no doubt that every country I visit on this tour will be pressing us on the question of what will the United States do to save energy and not to import too much of very scarce oil, in particular, which is available on the world markets. We are addressing this as a top priority among domestic issues.,Poland is, as you know, self-sufficient in both hard coal and also brown coal, which is increasing in production in Poland itself. We call it lignite in our own country. One of the things that we can do is on a worldwide basis to try to hold down unnecessary demand for oil and natural gas, therefore providing stable prices.,Another is to consume those energy sources which we have most available in our country and in yours, coal; shift to permanent sources of energy, primarily those derived from solar power; and share research and development information and commitments, a subject which I was discussing early today with First Secretary Gierek.,How to burn lignite coal so that it will have minimum effect on the environment and also have maximum heat derivation is a question of importance to you and to us. We are now shifting to the production and consumption of lignite coal in our own country, for instance, and so are you.,So, I think sharing, on an international basis, of data and technological advantages and progress in the energy field and conservation of scarce energy sources for all nations would be the two basic things which we could do jointly.,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir?\nQ [in Polish]. I have got one question.,THE PRESIDENT. Go right ahead.,Q. Can I?,THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead.,Q. May I?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,U.S.-POLISH RELATIONS,Q. What is involved in the entity of Polish-American cooperation, so far, and what is your opinion as far as this cooperation, between Poland and the United States is concerned, and how in the light of today's talks can you see the prospects for the development of such cooperation as well as what the United States wants to do to contribute to this development?,THE PRESIDENT. We already have a good relationship with Poland in cultural exchange, in technological and scientific cooperation, and in rapidly growing level of trade.,About 4 years ago we had a total trade with Poland of only about $500 million. In 1978, the level of trade will probably exceed $1 billion.,I have just informed First Secretary Gierek that in addition to the $300 million in commodity credit grain sales that has been authorized by our own country, that we will increase that by $200 million more worth of food and feed grains.,Poland has had a devastating and unprecedented 4 years of crop failure because of adverse weather conditions; 3 years of drought, the last year, of excessive floods. We, on the other hand, have had very good and bountiful harvests. And we want to share our grain with Poland on legal credit terms which have already been established by our government.,I think another thing that Poland can help with is to improve even further the better relationships that we are working out with the Soviet Union. Poland is a nation that has good communications and cooperation with the nations in Western Europe--with Germany, Belgium, Holland, France and others--and also are an integral part of the Warsaw Pact nations. And I think this ease of communication and this natural and historical friendship is a basis on which Poland can provide additional cooperation and communication between ourselves and the Soviet Union.,I don't say this to insinuate that we have a lack of communication now. But Poland's good offices can be of great benefit to us. Yes, sir.,Q. Mr. President, in your discussions earlier today with First Secretary Gierek and other Polish leaders, did they in your mind express any viewpoints on international questions that diverged in tone or substance from the viewpoints generally expressed by the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. We discussed a wide range of subjects. I didn't detect any significant differences of opinion between ourselves and the Polish leaders, and we did not go into detail on matters that now are not resolved between ourselves and the Soviets.,For instance, the details of the SALT negotiations and the comprehensive test ban were not discussed by me and Mr. Gierek. So, I would say that we found no disharmonies of any significance between ourselves and the Poles, or between the Poles and the Soviet Union.,Mr. Gierek did express a concern that there might be a bilateral agreement between Israel and Egypt in the Middle East, to the exclusion of the other Arab countries. This is an opinion also held by the Soviet Union. It's an opinion also held by us and by Israel and Egypt.,I pointed out to Mr. Gierek that had the Egyptians and Israelis wanted to seek a solution only for the Sinai region and the Egyptian-Israeli relationship, they could probably already have consummated such an agreement. But President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin do not want such an agreement. I pointed out this to Mr. Gierek and he was relieved to hear this.,He also was quite concerned about the lack of progress on the mutual and balanced force reductions, which have been stalemated in Vienna for years. He pointed out that the primary responsibility lay on the shoulders of the United States and the Soviet Union.,This is not exactly the case, because we consult very closely with our NATO allies before any common opinion or proposition is put forward. I hope to relieve this stalemate shortly. And we are consulting closely with the Germans and others in the Western European theater and also with the Soviets on this matter.,He was very pleased that we want to reduce international sales of conventional weapons. This is a subject on which we have just begun to talk with the Soviet Union, and perhaps Poland is ahead of the Soviet Union in this particular subject. But I hope that they will be amenable to that same suggestion.,So, the answer is, I don't know of any disagreements between the Poles and the Soviets that came out this morning, nor do I know any significant disagreements that came out between ourselves .and the Poles.\nYes, sir.,TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS,Q [in Polish]. Mr. President, the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev, has put forward a suggestion recently that the Eastern and Western countries renounce the neutron bomb together. Would you be ready to accept such a proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. One of the disturbing failures up until this point in nuclear weaponry has been a complete absence of discussions concerning tactical or theater nuclear weapons. The only discussions that have ever been held between ourselves and the Soviets related only to strategic weapons, those that can be fired from one continent to another or from the sea into a continent.,I would hope that as a result of the SALT II talks we might agree with the Soviets to start addressing the question of the so-called tactical nuclear weapons, of which the enhanced radiation or neutron bomb would be one.,This weapon is much less destabilizing in its effect, if it should be deployed, than, for instance, some of the advanced new Soviet weapons like the SS-20 missile, which is much more destructive than any weapon held by the NATO allies and has a much greater range.,So, my hope is that in general we can reduce the threat of nuclear destruction in the European area. There are now several thousand tactical nuclear weapons already deployed on both sides in the European theater. And the whole matter must be addressed in its entirety, rather than one weapon at the time.,We would not deploy the neutron bomb or neutron shells unless it was an agreement by our NATO allies. That's where the decision will be made. But there are other new weapons, including the SS-20, much more threatening to the balance that presently exists.\nYes, sir.,POLISH EMIGRATION,Q. Mr. President, you said that you have ,agreed to expand the agricultural credits to Poland.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. In talking with us the other day, your advisers have linked that with a human rights concern, namely, that the reunification of families between the Eastern and Western blocs be improved in Poland. Have the Poles agreed to do that? Have they given you any satisfaction that this, too, would be done?,THE PRESIDENT. One of the first subjects which I discussed with First Secretary Gierek in our private talks today was the reunification of families between Poland and the United States. In the last 4 years there have been about 15,000 Poles who have been permitted to emigrate to our country. We still have about 250 families-we call them nuclear families, that is, a father, mother, and children--who desire to be unified, and permission has not yet been obtained.,First Secretary Gierek said that he would give his own personal attention to alleviating this problem. And he directed his Foreign Minister and I directed our Secretary of State to proceed with this discussion during this afternoon. Their assurance was that our concern would be alleviated.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-12-15","text":"HUMAN RIGHTS,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, everybody. I have a statement to make first about a subject of great importance to us. This is Human Rights Week around the world. I've worked day and night to make sure that a concern for human rights is woven through everything our Government does, both at home and abroad.,This policy has produced some controversy, but it's very much in keeping with the character and the history of our own country. We became an independent nation in a struggle for human rights. And there have been many such struggles since then, for the abolition of slavery, for universal suffrage, for racial equality, for the rights of workers, for women's rights.,Not all of these struggles have yet been won. But the freedom and the vigor of our own national public life is evidence of the rights and the liberties that we have achieved. I believe that public life everywhere, in all nations, should have that same freedom and vigor.,We have no wish to tell other nations what political or social systems they should have, but we want our own worldwide influence to reduce human suffering and not to increase it. This is equally true whether the cause of suffering be hunger on the one hand or tyranny on the other.,We are therefore working to advance a full range of human rights, economic and social, as well as civil and political.,The universal declaration and other international human rights covenants mean that one nation may criticize another's treatment of its citizens without regarding each other as enemies. We will continue to do this, just as we welcome scrutiny and criticism of ourselves as part of the normal dealings between nations. We have strengthened our foreign policy on human rights, and we are letting it be known clearly that the United States stands for the victims of repression. We stand with the tortured and the unjustly imprisoned and with those who have been silenced.,Other governments and the dissidents in Eastern Europe and the political prisoners in Latin America and Asia know where we stand. We've spoken Out against gross violations of human rights in countries like Cambodia and South Africa and Uganda. We've received exiles from many other countries, exiles who represent those who are unable to speak freely in their own lands.,We've encouraged several countries to permit inspection of human rights situations by the International Committee of the Red Cross. We've reduced military relationships which in some countries in the past have seemed to support repressive regimes.,Our foreign assistance programs will now reflect more clearly our concern about human rights. We will continue to lead the fight in the United Nations, sponsored by Costa Rica, to establish an Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. We support the private and the independent human rights organizations which gather information and support activities in the human rights field.,In the past year, human rights has become an issue that no government on Earth can now afford to ignore. There have been numerous instances of improvement. Some represent genuine change, some are only cosmetic in nature. But we welcome them all, because they reflect a relief of suffering people and persecuted people.,The results of our human rights policy will seldom be dramatic. There will be tensions along the way, and we will often be perceived as either being too rash or too timid. But this is a small risk, compared to the risk assumed by brave men and women who live where repression has not yet yielded to liberty.,My personal commitment to human rights is very strong. The American people feel as I do. Our Government will continue to express that commitment and not ever hide it. And we will always encourage other nations to join us.\nThank you very much.\nI'll be glad to answer questions now.,QUESTIONS,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, there are reports that Prime Minister Begin is bringing along some of his peace proposals to discuss with you. My question is, if the United States underwrites peace, will we have a say in terms of what real peace is, if it gives economic aid, psychological aid, security, and so forth? And I have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, our hope and our goal has been that the nations directly involved in the Middle Eastern crisis, the Middle Eastern disputes, would meet directly with one another and reach agreements that would encompass three basic questions. One is the definition of real peace, genuine peace, predictable peace, relationship among human beings that might transcend the incumbency of any particular leader. I think President Sadat has made a major stride already in the achievement of what is real peace. The second one is the withdrawal of the Israelis from territory and, at the same time, the assurance that they would have secure borders. And the third one, of course, is to resolve the Palestinian question.,As I've said before, the direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel is a major step forward. We are attending the Cairo conference and will offer our good services when it's needed. But the basic responsibility will be on the shoulders of the two nations directly involved. As you know, United Nations observers are also there. Other countries were invited by President Sadat to attend--Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the Soviet Union. They have not yet accepted that invitation.,We are not trying to define the terms of peace. Anything that is acceptable to Israel and her neighbors will certainly be acceptable to us. But we are always available, I hope, as a trusted intermediary on occasion to break a deadlock or add a supportive word or in a way to introduce one of those leaders to another and convince the opposite party that each leader is acting in good faith.,I have no idea what proposals, if any, Prime Minister Begin will bring to me tomorrow morning. But he and I will meet privately, just the two of us for a while at his request, and I will listen to what his report might be, and we will be constructive as we have been in the past.,Q. Well, do you have any idea of what the outcome of the Cairo conference will be in terms of goals?,THE PRESIDENT. I have hopes, but obviously I can't predict what will occur. We've always hoped that even when some of the nations choose not to participate, that the nations who do negotiate could move a major step forward toward an ultimate, comprehensive peace settlement.,Both Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat have stated publicly and repeatedly that they are not seeking strictly a bilateral or a two-nation agreement. They recognize that an agreement in the Sinai without involving the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, could not be a permanent resolution of territorial differences, and if they ignore the Palestinian question, this would still not result in permanent peace, and if the Palestinian question is not addressed, again, it would not be an adequate step toward permanent peace.,So, I think, obviously, this is a good first step. I would hope that in Cairo itself, even if the other nations don't choose to attend, that Egypt and Israel can make a major stride toward a comprehensive peace that would at least address in definitive terms the questions that also involve Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese.,LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS,Q. Mr. President, this year you've been working with a very heavily Democratic Congress, yet your legislative record, I think, can fairly be described as mixed. You've had some successes, some failures, other things in limbo. Do you think you can improve on your legislative record next year, particularly in view of the fact that a lot of those people are going to be running for an election and may not be devoting as much attention to legislation as they were this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, almost all of the major proposals that we put forward to the Congress have either been adopted or are still under active consideration. The two remaining doubts among our major proposals are social security, which has a good possibility to be decided this week, and, of course, the most important of all is energy.,There are three of the five major considerations on energy that have been resolved successfully by the conference committees. The remaining ones are the crude oil equalization tax and how to deal with natural gas. The natural gas question is the one that has been in dispute more than 20 years, and it is the one that's the most difficult. It's also the one that's the most expensive, potential]y, to the consumers and most rewarding to the oil and natural gas companies.,I think it's unlikely that the Congress will conclude action on the energy question this year, as I had hoped. But I believe that they have made and will continue to make enough progress so that very early next year they'll complete this year's agenda by taking action on the energy question.,We will have a much more carefully considered agenda for 1978, broadly encompassing the commitments that I've made to the American people and the issues that I've identified since I have been in office as being important.,I'd say it's a more effective presentation, because we now know better when the Congress can move rapidly and when they can't. I think the Congress has made substantial progress even on energy, which has been the only major failure this year, and I believe the basis that they've laid will lead to a rapid conclusion next year.,I'm not discouraged about it. I'm very pleased at what has been accomplished so far, although we didn't conclude 100 percent of what we proposed.,Q. Mr. President, the Vice President is saying that you've had a great year in getting important legislation through Congress. Yet the public perception seems to be to the contrary. How do you account for this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my own perception is in harmony with that of the Vice President.,We have created a new Department of Energy. We have instigated a $21 billion economic stimulus program with substantial tax reductions, substantial jobs programs, public works projects, and I believe that this is beginning to pay rich dividends. We've had good progress on many other major items that we've proposed--a comprehensive farm bill, which is a great step forward.,We've had some problems that still exist. I terminated the construction of the B-1 bomber, for instance. We've already completed three of those very expensive airplanes. We have a fourth one now in production that will give us an adequate number to complete a comprehensive research and development program on the advanced, very costly, very fast-moving bomber. The Congress is still insisting, some of the Members of Congress, on building a fifth and sixth airplane at an absolute total waste of about $500 million, a half a billion dollars.,This is the kind of question that's very tenacious and very difficult to address. But I think the sum total of this year, the agenda that we have completed, is a very good one.,Q. Yes, but what about public perception? It doesn't seem to be precisely along these lines.,THE. PRESIDENT. Well, I think the public perception, of course, is always affected by reports in the news media, and it's inevitable that most of the attention given during the progress of a congressional session--or legislative session while I was Governor--dwells upon the hot debates and the disputes and the disagreements, and there's not nearly so much attention given when there's a harmonious resolution of a difficult question. But I believe that there will be a turning of attention when the Congress does adjourn for 1977 to an inventory of what has actually been done. And I believe that when that attention is given and that assessment is made, that the public impression will be good.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, I take it from your description of the U.S. role in the Mideast that it is not your intention to endorse specific proposals; that is to say, if Mr. Begin or anyone else presents to you what they hope to do, that they would not be able to go back to a peace conference and say, \"Jimmy Carter says that this is what he likes.\",THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's a fairly good assessment. I stay in close touch with most of the Middle Eastern leaden, certainly President Sadat. We exchange communications several times a week. Cy Vance is returning from the Middle East tonight, and he will give me a very definitive analysis of the attitude of all the Middle Eastern leaders involved, plus Saudi Arabia, one step removed geographically.,I think I know at least in general terms what would be acceptable to President Sadat, maybe not as a final conclusive agreement, but as an interim step, or major step, toward a final agreement. And if Prime Minister Begin's proposal, in my own personal judgment, is conducive to a step in the right direction and would be acceptable to President Sadat, then I would certainly privately tell him, \"This is a very good step.\" If it should be far short of what I think President Sadat could accept without very serious political consequences and serious disappointment in Egypt and the rest of the world, I would have no reticence about telling Prime Minister Begin privately, \"I just don't think this goes far enough.\" But I would not be the ultimate judge of whether or not it's acceptable or not to the Egyptians. That would be up to President Sadat.,SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, to what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the results of the social security legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the overwhelming consideration that I had early this year when we proposed legislation to the Congress was to restore the integrity of the social security system itself, to make sure that income to the social security system was adequate to meet committed expenditures.,The Congress conference committee report fulfills that completely. This puts the social security system on a sound financial basis, at least for the next 25 years, throughout the rest of this century.,It's a little more costly than I had hoped it would be. But we were able to stop some of the very costly proposals that either the House or Senate had proposed. I think it's a good resolution of a very serious problem that did exist when I took office, that is, that the social security system was on the road toward bankruptcy. Now it's sound. The American people will pay more taxes into the social security system, but in return they'll know that it will be there permanently and in a sound condition.,THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, may I ask you about the role of the Soviet Union in the Middle East? Do you feel that the Soviet Union in recent months has been in any way helpful in trying to bring peace to the Middle East, and how do you regard U.S.-Soviet relations, as we come to the end of this year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think our relations with them are much better than they were shortly after I became President. I think they've gotten to know me and my attitudes; I think I've gotten to know them and their attitudes much better than before. On SALT, a comprehensive test ban, the Indian Ocean, and many other items, we've had a very constructive relationship with the Soviet Union which I think is constantly improving.,I think the Soviets have been much more constructive in the Middle East than they formerly had. Obviously, they've not been as constructive as I would like to have seen.,The Soviets, for instance, were invited to attend the Cairo conference, along with other nations. They were invited by President Sadat. They chose to decline the invitation. I wished that they had accepted. The Syrians have chosen to decline. I have no evidence that the Soviets have had to use their influence on the Syrians to prevent their attendance. I think this was a decision made by President Asad in Syria.,So, I would say the Soviets have not been very constructive yet. They have not been nearly as much of an obstacle as they apparently were in the past.,Our general relationships with the Soviets are very good, and my hope is that they will continue to cooperate in the future when we go past Cairo toward an ultimate Geneva conference. I was well pleased with the joint Soviet and American statement. Although it's not a definitive solution, obviously, it has no obstacles in it which would prevent an ultimate resolution of the Middle East differences.,So, I'd say it's a mixed assessment. In general, though, they could have been much worse.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, your preference for a general or comprehensive settlement in the Middle East is quite understandable, one that could be endorsed by all the interested parties. But I wonder if you think, in light of what has happened since President Sadat's visit, since many people feel that Israel has no real worries about a one-front war, that if an agreement, formal or informal, even a real warming takes place between Israel and Egypt, that you could have de facto peace in the Middle East, perhaps not as neat and wrapped up as a treaty, that would be a major accomplishment in itself? And do you think that it may have to come to that as a result of President Asad's opposition to the talks and the PLO?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, our immediate hope and goal is that any peace move made by Israel and Egypt would be acceptable to the moderate Arab leaders in the Middle East, certainly King Hussein in Jordan, certainly the Saudi Arabians. We have had good indications in my personal visits with President Asad that he wants to resolve the differences. Lebanon is heavily influenced, as you know, by Syrian presence there. The PLO have been completely negative. They have not been cooperative at all.,In spite of my own indirect invitation to them and the direct invitations by Sadat and by Asad, by King Hussein, by King Khalid in Saudi Arabia, the PLO have refused to make any move toward a peaceful attitude. They have completely rejected United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. They have refused to make a public acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist, to exist in peace. So, I think they have, themselves, removed the PLO from any immediate prospect of participation in a peace discussion.,But I certainly would not ascribe that short of intransigence or negative attitude toward any of the other parties who have been mentioned as possible participants. We want to be sure that at least moderate Palestinians are included in the discussions. And this is an attitude that's mirrored not only by myself but also by Prime Minister Begin, President Sadat, and others. So, I think they are all major steps, already having been taken, to delineate those who are immediately eager to conclude a step toward peace--those like President Asad, who will wait a while and see what does occur, to see if the Golan Heights question can be resolved and so forth, and those who have in effect removed themselves from serious consideration like the PLO.,AGRICULTURAL POLICIES,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the farm strike. Some of the Nation's farmers are on strike today. As you know, there was a meeting at the White House last weekend, and some of the farmers present noted your absence and said if you really cared about their problems as a farmer yourself you would have been there. How do you respond to that, Mr. President? And do you plan any actions because of the farm strike?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have deep sympathy for the farmers. I'm one of them. I understand their particular concerns at this time. They have enormous investments, capital investments. In my own county, for instance, the average farm family has a much greater investment than does the average businessman or industrialist. Their income on their investment is exceedingly low.,We've made some major strides in 1977 to help ease those problems. The last time I checked, the price of wheat was up about 60 cents. The price of corn was up about 38 cents from a year ago. So, the trends are in the right direction. The target prices, the support prices, passed by Congress in the new farm bill, are much more favorable to the farmers than was the case with the previous legislation under which farmers had to live.,Most of the farm strike impetus has been from those areas of our Nation who have been affected by adverse weather conditions, something over which the Government has no control. Georgia had a devastating drought. We had less than a 5-percent corn yield compared to the average year, and the corn that was harvested was heavily affected, damaged by aflatoxin mold, and the farmers in Georgia have suffered because of it.,I think we've made a strong move to increase agricultural exports. This past 12 months, we exported $24 billion worth of farm goods, more than we've ever exported in the past. We are creating a reserve supply of key feed and food grain stocks not held by the Government but primarily held on farms by farmers, and we're trying to form international arrangements to eliminate as much as possible the wild fluctuations up and down in farm prices.,So, we've already made great strides toward alleviating the problems of the farmers. The ones who are primarily suffering, as I said earlier, are not suffering from farm legislation or the absence of it, but from weather conditions over which no one has any control.,Q. So you don't think the strike is quite really representative, then, of the rest of the farmers in the country?,THE PRESIDENT. No--although I have to say that I think all farmers would like to get more money for their crops. We have passed a bill this year that will provide about $6 1/2 billion in Government payments to farmers. I've never been in favor of guaranteeing a farmer a profit. We have tried, though, to create an orderly marketing system, where wild fluctuations will not devastate individual farm families, some stable price system and some adequate reserve system and an adequate way to sell our farm products overseas that we don't need on the domestic scene.,We've made good progress in that respect. In addition to having a farmer in the White House, we've got a working dirt farmer who's thoroughly familiar with the life and problems of farm families in the Secretary of Agriculture.,I think when Bob Bergland goes to meet with these farm groups and talks to them, they understand that. But they are hurt very seriously financially. And a stable, healthy farm economy is very important to me.,Q. Mr. President, if you were still in Plains, would you join the strike, if you were on your farm in Georgia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my cousin Hugh, who's not a farmer, participates in the strike. My sister, who is a farmer, drove a tractor to Atlanta as part of the farm strike. My brother, Billy, supports the farm strike. And I think if I were in Sumter County, I would also participate, at least in the demonstration of need and the demonstration of the plight of the farmers actively. Now, where the strike will go from here, I don't know. I doubt that many of the farmers involved will actually stop producing crops. It would be a very hard blow on themselves, it would be a self-sacrificial effort and perhaps would hurt their families more than they can bear.,But the actual prohibition against producing food and fiber is something in which I would not participate. The demonstration of the tangible and demonstrable need of farmers is something in which I would participate.,PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN TRAVEL,Q. Mr. President, your foreign trip is taking you to a disparate range of countries, and the schedule offers fairly limited time for exchanges with other heads of state. Can you tell us what overall objective you have in mind for this trip and if there is any foreign policy theme that you want to accomplish? And I'd like to add to that, do you intend to press this issue of human rights, that you mentioned earlier, in your stops in Poland and Iran?,The PRESIDENT. Yes, I do intend to press the subject of human rights. My time set aside for negotiation with foreign leaders where I'll visit is equivalent to the time that I set aside for discussions with foreign leaders who come here and visit me. There are literally weeks of preparation that go into the visit to any country, days of preparation on my own part. I'll spend a lot of my time over the Christmas holidays reading thick notebooks on the nations to be visited. Each nation is different.,I'll start off my trip with Poland. I think it's very important that an American President indicate our interest in Eastern European countries. Poland is one that has very close ties to us. We have strong trade relationships with Poland, and my presence there is just as important as is the presence of President Brezhnev when he visits a nation like France or Germany. And we will be discussing a broad range of questions with Poland.,We are just making a brief stop in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to and from India. But we'll have time for several hours of intensive discussions with the leaders in those two Middle Eastern countries. They are major suppliers of oil to ourselves and to the rest of the country (world). 1 They have a major political and military influence in the Middle East. And it is very important that I let their people and those leaders know that I care about our friendship with them and vice versa.,1 Printed in the White House Press Office transcript.,India, as you know, is the world's largest democracy, with hundreds of millions of people. In the past under Mrs. Gandhi, their primary orientation shifted toward friendship with the Soviet Union. I would like very much for the people of India, for Prime Minister Desai, with whom I have a continuing correspondence, to know how much we value a restoration of those strong ties of friendship, trade, commerce with India. And I think this is a very important consideration for me.,I have already visited England. Early next summer or late spring, I'll be visiting West Germany, and I particularly wanted to visit France as well. When I was in London last May, President Giscard particularly asked me if I could come to France later this year, late this year. I replied that I would if I could schedule it. And so, I am very eager to negotiate major problems with France. They have a much greater historical presence, for instance, in Africa than we do. I think many of the African nations, particularly those that speak French, look toward France as a source of advice and counsel, economic aid to them. And it will help me to have a better avenue or understanding of Africa to meet with Giscard.,France is not a member of NATO. But they are very supportive of the European defense effort. They retain very rigidly their autonomy and independence from the influence of other countries, which is good. But I want to discuss with Giscard our negotiations with the Soviet Union, our influence in the Middle East, our growing influence in Africa.,Of course, to visit NATO headquarters is important as well, because we are trying to increase our contribution and our influence in NATO.,Those trips are not tied harmoniously or homogeneously together, because each country is unique, each visit will be unique, and I'll prepare each one to get maximum benefit from it.,TAX REDUCTION,Q. Mr. President, how large a tax cut are you going to ask to offset the social security tax increases, especially the very large increases for those now making $20,000 a year and more?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know yet. We had hoped that I could have the final version of the energy bill and the social security bill and understand the tax consequences of each before we put together the final version of an income tax reduction. The reductions will be substantial, and we will have a clearer picture of the social security tax impact before I put the final version of the income tax reductions together.,That's by far greater, by the way, than will any possible combination of taxes resulting from the energy bills. I just don't know yet. We will have simplicity; we'll have a major tax reduction for both business and individuals. We'll have a greater progressivity, giving the tax breaks where they are most needed, and we will have substantial tax reform. But the exact dollar amount that will be recommended to the Congress is something that I won't decide until early in January.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. Have a Merry Christmas, everybody.,[President Carter's twenty-first news conference began at 11 a.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building and was broadcast live on radio and television. Following the news conference, the President remained in the room to answer questions from reporters on an informal basis, as follows:],\n  Q. Are you still going to Fayetteville?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, tomorrow night.,Q. Mr. President, you said we stand with the unjustly imprisoned. Where do we stand on the Wilmington 10, who have been in jail for over a year on the testimony of witnesses who have recanted?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you undoubtedly know, Mary [Mary McGrory, Washington Star], the Wilmington 10 are not tried in Federal court. It's a State case. And until that case should some day get to the Federal courts, I would have no jurisdiction.,Q. But do you have any feelings about it? Amnesty International, which defines violations of human rights in the world, says that the Wilmington 10 are unjustly imprisoned. I wondered what your own view was, since you're an advocate--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm against unjust imprisonment. And the Attorney General is obviously monitoring the case. I think a group of Congressmen have been to North Carolina to look into it.,But I just don't feel like it's proper for me to comment on a particular case that's in the courts until its appeal procedures have been concluded. I don't know the testimony. I've never studied the transcripts of the case. Obviously, I want justice to be carried out, but I don't have any knowledge of that.,Q. I mean, it is kind of an international situation now because Brezhnev called in, as I understand, our Ambassador Malcolm Toon at the Soviet Embassy and said, \"What about this? How can you talk about our cases when you have this one?\",THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, I've seen many cases go through the judicial system of our Nation, and in almost every instance that I remember, the ultimate decision was the right one.,Q. But you have no inclination to call up Governor Hunt, your fellow southern Governor?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Are you going to meet Mr. Begin more than once, or are those 3 hours tomorrow morning about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll be meeting with Cy Vance this afternoon at 6: 15, when he returns, to get a report from him on all the visits that he concluded in the Middle East. But I only have one meeting scheduled with Prime Minister Begin so far tomorrow. If he and I can't conclude our discussions inside the time allotted, then I would cancel some of my other appointments to meet further with him.,Q. You know, one of the interesting things is that Mr. Vance is not a low-level official of this Government. He was in Jerusalem last week.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I know.,Q. Why does the Prime Minister have to come all the way here just to look you in the eye for about 3 hours?,THE PRESIDENT. You'd have to ask him about that. He sent word to me that he would like to come over here and meet with me. He has not told me what the subject of his conversation would be. But quite often I have an inclination to talk directly to heads of state and not just to the foreign minister, and I think that the work of Secretaries of State and foreign ministers are a good precursor to the more final discussions between heads of state.,I don't think Prime Minister Begin would have made this long and arduous trip had he not had something important to discuss with me. I look forward to it with a great deal of anticipation.,Q. Mr. President, when do you think you will get an energy bill?,THE PRESIDENT. At the latest, early next year. I think if the conference committees can lay down the principles of natural gas regulation and oil taxation, I think the conferees' staff members can be working on that between now and January. I think everybody wants to conclude this as rapidly as possible. It's probably the most difficult and complicated and politically divisive issue that the Congress has ever addressed. You have to remember that we are not a nation of consumers alone. We are a nation of major producers, one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world, and also the greatest consumer of all in the world. And there are inherent conflicts.,The Senate conferees, as you know, have been rigidly divided nine to nine. They've never been able to break that deadlock so far. But I can see progress being made, because many Members of the Congress come and discuss with me or with Frank Moore or with Jim Schlesinger their own private feelings about what they could accept. And there's much more flexibility among the members of the conference committee individually than there has been so far in the public statements or the actual votes. I think we'll have a general agreement, and I think the action on the energy measures will be concluded quite early in the next year's session."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-11-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Thank you. I have two brief statements to make.,SENATOR JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,One concerns Senator John McClellan from Arkansas, whose funeral is being held today. He served in the Congress for 39 years and exemplified a deep commitment to his own major committee assignments. He has recently been the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He was always a strong fighter for an adequate national defense, and he was a man of supreme integrity.,In a few minutes, the Vice President and my wife, the First Lady, will be going to the funeral along with a large delegation of Members of Congress. And I want publicly to express, on behalf of the American people, my admiration for what he has done, my public condolences, in addition to the private condolences I've already extended to his wife, and my appreciation for his tremendous contribution to our country.,THE MIDDLE EAST,The other comment I'd like to make is concerning the Middle East. In the last few days we have seen, I believe, an historic breakthrough in the search for a permanent, lasting peace in the Middle East because of the true leadership qualities that have been exhibited by the courage of President Sadat and the gracious reception of him in Israel by Prime Minister Begin.,This has been, already, a tremendous accomplishment. I think the importance of it is that there has been an initiation of direct, person-to-person negotiations between Israel and the major power in the Mideast among the Arab nations who are Israel's neighbors. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan have a total population of about 12 million; Egypt has a population of 36 million and has by far the greatest military force. And the fact that this strongest Arab country and the nation of Israel are now conducting direct negotiations is a major accomplishment in itself.,Two of Israel's most cherished desires have already been met. One is this face-to-face negotiation possibility, and the other one is a recognition by a major Arab leader that Israel has a right to exist. In fact, President Sadat said, \"We welcome you in our midst.\",The United States has been very pleased to see this reduction in distrust and a reduction in fear and a reduction in suspicion between the Arabs and the Israelis. We have played a close consultative role with both of these leaders. We have, on several instances recently, acted as intermediaries at their request. Both Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat have publicly expressed their reconfirmation that these exploratory talks are designed to lead toward a comprehensive settlement including Israel and all her neighbors.,Sunday, President Sadat called for a conference in Cairo. This is likely to be held around the 13th of December, about the middle of December. We will participate in that conference at a high level--Assistant Secretary Atherton 1 will represent our Nation. We look on this as a very constructive step. The road toward peace has already led through Jerusalem, will now go to Cairo and ultimately, we believe, to a comprehensive consultation at Geneva.,1 Alfred L. Atherton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.,It's not an easy thing to bring about a comprehensive peace settlement. Immediate expectations have sometimes been exaggerated. The definition of real peace--I think we've made good progress on that already. The resolution of the Palestinian question still has not been decided. And the solution to the problem concerning borders and national security has also not been decided.,We have played, I think, a proper role. I have tried to convince, in the past, Prime Minister Begin of the good intentions of President Sadat and vice versa. When there has been no progress being made, the United States has taken the initiative. Now that progress is being made, a proper role for the United States is to support that progress and to give the credit to the strong leadership that's already been exhibited by Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat and to let our Nation be used, as called upon, to expedite the peace process.,I believe that this is a move that the whole world looks upon with great appreciation. And again, I want to express my congratulations and my appreciation to these two strong leaders for the tremendous progress already made and for their commitment to future progress.,QUESTIONS,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to Secretary General Waldheim's suggestion for a post-Cairo, pre-Geneva Middle East conference at the United Nations or on some neutral ground?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, Secretary General Waldheim has also agreed to send a high-level representative to the conference to be held in Cairo. I don't know yet what position our country will take toward a potential meeting at the United Nations. We've not received any invitation to it. I noticed in the news this morning that Israel has said that they would not participate. But it's too early for us to decide whether or not we will go to any conference, if one is actually held at the United Nations.,Q. Mr. President, Egypt and Israel can legitimately deal with themselves, but can Egypt really represent all the other parties, when they're not even at the conference, and the Palestinians, who have never had a say in their own political destiny?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that President Sadat, in his private communications with me and even in his public statements, has said that he is trying as best he can to represent the Arab position concerning Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and also the resolution of the Palestinian question.,Obviously, the leaders in Syria, even Jordan, certainly the PLO, have not recognized that Egypt is speaking for them adequately. I think, though, that in his speech to the Knesset, in his followup speech to the People's Assembly in Egypt, President Sadat has evoked very clearly the basic Arab position that I have understood in my private conversations with President Asad from Syria and with the King of Jordan, Hussein.,So, I believe that this is an exploratory effort that does accurately represent the basic differences between Israel and all their neighbors. And the fact that Jordan and Syria have not been willing to participate, I don't think has dampened President Sadat's commitment or enthusiasm at all. It is constructive, and I think what he discovers in his already completed discussions with Prime Minister Begin and those that might be taking place in Egypt in the middle of next month will certainly be conducive to pursuing the Arab cause.,I think it's constructive, because for the first time, the Arab position on those controversial issues has been spelled out very clearly for worldwide understanding. And I think the differences that have been faced by us and others for long years are now much more clearly understood by the public. The differences are still sharp; the resolution of those differences is going to be very difficult. I think that to the best of his ability, President Sadat is speaking for the Arab world.,Q. Mr. President, if the other Arabs refuse--continue to refuse not to sit down with Israel, would the United States oppose it if Egypt and Israel somehow worked out some sort of separate agreement? Would that be a good thing, and what would our position be on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we and Egypt and Israel have all taken the position, publicly, and the same position privately among ourselves, that a separate peace agreement between Egypt and Israel to the exclusion of the other parties is not desirable. This is predicated upon the very viable hope that a comprehensive settlement can be reached among all the parties involved. If at some later date it becomes obvious that Jordan does not want peace or that Syria does not want peace or that Lebanon does not want peace in a settlement with Israel, then an alternative might have to be pursued. But we've certainly not reached that point yet.,I think that the other Arab leaders do want peace with Israel. And I am certainly not even considering, and neither is Sadat nor Begin, any assumption that the possibilities for peace have narrowed down to just two nations.,Walt [Walter Rodgers, Associated Press Radio].,Q. Mr. President, there has been criticism of your earlier decision to bring the Soviet Union into the Middle East, the peace negotiating process, and the Soviets have indeed refused to go to Cairo. Would you please explain to the American people why you think it's important that the Soviets be involved in these Middle East peace negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviets have been involved in the peace negotiations ever since 1973. The entire Geneva conference concept was established through the United Nations with the United States and with the Soviet Union as cochairmen. So, this has been established now for at least 4 years. And this is a concept that has been adopted and approved by all the parties involved, including the United Nations overwhelmingly, perhaps even unanimously.,In the past, I think it's accurate to say that the Soviets have not played a constructive role in many instances because they had espoused almost completely the more adamant Arab position. My own feeling is that in recent months, the Soviets have moved toward a much more balanced position as a prelude to the Geneva conference.,We have tried to spell out very clearly-certainly since I've been in office and, I think, my predecessors as well--the United States position. We disagree in some of those issues with the Soviet Union. We've not concealed those differences. We disagree in some instances because of the procedural items that are being discussed. But there is no division between us and the Soviet Union now that didn't exist before, and I would say that their positions have been much more compatible recently.,I wish that the Soviets had decided to go to Cairo. They've decided not to. But we'll make as much progress as we can, following the leadership of Sadat and Begin, to make real progress in Cairo with the Soviets not present. And my belief is that the desire of the whole world is so great for peace in the Middle East that the Soviets will follow along and take advantage of any constructive step toward peace.,The fact that we do have differences of opinion is well known and I don't think is an obstacle to eventual peace in the Middle East. But we did not bring the Soviets in. They have been in since the very initiation of a Geneva conference. Do you have a followup?,Q. Yes, sir. Do you think you can have peace in the Middle East without the Soviets involved?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we or the Soviets ought to play a constructive role. And I think both of us will. We have been the nation then and, I think, now that is uniquely trusted by all the parties involved to act fairly and consistently concerning the Middle East questions. I don't believe that the Soviets occupy that position. And I don't have any doubt that if the nations surrounding Israel can work out an individual peace settlement with Israel leading to peace treaties, that the Soviets will play a constructive role, certainly at that point. It would be contrary to their own interest to be identified as an obstacle to peace. I don't think they are trying to be an obstacle to peace. Their perspective is just different from ours.,NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN,Q. Mr. President, I would like to go to that other set of negotiations, on Capitol Hill over energy. Does it now appear to you, sir, that in order to get an energy bill, you may have to grant Senator Long's desire and agree to some sort of plowback to the oil industry for incentives in order to get the wellhead tax? And would you now think that, perhaps, you're going to have to go above $1.75, even up to $2 for natural gas?,THE PRESIDENT. I've never had any conversation with Senator Long that would either encourage me or require me to change my position from what it was last April. We still maintain that the proposition we put to the House and Senate in the energy proposal is the best. The House-passed version of the comprehensive energy plan is very close to what we've proposed, and we support the House position in almost every instance when there is a disagreement.,I don't have any inclination to modify that position anytime soon. We will be consulting very closely with the particular conferees who most nearly espouse the administration's position, and I would guess that the negotiations leading to some ultimate resolution of differences would be between the Senate conferees, headed by Senator Long and also, of course, Senator Jackson, on the one hand and the House conferee leaders on the other side.,We will add our assistance when we can, but we will not betray the confidence of people who look to us for leadership. And I will not work out any private agreement with Senator Long that would betray the commitments that we've made previously, publicly, I might say, in all instances. So, I don't see any possibility of doing what you propose, or what you ask about.,Obviously, both sides are very likely to compromise. They've already had compromises on literally dozens of issues. The three major issues remaining, as you know, are the electric rate reform--we have a good chance of having that resolved this week--the pricing structure on natural gas--and that conference committee will go back to work tomorrow; Senator Jackson is returning to Washington, D.C., then--and of course, the tax on crude oil. And these are to some degree interrelated. But I think that we've got a good chance, still, for making progress now, and I'm going to maintain the position that we described last April as long as possible, support in every instance the conferees that support our position.,Q. Mr. President, if I understood you correctly, then you think the conferees may have to compromise, but that you, yourself, would maintain the administration position.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. The question then becomes--if they compromise and send you a bill with those items I mentioned--what are you going to do?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I spelled out in my last fireside chat to the American people, there 'are three basic elements that I would require: One is fairness in dealing with consumers; the second one is meeting the goals of both conservation and production in the energy area; and, third, an energy proposal that won't bankrupt this Nation nor seriously disturb the future budgets of our country.,That's a fairly broad base, and I think it's an adequate parameter within which the conferees can work. But if any of those principles are violated, I would not sign the bill.,PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PROMISES,Q. Mr. President, based on the reflection of 10 months in office, more than 10 months, do you think that perhaps you made too many promises in last year's campaign and in such precise language? And taking that a step further, do you think that perhaps you tried to fulfill too many of those promises this first year?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm trying to fulfill all my promises. And I think I was quite reticent in making those promises, certainly compared to some of my opponents. But we've put forward already to the Congress proposals that carry out the major promises that I made--reorganization, energy, welfare reform, and so forth.,We've also been successful, I think-when an analysis is made of what the Congress achieved this year, I think there's going to be a very pleasant reaction from the American people when they see the progress that we've accomplished. So, I don't think I made too many promises, and I think I'm doing an adequate job in trying to fulfill those promises.,There is a very heavy agenda for the Congress. And it's much easier for the administration to evolve a proposal or to present legislation to the Congress than it is for Congress actually to pass it. And so the Congress will inherently follow behind any administration in dealing with very controversial issues that have no easy solution. So, I think so far our relationship with the Congress has been good. The effort to carry out my promises has been adequate. I don't think I made too many promises to the American people.,ARTHUR BURNS,Q. Have you decided yet whether you will reappoint Arthur Burns?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Well, won't the business community be further unsettled if you don't reappoint Dr. Burns? Wouldn't it be a risky thing not to do?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think not. I don't believe anybody is indispensable, you know, a President or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or anyone else. I think that if I should decide to replace Dr. Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, then it would be incumbent on me to get someone who is competent and who would arouse the confidence of the American people, including the business community.,GEORGIANS IN THE ADMINISTRATION,Q. Mr. President, as you know, there are those who say that the high councils of your administration are overloaded with Georgians. First, do you think such a thing is possible, and secondly, in searching for a replacement for Bert Lance, will you perhaps go beyond the boundaries of Georgia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the high councils of my administration are comprised by the Cabinet members and the major heads of the agencies involved. I consult on foreign affairs not with members of the immediate White House staff who might be from Georgia, but with Dr. Brzezinski and with Secretary Vance, on transportation with Brock Adams, on defense with Secretary Brown, and so forth.,The members of the Cabinet, I think, are broadly representative of the American people. My immediate White House staff, who don't run the departments-many of them are from Georgia. But I don't think that there's an excessive dependence on them, no more than has been the case in the past when President Kennedy brought large numbers of people from Massachusetts to work intimately with him who had been with him before, or President Johnson, or others.,The other part of your question about the Office of Management and Budget-Jim Mcintyre is the head of the OMB and he's doing a very good job. Whether or not I would replace him in the future still has to be decided.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, to come back to the Middle East for a minute, is the United States Government taking any concrete steps with some of the other governments that have been reluctant, such as Syria, the PLO, which is not a government, and the other countries, to bring them into this process that has been initiated by Israel and Egypt? And if so, what steps are we taking?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, not with the PLO; we have no contact with the PLO. But with Jordan and with Syria, with Lebanon and, in a supportive role, with the Saudi Arabians and others, we have played, I think, an adequate role. At the time we discovered that President Sadat was going to make a proposal to go to Jerusalem, we immediately began to use whatever influence we had available to us to encourage the other nations not to condemn President Sadat. This particularly applied to Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, to the European countries, to the Soviet Union, and to Syria. In some instances, either they decided not to condemn him or our influence was successful.,We would like very much to keep any of the nations involved in the immediate Middle Eastern discussions from rejecting an ultimate peace settlement and withdrawing from the prospect of going to Geneva. This includes, of course, Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat. They have not rejected the concept that there must be a comprehensive settlement.,In the meantime, we don't see anything wrong; in fact, we look with great favor on the bilateral negotiations between Israel and Egypt. In the meantime, we are trying to induce the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Jordanians, and, as I say again, in a supporting role, the Saudis and others, to support both the ongoing negotiations that will continue from Jerusalem into Cairo and also to avoid any condemnation of Sadat that might disrupt his influence and put an obstacle to peace in the future.,That's about all we can do. We have no control over any nation in the Middle East. When we find the progress in the Middle East being stopped, we use all the initiative that we can. When we see progress being made by the parties themselves, we support them to move on their own.,I think it's much more important to have direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel than to have us acting as a constant, dominant intermediary. I think this is a major step in the right direction. We hope later that Jordan and Syria and Lebanon will join in these discussions, either individually or as a comprehensive group, dealing with Israel directly.,Q. Mr. President, you used the word \"induce.\" What inducements is the United States Government offering to Syria and the others?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are not offering them any payment of money or anything, but we primarily capitalize on their clear determination, their clear desire to have peace. There is no doubt in my mind at all that President Asad, who has been one of the most highly critical leaders of what Sadat did--there's no doubt in my mind that President Asad wants peace with Israel, and there's no doubt in my mind that King Hussein wants peace with Israel. And sometimes it's very difficult for them to communicate directly with Israel.,We act as an intermediary there. We meet with those leaders on both sides. Obviously, if there should be a breakthrough in the future, similar to what occurred between Egypt and Israel--let's say, for instance, that if King Hussein said he would like to negotiate directly with Prime Minister Begin, we would support that enthusiastically and offer our good offices to encourage such an interchange. But we don't have any inclination nor ability to dominate anyone nor to require them to take action contrary to what they think is in the best interests of their nation.,DAM SAFETY INSPECTION,Q. Mr. President, you told us at your last news conference, sir, that you would see to it that Federal inspections started promptly on private dams. You had a meeting on this subject Monday. Could you tell us what happened?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I met Monday with the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Army, and the head of the Corps of Engineers. We have 9,000 high-risk dams in this country which are not Federal dams. These are nonfederal dams. We will commence very shortly an inspection of all those dams.,My present intention is to distribute, within the next few days, certain guidelines to be worked out with individual States so that the Corps of Engineers personnel, perhaps assisted by some from the Department of Interior, would begin to inspect the dams that we consider of most danger, about 2,000 the first year. It costs about $7,500 per dam to inspect them, on the average. We've allotted $15 million for this purpose.,In that process, we will train the State personnel who will continue the inspection process after this original inspection is made. We would then continue this for 2 or 3 additional years until all the 9,000 dams have been inspected. This program then would be taken over primarily by the States because the Federal Government has no direct responsibility for these nonfederal dams. In the meantime, of course, dams that have been built by and are controlled by the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior are being inspected, I think adequately, by the personnel in those departments because they are Federal dams.,TAX REFORM,Q. Mr. President, one of the issues you'll be facing in the new year is that of tax reform. There's some discussion that what is needed now is a tax break, a quick fix, if you will, and that comprehensive reform can come further down the road. What do you think, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. 1977 is a year when we are seeing major legislation, long overdue, passed, hopefully, that cause some increases in taxes. And additional taxes are necessary to restore the integrity of the social security system; some wellhead taxes are necessary to carry out a comprehensive energy policy and to hold down unnecessary consumption. I would hope that all those changes in the law that bring about any tax increase would be concluded in 1977.,In 1978, there will be substantial tax reductions, and combined with that will be an adequate proposal for tax reform. I spent several hours this week going over the details of our tax reform package. We can't conclude that analysis until we know what will be done on energy and social security, because they have such a high impact on the tax structure. But there will be substantial tax reductions in 1978, combined with comprehensive tax reform.,Q. Mr. President, you want them to be together. You don't want to separate the two?,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. They will be together. Some of the more controversial items on tax reform that have been proposed to me--they would be very time consuming and have very little monetary significance--might be delayed until later on, because I feel that it's necessary to expedite the effectiveness of substantial tax reduction, and I'm committed and the Democratic congressional leaders, at least, are committed to substantial tax reduction in 1978 as soon as we can put it through.,BALANCE OF TRADE,Q. Mr. President, the foreign trade deficit is running about $27 billion a year. I wondered, sir, since this is putting downward pressure on the dollar in some currencies, what can you do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. The revelations about October's balance-of-trade deficit were quite disturbing. We analyzed this and found that the same monthly rate of deficit that had existed ever since last May or June, about $2.4 billion per month, is exactly the average of September and October.,So, we apparently have a fairly stable pattern per month of a $2.4 billion deficit, primarily caused by two factors: One is our extraordinary importation of foreign oil. We import $3.7 billion worth of oil every month. This means that we have, if we didn't import the oil, about a $15 billion trade surplus per year. And we have got to cut down on the excessive importing of oil from overseas before we can hope to get our trade balanced.,The other reason for an adverse balance is that our own economy has improved in the last few years--few months, much more than has the rest of the world. Because of our improvement in the economy, we are much more able to buy and much more willing to buy goods from overseas than those nations are able to buy from us because their economies have not been restored as much as ours.,We have one major element that can be introduced to cut down on our trade deficits-and that's obvious--and that is to reduce oil imports.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.,[President Carter's twentieth news conference began at 10:30 a.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building and was broadcast live on radio and television. Following the news conference, the President remained in the room to answer questions from reporters on an informal basis, as follows:],\n  Q. [Inaudible],THE PRESIDENT. I haven't decided.,Q. What changed to cause you to release him from the commitment? I mean, he knew back in January that Shapp would have to be out and a new Governor elected.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. Pete 1 never discussed it with me directly.,1 On November 26, Deputy Attorney General Peter F. Flaherty announced his intention to resign in order to explore the possibilities of running for the office of Governor of Pennsylvania.,Q. You talked about depoliticizing Justice during the campaign, and do you think that releasing him from this commitment to allow him to get back into politics is going to cut against that trend that you've instituted?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know enough to comment about that because I was not involved in the hiring of him, nor in his resignation.,Q. Do you know how cold it is in Normandy in January? [Laughter] I mean, seriously, let's get down to brass tacks.,THE PRESIDENT. We'll find out.,Q. Are you still committed to the joint Soviet-American statement and the contents? Are you still committed to the con tents of the Soviet-American---,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. By saying \"We'll find out,\" I take it that the trip is announced.,THE PRESIDENT. The trip will be announced tomorrow."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-11-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Pippert [Wes Pippert, United Press International].,UNEMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, you said a lot last year about a lot of people out of work, yet unemployment persists at around 7 percent. It's twice as high among blacks, and yesterday, the head of the Black Caucus said that your programs, in his words, \"have not even begun to dent the unemployment that wracks our communities.\" Why has the administration been unable to dent unemployment, and what are you going to do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. There's no easy answer, of course, to the unemployment question. Last December the unemployment rate was, I think, 8.1 percent. It came down in April or May to about 7 percent, and it has leveled off at that figure. We had an economic stimulus package with a heavy emphasis on jobs and tax reductions, amounting to about $21 billion, which is now beginning to be felt, I hope.,Last quarter, about $3 billion of that program was in effect. By the end of this quarter, $18 billion will be in effect and, in the first quarter of next year, the full amount. We believe that this will have a beneficial impact on unemployment rates, but it certainly won't solve the problem. We will by next June, for instance, have 725,000 jobs under the comprehensive education and training program. This is the highest level for jobs of this category supported directly by the Federal Government since the New Deal days under Roosevelt.,But it's a tedious, slow process. I think the general, worldwide economic slowdown is causing this problem to be felt in all nations. We hope, though, that it will come down next year as it began to come down this year.,Q. Could I follow?,THE PRESIDENT. Please.,Q. Will you accept a Humphrey-Hawkins full employment bill that sets a goal of 4 percent unemployment within 5 years?,THE PRESIDENT. We've been working very closely with the congressional leaders, including my personal conversations with Congressman Hawkins and Senator Humphrey. The Humphrey-Hawkins bill is a concept that I endorse and support. This bill has been constantly modified since it was introduced several years ago, as you know.,We expect to have an announcement about the administration's position on Humphrey-Hawkins within the next few days. There are some important aspects of the bill that have been modified recently. One is to inject into the bill's concepts a strong anti-inflation commitment in addition to the anti-unemployment commitment. Also, from the bill have been removed the direct authorizations for programs that might have been very costly. They would have to be considered step by step by the Congress as required.,Another thing that has been added to the recent version of the bill is some flexibility to accommodate changing times in the future. My belief is that these specific modifications by the authors of the bill and their staffs, working with my staff, can be realized. And my expectation is that we will have a successful conclusion of these negotiations and then that the bill will be presented to the Congress with my endorsement.,NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE,Q. Mr. President, you had a meeting yesterday on national health insurance. And I know that you don't have a program to present at this time, but can you give us some clue as to your thinking of where you are going with national health insurance, and have you got any kind of timetable in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. It's too early yet to lay down specifics on a national health insurance program. This was a concept that was endorsed by all the candidates for President last year, and it's a need in our country that this entire health care system be improved. One of them is to cut down the exorbitant increases in national health care, particularly hospital costs.,We've already initiated a major effort on a hospital cost containment bill. These costs have been doubling every 5 years, which makes it almost impossible to give better health care because the costs have gone up so rapidly there.,Also, there are many facets of national health care in addition to just health insurance. Physical fitness is obviously one; air and water pollution problems, prevention of disease, expansion of the medical personnel that can give health care. And we've just signed a bill that provides for so-called physician extenders to let registered nurses and others do more of the work in health care.,I would say, since this was just an exploratory talk, and my first one, yesterday, with my top staff members and Cabinet members, that it's too early to lay down a schedule. But we'll be working on this now with increasing commitment, and I think by early next year, the principles of the national health program will be outlined to the American people.,RICHARD HELMS,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Helms' attorney says that his client will wear his conviction on charges of failing to testify fully before Congress as a badge of honor. Do you think it's a badge of honor, and do you think a public official has a right to lie in public about his business under any circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it is not a badge of honor, and a public official does not have a right to lie.,The Helms case is one that we inherited. I've never met Mr. Helms. I don't believe the Attorney General has ever met Mr. Helms.,This is a serious problem that evolved in years past. We had three major facets of this question: One is to uphold the law; the second was to uphold the veracity requirement, the truthfulness requirement of those who testify before Congress; and the third one was to make the best judgment we could on how to protect the security of our Nation.,I think the decision that was made by the Attorney General, confirmed by the courts, was the right decision and the best decision. It does fulfill all three of those requirements. It does not condone lying, it does uphold the law, and I think it did protect, as best we could, the security of our country.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, it's our understanding that some of your top national security advisers met yesterday in the White House Situation Room to sort of reassess the situation in the Middle East in light of the recent trouble on the Lebanon border. Can you give us some assessment this morning, especially what effect this might have on the Middle East peace conference later this year?,THE PRESIDENT. This new outburst of violence is a great concern to us and, I think, to the nations in the Middle East, to all people of the world. The unwarranted and continuing terrorist attacks have been part of the Middle East picture for years. The retaliatory measures taken by nations who were attacked by terrorists has been a part of the picture in the Middle East for years. I think it shows the volatile nature there of the continuing problems.,I think it shows in a much more vivid way than perhaps in the past, recent past, the need for an immediate convening of the Geneva conference as soon as we can get these national leaders to sit down, or their representatives to sit down on a continuing basis and work out face to face these divisions that have existed in the Middle East for generations.,Loss of life is deplorable. But the situation is never going to be improved, in my opinion, until those nations there are willing to step beyond the procedural debates and squabbles about exactly how to go and exactly what representation will be present and start dealing with the real issues. I've been pleased that the Israeli Government has adopted the procedures for the Geneva conference that we've proposed. I was pleased with the statement yesterday by President Sadat that he was willing to go to Geneva or anywhere else and begin to consult directly with Israel and with the other Arab nations without quibbling any more about the detailed wording of the procedures. That's our position.,I hope that Jordan and Syria and Lebanon very quickly will make a similar response to us, and that we can then convene the Geneva conference. But the major all-encompassing question in the Middle East is that the bloodshed, in my opinion, will not be stopped until the nations are willing to negotiate on the basic divisions that have separated them so long.,Q. Well, do you think the Israeli attack was justified--the retaliation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think this is a question that's hard for me to answer-whether Israel can sit dormant and quiescent and accept repeated attacks on their border villages without retaliation, whether the retaliation was excessive. Those are questions that I think both answers would be, perhaps, yes. There ought not to be any attacks. If there are continued attacks, some retaliation is required.,I don't know the details of it, but I think the overriding consideration is not to condemn Israel at this point for retaliation, but just to say that if the provocations were absent that the retaliation would have been unnecessary. And the best way to resolve it is for Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, relating to that region of the Mideast, for Jordan and Egypt and Israel to start direct negotiations. The whole tiling is just sitting and teetering on another outbreak of even more major violence. And I think that at this time, a condemnation of people is probably inappropriate, but an urge for all nations now to stop this present, recent outbreak and to move toward major consultations is the only answer that I can give.,DAM SAFETY INSPECTIONS,Q. Mr. President, I'm asking you, sir, about the question of safety of the 50,000 dams in the United States. It's 5 years since Congress authorized an inspection program, but money has never been put up for it. Last weekend, Mrs. Carter went down to Florida [Georgia] to inspect the latest disaster and, presumably, reported back to you, and presumably you have some ideas on what to do next about it. Could you tell us, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Again, this has been, as you know, a historic question in that it lasts from one year to another, from one decade to another, even generations.,There are now about 50,000 dams in this country that need to be inspected without delay. We've allocated $15 million to the Corps of Engineers to commence this examination procedure.,The priorities for inspection of dams will be established depending upon the number of people who are endangered by these potentially unsafe dams. Only about 2,000, I believe, out of the 50,000 are Federal dams. The rest of them are privately owned or, in some instances, owned by the State or local governments--water reservoirs and so forth.,This is a project that requires a broad range of participation. State governments and local governments ought to participate as well. And private owners of dams ought to reassess both the need for the reservoir to continue in existence, or filled with water, or the repair or examination of the (lain by letting the water down, or by other means.,I think that these tragedies that occur restimulate interest which has, in the past, died down after a few weeks. I don't intend to let this interest die down. The tragedy in Toccoa, Georgia, was one that was very narrowly defined. This was a small, privately owned dam just above a 200-foot waterfall. Below that waterfall was a very small college, and 37 people have been found dead; 2 more are missing.,We acted immediately there. We've got even more extensive flooding with a number of people's lives being lost in North Carolina. But I intend to pursue this dam safety inspection now without surcease. It will not be postponed any further.,ABORTION,Q. Mr. President, with the Senate and House conferees deadlocked over federally funded abortions, a young woman in Texas recently was unable to obtain an abortion, went across the border into Mexico, obtained a cheap, botched-up operation, and died.,My question is, sir, does this prompt you to any second thoughts about your recent comments that life is unfair when you compare the plight of these poor women with people in better economic circumstances who can pay this relatively small cost for a safe, legal abortion?,THE PRESIDENT. My stand on Federal financing of abortions has not changed. But, obviously, I deplore any sickness or loss of life. I deplore unwanted pregnancies, and we are trying to take other means to make sure that abortions are not necessary. But I'm not in favor, as I've said before, of Federal financing for abortions.,RICHARD HELMS,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to the Helms case for just a moment. In light of the July 25 meeting at the White House that involved you and the Attorney General and others in which you fully discussed the Helms case, I wonder, sir, if you could give us the reasons for your statement on September 29 that you had not consulted with the Attorney General about the Helms case? And the second part of my question is, was one consideration to avoid a public trial at all costs to keep the secret secret?,THE PRESIDENT. The September 25 (The President meant July 25)1 meeting was not, in the first place, a thorough discussion of the Helms case. It was a brief meeting at which the Helms case was outlined with no secret material discussed, no documents examined, no mention made of people or others who might be involved if the trial did go to conclusion.,1 Printed in the White House Press Office transcript.,There was a general discussion there, fairly brief. Our hope at that time, expressed by the Attorney General, by me, the Vice President, I think by the National Security Advisor, was that a negotiated settlement might be reached. Then, we did not think that was a likely prospect.,The second question that arose was, if we have to go to trial because of an indictment, should it be concluded aggressively or would the question of national security revelations have to be faced? And we postponed that decision with the understanding that if that prospect did present itself to me, that I would then be briefed on the consequences of those prospects. That never did occur.,The question that was raised in September was based on a statement by Admiral Turner, who heads up the CIA, the national intelligence community, that we were faced with a prospect of two alternatives: One was a decision not to prosecute at all, and the other alternative that Admiral Turner mentioned, which was in the reporter's question, that the complete trial would be held with the revelation of national security secrets. I replied that the Attorney General had never presented that information to me, which was true.,The only other contact that I had after September 25 (The President meant July 25) 1 with the Attorney General on this subject at all was that one day in passing, I think after a Cabinet meeting, he pointed out that there was an inclination on the part of Mr. Helms' attorney to act in a proper way, or patriotic way. But I have never been given any briefings about secret documents that might be revealed, nor people to be involved, because fortunately we did not have to face that prospect.,MONEY SUPPLY AND INFLATION,Q. Mr. President, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Arthur Burns said he is going to have to continue to restrain the growth in money supply in order to control inflation, which, of course, is your goal also. But this can drive up interest rates. And I wonder what threat you see from this to the business expansion, which is needed to reduce unemployment.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you always have that inherent conflict, which is one that was pointed out earlier about the unemployment rate in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. On the one hand, economic stimulation leads to rapid growth, more employment, at least on a temporary basis; and on the other hand, you have the high inflationary pressures develop when you have an excessive supply of money, an excessive stimulation of the economy.,I strongly support the autonomy and independence of the Federal Reserve. We have had a 2-percent increase in interest rates this year because of action taken by the Federal Reserve. But there's a fairly good balance now, in my opinion, between the Federal Reserve on the one hand, controlling the supply of money in the marketplace to some degree; the Congress, which has direct authority to act, which indirectly controls the supply of money by changes in the tax laws, rebates, and so forth; and the President, of course, participates with the Congress in establishing budget levels, the rapidity with which programs are carried out once the money is authorized by Congress, and so forth. I wouldn't want to change that basic structure. I think it's good.,I might say that the press reports of disharmonies or arguments or a lack of friendship or cooperation between me and Chairman Burns are completely erroneous. We have meetings regularly. We discuss the economic issues openly and freely. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Treasury, the Vice President attend those meetings.,Coincidentally, today is one of those monthly meetings when I'll be with Mr. Burns. We've never had any disagreements on those subjects. So, I don't think that I have any inclination to criticize the actions that have been taken by Mr. Burns.,NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN,Q. Mr. President, you canceled your trip overseas in order to be here for the last stages of the fight over your energy bill. You gave a speech on television the other night. What else do you personally intend to be doing, during this period when you would have been traveling, to bring about a result that's acceptable to you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of anything that's more important for me to do as President, other than defending our Nation and guaranteeing its security, than to have the Congress conclude their long year's work with a successful result, spelling out legislation and an energy policy for our Nation to help resolve a serious problem.,Energy waste threatens our country's economy, jobs, inflation. Energy waste threatens our Nation's own security, makes us overly dependent on foreign imports, which might be interrupted at any time. And I think that the best thing I can do the rest of this year is to work closely with the Congress, individually with Members of the Congress, with the conferees who are now engaged in very productive work. And I canceled the trip reluctantly, but with the additional realization that our relationship with the countries that I would have visited will be much better in the future if the United States takes this belated action to provide a workable energy policy.,The Congress is making, I think, good progress. There are five major elements of the energy package, five separate bills that will come to my desk eventually. They have almost completed work on two of them; the others are highly controversial. Perhaps the most wide disparity between the House and Senate is on taxation itself. They are dealing with one that's of crucial importance to consumers, and that is electric rate structures, to eliminate the great advantage that has been going, in the past, to those that waste electricity.,So, I think the Congress is making good progress. But I don't think there's any doubt--I know there's no doubt in my mind that I did the right thing to stay here while the Congress is in its crucial weeks of the conferees' work.,Q. Mr. President, do you expect to meet with members of the House-Senate conference committee personally during their deliberations?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.,Q. Have you done so this week, and will you be doing so in the immediate future?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. As a matter of fact, tomorrow I have another meeting scheduled with the House chairman, Congressman Staggers. I have met with him previously and with Senator Long. Senator Jackson and I had a long meeting Sunday afternoon, and I've met with Senator Byrd Saturday afternoon for a couple of hours. I meet with the House and Senate leadership weekly at a breakfast.,In the past, I've called in the entire subcommittees that relate to particular aspects of the energy package. I consider this to be my overriding responsibility at this time. And between now and the time that the conferees conclude their work and the House and Senate vote on the conference reports, I'll put this as a top priority for myself.,EMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, do you share the philosophy of those who say that every American has a right to a job? Does that influence you in your decision on Humphrey-Hawkins?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it does. We also, I think, have proposed to the Congress a move in that direction in the Program for Better Jobs and Income, the welfare reform proposals.,Included within that proposal is an additional 1.2 million jobs, most of which would be in the private sector. This is above and beyond the programs that we've already initiated this year. We have a heavy emphasis in almost everything we do to cut down unemployment in our country. It's multi-faceted in nature. And I believe that every person in our country that's able to work ought to have an opportunity for a job.,IRBY TURNER, JR.,Q. Are you aware, Mr. President, that one of your nominees, your most recent nominee to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, was a very active member of the White Citizens Council in Mississippi and worked very hard to keep schools from being integrated down there? If that is true, would that make any difference to you in making that nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was not aware of it, and I'd have to know more about the circumstances before I would consider withdrawing a nomination.,There have been in the past, in the South and in other places, alignments with white citizens council groups and groups even more radical in nature.,I always think it's good to give people a chance to change if they will. But I have not known about that allegation, but I'll look into it.,TAX REFORM,Q. Mr. President, now that you've given yourself more time on tax reform, are you rethinking or changing your mind on any of the reforms that are most unsettling to business, specifically the capital gains, special treatment, and the three martini expense account lunch? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. We will continue to assess all aspects of tax reform, including the three-martini business lunch, which might be of special interest to this group. [Laughter],I'm not sure about that, but I think that this is a time for us now to assimilate the action that Congress has taken and is taking on social security, which has major tax impact, and on the energy package, which also has a major impact on our tax structure.,Following that decision or those decisions by Congress, we will combine what we know then with what we know about our national economy prospects, give us another month or so to assess the changes, and then I'll make decisions on specific component parts of the tax reform package. But I've not added in, nor excluded yet, any component individual portions.,UNSPENT APPROPRIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, it is now clear, sir, that the executive branch has failed to spend billions of dollars appropriated by Congress over the last few months. Do you know the size of that shortfall and what effect it has had on the economy, specifically jobs?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that we're up to date in expending money for jobs. Both Secretary Kreps with Commerce and Secretary Marshall, the head of the Labor Department, have reported to me no later than last Friday that in the local public works program and the jobs program under Labor, that they are at least current or ahead of schedule.,There has been, however, this past fiscal year, a so-called shortfall, in that several billions of dollars, approximately 10 billions of dollars that had been appropriated by Congress, were not spent. Some of that, I think a substantial portion of it, was in the Defense Department, and this has been the case in many years in the past.,We are trying now to put a much more accurate means in effect of assessing how much money we spend each month, compared to what the Congress has authorized and what we want to spend, so that we won't have this major shortfall in the past.,It does have two component effects. One is it saves money for the taxpayers, but the other one is it quite often tends to put a dampening effect on the economy by extracting money that would have been added to stimulate. And also, of course, in cases where programs that are needed are delayed, that creates a problem for those who might receive the benefits. But I don't believe there's any evidence that this has been done in the case of jobs. We've been very insistent that the programs designed to stimulate our economy this year and to give our people jobs stay on schedule.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-10-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have a brief statement to make before I take questions.,ENERGY AND TAX REFORM LEGISLATION,Action on a national energy policy is a test of the ability of our democratic system to respond to a recognized threat before it seriously damages our Nation and our economy, and we will all be measured by the courage which we are able to muster to face up to this energy problem.,The debate that's now going on concerning the National Energy Plan is not a contest between the executive branch and the Congress nor between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It's a test of our national will.,We must protect the American people and also avoid unfair windfall profits. We must also meet our stated objectives on conservation, on production, and on the shift of consumption to other sources of energy other than gas and oil. And we must not let the formation of a national energy policy break our budget.,Nothing less is at stake than the ability of our own Nation to act independently as a country. We cannot allow uncertain foreign oil supplies to obtain a stranglehold over the United States. We cannot continue to import ,$45 billion worth of oil annually, almost half the total amount that we consume and about how much we waste that we don't need to waste.,And we cannot let this excessive dependence on foreign oil continue to increase our trade deficit, to drain off purchasing power of our economy, and also to affect our economic stability.,Both the Congress and I know that enactment of comprehensive energy legislation must be our top priority.,Now, as you know, I had planned to send by now to the Congress a major tax reform package. Although most of the work has already been done, I've decided to submit that program after Congress completes its work on both social security and also energy legislation.,The Congress right now needs an opportunity to concentrate its attention more fully on the entire energy package, including the tax proposals.,I will have more time working with my staff and with the Congress and with labor and business leaders to evolve the difficult answers to complicated tax proposals. We have an early need to simplify the tax system, to provide more equity to modify the tax rates and to improve capital formation.,The tax reform proposals will be a major element in a comprehensive economic program designed to promote a strong economy and to deal further with reducing inflation, which has recently been on the way down, to reduce unemployment, which is also going down quite slowly, and to do this both immediately and in the years ahead.,The principal component parts of this program have to be carefully integrated also in our budgetary proposals for fiscal year 1979. I prefer to make these final decisions on the tax reform program after the Congress has completed action on the energy program, particularly its tax components, and social security, which has heavy tax connotations.,Both of these proposals can be assessed, obviously, after the Congress adjourns. By the end of the year we will have more information also on the state of the economy, to know how much of our tax reform proposal should be devoted to stimulating the economy.,We have a full agenda this year, and I have discussed this delay in the tax reform proposal until after the Congress adjourns with the leaders of Congress. And I might say they unanimously agree with this delay.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,TAX REFORM,Q. On taxes, Mr. President, depending on economic conditions, might you in the end give higher priority to a stimulative tax cut and seek action on that first before the broad overall reform program?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the tax reform package has got to fulfill three basic elements. One is improved equity, which means more progressivity and an end to many of the unnecessary tax incentives and loopholes; secondly, to create investment capital; and third, greatly to simplify the entire tax structure. The degree to which we will have tax cuts to stimulate the economy can only be assessed after we see how much of a drag on the economy the increased social security taxes might be and the rate of growth in the economy.,We've just gotten returns this morning, for instance, from overseas balance of trade. We had the highest rate of exports last month in the Nation's history. And imports were reduced somewhat. Obviously, the trade imbalance comes from energy imports.,We also have had a substantial decrease in the last couple of months in the inflation rate, but a very slow decrease in unemployment.,So, I would say that the rate of tax reduction and stimulation from the tax reform measures could only be assessed at the end of this year.,ARTHUR BURNS,Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to Arthur Burns' criticism of your economic policy, and do you plan to reappoint him as the Fed Chairman?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't decided about reappointment, but as you well know, Mr. Burns is a very able and outspoken and independent man. And the Federal Reserve System is legally an independent agency.,I, as President, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve System all have independent roles to play in the evolution of tax law, budget proposals, and of course, the supply of money primarily from the Federal Reserve Board.,I think Mr. Burns' primary concern is that we have created uncertainty in the business community by our major proposals, and this is a concern which I share. But when I'm faced with the problem of whether to ignore a depleting reserve, for instance, on social security and letting the integrity of the social security system be threatened on the one hand, or proposing bold measures to correct the social security problems--and I, of course, propose those corrections to the Congress.,I think we had delayed too long the addressing of the energy crisis, and these weeks, when there is a time of uncertainty, creates a dampening effect on the economy and on the attitude of businessmen toward future investment. But the alternative was to ignore the energy problem additionally for months and perhaps years.,The same thing applies to welfare reform; the same thing applies to tax reform. I believe that these kinds of criticisms that might have come from Mr. Burns, that the volume of proposals might have created uncertainty, are just honest differences of opinion. And I think I've made the right decision. I agree with Mr. Burns that the profitability of our free enterprise system--the business profits ought to be up, and one of the things that I hope to do with the tax reform proposals and others is to improve capital retention so that new investments can be made to provide new jobs.,I might say in closing that I welcome his public criticisms, and I think that I can understand his point of view. I have a luncheon meeting monthly with Mr. Burns, which is an innovation since I've been in office, and we exchange our views very frankly with each other. Sometimes there's a sharper disagreement at our private luncheons even than there is in public. But we're working toward the same goal, and I respect him very much and the right of him to make his independent judgments of what I do.,SOUTH AFRICA,Q. Mr. President, on the subject of sanctions against South Africa, could you share your thinking on the course the United States should follow in this situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Our hope has been and our goal has been to work harmoniously with South Africa in dealing with the threats to peace in Namibia and in Zimbabwe in particular and to encourage South Africa to move toward the elimination of some of those racial problems which they've had historically, to do away with apartheid, to give an equal opportunity for employment, job promotion, education, and the participation in the political and economic affairs of South Africa for all its citizens.,The crisis was engendered last week when South Africa took away the rights of the free press and eliminated many of the organizations themselves who had been working toward improved equality for the citizens of South Africa. I think it's important that we express in no uncertain terms our deep and legitimate concern about those actions of South Africa.,We are working in harmony with our Western Alliance friends. We are working in harmony with leaders in Africa and throughout the rest of the world. My decision has been to support strong sanctions against the sale of weapons to South Africa. This will be carried out immediately by us.,My prediction is that the United Nations will adopt such a resolution and it will 'be overwhelmingly supported by the nations of the world. This will be joined with a direction from me that this be carried out. It would include prohibition against the sale of spare parts to weapons. And we will also, of course, assess other actions that might be taken in the future.,We don't know yet what the negotiations might bring between us and the nations that I described to you. But this is an appropriate action, in my opinion, and we still hope that South Africa will not sever themselves from the rest of the world community, that they will cooperate with us in bringing peace, that they will move in a rapid but evolutionary way toward restoring--or granting for the first time those human rights that we hold so dear.,ENERGY LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, there's talk on Capitol Hill that the administration would accept a bill that sets the pricing of natural gas at $1.85 per mcf. And you've said that you would only sign a bill that's fair to consumers. If the Congress were to pass a bill setting the price at $1.85, would you sign it? And I have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News], I don't want to get into the role of saying I will or will not sign a bill that has this or that in it. As you know, the negotiations on the House and Senate side both are very sensitive at this point. .And we had prospects several months ago, in June and July, of having a complete failure in the House. They debated and worked and very courageously came out with an acceptable package fairly close to what we proposed.,I still stand behind the proposals that we made to Congress in April. I believe that's the best approach. The price for natural gas that we put forward was $1.75. It involves a slow but predictable increase in the price of natural gas that would be compatible with world prices, and it had an accurate, I think an adequate description of the definition of new gas.,We also proposed to include both intrastate and interstate gas in this new program. That's still my position, and that's what I'm going to fight for and work hard for in the conference committee, and then when the conference committee comes back to the House and Senate.,I've not had any secret or private agreements with anyone to modify our own original proposal. We stuck with that proposal throughout the House deliberations, and because of that tenacity that we demonstrated, I think it kept our whole program together. And that's my present stance, and that's my future stance.,I have told Members of the House and Senate who come to see me, I've told labor leaders, business groups, and also consumer groups that before I modify at all our own official position on these very controversial energy policies, that I would consult with them ahead of time. It obviously might be necessary to do some compromising; otherwise, the conference committee report could not function. But my position is still completely compatible with what we proposed to the Congress back in April.,I outlined in my opening statement the three basic principles. One is to protect the interest of American consumers and not to permit windfall profits for the oil companies; secondly, to meet the conservation and conversion goals, and also production goals; and, thirdly, not to seriously unbalance the Federal Government. Within that framework, which is quite constrictive, we will work with the House and Senate leaders.,Q. What about a bill that included any amount of plowback to the oil industry? Could you accept that sort of bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not in favor of any plowback to the oil industry. There were proposals made in the Ways and Means Committee starting out at about 80 percent plowback, going all the way down to 20 percent. We opposed all those, and eventually the House rejected this proposal. That's still my position.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, the other night in Los Angeles you said that for the first time the Soviet Union has agreed to cut back on or decrease the number of nuclear weapons. And you suggested that a new strategic .arms agreement may be in sight, perhaps even in the next few weeks.,Can you tell us anything more about that? Can you tell us what kind of decreases may be in the works and any other specifics about the kind of thing that is shaping up?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the negotiations between us and the Soviet Union have been characterized in recent weeks by, I would say, constructive cooperation from both sides. My own comments have been mirrored by the comments made by Foreign Secretary Gromyko and also by President Brezhnev.,I would guess that we have a fairly good prospect within the next few weeks of a description of the general terms for a settlement. The details, the exact procedures by which we might verify and so forth, would take a long and tedious negotiation.,As you know, the SALT I agreement, the so-called interim agreement, provides for a heavy disparity between us and the Soviets, with the Soviets having a right to have about one-third more launchers than we have and about one-third more submarines than we have, about one-third more submarine missiles than we have.,The Vladivostok agreement, which, as you know, has never been ratified, set a 2,400 limit on launchers, 1,320 limit on MIRV'd missiles. We hope to reduce those levels, and there's general agreement now that those levels will be reduced.,Also for the first time we have discussed in very strong terms and are close to an agreement on how many land-based ICBM MIRV'd missiles will be permitted. This is a new development. But we've not yet reached final agreement between ourselves and the Soviet Union.,But I think, as I said in both Iowa and Los Angeles, that within a few weeks we'll have a demonstration of real progress. The detailed signing of a treaty will take longer than that.,RICHARD HELMS,Q. Mr. President, Attorney General Griffin Bell said recently he had reached some decision in his own mind as to whether or not it is proper and practical to seek an indictment against former CIA Director Richard Helms. He also discussed some of the ways that he thought might be used to keep sensitive material of national security value from being revealed at any trial that might ensue.,Have you reached any conclusion in your own mind on this matter? And is the issue of revealing national security material sufficiently resolved now so that the judgment can be made on the merits of a possible indictment itself?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. The Attorney General has not informed me about what his decision is. In fact, I had not known he had made a decision until I saw it in the press. I would presume, though, that before that discussion is put into final form, that he would discuss it with me. He has not yet done so.,ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Rhodes, the Republican leader of the House, says that your administration is inept. And as you know, a lot of people have been suggesting that you have not been able to cope with all of these problems and with all of these initiatives.,Assuming you don't think there's a word of truth in any of that, would you tell us why you think the perception is abroad to that extent, and whether you believe that there's anything to the idea that people still think, as a Georgian, that you don't belong here?,THE PRESIDENT. I remember in this room last May someone asked me if my administration was all image and no substance, or all style and no substance. Lately the criticisms have been that there's too much substance and not enough style.,My own attitude toward leadership and politics, when I was Governor of Georgia and since I've been President and during the campaign itself, was to try to analyze the most difficult questions that face our Nation and not to be timid or reticent about seeking solutions for them, recognizing that some of them are historic in nature, some of them have very difficult aspects that almost defy solution, but that they're all important to our country.,The Mideast question is maybe a thousand years old or more, but we're working hard to try to solve it under the most difficult of circumstances.,To put a limit on the spread of atomic weapons is something that has defied solution for the last 35 years. And to work harmoniously with the Soviet Union in reducing strategic weapons with which we could destroy each other is one that has been addressed by all of my predecessors, not yet successfully by any of us.,The energy policy of our country has escaped political decision for years because, perhaps, it is so difficult. The welfare problem is predictably controversial. The social security system was going into bankruptcy, had not something been done about it. Our Nation is now taking a leadership role in Africa.,And I believe that any one of these questions could be assumed difficult and controversial and not easy of solution, but I could not bring myself as President, responsible for our people's security and for the welfare of our citizens, for the redressing of some longstanding problems, to delay them simply to avoid controversy.,It might take us 3 or 4 more years to reach a final conclusion on welfare reform or tax reform, but I think it's better to get it on the table, have an open debate, let the people be involved in it, let the Congress start learning about it, let me learn more about it, let the private sector of our country become involved in the debate, the universities, the economists, the business leaders, the labor leaders. And I don't see anything wrong with it or anything that I would have done differently.,The fact that the easy solutions have not come forward immediately don't concern me, because they are not questions that can be resolved easily.,But I think that in the long run, certainly in retrospect after this year goes by, there will be a general realization that none of these questions should have been delayed.,I was thinking the other day about what new major innovative proposals might be forthcoming next year and the year after. I can't think of any. I think we've addressed all of the major problems already. There may be some new ones that evolve in an unpredictable way that we'll have to address. But I think most of the major debates now have already been initiated, some will be concluded this year, some have already been concluded by Congress this year, and I think we'll have additional success next year. So, I feel good about it.,Q. Do you think the people will hold that against you?,THE PRESIDENT. The Georgians don't hold it against me. [Laughter] No, ! don't think being from Georgia is something that is of genuine concern to people. That might be a contrived additional reason not to want me to be in office.,SOUTH AFRICA,Q. Sir, in addition to the mandatory arms embargo which you mentioned, what other unilateral steps do you think the United States will be taking outside the boundaries of a resolution, such as the Ex-Import Bank, commercial sales guarantees, things of this kind? And are you ruling out for now any trade embargo of a general nature or investment embargo?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not deciding at this point on any sort of general trade embargo or investment embargo.,The additional steps that might be taken beyond an arms embargo that would be mandatory have not yet been decided.,G. GORDON LIDDY,Q. Mr. President, when he got out of jail recently, Gordon Liddy expressed gratitude for his early release, and he said that he felt himself bound to carry out any orders from the Commander in Chief. Given that situation, and in order to put the record straight at long last, do you think it would be proper for you to instruct him to say what he was doing in the Watergate, what he was looking for, who authorized the burglary, and any other information he might have?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've not had any contact with Mr. Liddy at all, either before or after he was released from prison. And my remote assessment of Mr. Liddy is that he will not voluntarily release the information that he has about the Watergate situation.,ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up on Sam Donaldson's [ABC News] question, Pat Caddell and Jerry Rafshoon were in to see you a couple of weeks ago-they're supposed to have spent about 2 hours with you. There's speculation that they may have asked to see you to express some sort of reservations they had about the way things were going in general around the Carter administration and perhaps even to make some recommendations about changes.,Could you tell us a little bit more about that meeting and whether, as a result of that or anything else, there are any organizational or personal changes in the wind here at the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the meeting resulted from my own initiative. I invited them to have lunch with me, along with my wife, and we did discuss some of the poll results which, the way I look at them, are fairly good. They varied greatly from one pollster to another. I think the Roper poll shows that I was below 50 percent, the Gallup poll about 60 percent. Of course, I would like to have higher than either one of those. But I think that the controversial nature of some of the things that we've put forward inherently cause concern about me and reduce my standing in the polls.,Although I didn't want the prediction to come true, when I announced that I would put forth an energy package, I predicted that my poll rating would drop 15 percent. There is a general feeling in this country of optimism about the future, as revealed by Pat Caddell's poll and others. The economy has some very good attributes in it that ought to be recognized more vividly. The inflation rate is coming down fairly rapidly. We have an underlying inflation rate, though, of about 6 percent.,The unemployment rate is coming down slowly but, I think, surely. The balance of trade is better than it was. We have a high rate of business investments.,I think we have a lot to be proud of in this country. I don't believe there's any other nation that has a stronger underlying economic base and more to be thankful for than our Nation does. But most of what I hear as President, in delegations that come to see me and large group meetings that I have, is complaining and expressions of despair, quite often in hopes that as the Government makes decisions, that the squeaking wheel will get more grease and that they'll get more benefits from Federal Government policies.,But I think the general sense of the polls that we discussed at that luncheon meeting was that there's an inherent optimism in our country, there's a concern about the multiplicity of programs that we are addressing at this point, and the fact that the American people can't understand all that many proposals at one time.,And one of the things we discussed is what I said earlier, that I would think that after this year, as far as I can see in my own plans, most of those modern problems would be addressed. But it was a friendly meeting and there was nothing to be concerned about.,HUMAN RIGHTS,Q. Mr. President, at a press conference earlier this year, you mentioned the Palestinians have a right to a homeland and to compensation for losses they have suffered. From your perspective, do the Palestinians have any other legitimate rights?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Palestinians have rights, as I described in my United Nations speech, as do all human beings. The Palestinians are one major group of refugees that have been created in the Mideast. Obviously, there are Jewish refugees also. But I think all human beings have the same basic yearning for freedom, for human self-respect, for a home in which they can live, for a right to raise a family, to have education, health care, food. So, I would say in that respect they have the same rights as others do.,Q. Mr. President, could I raise another policy issue for a second?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me get Ms. Compton [Ann Compton, ABC News]. I promised her.,SOUTH AFRICA,Q. Mr. President, is there any grounds for criticism of your approach to the South African problem that you are meddling in internal affairs? Do you worry about getting to a point, responding to what's going on internally in South Africa, the United States is trying to dictate its internal policies?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't believe-there are certainly grounds for criticism, but I don't think that this is a legitimate criticism of us. We have not tried to tell South Africa what to do about their internal affairs. We've never laid out any specific action they should take nor any time schedule that they should follow.,We have worked harmoniously with South Africa in some ways in trying to evolve a solution to the Namibian question, formerly Southwest Africa, over which South Africa still has control, and to try to get them to work with the Rhodesian Government in changing Zimbabwe to a majority rule government with predemocratic elections.,I do feel that it's proper for us to deplore, not only in South Africa but in other nations as well, blatant deprivation of basic human rights.,In my speech in Los Angeles, I pointed out for instance in Czechoslovakia that recently there have been four people tried there as dissidents. Their only crime was that they dissented from what government action has been taken.,But I think it's proper for us to either enhance or reduce our trade with a country depending upon its own policies that are important to us and to the world. I think it's important for us to decide when we should and should not sell weapons to other countries, when we should and should not invest in another country, when we should and should not encourage government programs, loans, and grants to apply to another nation. I don't look upon that as an interference in the internal affairs of another country.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-10-13","text":"ENERGY LEGISLATION,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, everybody.,Back in April when a national energy policy was presented to the Congress and to the people, I said that because of the importance of it that this was a moral equivalent of war. I haven't changed my mind. In fact, the seriousness of the energy crisis is even more acute than it was then.,But as is the case in time of war, there is potential war profiteering in the impending energy crisis. This could develop, with the passing months, as the biggest rip-off in history. And the issues involved here are extremely important. We live in a nation and we believe in the free enterprise system where market forces determine prices. But the oil and gas industry is not part of that system because prices are not free. They are heavily influenced by decisions made outside our country by the OPEC nations, and they are heavily influenced by some control over the rate of production by American companies. And there's an inevitable increasing shortage of oil and gas, which we all recognize, I believe, without dispute.,Prices have gone up drastically in the last few years. They are going to go up some more. That also is inevitable. But the question is: Who will profit from these prices and to what degree?,The package that was presented to the Congress in April is fair. It's well-balanced. It assures that the American people are not robbed. It also ensures that the oil companies get enough incentive to ensure adequate exploration and production. But the oil companies apparently want it all.,And we are talking about enormous amounts of money. Never before in our history has this much money been involved in a decision controlled by Government policy and by legislation.,The struggle is intense. It's going to go on for a long time. But the basic question is going to be resolved within the next few weeks in the Congress.,Now, the oil companies deserve incentive, and our proposals have been both fair and they have been adequately generous. In 1973, for instance, just before the OPEC price rise and the oil embargo, the oil and gas industries had an income of $18 billion. Under our proposal, by 1985 their annual income would be,..bout $100 billion, an enormous increase. What the oil companies and gas companies are now demanding--and making some progress-is $150 billion. The difference will not encourage increased production of oil. But that difference will come out of the pockets of the American consumers and go into the pockets of the oil companies themselves.,Our proposal, if adopted, would give the oil companies, the producers themselves, the highest prices for oil in all the world. But still they want more.,If we deregulate natural gas prices, then the price will go to 15 times more than natural gas prices were before the oil embargo. These billions and billions of dollars are at stake; whether that money should be given partially to the oil companies to encourage production and partially to the American people in a fair way or whether it should all be grabbed by the oil companies at the expense of the American consumer.,There is one other point I want to make very briefly. The international circumstances of the energy crisis are now being recognized as being very, very serious. Dr. Schlesinger just returned from a meeting with the nations who comprise the International Energy Agency, almost all the developed nations in the world, the industrialized nations in the world. We now consume about 23 million barrels of oil a day. The prospect is that we might go to 36 million by 1985, a demand that simply cannot be met.,So, all the countries, including us, have resolved to cut down our consumption, not below what it is now, but below the anticipated amount, to about 26 million barrels a day.,We believe that production can meet those demands. But the biggest single question in international councils is the will of the American people. Do we have the will as a nation to cut down our enormous oil imports?,I have confidence in the American people, looking to the future, but past performance has been very disappointing. We were shocked in 1973 when the oil embargo was imposed on us and prices went up. We began to move to cut back on imports. Imports this year will be about $45 billion in oil, 87 percent more than just 4 years ago. We import more oil than all the European countries combined, in spite of the fact that we have enormous production in our own country, which they don't have.,So, I cannot overemphasize the importance of this question to the present and future security of our country, our independence, our economic structure, and also the fairness of a distribution of increased prices, which are inevitable.,It is absolutely important that the legislation be passed. The House has done a good job. They have come forward with legislation that I can accept.,It's up to the Senate. I have confidence in the Senate. And I believe that we'll come out of this legislative session with a reasonable policy established for our country.,It's the most important domestic issue that we will face while I am in office. And I attribute the highest possible importance to it in my own administration.,I'm going to devote most of my time the next few weeks while the Congress is in session trying to make sure we have a fair and adequate energy package. And I hope that the American people will join in with me to encourage the Congress to act accordingly.,QUESTIONS,SENATE ACTION ON ENERGY LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, you have struck out against the oil lobbies, but not against the Senators in your own party who may be listening to them and who have decimated your energy program. You say you have confidence in them. Also, your administration undercut a filibuster against the natural gas deregulation, and one Senator called your credibility into question. Who is to blame?,THE PRESIDENT. I think at this point no one is to blame. With the encouragement and cooperation between the White House and the Congress, the House of Representatives has passed an energy bill which is not completely adequate as we proposed it, but is a major step forward. The Senate has not yet decided.\nThere are five major component parts of the energy legislation. The Senate has acted on four of them. The other one involves pricing and tax. Those questions have not yet been resolved.,The present proposal by the Senate leaders--and I have no alternative except to go along with it, of course--is that there will hopefully be a bill passed by the Senate. I don't think it's accurate to say that it will be in final form. And then that bill will be transmitted to the conference committee, the members of which have already been appointed. Then the negotiations between the House and the Senate will take place and the agreed upon compromise, hopefully compatible with what we recommended, would go back to both Houses for rejection or acceptance.,The filibuster was not initiated by me. It was not terminated by me. And I believe that that was a step in getting the House and Senate to a conference. But I still believe that if the American people can recognize the importance of this issue, as the House Members have already done, that we will have acceptable legislation this year.,TAX REFORM,Q. Mr. President, are you or your people giving even tentative thought now to the possibility of an economy-stimulating tax cut next year, quite apart from tax revision?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but the tax revision, tax reform, tax cut will all be one .package. Tax reform is long overdue. It is, as I have discovered recently, an extremely complicated matter. Scars are left over from previous tax reform efforts, Some of which have been successful.,But I would say that the tax reductions, which may come next year or perhaps later--I think next year--will be tied integrally with an overall tax reform package.,Q. Would they be motivated by the state of the economy, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the rapidity with which tax cuts would be instituted would certainly be motivated by the state of the economy, whether or not it does need stimulation early or whether that stimulation would come late. The major unresolved question is how much impact this year's stimulus package is going to have in a beneficial way to keep our economy moving. I have good hopes about it. But we won't really know until about January or February.,REDUCTION OF OIL CONSUMPTION,Q. Mr. President, I take it from the strength of your opening statement that if Congress doesn't come up with an energy bill that you like, you would move administratively to do what you could to cut down on oil consumption.,Secretary Schlesinger has already talked about an import tax on foreign oil. And I would like to ask you if that is your view and also if you would then move to gasoline rationing administratively or some other measure?,THE PRESIDENT. We are considering all those options. And without knowing the form of the congressional action, it's hard for us to say now. If the bill in my opinion is not a substantial step forward, then I would not accept it after it's passed. And I say that very reluctantly, because it would mean that a substantial part of an entire year's work by the executive and the legislative branches of Government would have been wasted in the energy field.,I hope and believe that I can sign the bill as introduced to me. In the absence of new legislation, there are many options that will be considered within the present authority of the President and the new Department of Energy. Those that you mentioned are among the options, but we certainly have not decided on which option to choose.,Q. Mr. President, gasoline rationing is one of the options that you would seriously consider?,THE PRESIDENT. That's one of the options, yes.,RELATIONS WITH THE SENATE ON ENERGY,Q. Mr. President, Speaker O'Neill said yesterday that if you had made a mistake with your energy package in the Senate, it's perhaps that you didn't follow it along with your lobbyists on the Hill step by step as you did in the House. I'm wondering if you feel that your inexperience in Washington and the inexperience with the so-called outsiders you brought with you to Washington has caused your programs to suffer?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, to tell you the truth, I had more experience when the bill got to the Senate than I did when it got to the House first. We did put in an enormous of time with the House Members. I did myself with breakfast meetings two or three times a week and bringing the different subcommittee members and full committee members over.,The reason that I did that, more than I did with the Senate, was because this was when the bill was first introduced, not only to the Congress but to the people of our country. And there were many questions about the ultimate impact of the legislative proposals that we put forward. In the process, though, of the House meetings with me, with Dr. Schlesinger, and others, and the House debates and news coverage, of course, the Senate Members naturally became better acquainted with what our proposals were.,I think that in retrospect it would have helped had I had more meetings with the Members of the Senate. But the fact that I did not meet with them personally doesn't mean that they didn't have an adequate awareness of what our own proposals were and what their impact might be, because Dr. Schlesinger and all of his people have spent full time there, and I have met several times with the key leaders of the Senate about energy.,So, I don't deny the fact that that may have been a factor, but there are reasons for my having spent more time with the House in the initial stages of energy debate than I did with the Senate after the debate had been carried on in the House.,OIL COMPANY DIVESTITURE,Q. Mr. President, if you are serious about the oil industry and the oil lobbies working contrary to what you perceive the public interest to be, you've got a club in the closet, and that's divestiture. Why don't you move to break them up?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's a matter of raising too many issues at once. And I'm not trying to threaten anybody or use a club. It's obvious that the influence of the oil companies, both in the legislative process, in the executive branch of Government as well, in the economic structure of our country is enormous.,Part of that is inevitable, and part of it is not to be deplored--it's appropriate. There is a concern to me. For instance, in the uranium industry, which is another major and future alternative for large portions of our energy supplies, the oil companies already own about 50 percent of the uranium deposits. They have substantial holdings in coal.,But whether or not divestiture is needed is a matter on which I have not yet decided, and I don't think that now is the time to go into that detailed study or analysis.,URBAN POLICY,Q. Mr. President, last week you visited the South Bronx and took a tour of that area. Right now you have a task force under Mrs. Harris developing an urban policy. Sir, did your visit to the South Bronx and what you saw there--the vacant buildings and the unemployed people--have any impact on your thoughts on what kind of urban policy we should have and what you are going to present to the Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it certainly did have an impact on me and my own conscience. It was not the first time I had been to the South Bronx. I went there as a candidate.,And I think it's important in two ways--three ways. One is to let me understand, personally, the devastation in the South Bronx, and similar places like it throughout the country--that's not unique. It's good for me to consult with my Cabinet officers. And they are now visiting the South Bronx and other similar areas. I think when I am in Detroit later on this month I'll also talk to families who live in this kind of devastated area.,It's important for me to demonstrate accurately my deep concern about this urban deterioration. And it's also important, through the news media--the radio and newspaper reports, the television pictures--to let the American people know that such places exist in our country.,I think the bill that I signed this week, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 19771 will provide us with a base or a framework on which we can make substantial improvements in the urban areas.,1 For the President's remarks on signing H.R. 6655 into law, see page 1777 of this volume.,The formulae that are being put forward now--and the Congress is accepting them--will orient more and more of the rehabilitation money of all kinds to the more blighted areas of our country, both rural and urban.,So, it's an educational process for me, an assurance to people who live in those areas that we do indeed care, and also an educational process for the people of the country who don't know about these instances.,BRIGADIER GENERAL TORRIJOS OF PANAMA,Q. Mr. President, Panama's General Torrijos will come to this country late this week in an atmosphere in which a lot of confusion has been generated over the language of the treaty and how that will be used.,How are you going to use his visit? What is he going to do here? And will you perhaps get into the language of the treaty itself in terms of trying to clarify what he thinks?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the language of the treaty is adequate. I've had a chance to meet with General Torrijos at length on his other visit here and also to meet on one occasion with both the negotiators from Panama and our own country when the negotiations were at a crucial stage. Both General Torrijos and I are faced with a difficult political problem-as he described it accurately, to sell the same product in two different markets.,We are determined that the canal will be open, neutral, and free for use as long as it is there beyond the end of this century.,We do not have any inclination to intervene in the internal affairs of Panama. And when we say in this country, \"We reserve the right to take action to keep the canal open,\" when they say in their country, \"We do not intend to permit the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Panama,\" we are both right. But the language didn't go into that much detail.,We agreed for expeditious passage of American and Panamanian ships through the Panama Canal when necessary. That language to me is adequate. But that particular phrase, \"expeditious passage,\" has been interpreted differently here than it has in Panama.,I want to be sure that the American people, when the Senate votes ratification, and the Panamanian people, when they have a plebiscite or referendum on the same treaty the 23d day of this month, both understand the terms of the treaty very clearly.,So, General Torrijos and I will be meeting tomorrow to make sure that we have a common agreement on what the treaty means, and we may or may not issue some clarifying statement. But it's a constructive proposal, because both of us want to be sure that our people don't labor under any misapprehensions about the intentions or interpretation of the other country.,HUMPHREY-HAWKINS BILL,Q. Sir, obviously you have made statements regarding your energy proposal and it being the most important issue you will face during your term. But full employment, national full employment, is a topic you discussed with the Congressional Black Caucus numerous times. Have you made a final decision regarding the Humphrey-Hawkins bill?,THE PRESIDENT. During the campaign I promised to support the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, but expressed some concern about the detailed factors included in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill at that time and did not approve the version as it then existed. It's been constantly amended over the last 2 or 3 years since introduction.,My staff have recently been working with Congressman Hawkins, with Senator Humphrey on the telephone, with their staffs, and others, to evolve a full employ. meet bill that we could indeed support without equivocation or hesitancy. We are making good progress about that. And I would guess that within the next few days we would be prepared, if things go well, to announce our support of the Humphrey-Hawkins bill.,PANAMA CANAL TREATIES,Q. Mr. President, back on the canal issue, if you cannot come to some mutually agreeable statement with General Torrijos tomorrow, aren't the canal treaties doomed?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be very difficult to get ratification of the treaties if there is any doubt that General Torrijos and I, the Panamanian people and the United States citizens, agree on what the canal treaties mean.,I don't believe there's any need to amend the treaty language. To me it's clear because I've been involved in the discussions with the negotiators and also with General Torrijos. But it may be necessary, after he and I discuss the situation, to issue some clarifying statement. I've not talked to him personally the last few clays. I did extend an invitation by letter. He has been in the Middle East, the Scandinavian countries, Europe, and he's coming back here tonight, I think.,But I did extend a written letter to him asking him to meet with me. He was eager to do so. And we will be meeting tomorrow. But I think the clarification is crucial. A written agreement or modification to the treaty may or may not be necessary. I don't think we need to modify the treaty itself.,ENERGY LEGISLATION,Q, Mr. President, what was the moral equivalent of war last spring has now become the object of most of the attention of your administration until Congress is out--a last-ditch effort perhaps to salvage what you can in the Senate.,Certainly that's not entirely the fault of the oil lobbies. Shouldn't the administration and people in the Senate, like Russell Long, take some of the blame?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I take my share of the blame. I don't know how to define it. I think that Senator Russell Long is working long and hard to come up with an acceptable energy package. And my own hope is that before this year is over, legislation at least equivalent to what the House passed will be in its final version.,But I'm not trying to blame all the problem on the oil companies. The grabbing for the financial rewards is what I deplore in the oil companies. And that is a major issue on gas deregulation and also in the price structure for oil.,Part of the blame falls on me, my predecessors, and the American people. We are simply wasting too much energy. For the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy as is used in Japan, West Germany, Sweden, and other countries of that kind. So, we've got to cut down on our waste through conservation measures, voluntary action, and also a realization of the seriousness of this question.,And I am also concerned as Commander in Chief of our country about the serious security implications of becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign oil supplies which may for some reason be interrupted. So, I consider this to be a crucial issue, not just economically, not just who gets the gross profits, but also for our own Nation's security.,U.S. STEEL INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, you have a special meeting here today on the steel industry, and also you have a special task force working on the domestic steel problem. But what do you see, offering on a more immediate basis, to stop the loss of jobs in the U.S. steel industry--perhaps through some sort of voluntary quotas with other steel-exporting countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, steel imports are just one part of a fairly large number of problems that affect the United States steel industry and which, I might say, affect the steel industry all over the world.,I met with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg the other day, and he said, \"The biggest single problem that I have is the low quantity of orders for my steel products and the relatively low price.\" The Luxembourg steel industry is in just as bad a shape. The rest of them are, too.,One of the things that have taken place already is a voluntary reduction in exports to our country 'by some of the other steel producers in West Germany and Japan. But that's an exceptionally artificial and simplistic approach to the problem of the steel industry.,Our analysis has shown that reduction in imports would not materially increase the supplies or the demand for steel among our own American suppliers, that any benefit to them financially would probably come from greatly increased prices, which would have to be paid for by the American consumers. It's an extremely complicated question.,The general, overall world recession or slow growth means that you are just not building as many things all over the world that require steel.,But my hope and expectation is to learn as much as I can, personally, about the steel industry, all of its problems, and then to propose to the Congress and to the steel industry itself and to negotiate perhaps with other countries that export steel to us a resolution of these problems.,It's longstanding. It's historic. The trends have been there, of course, long before I came in office. But this afternoon will be the first time I will meet with steel producers, steel laborers or workers, and the interested congressional Members.,I have a task force headed by Mr. Solomon in the Treasury Department. And he's working on a multidepartmental basis to give me specific recommendations for Government action. This will be coming to me later on this month. So, we are acting very rapidly on it to try to deal with the longstanding, chronic problem that exists not only in our own country but also in other countries around the world.,ENERGY SHORTAGE,Q. Mr. President, you touched on this just a moment ago, but I wonder if you would elaborate. You talk about energy being a crucial issue yet it does not seem to have caught on in the country,THE PRESIDENT. I know.,Q. ---as an issue. Do you have any views on why that is?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, it caught on in the country in 1973 when our oil imports were reduced substantially and there were waiting lines at the gaspumps and the price rose quite rapidly. That was just the first warning sign of an inevitable shortage of oil and natural gas. It aroused the American consciousness this past winter when natural gas supplies were scarce, and we had schools close down, factories shut; transportation was interrupted. These are just the first warning signs. It's going to get worse instead of better. And I don't think there's any responsible international economist or analyst who doesn't agree with this fact.,Now, there are several ways that it can be dealt with. One is to increase production, which we are trying to do on a worldwide basis. Another one is to cut down on consumption. Another one is to develop alternative or new kinds of energy supplies. But there's no doubt that the American people at this point simply do not recognize the seriousness of the present problem and the future problems, because it doesn't touch them individually yet.,But I don't want to see the American consciousness raised because of a devastating crisis that they have to experience. We are trying to prevent the crisis, not just react to one.,DOMESTIC POLICY PROPOSALS,Q. Mr. President, you are now focusing on energy, but some of your critics have been saying that you are doing too many things and all at the same time. What is your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think if anyone analyzes already what the Congress has done in response to my request and on their own initiative, and the major legislation that they have presently before them, they would see that we have made substantial progress.,I doubt that anyone would want to eliminate a particular proposal that we have put forward--the establishment of the Department of Energy, reorganization of the executive branch of Government, or reform to our very complicated and wasteful welfare system, and so forth.,I don't think we are dealing with too many issues. The fact is that these issues are difficult, they are controversial, they are complicated. And I think we are making fairly good progress. But in my mind, on domestic affairs, there is no doubt that the energy question is the most important.,ROBERT H. MENDELSOHN,Q. Mr. President, if I could have a clarification here. I wonder if you could clarify the ethical standards of the administration. Is it now and has it been---,THE PRESIDENT. Did you say \"ethical standards?\",Q. The question was asked about this two press conferences ago. Is it now and has it been the position of the Carter administration in the past or present that illegal, unethical, and/or improper conduct as well as actual, potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety would not be tolerated?,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. That being the case, in light of the fact that the California Fair Political Practices Committee decided to charge a campaign committee of Robert H. Mendelsohn, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Budget, and Administration-designate, with illegal conduct, which you said you would not tolerate, in connection with accepting a total of $16,500 in watered campaign contributions-by the way, the reports were signed by Mr. Mendelsohn and sort of a pro forma campaign treasurer who said that he really didn't know anything about the details and Mr. Mendelsohn knew all about the finances, or indicated that-why are you continuing to support the Mendelsohn nomination, especially in the wake of the trauma we have just been through on Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. I have to say I am not familiar with that case. And I don't know if what you've described are just allegations or whether improprieties have been proven.,Q. It is the report of the committee--,THE PRESIDENT. But I'm sure that if any of those allegations are proven, that neither I nor the Secretary of Interior nor the congressional committee who will confirm his nomination will approve of it.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-09-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody.,After the last press conference, I had an uneasy feeling that I had not adequately covered the question about energy and some foreign affairs, so I thought we would have another press conference fairly soon after that one.,NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN,About 5 months ago, in April, I spoke with the American people and with the Congress about one of the most pressing national needs--to develop a comprehensive energy policy. The reason that we have to act is not because we have crises or emergencies at this present time, but because they are imminent, and we need to begin preparing now to protect our own economic and our national security wellbeing for the future.,With every passing day, our energy problems become more severe. We have, almost unbelievably, spent $23 billion so far this year on imported oil, and we are likely to spend almost $45 billion before the year is over. This is by far more than we have ever bought before. Gasoline consumption was higher this summer than it has ever been before, and now half of the oil that we use, much of it wastefully, came from foreign countries.,No matter how hard we try to ignore it, our energy problem is not going away. There is no easy way to establish a comprehensive energy policy. No interest group or organization can be totally satisfied with every part of our plan. But the House of Representatives has met this very difficult and controversial issue courageously and has adopted almost all of the program that was proposed to them last April.,This proposal is balanced, fair, and comprehensive, and it contains incentives for adequate production and also protects the interest of consumers.,By relying on incentives rather than prohibitions and regulations, it keeps to a minimum the direct Government involvement that would otherwise be necessary to control our energy problems and which exist at the present time.,Oil producers will receive the equivalent of the world price for newly discovered oil, and between now and 1990 oil and gas profits from domestic exploration and production, under my own program, will exceed $430 billion.,We accept these incentives, knowing that they are necessary to guarantee future supplies of oil and natural gas. What we do not accept is the argument that we hear from the oil and gas companies that we need to provide incentives for wells that were drilled in 1970 or 1972, or even earlier, when oil prices were about onefourth what they are now. We do not accept windfall profits for efforts that the producers have already made and for oil and gas already discovered.,I do not support complete deregulation of natural gas prices, which would provide windfall profits without significantly increasing supply. Deregulation would cost consumers an extra $70 billion by 1985 but would increase supplies very little, if any. Gas prices have already risen by 500 percent over the last 6 years, but we are producing less natural gas than we did in 1972, 6 years ago.,Along with production incentives, the National Energy Plan also contains vital measures to conserve energy and to replace our precious oil and gas with more abundant fuels, such as coal. Let me mention quickly in closing three of the most important of these conservation measures.,Unless we pass the oil equalization tax, we will in effect continue to subsidize, with an extremely complicated Government program, imports of oil. The gas-guzzler tax is crucial because it provides a continuous economic incentive for consumers to buy and automobile makers to produce more efficient automobiles.,The large industrial users of oil and gas must be persuaded to convert to coal and to other fuels. This effort alone could account for about 40 percent of the total oil savings that we project in the energy program.,And, finally, the rate structure for electric power must be modified to discourage waste.,We are now at a turning point in establishing a comprehensive energy program. The House of Representatives has acted. The Senate is still in the process. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the majority leader and many of the Senate leaders for their work toward resolving the difficult questions that now face the Senate. It's a difficult job, I know, and at times an unpleasant one, but the price of failing to enact a comprehensiveness energy program is just too high for our Nation.,I think the American people are expecting their Government--the Congress and the President--to establish an energy program. And I sincerely hope that the Senate will not let the American people be disappointed.\nThank you very much.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,SENATE ACTION ON ENERGY,Q. Mr. President, the Senate hasn't obviously completed action, but on the basis of their votes in committee and elsewhere so far, the difference between them and the House is so marked, how do you account for it? :\\re they less representative? Are they more susceptible to lobby pressures? How do you figure it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that no final action has been taken by the Senate. And there were times several weeks ago when we were quite disappointed at the progress that had been made in the House. As the Members of the House of Representatives began to realize the enormity of the consequences of their timid action and as the Speaker and other leaders moved forward to assert their influence, the House acted responsibly after giving us a disappointing time for a few weeks.,I think the Senate is now in that posture. I think the Senate realizes that this is the major domestic legislative product that we expect this year. And for us to devote a full year of work and come out with an inconsequential or inadequate energy program is something that I don't believe the Senate will face. They have their own reputations to protect.,I think they want to act responsibly. And I think that it is obvious, in my own experience in the legislative branch in Georgia, that the focusing of the powerful lobby pressure is always on the second legislative body that has to act, the final body that has to act. So, there is a tremendous pressure on the Members of the Senate now from the lobbyists, many of whom are well-meaning people--I am not criticizing them necessarily- but I think as they hear the voice of the American people, as they realize the consequences of an absence of courageous action, then I think they will move to adopt the major parts of the program.,The last thing I'd like to say is that when the Senate acts, we still have what is in effect a third branch of government to consider and to exert its will, and that's the conference committees. And I think the House is going to be very adamant in maintaining their position. And the likelihood now is that I would be much more inclined to support the House position, which is compatible with my own.,So, we still have a long way to go. I'm not discouraged, but I think my own voice is helpful in encouraging the American people to let the Senators know what their duties are and to encourage them to act objectively. And I'm sure they will.,GENEVA CONFERENCE,Q. Mr. President, there have been a lot of confusing statements from the White House and from leaders who have seen you recently on where exactly the United States stands in terms of Palestinian--PLO participation in a Geneva peace conference, if one comes about. Can you really clarify this point?,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt it-[laughter] but I would be glad to try. What we are trying to do now is--as a first and immediate goal--is to bring all the parties in the Mideast dispute to Geneva for a conference. We are dealing with Israel directly. We are dealing directly with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. We are trying to act as an intermediary between Israel and each one of those Arab countries that border their own country.,There are some differences among the Arab nations, which we are trying to resolve, concerning a unified Arab delegation or individual Arab delegations and the format which might be used to let the Palestinian views be represented.,At the same time, we have a further complicating factor in that we are joint chairmen of the Geneva conference along with the Soviet Union. So, in the call for the conference, in the negotiations preceding the format of the conference, we have to deal with the Soviet Union as well. So, on top of all that, and perhaps preeminent in my own mind, is that we are not an idle observer or bystander, we are not just an intermediary or mediator. We have a vital national interest in the ultimate peace in the Middle East.,It's obvious to me that there can be no Middle Eastern peace settlement without adequate Palestinian representation. The Arab countries maintain that the PLO is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian interests. The Israelis say that they won't deal with the Palestinians, or certainly not the well-known PLO members, because they have been identified in the past as committed to the destruction of the nation of Israel.,So, we are trying to get an agreement between the Israelis and the Arab countries, with widely divergent views, about the format of the meeting and, also, who would be welcomed to the conference to represent the Palestinians.,This is something that is still in the negotiating stage, and I cannot predict a final outcome. We have no national position on exactly who would represent the Palestinians or exactly what form the Arab group would take in which the Palestinians would be represented. I just can't answer that question yet because the question has not been answered in my mind.,PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION,Q. Does the United States recognize--recognize is the wrong word-but accept the PLO as a representative of the Palestinians?,THE PRESIDENT. We have pledged to the Israelis in the past, and I have confirmed the pledge, that we will not negotiate with, nor deal directly with the PLO until they adopt United Nations Resolution 242 as a basis for their involvement, which includes a recognition of the right of Israel to exist. We have let this be known to the PLO leaders through various intermediaries, through intermediaries through the United Nations, leaders in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and so forth. They know our position.,If the PLO should go ahead and say, \"We endorse U.N. Resolution 242; we don't think it adequately addresses the Palestinian issue because it only refers to refugees and we think we have a further interest in that,\" that would suit us okay.,We would then begin to meet with and to work with the PLO. Obviously, they don't represent a nation. It is a group that represents, certainly, a substantial part of the Palestinians. I certainly don't think they are the exclusive representatives of the Palestinians. Obviously, there are mayors, for instance, and local officials in the West Bank area who represent Palestinians. They may or may not be members of the PLO. So, we are not trying to define an exact formula that we would prescribe for others. We are trying to find some common ground on which the Israelis and Arabs might get together to meet in Geneva.,I think, by the way, that both the groups, the Arabs and the Israelis, have come a long way. They are genuinely searching for a formula by which they can meet. They want peace. And I think they are to be congratulated already, because in the past number of years they have made very strong and provocative statements against one another, and now, to move toward an accommodation is a difficult thing for them. And we are trying not to make it any more difficult.,Q. Mr. President, what are the assurances given to the PLO in the event of accepting 242?,THE PRESIDENT. If they accept U.N. 242 and the right of Israel to exist, then we will begin discussions with the leaders of the PLO. We are not giving them any further assurance of that because we are not trying to prescribe, as I said, the status of the PLO itself in any Geneva conference. But it would give us a means to understand the special problems of the Palestinians. And as you know, many of the Israeli--some of the Israeli leaders have said that they recognize that the Palestinian question is one of the three major elements. But I can't and have no inclination to give the PLO any assurances other than we will begin to meet with them and to search for some accommodation and some reasonable approach to the Palestinian question if they adopt 242 and recognize publicly the right of Israel to exist.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, this morning a group of Republicans who came over here to meet with you reported that you told them that on certain matters you perhaps worked even more closely with them than the Democratic majority. I wonder if, noting what has been happening to some of your programs in the Congress, that you feel more comfortable with the Republicans now, and what effect do you think those words this morning will have on the eventual outcome of certain energy matters in the Senate which must, of course, receive support from the Democrats?,THE PRESIDENT. Energy was not one of the examples I used. I did point out the almost unanimous approval of the Republicans, for instance, for the AWACS sale to Iran, which I think is important and advisable, and I pointed that one out.,I also pointed out the extreme inadvisability of the Congress trying to put tight controls over our international financial institutions allotments. For instance, the Congress has said, in a very serious mistake, that we could not contribute to the World Bank or to the international regional banks if any of the money was to be used in a country that produced citrus fruits or palm oil or sugar, or if it was to be used for loans to, I think, eight different nations.,This is an unprecedented encroachment on the independence of the World Bank, and it would mean that our contribution to the World Bank could not be made. This is another item where the Republicans see the matter much more clearly, in my opinion, than do some of the Democrats.,But in general, of course, I am a very loyal Democrat. I appreciate what the Democrats have done, but in some areas the Republicans have helped me more.,I would say another example would be the reorganization effort. I think as a matter of philosophy, the moderate-to-conservative Members of the Congress and I see compatibly a need for strict Government reorganization. But this means, certainly, that many Democrats have cooperated just as well.,VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE,Q. Mr. President, you have been underscoring of late how very important the Vice President--very important role he is playing in your administration. And I was just wondering whether the Vice President has become in actuality as well as in effect your deputy, the deputy President or assistant President?,THE PRESIDENT. I probably meet with the Vice President on a daily basis more than all the other staff members that I have combined. He brings to my own inner circle of advisers an experience in the Congress and in Washington. He, obviously, has a stature, political stature inherent in his office itself. And his wide-ranging interests, that I have welcomed and encouraged, include domestic politics, our relationships with the Congress, domestic matters like tax reform, sensitive civil matters like the Bakke case, international matters like southern Africa or the Middle East. He has a detailed knowledge of the SALT negotiations now and the history of SALT negotiations in the past.,So, there is no aspect of my own daily responsibilities as President that are not shared by the Vice President. He has a unique background in the Congress of having been both a member, simultaneously, of the Senate Finance Committee and also the Senate Budget Committee. So, here again, he's had a broad range of experience.,I would say, without derogating the other members of my staff, that there is no one who would approach him in his importance to me, his closeness to me and, also, his ability to carry out a singular assignment with my complete trust.,SALT NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, it is said that we have modified our SALT position somewhat and, on the basis of that, we may be very near an agreement, and, on the basis of that, you may be meeting with Mr. Brezhnev in a few weeks or months. Is any or all of that true? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I will resist the temptation to comment on the accuracy or veracity of past comments made in the news media--and by you--[laughing]-I understand.,I think some of those statements are fairly accurate. We have been encouraged recently by the cooperative attitude of the Soviets. I have met several hours, on two occasions, with Foreign Minister Gromyko. And they have been fairly flexible in their attitude, and we have tried to match their cooperative stance.,There has been no decision made about a time or place for a meeting between me and Mr. Brezhnev. In fact, the meeting itself is certainly not a sure thing at all. It is, as a matter of record, his time to come to the United States, if and when a meeting does take place, and he has that permanent standing invitation which he can accept as he sees fit.,Our purpose in the SALT negotiations this year has been generally twofold: One is to reduce the overall level of nuclear armaments; and secondly, to have an assurance that there is an equivalent capability in the future to give a reasonable sense of security to both nations. And I think, at the same time, integrally with this is to let the Soviets know that we are negotiating in good faith, that we are not trying to pull a trick, .or to take unfair advantage over them.,At the same time, I recognize that progress on SALT leads to further progress on comprehensive test ban, on the matter of nonproliferation, on general reductions in armament sales around the world. And I think it would lessen tensions between us and the Soviets that have existed historically.,So, we are making some progress. An immediate agreement is not in prospect. We have narrowed down the differences to a relatively small number which could take quite a long time to resolve. Our negotiators are now going back to Geneva to try to eliminate as many of the differences as possible. So, reasonable progress has been made.,I wouldn't be too optimistic about an early settlement. And there is no plan at this time for a meeting with Mr. Brezhnev.,STEEL AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES,Q. Mr. President, important segments of the steel and television manufacturing industries have been laying off thousands of workers recently because of foreign competition, some of which they allege is unfair. What, if anything, do you plan to do about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have already negotiated in the television industry a voluntary constraint on the Japanese, who are the major exporters to us. This was worked out this year by Robert Strauss, working even directly with Prime Minister Fukuda. I think this will alleviate the increasing imports of color televisions which were causing a problem.,The steel question is one that is obviously a highly complex question. I would not be willing to lay all the blame on imports. We have obviously some elements in the steel industry, where the plants themselves are older--they are not quite as efficient as some of the more modern plants overseas. We have a problem that the steel industry points out frequently in the compliance with fairly strict environmental quality standards, which I certainly would not change.,But I think it's fair to point out the Japanese and the West Germans have the same degree of quality constraints now on air pollution and water pollution. So, this is not an unnecessary advantage for them.,I might add quickly that we are addressing the steel industry with a multidepartmental approach. This is under the control of an Assistant Secretary [Under Secretary] in the Treasury Department, Mr. Solomon, who is an expert on the steel industry. He is working with Robert Strauss, our Special Trade Representative, and with Charles Schultze, my Council of Economic Advisers Chairman, with the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor.,Where large unemployment has been a factor with the closing of at least one steel mill, we have already moved to provide retraining and economic assistance for those workers involved. And within the next few weeks, I plan to receive the report of this group whose work was begun several weeks ago and then to meet with labor and industry leaders in the steel industry and also with Congress Members who have large steel interests in their own areas.,But we believe that the problems are chronic. I don't think any basic changes need to be made in our import laws or in the national statutes. And I think that perhaps my own involvement in it can cause some alleviation of the problem. But some of the problems are chronic.,The worldwide economic structure is not growing as rapidly as it has in the past. Ours is better off than most of the other nations'. And when the growth rate in our country drops down to 6 percent this year and many other major nations' drop to 4 percent or less, there is just not as many orders for steel. It's complicated. We are moving on it. And when I receive this report and decide what to do, I will make it public.,Charlie [Charles Mohr, New York Times].,RICHARD HELMS,Q. Mr. President, Admiral Turner of the CIA did a speech this week at Annapolis in which he said that the Attorney General would have to make a decision as to whether it would further the national interests to prosecute the case of Mr. Richard Helms, or whether it would be better to waive the case in order to save the secrets. But the Attorney General said that he was going to consult you on this.,I wonder if you can tell us your views on how you are reaching this decision as to whether certain material should be declassified for a possible trial in this case?,THE PRESIDENT. He has not consulted with me, nor given me any advice on the Helms question. I am familiar with it through reading in the press. I have no way to know yet the strength of the possible indictment or charges. I have no way to know yet the seriousness of the offense with which he will be charged (instead of \"he will be charged.\", the President meant \"he may be charged.\")1 And I have no way to know yet the seriousness of possible damage to our own national security if massive revelations of intelligence techniques and documents are made either to ourselves or to our friends and allies.,1 Printed in the White House Press Office transcript.,When I get all this information, then I would certainly consult with the Attorney General as to what action should be taken. I think it's a very serious thing for anyone to commit perjury (instead of \"commit perjury\" the President meant \"commit alleged perjury\") 1 before a congressional committee or anywhere else. And the matter would not in any case be treated lightly.,My understanding is that the Attorney General is now going over the data that have been presented to him. I think he will make a report to me and possibly a recommendation fairly soon. But until this moment, he has not yet done so.,I promised Marty [Martin J. Schram, Newsday].,BERT LANCE,Q. Mr. President, pardon me, I would like to go back to the subject of last week's press conference. You told us twice that you'd learned on December 1, which was just 2 days before you appointed Mr. Lance--nominated him----,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. ---that aspects of the Lance case had been referred to the Justice Department. Jody Powell has told us that you didn't know at that time, you didn't learn until much later. Who is right? Is Jody right, or are you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't recall--I did say that in the last press conference. And when Jody asked me about it afterwards, I told him I was mistaken. I don't recall at all ever knowing that the Justice Department itself was involved in the Bert Lance overdraft or other problems last year. Bert Lance told me that he did not know that the Justice Department was involved in it until December 1. The information that I got from Bert Lance-I now know that it was November 15--was derived from Lance himself. And he states to me--and my memory confirms it--that he only referred to me the problem with the Comptroller's Office.,My guess is that on December 1 they did not specifically point out to me that the Justice Department was also involved. My memory of it is that they said that the problem that had been described to me had been resolved and that a press statement would be made then.,So, I would believe---certainly my memory confirms--that I did not know anything about the Justice Department itself anytime in 1976 and that Bert Lance did not know anything about the Justice Department being involved until the 1st of December.\nIf you have a followup, you can ask it.,Q. Just to follow up on that--,THE PRESIDENT. Please.,Q.---would it have made a difference to you if you had known at that time that there had been a Justice Department investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Would you have delayed your appointment perhaps to see what the investigation had been about?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I doubt it because on the 1st of December when Lance himself found that the Justice Department was involved, it was also to learn that same day or the day after that the Justice Department had determined that there were no grounds for a further pursuit of the case.,WEAPONS PROGRAM S,Q. Mr. President, on the strategic arms situation.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.,Q. In the absence of an agreement as of next Monday, could you tell us what your attitude will be toward major American weapons systems that have been under research? For example, where do we stand now after this 5-year agreement expires on the MX missile; what is your attitude toward it? And how about on the cruise missile? During the period after the agreement expires, will you be observing any constraints, or do you think constraints ought to be reserved, for example, on the range of the cruise missile, the air-launched cruise missile?,THE PRESIDENT. We are proceeding with our research and development program on the items that you described. As you know, under the present agreement with the Soviets, there is no restraint on the mobile missiles nor on air-launched or ground- or sea-launched cruise missiles. Pending an agreement with the Soviets, we are free to proceed with those matters.,We are continuing to conduct active tests with the cruise missile. And I might say, the tests have been very successful so far. We have not proceeded that far along with the MX. We are negotiating with the Soviets on those two items for the so-called SALT II agreement. We have not completely resolved those two questions yet.,ENERGY TAXATION,Q. Mr. President, may I ask you something about your energy program? When you started talking about a wellhead tax, as I understood it, virtually all the money collected on that tax would be rebated back to consumers.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. Do you think, given Senator Long's attitude, that that kind of a wellhead tax is possible if you still give that tax? Or are you going to have to put part of that revenue into Government programs to spur energy exploration and development?,THE PRESIDENT. This was a matter that was debated very thoroughly among my own advisers and myself before we presented our proposal to the Congress on April 20. Our judgment was that the tax ought to be rebated directly to the American consumer. It's a fair and equitable way to dispose of that money. It would lessen greatly the American Government involvement in the oil industry. It would remove the very complicated entitlements program. And also it would not withhold large sums of money from an already kind of dormant economy.,If you gave the money immediately back in reduced payroll taxes, then the money would be circulated and you would not hold it in the reserve fund. I would have to retain some flexibility on that subject.,The thing that I don't want to do is to take the money from the American consumers in the increased price of gasoline and other products and give it as a reward to the oil companies. Now, matters that might relate to better transportation system or mass transit or better insulation of homes, combined with a tax rebate to consumers--I would consider all those as options.,Q. So, in other words, it won't all be coming back to the consumers now?,THE PRESIDENT. My preference is that it would all come back to the consumers. And as you know, that's the version that was passed by the House of Representatives. If I had my preference and could write the bill without congressional involvement, that would be my choice.,But I can't say that I would veto or fail to support any alternative. There are some alternatives that I could accept without too much reluctance.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-09-21","text":"RESIGNATION OF BERT LANCE,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to read first a letter that I have just received from Bert Lance.,\"My Dear Mr. President: There is no need for me to go into the events of the last few weeks. You know them well as do the American people.,\"You also know that previously I had said three things to you about the importance of the so-called 'Lance affair.' I will recall those for you:,\"First, it was and is important that my name and reputation be cleared for me, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, and those who have trust and faith in me; and, I believe that this has been done. As I said at the Senate hearings, my conscience is clear.,\"Second, it was and is important for me to be able to say that people should be willing to make the necessary sacrifices and be willing to serve their government and country. This I can still say, and say proudly.,\"Third, I believe in the absolute need for government to be able to attract good people from the private sector. We must find ways to encourage these people.,\"As to my position as Director of the Office of Management and Budget: I hope the American people feel that during my eight months in office I have met well my responsibilities and performed well my tasks. This has been an important aspect of the entire matter.,\"However, I have to ask the question at what price do I remain? My only intention in coming to Washington in the first place was to make a contribution to this country and to you.,\"I am convinced that I can continue to be an effective Director of the Office of Management and Budget. However, because of the amount of controversy and the continuing nature of it, I have decided to submit my resignation as Director of OMB. I desire to return to my native State of Georgia.,\"It has been a high privilege and honor to be a part .of your administration. Hopefully, I have made a contribution which will be of lasting value. Respectfully yours.\"\nSigned, Bert Lance.,Bert Lance is my friend. I know him personally, as well as if he was my own brother. I know him without any doubt in my mind or heart to be a good and an honorable man.,He was given, this past weekend, a chance to answer thousands of questions that have been raised about him, unproven allegations that have been raised against him, and he did it well. He told the truth. And I think he proved that our system of government works, because when he was given a chance to testify on his own behalf, he was able to clear his name.,My responsibility, along with Bert's, has been and is to make sure that the American people can have justified confidence in our own Government. And we also have an additional responsibility which is just as difficult, and that is to protect the reputation of decent men and women. Nothing that I have heard or read has shaken my belief in Bert's ability or his integrity.,There have been numerous allegations which, I admit, are true, that a lot of the problem has been brought on Bert Lance by me, because of the extraordinary standards that we have tried to set in Government and the expectations of the American people that were engendered during my own campaign and my Inauguration statement and as has been so strongly supported by Bert in his voluntary sacrifice, financially and otherwise, to come to Washington.,It was I who insisted that Bert agree to sell his substantial holdings in bank stock. Had he stayed there, in a selfish fashion, and enriched himself and his own family financially, I'm sure he would have been spared any allegations of impropriety. But he wanted to come to Washington and serve his Government because I asked him to, and he did.,I accept Bert's resignation with the greatest sense of regret and sorrow. He's a good man. Even those who have made other statements about Bert have never alleged, on any occasion, that he did not do a good job as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He's close to me and always will be, and I think he's made the right decision, because it would be difficult for him to devote full time to his responsibilities in the future. And although I regret his resignation, I do accept it.,I would be glad to answer any questions you might have about this or other matters.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you knew early on what the charges were, that Mr. Lance had told you some of the allegations last January. Is that so, and can you tell us what you knew? And also, did you ask for his resignation or encourage it, and what made you accept it?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not ask for Bert's resignation. Bert Lance and I communicate without embarrassment, without constraint, and without evasion of issues. I thought Bert did a superb job Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in answering all the questions that had been leveled about him and against him.,Monday morning about 6 o'clock, Bert came to my office, and we spent about 45 minutes going over all the present questions that still remained, the prospects for the future. I told Bert I thought he had exonerated himself completely, proven our system worked, and asked him to make his own decision about what his choice would be.,He told me yesterday afternoon that he had decided that it would be best to resign. He wanted to talk to his wife again. He wanted to discuss the question with his attorney, Clark Clifford, before he made a final judgment. Mr. Clifford was in Detroit, came back this afternoon, and that was why the press conference was delayed.,This was a decision that Bert made. I did not disagree with it, and I think he's made a very unselfish and wise judgment.,The other question that you asked was whether and when I knew about charges that were made against Bert. The only thing that I ever heard about before Bert became OMB Director was last fall I knew that there had been questions about the Calhoun National Bank and overdrafts. My understanding at that time was that the overdraft question referred to his 1974 campaign debt.,The first time I heard about it was when Bert mentioned it to me in Plains about 2 weeks later. I think the date is now determined to be the 1st of December. I was called from Atlanta and told that the matter had been resolved by the Comptroller's Office and by the Justice Department.,On that date was the first time that either Bert or I knew that the Justice Department had been involved at all. And my understanding then was that it was an oversight and, had the oversight not occurred, that the Justice Department would have resolved the issue long before.,So, I would hope that in the future the complete FBI report might be made available. That's a decision for Bert Lance to make. But I think if any of you would read it, you would see that approximately a hundred people were interviewed--three of them from the Justice Department, three of them from the Comptroller's department. All of the analyses of Bert Lance's character and ability were good and favorable.,And I don't think that any mistake was made. I think he was qualified then; I think he's qualified now. And there was no attempt to conceal anything from me nor my staff.,Q. Mr. President, you've spoken so highly of Mr. Lance again this afternoon. I wonder if you feel that he was unfairly drummed out of the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a difficult question for me to answer. I have had personal knowledge of many of the statements and happenings that have been widely publicized. Some of them were greatly exaggerated; some of them were actually untrue. On some occasions, the report of an incident was not unbiased, but unfair. In general, I think the media have been fair. There are some exceptions. In general, I think that the Senate committee has been fair.,Bert has now had a chance to let his own positions be known, and I think that at this point, his resignation is voluntary. He needs to go home and take care of his own business. I think it's obvious that if he stayed here he couldn't serve completely and with full commitment to his job. And I think his honor and his integrity have been proven.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Lance was in charge of some very important subjects: the Federal budget, of course, and Government reorganization. What are your plans for short-term continuity in those areas, and in the long term, do you have a successor in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not thought about a successor because the vacancy has just become apparent to me recently. I haven't given any thought to that yet.,If there's one agency of the Government in which the President is daily involved, not only with the director but also with immediate subordinates, it's the Office of Management and Budget. This is, in effect, an extension of the Oval Office.,And I happen to know Bert Lance's immediate subordinates much better than I do the subordinates of any other department in Government. They are highly competent. They've been chosen by him and me or are long-time professionals there, and there has been in the past few weeks absolutely no slippage in the schedules that Bert and I and others had evolved earlier this year.,There has been no instance where a major question has been ignored nor where responsibility has been delayed. And for the time being, I and those assistants that Bert and I have chosen together will continue.,I have not yet had a chance to talk to Bert about how quickly he can leave, how long he can stay. I would guess that he'll be wanting to leave fairly shortly. But there will be an orderly transition, and I will decide beginning after today on who a successor might be.,Q. Mr. President, you said, sir, that you did not ask for the resignation. But you said it was, you felt, the right decision. Does that mean, sir, that you really came down to feel that he could no longer be an effective advocate for the administration on Capitol Hill?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think it would be a mistake to attribute Bert's decision to the fact that he could not be an effective advocate of the administration's positions. There are so many advocates that even if one were completely incapacitated, other advocates could put forward the arguments for the administration's position.,I think that it would be better to let Bert answer this question, because some of it involves his own personal affairs back home. But he has suffered greatly in a financial way. The value of his stock, if purchased, in his major holdings in the National Bank of Georgia is quite greatly above the market value, because it involves a substantial controlling interest in the bank itself. Several would-be purchasers, I understand, in the last few days, have come forward wanting to buy the stock but are reluctant to do so because of the high focus of publicity on the sale. They would be scrutinized thoroughly. And I think, perhaps, that's expectable; I don't deplore that. So, they've been reluctant to do it.,I think Bert can very quickly get his own financial affairs back in order if he takes care of them himself. He has complied stringently in removing himself from his own affairs in the blind trust arrangement. He could have cheated on that arrangement; he did not. So, part of his reasons for resigning, with which I have an understanding, is to help himself, to get his own family affairs and financial affairs back in good shape. I don't know what the future might hold if he couldn't do that. I'm afraid it might get even worse than it is now. This is no fault of his. If there's any fault there, it's mine because of the strict requirements we placed on him.,Obviously, it takes a great deal of Bert's time to look up ancient data that goes back to '72, '73, '74. Did you have a power of attorney? How many overdrafts did your in-laws have? How many trips did you take on the plane to your home in Sea Island, and so forth. This has required an enormous amount of Bert's time.,And my expectation, along with Bert's, is that this kind of investigation and demand on his time might continue. Bert is the kind of person who comes to work at 5 o'clock in the morning. He puts in, even in these past few weeks, I'd say, 12 hours a day or more on his OMB job.,But it obviously is disconcerting to him. And I think, to be perfectly frank, the constant high publicity that has accrued to this case, even if completely fair and unbiased, creates doubt among the news media, among the people of this country, about the integrity of me and .our Government, even though I think there is no doubt about Bert's being a man of complete integrity.,So, there are multiple reasons for his decision. And I don't think any of them should be interpreted as being a reflection on him.,Q: I suppose there's an obvious followup, Mr. President, and that is, if he had not offered to resign, would you have wanted him to stay on?,THE PRESIDENT. That's hard to say. As I have said several times in brief, impromptu news encounters in the last few weeks, the decision that Bert Lance and I make together will be acceptable to the American people. And I have had large numbers of people who have asked me not to let Bert Lance resign. A group from Tennessee and North Carolina were in the White House this afternoon for a briefing on the Panama Canal Treaty. They rose, and the Governor of Tennessee said, \"We all hope that Bert Lance will not resign.\" I had twelve speakers of the house of State legislatures here last Friday. They unanimously voted and importuned me not to let Bert resign. I felt, and still feel, that it's basically a decision for him.,I don't know the details of Bert's financial dealings back home. I don't have the time nor the inclination to learn them. All I know about it is what I have had a chance to read in the news media. So the decision was Bert's. And when he discussed it with me, it was not from a posture of a subordinate talking to a superior; it was in the posture of friends who understood one another, discussing mutually what ought to be done about a difficult situation.,I think it was a courageous and also a patriotic gesture on Bert's part to resign.,Q. Mr. President, how much has your credibility been damaged by this incident and by Mr. Lance's resignation?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I think that as best I could from one hour to another, one day to another, and as best Bert could from one hour and one day to another, we've done what was right, as judged by what we knew at that time.,We've been. partners in every sense of the word since he's been here, and you, having covered the government of Georgia, know that we were equally close partners in Georgia.,I have never known the head of a State or Federal agency who is more competent and has better judgment and who understands me better and can work in closer harmony with me. But whether my own credibility has been damaged, I can't say. I would guess to some degree an unpleasant situation like this would be damaging somewhat, but I just have to accept that if it comes.,Q. How will you replace the kind of close relationship that you've had with him, and how much does that concern you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there's any way that I could find anyone to replace Bert Lance that would be, in my judgment, as competent, as strong, as decent, and as close to me as a friend and adviser as he has been. And obviously, the Government will continue, and I hope to do a good job as President, and I'm sure a successor will be adequate.,But there has been a special relationship between me and Bert Lance that transcended official responsibilities or duties or even governmental service over the last 6 or 7 years. So, he has occupied a special place in my governmental career, in my political career, and in my personal life, and I don't think there's any way anyone could replace him now.,Q. Mr. President, apart from Mr. Lance's reasons for resigning, can you share more of your thoughts for accepting his resignation? You said that your belief in his integrity has not been shaken.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. Just recently, House Speaker O'Neill said he can be an effective Budget Director in the future. Why do you feel, sir, that Mr. Lance did have to go?,THE PRESIDENT. I've described to you my assessment of Bert Lance's reasons, and I have read his letter, which I'm sure was very carefully prepared by Bert to emphasize the most important reasons for his resignation. I don't have any way to know anything further beyond that answer.,Q. Mr. President, you referred to the high standards you set for your people during the campaign. You said often that you would not tolerate impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety.,Sir, I think now a lot of people are looking at your standards against the Bert Lance case. You now know what the charges and allegations were. I'd like to ask you whether you, today, still feel that Mr. Lance has avoided the appearance of impropriety or whether a new standard is now in operation?,THE PRESIDENT. The standards were high at the beginning, the standards are still high, and the standards have been high in the service of Bert Lance. There has been not even one allegation that I have ever heard of that Bert Lance did not perform his duties as Director of OMB in a superlative way.,There's not been one allegation that he violated his responsibility or his oath when he was sworn in, that he's done anything improper at all, that he's violated any law. And even those allegations that were made about his life several years ago, in my opinion, have been proven false and without foundation.,I think there has been an adequate opportunity for Bert, after some unfortunate delay, in presenting his answers in the Senate hearings this past week. So, I don't think that any blame should accrue to Bert Lance for having acted improperly or having lowered the standards of our Government.,Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow that up with a little more specific question. During the campaign, you not only campaigned on the promise that your appointees would avoid the appearance of impropriety but you also campaigned against the privileged few who had too much influence and against expense account padders and that sort of thing.,Mr. Lance, by his own admission--I think this isn't in doubt---overdrew his checking accounts by thousands of dollars on a regular basis. He flew on corporate planes for what appear to be political and, perhaps, personal reasons. What I think many of us are interested in, sir, is your justification for reaffirming your belief in his integrity, given the positions you took as a candidate.,THE PRESIDENT. My impression is that I've answered that question already, but I would be glad to reaffirm what I've said. I have seen the statements about him. I've read the charges against him. I've heard the allegations about him of even criminal acts. I've seen some of his accusers apologize publicly for having made a serious mistake, for having made a peremptory and a preliminary judgment without hearing his explanation which, when it came, was adequate.,I just don't feel that I can preserve just the appearance of the White House to the exclusion of everything else. I also have a responsibility as President to be interested in justice and fairness and in giving someone who is accused erroneously a chance to answer the questions.,There has always been a possibility that in the last week's Senate hearings that Bert could not answer the allegations adequately, that he would prove to have violated a law. That was not the case. And I think my judgment that Bert had a right to officially answer every question, in 3 hard days of interrogation by highly competent Senators and well-qualified staffs after they've had months to prepare, was justified.,He's answered them adequately. So, it would not be possible for me, just because one of my leaders or employees Was accused of something, to discharge them or demand their resignation on the basis of an accusation about which I had doubt and which later proved to be false.,Q. Mr. President, sir, I'd like to ask you about your statement, repeated statement that Mr. Lance never did anything illegal. The Comptroller of the Currency reported that Mr. Lance's overdraft loans of more than $5,000 violated the banking law, and Mr. Lance, I think, conceded that his failure to report loans to board of directors of the two banks he ran also was an infraction of the banking statutes.,It's true there are no civil--they are civil statutes and there are no criminal penalties. But how do you justify this with your statement that he never broke any law?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my assessment is that you are trying to succeed where the Senate committee failed. There was no judgment made that Bert Lance did anything illegal. The only Comptroller's report that I saw specifically said that he had done nothing illegal, and I think that he's adequately explained his position. He had 3 days to do it in. I think he did it well. And I have no information to add to what Bert has already revealed to the Senators and to the public.,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on Judy's [Judy Woodruff, NBC News] .question, not directly, on how this may have damaged you. At the first meeting of your Cabinet appointees, Cabinet designees at St. Simons Island--there was a meeting which Mr. Lance attended, and you were there--it was pointed out to every member of this Cabinet a feeling on your part and those of some of the staff closest to you, that because of the recent past' political history in the country and partly because of the expectations that had been raised by your campaign, that this was sort of a last chance; that if the public became disappointed and disillusioned in your administration, that the result would be very, very damaging.,Early in this press conference, you said Bert Lance is my friend, I have known him personally as well as my own brother and without any doubt in my mind or heart that he could be, that he was a good and honorable man.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. Do you think that you may have been, if only slightly, less than fully prudent and diligent .because of your feeling towards Mr. Lance in the way you read some of these things, when he talked to you on November 15, when he talked to you on December 1, when the FBI report, which I understand has also an appendix with some of these judgmental matters about the propriety of some of Mr. Lance's banking practices--in retrospect, do you feel that in effect two standards were applied: one, a very firm, strong standard which you set, and one for Mr. Lance, who you knew so well that you felt you didn't have to examine it that closely?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't think I've been remiss in that incident at all, even looking at it from this retrospective point of view.,Obviously, you can make a much better judgment on someone who comes in as a member of a Cabinet if you yourself have known that person for years, if you know that person's general reputation, if you've worked intimately with that person in times of stress and matters of challenge and have seen the basic competence, courage, honesty, unselfishness there. This existed in Bert Lance.,And I don't think there's any doubt that the FBI check of Bert Lance was just as thorough as was the FBI investigation of any other member of the Cabinet. I think that if you examine the entire FBI report now, that you would confirm that if that was all you knew about him and had never seen Bert Lance before, you would agree that he was superlatively qualified to be a Cabinet-level officer.,So, I don't think there's any feeling on my part that my friendship with him distorted my point of view in assessing his competence. My friendship for Bert Lance, my long knowledge of him just confirmed a very favorable assessment of his qualifications by those who did not know him.,Q. Has the Lance case diverted your attention at all away from important matters at home and abroad? Has there been a price that you've had to pay there and the American public has had to pay because of the Lance case and the heavy attention being placed upon it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have to admit that there has been some diversion of my attention. I've been deeply concerned about the case. I've been concerned about Bert Lance personally. I've been concerned about the impact on my administration if some of those serious allegations proved to be true. And it hasn't taken nearly so much of my own time as it has that of, say, Jody Powell, who's had to face this questioning every day, which I think was a good thing.,Bob Lipshutz on my staff has had to confirm the accuracy of the answers to questions that were raised 'by the Comptroller's report and by other testimony that has come forward. Some of my staff have put a lot of time on it. I don't think their effort was misplaced. I think it was good for us to be informed. I think it was good for Jody, in his daily briefings to you, to be accurate. And I think had we, through error or through neglect, given you a false statement, even though it might have been completely unintentional, that would have been a very serious matter.,But as far as my own time and effort was concerned, it's had a slight but detectable effect of diverting me from some things. I don't think the country has suffered, and I think that's one of the reasons that Bert decided to resign--not for his own benefit, but to make sure that I didn't have this potential problem in the future.,Q. If Mr. Lance had not decided to resign, were you prepared to have him stay on or would you have tried to persuade him to resign?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't answer that question because it's, first of all, hypothetical. As I said before, it wasn't a matter of Bert Lance operating in isolation from me. We had thorough discussions about the matter. I left it completely up to him. He and I talked about the advantages of his staying, the disadvantages of his staying to him, to my administration, to the Government, to his family. And Bert consulted with his own attorney, he consulted with several Members of the Congress, he consulted with the people back home.,He talked it over with members of his family, and he came to me and said he had decided it was best for him and for me if he resigned. And as has always been the case between me and Bert, I was honest with him. I didn't artificially try to talk him out of it, because as we discussed the sane facts and the same issues and the same prospects for the future, I think that our minds were working in the same direction.,But I have always trusted Bert Lance to do the proper and the unselfish thing. And my guess is that he was much more concerned about me and my administration and the reputation of the Government and the diversion of our attention to his case away from things that were important for the people. I think that was by far the most important factor in his decision.\nThank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-08-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have three or four brief announcements to make before I answer your questions.,SOUTH AFRICA,First of all, in response to our own direct inquiry and that of other nations, South Africa has informed us that they do not have and do not intend to develop nuclear explosive devices for any purpose, either peaceful or as a weapon, that the Kalahari test site which has been in question is not designed for use to test nuclear explosives, and that no nuclear explosive test will be taken in South Africa now or in the future.,We appreciate this commitment from South Africa and this information. We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation there very closely. We'll also renew our efforts to encourage South Africa to place all their nuclear power production capabilities under international safeguards and inspections and encourage them along with other nations to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.,PANAMA CANAL,Another item is that, as relates to the Panama Canal treaty, we have become interested, after the original discussions were concluded, in assuring that some definite commitment be made about a possible future development of a sea-level canal. As you know, the existing canal facilities cannot be used for large warships or cargo ships. And if it becomes necessary in the future for a sea-level canal to be constructed, we want to be sure that we have an opportunity to be involved directly in this construction and not have some possible hostile nation supplant us with our influence in the canal area.,We have asked Panama for this assurance, and this will be part of the treaties that we will sign--that if any sea-level canal or modification of the present canal is concluded, that we will be part of it if we choose and also, in return, that any sea level canal to be built during the terms of the treaty will be built in Panama.,RHODESIA,A third item that I have to report to you is that in our effort to bring about a peaceful solution to the Rhodesian or Zimbabwe crisis, we have been trying to evolve, along with the British, a fair proposal that would be acceptable to the frontline nations, to the nationalist forces in Rhodesia, to the present Government of Rhodesia, to the South Africans, and others. And there will be a meeting of the frontline presidents in Lusaka, which is Zambia, beginning Friday.,And Ambassador Young, representing us, and Foreign Minister David Owen, representing the British, will be meeting with the frontline presidents in Lusaka on Saturday, the 27th of August. There they will go over our proposals on the Rhodesian question. And I believe this is a possible step toward a peaceful resolution of that question. We still have a lot of issues to resolve, but it is an encouraging thing.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,The other I'd like to report is that Secretary Vance is continuing his discussions in China, primarily with Foreign Minister Huang Hua, and this evening he has been having a banquet sponsored by and hosted by Teng Hsiao-ping, who is the Vice Chairman of the Communist Party in China and who is also the Deputy Prime Minister.,We don't know what the results of these in-depth discussions might be yet. I won't be prepared to give you any detailed information until I hear from Secretary Vance at the conclusion of these talks.\nI'd be glad to answer any questions.,Mr. Gerstenzang [James R. Gerstenzang, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS\nPANAMA CANAL,Q. Mr. President, you have said that your foreign policy decisions should be made in consultation with the American people and that these decisions should reflect their thinking.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Yet there have been, so far, strong expressions of public disagreement with the Panama Canal treaty as we now see it.,How do you reconcile these differences, and what steps will be taken to convince the American people that you are right, that they are wrong, and that the canal treaty is in the best long-term interests of the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. We expect to conclude the drafting of the detailed language in the Panama Canal treaties within the next few days, but they have to be compared to be sure that the Spanish text and the English text are compatible and that all the elements have been expressed in legal and proper language.,As soon as that is done, the text of the treaty will be released to the Members of the Congress and also to the American people and the news media. At this time we are going on a fairly detailed expression of principles which will be the basis for the treaty itself. And that set of principles in some minute detail has already been released.,I think there's been a great deal of misconception about what is being concluded in Panama, which may be one of the reasons that there is not popular support for the Panama Canal treaty at this point.,The negotiations were begun 13 years ago when President Johnson was President, as a result of an altercation, bloodshed, loss of life by both Panama and American troops there. And in my opinion, the terms of the canal protect American interests very well. We will retain control of the Panama Canal throughout this century. We will have an assurance in perpetuity following the year 2000 that the Panama Canal will .be neutral, that our ships will have unlimited access to the canal, along with the ships of other nations. We have no constraints on the action that we can take as a nation to guarantee that neutrality. Our own ships and those of Panama will have priority for expeditious passage through the canal in a case--in a time of emergency.,And I think that this is an agreement that is very conducive to continued peace, to better relationships with nations and people in the Latin American area, and I think most of the objections that were raised earlier about a giveaway, a highly, exorbitant payment to Panama, loss of control, takeover by some other government, a prohibition against the free use of the canal--all those concerns, which were legitimate in the past, have now been answered successfully for our Nation within the present negotiations.,But it will be a major responsibility of my own, through my own statements and through those of others who support the Panama Canal treaty to give the American people the facts. I think that to a substantial degree, those who do have the facts and have studied this situation closely concur that these two treaties are advantageous for us. This is a bipartisan support. It does involve, of course, myself and the members of my administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, with absolutely no pressure, encouragement from me, unanimously believe that this treaty is in the best interests of our own Nation's security. President Ford supports the treaty strongly, Secretary Kissinger supports it strongly, and so do many others.,But my belief is that as the American people become acquainted with the very good terms of the treaty, they will shift their support to the treaty itself.,Q. Would you say, then, that those who are criticizing it are not fully informed on it yet?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously there are some who are fully informed who just don't want to make any change in the present terms concerning the operation of the treaty. I wouldn't want to say that anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, but I believe that the way to arouse public support for the treaty is to let the American people know the advantages to our country of its terms.,I'm convinced that it's advantageous. I was not convinced of this fact, say, a year ago. But I think that the terms that we hope to achieve in our negotiations for the benefit of our country have all been achieved.,ISRAEL,Q. Mr. President, twice in recent weeks the United States has said that Israel is in violation of international law in terms of the West Bank settlements, which some view as an annexation plan. My question is: What does the United States plan to do to protect the rights of the people in the occupied lands?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's been the position of our own Government, long before I was elected President, that the West Bank territory, the Gaza Strip, areas of the Golan Heights, Sinai region the occupied territories, in other words, were not a part of Israel. Our Government has expressed on several occasions---the President, our Ambassadors to the United Nations and otherwise--that the settlement of Israeli citizens in some of these areas was in violation of the Geneva Convention and that, therefore, the settlements were illegal.,We have private assurances and there have been public statements made by Mr. Begin that these settlements were not intended to show that Israel was to occupy these territories permanently, that the final boundaries to be established through mutual agreement between Israel and the Arab countries was to be decided without prior commitment, and negotiations would include these areas.,So, at this time, our pointing out to Israel that these three settlements that were just established are illegal because they were made on occupied territory, is the extent of our intention.,I concur with the statement that was made by Secretary Vance, the State Department, that this kind of action on the part of Israel, when we are trying to put together a Middle Eastern conference leading to a permanent peace, creates an unnecessary obstacle to peace. I believe that our opinion is shared by the overwhelming number of nations in the world, but we don't intend to go further than our caution to Israel, our open expression of our own concern, and the identification of these settlements as being illegal.,Q. But you don't feel that you have any leverage at all to move in any direction in terms of military aid to Israel to keep her from violating,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously, we could exert pressure on Israel in other ways, but I have no intention to do so.,BERT LANCE,Q. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago you said in an interview that you had faith that Bert Lance would resign if the Comptroller's report showed any illegality or impropriety. And the report has confirmed that, indeed, he had lingering or was involved in lingering overdrafts, that there were large advances to bank officials, there were advances to his campaign for Governor.,Could you tell us what in the Comptroller's report--what words in that report convinced you that Bert Lance should not resign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know the details of Bert's relationship with the Calhoun National Bank where the overdrafts did occur. But my information, as derived from the Comptroller's report, is that in his own private accounts--that of himself and the other members of his family, plus a certificate of deposit which I think was in excess of $100,000--there was almost always a surplus amount of money on hand; in other words, that the overdraft in his campaign account was less than the amount of money he had on deposit at the bank; also that there was an agreement between not only Bert Lance but the customers of the bank, as a general policy, that if you had more than one bank account and you were overdrawn in one, but had more than enough money to cover that overdraft in other accounts, that this was accepted by the bank and the checks were honored. This is a common practice in a small or country bank. That's no excuse for an overdrawn account.,I think it is accurate to say that on one occasion, when this did not apply, that the money was paid back very quickly, that interest was paid on the overdraft, and it was handled in a completely normal way as it would have had I been the person who had the overdrawn account.,I've spent a great deal of time trying to become acquainted with the charges or allegations against Bert Lance. It means a lot to him. It means a lot to me personally as a friend of his. It means a lot to me as a President, responsible for the integrity and reputation not only of my Cabinet officers but myself. I don't know of any allegation that has been made or proven that Bert Lance did anything illegal or even unethical.,Now, I think that there are some possibilities that have been revealed in the practices of personal loans by bank officials from correspondent banks that might be changed in the future. But at the time these personal loans were made with correspondent banks--and I understand from one of the periodicals this is done with 93 percent of the correspondent banks and bank officials throughout the country--it may have been advisable for Bert and all others like him several years ago to make those loans public. That was not required. At the time that Mr. Lance ran for Governor in 1974, at the time Bert Lance submitted his name for approval by the Senate committee for OMB Director, he made a public statement of his debts owed 'and his net worth and how the debts were secured. I think it's obvious that he complied with not only the law and the ethics required but common loan practices among bank officers.,Now, it may be, as I say, that as a result of these investigations that stricter requirements should be implemented by law and also by the Comptroller in his standard operating procedures, but I don't know of anything either illegal or unethical even that Bert Lance has ever done.,Q. Mr. President, how can the Lance case be closed, as you seem to see it, as long as these investigations go on, the Comptroller's and the probes in the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to hasten their conclusion, using my own influence. I've never met the Comptroller, so far as I know. I've never had any conversation with him, have never tried to influence him, and wouldn't.,I think it's also been announced that the Senate committees, maybe two committees, will look further into the allegations against Mr. Lance. I think in the fairly voluminous report that the Comptroller filed, which I did read, that all of the allegations against him were listed, the investigative procedures were outlined, the findings were described and the facts revealed.,There may be some facts that have not yet been determined. But I think that it's part of our governmental process not to discourage, but to encourage the most detailed analysis and investigation when an allegation is made against a public official.,But I also think it's part of our process that if allegations are unfounded or if there is no illegal or unethical conduct revealed, that the accused public official should be exonerated. And this is the way I assess, after great study, the Bert Lance case. I have no objection to Senator Proxmire continuing with an investigation. And I think this is very good. I'd have no objection to Senator Ribicoff continuing with the investigation. But I think that that's part of our political process that ought to he encouraged.,Q. You don't see it, then, Mr. President, to be appropriate, as President, to keep an open mind until all these probes are completed?,THE, PRESIDENT. I don't know how long the probes will be continued. So far as I know, the allegations with which I am familiar have been investigated and have been answered. And if any new information should be derived against Bert Lance or against the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury or anyone else in my administration, I would certainly have to assess new information as it arose.,But my judgment is that the investigation has been very complete. There's been a Comptroller's investigation in Atlanta. There's been, I think, two Department of Justice investigations, I think two Senate investigations, and now the U.S. Comptroller investigation. And as I say again, to repeat myself, there has been no evidence of either illegalities or unethical conduct and no conduct that was contrary to the normal practices that exist in the banking circles in our country.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow up? If the Comptroller's report had been made on, say, Mike Blumenthal or some assistant secretary in your administration, would you have found it acceptable for that person as you did for Lance?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.,Q. Mr. President, without belaboring this, during the transition, you and many of your top spokesmen said you wanted to avoid not only conflicts of interest in your top appointments but also the appearance of conflicts.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Mr. Lance has many loans out. And although they're held in a private trust, it is theoretically possible that someone who holds such a loan could come to him and ask a favor and without mentioning the loan, just ask the favor. Does that to you represent avoidance of the appearance of conflict? Isn't there the appearance of conflict here?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know any alternative to that. As you know, Secretary Blumenthal was an official, for instance, in the Bendix Corporation. And he has put his holdings in a blind trust and instructed them over a period of time to dispose of those holdings or either to retain some of them.,I think that our Assistant Secretary of Defense has similar holdings in Coca Cola Company. I have holdings in Carters Warehouse and in my own farms. You can't expect a public official to dispose of all their net worth before they come to government.,And the legal framework of having those holdings put in a trust where the owner of that stock or property does not control the action concerning it, whether it's completely adequate or not, is the best that we can contrive.,There is also a complicating factor in the holding of bank stock. There's a U.S. law that prevents this resale of bank stock, I think within 6 months or 9 months after it's purchased. And this is designed to prevent the buying and trading and negotiations with bank stocks just for a profit motive in a transient way. And so there has been a time limit on when the Lance bank stock could be sold.,So, I do think that the appearance of impropriety or illegality or unethical conduct has been honored. But obviously, there could be those who say that because I still own several hundred acres of land in Georgia, that I have a conflict of interests relating to agricultural legislation. But I've done the best I could to isolate myself from it.,I think that's the best we can do, and I really believe that it's adequate.,Q. Mr. President, do you think the American taxpayer has reason to question the competence of a man in charge of the Federal budget who, after he has taken that job, wrote seven overdrafts on his own account?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't know--you are referring to Mr. Lance?,Q. Yes. It's in the Comptroller's report.,THE PRESIDENT. I see. Well, obviously it's better not to write overdrafts. [Laughter],I can't deny that I have written overdrafts on my own bank accounts on occasion and so has my wife, not deliberately, but because of an error or because of higher priorities that I assigned to .other responsibilities that I had at the time. I think that there's no doubt that Bert Lance is one of the more competent and intelligent people that I have ever known in my life.,I realized 8 or 9 months ago, and I still realize, that the management of the Office of Management and Budget is one of the crucial assignments that will determine the success or failure of my own administration. And I cast about in my mind about who, among all those that I knew or knew about, would more competently fill that position.,My choice, without any competition, I might say, was Bert Lance. I still have that much faith in his honesty and his competence. And the fact that he has had overdrafts, I think--is obviously better had he not had them, but is no reflection on his basic judgment or competence.,He, like many other successful business leaders, has a multiplicity of bank accounts, stockholdings, business investments. And he has tried to sever himself from all those management responsibilities by placing his holdings into the hands of a trustee. And I can't answer the question about private bank account overdrafts. But my guess is that when an overdraft has occurred in a particular account, that his deposits in other accounts in that same bank were more than adequate to cover them.,PANAMA CANAL,Q. Mr. President, going back to the Panama Canal, do you favor a widening of the canal to make it usable for the largest modern warships and perhaps an American investment in a sea-level canal, as you mentioned earlier?,THE PRESIDENT. It's obvious to me that over a period of time the Panama Canal in its original conformation has become inadequate. I think in the last 12 months, only four or five Navy warships have been through the canal at all. Any large ship, an aircraft carrier, for instance, would have to go around the southern area of South America.,Standard oil tankers that would bring oil, say, from Alaska to the gulf coast area, or the Atlantic area, could not possibly go through the Panama Canal. That oil, if transported through the canal, would have to be off loaded into small, lighter small ships and taken to the canal and then up to, say, New Orleans or some other gulf coast port.,Over a period of time, I think that the canal needs to be expanded. I think it's premature now, though, for me to decide whether or not a sea-level canal would be advocated or whether an expansion of the present canal facilities would be best. There has been a very elaborate study made of this, I think concluding only .a year or two ago, and, I think, initiated when President Johnson was in office, that showed that if a sea-level canal was needed, that it ought to be placed in Panama. That was before we had the additional opportunity to haul Alaskan oil and natural gas through the canal. So, that's an option for the future. I just want to be sure that we don't foreclose the option, if a sea-level canal is built, of our Nation playing a role in it, in harmony with and in partnership with Panama.,But whether we need it at this time, I doubt; in the future I think we will--,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,Q. Mr. President, when you met with Secretary Kissinger last week, you told him in the presence of reporters that you had told President Ford that morning that you had what you called an absolute continuum of what you--referring to Secretary Kissinger--and President Ford had started on southern Africa, the Middle East, Panama, and Chile.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't mention those things, but go ahead with your question.,Q. This is according to a report that was written by reporters who were present.,At any rate, if you used the words \"absolute continuum,\" what did you mean by that, and were you saying that the voters had no choice on those issues between you and President Ford?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't mention any specific areas of the world where there was an absolute continuum. What Secretary Kissinger came to talk to me about was the Panama Canal. In some areas of foreign policy, there is 'a complete continuum as Presidents change. I have a different emphasis that I have placed on foreign affairs questions than did President Ford or President Nixon or their predecessors.,I think in the case of the Panama Canal negotiations, there was a complete continuum. We did appoint Sol Linowitz to help Ellsworth Bunker, and we added to the discussions a concept of guaranteed neutrality of the canal after the year 2000. That was an innovation. But the negotiations with the Panamanian officials continued without interruption.,Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, who was the lead negotiator when President Ford was in office, continued as my lead negotiator. We added on Sol Linowitz. But I never mentioned anything about Chile or any specific nation in that comment.,BERT LANCE,Q. Mr. President, have you tried to ascertain, or have you ascertained that no one who worked during the transition for you was in contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta or the regional office of the Comptroller and discussing with them the inquiries into Mr. Lance that were extant at that point?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never heard of that before. And if there are any people who worked in the transition time who made an inquiry about Mr. Lance's affairs, they did it without my knowledge and without my authority, and it would have been contrary to my inclinations.,Q. May I follow that up? With all of your Cabinet appointments, before the nominations were made you had benefit of an FBI report, with the exception of Mr. Lance. Do you regret that now, that you made that nomination without the FBI report?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that has not been the case in every instance. For instance, my most recent appointment of Judge Frank Johnson to head up the FBI was made without an IRS and FBI check. There have been a few instances when this was not done because of the pressure of time and because we needed to move aggressively to make the decision or when I had absolute trust in them. But I don't have any regret about that.,MR. GERSTENZANG. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-08-06","text":"Held at Plains, Georgia,WELFARE REFORM,THE PRESIDENT. As I pledged during my campaign for the Presidency, I am today asking Congress to totally scrap our existing welfare system and to replace it with a Program for Better Jobs and Income, which will provide job opportunities for those able to work and a simplified, uniform cash assistance program for those who are unable to work due to disability, age, or family circumstances.,In May--I think May 1--after almost 4 months of intensive study, I said that the welfare system was worse than I had expected, and I stand by that conclusion.,Each of the individual programs has a high purpose and serves some needy people. But taken as a whole, the system is neither rational nor is it fair, and the welfare system is antiwork and antifamily. It's unfair to the poor and wasteful to taxpayers' dollars.,The defects of the current system are very clear. First of all, it treats people differently who have similar needs, and eligibility requirements vary for each separate program. Second, it creates exaggerated differences in benefits based on where people live. Third, it encourages the breakup of families. In most cases, two-parent families are not eligible for cash assistance, and a working father can most often increase his family's income by leaving home.,It also discourages work. In one Midwestern State, for example, a father who leaves part-time employment paying $2,400 a year and goes to a full-time job paying $4,800 a year, can actually lose more than $1,250. At the same time, well-intentioned efforts to find jobs for current recipients of welfare payments have floundered and been ineffective.,And finally, the complexity of current programs and regulations tends to waste, fraud, redtape, and errors. HEW has recently discovered even Government employees unlawfully receiving benefits and numbers of people receiving benefits in several different communities.,There is no perfect solution for these difficult problems, but it's time to begin. The welfare system is too hopeless to be cured by minor modifications; we must make a complete and clean break with the past.,The program that I propose today to the Congress does just that. It will provide for jobs for those who need work, a work bonus for those who do work but whose incomes are inadequate to support their family. It provides income support for those who are able to work part-time or who are unable to work due to age or physical disability or who need to care for little children 6 years of age or younger. It provides an earned income tax credit to strengthen work incentives and to provide tax relief for working families who have been hard hit by payroll tax increases.,If enacted by the Congress, this new program will have major benefits. It will significantly reduce the number of people who rely on welfare payments primarily by doubling the number of singleparent families who are supported primarily through work. Twice as many single-parent families will now be supported by work. It will insure that work will always be more profitable than welfare and that a private job or a public job not supported by the Federal Government will always bring in more income than a special job created with Federal funds. It will combine effective work requirements, strong work incentives, improved private sector placement services, and the creation of 1.4 million jobs. Those who can work will work. And every family with a full-time worker will have an income substantially above the poverty line for the first time.,This program will provide increased benefits and more sensitive treatment to those in need. It will provide simplicity by consolidating the current assistance programs, all of which have different eligibility requirements.,This new program will provide strong incentives to keep families together rather than tearing families apart and offering the dignity of useful work to the heads of families.,This program will reduce fraud and error and accelerate efforts to assure ,that deserting fathers meet their obligations to their families.,This program will also give substantial financial relief--S2 billion--to hardpressed State and local taxpayers.,In my May 2, 1977, statement, I established as a goal that the new reform system involve no higher initial cost than the present system by making the new program more rational and efficient. Therefore, Secretary Califano, who is here on the stage with me, outlined a tentative, no-cost plan which embodied the major reforms we are seeking. It was a good plan.,After careful consultation with State and local leaders, Members of Congress, and many other interested persons throughout the country, we've now provided $2.8 billion in added benefits.,These additional funds will be used to make important improvements in our original plan--increased fiscal relief, as I've already outlined, for local and State governments, particularly those that have borne a heavy financial burden in the past.,Incentives which strengthen family ties have also been added. A deduction for child care will permit and encourage single parents to take work which will lift them out of poverty.,We've added up to 300,000 additional jobs, part-time jobs, for single-parent families with school age children. If adequate day care is available, such parents will be expected to take full-time jobs. And the earned income tax credit for working families, administered through the revenue system, has been expanded to provide tax relief for many who receive no income assistance, who work, and who have been hard hit by payroll tax increases.,So, with these improvements the program will help turn the low-income Americans away from welfare dependence with a system that is fair and fundamentally based on work for those who can and should work.,This Program for Better Jobs and Income stresses a fundamental American commitment to work, strengthens our family, respects the less advantaged in our society, and makes a far more efficient and effective use of our hard-earned tax dollars.,I'll now answer questions about this program. I have on the stage with me Joe Califano who heads up the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and Ray Marshall, who heads up the Department of Labor--two of the major Departments, along with Treasury, that will administer the new program.,And I'd like to also say that the House of Representatives yesterday--Speaker Tip O'Neill announced that a special welfare committee will be set up to implement the legislative work on this program for better jobs and income.,I'd now like to recognize Mr. Wes Pippert [Wesley G. Pippert, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,BERT LANCE,Q. I know that this is intended, Mr. President, to be a news conference on the all-important subject of welfare reform.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it is.,Q. But I do feel compelled to ask about something else that has just arisen that is also important. Budget Director Bert Lance has acknowledged that he received another big loan from a bank in which his own bank had an interest-free account.,Now, when did you become aware of these matters? Have you asked him for an explanation, and does he still have your full confidence?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me answer this question, and then I would like to have questions on the new system that I'm proposing, because some of the specialists on welfare programs have come down from Washington to both ask and answer questions. But I'll be glad to answer that question.,I became aware of the Comptroller's interest in the loan at the New York bank about, I guess, a week or 10 days ago. The Comptroller is conducting an inquiry with Mr. Lance. I've not talked to Mr. Lance about it. My understanding is that the inquiry is proceeding thoroughly and that all information concerning the loan will be made .available to the public.,Mr. Lance, as you know, answered questions about this yesterday. He's much more familiar with it than I am, and I can only say that any information that is available that is known by Mr. Lance, by the Comptroller, will be made available to the public.,I know little about the details of the loan, but I have full confidence in both the Comptroller and Mr. Lance to handle it properly.,Now perhaps a question about the new program for better jobs and income.,WELFARE COSTS,Q. Mr. President, you said your program is designed to move people from welfare to work?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. But you're projecting increased costs in the future. What will be the first year in which your program will actually reduce the total cost of welfare, and how low might it go?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's hard to say. Some estimates have shown that we might reduce the rolls for AFDC. [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] as much as 50 percent when all of the part time jobs that we envision are made available to families.,We will present this program to the Congress today in hopes that--by next spring, perhaps, is the target date that the Speaker has announced yesterday-that it might be passed into law. The full program will not possibly be implemented until fiscal year 1981, which is October of 1980.,However, in the meantime, the jobs part of the program will be initiated as rapidly as possible. And also, of course, the earned income tax credit, which will help working families, will be initiated along with tax reform much earlier, perhaps within the next 18 months or 2 years.,We obviously see that every time you provide a new job for a person with our present stimulus package--public works programs, public service jobs, the Youth Employment Jobs program that we initiated yesterday--a total package of $21 billion--that you put people to work and take them off welfare.,So, I think that this new program for both better jobs, more jobs and better income for those who do work will have an immediate impact, although it can't be fully effective until October of 1980.,Q. .Could I follow up?,THE PRESIDENT. Please.,Q. Do you know what year though actual payout from the Treasury for welfare will go down, the actual money leaving the Treasury?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that that question can be answered. I might say that immediately following this press conference, Joe Califano and Ray Marshall will be able to answer specific questions.,I doubt that even they, though, who are experts in this subject, can tell you exactly which year the welfare payments will be reduced and how much. But the primary impetus of this whole bill is to make sure that it's always profitable for a family to take a job.,We're trying to make sure that that job is available for every family to have--at least the head of that family--a job available, preferably in the private sector where the income would be highest; secondly, in the public sector without Federal supplement; and third, if necessary, public service jobs to be provided for and paid for by the Federal Government on a temporary basis--about a year--with a good strong training program involved.,Under the present system, quite often it is a serious sacrifice, quite often, financially, for a family to get off welfare and go to work.,Under this program, whenever a person goes to work, it's financially advantageous to them. And at the same time, there's a strong impetus in this program to hold a family together.,Miss Compton [Ann Compton, ABC News].,WELFARE FRAUD,Q. How much money and how much energy are you willing to expend to get fraud out of the system, considering that very often fraud is less expensive to go ahead and pay rather than to try to get rid of?,THE PRESIDENT. The benefits to be derived from eliminating fraud will be realized long before this entire program is implemented. Every time you simplify a system and remove the complexities you eliminate one chance of fraud.,Secretary Califano told me this morning that the estimated degree of fraud in the food stamp program, for instance those who are not eligible to draw food stamps who do, those who get overpayments-amounts to about 17 percent.,So, in addition to the benefits that will be derived when this entire program goes into effect, we have an excellent chance to realize savings from the elimination of fraud of about $1.3 billion within the next 2 or 3 years just by simplifying, making more effective administration, a closer cooperation between the local, State, and Federal governments, and the computerization of the existing program, in preparation for the full implementation of this one.,So, how much the fraud savings would be after this full program goes into effect, I can't say. Before the full program goes into effect, though, the savings would be about $1.3 billion per year.,Q. But after the program gets going, how much money are you willing to invest at that point to make sure that fraud is done away with, after the program is under way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't answer that question, but I can say that whatever amount of money you put into the program to eliminate fraud, either in redesigning computer systems, simplifying the system, putting in more auditors, working closer with the State governments, you get a tenfold return on that expenditure, at least. Perhaps Secretary Califano has a better estimate.\nDo you? Would you say---,SECRETARY CALIFANO. I think that's right, Mr. President. We'll actually both be saving money and eliminating fraud and error.,WELFARE COSTS,Q. Mr. President, you indicated initially that you were very concerned .about keeping the cost of welfare reform at the current cost. But now it is going to cost $2.8 billion more. What changed your mind that it couldn't be done?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in order to exercise tight discipline on the whole subject and to make sure that people just didn't add on new programs that were attractive, I required the Departments involved-Treasury, Labor, and HEW--to devise a complete program for me with absolutely no cost, which they did. And this was presented to the American public in outline form the first part of May.,Since May, for about 4 months, the Secretaries involved have been consulting with Governors, with mayors, with Members of Congress, and with private interest groups and analyzing in the computer programs how additional costs could be mirrored in improved benefits to the Nation.,As I said, we will now have about $2 billion in tax relief for local and State taxpayers. That is part of the advantages.,In addition, we have provided about 300,000 jobs that we did not anticipate at the 'beginning in May which would permit single-parent families, a mother or a father with small children, say 6 to 14 years old, to go to work part-time and to guarantee that they would have an opportunity to go work part-time or, if family day care centers are available, to work full-time. That obviously did cost more.,So, in the additional costs that we are putting forward, we are providing a much stronger incentive to work, providing more jobs for people and providing tax relief for local and State governments.,Q. What about your dream of balancing the budget, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. This program will not be incompatible with that dream to balance the budget.,CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, you had considerable advice, strong advice from key Members of Congress to delay this package.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. In your interests of working well with the Congress and establishing that good working relationship, why did you decide not to accept their advice?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might say that neither one of the Members of Congress with whom I consulted this past week urged me personally not to go ahead with the program. In their interviews with the press later, they said it might be better to wait.,There are obviously some differences that still exist between myself and Chairman Al Ullman in the House and Chairman Russell Long in the Senate. But I think that compared to the overall program those differences are quite minor in nature.,I think that what Chairman Ullman objected to was the supplementing of income for families who work being based on the number of children in a family. Obviously, this is already done, because when you file your income tax return, you get a credit for each child so that you can pay for that child's life.,The second thing is obviously the food stamp program that we presently have. It's based on the number of people in a family. That's a difference of opinion between ourselves and Chairman Ullman. That has not been changed. Chairman Long has questions about how small a child should be in the family before the mother is encouraged--or the father, if it is a single-parent family--should be encouraged to go to work. And I think that the 6-year level is the proper level. I agree completely with that. I think maybe Senator Long would like a lower age. But I think that by the time the child is enrolled in school, that if a part-time job is available to the parent, or if a full-time job is available to the parent, with day care center services, that that parent ought to be in the expected-to-work category.,But those differences, which are sincere, compared to the overall breadth of the program, are relatively minor. And since we were quite ready, since all our plans had been made to reveal the programs to the other Members of the Congress, and since they did not request me personally to delay the program, we decided not to.,Q. Any idea as to why they would apply this indirect pressure, come out after talking with you when they had an opportunity to ask you to delay it personally.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think they--,Q. And yet they left the impression that they did ask that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't answer that question. I think that there are many Members of the Congress who would like to see this plan modified to mirror their exact desires. And of course, the Congress now will have a chance to go to work on it. I've been very pleased at the action that the Speaker announced yesterday in setting up a special committee, because in the past there have been several committees in the House directly responsible for welfare, in the Senate also three committees.,And I think in the case of energy legislation in the House, where the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy was set up, this expedited the process greatly. And the Speaker has set a target date for House completion on this very complex welfare program to be next spring. So, I think that the leadership in the House and Senate are ready for the legislation to be introduced. They'll have adequate time now to work their will, and I hope we'll be able to work compatibly.,FAMILIES ON WELFARE,Q. In your opening statement you mentioned the practice of welfare fathers leaving the family so that the family will indeed get more welfare benefits. How will your proposal counter that? What is there to keep the family together?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now there will be no penalty on a family if the father lives in the household. If, say, a two-parent family with children exists and a job is available to that family through public service jobs or through the Employment Security Agency a private job is available, if the parent refuses to take the job, then those parents would lose their welfare benefits. We would then provide adequate payments for income maintenance to meet the needs of the children. But there would be a strong and very heavy financial incentive to that family, both to stay together and also for the mother or father who's the head of the household to work.,So, now, as you well know, if a father gets a job and moves out of the house or pretends to move out of the house, then the family's income is greatly increased. Under this proposed system, that would no longer be the case.,SUPPORT FOR WELFARE REFORM,Q. Mr. President, one of your predecessors, former President Nixon, proposed welfare reform. Senator Long essentially killed it. Senator Long has indeed been critical of your proposal so far, and conservative groups also criticized your proposals. My question is, without this conservative constituency, where is your constituency to reform, and who will support this?,THE PRESIDENT. My belief is that Senator Long will support the program. The chairman of the subcommittee in Senator Long's committee is Senator Pat Moynihan. He was extremely complimentary about the program as it was outlined to him. There's strong support for the program in the House. Every single State government has been consulted in depth about this program. And I would say it was overwhelmingly supported.,Families will be benefited. The ones who want to keep families together will .be benefited. Almost all of the recipients of aid who are not able to work will be better off under this program. And I think this is part of the American way of life. To not only emphasize the desire for others to work but to provide jobs for them to be able to work is an integral part of this program that will make it politically attractive. I have very great confidence that this program, in its basic form, will be adopted by the Congress next year.,NEW YORK CITY WELFARE PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, during your campaign you promised that you would lift the entire welfare load off New York City as soon as possible. This program contains substantial fiscal relief for New York, but still leaves them paying a great deal of welfare costs at the local level. How soon do you think it will be possible to lift the entire load off New York City, as you pledged in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't answer that question. I think that the estimate here of financial relief for the States would amount to roughly $175 million for New York. The amount of reduction in cost to New York City under the present stimulus package far exceeds their welfare cost payments. This is brought about by housing and urban development programs, public works programs, and job programs for adults and youth.,But as far as the welfare system, which is being replaced by this new program, the direct benefit that we contemplate to New York would be $175 million.,Q. Could I follow that up? Would you envision in future years, after the program is put into effect, there would be additional dividends to the States and to the cities, such as the $2 billion that's estimated at the start of program? In other words, would they get more beyond the $175 million in the second, third, or fourth year of the program?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what my successor and the Congress might do after 1980, but I have to say this, that every time we reduce the unemployment roll, every time we put young people to work, that reduces greatly both unemployment compensation, it reduces welfare payments, and as we care for people with preventive health care programs and cut down hospital costs with the cost containment bill, it cuts down Medicaid and Medicare payments. So, I think the overall thrust of our programs has already far exceeded in benefits what we promised New York City on welfare cost reductions.,But as far as the welfare cost reductions themselves, I think that the most that they could hope for between now and the implementation of this program in the fall of 1980 would be what I've outlined to you. What would happen after that, I have no idea.,PUBLIC OPINION OF WELFARE,Q. Mr. President, in your statement you obviously avoided using the word \"welfare\" except to say the system was a failure. Does this mean that you believe the word has become so stigmatized that under this approach you are advancing that you hope the word itself would become obsolete rather than rehabilitated?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think there's a great deal of stigma attached to the word \"welfare.\" And I can't shape the vocabulary of the Nation, obviously, but we've decided to call this program, during its work phase, a Program for Better Jobs and Income. And this is what we are trying to do.,I think the people of the country, according to my own interaction with them during the campaign and as President-and also my information derived from public opinion polls is that they don't like the word \"welfare,\" but they do favor the programs that are provided for poor people, both those who work and those who cannot work.,But the abuses are being eliminated in this program, the abuses that people can make more money not working on welfare than they do if they get a job; the abuses that create confusion and complexity and fraud and cheating; the abuses that divide one member of the family from the rest of the family. Those are all being eliminated.,And I think that the elimination of those adverse parts of the present program will do a great deal to restore the beneficial image of the word \"welfare\" if it is used.,PUBLIC SERVICE JOBS,Q. In the interest of those who may have to go to work, can you spell out what the kind of jobs you are talking about, public service jobs, whether minimum wage--something like that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The basic public service job will be at the minimum wage. If a local government or a State government supplements the basic payment for those who cannot work, then they are required to supplement the minimum wage salary.,The reason for that is that we don't want the welfare payment or the income payment for those who don't work to be above what a person could get if they worked. But now this can only amount to 10 percent, approximately 10 percent. So, these jobs will be at the minimum wage or slightly above the minimum wage.,Q. Is this like the WPA--or what kind of public service jobs? Like what occupation? Cleaning up roadsides?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there would be a wide range of jobs, working in centers for the elderly, teachers aides, perhaps, when desired, jobs providing for the beauty and cleanliness of municipalities or the countryside, almost any kind of jobs. I think the delineation of what particular job would be envisioned would depend upon the person's capabilities and the needs within the local community. But there will always be a heavy stimulus to move that person out of the public service job into a permanent job, either in the local or State government or preferably in the private sector.,REPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I might add that both Secretaries Califano and Marshall will be here now to answer additional questions and to correct any errors I may have made. [Laughter]"}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-07-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, everybody. I have two brief statements. One relates to foreign affairs and defense. The other one relates to domestic election processes.,NUCLEAR TEST BAN NEGOTIATIONS,I'm very glad to announce that our delegation in Geneva has just completed trilateral discussions with delegations from the United Kingdom and from the Soviet Union on the possible negotiation of a comprehensive ran against the testing of nuclear weapons or peaceful nuclear devices. Although there are still a number of problems that must be resolved, the results of these intense consultations have been sufficiently promising so that the three countries have decided to begin formal negotiations in Geneva on October 3. It's my hope that sufficient basis for agreement can be reached that all other nations of the world will join us in the ultimate prohibition against testing of nuclear devices.,SENATORIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN,FINANCING,The other point I'd like to mention is one that relates to the electoral process. Our greatest damage to the political process in our country comes when there is a perception among the public that the actions of their elected officials have been unduly influenced by special interest groups, and the major way that people get that feeling is in reviewing the large and single source campaign contributions received by those officials.,The Senate is now considering a bill which would help remove this obstacle to faith and confidence on the part of the people of this country. This bill, known as Senate Bill 926, would extend public financing to Senate campaigns. It would remove the appearance of obligation to special interests. It would give private citizens a larger role in choosing their Senators, and it would help enable deserving candidates to run for office even if they are not rich themselves. But, most importantly, it would help restore the public's confidence and trust in officials who have such a vital role to play in the future of the citizens of this country.,As you know, we now have public financing for Presidential campaigns. It worked very well last year--[laughter]with not only the successful candidate but all of his challengers having gone through the entire campaign without being obligated to anyone because of political campaigns. I think this has been one of the major factors in restoring the confidence of our people in the system, and I hope that the Senate will approve their public financing bill. And I think that they, when it's tried, will find the same results to be applicable. The House will consider later on similar legislation for themselves.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED\nTERRITORIES,Q. Mr. President, in your view, did the Israeli embrace of the three settlements on the West Bank diminish in any way the prospects for a negotiated settlement in that part of the world?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that any move toward making permanent the settlements in the occupied territories or the establishment of new settlements obviously increases the difficulty in ultimate peace.,It's not an insurmountable problem. The matter of legalizing existing settlements was a subject that was never discussed by me or Prime Minister Begin. My own concern was with the establishment of new settlements. And I let him know very strongly that this would be a matter that would cause our own Government deep concern.,This matter of settlements in the occupied territories has always been characterized by our Government, by me and my predecessors as an illegal action. But I think that the establishment of new territories [settlements] or the recognition of existing territories [settlements] to be legal, both provide obstacles to peace, obstacles which I think we can overcome, by the way.,FOREIGN ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, since you came into office, you have stressed so many times that your policy is to restrain arms sales, we should not be the arms merchant of the world. Now you are proposing arms to Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and there are billions of dollars worth of arms in the pipeline for Israel--all areas of potential conflict. Why?,THE PRESIDENT. These proposals are compatible with my new arms sales policy, which is to reduce the level of arms sales in each succeeding year.,Many of these agreements are the result of longstanding commitments by our own Government to those nations which are our allies and friends. We have tried to keep a well-balanced approach to the whole question.,The most highly divisive issue recently has been the AWACS sale to Iran. They were contemplating a radar detection system using ground-based and airlaunched mechanisms that would have been about twice as expensive.,But we are determined to begin a downward trend in the sale of weapons throughout the world. But at the same time, of course, we have to have as a preeminent consideration the defense of our own country and an adequate defense capability for our allies.,And I would comply with my policy that after this fiscal year, 1977, that in '78 and subsequent years there would be an overall reduction in sales.,I am also trying to get our own allies, France, England, and others, and also the Soviet Union, to join us in this effort. And next year, under the auspices of the United Nations there will be a world disarmament conference in which we would not only participate but hope to play a leading role. But the policies that I have pursued will be a much greater constraint on arms sales than has been the policy in the past.,Q. Then you are not setting up a competition with the Soviet Union in Africa on the question of arms supplies?,THE PRESIDENT. No, ma'am, we aren't. I think it's accurate to say that in the case of Somalia, which has been almost completely under the friendly influence of the Soviet Union and to whom they've been completely obligated, there has been a change. We are trying to work not on a unilateral basis, but in conjunction with other nations like the Saudis, and France, Italy, and others, to deal with the Somalia-Ethiopian-Djibouti questions on a multinational basis to reduce the competition between ourselves and the Soviet Union.,I might say that in the Libyan-Ethiopian [Egyptian] conflict that's recently taken place, and which has now been changed into a peaceful relationship for the time being at least, both ourselves and the Soviets have deliberately shown complete constraint and restraint in our comments or actions in that area.,We want to confine those conflicts, when they unfortunately do occur, to as narrowly geographical an area as possible and prevent them being identified as a struggle between ourselves and the Soviet Union.,OIL IMPORTS,Q. Mr. President, in view of the projected $25 billion budget deficit this year, brought about largely by foreign oil increases, isn't this a far greater--imports rather--isn't this a far greater threat to the American economy than any energy crunch 8 years from now? Would you consider making the Government the sole importer of foreign oil, and at the very least, aren't you going to have to take far more serious energy conservation measures and proposals than what you've already got?,THE PRESIDENT. The early estimates this year on our trade deficit were about $25 billion. That's still our best estimate. There has not been a deterioration in that prospect. The fact is that by leaps and bounds the American people are importing and using too much oil. This has been the primary cause for our concern. We have a positive trade balance, excluding oil, of about $20 billion. But we are importing $45 billion worth of oil this year.,It's a vivid demonstration of the need for very tight conservation measures on the use of oil and natural gas. This is a reason for the long delayed proposal to establish a strict national energy policy.,Our hope is to cut down oil imports drastically by 1985--10 million barrels per day less than the present projected use by that time. But if the American people--business, industry, private persons, as well--will join in an effort to cut down on the waste of oil, then that would be the major contributing factor toward balancing our trade with other countries.,I don't know what other actions we will take at this point. I think that we will continue to assess additional means by which we can constrain oil imports. But whether or not the Government would become the sole importer is a question that has not yet been considered.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. I'd like to go back to the Mideast, if I may. Some people believe that in your meetings with Mr. Begin, Mr. Begin came away with sort of the best of it. They think that you rather embraced him to the extent that our leverage with Israel has now been reduced. Would you comment on that, and would you also tell us what you think now the prospects for peace versus another war are in the Mideast?,THE PRESIDENT. After I met with President Sadat and King Hussein and President Asad, there were major outcries in Israel and among the American Jewish community that I had overly embraced the Arab cause. And I think now that Mr. Begin has visited me, there's a concern we have overly embraced the Israeli cause. Obviously, when these leaders come to see me or when I go to see them, there is an effort to understand one another, to have a base of comprehension and consultation that can provide hope for the future.,Our position on the Middle East has been very carefully spelled out to the degree of specificity that I choose. We've always made it clear that, ultimately, the agreement had to be approved and mutually beneficial to the Israelis and also their Arab neighbors as well.,I think that we have a good chance to go to Geneva. There are obstacles still to be resolved. I hope that every leader involved directly in the discussions, the four major countries there, will join with us and the cochairman of the prospective conference, the Soviet Union, in restraining their statements, not being so adamant on issues, and trying to cool down the situation until all can search out common ground, and then hope to minimize the differences.,Secretary Vance will leave this weekend to visit the three Arab nations plus Saudi Arabia, and then come back through Israel as well. When he returns to the United States after about a week or so, we'll have a clearer picture of the differences that still divide the countries.,I think the major stumbling block at this point is the participation in the negotiations by the Palestinian representatives. Our position has been that they ought to be represented and that we will discuss with them these elements that involve the Palestinians and other refugees at the time they forgo their commitment, presently publicly espoused, that Israel should be destroyed. But until the Palestinian leaders adopt the proposition that Israel is a nation, that it will be a nation permanently, that it has a right to live in peace--until that happens, I see no way that we would advocate participation by them in the peace negotiations.,But these matters are still very fluid. What gives me hope is that I believe that all national leaders with whom I've talked genuinely want to go to Geneva to try to work out permanent peace. That's the primary basis for my optimism. But it's difficult, and past statements by these leaders when they were at war, or in the status of prospective war, have been very rigid and very adamant and sometimes abusive and filled with hatred and distrust. We're trying to get them to change from those positions of distrust to one of genuine search for peace.,I think it's accurate to say, in closing my answer, that both sides now have at least a moderate amount of confidence in us, and I've tried to take a balanced position to enhance that trust in us. If I should ever take a biased position on the part of one of the parties, then the other parties would simply forgo any dependence upon us.,So, I'm very careful in my statements, privately and publicly, to be consistent, and also to be fair.,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS,Q. Could I follow up on that, Mr. President? I believe you said just a moment ago that Mr. Begin gave you no advance hint of this action that he took this week on the settlements. You said that you discussed future settlements. Can you tell us what he said about that? Is he going to encourage new settlements there, and what did you tell him about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Begin did not give me any promise about his action on the settlement question. I did describe to him our longstanding position on the settlements, which I've already outlined, and told him that this was a major item of potential differences between Israel and the Arab countries and my strong hope that nothing would be done by the Israeli Government in establishing new settlements that might exacerbate an already difficult position.,He listened to me very carefully. He said this was a major political issue in Israel, that in many instances he and his opposition political parties in Israel, felt the same about it, but that he was certainly aware of our concern. But he did not give me any commitments about what he would do.,And to answer the other part of your question, he did not give me any prior notice that they were going to recognize the legality of the settlements involved.,PRIME MINISTER BEGIN,Q. Mr. President, isn't there a basic conflict between all the talk of progress we heard around here during the Begin visit and at the time he left, and the first action that he took upon returning to Israel and the rejection of the idea that we could have any influence over what moves he might make to the West Bank settlements?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's not fair to overly criticize Prime Minister Begin. The fact is that under the previous Mapai Coalition, the labor government, that settlements have been built there, a fairly large number. The number of people involved is quite small. And this is not a new thing. I think it would be a mistake to overemphasize it or to exaggerate the significance of it. We feel that any restraint that Prime Minister Begin might want to exert on this subject would certainly be contributory toward peace.,I think he's in a position now of great strength in Israel. I think that his voice would be honored by the Israeli people. But he, like myself, has run on campaign commitments, and I think he's trying to accommodate the interest of peace as best, he can. That doesn't mean that the settlements are right, but I think it would not be proper to castigate him unnecessarily about it because he's continuing policies that have been extant in Israel for a long time. And the Israeli Government has never claimed that these settlements are permanent. What they have done is to say that they are legal at the present time.,I think that that's all I know about the subject, and that's certainly all that I'm going to say now.,Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,Q. Mr. President, on your assessment of your first 6 months in office, I understand that you have said that you feel that, overall, your performance was good. But did you--,THE PRESIDENT. That's a biased expression. But go ahead. [Laughter],Q. Anyway, did you do anything wrong, did you do anything that you would like to do differently, if you could do it over again?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, every day I make hundreds of decisions that in the light of subsequent events, in dealing with the Congress, in dealing with local and State governments, proposals that were rejected, slight amendments that could have been more acceptable, an inadvertent oversight in not calling a congressional committee chairman ahead of time before I made a public statement-those kinds of things always you would want to undo.,I think, though, that the final judgment would have to be the results of this year's work, at the time the Congress adjourns, hopefully, in October. In general, I think the Congress has responded well to my proposals. I think the results of their work have already been very good.,So, in minor things, obviously, I've made mistakes. But to be perfectly frank, I don't personally care to point them out. [Laughter],Q. Have you learned anything in the first 6 months that in your opinion will make you a better President in the next 6 months?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so. I've learned--,Q. What?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the major issue that I'll point out that I've done before is I've learned how to work much more harmoniously with the Congress. I have been amazed at how hard the Congress works. Their results so far, I believe, are unprecedented: in having passed all of the major elements of the appropriations bills--this used to take place sometimes in November or December--they've already completed this major work; the establishment of a new Department of Energy, which is now on the verge of being concluded, and many other things.,I have learned to respect the Congress more in an individual basis. I've been favorably impressed at the high degree of concentrated experience and knowledge that individual Members of Congress can bring on a specific subject, where they've been the chairman of a subcommittee or committee for many years and have focused their attention on this particular aspect of government life which I will never be able to do.,And I think I've learned, too, the sensitivities of them, in trying to let them know ahead of time before my own positions were pronounced publicly.,I've now completed meeting at the White House with every Member of the House of Representatives, all the Democrats and then all the Republicans, to give them a chance in groups to ask me questions about parochial issues and to get to know them personally.,And I've now completed having a breakfast meeting with all the Democratic Members of the Senate. We'll now meet with the Republican Members of the Senate.,I think that's a major thing that I've learned, is the degree of respect that legitimately I ought to have for the Congress, and I have built up a great admiration for their individual competence and also for their dedication. That's the major thing--,WELFARE PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, how committed are you to keeping the pledge that you made earlier this year to hold welfare spending at its present level, in light of all the difficulties your advisers are having in coming up with a welfare plan that is within that limit?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's very difficult. I'm going to spend--I came over to my office this morning at 5: 30 and I spent 3 hours working on the welfare question before my first appointments. And this afternoon I have 2 more hours of study and work with the Cabinet members on the welfare question.,I talked to Senator Long on the phone this morning when he called me to express his interest in it, and next week I'll be meeting with him and Chairman Ullman on the same subject. By the end of next week, we will have prepared for presentation to the public and the Congress my best assessment of what ought to be done.,There are obviously options that have to be exercised: the degree of fiscal relief for local and State governments, the amount of guarantees that even in a case where the benefits have been very liberal, that there will or will not be any reductions in those benefits for people who are well above the poverty level. Some families get welfare benefits that have an income twice as high as the poverty level, much greater than someone who works, say, full time at the minimum wage. But how to deal with these different questions, how to tie it in with a comprehensive tax reform is something that I'm spending a lot of time on.,I'm trying to hold down the cost of the overall program, and I think if you will look at the careful wording of my goals, it said the initial cost would not exceed present expenditures. We're trying now to estimate also the ultimate cost of these programs, what they will cost in 1980 and 1985.,But I can't respond any better to your question. It's a complicated and difficult subject. We're trying to make it fairer and simpler, and we're trying to have a heavy emphasis on a legitimate incentive to work for those that are able to work.,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Schram [Martin J. Schram, Newsday].,Q. Mr. President, at the risk of going back over well-plowed ground, I'd like to ask you why it is that you did not ask Mr. Begin what his plans were concerning the existing settlements on the West Bank, and more specifically, were you led to believe from your own studies in advance of those talks that he was not going to take this action?,THE PRESIDENT. I hate to admit it to you, Mr. Schram, but I did not think about raising the subject of recognizing the legality of those settlements. The item that I wanted to discuss with him--and I did--both in the public meeting with Cabinet members and also privately upstairs in the White House, was the establishment of new settlements. And I pointed out to him, as I've said earlier, that I thought the establishment of new settlements would be a very difficult thing for public opinion to accept, both here and in the Arab countries, and that if-he pointed out to me that new settlers, as a result of his campaign statements and those of his opponents, were eager to go into the area--I don't think it's violating any confidence to tell you what I said, and that was that I thought it would be easier for us to accept an increase in the population of existing settlements than it would be to accept the establishment of new settlements. But I did not think about talking to him concerning the granting of legal status to those settlements. It was an oversight which never was discussed.,DISCRIMINATION,Q. Mr. President, there's a case coming up before the U.S. Supreme Court next term on the issue of whether institutions of higher learning can grant preferences in admission patterns to members of minority groups, and your administration has the opportunity to file an amicus brief in this case. What's your position on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I hate to endorse the proposition of quotas for minority groups, for women or for anyone else, that contravene the concept of merit selection. However, I think it is appropriate for both private employers, the public governments, and also institutions of education, health, and so forth, to try to compensate as well as possible for past discrimination, and also to take into consideration the fact that many tests that are used to screen applicants quite often are inadvertently biased against those whose environment and whose training might be different from white majority representatives of our society.,It's not an easy question for the courts to answer, or the Congress. It's not an easy question for me as President to answer, either. I just want to be sure that if we do make a mistake in this carefully balanced approach, that the mistake might be to end discrimination and not the other way around.,But, of course, I will have to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. And I might say that the Secretary of HEW and the Attorney General, who are lawyers-and I'm not--will prepare our position. I'll be involved in that preparation, but I've given you the best answer I can.\nYes?,SOCIAL PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, for some days now some of your constituencies have been publicly expressing concern that your interest in balancing the budget, your interest in working against inflation might cause you to ease up on your campaign commitments to the cities, to the poor, for employment programs, for national health insurance. One of those critics, Vernon Jordan, had a private meeting with you, and we were told that you told Mr. Jordan that you felt his public expression of these doubts would work against the interests of the poor and of black people.,I would like to know what you meant by that.,THE PRESIDENT. Okay. I think many of the expressions of concern are certainly legitimate. I want to be sure that the public and I and the Congress are always aware of deprivations, because quite often, those who are deprived most are not articulate enough or well-educated enough or influential enough to speak with a strong voice that can be heard. And I think it's completely legitimate for someone like the head of the Urban League or the head of the NAACP or other groups to speak out if they think that inadequate attention has been paid.,The second part of your question is, I think, that we've had a very good record so far, both my own administration and the Democratic Congress. We've initiated programs now, which are just beginning to be felt, that will greatly reduce the problems of those poor people in downtown urban areas, in particular, with pub lic service jobs, public works jobs, CETA training programs, and the allocation of all Federal moneys on housing and so forth to the areas that in the past have not been treated fairly.,The third part of your question about my private conversation with Vernon Jordan: I did point out to him that when erroneous or demagogic statements were made--inaccurately reporting that neither I nor my own administration nor the Congress cared about those poor people-that since we are the last hope of those who are poor, that the Government would help them in some way, that this removed from them that prospect of a better life.,Accurate criticisms, fine. But I think to prey upon those who are poor or deprived or who are alienated from society and erroneously report that neither I nor my Cabinet members nor the Congress cares about them, does hurt the poor. That was the essence of the conversation.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow up on that question?,THE PRESIDENT. I was trying to recognize-yes, go ahead.,Q. I wanted to be sure I understood you correctly. Are you saying that Mr. Jordan's criticism of you was demagogic or that he was preying upon the fears of the poor people of this country?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As I said earlier, I think that Mr. Jordan's statements are certainly legitimate. He has a right to express his own opinion. But I will say this: To the extent that he alleged that neither I nor my administration nor the Congress was concerned about the poor, those statements were erroneous. But I think in his statements both before and after his speech, he presented to some degree both sides: that we had made progress that was not adequate, that our campaign promises had not been kept--they are being kept--and so forth.,But I have no quarrel with Vernon Jordan. I think he's a strong and able spokesman. I think, though, that my statement, my conversation with him, which was very friendly and mutually respectful, was an accurate assessment of what I've told you.,FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,Q. Mr. President, sir, whom did you promise?,THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead. I'll be glad to answer your question.,Q. Will you take my question?,THE PRESIDENT. I will be glad to.,Q. Thank you, sir. [Laughter],Sir, there's a very interesting question about the FBI. They were created, I believe, about 1908 by Teddy Roosevelt with an Executive order, and there's really no overall, comprehensive enabling law that applies to them. And they handle so many matters concerning criminal as well as civils---civilians.,I wondered if you don't think that we ought to patch up this piecemeal statute situation with the FBI and pass an overall, enabling law?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, ma'am, I do think that we need to have a congressional charter evolved both for the FBI and also the CIA. And I think your concern is one that's well justified. I think it's accurate also to say that both my own administration, including the Attorney General and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Congress leaders are working on this project, and I would hope that this would be one of the accomplishments of my administration.,Q. Mr. Carter, speaking of the FBI, can you bring us up to date on the search for a new Director, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're proceeding very slowly and methodically and, I think, with the prospect of good results. We have now interviewed six candidates for the job. We reserve the fight to interview more in the future if we like. We've not made a final decision on who would be the Director. My own inclination is to defer to the recommendation of the Attorney General, unless we have an unanticipated difference of opinion. But we don't feel any time pressure to arrive at a final conclusion.,I might say that in the meantime, Director Kelley is doing a good job. He served on the selection committee, as you well know. But we'll have a good selection to make before the whole process is completed.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Cormier."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-07-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody. Do you have any questions? [Laughter],Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,ARMS AND WEAPONS,Q. Mr. President, how do you reconcile your decision to go ahead with the neutron bomb with your inaugural pledge to eliminate all nuclear weapons? Also, why didn't you know the money was in the bill? And three, doesn't this escalate the arms race? And I have a followup. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's a very serious question. In the first place, I did not know what was in the bill. The enhanced radiation of the neutron bomb has been discussed and also has been under development for 15 or 20 years. It's not a new concept at all, not a new weapon.,It does not affect our SALT or strategic weapons negotiations at all. It's strictly designed as a tactical weapon. I think that this would give us some flexibility.,I have not yet decided whether to advocate deployment of the neutron bomb. I think the essence of it is that for a given projectile size or for a given missile head size, that the destruction that would result from the explosion of a neutron bomb is much less than the destruction from an equivalent weapon of other types.,The essence of the question is that if the neutron weapon or atomic weapon ever should have to be used against enemy forces in occupied territory of our allies or ourselves, the destruction would be much less.,Before I make a final decision on the neutron bomb's deployment, I would do a complete impact statement analysis on it, submit this information to the Congress. But I have not yet decided whether to approve the neutron bomb. I do think it ought to be one of our options, however.,Q. Mr. President, if you decided to go ahead, would you renounce the first use of the bomb? For example, you would not use it unless there was an oppressive enemy action?,THE PRESIDENT. This is something that I have not yet decided. Of course, we hope that we can reach an agreement among all nations in the future to forgo the use of all atomic weapons and also to eliminate the possession of all nuclear weapons.,There are two distinct classes of weapons. One is the tactical weapons which have not been under the purview of discussions with the Soviets or others. The other one is the strategic nuclear weapons.,But the definition of under what circumstances we would use such atomic weapons has not yet been spelled out publicly. I obviously hope that our continuing inclination toward peace, shared, I'm sure, by the Soviets and others, will prevent any use of atomic weapons. They are there as a deterrent, however, and the option for their use has to be maintained as one of the viable options.,MINIMUM WAGE,Q. Mr. President, just today, I believe, you are reported on the brink of approving a compromise minimum wage proposal of $2.60 an hour. Now, if that's true, did you raise your sights because of political factors, economic factors, or a combination?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the fact of the matter is that the minimum wage proposals are being handled by the congressional committees--Congressman Dent, Congressman Perkins. This afternoon, I think at 4 or 5 o'clock, Congressman Perkins will have a press conference to spell out the committee proposal.,We have no administration legislation to propose, and I do not intend to send the Congress any message on the minimum wage. I might say in advance that we have come to agree with the proposal that Congressman Perkins will propose, but it is not an administration bill.,ATOMIC WEAPONS,Q. Mr. President, may I go back to the neutron bomb?,THE PRESIDENT. Please.,Q. How much do you think there is to the argument that if you have a cleaner weapon, as you define it, it makes war more possible; that it might be used? And secondly, where do you stand on that ageold question of nuclear weapons in Europe, for instance, as to whether if you start using them it wouldn't automatically escalate to a full-scale nuclear war?,THE PRESIDENT. I think one of the concepts that must be avoided is an exact description ahead of time of what I as President would do under every conceivable circumstance.,The ownership of atomic weapons and their potential use is such a horrifying prospect--their use--that it is a deterrent to a major confrontation between nations who possess atomic weapons.,I believe that the nation that uses atomic weapons first would be under heavy condemnation from the other people of the world, unless the circumstances were extremely gross, such as an unwarranted invasion into another country.,But I'm eager to work with the Soviet Union, with China, with France, with England, on a continuing basis, so that there will never be a need for the use of those weapons.,To answer the other part of your question, my guess is--and no one would certainly know--that the first use of atomic weapons might very well quickly lead to a rapid and uncontrolled escalation in the use of even more powerful weapons with possibly a worldwide holocaust resulting.,This is a prospect that is sobering to us all, and that's why the Soviets and we and others have worked so hard to try to reach an agreement in the prohibition against atomic use.,Q. Sir, could I just follow it up with one question? Doesn't that give you a terrible paradox? Because if we are inferior on the ground in Europe with the Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, if we don't use atomic weapons, can we and our NATO alliance stop a ground invasion?,THE PRESIDENT. My guess is and my belief is that without the use of atomic weapons, we have adequate force strength in NATO to stop an invasion from the Warsaw Pact forces.,There is some advantage in the commitment and effectiveness of the forces of a defending nation if they are fighting on their own invaded territory. And I think this would mean that in a rough balance that the invading nations would have to have an overwhelming superior force.,We are now putting, as a much greater priority in our budget request for defense expenditures, moneys for improving our conventional forces in Europe. In years gone by, 15 or 20 years ago, we had an overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons. Now I would say we have a roughly equivalent strength in atomic weapons. And so, we must ensure that within the bounds of measurement that our conventional forces are equivalent also. And I don't acknowledge at all the fact that an invasion of the Warsaw Pact nations would be successful without the use of atomic weapons.,FOREIGN EAVESDROPPING ON TELEPHONE,CONVERSATIONS,Q. Mr. President, Senator Moynihan of New York says that the Government, both the Ford administration and yours, has avoided telling American citizens that they are the subject of massive eavesdropping on the part of the Soviet Union. If the Senator is correct, why has the Government not alerted American citizens to the situation?,Second, do you plan to demand that the Soviets withdraw their rooftop electronic equipment? And third, if they do not, will there be diplomatic reprisals?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Moynihan, as you know, has been a member of the Nixon administration in the past in a very high official position, and he is well able to judge the knowledge that was possessed by that administration.,I think it's accurate to say that any detailed discussion of the electronics capabilities of different nations' intelligence forces is not a proper subject for complete discussion.,Within the last number of years, became of the radio transmission of telephone conversations, the intercept on a passive basis of these kinds of transmissions has become a common ability for nations to pursue. It's not an act of aggression or war; it's completely passive.,I don't know the full circumstances involved. When I became President, I asked to have a multidepartmental assessment of the threat to our own security. We have been embarked since I've been in office--and I think before--in an effort to make impervious to intercept those telephone lines that were involved directly in national security.,For instance, the lines going into and out of the Defense Department and my own office--we try to make sure that they are cables; they are buried underground; they are not subject to this electronics type of being overheard.,Some of the major commercial companies in our Nation who want to prevent any eavesdropping on their transactions, commercial transactions, not involving national security, also make an attempt to prevent intercepts by those who listen in on the free air waves.,But I would not interpret this use by the Soviet Union or by other embassies to be an act of aggression. And although it may be an intrusion into our security, I think we are taking adequate steps now to prevent its creating a threat to our country.,STOCK MARKET INVESTMENTS,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,Q. You obviously are doing well in. the popularity polls, but how do you explain the uncertainty that investors in the stock market seem to have in you?,THE PRESIDENT. That was a very difficult thing for me to understand during the campaign. I thought that they should have given me their overwhelming support. [Laughter] The leading investors on Wall Street and others only gave me a 5-percent support compared to my opponent, President Ford.,I think that there's a general uncertainty in the world about future economic circumstances. We also, of course, are involved in a reassessment of some very controversial issues concerning energy, tax reform, welfare reform, that causes some governmental contribution to the uncertainty. We have an increasing dependence in the consuming nations on oil imports, which means that the OPEC nations have about a $40 billion trade surplus and the rest of the world has to absorb a $40 billion deficit.,So, I think there are many areas of uncertainty. I've been impressed with the long-range trend projections that have been given to me. We've had about a 1-percent reduction already in the unemployment rate since I became President, and the results last month on inflation were encouraging. But monthly figures fluctuate fairly widely. Since last November, we've had about a 3 million net increase in the number of jobs available in our country.,I feel very good about our economy. And I can't assess that feeling of mine as compared to investors in the stock market prices. But I think since the first of the year, the stock market prices, although they've fluctuated somewhat, have been relatively stable.,NATURAL GAS,Q. Mr. President, yesterday a congressional Republican group released a study showing that your natural gas plan, pricing plan, would cost American consumers about $48 billion more than deregulation of natural gas would by 1990. They mainly said that Americans would not be able to get as much gas under your plan and, therefore, would have to resort to other types of more expensive fuel. Could you respond to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I haven't heard of that report, but I can tell you that the Congressional Budget Office and the Library of Congress, independently of Dr. Schlesinger in his assessments, have confirmed our own figures. In fact, both those reports anticipate that deregulation of natural gas would be much more expensive than even the figures that we have put forward.,My estimate is that our own proposal, which I think gives an adequate incentive for production and exploration of new natural gas, would amount to about a $15 billion increase in income for the oil companies, natural gas producers, by 1985.,The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this would be, under deregulation, about $85 billion, which is $70 billion more with complete natural gas deregulation for new gas than what we proposed. The Library of Congress figures go up to about $150 billion. This means that the consumers of this country would have to pay to the oil and natural gas companies an enormous extra amount for a very slight increase in natural gas production, if it was completely deregulated.,I'm not in favor of complete deregulation. We estimate that if natural gas was completely deregulated, that the increased production would be about 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas at an increased cost of more than $70 billion. This means that for every additional thousand cubic feet discovered, it would cost the American consumers about $60.,So, I think that our proposal is reasonable. I think that deregulation as proposed by some Members of the Congress would be a gross overburden on the American people and would not result in a substantial increase in production.,RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, what do you make of all the unfriendly rhetoric coming out of Moscow lately? And do your sources suggest that it may not just be because of your human rights campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how to explain the unfriendly rhetoric. Our proposals have been fair and reasonable, and almost all of .them have been made public. We have pursued our hopes for increased friendship with the Soviet Union, a reduction in nuclear weaponry, an easing of the tensions between ourselves and the Soviets through quiet diplomatic channels, with myself talking to the Soviet Ambassador, with Cy Vance, the Secretary of State, going to Moscow, and in continuing negotiations at Geneva and other places by Paul Warnke and other representatives of me. I believe that the Soviets, perhaps, have some political reasons for spelling out or exaggerating the disagreements. I don't know what those reasons are.,Our positions have been carefully contrived and constantly reassessed. I have no inclination to change the positions that we have taken; I think they are fair. And I believe that calm and persistent and fair negotiations with the Soviet Union will ultimately lead to increased relationships with them.,And the public statements that the Soviets make, attacking me personally or our own Nation's good faith, are both erroneous and ill-advised. But what their reasons for it might be, I do not know.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, with Mr. Begin coming to visit, I'd like to ask a question about the Middle East, a two-part question.,When you talk about the necessity for a Palestinian homeland, are you thinking of locating that homeland in territory that at one time was Palestine, or in your mind, could it be located anywhere?,The second part of .the question is: Do you still believe, as you said a few weeks ago, that Israel eventually must withdraw with only minor changes to the pre-1967 borders?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not changed my opinion since the earlier statements that I made concerning the general outline of terms to be sought at a possible Geneva conference.,We have never tried to define geographical boundaries for a so-called Palestinian entity. My own preference, which I have expressed since I've been President and also as a candidate. was that the Palestinian entity, whatever form it might take and whatever area it might occupy, should be tied in with Jordan and not be independent. But I don't have the authority nor the inclination to try to impose that preference on the parties that will negotiate.,I think that in his coming over here to our country next week, on the 19th, that Prime Minister Begin is trying to bring with him an open mind and an ability to go to a possible peace conference with all items being negotiable. He said this publicly, and he's also sent me private messages to that effect.,I've seen an inclination in the Middle East in recent days toward an alleviation of tension. I got a private message from President Sadat, for instance, that he is going to make every effort again to comply with the Sinai agreement.,He had a few extra troops in the territory that bad been identified. He's withdrawing those. He authorized me to announce that he's returning with full military honors 19 Israeli bodies that had been left in Egypt. He's expressed his willingness to go to Geneva without prior commitments. He's had negotiations or talks lately with the King of Jordan, and they have agreed that the Palestinian entity ought to be tied in with Jordan.,So, there's a general inclination on all parties for success, but I don't think it's advisable now for me to get any more specific than I have in the past.,And although I haven't changed my position, I want to reemphasize that we are not going to go to the different nations involved and say, \"This is an American plan. You've got to accept it as a pre-condition to going to Geneva. It's what we think would be fair.\" It's been deliberately general in nature, and the ultimate results would have to be agreed to by the Arab and Israeli nations.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,ABORTION,Q. Mr. President, how comfortable are you with the recent Supreme Court decision that says the Federal Government is not obligated to provide money for abortions for women who cannot afford to pay for them themselves?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that the Federal Government should finance abortions except when the woman's life is threatened or when the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. I think it ought to be interpreted very strictly.,In my opinion, the Federal Government being willing to finance abortions, as it has been in recent months, is an encouragement to abortion and its acceptance as a routine contraceptive means. And I think within that strict definition that I've given you, I would like to prevent the Federal Government financing abortions.,I think it's accurate to say that Secretary of HEW Califano agrees with me completely. And we are trying to make it possible for the people of this Nation to understand how to prevent unwanted pregnancies with education programs and with the availability of contraceptives and other devices, when they believe in their use, as an alternative to abortion. But I don't believe that either States or the Federal Government should be required to finance abortions.,Q. Mr. President, how fair do you believe it is then, that women who can afford to get an abortion can go ahead and have one, and women who cannot afford to are precluded?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people can't. But I don't believe that the Federal Government should take action to try to make these opportunities exactly equal, particularly when there is a moral factor involved.,I know as well as anyone in the country, having faced this issue during the long campaign, about the intense feelings on both sides of the abortion issue. But my own personal feeling is that the Supreme Court rulings now are adequate, and they are reasonably fair, and that the Federal Government should not be required or encouraged to finance abortions other than I've spelled out.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, with the passage of time, your working relationships with Members of Congress seem to be improving. What accounts for the truce?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know that it's a truce, exactly. I think the Congress now understands much more clearly what I am, what I stand for, what proposals we put forward, and the priorities accruing to those proposals. I think we've had good success with the Congress already.,The passage of the economic stimulus package that we proposed was done expeditiously and is working well already. The authorization for me to reorganize the Government is doing well. The authorization for the new Department of Energy will be completed, I think, within the next few days.,The Congress has made good progress on strict ethics legislation. I think we have made good progress, also, in the effectuation of the energy policy which is very controversial, very difficult, and requires a great deal of courage on the part of Congress.,They've still got some hard questions to answer. One, of course, is how to finance the social security system, and then we will be proposing to them in the future a comprehensive welfare plan and a comprehensive tax reform proposal.,But I think in general it's just been a matter of getting to know one another, and we've been very forceful in our positions. There are some things on which the Congress and I still disagree. I thought the Senate made an improper decision yesterday? on the Clinch River breeder reactor. I think there are excessive amounts of allocation of funds for water projects. I'm concerned about the Senate level of prospective expenditure on the farm bill. So we do have some differences. But I think in general there's been a good and mature working relationship between us.,FBI DIRECTOR,Q. Mr. President, are you going to go outside the list of FBI Director nominees supplied by your selection commission to choose the man to replace Clarence Kelley? And if so, isn't that an indictment of the manner in which that search was conducted?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know yet. When I announced the five names that had been recommended to me, I pointed out that we would interview those five. If one of them is patently the best person to hold the job of FBI Director, in the judgment of the Attorney General and approved by me, then we would go with those five. But we reserve the right to interview others in addition to the first five recommended. If we do so, then we would use the information derived by the search committee as the basis for our own assessment of those additional candidates. I've only met so far with two of the five. I think, this week, I'm scheduled to meet with two others, and I'll meet with the fifth one. And then the Attorney General and I will decide together whether or not to interview others. It's not an indictment of them. I think they did a good job. We deliberately made public the names of those whom they did recommend to get information and so forth from those who knew the candidates that we would not have gotten otherwise.,We did not do an FBI, full-field background check on any of those five candidates or any of the other 225 who were assessed until they were recommended to us. And so we are now accumulating information about the nominees and then having an interview with them. The Attorney General meets with them 2 or 3 hours, gives me a report on what he thinks; I meet with them 15 or 20 minutes to get acquainted.,And my expectation is that the Attorney General will make a recommendation to me, and I will go along with his recommendation. But I will reserve the final judgment.,RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, could I get back to relations with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Despite the hopes that you expressed for better relations, there are several things that suggest that, in fact, relations have grown worse between the United States and the Soviet Union since you took office. Do you think that's the case, and if so, where are we headed in this? Are we seeing an end to the period of detente?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't think so. I believe that it's inherent that tough and public debates will accrue when controversial issues are addressed. It would be very easy for me and the Congress to get along completely harmoniously if I never made a proposal and if I agreed with everything the Congress did and we didn't address any of the controversial issues like welfare reform, tax reform, reorganization, or energy policy.,The same thing applies to the Soviet Union. We have never before made an attempt with the Soviet Union drastically to reduce the level of atomic weaponry. In the past, we've put limits on increasing production of atomic weaponry. We've never tried with the Soviet Union to get a complete prohibition against all testing of atomic devices. Now we are trying to work with the Soviet Union to get this very controversial and very difficult goal realized.,We've never tried before to work with the Soviet Union to demilitarize the Indian Ocean or to restrict any further militarization of that area. This is a controversial matter. It affects other nations as well--India, Australia, New Zealand, Iran, Somalia, and so forth.,So, we are now trying to address some questions that in the past have been avoided or delayed.,The question of human rights is one that obviously has caused some tough debate and difference of opinion, expressed publicly and privately. We could have sat quiescently and never raised the issue of human rights. I believe that our raising of the issue was compatible with the hopes and dreams and inclinations and commitments of the American people. And there have been varying kinds of responses to this pursuit.,We do not initiate all these controversies. As you know, the basket three aspect of the Helsinki agreement would have raised the human rights question to some degree, absent any commitment on my part.,But I don't think that this is an indication of deteriorated relationships between us and the Soviets because we are finally addressing, in a forceful way, from different perspectives, some extremely controversial but important issues.,So although I would like for us to agree on everything, I think the period of debate, disagreement, probing, and negotiation was inevitable. And I have no apologies to offer, and I have no regrets about the issues that have been raised that have proven to be controversial.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank, very much. Thank you, everybody."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-06-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a brief statement to make before we begin the questions.,B-1 BOMBER,This has been one of the most difficult decisions that I have made since I've been in office. During the last few months, I've done my best to assess all the factors involving production of the B-1 bomber. My decision is that we should not continue with deployment of the B-l, and I am directing that we discontinue plans for production of this weapons system. The Secretary of Defense agrees that this is a preferable decision, and he will have a news conference tomorrow morning to discuss this issue in whatever detail you consider necessary.,'The existing testing and development program now underway on the B-1 should continue to provide us with the needed technical base in the unlikely event that more cost-effective alternative systems should run into difficulty. Continued efforts at the research and development stage will give us better answers about the cost and effectiveness of the bomber and support systems, including electronic countermeasures techniques.,During the coming months, we will also be able to assess the progress toward agreements on strategic arms limitations in order to determine the need for any additional investments in nuclear weapons delivery systems. In the meantime, we should begin deployment of cruise missiles using air-launched platforms, such as our B-52's, modernized as necessary. Our triad concept of retaining three basic delivery systems will be continued with submarine-launched ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and a bomber fleet, including cruise missiles as one of its armaments. We will continue thereby to have an effective and flexible strategic force whose capability is fully sufficient for our national defense.\nThank you.,QUESTIONS,B--1 BOMBER,Q. Mr. President, the House at least seems bent on providing the money for the B-1. Does this put you on a collision course with them on the whole subject?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think not. The Congress took action last year to delay a final decision on the B-1 bomber pending my ability to analyze its needs.,When I came into office, I tried deliberately to have an open mind. And I've spent weeks studying all the aspects of our strategic defense forces. I've met with congressional leaders. I've spent a great deal of time with the Secretary of Defense and others in trying to understand all the ramifications of this very important decision.,The leaders in the House and Senate this morning have been informed of my decision, both by Frank Moore 1 and by the Secretary of Defense.,1 Assistant to the President for Congressional Liaison.,My belief is that the Congress will be supportive knowing that our previous requests for limited production funds were based on a previous decision. But my decision is that this production is not now necessary. And I believe that the House and the Senate will confirm my decision.,RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, in view of the growing difficulties between the United States and the Soviet Union, are there any early prospects in the coming months for a meeting with Brezhnev, between yourself and Brezhnev, and is August in Alaska--does that have any validity?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't agree that there are growing difficulties between ourselves and the Soviet Union. The technical discussions on SALT questions, comprehensive test ban, demilitarization of the Indian Ocean, a reduction in the sales of conventional weapons to developing nations of the world have been proceeding with very good attitudes on the part of the Soviets, and, of course, us. So, I don't believe that the relations between us are deteriorating.,I think that my own relationship with Mr. Brezhnev and other Soviet leaders should be one of continuing consultations, not just to ratify final agreements but to get to know one another. And I would welcome a chance this year to meet with President Brezhnev, to explore the ability of our countries to reach quicker decisions. But it would not be based on any deep concern about relations now, nor any frustration about what's gone on before.,The time or date or place would still have to be worked out, and it would be inappropriate, I think, to try to presume what those decisions might be on specifics until we determine accurately the attitude of the Soviet leaders.,Q. May I say that ---,THE PRESIDENT. Please do.,Q.---you yourself have expressed surprise at the reaction of the Soviets to your human rights drive, and Brezhnev has told Giscard that there are difficulties. So, I don't think it's exactly--I mean there is an atmosphere.,THE PRESIDENT. There are difficulties, obviously, in reaching final decisions on matters that are very controversial, very difficult, and which never have been successfully concluded. We've never tried as a nation to have a comprehensive test ban to eliminate all tests of all nuclear devices, both peaceful and military. We've never tried to open up the discussions of demilitarizing the Indian Ocean, first freezing the present circumstances, then reducing our military presence there. We've never tried for a sharp reduction in the deployment of nuclear weapons.,So, these new ideas obviously take more time to conclude. But I don't have any sense of fear or frustration or concern about our relationships with the Soviet Union. We have, I think, a good prospect of continuing our discussions, and I have every hope that those discussions will lead to success.,B-- 1 BOMBER,Q. Mr. President, what were the major factors that led to your decision against the B-I bomber?,THE PRESIDENT. There are a number of factors. One is obviously the recent evolution of the cruise missile as an effective weapon itself. The tests of this system have been very successful so far.,Another one, of course, is the continued ability to use the B-52 bombers, particularly the G's and H's, up well into the 1980's, and the belief on my part that our defense capability using the submarine-launched missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles combined with the B-52 cruise missile combination is adequate.,We will also explore the possibility of cruise missile carriers, perhaps using existing airplanes or others as a standoff launching base.,But I think in toto the B-l, a very expensive weapons system basically conceived in the absence of the cruise missile factor, is not necessary. Those are the major reasons.\nMarilyn [Marilyn Berger, NBC News].,CRUISE MISSILE,Q. Mr. President, the Soviet Union has shown great concern about the cruise missile capability of the United States.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. What limits are you ready to .accept, if any, on air-launched cruise missiles so far as their range, and secondly, are you willing to accept the proposition that an airplane carrying cruise would be counted as a MIRV under the limits that you would set in a SALT agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Those questions are being negotiated now. We have a fairly compatible position with the Soviets on maximum range of air-launched cruise missiles carried over from the Vladivostok discussions. I don't think there's any particular difference in that. It's an adequate range in my opinion for the cruise missiles to be launched as a standoff weapon without the carrying airplane having to encroach into Soviet territory. This, though, is a matter that has not yet been finally resolved.,Also, the definition of what is a MIRVed weapon is one that is still in dispute. We don't believe that a bomber equipped with cruise missiles as a weapon ought to be classified as a MIRVed weapon. But depending upon the Soviets' attitude in reaching an overall comprehensive settlement, those matters are still open for discussion.,B--1 BOMBER,Q. Mr. President, in listening to factors involved in your decision, sir, you didn't mention or I didn't hear the fact that you had made a commitment or what many people took to be a commitment during the campaign against the bomber, I think particularly in the submission to the Democratic Platform Committee. Was that a factor, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when I went into office, as I think I said earlier, I tried to take the position of complete openmindedness, because obviously I've had available to me as President much of the classified analyses and information about weapons systems which I did not have before. And I tried to approach this question with an open mind.,I've spent many hours reading those detailed technical reports, the advice of specialists on both sides, an analysis of ultimate cost of weapons. And although, obviously, opinions are always hard to change, I deliberately tried not to let my campaign statements be the factor in this decision. I've made it, I think, recently with an original, very open mind, after carefully considering all aspects of the question and consulting very closely with the Secretary of Defense.,And I might say that with the advent of the cruise missile as a possible alternative, that the Secretary of Defense agrees with me that this is a preferable decision.,Q. Can I follow that up, sir? Mr. President, could I follow that up?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, if you insist.,Q. This openmindedness that you describe, does that apply to other campaign commitments that you made in other areas outside of defense?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll always try to keep an open mind and make my decision based on what I think is best for our country.,Q. Mr. President, is this decision on your part not to go ahead with the B-1 intended 'as any kind of a signal to the Soviets that you are willing to--that you want to do something quickly in the strategic arms talks?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't deny that that's a potential factor. But that has not been a reason for my decision. I think if I had looked upon the 13-1 as simply a bargaining chip for the Soviets, then my decision would have been to go ahead with the weapon. But I made my decision on my analysis that, within a given budgetary limit for the defense of our country, which I am sure will always be adequate, that we should have the optimum capability to defend ourselves.,But this is a matter that's of very great importance, and if at the end of a few years the relations with the Soviets should deteriorate drastically, which I don't anticipate, then it may be necessary for me to change my mind. But I don't expect that to occur.,Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Christian Science Monitor].,HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY,Q. Mr. President, is this emphasis on human rights now central to your foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. My emphasis on human rights is central to our foreign policy. As I've said since my first press conference, I see no relationship between the human rights decision, however, and matters affecting our defense or SALT negotiations. And I have doubts, based on analyses in our own country and from those who know the Soviet system very well in other countries, that there's any connection between the two in the minds of the Soviets.,Q. To follow there, has this emphasis helped or hurt those in the Soviet Union whose rights were being impaired?,THE PRESIDENT. It's hard for me to say. I think that in the long run our emphasis on human rights, the high publicity that has accrued to the human rights question because of the Helsinki agreement and the upcoming Belgrade conference in October--those two factors, combined, I think, dramatize every violation of human rights that is known.,And my guess is that the Soviets, like ourselves, want to put a good image forward for the world to observe, and I think in the long run that this emphasis on human rights will be beneficial to those who desire free speech and an enhancement of their own human freedoms.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, Senator Javits says you are pushing Israel too far. And other Americans sympathetic to the Israeli position say worse, that you are perhaps selling Israel down the river. My question is, first, do you think you are, and secondly, how difficult will it be for you to continue your policy if the American Jewish community sides with Mr. Begin instead of Mr. Carter?,THE PRESIDENT. I might say, first of all, that I look forward with great anticipation to the visit of Prime Minister Begin on the 19th of July. My determination is that the talks will be friendly and constructive and also instructive for both him and me.,He'll be received with the kind of friendship that's always been a characteristic of the American people's attitude toward Israel. An overwhelming consideration for us is the preservation of Israel as a free and independent and, hopefully, peaceful nation. That is preeminent. At the same time, I believe that it has been good during this year, when I hope we can reach a major step toward a peaceful resolution in the Middle East, to have the discussions much more open, to encourage the Arab nations and Israel to frankly understand some of the feelings that each of them has toward the other, and to address the basic questions of territories, the definition of peace, the Palestinian question.,I really think it is best for this next roughly 3 weeks before Mr. Begin comes that we refrain from additional comments on specifics because I think we've covered the specifics adequately. And if I or someone in the State Department or someone on my staff emphasizes territory and the definition of peace, the immediate response is: Why didn't you say something about the Palestinians, and so forth. So, I believe that we've discussed it adequately.,I believe all the issues are fairly clearly defined. It's accurate to say that our own Nation has no plan or solution that we intend to impose on anyone. We'll act to the degree that the two sides trust us in the role of an intermediary or mediator, and I still have high hopes that this year might lead toward peace.,But it will never be with any sort of abandonment of our deep .and permanent commitment to Israel. And I have made this clear in specific terms to every Arab leader who has been to our country.,SUPPORT OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY\nCANDIDATES,Q. Mr. President, as the leader of the Democratic Party, how important do you believe it is for Democratic leaders on the State and local level to support the nominees of their party even when their preferred candidates may happen to lose in a primary? And, second, sir, do you plan to support the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City regardless of who it may be?,THE PRESIDENT. My general belief is that Democrats ought to support the Democratic nominees. I have not ever violated that premise in my own voting habits. I've never departed from voting for a Democratic nominee after they were chosen. My own inclination is to stay clear of Democratic primaries. Let the Democrats in a particular State or jurisdiction make their own choice.,But I think every Democrat, every American can reserve the right to participate with varying degrees of commitment or intensity or enthusiasm. And I would certainly not ever disavow a Democratic candidate unless he was completely abhorrent to me, which I think would be highly unlikely.,So, in general, I think Democrats ought to support their nominees. But I'm going to be fairly reluctant to inject myself directly and personally in very many elections around the country. We do have two important gubernatorial elections this year, and I think all Democrats will be looking with great interest on the outcome of the general election in Virginia and also New Jersey. And I hope personally that the Democratic candidates win. But that's a decision for the people in Virginia and New Jersey to make.,As far as New York is concerned, I wouldn't want to make a prior commitment about the degree of my support for a candidate until I see who it is.,SALT NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, given the numerous and obvious violations of the Helsinki accords by .the Soviet Union, which they were pledged to uphold, could I ask why the United States should, on good faith, accept the Soviet word on a matter far more vital, say, for example, the SALT treaty, which you are in the process of negotiating?,THE PRESIDENT. We have never been willing simply to take the word of the Soviets on SALT agreements, and neither have they been willing to take our word alone. We have methods of confirming or verifying the carrying out of the agreement with various means, including aerial surveillance from space.,And I think that as we get down to the more .technical agreements, that verification is becoming more and more a problem. For instance, if we should conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty with the Soviets of preventing any sort of nuclear tests, even including peaceful devices, then we would have to have some way to confirm that the Soviets indeed are carrying out their agreement, and vice versa.,There are sensing devices that might, for instance, be placed by us on Soviet territory or perhaps around the periphery of the Soviet Union. And we might conclude a similar agreement with them. Or if a factor in the agreement should be that certain kinds of uses of atomic weapons-not weapons, but explosives to divert the channel of a river, we might want to have actual observers there, and vice versa. My own hope is that we can conclude an agreement that there would be no testing. But verification is one of the aspects not just based on the word of us or the Soviets but on actual observations on site by sensing devices or by visual observations or others that I need not go into now.,PANAMA CANAL NEGOTIATIONS,Q. What is the status, Mr. President, of the Panama Canal treaty? Are you likely to sign such a treaty soon?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know about the time schedule because it obviously takes two sides to agree to a treaty. We are putting in a lot of time on the Panama Canal treaty negotiations.,And I hope that we'll have a successful conclusion this summer. We've been encouraged so far. The major questions that were identified at the beginning have fairly well been concluded.,One of the disagreements at this point is on the payment of portions of the tolls from the Panama Canal to Panama and the exact financial arrangement.,But I hope still that we'll have one by summer. I think that General Torrijos feels the same way, and, of course, we have been aided by the good offices of President Perez from Venezuela and others who want to have a peaceful resolution here.,I can't give you an answer because I don't know yet. We are also trying to keep the Members of the Senate and others informed about progress as well as I'm being informed so that when we do reach a conclusion, it would be one that, with a major effort, we could have confirmed by the Congress.,OPEC OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, in view of the apparent moderation by the OPEC countries on oil prices lately, does that appear to be aimed at diffusing some of the stronger measures you'd like Congress to adopt, and what strategy can you have against that?,THE PRESIDENT. When Prince Fahd was over here, we discussed the prospects for OPEC prices, and he told me in confidence what he thought were the prospects. And I think that is going to come true, that the Saudi Arabians would raise their price to equal that of other OPEC nations .and that the OPEC nations who had already raised their prices 10 percent would forgo their planned additional increases .at least through this year.,I hope, and I believe the Saudis also hope, that that extension of a price freeze would go through 1978 at least. I think that our own strong country can accommodate additional increases in the price of oil.,I think the prices are too high. But there are obviously major adverse impacts on world inflation, and the poor countries that have to buy large quantities of oil and can't equal it by exports are very badly damaged.,But we can accommodate the change, but we are using our good offices when possible to hold down additional increases in the price of oil.,U.S.--CHINESE RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, is it your intention to terminate either our defense commitment or diplomatic relations with Taiwan as a step towards normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China?,THE PRESIDENT. Our attitude on the Chinese question has been spelled out by my predecessors and confirmed by me as based on the Shanghai Communiqué which acknowledges the concept of one China. We also hope that Taiwan and the Mainland can work out the differences between them. We obviously hope that these differences can be resolved early, or perhaps in the future through peaceful means.,Other nations who have now full relationships with the People's Republic of China, on the Mainland have continued trade, cultural, social exchanges, sales of major equipment to Taiwan.,I can't give you a better answer than I've already described. The Secretary of State is planning to go to China, to Peking, in August. This was part of the Shanghai Communiqué .agreement, that we would have consultations at the highest level, obviously at the Secretary of State level or the national leader level. But I can answer your question better after he returns in August.\nDid you have one followup?,Q. Could I just follow that in a broader sense? Is it possible to have relations with the People's Republic of China and at the same time maintain 'a defense commitment to Taiwan?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a difficult question to answer now. My hope is that we can work out an agreement with the People's Republic of China having full diplomatic relations with them and still make sure that the peaceful lives of the Taiwanese, the Republic of China, is maintained. That's our hope, and that's our goal.,Q. Mr. President, in New York last night Secretary of State Vance spoke of a constructive dialog now on the way with .Communist China. And I believe you have referred to this at least once publicly yourself. However, so far as I know, there have been only low-level talks with representatives of the Liaison Office here about property claims and also, there have been some other--an occasional meeting or two. What is involved in this dialog? Where and when are these exchanges taking place?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, we don't have ambassadors exchanged. We have special representatives with the rank of ambassador. Ambassador Huang here in Washington meets with the Secretary of State. He's also been to the Oval Office to meet with me. We've had a very frank discussion about some of the relationships between our country and the People's Republic of China.,The first meetings at the foreign minister level or the head of state level will be in August in Peking. But the preparations for that visit will obviously be continuing through regular diplomatic channels. I think that's the limit of the discussions to this point.,PRESIDENT'S TAX RETURN,Q. Mr. President, you signed your income tax return on June 6 knowing then that you would owe no tax. Some days later you said you thought it had been filed. But it wasn't until about a week after that that you wrote the letter returning the $6,000. Was that an afterthought?,THE PRESIDENT. I had a substantial amount of income in 1976 from the sale of my book \"Why Not The Best?\" I think it was about $70,000. I'm not sure if the exact figure. That payment was made to me by the publisher on the first day of January, 1977. And the question arose whether or not we could count that as income in 1976 and therefore pay taxes on it.,We went to the Internal Revenue Service shortly before we published our statement and asked them for permission to include that income in 1976. They said that it would not be appropriate, that it would have to be included in 1977. So, because of that decision, I did not owe any income tax in 1976. Believing as I do that people in my income bracket ought to pay taxes, we took our adjusted tax income and paid the minimum tax on it, roughly 15 percent, and, of course, now I will pay the full income tax owed on the income from the book itself.,The difference in the total amount of tax that I would have had to pay either way was zero, so far as we could determine. But had we been able to include the book income in '76, I would have owed a substantial amount of tax and would not have had the problem.,I considered it to be a problem not because there was anything improper about it but I think that I, as President, ought to demonstrate that the present tax laws are not adequate and that someone who earns as much as I did in '76 ought to pay taxes. That was the reason for the delay.,U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,Q. Mr. President, we've talked today about sending a missile around the world. Could you talk--,THE PRESIDENT. Sending what?,Q. A missile halfway across the world. Could we talk about sending a letter halfway across town? [Laughter],Have you made a decision yet on the future of the United States Postal Service? Will you ask Congress to bring it back into the executive branch?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not made a decision about that yet. I think in the July meeting of the board which governs the Post Office, which as you know is completely independent of the President--I have no responsibility for the Post Office [laughter]--they will have to make a decision. I think, absent any decision on their part to forgo Saturday deliveries or to increase the price of postage, we will face about a $200-million-a-month deficit.,But after they make their decision-and I've not studied the problem--and make their recommendation to the Congress, then I think it would be an appropriate time for me to comment. I don't yet know what my preference would be, whether the Post Office should continue as an independent agency or whether it should be part of the Government itself.,STAFF MORALS,Q. Mr. President, Panax Newspapers has a tape-recorded statement by Dr. Peter Bourne that even though your own relationship is monogamous, you never held anything against people in your organization who were involved promiscuously with other women. My question is, is Dr. Bourne right or wrong in this recorded statement? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. He certainly is right in part of it. My relationship--[laughter]--my relationship is monogamous.,Q. What about the rest of it? Can 1 follow up, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sorry?,Q. What about the second part of it? He has stated that you never held anything against people in your organization who were involved promiscuously with other women. Is he right or wrong?,THE PRESIDENT. My preference is that those who associate with me--in fact, all people--would honor the same standards that I honor. But I've never held it against people who had a different standard from myself. I've done everything I could properly and legitimately to encourage my staff members' families to be stable, and I have also encouraged the same sort of thing in my Cabinet.,If there are some who have slipped from grace, then I can only say that I'll do the best I can to forgive them and pray for them. [Laughter],PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS,Q. Mr. President, can you give us your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on former President Nixon's tapes and documents, that they are the property of the Government, and the implications that this might have on the disposition of your own Presidential material?,THE PRESIDENT. My intentions are to make my own Presidential papers and documents the property of the people of the Nation after I leave office. And I have no objection, obviously, to the same thing being done in a mandatory way with the papers and documents of President Nixon.,I do have concern, however, about the enormous complexity of the requirement of making all those documents available for public scrutiny. I understand the cost of this process will be more than $55 million. There are literally millions of documents and hundreds and hundreds of tapes. And whether or not we should guarantee that any citizen of the country should have unimpeded access to any document and tape is one that does concern me. But, of course, I am constrained to abide by the 1974 law, and we are looking into how we can make sure that these documents and tapes are not concealed from the public, but still handle them in a rational way.,This is what I intend to do when I am no longer President, is to make my own papers available to the public.,HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY,Q. Mr. President, just one other aspect of human rights. Although you've expressed surprise, as Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International] pointed out in the beginning, about some of the Soviet response, that reaction at the very beginning was predicted almost without exception by people who had long experience in dealing with the Soviet Union. My question is, did you consult any qualified, experienced people before undertaking your campaign? If you did, who were they? What did they tell you?,THE PRESIDENT. I would guess that the Secretary of State and my national security adviser, my staff, and others would be adequately qualified. I don't have any regrets at all about our enthusiastic endorsement of the principle of human rights, basic human freedoms, and the respect for individuality of persons.,I was asked by a group of local newspaper editors if there were any surprises to me. And I said that the degree of disturbance by the Soviets about what I considered to be .a routine and normal commitment to human rights was a surprise. It has not caused me any deep concern, and I would certainly not do it otherwise in retrospect.,Q. Could I just follow up? Did any of them suggest that you not undertake this campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No, never.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.\nTHE PRESIDENT Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-06-13","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have a brief report to make, and then I will answer questions.,SELECTION OF FBI DIRECTOR,Four months ago, a group of distinguished Americans began to screen about 230 persons for selection for the directorship of the FBI. They have interviewed a large number of people, about 45 or 50, and they have now made a recommendation to me and to the Attorney General of five persons whom we will now interview and consider. We may or may not choose one of these five, but the likelihood is that we shall.,One of the persons is Judge John Irwin from Massachusetts. Another one is William Lucas, the sheriff of Wayne County in Detroit. The third one is John Van de Kamp, district attorney from California-Los Angeles, I believe; Neil Welch, who is the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Philadelphia; and a Circuit Court Judge, Seventh Federal Circuit, Judge Hurlington Wood. Those five men will be interviewed by the Attorney General, investigated thoroughly, and then I will interview them personally. And the chances are that the next FBI Director will be from those five, although it's not a certainty.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS ENERGY PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, Senator Byrd says you overreacted on early defeats to your energy program. And you said that the American public is not aroused enough against the oil and auto lobbies. One, do you think you overreacted? Two, why do you think the public has not been aroused in view of your avid campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that my statements concerning the votes both in the commerce committee subcommittee, under John Dingell, and the Ways and Means Committee were moderate and accurate. I am deeply concerned about the inordinate influence of the lobbyists and representatives of the oil companies and the automobile manufacturers.,I've never criticized the Congress as a whole. As a matter of fact, I believe that Al Ullman and John Dingell did an extraordinarily good job in trying to protect the recommendations that I had made to the Congress.,It's important that the American people be aroused to the fact that unless they are deeply involved in helping the Congress and me to come up with a substantive, comprehensive, fair, and adequate energy policy, that the special interest groups will prevail.,I've never attacked the Congress on this matter at all. I believe that it's a good likelihood that the full commerce committee and the Members of the House of Representatives on the floor debates and vote will reverse some of the setbacks that were suffered last week.,I have confidence in the sound judgment of the Congress, and I believe that they and I are on test. And if we are not successful in coming forward with an adequate program, we will be deserving of legitimate criticism by the American people for timidity and for an absence of concern about what I still consider to be the gravest domestic issue that I shall face during my own term as President.,U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES,Q. Mr. President, are you now considering unifying the direction of all the intelligence agencies under a single individual, and if so, when might that come about?,THE PRESIDENT. Shortly after I was inaugurated President, I asked the National Security Council to begin a study about the organizational structure of the intelligence agencies. I have no predisposition about what that decision might be. This study has been going on now for more than 4 months, and I think a recommendation to me is imminent.,There obviously will be differences of opinion. I would hope that these differences could be ironed out among the State Department, the national security adviser, the present Director of the CIA, the director of the intelligence community, Stun Turner, and the Secretary of Defense.,But those matters on which they still disagree, when the recommendation comes to me, I'll resolve them without hesitation. I think that there is a need to protect the very important aspect of a diversity of opinion in making assessments of intelligence, the proper collation of data to be presented to me and other consumers. And I think it's important that we move very strongly away from a past procedure and let those who use the intelligence data give a direction to the intelligence community about the relative priorities that are important.,In the past, the intelligence community itself has set its own priorities. I think in the future the Defense Department, State Department, the President, and others ought to set the priorities. But I don't have any predisposition yet about the exact organizational structure.,One other comment is that I have met with the congressional leaders about this subject. My own hope is that if we can reach reasonable agreement within the executive branch, that we can work very closely with the Congress in setting into law the charge to the intelligence community and the organizational structure of the intelligence community. So far this has been done by Executive order.,But I think that progress is good. There are bound to be differences of opinion and strong differences of opinion. If they are not resolved otherwise, I'll resolve them myself.,ROBERT MENDELSOHN,Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you advocated removing the regulatory agencies and departments from the control of regulators too friendly with the people they regulate, and you also advocated environmental protection. Your nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for policy, budget, and administration, Robert Mendelsohn, of California, has consistently voted against environmental protection in favor of the interests of large campaign contributors as a member of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.,However, since he began consulting for the Interior Department in February, he has accepted over $110,000 in campaign contributions and/or forgiven loans from the same interests. In view of your statements and his record, why have you nominated him to this position of influence over the Government's environmental protection efforts?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with this record that you have described, but I will immediately become more familiar with it. [Laughter] And if there are conflicts of interest, we can always change the appointment if it is in error.,I believe, however, that as a general rule that my nominations and my selections for important positions relating to the environment have been overwhelmingly approved by environmental groups, quite often who are very fervent and very demanding and whose standards are very strict. But in this particular instance, I am not familiar with it. But I will let you know later on if you will check with me.1,1On May 5, the President had nominated Robert H. Mendelsohn to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Management, Program Development, and Budget.,At his news conference at the White House on June 14, Press Secretary Jody Powell made the following statement:,There was a question yesterday with regard to a nomination of Mr. Bob Mendelsohn, which unfortunately contained some allegations against him which are not true. And I think, in addition to the fact we promised to respond on the question, it is important that the record be set straight with regard to this individual to the extent it can be.,I might say to begin with that everything which I am now about to tell you has been available on the public record for a matter of weeks, if not months. There have been in the past several weeks extensive committee hearings and several press statements from Interior on this specific matter, so that none of this information, in fact, was in a position that was not available to any reporter that wanted to look for it.,A question was raised about a fundraising event which Mr. Mendelsohn had. Let me say that event took place only after checking with the counsel in this office and at Interior. It took place before his nomination to the Senate. Every contributor to that fundraiser was screened by the White House counsel and the counsel of Interior to make sure that they were not people who were doing business with Interior. Only two of the contributors had any connection with Interior at all and that was judged to be so remote as to be insignificant.,There was, in addition, an allegation that Mr. Mendelsohn has a poor environmental record. Suffice it to say during the entire course of the committee hearings, not one environmental leader raised any objection whatsoever to his appointment to this office by the President.,The Secretary of Interior happens to be in California today, and I think he is making a similar statement there.,I might also say it is my understanding that the members of the committee who considered this appointment in fact were complimentary in the way in which the fundraiser and the contributions were handled by the nominee and by the Department of Interior.,THE WILMINGTON 10,Q. Mr. President, within the past 10 days the White House has reemphasized its commitment to campaign on behalf of human rights activists persecuted in foreign countries.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. In Wilmington, North Carolina, the Reverend Ben Chavis and nine others have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms totaling 282 years for what they contend are human rights activities. The Reverend Mr. Chavis and his supporters, including now the NAACP and several prominent business and political and elected leaders in North Carolina, have implored you for your intervention and comments in their behalf.,What comments do you have regarding the Reverend Ben Chavis and the Wilmington 10 and their charges of political imprisonment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the only comment that I am free to make under our own system of government is that I hope that justice will prevail; that the ones who are accused of a crime will be given a fair trial; if they are found guilty, that they will be punished in accordance with normal procedures for an equivalent crime committed.,There is a very strict prohibition, as you know, against the encroachment of the executive branch of Government on the judicial branch. The Attorney General is concerned about this particular case in that he wants the same thing I want, and that is that justice 'be done. This has been a matter of long-standing controversy, both on the domestic scene and internationally as well, and I trust the system in its entirety. If there ever is a mistake made at a lower level in our judicial system, there's always a right to appeal. And I believe that the history of our judicial system is that ultimately they make the right decision.,But I am not trying to evade the question. I think that it would be improper for me to try to impose what I think should be a judgment in a case that I have not heard tried. I don't have any direct familiarity with the evidence. I believe that justice will prevail.,ENERGY PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, when you unveiled this energy program to the American people, you said that the alternative to your proposals might be a national catastrophe.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. I want to know exactly what proposals you had in mind. If you lose the standby gas tax, you lose the rebates on fuel-efficient automobiles, if you should lose the deregulation of new natural gas-are those the ones that you had in mind? Or is it the wellhead tax and the coal conversion that you really think are the heart of your program?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think you could single out any one particular point and equate it with a national catastrophe. But unless we take action to meet the goals that we have established--a reduction in overall oil consumption, a reduction in the excessive consumption of natural gas, a shifting toward increased consumption of coal, and an equitable means of pricing oil and gas to encourage additional exploration on the one hand and to protect the interests of consumers on .another--those cumulative effects of not meeting these goals would be catastrophic.,We now see a rapid escalation in consumption of gasoline. I think this summer we will see the highest use of gasoline in the history of our country. Imports are growing by leaps and bounds. Our trade balance, negative trade balance, is going to be very excessive this year--$25 billion. We'll probably--possibly import $45 billion worth of oil. And unless we reverse these present trends by strict conservation, brought about by voluntary means, by pricing structures, by tax incentives, the cumulative effect of this absence of adequate leadership on the part of me and Congress will be catastrophic.,But each individual component part of this complete plan can't be equated with catastrophe. I might say that we don't consider ourselves to be infallible. Over the 3 or 4 months that we considered this plan before it was presented to the Congress, there were a lot of differences of opinion. Some of the judgments made were quite closely called ones.,And the Congress is now finding an equal difficulty in dealing with this controversial issue. So, I don't say that everything we've proposed has got to be passed just as though we put it forward. But I think cumulatively, if we don't take strong and active action, the economic and political consequences will be catastrophic.,Q. Mr. President, Senator Byrd, Saturday, when he made his comments and suggested that maybe you should cool it with the rhetoric, suggested that one reason that you didn't have a very good showing on Capitol Hill last week was because of the ineffectiveness of your own lobbying organization. So, I would like to ask you, do you plan to beef that up or are you planning some sort of new strategy? You say the public has to be aroused. What do you plan to do from here on out about this? Perhaps you will make some compromises with Congress on other issues, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that our efforts have been adequate. I noticed that one of the comments from a congressional leader--I have forgotten which one it was-in response to my criticism of the oil and automobile lobbies, was that the most effective lobby on Capitol Hill was the one from the White House. I think we are presenting our views to the Members of the Congress in an adequate fashion.,The agenda for the Congress this year is extraordinarily complex and diverse not only in ethics legislation, reorganization legislation, the construction of a new Department of Energy and energy policy, social security, but also many things concerning air pollution standards, welfare reform to come, and I believe that our presentation of our views in a forceful and fair and objective way to the Congress through my own congressional relations group is adequate. I am proud of them. And I think the differences of opinion that arise between the Congress and myself are not caused by a failure to present ideas. It's just a result of an honest difference of opinion about what ought to be done about these controversial issues.,THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, you were attacked rather savagely in the Soviet press last week as \"James Carter, an enemy of detente.\" From your vantage point, do you feel there can be any U.S.-Soviet detente without respect for observance of human rights on their part?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, the differences that arise between us and the Soviet Union are the things that are highly publicized. I'm grateful to know that we are beginning this week to work closely with the Soviet Union on a comprehensive test ban treaty to prohibit all testing of nuclear devices underground or in the atmosphere.,They have suggested, along with us, that Great Britain join this negotiation. That's a step in the right direction.,Paul Warnke will begin to negotiate with the Soviet Union within the next week on demilitarization of the Indian Ocean, again a very major step forward if completed. There are continuing discussions between ourselves and the Soviet Union on details of the overall SALT agreement. And, as I have announced earlier, the Secretary of State and the Soviet Foreign Minister will meet at least twice more between now and the expiration date for the present agreement.,So, I think that in general we are moving in the right direction. Our statements concerning human rights, I think, have been well received around the world. We have not singled out the Soviet Union for criticism, and I have never tried to inject myself into the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. I have never made the first comment that personally criticized General Secretary Brezhnev.,But when we pursue aggressively and with determination our commitment to the principle that human beings are to be well treated by governments, that human freedom is one of the highest aspirations and commitments of our country, I think this is the right thing to do. If it hits ourselves as self-criticism, so be it. If it touches the Soviet Union and they interpret it as intrusion, so be it. But we have tried to make this a broad-based approach.,I think it's hard to assess the results of this deep commitment which I think is compatible with the inclinations of the American people. But I don't believe that there is a single leader of a nation on Earth today who doesn't have within his or her consciousness a concern about human rights--how do we appear to our own people, how do we appear to observers from other nations? And as we approach very quickly now the preparation for the Belgrade conference to assess the Helsinki progress--that will take place next October--I think there's a general sense in the world we had better get our own houses in order, we had better make a good image available to the outside world. And the scrutiny that's focused on this issue is constructive.,And I think that the Soviets' reaction against me personally on the human rights issue is a misplaced aim. I have no hatred for the Soviet people, and I believe that the pressure of world opinion might be making itself felt on them and perhaps I am kind of a scapegoat for that adverse reaction on their part.,But I feel very deeply that we ought to pursue aggressively this commitment, and I have no second thoughts or hesitation about it.,AMBASSADOR ANDREW YOUNG,Q. Mr. President, U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young continues to make head-lines with his comments about racism.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. [Laughter],Q. Do you think his words have opened old wounds at home and damaged our interests abroad, or do you welcome this discussion on the nature of racism that he has touched off?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the statements that Andy Young has made are different from what I would have said. The word \"racism\" has different connotations to different people, as does the phrase \"human rights.\" I think in almost every instance when Andy has said something that was criticized, if someone read the entire text, how he defined racism, there is no criticism involved. But when you extract the one word, it implies a much heavier condemnation than Ambassador Young meant. I read the transcript of his comments about former Presidents Nixon and Ford. He explained that when he used the word \"racism\" as it applied to them, that it was not a condemnation, but it was an assessment that they were not familiar with the special problems of black people or minority groups who did not have an opportunity to be vivid in their own consciousness as former Presidents.,I think that, in general, what Ambassador Young is accomplishing for us in dealing with Third World nations, those who are struggling for recognition, those who are struggling against oppressive hunger and disease and poverty, is very good. They now look on the United States as having at least one representative--I hope more--but at least one who understands their problem, who speaks their language, who will listen to them when they put forward their woes and their hopes for the future.,I think we have a new sense in the minds of those kinds of people of caring about them, and to a major degree it's because of their trust in Andy Young.,I'm disturbed that after he spent 17 days in Africa, sometimes at some considerable danger to his own self, that a remark about Sweden was a major headline that derived from that entire, very fruitful visit on his part to that continent.,Andy is concerned also. He pointed out to me in a private meeting this past week that he thought it was time for him to shift his emphasis more toward other developing nations outside of Africa, in Asia, in this hemisphere, and so forth. I agree with him on that. But, in general, I think that Andy Young has been a superb representative of our country. And I think that his use of the word \"racism\" has clouded the issue and has brought perhaps undeserved criticism on himself.,RETIREMENT SYSTEMS,Q. Mr. President, you have taken a pretty strong position on double-dipping. I want to ask a question about singledipping. [Laughter],How do you justify a system under which a million and a half government workers retire, take full-time jobs, and draw full pensions, whereas 30 million social security retirees, if they work, don't get any pension?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't try to justify it. I don't think it's right, and I don't think it's fair. We've had two meetings recently concerning the retirement system and a need for it to be reassessed and perhaps changed. I think there's a wide difference in the retirement benefits that can be expected among Americans who have done the same work as a background and who have contributed widely varying amounts of money into their own retirement system. I think it's time for a Presidential level blue-ribbon commission to look at this whole question, the singledipping, the double-dipping, triple-, sometimes quadruple-dipping into retirement benefits.,There is another question that's been addressed, at least as far as private retirement systems is concerned, and that's whether or not they are financially sound.,Many government retirement programs are unsound, particularly at the local level of government, some at the State level of government. And this is a very dangerous thing for the security of many public servants in our country, presently and in the past.,So, I think the entire system of retirement needs to be examined very carefully. And although I haven't announced it publicly before, I intend very quickly to appoint a commission to give me advice on what ought to he done to correct these inequities.\nMarilyn [Marilyn Berger, NBC News].,U.S. DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIPS,Q. Mr. President, on Saturday you spoke about aggressively, peacefully challenging the Russians in their own spheres. Could you please elaborate on those remarks and explain how this differs, for example, from the cold war, which in some cases led to hot war, as in Korea and Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The comment that I made was--with an emphasis on peaceful competition--was to win the friendship of nations that in the past have not been close to us who may have been heavily influenced by or very closely friendly with the Soviet Union and who may still be.,I think this is a normal and a proper hope for our country. We don't want to be in a position that once a country is not friendly to us and once they are completely within the influence of the Soviet Union, they should forever be in that status.,And as I have already indicated and named several countries--Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, even more controversial nations like Vietnam, Cuba--I want to move as best I can to reestablish normal, friendly relationships with those countries.,In some instances the obstacles are quite severe, as in the case of Cuba and perhaps Vietnam, but I think this is what our government ought to do, and I would like to have a situation when I go out of office that all the nations in the world have diplomatic relationships with us.,We now have 14 who don't. And I've been pursuing this aggressively, to use the word that you described, and also I think that I am completely in harmony with the Secretary of State and others who work with me on this pursuit.,Mr. Mohr [Charles Mohr, New York Times].,ANATOLY SCHARANSKY,Q. Mr. President, to follow up on your remarks about human rights, Mrs. Anatoly Scharansky, the wife of a Soviet dissident who is under arrest, is visiting in the United States, and yesterday she expressed interest in seeing you to ask you to intervene in this case. I'd like to ask, do you think that this sort of thing can be useful, and do you plan to see her?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any plans to meet Mrs. Scharansky, but I have inquired deeply within the State Department and within the 'CIA as to whether or not Mr. Scharansky has ever had any known relationship in a subversive way or otherwise with the CIA. The answer is no. We have double-checked this, and I have been hesitant to make that public announcement, but now I am completely convinced that contrary to the allegations that have been reported in the press, that Mr. Scharansky has never had any sort of relationship to our knowledge with the CIA.,B-1 BOMBER,Q. Mr. President, in the context of your campaign you said a number of times that the B-1 was an exotic weapon which should not be built. Now you've given two sets of Congressmen who met with you last week the impression that even though this is the most expensive plane that ever would have been built, that you are about to go ahead.,Can you comment as to whether you have made a decision; and whether you have or not, what leads you to reconsider? What factors make you rethink this compared to what you said in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have not made a decision about what I will do concerning the 13-1 bomber. As you know, the Congress, late in 1976, in effect put the B-1 bomber construction in a dormant stage and permitted the expenditure of a certain amount of money per month to build a few B-1 bombers to keep the program alive.,I'll make a decision before the end of this month. I have received a great deal of conflicting advice from those who work closely with me and was eager to meet with one group of Members of Congress who were against the B-1 bomber to hear their arguments and then later met with a group who were for the B-1 bomber-I think the other way around. But both groups presented their views very strongly and very effectively to me. I think now is the time for me to perhaps on my own and perhaps in a lonely way to make a final judgment.,There are major factors involved--the status of our relationship with the Soviet Union in the SALT talks, the quality that we have seen in the latest test of the B-1 bomber, its radar cross-section and the effectiveness of present and future electronic countermeasures, the effectiveness of substitutes for it, the cruise missile being one of those, and in the overall context of our tactical and strategic needs I'll make a judgment before the end of this month.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,[President Carter's ninth news conference began at 2:30 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building and was broadcast live on radio and television. Following the news conference, the President remained in the room to answer questions from reporters on an informal basis, as follows:],\n  Q. Have you sent in your tax forms?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it has been waiting until Rosalynn got back to sign it. I am sure it went in today.2,Q. All done?,2 At his news conference at the White House on June 16, Press Secretary Jody Powell stated that the President and Mrs. Carter had decided to take a few more days to look over their tax returns before filing them. Mr. Powell said that an extension of the filing deadline had been requested by the President's accountant, Robert Perry.,THE PRESIDENT. We had until the 15th of June, yes.,Q. Mr. President, the House, as you know, is considering a public works bill with $200 million worth of water projects money. If that bill reaches your desk in its present form, can you say now whether you would veto it or not?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not say specifically what I will or will not do. The Senate and the House both have to consider it and the conference committee, and it will have to get to me. I'd rather wait until later to decide whether or not I will veto it.,Q. The last time we asked you about tax reform you said you hoped that there would be no loss to the Treasury as a result of your tax reform plans. And since then, Secretary Blumenthal has indicated that there probably will be some revenue loss. Where is the administration on this question, and how much loss can you accept and still balance your budget?,THE PRESIDENT. No decisions have been made about tax reform. I think it was Mr. Schultze who made that comment, unless both of them did, but I think it's premature to say yet what will be done about tax reform. We are having a series of meetings about it, and the decision will be made early enough. I just don't have any---,Q. Mr. President, you seem to have changed your views somewhat since the campaign about the B-1. Is that accurate?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that you could detect what my view might be. I'll make that decision this month.,Q. You no longer seem to view it as an exotic weapon that shouldn't have been built. Even though you haven't made your final decision, what you said today seems to be in somewhat of a different context than the campaign. You seem to think it's a very serious question one way or the other and that--there's a different tone to it. Am I wrong?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, during the campaign, many of the observers of my effort said I was so fuzzy on the issue that they couldn't understand what I was saying. Since I have become President, people have an almost exact capability of discerning what I said during the campaign. It's hard to correlate the two.,But one of the things that I was concerned about during the campaign was that in spite of the fact that the tests on the B-1 bomber were not supposed to be completed until last November, early in the spring President Ford came out in favor of a construction program. I haven't decided yet what to do. But when I make a judgment, I think you would agree with me that I made the best judgment within my ability.,Q. Mr. President, you were talking about Government retirement systems and public retirement systems. Are you satisfied that the Federal retirement systems are sound, at least---,THE PRESIDENT. I think so.,Q. ---And that they're equitable?,THE PRESIDENT. You mean the major retirement system for the Federal employees?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's sound. And so is the social security system sound up until this moment. But unless the Congress takes fairly quick action to implement reforms, it will not be sound. One of the major social security funds will be exhausted in 2 years; another one 4 years later. But I am sure the Congress won't let that need slip by without taking action.,Q. Could you tell us how you could consider giving Cuba diplomatic recognition---,THE PRESIDENT. We have not recognized Cuba.,Q.---and how you'd consider this, though, as a future action until Castro releases some of these thousands of people that he is holding as political prisoners and until he withdraws some of his troops from Africa?,THE PRESIDENT. Those are two of the items that I have said would be of deep concern to me before we could normalize relationships with Cuba. The consultation with Cuba, the exchange of ideas with Cuba, the working out of a fisheries agreement or a maritime agreement or hopefully an anti-hijacking agreement--those kind of things I think are perfectly legitimate. But there is no immediate prospect for diplomatic recognition and exchange of Ambassadors with Cuba.,Q. Would you insist that he bring his troops home from Africa?,THE PRESIDENT. That is one of my expectations."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-05-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a brief statement to make and then I'll respond to questions.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,I think that in this first 4 months the cooperation between the Congress and the President has been very good. We have had a productive session so far. We have, however, one potential problem that is evolving that causes me some concern.,There is a high degree of fiscal budget deficit that has been a problem for many years. Since 1974: we have had $184 billion of Federal deficits. And the prospective deficit for fiscal year 1978, starting next September, is about $60 billion. I feel very strongly--and I expressed my belief on many occasions during the 2-year campaign for President and since I have been in office--that in a normal economy, with high employment, that the budget ought to be balanced.,I am committed to that proposition, and we are working to create both those elements, a strong economy, high employment, working toward a balanced budget.,The main concern at this point on the economic scene is the rate of inflation which is tied directly to the degree of responsibility of the Federal Government in handling excessive spending. There are now several matters before Congress which I hope very sincerely to work out with them that put excessive pressures on the ability to finance needed programs in the future--welfare reform, tax reform, including substantial reductions, adequate health care, defense needs-and these we are discussing very thoroughly and constantly with congressional leaders.,The farm bill, as passed by the Senate, has a very high cost, much greater than I think is necessary, much greater than the House has passed. Expenditures conceived for water projects amount to about $3 1/2 billion more in total cost than I have advocated.,The House has tentatively approved the Appropriations Committee adding about a dozen other projects with a total cost of almost a half billion dollars.,We advocated, as have all the Presidents since Eisenhower, the elimination of impact aid for very wealthy communities where military installations exist, $3 1/2 million [billion].,The Congress so far has decided not to eliminate this very costly project. I say this not in criticism of the Congress, because no decision has yet been made, but to point out to the American people a potential problem. I respect the Congress and I will work day and night to reach an agreeable solution to these potential threats to harmony. But I have to reserve the right and the duty to say no when spending is excessive.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,SALT TALKS,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us where you would like to go from here on SALT with particular reference to cruise and Backfire, and how do you assess the upbeat words we got from Secretary Vance in Geneva and the downbeat words we got from Foreign Minister Gromyko on the same?,THE PRESIDENT. Compared to the Moscow meeting, the Geneva meeting was very upbeat. There was a great deal of harmony there. There was a sincere effort on the part of the Soviets and ourselves to explore conflicting positions and to seek for some framework on which we could agree.,There are three basic elements, I think, of a SALT II agreement. One is an agreement that would last through 1985, ratifying in effect those elements from Vladivostok on which agreement was reached without dispute, and hopefully encompassing significant reductions below the Vladivostok levels.,Second would be a protocol, in addition to the basic agreement, that would last for a briefer period of time, 2 or 3 years, in which temporary solutions to the controversial issues might be included, giving us more bargaining time. This would include the very heavy missiles of the Soviets which caused us great concern. It would include some constraints on the cruise missiles. And the overall agreement would also include some constraints on the Backfire bomber.,And the third element of the agreement which we hope to achieve, would be a mutual commitment in writing to pursue the drastic substantial reductions which we advocated as an alternative in Moscow, leading toward a much more comprehensive, much more effective, much more needed SALT III agreement.,So, I think there are substantial remaining differences between ourselves and the Soviet Union. No firm proposals were put forward on either side. It was an exploratory meeting. But the tenor of the meeting, the obvious attitude of the Soviets toward being willing to assess our positions and to modify their own, I think was reciprocated by us, and in that way it was an upbeat meeting as described by Secretary Vance.,When you emphasize the differences that still remain, however, there is cause for some concern.,MAJOR GENERAL SINGLAUB,Q. Why did you fire General Singlaub?1 He claims that the officers there have never been given a rationale on withdrawal. And have you had any soundings from North Korea as to the possibility of improving relations?,1 Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, Chief of Staff, U.S. Forces in Korea.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, General Singlaub was not fired. General Singlaub was informed that he was not being fired; he was not being chastised or punished. He was being transferred to a new position at an equivalent degree of responsibility and stature.,We have, however, considered very carefully the question of our troops to be withdrawn from South Korea, the Republic of Korea, ground troops. This is a matter that has been considered by our Government for years. We have been in South Korea now more than 25 years. There has never been a policy of our Government evolved for permanent placement of ground troops in South Korea.,In 1970 and 1971, a full division of troops was withdrawn. Many leaders in our country and in the Republic of Korea have advocated complete removal of ground troops from Korea.,Melvin Laird, the former Republican Secretary of Defense, is one of those. President Park himself, the President of the Republic of Korea, has called for the removal completely of American troops.,The essence of the question is, is our country committed on a permanent basis to keep troops in South Korea even if they are not needed to maintain the stability of that peninsula? I think it is accurate to say that the time has come for a very careful, very orderly withdrawal over a period of 4 or 5 years of ground troops, leaving intact an adequate degree of strength in the Republic of Korea to withstand any foreseeable attack and making it clear to the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Soviets, that our commitment to South Korea is undeviating and 'is staunch.,We will leave there adequate intelligence forces, observation forces, air forces, naval forces, and a firm, open commitment to our defense treaty, so there need not be any doubt about potential adversaries concerning our support of South Korea.,I think it is accurate to point out that overall strategic considerations have changed since the 1940's and early 1950's, when the Korean question came into most prominence in the international scene. The relationship between the Soviet Union and us, the People's Republic of China and us, and the relationship between the People's Republic and the Soviet Union have all changed, among other things.,South Korea, because of their own incentive and deep dedication to progress, now has one of the most strong economies in the world. Their growth rate last year in real terms was 15 percent. They have massive, very healthy industry--in steel, shipbuilding, electronics, chemical industries--to make it possible for them to grow into a position of defending themselves.,We have also a complete confidence in the deep purpose of the South Koreans to defend their own country. Compared to the North Koreans, they have a two-to-one advantage in total population, and they have much greater access to the Western industrialized democracies for advanced equipment and for technology.,So, for all of these reasons, I think it is appropriate now for us to withdraw those troops. A decision has been made. President Park has been informed. And we will work very closely with the South Koreans for an orderly transition, leaving the ground troops of the Republic of Korea strong enough to defend themselves and leaving our own commitment to them sure.,I might say that this has been brought about by two things--our complete confidence in the Republic of Korea and its ability and a complete awareness on the part of the rest of the world that our own commitment is firm.,PENDING LEGISLATION,Q. Mr. President, to follow up your opening statement, does that mean that you are putting Congress on notice that if they pass the appropriations bill with the water projects and with the impact aid, and if they pass the higher farm price supports, that you will veto those measures?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would rather wait until I see the final form of those bills. As you know, some of these measures have gone through appropriations committees; some have not. I don't think any of them yet have been approached in final form, but in the conference committees, on the floor votes, I will get a clearer picture of what Congress' intention might be. But I certainly reserve the right to veto bills if I think they are excessive.,I would rather not say definitely that I will veto a bill until I see what form it might take in its final completed form.,Q. To follow up that just on another prerogative that you have, if it gets to the point that a bill is vetoed and overridden, would you consider using the procedures that you have to rescind appropriations that have been voted, which, of course, have to be voted on by Congress, but would you use all of those prerogatives also if necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I would certainly have to reserve the right to use any proper and legal prerogatives to pursue my position. I can't win on everything I advocate. Obviously it's a two-way proposition. I might add again, as I said in the very first sentence, that the Congress and I have had a very good, cooperative relationship so far. But if these differences do evolve, I will have to reserve my own prerogatives as President to say no by veto, to rescind, if necessary, but I hope that it will not come to that.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, on March 9, you talked about the idea of Israel withdrawing to her '67 borders, with only minor adjustments. Is that still your position, and is there any way that Israel could retain the West Bank of the Jordan and make that fit in the definition of \"minor adjustments\"?,THE PRESIDENT. That is still my position, although I might add again that the United States, including myself as President-we do not have a Middle Eastern settlement plan, but the basic premises have been spelled out very clearly.,In the United Nations resolutions that have been passed, coming from the Security Council, voted on and supported by our Government--and these have been binding policies of the Government--they do include the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland, to be compensated for losses that they have suffered. They do include the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories from the 1967 war, and they do include an end of belligerency and a reestablishment of permanent and secure borders.,All these things have been spelled out in writing in those United Nations positions which we have endorsed--every administration since they were passed.,I would certainly assume that withdrawal from West Bank territories, either partially or in their entirety, would be a part of an ultimate settlement, but that is something that has to be worked out still between the Israelis and their neighbors.,We do not intend to put forward a description of what the exact borders should be. It is not our role to play. We will explore possibilities for common agreement and reserve the right to make our opinions known. But we have no control over anyone in the Middle East and do not want any control over anyone in the Middle East. But those three basic principles-permanent peace, secure borders, and resolution of the Palestinian question--all have been and still are integral parts of any peace settlement.,MILITARY INSTALLATIONS,Q. Mr. President, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors and the Coalition of Northeast-Midwest Congressmen have both written you letters urging more consideration for military installations, in the Northeast, primarily.,I wondered if those letters had come to your attention, if you had any reaction to them, and also whether it is logical and justifiable to have more military construction money for the coming fiscal year allotted to the State of Georgia than to all 16 of the coalition States combined?,THE PRESIDENT. I have heard from Members of Congress and from local Chambers of Commerce and others in almost every part of the country about the location, expansion or reduction of military installations.,This has been done and is being done and will be done strictly on the basis of national security requirements, when there is a very close call to be made.,A major factor is also the economic impact, and some decisions on environmental impact is also a factor. I think that if you would look at every one of the decisions that has been made so far by the Defense Department, you would find it has been made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of politics.,Obviously, we have to take into consideration the adverse impact on employment and the degree of investment of a community's future in a military installation. But I have never had any inclination during the campaign to promise that we would keep a specific base open or close one. I have no inclination to do that now. Each decision will be made on its merits.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, to follow up on the Middle East, Mr. President, could you give us more of your thinking on the disposition of places like the Golan Heights, which you talked about during the campaign, the question of Jerusalem, and other areas like that? And can you say how your proposal for minor alterations differs from the 1969 American plan calling for substantial alterations?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't respond to those specific things. I think it would be inappropriate for me to try to draw a line on a map in the Golan Heights, the West Bank of Jerusalem, or the Sinai Peninsula. That is something that would have to be negotiated between the parties involved.,But I think also that it was obvious that the United States didn't advance the cause of the settlement when the so-called Rogers plan was put forward without adequate prior consultation with the different nations who were concerned with the Middle, Eastern question.,I think it is better just to talk in terms of what our country has had as its longtime policy. But as far as an exact definition of the borders, I don't have the capability nor the inclination to go into that.,MAJOR GENERAL SINGLAUB,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to General Singlaub and your transfer of him. How do you square that with the claims of your administration that it's an open administration where dissent is encouraged? Isn't there a double standard between your treatment of him and your treatment of Andrew Young, the United Nations Ambassador, who has dissented several times from American policy and yet has not been transferred from his job?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know of no instance when Andy Young has violated a policy you described. In the case of General Singlaub, as I said earlier, he was not punished. We evolved the policy for South Korea over a long number of years. And I finally made a decision after consultation with the intelligence community, the military leaders, a formal meeting of the National Security Council, that we would withdraw our ground troops over a period of 4 or 5 years.,A member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bernie Rogers, went to South Korea to meet with our own military leaders and some of the South Korean military leaders, as well. Our policy was explained. General Singlaub was one of those.,An announcement was made publicly that a representative of the State Department, Phil Habib, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown, would go to Korea to explain this policy to the Korean officials and also, of course, to the American military officials.,After that announcement was made is when General Singlaub made a comment publicly that if this policy was carried out, it would result in war. In my opinion, that was a very serious breach of the propriety that ought to exist among military officers after a policy has been made, and I think to some degree it was an invitation to the North Koreans to believe that South Korea was not able to take care of themselves, which we think they are. I think it was an invitation to the world to expect an inevitable war. And I certainly don't agree that there is any cause for a war to be expected.,In addition to that, I think it is important to remember that we are now in the process of carrying out this policy. And I don't believe that General Singlaub, being our negotiator with the North Koreans, by the way, and also being the third person in command in South Korea, could have effectively carried out this policy when he had publicly been identified as being opposed to it.,The other point is I think his presence in South Korea on a continuing basis would have been a disturbing factor. He would have been the focus of admiration and attention from those who do not want to carry out our policy. And I think it would have made it very difficult for his superiors to carry out the policy in harmony and cooperation with the South Korean Government.,PRESIDENCY'S FINANCIAL BENEFITS,Q. Mr. President, some people have expressed concern about former Presidents making millions of dollars by in effect selling the Presidency with television interviews and memoirs. What are your own intentions as to what you will do after you complete your term or terms?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't answer that question yet. I might say what I have done so far. I wrote a book in the winter of 1975 called \"Why Not the Best,\" which has now sold several million copies. Any receipts that have come in from that book since the end of May last year have not come to me or my family in any way. They have been put into a special reserve fund to finance a future library to hold the papers that might be derived from my own administration.,Shortly, there will be another book published of excerpts from my speeches since the time I became Governor of Georgia. That book has been given in its entirety to the public use, not to have any money from its use come to me or my family.,I think that this is a policy that I would like to pursue after I go out of office. I don't know what my financial circumstances might be then. I might find a need on occasion to derive some financial benefit from writing or from appearances of some kind.,So, I can't close the door completely to what I will do after I am out of this office, but I can describe to you what I have already done voluntarily to make sure that there is no financial reward coming to me because I happen to be in the White House or even after the primary season was over because I was a prominent political figure. I don't want to benefit financially from this status.,FOREIGN POLICY,Q. Mr. President, your SALT II proposals calling for deeper cuts in the Vladivostok agreement were rejected by the Soviet Union after you had enunciated them publicly.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. And your public statements with respect to a Palestinian homeland are being credited as being a factor in the election of a conservative, hard-line political group in Israel.,Do you think that you are going to be able to continue your policy of open discussions of foreign policy issues and, at the same time, achieve agreements? In other words, do you think you are going to be able to have your cake and eat it, too?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't agree with the premise of your question. I don't believe that my open espousal of a desire on the part of the American people to reduce the number of missile launchers or atomic weapons prior to the time we negotiated in Moscow was a reason for a breakdown in that discussion.,It has led to continuing discussions, and I believe it's a viable policy that I will pursue and I see no reason why the American people should not know it, and I believe that overwhelmingly the American people support it.,I think it's good for the American people to know what our positions are at the time that the Soviets know what our positions are, and vice versa.,This is a matter that must be addressed openly. It involves not only the Soviet and American people but it also involves our allies and friends who depend upon us around the world.,In the campaign itself and in my Inaugural Address, I expressed a hope which I still have, that ultimately myself or my successor, Mr. Brezhnev or his successor, can arrive at a point where nuclear weapons are eliminated completely from the Soviet and the American arsenals.,The other point of your question was concerning the results of the election in Israel. I think that the international questions in Israel were very slightly discussed or debated during their campaign. My opinion is that the result of the elections were not affected appreciably if at all by any statements that I made concerning an ultimate Middle Eastern settlement.,Our positions are compatible with the positions taken by my own predecessor and, in fact, historically the United States has espoused these basic principles. And I think that this is something that must be addressed frankly by the prospective government in Israel, by the people of Israel, their Arab neighbors, and by the people in the United States.,So, I don't intend to refrain from expressing very clearly my position on foreign issues to the public on occasion when negotiations are going on--or when we have an agreement with our negotiating partners to refrain from public statements, of course I will do so. But that will be an individual judgment to be made.,WELFARE REFORM,Q. Mr. President, during the campaign when you discussed welfare reform, it was an attractive political incentive for the people of big cities to vote for you, sir. Yesterday Joseph Califano outlined your welfare reform proposals, and there seems to be a lag in time, number one, for the effective implementation of the program, and number two, very little relief for the cities of the Nation.,Do you think that you're conforming with your pledge during the campaign to help relieve the welfare burden from the big cities of this Nation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do. You can't isolate welfare, though, and just say that stands on its own, it's not related to other aspects of programs.,When we put forward multi-billion dollar programs for public works, for countercyclical aid, which goes directly to local and State governments for tax reduction for people who live there, for increased transportation funds, and so forth, all these things relieve financial burdens from local and State governments.,We are proposing before the August recess by the Congress our welfare package. A lot of work has been done on it. It's shaping up into a very attractive and, I think, very good proposal.,The basic premise on which this proposal has been evolved has been no additional cost above and beyond what we presently spend on welfare plus training and employment programs for those who might go on welfare.,Later if we see that we have additional money, we can expand the program or directly reduce the amount paid into the program by local and State governments. But in the evolution of the program itself one of the requirements that I have laid down which is a tight constraint and a necessary discipline, is no additional cost above what we have now. So, I think we are carrying out our promises.,And the other aspect of your question was the late implementation of it. This is a very expeditious schedule. There is no way that Congress can act on welfare early this year. It will be submitted before August. And then the Congress can start debating this very complicated subject. But Congress right now has all it can handle in major proposals, with social security reform and tax reform coming up, and with the energy program.,But I think if it was passed immediately, it would take 3 or 4 years to fully implement it. But as soon as it is passed by Congress, the implementation will commence without delay and will be implemented as expeditiously as possible.,MENAHEM BEGIN,Q. Realizing that the Israeli government is not in place yet, but assuming that Mr. Begin will have a dominant role in it, and based on his initial remarks about withdrawal of the sector, do you see him as a potential obstacle to the peace process?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't.,I don't yet have any way to know who will put the government together. Obviously, Mr. Begin leads the Likud government which came in first. And we are waiting now for the Israeli election results to be confirmed and for the President of Israel to designate the leader of that party to put the government together. Following that time and before the government is completely evolved, I intend to congratulate Mr. Begin, if it is he, and to invite him or whoever is designated to come over here for discussions with me.,There obviously are difficulties caused by a change in the Israeli government. But in the long run, as is the case in our own country and in a democracy like Israel, the government leaders fairly accurately reflect the hopes and desires and fears and purposes of the people whom they are chosen to lead.,Mr. Begin will have to put together a government. He'll have to deal with conflicting interests as he forms his cabinet and brings in other groups to make sure that he has a majority in the Knesset.,So, I don't look at this as an insuperable obstacle. It does create a question. I think a large part of that question can be resolved when I meet with him personally and when he meets with the congressional leaders and with the Jewish Americans who are very deeply interested in this and sees the purpose of our own country.,I think this may have an effect on him. I have already seen some moderation in his views as he's dealt with Mr. Yadin and others, and I hope that this moderation will continue.,Obviously, the Arab leaders also have to be moderate. Some of the adamant stands that they have taken in the historical past will have to be abandoned. If they didn't, there would be no hope for peace.,So, both sides of this--or rather all sides of this discussion have to yield to some degree to accomplish the purposes of their own people.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,[President Carter's eighth news conference began at 10:30 a.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building and was broadcast live on radio and television. Following the news conference, the President remained in the room to answer questions from reporters on an informal basis, as follows:],\n  Q. [Inaudible],THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I am going as a guest of the Navy. I don't know whether it will be possible to take any on board or not.,Q. I am sure if you asked them, they would say yes.,THE PRESIDENT. There's a limit to the space there. There's also a problem with very high security aspects on a nuclear submarine. So, that's not something that I have gone into. I've told Admiral Rickover and the commanding officer of the ship that I would leave that question up to them.,Q. Mr. President, what is the status of the Australian CIA investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I don't want to respond to any substantive questions.,Q. Mr. President, do you think you should go on a submarine for 9 hours, in terms of safety, the country's security, and so forth?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I'll have adequate communications from the submarine with special Signal Corps people with me, and will still be in command of our Nation's affairs. Also, of course, the Secretary of Defense and State and the Attorney General and the Vice President-all of them will still be available.,Q. Will you have a hot line?,THE PRESIDENT. The hot line will be available to me, yes.,Q. I am not clear why you are going there--on the sub.,THE PRESIDENT. I want to learn at first hand about our Armed Forces' strategic capabilities. I'm not going to spend that much time just talking about that submarine and its design. I'll be talking to the naval officials, including Admiral Rickover, at some length, about the capabilities and limitations of our strategic submarine force, which is an integral part of our defense mechanism. And as you know, I've already been on the Air Force command 'and control plane.,But over a period of months, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I need to know about our defense capabilities, and one of the best ways to get that information is to visit in person some of the military bases and installations.,Q. Mr. President, once again you didn't get beyond the fourth row this time. I've got a question about the month of May.,About a month ago, you declared May a time to remember the problems of the elderly, and I've got a couple of questions I've been trying for the last three press conferences to ask you.,THE PRESIDENT. Why don't you wait until the next press conference, and if you'll remind Jody, I'll try to call on you.,Q. All right. Fine.,Q. Mr. President, that submarine can carry cruise missiles. Could you talk to us a little bit about the cruise missile?,THE PRESIDENT. Not now, Marilyn [Marilyn Berger, NBC News].,Q. Mr. President, one thing was left unclear. Aviation News reported that you are considering a moratorium on cruise; is that accurate?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, you are tying yourself more and more tightly to balancing the budget, and it may be a goal that has factors that you can't afford. How come you keep locking yourself more and more tightly into it?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not--not any tighter than I have been."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-05-12","text":"TRIP TO EUROPE,THE PRESIDENT. I have a very brief statement to make--to begin with, just an overview of what I consider to be the results of our trip to Europe, and then I will be glad to answer whatever questions you might have.,This was the first trip I've taken outside of our country since I became President. It was a very full few days. I tried to be well prepared. And I think that I can report substantial success, not particularly because of my own participation but because there was, I believe, a renewed spirit of hope and confidence engendered among all of us who participated as we look to the future in our ideological competition with the Eastern Communists and Socialist countries, compared to our own in the Western democracies, now including Japan.,I think there is a sense, a quiet sense that we have justified reasons for that confidence, although we sometimes suffer a temporary discomfiture in unemployment, inflation, and a sense that the Soviets perhaps are increasing their military strength.,I think there is now a much clearer picture that we are able to compete and that that competition must be conducted under peaceful circumstances.,There is a difference. We have strong systems of government. For the first time since NATO was begun many years ago, all the participating countries are democracies.,We are very proud of the new emergence of Spain and Portugal with the democratic system of government. And I think there is a sense to conclude that in a test of will, of confidence, of cooperation, that when men and women in our societies are free, when we can make our own decisions, choose our own governments, that gives us an inherent advantage.,There was a closeness among us when we adjourned that I thought was very encouraging, a better understanding.,I personally had private conversations with the leaders of 16 or 17 different countries. I tried to study, ahead of time, what their special problems were and what their opportunities were for increased friendship with us. And I think we were successful.,We recommitted our commitment to NATO. We called on a reanalysis of what NATO will be during the 1980's, a new study of East-West relationships, and a better way to save money, and to make a NATO commitment more effective with standardization of weapons.,While there, I took a quick trip to Geneva to meet President Asad of Syria--a continuing process in my own life as President--to study the special attitudes toward a possible alleviation of the Middle Eastern dispute this year. And hopefully, after the Israeli elections this month, we can have the new leader of the Israeli Government come back to meet with me, as Prime Minister Rabin did earlier this year.,So, these are the things that we attempted. I think our successes were well publicized, but it was a joint success and I believe that we understand each other better. There's a renewed strength and commitment in the democratic societies who are our friends and allies.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS\nTHE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, do you think that Israel should accept the Palestinian homeland if the Palestinians or PLO accept the fact of Israel? And also, as a result of your talks today, are you persuaded that we should share arms technology and coproduction with Israel?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to both those questions is yes. I don't think that there can be any reasonable hope for a settlement of the Middle Eastern question, which has been extant now on a continuing basis now for more than 29 years, without a homeland for the Palestinians. The exact definition of what that homeland might be, the degree of independence of the Palestinian entity, its relationship with Jordan, or perhaps Syria and others, the geographical boundaries of it, all have to be worked out by the parties involved. But for the Palestinians to have a homeland and for the refugee question to be resolved, is obviously of crucial importance.,We have a special relationship with Israel. It's absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace. It's a special relationship.,Although I've met with the leaders of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and had long hours of discussion, I never found any of those Arab leaders who objected to that special commitment of ours to the protection of the integrity of Israel.,And obviously, part of that is to make sure that Israel has adequate means to protect themselves without military involvement of the United States. I have no objection about this arrangement. I'm proud of it. And it will be permanent as long as I'm in office.,DOMESTIC POLICY,Q. Mr. President, while you were away, a number of liberal Democrats--thinking especially of Senator McGovern--suggested that your economic policies are hard to differentiate from those of your Republican predecessor. What's your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would not refer to Senator McGovern as \"a number of liberal Democrats.\" [Laughter],I don't know that Senator McGovern's speech to the ADA was mirrored in the objections by any other Democrats. Obviously, we have a firm belief in the character of the Democratic Party, that we're the ones who are responsible more than any other party in this country's existence for the provision of jobs for our people, a better life for those who are afflicted, who are poor, who are disadvantaged, who need education and need security in their old age. These kinds of programs have been put forward by me to the Congress in a very strong and continuing way.,I will make one of my few speeches later on this month in California to a labor convention. And I will try to spell out in kind of an inventory fashion what we have proposed and what we do intend to do this year. But I'm very proud of what has been done up to date and the attitude of Congress.,Tomorrow, I'll be signing a $4 billion jobs bill. Appropriations have already been approved for countercyclical help for local governments. We are providing over 1 million jobs for young people this summer. We proposed to the Congress a resolution of the very serious question involving the integrity of the social security system. We've asked for a control of the runaway costs of people to get health care in hospitals. These are just the first steps toward a continuing commitment of my own administration.,I do not consider these moves--to help people to go back to work and have a good life--to be incompatible with a balanced 'budget before my own term of office is over. We consider the realization of the objective of a balanced budget to be tied very closely with the right of people to have a job.,If we're going to have high unemployment, we're not going to have a balanced budget. So, I don't think the criticism was justified, and I'm very thankful it was confined to one person.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. May I get back briefly to Helen's question? It seemed to us, traveling with you, that you and the people in your party were a 'bit more upbeat on the question of the Middle East this week than perhaps a couple weeks ago after the Hussein visit. I just wonder, do you have indications now that the Palestinians are ready to recognize the right of Israel to exist? And also, .do you have--in reference to the question Helen brought up--do you have some indication that Israel is ready to recognize the need for a Palestinian homeland?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had no contact with the Palestinians, with PLO. But I have concluded meetings with the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Egypt, the President of Syria, and the King of Jordan. At the conclusion of this series of meetings, I feel 'better than I did before. At the end of the Hussein meeting my own hopes were improved.,I don't want to mislead anyone. The chances for Middle Eastern peace are still very much in doubt. We have a long way to go. But I do believe that there's a chance that the Palestinians might make moves to recognize the right of Israel to exist. And if so, this would remove one of the major obstacles toward further progress.,Our Government, before I became President, promised the Israeli Government that we would not recognize the PLO by direct conversations or negotiations, as long as the PLO continued to espouse the commitment that Israel had to be destroyed.,I would like to see this resolved. There's a chance that it will be done. We are trying to add our efforts to bring this about. But I have no assurance that it will be accomplished.,ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES,Q. Mr. President, a former FBI official now faces prosecution for his role in allegedly ordering illegal FBI surveillance on various groups. I'm curious, on the basis of your information, can you tell us whether you feel that Mr. Kearney does in fact deserve to be prosecuted, and whether or not you feel that other FBI officials, present or former, should face similar prosecutions for similar alleged actions?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you are presupposing guilt before a trial. It's obvious to me that members of the Government, in the military, the CIA and the FBI and the Oval Office, if a crime is committed, need to have that crime investigated. And if they're determined to be guilty, they should be punished. No special excuse should be given for officials in the FBI. I don't know the details of the case. I've not been briefed on it and have no reason to be. I have encouraged Attorney General Griffin Bell, who needs no encouragement, to enforce the law enthusiastically.,And there's been a great deal of pressure put on Griffin Bell not to prosecute this case or to continue with the investigation of the case. I think he's doing the right thing. But I don't want to try to guess what the outcome of the investigation or the possible trial might be.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,Q. Mr. President, one of your predecessors is going on television tonight to discuss his foreign policy, Mr. Nixon, and I suspect he'll talk a great deal about China.,Inasmuch as it's been 5 years since the Shanghai Communiqué was signed, I was wondering if you have a target date within your administration for full diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China? Do you have a target date? Will it come within your first administration, and if you don't have a target date, what's the problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's very difficult for me to set a target date, because this is a two-way negotiation. We have commenced discussions with the Chinese Government to resolve the first obstacle, and that is the claims settlement.,Long years ago, we had roughly $190 million worth of American property and other goods confiscated by the Mao Tse-tung government. We in our country confiscated in return about $80 million, I believe, primarily in Chinese bank deposits. We've never been able to work out those differing claims. That would be the first step.,We have espoused, and I have renewed my commitment to the Shanghai Communiqué, which says that there's just one China. We didn't say which one, and I think that we have moved--[laughter]and neither did anyone else--we have moved, I think, to strengthen our ties with the People's Republic of China.,I have met personally with Ambassador Huang. Cy Vance has met several times with him. We've sent a delegation of Congress Members over there, along with my own son, as a demonstration or gesture of friendship. They were well received. We haven chosen one of the good friends of mine and a great leader, Leonard Woodcock, who we expect to .be the next Ambassador to the People's Republic of China and I would like to see progress made toward normalization of relationships.,The one obstacle, major obstacle, obviously, is the relationship we've always had with Taiwan. We don't want to see the Taiwanese people punished or attacked. And if we can resolve the major difficulty, I would move expeditiously to normalizing relationships with China. But I can't put a time limit on it.,FOREIGN TRAVEL PLANS,Q. Mr. President, your trip to Europe was judged to be a great success. We know that you've been invited to Paris in the fall by President d'Estaing. When will you be going back to Europe, or to any other foreign country?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not decided definitely to go to France. President Valery Giscard d'Estaing did invite me to come, and if the Congress is able to get through with its work as presently scheduled, sometime in October, then that would make it possible for me perhaps to take another trip at the end of this year. But I have not decided to do that yet.,I don't know what the prospects of the trip would be. I don't know what the itinerary would be, and it's still very much in doubt.,WELFARE REFORM,Q. Mr. President, if the welfare mess is as bad as you have said it is, why are we going to have to wait until 1981, in your second term, to see it cured?,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you for your comments. [Laughter] I don't think that's what we have in mind at all. We expect to propose a legislative package to the Congress before the summer home work session, which commences in August.,I would hope that the Congress could pass the new welfare legislation early next year, and then we'll immediately start to implement it.,It took us 2 years to implement the recent change in the welfare laws, and I think that a 3-year time for the conclusion of those changes is a very hopeful and optimistic move. But that doesn't mean that we won't initiate immediately those parts that can be done quickly. And I think that this is not a sign of discouragement, but a sign of practicality.,We are now approaching this question on a somewhat piecemeal basis. Under the general term of welfare would obviously come food stamps. We've recommended that the cash contribution to food stamps be eliminated, a great simplification process. So, I don't think anyone needs to be discouraged who is interested in welfare reform.,If everything went exactly on schedule and if we moved as expeditiously as humanly possible, that could not be completed before the time that I designated.,THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,Q. Mr. President, Pat Caddell, your pollster in the campaign, wrote a memo to you in December. And I'd like to ask you about two of his assertions. The first is that some elements of the Democratic Party are greater adversaries, potentially, of your administration politically than the Republicans. He mentioned traditional Democrats like McGovern. He called him anachronistic, and the \"young turks\" like Governor Brown. He said he was the most dangerous threat on the horizon in the Party.,My first question, if I may, is: Do you believe that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't see either McGovern or Governor Brown as an adversary or threat. I feel quite secure in my position. [Laughter],The prospect of a 1980 election is something that I have not, you know, put any time on at all. That'll 'be a decision that may be made in the future. And I think that it's accurate to say--I don't remember the memorandum now in detail--but I do remember that one of the conclusions that he drew, as you so accurately pointed out on television one night, is that the best way to have favorable reaction from the American people in future elections is to do a good job in managing the Government. But I honestly don't feel threatened.,I think it's true that I have a close and friendly relationship with Governor Brown. He helped me during the campaign. My son Chip is with him today for a 4-day period to work, and my wife will be stopping by to work in California with Governor Brown on mental health when she goes to Hawaii later on this year.,I don't feel threatened and consider him a very good friend. But this is long in the future. And I think what Pat Caddell was referring to was if I should change my mind and decide to run for reelection.,THE PRESIDENT'S STYLE,Q. May I ask about the second theme, which was, you should continue a political campaign as President with such things as town meetings and all of that, and that you should really concentrate on style. He said that many people have been defeated by making the mistake of substituting substance for style. Do you agree?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I agree. I agree to this extent: When I took office, I had not won an overwhelming victory in the general election--as you know, a couple million votes. And I believe that in the last number of years, there had been a loss of confidence in our Government, both in its integrity and also in its ability and competence.,There had been a loss of confidence that the White House and Congress could work together, or that the people could have access to the decisionmaking process, absent secrecy. So, a major commitment of mine, long before this Caddell memorandum was written, was to try to restore the confidence of the people in me.,Obviously, one of those means is by frequent news conferences. Another one is by access to me in the Oval Office. Another one is the travel around our country on occasion to meet with people. And I think that this is the \"style\" part. I think that the walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, about which Mr. Caddell was not informed, was a good indication that I trust Washington. I didn't feel endangered, that I wanted the people to know I was one of them. I don't see anything wrong with this. I think, to the extent that I can have a good relationship with the people, it makes it easier for me to be a good President.,So, the confidence of the people in the Government is a crucial element of leadership. And the openness with which I hope that I am conducting my administration means that we don't try to cover up mistakes. And if we do make mistakes, we want them to be known. So, I think that this is a good combination of style on the one hand, which is not artificial, and substance on the other hand, which\nwill bear good results.,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,DOMESTIC POLICY,Q. To follow up the Frank Cormier question and your answer, you talked about providing jobs. Why aren't you able to please George Meany? What's the problem there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know. That question can best be answered by Mr. Meany. I think it would be good for special interest groups of all kinds--labor, business, environment, and others--to cooperate and to express a partnership in things that are accomplished for the good, instead of concentrating on the negative things that fail to measure up to their own very high expectations.,I think the package of proposals that we put forward are unexcelled, even going back to the early days of Lyndon Johnson. And as I say, I'll make a good summary of these proposals, which I think will be realized, at a speech later on this month. Mr. Meany feels that my level of minimum wage is too low. He feels that the $4 billion public works proposal that Congress has already approved is too little. He feels that I should have put tight constraints against the importation of color television sets, sugar, shoes. I think I've worked out a good balance on those proposals.,So, the fact that he doesn't approve of everything I 'do doesn't mean we have any personal disruption of our communication and mutual respect.,Q. Are you also saying to Mr. Cormier that you see no danger of losing the liberals?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's always that danger. I think one of the characteristics of some liberals is that they are very difficult to please. [Laughter] And when some of the groups make a list of things that they want, if they get 95 percent of what they want they can only remember the other 5 percent. [Laughter],And this is something which I don't particularly deplore but which I do recognize. There's been no disruption of my relationship with any of these groups. And I think my record has been and will be able to bear their scrutiny.,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes?,A7E AIRCRAFT,Q. In your defense ,budget, you recommended deleting all the funds for the A7E light attack aircraft. The House has restored funds for 6 A7E's and the Senate has restored funds, or their committees have restored funds, for 12 A7E's. What's your reaction to that?,THE PRESIDENT. The A7, in my opinion, ought not to be built any longer, except to meet present contractual agreements. It's a plane that's obsolescent at best. There is no need in my opinion for a continued purchase of this plane. This is a matter for me and the Congress to decide mutually, of course, in the ultimate case.,But my recommendation not to order new A7's was based on the fact we have superior airplanes now to replace it. And as far as our return on very scarce military dollars invested, it was not the best investment to make.,Q. Mr. President, following on that question, if I could for a minute, my impression was that the replacements for the A7E's wouldn't be off the line for several years and that right now the Navy is minus about 36 A7's.,How do you feel about waiting that long for the replacement model?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I went into this very carefully and thoroughly with the Defense Department officials and with those who represent the Office of Management and Budget, before my own recommendation was made to the Congress. I think I made the right decision, the right recommendation. And I don't believe that our defense capability will be damaged by not going ahead in acquiring this plane, which is becoming too obsolescent to be the best investment.,WHITE HOUSE STAFF SALARIES,Q. Mr. President, given your concern about inflation and for economy in Government, how do you justify pay raises up to $11,000 for some of your senior staff aides after they've been on the job only 2 months?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I had a substantial increase in my salary the first day I went into office. [Laughter] I think I earn it. These men and women on my staff are not overpaid. I don't think the Congress is overpaid nor do I think that the District Judges and the judiciary are overpaid. My staff members did not have their salaries raised to the same level even as the Members of Congress and the judiciary, which was their choice, not mine. Their increase in salary, I think, was one that was justified, and I don't have any apology to make for it. They work extraordinarily long hours, as do some of you, and I think the people of our country are getting a good return on their salary investment in my staff.,FOREIGN ARMS SALES,Q. Mr. President, about a month ago you got recommendations on your desk for a new weapons sales policy for overseas, and Secretary Vance has explained that to some members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Did you explain that policy to the other leaders in London that you met with, and will Israel get any kind of special treatment? Will there be a class of countries that get special treatment?,THE PRESIDENT. I did explain it to the other leaders in London--to some of the other leaders, not all of them, because I met with so many. And the second answer is that Israel will get special treatment. We have a certain small group of nations who, because of long-standing historical commitments of Presidents, Congress, and the American people, do have a special relationship with our Government.,In coproduction--that's when we share responsibilities for the production of a certain weapons system or the sale of the advanced weapons systems--Israel is one of those countries. Yes.,TAX PROPOSALS,Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that your administration is considering significant tax cuts for business in your tax reform package. What is your thinking along this line?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not had a chance yet to meet with the specialists who are working on the overall tax proposal. I've been working on the summit and the welfare proposal and others--and social security and so forth.,This week will be the first time that I will have met with them at all--that'll be tomorrow--to go over the general framework. I think it would be erroneous to presume, however, that the major tax reductions, if any, would fall to the business community. I'm much more concerned about alleviating the tax burdens on people who are working families and those that I think have been paying too much. But there might be a change in the tax structure relating to business.,But I can't answer your question because I have not yet decided. But I think in general, there would be a well-balanced assessment of tax burden, and I would certainly not single out business for special tax credits.,Q. Mr. President, is it your assumption that the tax reform package would result overall in a decrease in revenues?,THE PRESIDENT. No. My hope is that we can make the analysis based on no change in revenue, that its primary purpose can be increased equity or fairness and much greater simplicity. Then, if we do have an opportunity to reduce taxes, they will be done one increment at a time, and the decreases in tax payments will be allotted where they're needed, both to sell the package to Congress and to the people, and to provide increased fairness in the overall concept.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,[President Carter's seventh news conference began at 2:30 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building and was broadcast live on radio and television. Following the news conference, the President remained in the room to answer questions from reporters on an informal basis, as follows:],\n  Q. Have you got any jet lag?,THE PRESIDENT. I've gotten over it. I went to see \"The Barber of Seville\" last night. It was a remarkable performance. Beverly Sills was nice enough to help me out, you know, with the pre-inauguration program. She performed without asking for any kind of pay. And I want to go see her.,But I feel pretty good. I'm going to get a longer night's sleep tonight.,Q. We were all zonked out. How did you have the energy to go see the opera last night?,THE PRESIDENT. I have one ability to change from one time zone to another, even with a 5-hour difference. When I got to London for instance--on the way over, I went to bed at 11:30 at night, London time, which was 6:30 Washington time. And I would guess that you did not do the same.,Q. No. [Laughter] Mr. President, you talked about coverups and confidence in your formal portion of the news conference. Could you give us your reaction to the Nixon television appearances?,THE PRESIDENT. I've only seen a small part of the first one. I saw part of the first part, and then the latter part of it. It really didn't change my opinion about President Nixon. I personally think that he did violate the law. I think he did commit impeachable offenses. I think that he doesn't think he did. And I noticed in the post-program public opinion polls that most of the people do agree with what I've just said.,Q. We can't hear you back here.,Q. Mr. President, you did not believe him, then?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I say, I think he was guilty of impeachable offenses. But I believe that he doesn't think he was. I think he has rationalized in his own mind that he did all these things for the benefit of his staff members, and so forth, and that he didn't have any criminal intent. I think he's mistaken, but I'm sure it's possible for any human being to rationalize their own actions, particularly in months afterwards.,Q. Can you tell us about the sudden resurgence of Watergate interest in the country? Why is the country suddenly interested in this again?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's completely attributable to that series of television programs.,Q. Do you think it's all right to go ahead with them, and will you be watching \"Foreign Policy\" tonight, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I won't.,Q. Why? Don't you think you will learn anything from it?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I just have some other things I've got to do. [Laughter],Q. We ran into a lot of people who saw the program in Great Britain. There seemed to be a lot of interest in the Nixon program. I just wondered, did any of the other people that you met with mention it at all or was there any talk about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Several of the European leaders mentioned it. And I would say that most of their comments were deploring the resurrection of it.,Q. What do you mean, what he had to say or that---,Q. The resurrection of Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It was quite a blow to Europe, I think, to see our own country besmirched with the Watergate revelations, and I think they now are glad to see it over and just did not want to see the whole subject resurrected again. But I don't think this is going to do any serious damage.,Q. Didn't any of them tell you they thought he was really just a victim of politics?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they didn't.,Q. Were they critical of him for bringing it up?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. They just deplored it. I don't mean that they were,Q. He's making a lot of money off of it.,THE PRESIDENT. I know.,Q. Do you approve of that part of the whole thing, of---,Q. The selling of the ex-President,Q. Selling of the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, I don't want to get in the position of condemning Mr. Nixon for what he does now.,Q. Are you starting your memoirs? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. [Laughing] I don't think anybody would pay for them.,Q. Did you get a taste for foreign now, after you told us coming over you didn't think much of traveling away from: Washington now? Now there is France, Geneva.,Q. Paris.,Q. Did you get bitten by meeting with the leaders of the free world?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope not. [Laughter],Q. Did you feel like you were back on the campaign up in Newcastle?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I did.,Q. It looked like it.,Q. Somebody said Hamilton Jordan was doing voter profiles. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, that was really a good trip, I think.,Q. Where did you get the \"Ha'way- tha-lads\" line? Who told you about that?,THE PRESIDENT. The Prime Minister.,Q. Did he? On the way up?,THE PRESIDENT. After we got up there.,Q. And it was your idea to use it.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Ham Jordan was quoted as saying that he was surprised, even knowing the power of the Presidency, how much impact it had abroad. Did you find that same reaction?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I really think it was really more of an expression of friendship and confidence in our Nation and its position as a bulwark that's unchanged within the Democratic societal structure. There's a great doubt and a lack of confidence among many of the European communities.,The USIA does public opinion polls and I have access to them. And I think just the fact that the people see that our own country is so strong and so permanent and so able and so deeply committed to European friendship was the cause of the outpouring of expression of support.,Also, Newcastle is an area that's quite often ignored in the political processes. And I think the fact that a President did go up to that relatively isolated community was appreciated by them. So, I was really pleased with it. But the main sense I had was one of intensely strong feelings of appreciation, of friendship and kinship among them and us.,Q. We thought it had something to do with the fact Callaghan--that was one of the few areas he hung onto or his party hung onto. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a matter of fact, I think the Labor Government lost every county in Great Britain except Tyne and Wear, which is where Newcastle was. If I had gone there a week earlier, tie might have lost it, too. [Laughter],Q. For those of us who sit in the rear, I wonder if you would raise your sights the next time?,Q. Yes, please.,THE PRESIDENT. Okay. I promise.,Q. Hold on there.,THE PRESIDENT. I really need to go.,Q. Mr. President, would you please comment about your meeting with Prime Minister Demirel? Did you find any solutions in achieving some proposal to the strained Turkish-American relations in the last few years?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have time to get into that subject deeply. But I can say this: Both Demirel and Caramanlis, with whom I met the same morning, expressed their complete commitment to seek and to find a peaceful solution of the differences between them and the Aegean Sea.,When I left those meetings at the American Embassy residence and arrived for the NATO conference, I found Prime Minister Demirel and Prime Minister Caramanlis talking to each other with their hand on one another's shoulder, as though they were trying to resolve their differences. So although Turkey has been very disappointed at our inability to have passed in the Congress the mutual defense agreement, I do believe that they appreciated the increase in the authorization for military sales by $50 million. And I think I let Mr. Demirel and also Caramanlis understand that to the American public, a resolution of the Cyprus question is of supreme importance to us and interest to us.,They feel that the Aegean Sea is the more important of the two questions, because of the actual threat to peace, the fact that war might 'begin. But I was pleased.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,Q. Mr. President, is there any chance to have the PLO office in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-04-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, everybody.,I don't have a statement to make. I am prepared for questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,GASOLINE TAX,Q. Mr. President, I have heard some people suggest--maybe you'd call them cynics--that your proposal for a standby gasoline tax is a bargaining chip to be traded later for something else that you really want. I want to know, are you deeply committed to the tax idea or are you a little queasy about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I am deeply committed to the standby gasoline tax as part of a comprehensive and well-balanced overall energy program. In my opinion, the gasoline tax is a good idea. As a matter of fact, it will help greatly families who participate in the program by cutting down on gasoline consumption.,When the 5-cent gasoline tax is put into effect, if people don't conserve, then that means that the Federal Treasury will receive about $6 billion in additional income. This will be refunded directly to every person in the United States on their income tax as a direct tax credit.,A family of four, for instance, would receive $100 either reduction in their tax payment or, if they don't pay taxes, they would get that much of a refund in any case. So, a family with a car that gets, say, 27 miles per gallon, travels 10,000 miles per year, would pay $91 more in taxes. They would get back a credit of $500 if the 25-cent tax goes into effect.,So, the benefits are great for families that conserve. The taxes will not be severe when they go into effect. And if the people conserve, the tax won't go into effect at all. So, I am deeply dedicated 'to the gasoline tax and will fight for it until the last vote in the Congress.,TAX CREDITS FOR BUSINESS,Q. Mr. President, the Senate has voted to increase the business tax credit to the tune of billions of dollars. And you have approved millions of dollars in a tax break for the oil drillers, which is contrary to the tax reform law. What's the average taxpayer supposed to think about all this?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, I am not in favor of continuing the business tax credit that the Senate voted yesterday. This will be taken up either this afternoon or early next week. I intend to meet with Senator Long later on today to discuss the effects of this tax bill. My own position against the business tax credit has been very clearly expressed, and I'll have to decide at the time the bill gets to my desk, if it passes, whether I can accept it or not.,I believe that there have been erroneous reports made about the intangible drilling tax, to which I think you also referred.,The first part of the sentence, which has not been adequately emphasized, is that we would like to do away with the special provisions under the tax shelter laws that permit doctors, lawyers, wealthy farmers, and others to invest in exploration for oil and receive benefits. But the present law does permit the intangible tax credit for corporations. It does not permit the same tax credit for legitimate partnerships or individuals who have a full-time profession of drilling oil. That needs to be equalized.,Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,GASOLINE RATIONING,Q. Mr. President, if the energy crisis is of wartime proportions, as you have indicated, why not rationing right now? I have a follow-up.,THE PRESIDENT. There is a provision now in the law that permits me to impose gasoline rationing in case of a national emergency, and that would be a part of the overall energy package. If I feel at any time that the Nation's security is in danger, for instance, if there should be an embargo imposed--and I see no likelihood of this--then gasoline rationing would be a viable alternative.,Q. Are you saying there, Mr. President, rationing would be a fallback position if milder measures proved out to be not sufficient?,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. If the energy package that I have proposed to the Congress is adopted, I don't see any reason in the future of ever having rationing. However, it's going to take us quite a while to build up to a billion-barrel oil reserve supply which could tide us over 10 months even with an embargo. And until this is done, we are vulnerable, and we are getting more and more vulnerable every year. But if the entire package is put into effect--and I certainly hope and expect it will--then I see no reason for gasoline rationing.,Q. Mr. President, since the first surge in gasoline prices caused by OPEC, American consumers have adjusted to the higher prices and are consuming as much now, if not more, than they were before. If your package goes through intact, as you have said, and in 1981 you see that Americans are not conserving, in fact, have adjusted again and are willing to pay the new higher price, then would you invoke rationing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are some constraints built into the energy package that don't presently exist. Americans have adjusted to the increase in the price of gasoline, but we still have an average efficiency of automobiles in the American fleet, which only gets 14 miles per gallon, and this is a gross waste of fuel.,Another thing that we have now, of course, is a much heavier dependence by industrial users on natural gas and oil than is necessary. Many of them can shift toward coal. When they do, this will relieve the pressure on scarce supplies of gas and oil.,We also, of course, will increase the overall price of oil further than it has been now. We don't pay the OPEC price in this country. Much of the oil that's presently known to exist, which had been discovered 'before the OPEC prices went into effect, now is sold at a price of $5.25, which is a very low and an artificially low price. The difference between this very low price and the world price will be increased in the form of taxes which would be refunded to the American public.,So, what we are doing in effect, to express it in general terms, is we are raising the price of fuel for everyone. We have an additional tax for those who deliberately waste fuel. We refund all these collected taxes, and they will be of great benefit to Americans or families who conserve fuel. And the overall impact will be to reduce consumption substantially below what it would have been. Just to give you one statistic, we would have been using imported oil at the rate of 16 million barrels per day by 1985. If this plan goes into effect, that 16 million barrels per day will be reduced to only 6 million barrels a day.,RAPID TRANSIT,Q. In your effort to reduce consumption of gasoline, however, the program seems to place very little emphasis on, if any emphasis, on rapid transit and mass transit. Why not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that this is a separate item that will be handled under the Transportation Department. We do intend to continue with our efforts toward rapid transit. It's not part of the energy package as such.,We have already embarked upon a massive rapid transit effort in this country. It will be continued and I think would perhaps be expedited.,We are now approaching the time of completion of many portions of the interstate highway system, and the pressures for that construction cost will lessen.,As I mentioned in my energy speech, though, we have one problem, and that is the maintenance of highways that are already constructed. As we reduce the consumption of gasoline, we'll have to make that up to States so they can continue an adequate maintenance program, because they'll sell less gas in those States and they'll collect less gas tax.,But we will not ignore the rapid transit systems, and I think there will be a substantial shift toward increasing use of the public transportation systems, rapid transit, as the price of the gas guzzler automobiles goes up and as the price of fuel goes up.,HYDROELECTRIC POWER,Q. Mr. President, in neither of your addresses this week did you place much emphasis on the question of capping the unexploited hydroelectric power sites in the country, and in your administration's fact sheet there was mention only of Army Engineer add-ons to existing projects. Do you have any plans for encouraging either the private utility companies or State power agencies where they exist to exploit these untapped hydroelectric sources where they are economically and environmentally feasible?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when they are economically and environmentally feasible, yes. But I think the fact is that in the historical development of our Nation the obviously beneficial sites where dams might be constructed and hydroelectric power might be derived have already been utilized or construction plans are well on the way. This now comprises about 4 percent of our Nation's energy supplies-hydroelectric power. I don't see any possibility of increasing that substantially as a percentage of our total use.,ENERGY TAX REVENUES,Q. Mr. President, a minute ago you said that all the money would be refunded in the form of direct tax payments, yet some of your advisers said that some of the refunds would be in the form of other payments. What percentage of the rebates would be used by you to pay the cost of federalizing the welfare program and other payments, rather than direct refunds?,THE PRESIDENT. We still have to have some flexibility about exactly what we do. I can't certify today that every nickel of the taxes collected will be refunded to consumers.,There will be, for instance, for those who use fuel to heat their homes--oil-at the time they pay their fuel bills, that increase in the price will be part of that settlement and they won't have to pay the higher price for fuel as it relates to home heating.,This is particularly important in the New England States. If we do refund, however, all the wellhead tax which goes on one step at a time for 3 years, this will bring in enough money to give a credit, a tax credit, by 1980 of about $188 per family. And as I said before, for each 5 cents that we add on to the gas tax if it is imposed, because of continued waste that will be about $100 per family; that's if all the tax is refunded to the family.,That's our present plan. But, of course, we'll have to work on that with the Congress in the months ahead.,Q. Can I ask a follow-up?,THE PRESIDENT. Please.,Q. As you developed this energy program, however, was it in your mind that a substantial portion of the additional tax revenues that would come in to the Government, by some estimates as .much as $70 billion a year by 1985, would be used for other domestic social welfare programs, the federalization of the welfare program, and other unemployment programs, a substantial portion to be used ultimately for those purposes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we considered a lot of options. Those that you mentioned were among the options that we did consider.,We also thought about the possibility of refunding part of the gasoline tax through the payroll deductions for social security. The judgment that was made just in the last few days was that it's better to keep the social security question separated from the energy tax.,But all those options have been considered, and I have described my present thinking about it now. But I don't know what I and the Congress will work out during the next 2 or 3 months ahead.,If a better option should arise, then this will be debated openly and we will make a judgment accordingly. My present inclination is to see that the gasoline taxes, to a substantial degree, and the fuel tax increases, to a substantial degree, are refunded directly to the people of the country in the form of tax credits.,ENERGY PROGRAM AND THE ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, can you explain to us just how you have had to reassess the economic impact of the energy plan, the impact on inflation and general economic recovery?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I can do that, I believe. We've run a series of computer model analyses to try to predict as 'accurately as we can what the impact of the overall package will be if it's passed without change. There are varying results. The variations are not very substantial.,There's a general consensus that there will be some inflationary impact. I think the inflation would come .along if we didn't have an energy package. But with the energy package intact, the inflationary impact would probably be less than one-half of one percent per year.,Secondly, as far as economic stimulus is concerned, will it hold down our increase in our gross national product or will it cost the American people jobs? The most conservative and unfavorable analysis shows that it will have no adverse impact. Some computer model studies show that it will actually increase the number of jobs several hundred thousand and have a beneficial effect on our economy.,So, to summarize, it will have some inflationary impact. It will definitely not have an adverse impact on jobs or economic growth. It might have some 'beneficial impact on jobs and economic growth.,Q. Mr. President, how can you possibly achieve your goal of coal conversion .by major utilities in areas like New York, for example, where the clean air standards already are not being met and where the utilities in these areas have indicated very strongly that they intend to fight any move to force them to install machinery like scrubbers, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. The requirement for installing scrubbers to provide for clean burning of coal will be applied uniformly throughout the country so far as I know. That is .a separate item that's now being addressed by the Congress.,In some areas where the air pollution is extremely bad--you've mentioned New York; there might 'be other places--then we will consider making exceptions and permit utilities to continue to use either perhaps oil instead of coal. But that would be a rare exception based only upon the proven need to maintain the present high level .of air pollution without any increase and hopefully over time to reduce it.,DEREGULATION OF NEW NATURAL GAS,Q. Mr. President, now that you have asked Congress to continue regulation of all natural gas except deep well gas and to extend the regulation to the intrastate market, would you concede that your campaign promise to the Governors of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, that you would work with Congress to deregulate natural gas or new natural gas has gone down the drain?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I think if you would read the statement that I made to the Congress the other night, I specifically said that I will continue to work with the Congress toward deregulation of newly discovered natural gas. What we have done so far--I think I went on to say when economic circumstances permit. What we have done so far is to set the newly discovered price of natural gas at the same price as its equivalent in energy of oil, which is the international price. So, this is a substantial move, and I believe that my campaign commitment which never put any tie limit is indeed intact.,Q. Does that mean that you foresee a recommendation to eventually take the cap off of gas; that is, as long as there is a cap on it, it would seem to be regulated? And I wondered if that might be the eventual thing?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that would still have to remain for future analysis. I believe that in the definitions that have been given at least by some of the natural gas producers, setting the natural gas prices at its equivalent in oil, is an adequate level of deregulation. Others, of course, want complete deregulation of oil and gas.,I don't think it's possible for us to do that in the immediate future. I think the adverse impact on consumers and on our economy would just be too severe. I can't answer the question any better trail I see what events bring in future months.,THE ENERGY PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, in your fireside chat on February 2 you said, and I quote, \"We will ask the private companies to sacrifice just as private citizens must do.\",We know what you are asking private citizens to do by way of curbing motorboats, recreation vehicle usage, curbing their freedom to use their automobiles. Would you please enumerate what the private energy companies, the oil companies, will be asked to sacrifice that they don't already have?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, there will be a move throughout the industrial world in our country away from oil and gas, toward coal. There will be a substantial additional tax placed on oil and gas that applies to industry that will not apply to the homeowners.,As far as the oil companies are concerned, there's a prohibition against their deriving additional income as they produce oil from the presently discovered supplies compared to what the world market price would bear. And this preempts that increase in the future by taxing the oil for the difference and returning the tax not to the oil companies, but to the American consumer.,As far as the consumers are concerned, those who conserve substantial amounts of energy will derive a substantial financial benefit. And I think that as we shift towards more efficient automobiles and as we shift toward lesser use of gas and heating oil for homes with better insulation, the cost to the consumer will be minimal, if any, and those who do conserve will derive substantial financial benefits.,ZAIRE,Q. Mr. President, are we going to transfer American battle tanks to Zaire? And if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. No. No decision has been made about that. The news stories that have come out recently about the possible sale of tanks to Zaire are a result of a study that was done a year or so ago before I became President.,This question has never come to my attention since I have been in office until this morning. I have made no decision about sending tanks to Zaire. And I think it's highly unlikely that I would advocate such a sale.,FORMER PRESIDENT FORD,Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Vice President Mondale that former President Ford's criticism of your anti-inflation package was unseemly and unfair?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen Vice President Mondale quoted on those lines. I think that the expression specifically that I heard Senator Mondale--Vice President Mondale make, was that I believe that President Ford said that had he been in office for 2 months, he would have had a SALT agreement.,Well, you know, the fraternity of Presidents and former Presidents is a very small one. I think there are only three of us. And historically in our country there's been a substantial effort by former Presidents to give support and counsel and advice and criticism in private whenever there was disagreement.,I don't feel threatened by President Ford's criticisms. I don't feel disturbed about his comparison between what he would have done, had he stayed in office, compared to what I have done. I am doing the best I can.,I have a good relationship with President Ford. And he has told me that his criticisms would be private and that his advice and counsel and help would always be available to me. So, I don't feel concerned about it. But I have to say that Vice President Mondale has a right to express his opinion.,Q. Do you feel that the former President has violated his promise by making his criticisms in public then?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't feel he has.,OIL COMPANY DIVESTITURE,Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you said that you favored legislation that would prohibit ownership of competing types of energy. You mentioned oil and gas--or oil and coal?,When the energy package came out, there was no mention of legislation. And many who look at the situation believe that you cannot accomplish horizontal divestiture without legislation. How do you think you can accomplish it based upon the lack of success by the Justice Department?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my position has been that unless I was personally assured that adequate competition existed under existing antitrust laws and revelation of financial information, that I would favor horizontal divestiture and divestiture on a vertical basis at the wholesale and retail levels of oil distribution.,The proposal that I made to the Congress the other night is, I think, a very strong and beneficial move to require the energy producers, the oil companies and others, to report to the public their profit and loss on each individual component of energy production: extraction from the ground, including exploration, refining, and distributing, and also break apart their domestic operations from their foreign operations.,I think when this information is analyzed, it will be almost instantly obvious that unfair competitive procedures are in effect within the energy-producing area, and the antitrust laws can take care of it.,If I ever feel convinced that there is still an absence of competition within the energy field after this proposal is put into effect, I would not hesitate to recommend divestiture.,MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE PRESIDENT,Q. Mr. President, we are having repeated opportunities, which we enjoy, to ask questions of you and the American people to hear from you. But is there a chance that there could be some overkill here with the American people and especially with Congress in terms of getting your program on energy through?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there may .be overkill in having too much access to the press. [Laughter],You know, attendance at the press conferences is voluntary---[laughter]--and I promised during the campaign that I would have these press conferences at least twice a month. And my own inclination, my commitment, is to continue them.,It's a coincidence that this week we have had such a heavy exposure, and it has caused me some concern. But this is my first and only speech to the joint session of the Congress. I think Jody Powell has suggested to the television networks, for instance, that only one network cover these press conferences. This is something we have never asked for. The only time I have ever requested television or network coverage was for my speech to the American people Monday night about the energy problem.,But I can't disagree with you. There is a danger of overexposure of me in my presentation to the news media and to the American people. But I think this is an extraordinary week and I doubt that it would be repeated in the future.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,Q. Mr. President, speaking just for myself, I like to have frequent press conferences although they are sometimes a little tiring.,THE PRESIDENT. I know. [Laughter],Q. But to take up another foreign policy question, your son Chip was on a trip to China, has come back. I think you sent a message with him and may have gotten a message back. I wonder if you could tell us about that communication, and, specifically, are you planning a trip to China or are they planning, any of their leaders, to come here in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. The nature of the message is one just of friendship ,and good will and a mutual agreement that it's in the best interests of the world and our own countries to increase communication, trade, and, ultimately, through compliance with the Shanghai agreement, to normalize relationships with China.,I don't anticipate any trips outside the country this year except my trip early next month to London. And I'll go to Geneva to meet with President Asad of Syria.,The Chinese Government have always taken the position that their leaders coming to our country would not be appropriate so long as there is an Ambassador here which represents the Republic of China on Taiwan. So, I think even from the first visits there of President Nixon and Kissinger, this has been the Chinese position. I would certainly welcome the Chinese leaders to come to Washington to meet with me as I would other leaders of nations, but I think I have described the situation now as best I can.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, you have 'had your attention taken away from one of the alternatives that you 'have been working on, the Middle East peace, recently. But I wonder if there has been any progress, movement, or additional flow going on privately during this time, if you could tell us about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, yes. I've continued my own study of the Middle Eastern question. As you know, I have met now with the Prime Minister of Israel and also with President Sadat of Egypt. Today I'll be meeting with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Khaddam of Syria. And early next month I'll meet with President Asad from Syria on a brief trip to Geneva. King Hussein will be here Sunday and Monday to meet with me. And I'm trying to learn as best I can the attitudes of the different nations that are involved in the Middle Eastern dispute and to try to at least observe and analyze some common ground on which a permanent settlement might be reached.,I think it's best until I meet with all these leaders to minimize my own statements on the subject. I have outlined as best I could some of the options concerning borders, Palestine, the Palestinian people, the definition of permanent peace---those are the three major issues. But now that the foreign leaders know my own suggestions, I am trying to get responses from them before I make further comments about it.,COSTS OF THE ENERGY PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, we, in getting ,briefed by Dr. Schlesinger, didn't get much in the way of costs as far as your energy package went, and some of these figures are kind of impressive that I have been hearing about.,Is it true that you are going to spend about $13 billion on the stockpile of strategic oil, and it looks like about $5 billion to $10 billion in credits for corporations, tax credits for corporations? I don't know how much for individuals. But what's the total overall package cost, either by year or 5 years?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll try to give you the total cost as best I understand it.,All the way up through 1985, the total net outlay from the Federal Government, as best we can determine it--and a lot of this is conjectural, but it's based on computer analysis--would be $4 billion. That's a cumulative figure. That's outlays compared to receipts or revenues.,But with that $4 billion, we would have purchased and placed in storage a billion barrels of oil for a reserve in case we have an embargo or an emergency need for extraction of that oil.,So, as you can well see, we'll have, at present prices, $13 1/2 billion of oil owned by the Government. The total outlay, including that purchase, would only be about $4 billion.,NATURAL GAS PRICES,Q. Mr. President, you said that you would like to see natural gas in the intrastate market regulated at $1.75. That would mean a rollback in natural gas prices in the intrastate market. Would you be willing to compromise at a higher price in exchange for going into the intrastate market?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that the figure is based on equating the natural gas price throughout the Nation with its equivalent cost for the same amount of energy in oil. And as that price of oil increases over a period of time, because of inflation or otherwise, then we hope that the natural gas price both within a State and transported across State lines will stay compatible with the price of oil.,ZAIRE,Q. Mr. President, you described-Senator Clark has described Zaire as a military dictatorship. How can you regard this as a defender of human rights?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never defined Zaire as a defender of human rights. I know that there are some problems in Zaire with human rights as there are here and in many other countries. But our friendship and aid historically for Zaire has not been predicated on their perfection in dealing with human rights. I think, as you know, our military aid for Zaire has been very modest.,We have observed some stabilizing of the situation in the southern part of Zaire lately, and I think our policy even in spite of the invasion from Angola by the Katanfans has been compatible with our past policies.,Q. Are you sure there are no Cubans in that group, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sorry?,Q. Cubans. We hear reports from King Hassan and General Mobutu that there are Cubans there.,THE PRESIDENT. Let me--I can't certify to this because we don't have observers all over the Shaba region. Our best information is that the Katangans have been trained within Angola by the Cubans. We have no direct evidence at all that there are Cubans within Zaire.,INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON ENERGY,Q. What will you seek to accomplish, Mr. President, when you go to London, in the energy field, and to what extent is cooperation among the major industrial countries in the West an important factor in the success of your own energy plan?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's accurate to say that we've now taken the leadership in moving toward a comprehensive energy policy for our Nation.,I would hope that the other nations around the world would do a similar thing. There are other aspects of the energy question, though, that must be addressed. One is atomic energy, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels, a move toward nonproliferation of atomic explosive capability. So, there will be a very complicated interrelationship involving trade.,I think to the extent that we do conserve in our own country it would make it easier for our European allies and for Japan to meet their own energy needs. We now sap so much extra oil from the international supplies that it makes it more difficult for them.,'I think this will, over a period of time, reduce the intense competition that's inevitable for dwindling supplies of oil in the face of increasing demand.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-04-15","text":"INFLATION,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, everybody. I have a brief opening statement, and then I'd be glad to answer questions.,More and more in the last few months, it's become obvious that inflationary pressures are building up. In the first 3 months of this year, the average Consumer Price Index increased to the annual rate in excess of 9 percent; the Wholesale Price Index increased during that period of time in excess of 10 percent, and we've seen a very encouraging increase in consumer confidence, retail sales, and other economic indicators.,I've tried to address, ever since I've been in office, the very difficult and pernicious problem of inflation. We've not been willing to control inflation by deliberately dampening the economy nor holding down employment. We've left intact, even after withdrawing the recommendation for a $50 tax rebate and the business tax credits, an economic stimulus package in excess of $20 billion designed almost entirely to provide jobs for the American people.,This morning I distributed to the press and to the public a list of things that we will do as an anti-inflation effort. It's comprehensive and it's as complete as we can possibly devise. We will be probing throughout the coming months and years for additional ways to control inflation. Our goal is to reduce the inflation rate by 2 percent by the end of 1979, which is a very difficult task to undertake.,I've become convinced that the Government by itself can't do it. We can take the lead. We can hold down unnecessary expenditures, work toward a balanced budget by the end of this administration. We can coordinate the many elements within Government that have detailed information. about specific inflationary pressures to try to nip them in the bud before they become apparent because of their severity. We can build up adequate agriculture reserves, deal with the widely fluctuating commodity prices, make sure that we have an international approach to worldwide inflation working with other industrialized countries, and make sure that Government policies, including unnecessary programs, the unnecessary regulations, enhance the competitive nature of the American economic system.,All these things will be done simultaneously. I think they directly address the roots of inflation and, at the same time, permit us to have expansion in our economy and a simultaneous reduction in unemployment. This is a commitment that I have, and I'm very grateful that the business and labor leaders have agreed to cooperate on a continuing and routine basis to try to address the basic causes of inflation.,I will now schedule monthly meetings with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Mr. Arthur Burns, and my own economic advisers to make sure that there is some maximum degree of coordination in addressing inflationary pressures.,I'd be glad to answer any questions that anyone might have.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS\nTHE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, in view of the Soviet reaction and your own reassessment so far, do you see any reason to change your SALT proposals? Also, do you see any validity in meeting with Secretary Brezhnev from time to time, starting this year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the Soviet response has been predictable. I've been somewhat concerned lately that they've decided to go public as much as they have. But I have to say that there is a very important distinction that ought to be drawn between private and determined and continuing negotiations which are being pursued on the one hand, and the education of the public, the presentation of issues to people in our own country, which has always been the case since I've been in office. And it's very encouraging to know that now Mr. Brezhnev and his other leaders, through Pravda, are explaining the Soviet position to the people of Russia.,So, I see nothing wrong with the Soviet leadership giving their arguments and their excuses for not agreeing immediately to our drastic cut proposals to the Soviet people, but I do feel encouraged about it.,As far as the--the other part of your question?,Q. I asked, did you see any reason to change your proposals and also, do you plan a summit meeting with Brezhnev, and will you be having them from time to time?,THE PRESIDENT. I see no reason to change our proposals. We had two, as you remember. 'One is to ratify the basic agreements of the Vladivostok discussions, and the other one is a much more drastic reduction in overall weapon capability. I see no reason to change those proposals.,I would welcome a chance to meet with General Secretary Brezhnev on a continuing basis, annually at least, and I hope that later on this year that he and I might meet in our own country. I think it's good, though, not to predicate each meeting with the belief that some dramatic conclusion might be reached or some dramatic agreement might be reached.,I hesitate and am reluctant to work under the pressure of having to come up with an agreement each time. I think it makes too much of an inclination for us to agree to things that might be counterproductive for our own Nation's benefit, just in order to have some publicity derived from the agreement itself.,ENERGY POLICY PROPOSALS,Q. Mr. President, can you offer any assurances that your energy program, coming in a few more days, won't, on balance, be inflationary?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The energy policy proposal which will be made next week will be inflationary in nature. There have been some news reports that it would contribute 2 or 3 percent to the rate of inflation. These reports are completely erroneous. We are going to try to come out with an energy policy package which will minimize the effect of inflation which we've already felt so severely.,As you know, there has been a 500 or 600 percent increase in the price of oil since 1972. And the price of energy, as it becomes scarcer and scarcer, is going to go up.,We hope to be able, within the energy policy that I present, to hold down the impact on inflation to less than 1/2 percent by emphasizing wherever possible voluntary conservation. A termination of unnecessary waste of energy is anti-inflationary in itself. The inevitable increases in the price of energy as it becomes scarce are inflationary. So, we're going to try to balance those two to minimize the impact on the inflation rate of any energy policy, or absence of energy policy. But I think it's accurate to say that there will be some adverse impact in the future because of energy prices.,ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE,Q. Mr. President, your withdrawal of the $50 tax rebate left a lot of Democrats in Congress who had supported the rebate even though they had reservations about it looking as, maybe, if they had a little political egg left on their faces. What do you offer them in the way of recompense; and, secondly, how would you feel if Congress should pass the Republican alternative, which is an across-the-board permanent tax cut now?,THE PRESIDENT. If the Congress should pass the Republican alternative, which is a permanent tax cut, I would veto it. I don't think the Congress is going to take that action, which would be irresponsible. It would mean that over a long period of time we would have an inability to have comprehensive tax reform, and it would be permanently inflationary in nature and is not necessary.,I think the recompense for the Democrats who have approved the economic stimulus package when it was evolved in Plains last year and who passed it with, I think, approximately a 2-to-1 majority in the House and passed it through the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Budget Committee--I think they can derive satisfaction out of knowing that we still have intact a stimulus package in excess of $20 billion designed to do two things: One is in stimulate the economy through job opportunities--public works jobs, public service jobs, training programs, anticyclical allotments to local governments.,The other part of it is the first step toward comprehensive income tax reform which will greatly simplify the income tax laws and tax returns for next year by increasing the personal exemption. That package is still beneficial and, because of improving economic indicators and increasing inflationary pressures, is adequate.,Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,ECONOMIC POLICY,Q. Mr. President, how would you distinguish your basic approach toward economic problems from that of the Ford administration? You are leaning, aren't you, in the conservative direction?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there is a sharp distinction. I would like to answer the question without criticizing the previous administrations, Mr. Ford or Nixon. I think their basic approach to controlling inflation was to deliberately dampen the economy and to accept in the process, again deliberately in my opinion, a very high, permanent unemployment rate. We've tried to address this in a completely different fashion by deliberately stimulating the economy with the $20 billion or $23 billion package still intact and also addressing directly the unemployment rate which has dropped now from about 8 percent, I think, in December, to about 7.3 percent and, at the same time, attacking the direct causes of inflation. I refuse to connect the two. I think that if you deliberately accept unemployment as a means to control inflation, that's wrong. And that's the basic distinction.,ILLEGAL ALIENS,Q. Mr. President, for many weeks now you had officials of your administration studying the problem of illegal aliens coming to this country from Mexico. Can you tell us when you will have a policy in place to deal with that and what its main features will be?,THE PRESIDENT. My guess is that I will have a message to present on the illegal or undocumented aliens probably within the next 2 weeks. I would rather get a specific date from the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor who have led this task force, but my understanding from them is that within the next couple of weeks they'll be ready for this recommendation. I can't tell you the features of it yet, not having approved the recommendations that they present to me.,FOOD PRICES,Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you about food prices. In your message, you referred to farmer-held food reserves to help stabilize consumer prices. To the housewives who are the shoppers of America, what encouragement can you give them as to a target date, as best you can?,THE PRESIDENT. The food prices in 1976 actually decreased about 1 percent, as you remember. Food prices in the first 3 months of this year have increased at an annual rate of about 19 percent; 19.3 percent, I believe. This is a matter that must be addressed in a comprehensive farm bill.,My own recommendations on basic farm price supports are much lower than many farmers desire. They are predicated on a commitment to make American food products competitive on an international market scale with similar products from other countries.,We've also tried to give in a new farm bill a proposal, which I think is adequate, to maintain farmers' income at a break-even point on individual crops. I've never wanted to guarantee farmers a profit. We've tried to assess the cost of production, and that's a recommendation.,The building up of adequate reserves of basic food supplies--wheat, soybeans, and so forth--to 'be held primarily by farmers themselves, is the best approach, I think, to the question. Almost chronically we have a shortage of soybeans. The American soybean production comprises about 85 percent of all soybeans traded in international circles. And of course, we have a dominant portion of the wheat traded on a worldwide basis coming from our country.,So, with adequate production, adequate storage when you have excessive production, and orderly marketing primarily controlled by farmers, I believe that we can remove the wild fluctuations that have been characteristic of farm prices in the past.,As you know, we had sugar almost a dollar a pound just a few months ago. Now it's down less than the cost of production, about 12 cents a pound. And I will try to pursue an international marketing agreement on sugar.,So, in many different ways, varying from one crop to another, we are trying to hold down the wild fluctuations in food prices. Almost invariably the prices go up after the farmers sell their crop; the consumers pay. When the prices go down to the farmer, they do not go down quite often in the marketplace. So, stability is good for the farmers and consumers.,ENERGY PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, there appear to be some different philosophies on two problems. In the field of energy, it's pretty clear your program is going to have mandatory incentives to force Americans to save fuel. Yet in this inflation program it is pretty clear that you leave it up to voluntarism on holding down wages and prices. Now, why do you think Americans need to be forced to save energy but will voluntarily shown restraint in the field of wage and price increases?,THE PRESIDENT. Because I'm still working on my energy policy and will spend the whole weekend in this pursuit and will make a major statement next week on energy policy, I don't want to get into details. But I believe that a predictable energy policy with tight constraints on waste of increasingly scarce energy sources is by far the least inflationary approach to the question.,With a lack of planning, a lack of comprehension of the problem, and a lack of effort to conserve scarce energy products, you are going to have a wildly escalating inflationary impact which we've experienced in the last 4 or 5 years.,So, I don't think the two questions are incompatible at all. When you have excessive regulation of an industry--say airlines--it's obviously inflationary. In almost every instance I believe the free competition in our enterprise system is superior. There comes a time when commodities like energy are extremely scarce, when there has to be perpetuated some Government controls. But in the energy package we will try to minimize those regulations and controls. But at the same time, I believe that our policy will be less inflationary than the absence of a policy, which we've experienced in the last number of years.,Mr. Donaldson [Sam Donaldson, ABC News].,Q. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm really asking whether you believe that Americans will voluntarily hold down their wages and prices, corporations and businesses. You seem to have nothing in your program that would make it mandatory for them to hold it down or even to jawbone them to hold it down. I was comparing that to what would appear to be a mandatory approach on energy.,THE PRESIDENT. My belief is that we will make a major stride forward in inducing business and labor voluntarily to work with us in Government in holding down the inflationary pressures. When there is an unpredictable Government policy or when there is a chronic inflation rate--6, 6 1/2 percent which we presently experience-when prices or wage increases are considered, there is always an inclination to go beyond the predictable inflationary pressure.,I believe the best approach to it is on a voluntary basis. But in the case of energy, in many instances mandatory Government regulations are necessary. I think there is a good and legitimate reason to distinguish between the two.\nMs. Berger [Marilyn Berger, NBC News].,SALT TALKS; MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN\nLEADERS,Q. Mr. President, another question on strategic arms limitations. At least on the public record, which is growing daily, there seems to be a total impasse between the United States and the Soviet Union on the solution to the problem.,Now, do you believe that a meeting between you and Mr. Brezhnev could help overcome that impasse. And more generally, you've been meeting with a lot of leaders. Do you feel that in meeting with foreign leaders you can help change their perception of what is actually in their national interests?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't ever expect to change a foreign leader's opinion if he thought it was contrary to his own national interests, no. I have found, though, in my meetings with a number of foreign leaders, already, to be very helpful to me in understanding their particular perspective in trying to find some common ground on which agreements can be reached.,The Middle East is one of the more notable examples of this. And by the end of May, I intend to have met with all the foreign leaders who will be involved in the Middle Eastern settlement, which we hope to see make progress this year.,I don't consider the SALT talks at this point to have reached an impasse. There are continual discussions going on through normal diplomatic channels. I think that when we reconvene the Secretary-of-State-level discussions in Geneva in just a few weeks, we will have made some basic progress. The 8 or 10 discussion groups that were agreed to jointly by Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Vance will be put into effect within the next 2 or 3 weeks, and a wide range of discussion of strategic arms limitations, the comprehensive test ban, commitment not to destroy one another's satellite observation posts, demilitarization of the Indian Ocean, and so forth, are going to proceed, I hope, with a moderate degree of hope for success. No one can guarantee success, but I'll be doing the best I can, and I'm sure Mr. Brezhnev will also, to find that common ground that will leave our national interest and the Soviet's national interest intact.,MILK PRICE SUPPORTS,Q. Mr. President, you say your anti-inflation program will require hard choices by you. How do you reconcile that with your recent approval of higher milk subsidies that will raise the price of milk by an estimated 6 cents a gallon and also raise the price of other dairy products?,THE PRESIDENT. Milk is a special case. Within the last few months the market price of milk has dropped 9 percent. Feed for dairy cows has more than doubled. And the profit margin of dairy farmers was precariously imbalanced even before these changes took place. Other farm price supports, as you know, have been held down, by my administration's recommendations, lower than milk.,I might point out also that the approximately 9-percent increase in the price of milk was much lower than dairy interests requested and demanded. But there was an extraordinary circumstance surrounding milk which caused the Secretary of Agriculture to make that decision, which I think was proper.,THE ENERGY CRISIS,Q. Mr. President, the latest public opinion poll suggests that a majority of the people still don't think there is an energy crisis. What do you think it's going to take to jar their consciousness, and are you planning a massive public information program beyond the two speeches you'll be giving next week?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm going to do all I can in addition to the two speeches next week to convince the American people of the truth. The CIA has just completed this week a long and detailed analysis of international oil supplies, natural gas supplies. Their findings are quite disturbing. Reserve estimates that had been used as a basis for decisions in the past were found to be quite excessive. Reserves are not as great as we thought they were.,If I can simply convince the American people of the truth, using whatever means that I have at my command, that is the commitment that I have. And I believe that when they see the truth, they'll cooperate in trying to cut down the waste of energy.,UNEMPLOYMENT; TAX REBATE,Q. Mr. President, on the tax rebate, last week you sent a letter to the Senate in which you said the rebate itself would produce 250,000 jobs. Even with the remaining elements of your stimulus package and even with the upturn in the economy, won't your decision yesterday cost most of those jobs, and does it in any sense represent a trimming back of your ultimate goal on unemployment?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't believe so. At the time we decided on the $50 tax rebate, I and the congressional leaders, of course, jointly--we were experiencing about an 8-percent unemployment rate. That's now dropped down to 7.3 percent, which is much too high.,At the same time, we had a very sluggish or dormant economy growing at an annual rate of only 3.2 percent. That's now almost doubled its rate of growth.,My own economic advisers, who will be answering questions from the news media in about 15 minutes after I go off of this podium, have estimated that for the next 3 or 4 months these favorable economic indicators on growth will continue.,Another very important factor is that back in December we thought that we might get the economic stimulus apart from the $50 rebate in the mail to Americans in April. And we depended on the public works jobs programs and so forth to come along later this year to maintain the stimulus impetus. Obviously, now it's not possible to get those checks in the mail, even if everybody was unanimously in favor of it, until June or July.,So, because of those factors we changed our plans. But I believe that we will have now an adequate stimulus package for job improvements, and the increase in consumer confidence and consumer purchases that we hope to bring about with the $50 tax rebate has simply already occurred. And it is not necessary any more.,Q. Mr. President, yesterday when you dropped the $50 tax rebate, you suggested that one of the reasons was increased inflationary pressure over last November or December when it was first proposed. I'd like to ask now, if the Senate had acted quickly, and as quickly as the House did, and passed the $50 rebates, would we now be in the clutches of runaway inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think and have never thought that the $50 tax rebate would have any significant impact on inflation. I deliberately did not tie the $50 tax rebate withdrawal to the anti-inflation proposals that I made today. I don't think it would have. We still have about, I'd say, a 15- to 20-percent unused capacity in our industrial production. And, of course, the unemployment rate is still above 7 percent, which is very severe. But under those circumstances, I simply don't think that you can say that a reason for withdrawing the $50 tax rebate was to hold down inflation. The reason was that it is simply not needed.,HARKIN AMENDMENT,Q. Mr. President, the House, as you know, just recently passed the Harkin amendment to the International Lending Institutions Act of 1977---,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I know.,Q.---which stipulates that the United States representative must vote no to countries who violate--loans to countries who violate human rights. Did the administration actively support---or why didn't the administration actively support this amendment?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Harkin amendment is a mistake. The Reuss amendment 'and the Senator Humphrey amendment, which are the same, provide me with an adequate authority to deal with the question of human rights as it relates to international and regional lending institutions. To have a frozen mandatory prohibition against our Nation voting for any loan simply removes my ability to bargain with a foreign leader whom we think might be willing to ease off on the deprivation of human rights. But when the requirement is frozen into law, there is simply no reason for a foreign leader to try to comply.,I think we need to have the flexibility that we proposed. My heart is with the Harkin amendment because I want to do everything I can to assure a maximum amount of human rights commitment around the world. But I think that to give us the authority within the lending institutions to use our best judgment and to negotiate for an easing off of human rights restraints before a loan is made is the best approach to it.\nThank you very much.,BUSINESS INVESTMENT PLANS,Q. Mr. President, the Nation's businessmen remain reluctant to invest partly, they say, because of its uncertainty, and now you've added the uncertainty of what Government policy is by an abrupt change on the rebate and removed the business tax incentive. What can be done to get businessmen to go ahead and expand their production, which would create more jobs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, another economic indicator that I did not mention earlier is the business investment plan, which is up 11 percent above last year. I think it's accurate to say that early this week, when I was deciding on the $50 tax rebate, that every economic indicator was favorable except the stock market prices, and I think that's improving this week.,So, this means that the business investment plans, in my opinion, will not be adversely affected by the withdrawal of the $50 tax rebate proposal.,TAX REBATE PROPOSAL,Q. Mr. President, what do you say to the family of four that had counted on, indeed may have already borrowed against, the $200 rebate that you had promised them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's a hard question to answer, and it's obviously the most difficult part of the decision about withdrawing the $50 tax rebate. I think, though, that the resurgence of the economy, which had already been brought about by improved attitudes and increased spending, just had to be balanced against the direct benefit to a family of the $50 tax rebate.,We will leave intact the increased personal exemption, which will help people on their income tax returns. And had we been able to get immediate action on the $50 rebate and let it be in the mail, say, this month, in April, which we first thought, I would have gone ahead with it. It was a close call primarily because of that factor, but you just have to make a judgment, and I believe my judgment was proper.,WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us why you feel determined to cut back several of the waterway projects which you say are undesirable. In particular, could you tell us why you would like to stop the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway, which is the favorite of some of your friends in the deep South?,THE PRESIDENT. I finished my work on the waterway projects today, and my staff is now preparing an analysis to present to the public on my decisions, the reasons for my decisions. This weekend we'll be notifying the affected Governors and Members of Congress, other leaders, about the decisions, and I would guess quite early next week, perhaps Monday, we'll make a list of my decisions public.,We've tried to do this in a very careful and methodical way. Combined with it, we will publish and adhere to a very strict list of criteria in the future for approval of projects.,We had many factors involved, but I think you'll be well pleased when we make our list public after the weekend is over.,WHITE HOUSE STAFF,Q. Mr. President, in your fireside chat you said you would reduce the size of the White House staff by nearly one-third, but several days ago one of your aides said actually the size of the White House staff has grown and he said it would be impossible to reach this goal of a reduction of about 30 percent. What goal have you set now for reducing the staff, and what's your deadline for meeting it?,THE PRESIDENT. The reason for the apparent increase, or the actual increase in the size of the White House staff right now is primarily--it's temporary. We've been getting--last week I think I got 87,000 letters. The normal number of letters that Mr. Ford got was about 15,000 to 20,000 letters a week.,And it just takes more people to come in, I believe on a temporary basis, to manage this enormous influx of mail. We can't leave those letters unanswered.,At one time, after about a month when I was in office, I had 315,000 letters that hadn't been opened or answered. We are current now. We're only running 3 or 4 days behind.,It's taken extra people to do it. We've gotten an equivalent increase in the number of telephone calls. We get 20,000 or 30,000 telephone calls per day. It really puts a tremendous pressure on us to deal with this unpredictable interest in our administration by people around the country.,I don't want to discourage people from staying in touch with me, but it has taken a lot of struggle to do that. I think in our regular staffing, when we--in this surge which will be within the next 3 or 4 weeks--we will make public the staffing levels, and we will still have the same goals in mind.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-03-24","text":"VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY; SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT TO THE SOVIET UNION\nTHE PRESIDENT. I have a brief opening statement to make about the function of the Presidency and about the Secretary of State's upcoming visit to the Soviet Union.,I think one of the most impressive observations that I have understood so far about the Presidency and what it stands for is the need to derive its strength directly from the people. There have been some expressions of concern about my bringing on these news conferences and in other ways, issues that affect foreign policy directly to the people of our country.,I think it is very important that the strength of the Presidency itself be recognized as deriving from the people of this Nation, and I think it is good for us, even in very complex matters when the outcome of negotiations might still be in doubt, to let the Members of Congress and the people of this country know what is going on and some of the options to be pursued, some of the consequences of success, some of the consequences of failure.,I think in many areas of the world now we are trying to invest a great deal of time and attention and the good offices of our country to bring about a resolution of differences and to prevent potential conflict.,Tomorrow, the Secretary of State will depart for the Soviet Union. We have spent weeks in detailed study about the agenda that has been prepared. This agenda is one that's been derived by the Soviet Union and by our own country. I would say the central focal point will be arms limitations and actual reductions for a change.,I have had long discussions with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with other members of my own Cabinet to derive our potential proposals, which Cy Vance will put forward to Mr. Brezhnev and the Russian leaders.,We will be talking about the limitation on arms sales. We are now the number one exporter or salesman of arms of all kinds. We have been working with our own allies to cut down this traffic, and we hope to get the Soviet Union to agree with us on constraint.,We'll be dealing with mutual and balanced force reductions in the NATO area and, on this trip, Cy Vance will make a report on the attitude of the Soviet Union leaders concerning the European theater.,We'll be trying to control the testing of nuclear devices, both weapons and peaceful nuclear devices, and we would like to eliminate these tests altogether if the Soviets will agree.,We are going to try to move toward demilitarizing the Indian Ocean and, here again, we'll be consulting closely with our allies and friends. And we are going to express our concern about the future of Africa and ask the Soviet Union to join with us in removing from that troubled continent, outside interference which might contribute to warfare in the countries involved. And we will start laying the groundwork for cooperation with the Soviet Union at the Geneva Conference which we hope will take place, concerning the Middle East.,These matters are extremely complex. We don't know whether or not we will be successful at all, but we go in good faith with high hopes. The Soviets have been very cooperative up to this point, and we are pleased with their attitude. And I know that the prayers of the American people will go with Cy Vance, our Secretary of State, to the Soviet Union, in hopes that this trip might result in the alleviation of tension and the further guaranteeing of peace for our world in the future.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, the pace of inflation has been picking up a bit. And at least temporarily, both the consumer and wholesale price indices, annualized, are in double-digit range. How do you see the outlook for inflation, and how are you coming in fashioning a comprehensive program to deal with it?,THE PRESIDENT. There is an underlying inflation rate of 5 to 6 percent, which is generally derived from the rate of increase in wages minus the productivity of workers. It is one of the best measurements.,I think that the monthly reports that come in, quite often, are very misleading. They are transient in nature. We've had a drastic increase in energy costs during this winter period because of the unprecedented severity of the weather. And we have also had a very high increase in the cost of many food items, again because of damage to crops in different regions of the country, and because of coffee losses overseas.,My own guess is that the inflationary pressures will continue at about the level that they have historically in the last couple of years, around 6 or a little bit better percent. We are now preparing a very strong anti-inflation package which will be delivered to the Congress and to the American people within the next couple of weeks. We have been working on it since even before I was inaugurated.,We have begun to exercise constraint on some of the spending policies of our own administration, and we also are beginning to assess the impact of many decisions made by Government and the public that contribute to the inflationary pressures which quite often are not obvious.,And I hope to both learn myself and to let the Congress and the American people learn, in the process, how we can control inflation.,I think the economic stimulus package that we have can boost the increase in our national product up to around 5 percent or a little better, which is crucial to cutting down the unemployment rate. It will not be, in my opinion, a major factor in inflation. But on a long-range basis, I intend to help control inflation.,I intend to cut down the expenditure of Government programs well enough to bring about a balanced budget by 1981. I am deeply committed to this goal. And I believe that we will have unveiled, for the Nation to assess, a comprehensive package against inflation within the next 2 weeks.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, in terms of bringing the American people in on the dialog, you spoke of arms reduction. Does that mean that Vance will take a new set of proposals on SALT? And two, you spoke of the cooperative attitude of the Soviets. Does that mean that you don't think that any of Brezhnev's statements in the past week will have any bearing in terms of your human rights stand on the SALT negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the first question is easily answered. Yes, we will take new proposals to the Soviet Union. We are not abandoning the agreements made in the Vladivostok agreement. As you know, all previous SALT agreements have been, in effect, limitations that were so high that they were, in effect, just ground rules for intensified competition and a continued massive arms growth in nuclear weapons.,We hope to bring not only limitations for--to continue in the past, but also actual substantial reduction that the Soviets will agree. That will be our first proposal. I spelled this out briefly in my United Nations speech.,And the second fall-back position will be, in effect, to ratify Vladivostok and to wait until later to solve some of the most difficult and contentious issues. We hope that the Soviets will agree to the substantial reduction.,The other part of your question was, what, Helen?,Q. It was in the question of this new-this cooperative attitude.,THE PRESIDENT. About Brezhnev's attitude?,Q. Right.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I study Mr. Brezhnev's speeches in their entirety. And I think the speech made this past week to their General Trade Union Conference and one made previously at Tula--I consider them to be very constructive.,There was a delineation in his speech between human rights--which he equates with intrusion into their own internal affairs, and I don't agree with that assessment-that has been divided in his speeches from the subject of peace and arms limitation, including nuclear arms. So, I have nothing that I have heard directly or indirectly from Mr. Brezhnev that would indicate that he is not very eager to see substantial progress made in arms limitations.,U.S. NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, in your opening statement you said you thought it was a good thing for you to speak out on negotiation details, but you didn't say why. As I understand the criticism, sir, it is that it impedes negotiations when you put out on the table, just in a range of thought, things that the parties haven't privately been able to work out. Why do you think it does not impede negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think if anyone would analyze the details of the statements that I have made so far, they are not so narrowly defined or specific that they would prevent both parties to a dispute from negotiating in good faith with a fairly clean slate ahead of them. The Middle East is one example.,I think, in many instances, the propositions that I have promulgated publicly are generally conceded to be very important and legitimate, but the public expression of those matters has not been made to the American people over a period of years.,The exact means of defining borders in the Middle East, the exact resolution of the Palestinian problem, the definition of permanent peace--all these things obviously have to be decided between the Arab countries and Israel. But to point out that they are matters in dispute and that we hope they will 'be solved this year, I think is constructive.,We have not intruded ourselves against the wishes of the interested nations in the eastern Mediterranean. Both Turkey and Greece welcomed our emissary, and I think we can be a good mediator to the extent that both parties trust us to act in good faith.,The same thing applies in southern Africa and the same thing applies to the MIA mission to Vietnam and Laos. And I believe that it is very important for the American people to know the framework within which discussions might take place and to give me, through their own approval, strength, as a party to some of the resolutions of disputes and, also, to make sure that when I do speak, I don't speak with a hollow voice, but that the rest of the world knows that on my stand, for instance, on human rights, that I am not just speaking as a lonely voice, but that I am strongly supported by the Congress and the people of the country.,This week the Congress passed almost unanimously--I think with only two dissenting votes in 'both Houses--a strong confirmation that my own stand expressed on human rights is indeed the stand of the American people. It's an unswerving commitment. It's one that will not be changing in the future. And I think for the rest of the world to know this and for the American people to participate in that expression of concern about human rights is a very constructive thing.,VIETNAM,Q. Mr. President, you said that when you received the report from the Woodcock Commission that every hope you had for their mission had been realized.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is true.,Q. That report suggested that the best way to get an actual accounting of those still missing in Southeast Asia is for the normalization of relations; yet, your position in the past has been that there must be an accounting first before relations can be normalized. Have you changed your position, and what hope does that give for the families?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't changed my position. I have always taken the position that when I am convinced that the Vietnamese have done their best to account for the service personnel who are missing in action, at that point, I would favor normalization, the admission of Vietnam into the United Nations, and the resumption of trade and other relationships with the Vietnamese.,I believe that the response of the Vietnamese leaders to the Woodcock Commission was very favorable. They not only gave us the bodies of 11 American servicemen, but they also promised to set up a Vietnamese bureaucracy to receive the information that we have had about the date and the place that we think service people were lost and to pursue those investigations.,I think this is about all they can do. I don't have any way to prove that they have accounted for all those about whom they have information. But I think, so far as I can discern, they have acted in good faith.,They have also suggested, and we have agreed, that we go to Paris to negotiate further without any preconditions. In the past, the Vietnamese have said that they would not negotiate with us nor give us additional information about the MIA's until we had agreed to pay reparations. They did not bring this up, which I thought was an act of reticence on their part.,They had claimed, previously, that President Nixon had agreed to pay large sums of money to Vietnam because of damage done to their country. Our position had been, whether or not that agreement had been made, that the Vietnamese had violated that agreement by intruding beyond the demilitarized zone during the war.,But they told Mr. Woodcock and sent word to me: We are not going to pursue past agreements and past disagreements. We are eager to look to the future. And I am also eager to look to the future.,If we are convinced, as a result of the Paris negotiations and other actions on the part of the Vietnamese, that they are acting in good faith, that they are trying to help us account for our VIA's, then I would aggressively move to admit Vietnam to the United Nations and, also, to normalize relationships with them.,Q. As to the second part of my question, what about the families of the 2,500 people who have still not been accounted for, or remains have not been returned?,THE PRESIDENT. I have nothing but sympathy for the families involved, and I can assure them through this news conference presentation, that we will never cease attempting to account for those 2,500 American servicemen who were lost.,I might point out that at the conclusion of the Korean war and the Second World War, of those that were lost in action, we only accounted for--I think we still did not account for 22 percent. At the conclusion of the Vietnam war, my understanding is that we had accounted for all except about 4 percent.,I can't certify that we have all the information available, and we are never going to rest until we pursue information about those who are missing in action to the final conclusion. But I will do the best I can. But I don't want to mislead anybody by giving hope about discovery of some additional information when I don't believe that the hope is justified.,WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS,Q. Mr. President, in the criticism of your water project hit list, so-called, which now totals about 30 projects, I believe, there has been a suggestion that some kind of an environmental clique has produced that list but there has been no actual review or consultation by some of the line agencies--Interior. Specifically, there has been a suggestion that Secretary Andrus has not been involved in the final consultations of the review. This, after some years of review, went into the production of those projects themselves. Could you respond to that kind of criticism, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.,The so-called hit list is a list of projects that will be meticulously reviewed in public hearings, where Members of Congress, Chambers of Commerce, Governors, farmers, environmentalists, and others who are concerned about each individual project can participate.,All of the projects that have been recommended for reassessment have been carefully reviewed by Secretary Andrus in every one of those that relate to the Interior Department, the Bureau of Reclamation, and by the Corps of Engineers, those that are being proposed for construction by the Corps of Engineers. In effect, the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior have had a veto over projects that would be reassessed, with only two exceptions--one exception in Arkansas, one exception in Georgia-which I personally asked that they be reassessed when the corps did not agree.,But these projects need to be looked at very closely. I personally don't believe that any of the projects ought to be built, but I will keep an open mind until after the complete review process is concluded and will then make my own decision as far as the President's position is concerned. But I can assure you that the Corps of Engineers and Interior Department have been intimately involved in the preparation of the list and the reassessment of the list. It's a preliminary screening. Public hearings will conclude for me what my own position would be.\nEd Bradley [CBS News].,VIETNAM,Q. Mr. President, on the subject of Vietnam, if you feel the United States is not obligated to uphold the terms of the Paris Peace Accords because of the North Vietnamese offensive that overthrew the South Vietnamese Government, do you feel, on the other hand, any moral obligation to help rebuild that country?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't say what my position would be now on future economic relationships with Vietnam. I think that could only be concluded after we continue with negotiations to see what their attitude might be toward us.,My own natural inclination is to have normal diplomatic relationships with. all countries in the world. Sometimes there are obstacles. I believe there are now 14 nations with whom we do not have diplomatic relationships. I don't know what the motivations of the Vietnamese might be. I think part of the motivation might be to be treated along with other nations in economic assistance from our country, and in trade, and development of their fairly substantial natural resources, including oil.,Other considerations might be political in nature. They might very well want to balance their friendship with us with their friendship with the Soviet Union and not be completely dependent upon the Soviet Union. That is just a ,guess on my part. But I am willing to negotiate in good faith. But as far as describing what our economic relationship might be with Vietnam in the future after the relationships are established, I just couldn't do that now.,Q. Mr. President, with that understanding and your hesitancy to disclose a position before negotiations are started.---,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have a position.,Q.---beyond that, do you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is forthcoming?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the destruction was mutual. You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability.,Now, I am willing to face the future without reference to the past. And that is what the Vietnamese leaders have proposed. And if, in normalization of relationships, there evolves trade, normal aid processes, then I would respond well. But I don't feel that we owe a debt, nor that we should be forced to pay reparations at all.,THIRD WORLD DEBT,Q. Mr. President, yesterday several Congressmen accused your economic policies as being dictated by New York 'banks. Now, your plans for bailing out New York through using the IMF with a hyper-inflationary process indeed does sound like a recent speech that David Rockefeller made in which he called for hyper-inflating the advanced sector and imposing so-called demand economies on the Third World, which means massive austerity.,Now, at the same time, over recent weeks a number of our NATO allies---,THE PRESIDENT. What is your question?,Q. My question is, over recent weeks a number of our NATO allies have indicated that they would rather see the problem of Third World debt resolved through a debt moratorium. And I am just wondering if there is any chance that you'd go along with our allies in that direction, or if you would insist on this kind of by per-inflationary bailing out?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have had no entreaties from David Rockefeller concerning the New York problem, nor have I had any of our allies that have called on me to join them in a debt moratorium. I am not in favor of a debt moratorium.,ZAIRE,Q. Mr. President, would you mind telling us what our commitments are in Zaire and what the ramifications of those commitments might be to us?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no outstanding commitments in Zaire. Over a period of years, President Mobutu has been a friend of ours. We've enjoyed good relationships with Zaire. We have substantial commercial investments in that country.,After the recent, very disruptive conflict within Zaire when the country was finally formed--a number of years ago-it has been fairly stable since then. Zaire was involved, I think at least indirectly, in the Angolan conflict, and there are some remaining hard feelings between Angola and Zaire on that part. Some of the Katangans who lived in the southern part of Zaire are now involved in trying to go back into the area where they formerly lived.,We have no hard evidence or any evidence, as far as that goes, that the Cubans or Angolan troops have crossed the border into Zaire. We look on them as a friendly nation, and we have no obligations to them as far as military aid goes. But we have been cooperating in exchanging information with the Belgian Government, the French Government, and others, just to try to stabilize the situation and to lessen the chance of expanding the conflict.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. president, I don't ask this question in a churlish way or an argumentative way---,THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure you don't. [Laughter],Q.---but taking--recalling the unwillingness of the United States to intervene at the time of the Hungarian uprising or at the time of Dubcek's ouster in Czechoslovakia, what do you really think that you can accomplish for political dissidents in the Soviet Union, not in other parts of the world, but in the Soviet Union? And I have a follow-up I would like to ask.,THE PRESIDENT. Why don't you ask your follow-up now and I will try to answer.,Q. My follow-up is this: You are saying that all of the evidence that you have from Mr. Brezhnev is that he is willing to go forward or he is receptive to SALT II negotiations.,Mr. Brezhnev said before the Labor Congress that normal relations would be impossible--\"unthinkable\" was his word--if your human rights campaign continued.,You have referred to private communications with Mr. Brezhnev, and I would like to know in the follow-up question, whether he has given you any assurances in those private communications that he is indeed willing to go forward on SALT II?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is not just a matter of private conversations. We are not trying to overthrow the Soviet Government nor to intrude ourselves into their affairs in a military way.,I think it has been a well-recognized international political principle that interference in a government is not a verbal thing. There is an ideological struggle that has been in progress for decades between the Communist nations on the one hand and the democratic nations on the other.,Mr. Brezhnev and his predecessors have never refrained from expressing their view when they disagreed with some aspect of social or political life in the free world. And I think we have a right to speak out openly when we have a concern about human rights wherever those abuses occur.,I think that Mr. Brezhnev has not said that he is concerned about my campaign on human rights. What he said is that he objects to any intrusion into the internal affairs of the Soviet Union.,Now, I have tried to be reticent about it. I have tried to let my own position be clear in the speech at the United Nations and in my other actions. I have tried to make sure that the world knows that we are not singling out the Soviet Union for abuse or criticism.,We are trying to move in our own country to open travel opportunities and to correct civil rights abuses and other abuses in our country. So, I don't think this is a matter that is connected with the search for peace through the SALT negotiations, for instance.,The very fact that Mr. Brezhnev and his associates have welcomed Secretary Vance to the Soviet Union and have helped us prepare a very comprehensive agenda is adequate proof that he has not broken off relationships in any way, and that he has hopes that the talks will be productive.,My belief is that he is acting in good faith. We are not going to negotiate in such a way that we leave ourselves vulnerable. But if the Soviet Union is willing to meet us halfway in searching for peace and disarmament, we will meet them halfway.,I think that this is a good indication that they are acting in good faith. If we are disappointed, which is a possibility, then we'll try to modify our stance.,Yes, Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,ORGANIZED CRIME,Q. On a subject on which I don't believe you have been questioned before, have you asked the Justice Department to finally come up with a national strategy for fighting organized crime?,THE PRESIDENT. I have discussed this with Attorney General Bell, and he has not yet evolved to present to me a comprehensive approach to the organized crime question. But I'd have to give you an answer to that after the press conference.1 I don't know what the status of his effort is, Mr. Sperling.,1 Later in the day, the White House Press Office issued the following statement:,At his news conference, the President said he assigned a high priority on fighting organized crime and promised to elaborate on his position after he had a chance to review the status of this effort with Attorney General Bell.,The President is informed by the Attorney General that Peter Flaherty, whose nomination to be Deputy Attorney General advanced in the Senate today, will have overall supervision over Justice Department efforts in fighting crime. To this end, Flaherty will bear the prime responsibility for the activities of the Criminal Division of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.,Both the President and the Attorney General endorse the principle of concentrating Federal law enforcement efforts on attacking large, organized crime operations, instead of focusing on minor offenders. They are particularly concerned about curtailing the activities of large-scale narcotics traffickers. In this connection, a study is underway on the advisability of making the Drug Enforcement Administration part of the FBI as a means of stepping up the fight against narcotics.,They believe these efforts must take place with the close involvement of local and State law enforcement agencies, since this is where most of the resources for fighting crime are located. The administration looks in this regard toward a national program in which all levels of government would cooperate to produce the maximum reduction of crime.,The administration also places a high priority on fighting white-collar crime. To promote this effort, programs will shortly begin within the FBI to train and recruit more accountants, computer specialists, and other experts, so as to increase the FBI's effectiveness in uncovering and successfully helping to prosecute intricate fraud, financial manipulations, and other white-collar crime.,The Attorney General will report to the President as aspects of his anti-crime program are developed.,Q. Let's put it this way: How high a priority would you be giving to the fighting of organized crime?,THE PRESIDENT. I think quite high. When I was Governor, we organized a substantial effort to fight organized crime. And we detected the interrelationship between gambling, which a lot of people assume is just a normal part of life, prostitution, which some people think is not too bad, the distribution of drugs, which is condemned by almost everyone, and other forms of illegalities. And the upshot of our analysis was that they are very closely interrelated.,Profits from gambling, profits from prostitution and other more acceptable kinds of crime, in some people's minds, are directly used to enhance the distribution of heroin and other drugs. So, I think it is a very serious problem. It is one that we ought to address from a national level. And one of the crucial elements that can be improved is to have local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies cooperate in a much more effective fashion in exchange of ideas and information and, also, in the prosecution of criminals.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-03-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I have two brief statements to make, and then I'll be glad to answer questions.,YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS,I've sent to Congress this morning, a youth employment package which will consist of about $1/2 billion, part of the economic stimulus package.,I've been particularly concerned in my own campaign trips around the country the last 2 years with the extraordinarily high unemployment rate among young people. More than half the total unemployed are less than 24 years old. And among those, say, from 16 to 19 years old, we have over 18-percent unemployment, and in some of the minority groups in urban areas more than 40 percent.,So, we're going to try a heavy concentration of effort in several of the major departments of Government to cut down unemployment among our young people. We have, for instance, a Youth Conservation Corps similar to what we had during the Depression years known as a Civilian Conservation Corps, the CCC. This will be administered by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior in the open spaces of our country.,We'll have a Youth Community Conservation Corps in the urban areas and a heavy emphasis on training for young people leading to employment. Including existing programs, this will be about a million jobs on a permanent basis plus another million jobs during the summer.,I hope that the Congress will act quickly on this proposal. I might say that many of the Members of Congress have been equally concerned and have done a great deal of work on this subject even before I became President.,FOREIGN TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS,The other item that I'd like to mention is one that's already been reported to some degree. I have long been concerned about our own Nation's stance in prohibiting American citizens to travel to foreign countries. We also are quite eagerly assessing our own Nation's policies that violate human rights as defined by the Helsinki agreement.,Later on this year we'll go to Belgrade to assess the component parts of the Helsinki agreement. And I want to be sure that we don't violate those rights. So I've instructed the Secretary of State to remove any travel restrictions on American citizens who want to go to Vietnam, to North Korea, to Cuba, and to Cambodia. And these restrictions will be lifted as of the 18th day of March.,I would like to point out that we still don't have diplomatic relationships with these countries. That's a doubtful prospect at this time. So, there will be some necessary precautions that ought to be taken by citizens who go there, since we don't have our own diplomats in those countries to protect them if they should have difficulty.,I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS\nHUMAN RIGHTS AND CHILE,Q. Mr. President, an American delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission has said that he believes and he hopes that his allegations concerning terror, suffering in Chile today, coincide with your human rights policy. Do they?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know which delegate this is or what his concerns are. But we are still concerned about deprivation of human rights in many of the countries of the world. I think Chile would be one of those where concern has been expressed. And I want to be sure that the American people understand that this is a very sensitive issue.,We've tried to be broad-based in our expression of concern and, also, responsible. At first, our policy was interpreted, I think, improperly, to deal exclusively with the Soviet Union.,I've just pointed out how our own country has been at fault in some instances. Torture has been reported to us from some of the nations of the world. We are presenting these items to the Congress as required by law. But throughout the entire world, in Latin America, in our own country, in the Communist nations in Eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union, we are very much aware of the concern about human rights.,I think it's entirely appropriate for our own country to take the leadership role and let the world say that the focal point for the preservation and protection of human rights is in the United States of America. I'm proud of this. And I intend to adhere to it with the deepest possible personal commitment, and I believe I speak accurately for the American people on this subject.,Q. Well, then, does that mean, Mr. President, that you don't object to the remarks that were made by our delegate?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the remarks made by the delegate concerning our past involvement in 'Chilean political affairs was inappropriate. I didn't know about it ahead of time. It was a personal expression of opinion by that delegate.,I think that the Church committee in the Senate has not found any evidence that the United States was involved in the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile. There were some allegations made, I think, perhaps accurate, that we did have financial aid and other--I think financial aid to be restrictive--to political elements in Chile that may have contributed to the change in government. But I don't think there has been any proof of illegalities there. And the statements made by our delegate were his own personal statements, not representing our Government's.,YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS,Q. Mr. President, I gather the youth employment program you just announced is in addition to your economic stimulus program. And I wondered how much money this adds to the deficit in the 2 upcoming fiscal years?,THE PRESIDENT. No, this is within the overall economic stimulus package already presented to the Congress.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about defensible borders lately and what that means in regard to the Middle East. Could I ask you, sir, do you feel that it would be appropriate in a Middle East peace settlement for the Israelis to keep some of the occupied land they took during the 1967 war in order to have secure borders?,THE PRESIDENT. The defensible border phrase, the secure borders phrase, obviously, are just semantics. I think it's a relatively significant development in the description of possible settlement in the Middle East to talk about these things as a distinction.,The recognized borders have to be mutual. The Arab nations, the Israeli nation, has to agree on permanent and recognized borders, where sovereignty is legal as mutually agreed. Defense lines may or may not conform in the foreseeable future to those legal borders. There may be extensions of Israeli defense capability beyond the permanent and recognized borders.,I think this distinction is one that is now recognized by Israeli leaders. The definition of borders on a geographical basis is one that remains to be determined. But I think that it is important for the world to begin to see, and for the interested parties to begin to see, that there can be a distinction between the two; the ability of Israel to defend herself by international agreement or by the some. time placement of Israeli forces themselves or by monitoring stations, as has been the case in the Sinai, beyond the actual sovereignty borders as mutually agreed by Israel and her neighbors.,Q. Well, does that mean international zones between the countries?,THE PRESIDENT. International zones could very well be part of an agreement. And I think that I can see in a growing way, a step-by-step process where there might be a mutual agreement that the ultimate settlement, even including the border delineations, would be at a certain described point. In an interim state, maybe 2 years, 4 years, 8 years, or more, there would be a mutual demonstration of friendship and an end to the declaration or state of war.,I think that what Israel would like to have is what we would like to have: a termination of belligerence toward Israel by her neighbors, a recognition of Israel's right to exist, the right to exist in peace, the opening up of borders with free trade, tourist travel, cultural exchange between Israel and her neighbors; in other words, a stabilization of the situation in the Middle East without a constant threat to Israel's existence by her neighbors.,This would involve substantial withdrawal of Israel's present control over territories. Now, where that withdrawal might end, I don't know. I would guess it would be some minor adjustments in the 1967 borders. But that still remains to be negotiated.,But I think this is going to be a long, tedious process. We're going to mount a major effort in our own Government in 1977, to bring the parties to Geneva. Obviously, any agreement has to be between the parties concerned. We will act as an intermediary when our good offices will serve well.,But I'm not trying to predispose our own Nation's attitudes towards what might be the ultimate details of the agreement that can mean so much to world peace.,REPUBLIC OF KOREA,Q. At the risk of oversimplification, sir, I believe I understand during the campaign you proposed a gradual withdrawal of American troops from Korea.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Yet, after your revised budget went to Congress, the Army has gone to Congress and asked in fiscal 1978, for a doubling of military construction funds for Korea and in the 3 ensuing years, for more than $110 million for similar construction. How does that square with your withdrawal plans?,THE PRESIDENT. My commitment to withdraw American ground troops from Korea has not changed. I'll be meeting this afternoon with the Foreign Minister of South Korea. This will be one of the matters that I will discuss.,I've also talked to General Vessey, who is in charge of our Armed Forces in South Korea. I think that the time period as I described in the campaign months, a 4-or 5-year time period, is appropriate. The schedule for withdrawal of American ground troops would have to be worked out very carefully with the South Korean Government. It would also have to be done with the full understanding and, perhaps, participation of Japan.,I would want to leave in place in South Korea, adequate ground forces owned by and controlled by the South Korean Government to protect themselves against any intrusion from North Korea. I would envision a continuation of American air cover for South Korea over a long period of time.,But these are the basic elements, and I'm very determined that over a period of time, as described just then, that our ground troops would be withdrawn.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to try to clarify the Israeli situation, if I might. A moment ago in answering the question, you spoke of the possibility of substantial withdrawal of Israeli control over territory and then, just a few seconds later, spoke of the possibility of minor territorial concessions by the Israelis.,What is it exactly that you have in mind here? Are you really talking about some big withdrawals, or are you talking only about minor withdrawals?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I would use the word minor withdrawals. I think there might be minor adjustments to the 1967, pre-1967 borders. But that's a matter for Israel and her neighbors to decide between themselves.,I believe that we will know by, I'd say, the middle of May, much more clearly the positions of the interested parties. I've not yet met nor talked to the leaders in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt-Saudi Arabia, to a lesser direct participation degree.,I will meet with all these leaders between now and the middle of May. And I don't want to try to define in any specific terms the exact delineation of borders, but I think this is obviously one of the most serious problems.,There are three basic elements: One is an ultimate commitment to complete peace in the Middle East; second, border determinations which are highly controversial and not yet been defined by either side; and, third, dealing with the Palestinian question.,And I'm not trying to act as the one to lay down an ultimate settlement. I don't know what an ultimate settlement will be. But these matters will be freely and openly debated within our own country and within the countries involved. And I think I've described as best I can my own position.,FEDERAL HOUSING AID,Q. Mr. President, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, if I read Secretary Harris correctly, seems to be moving towards a policy that would promote racial integration of the suburbs, namely, through the withholding of water and sewer and community development grants in communities that lack a positive commitment to low- and moderate-income housing. What are your views on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this was a subject that was well discussed during the campaign, as you remember. I think that the 1975 Housing Act, I believe it was 1975, clearly describes a requirement that communities that request Federal help in establishing housing have to put forward a positive proposal to ensure a mixture of housing in the entire community without regard to race, and without regard to the economic level of the families involved.,This does not mean that every individual city block or suburban block has to 'have all different kinds of housing in it. It does mean that the overall package, as proposed to the Federal Government, has to provide for a wide distribution of housing opportunities for those in minority groups or those who have a low income.,And I believe that Secretary Harris' statement is compatible with that law requirement.,DISCLOSURE OF INTELLIGENCE\nINFORMATION,Q. Mr. President, last week in an interview you expressed concern about the disclosure of confidential and classified information. Admiral Turner, your choice to head the CIA, has said, I believe in testimony, that he would favor criminal penalties for disclosure by Government officials of that type of information, but Vice President Mondale said he's opposed to it.,I wonder, sir, if you'd tell us where you stand on that issue and what, other than restricting access to classified information, you intend to do about this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my own interest would be to minimize the use of any criminal penalties for disclosure of information. There are other penalties that can be used without criminal charges, and I think that Vice President Mondale drew that distinction.,I don't know yet what procedure we will follow. My own hope would be that we could prevent the disclosure of intelligence information that might be damaging to our national security, rather than trying to control that problem by the imposition of legal criminal penalties.,Q. Could you elaborate on how you might prevent that, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think, first of all, is a tighter control over the number of people who have access to material that's highly sensitive, that might damage the relationship between our own country and our friends and allies. We've already initiated steps to that degree and we'll be pursuing it.,As you know, Admiral Turner has only recently been confirmed. He's just now getting his presence felt in the defense communities. I'll be going out to the CIA headquarters this afternoon to see the oath of office administered to him.,But we'll make sure that the public knows what new policies we impose. But the one that's easiest to describe, and also very difficult to do, is to make sure that we don't have too many people knowing about matters that they don't need to know and, also, that we can protect the legitimate confidentiality of agreements between ourselves and our allies.,Now, I would never permit anything that was either illegal or improper. And we've got a very good arrangement that was primarily set up by President Ford to prevent abuses. The Intelligence Oversight Board is made up of three distinguished men appointed by President Ford, who have complete access to any operation conducted by the intelligence forces.,Senator Inouye's committee in the Senate and, I think, six committees in the House also have access to this information. Of course, I'm monitoring it myself. And I think Admiral Turner's integrity is also a guarantee that there will be no future abuses.,But that doesn't mean that everything that we do in gathering intelligence on which our security might very well depend has to be revealed to the public. And drawing of that distinction is one that's my responsibility, and I think I can handle that.,PAUL WARNKE,Q. What effect in your mind, if any, is the extent of debate in the Senate over Mr. Warnke's qualifications to be the chief SALT negotiator going to have eventually on our negotiating position?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that the exact vote in the Senate on Mr. Warnke's confirmation will have a major effect on future negotiations with the Soviet Union on SALT.,The obvious impression that concerns me is a demonstration of lack of confidence of the Senate in my own ability and attitudes as a chief negotiator. Obviously, as President, any decisions made with the Russians on reduction of atomic weapons would have to be approved by me.,I have promised the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who in the past perhaps have been bypassed in the process, that they will always know ahead of time what our position will be at the negotiating table. I've not promised the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they would have the right to approve or disapprove every individual item in negotiations.,But I hope that the Senate will give Mr. Warnke a strong vote. I think many of the people that oppose Mr. Warnke just do not want to see any substantial reductions in atomic weapons, even though they are agreed to mutually by us and the Soviet Union or even if they are designed to reduce the threat of nuclear destruction of the world.,I feel very deeply that we ought to pursue with every possible means, an agreement with the Soviet Union for substantial reductions in atomic weapons. I think Mr. Warnke agrees; most of the Senators agree.,So, there are a wide range of reasons for not voting for Mr. Warnke. I have complete confidence in him. And I might say there is one more very significant guard against any error that I and Mr. Warnke and the Secretary of State and others might make. The Senate has to approve, by a two-thirds vote after complete open debate, any agreements signed with the Soviet Union. So, I think that the attacks on Mr. Warnke are primarily by those who don't want to see substantial reductions in nuclear weapons in the world.,RICHARD HELMS,Q. It is widely reported that a grand jury in Washington may be investigating Richard Helms, the former CIA Director, to see whether to move forward on a case. It is reported that perhaps the jury will want to see certain CIA documents. And I presume you would be the final arbiter. Have you been asked for those documents, and what will be your policy if you are asked for them in this case or any other case?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not been asked for any documents. And the Helms case has not come to my attention, either officially or even indirectly from any of the people involved.,Whether or not to proceed with the case will be the exclusive right of the Justice Department. The revelation of any documents that affect our national security will be my own judgment, in this or other cases.,I can't respond any further than that, because that's all I know about the subject.,Q. Mr. President, if I may say, sir, the problem, as you know, relates to, I guess, national security considerations on the one hand and the legal system and justice on the other. Given the recent history, I just wonder how closely you will weigh those two.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the prosecution of the case has nothing to do with me; that will be a judgment made by the Justice Department. The actual revelation to a grand jury, or in case of a trial, if it should ever evolve, of confidential or secret material, would have to be judged by me.,Q. That would control, sir, would it not, whether the prosecution could go forward even if it chose?,THE PRESIDENT. It may or may not. At that point, the responsibility for making a judgment and the responsibility for the consequences of an inaccurate judgment, if it should occur, would be my own.,CIVIL DISORDERS,Q. Mr. President, in connection with your concern about human rights, a task force on terrorism and violence last week presented a report to Attorney General Bell regarding recommendations they had to make on how we should handle civil disorders should they occur again like they did in the sixties. It's a 600-page report, funded--the study was funded--by the LEAA, and Attorney General Bell typified this as one of the good things the LEAA was doing.,Well, sir, in the report there are certain recommendations, such as the use of mass arrests, the use of preventive detention, some of the very things that were used in the sixties and later ruled inappropriate by the courts. And I wondered, sir, what you felt about this problem involving human rights in the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be opposed to mass arrests, and I would be opposed to preventive detention as a general policy and even as a specific policy, unless it was an extreme case. Obviously, in a 600-page report there would be things with which we would agree and things with which we would disagree. I've not seen the report. I'm not familiar with it. But I think the abuses in the past have in many cases exacerbated the disharmonies that brought about demonstrations, and I think the arrest of large numbers of people without warrant or preventive detention is contrary to our own best system of government.,RICHARD HELMS,Q. Mr. President, to follow on Mr. Donaldson's [Sam Donaldson, ABC News] question on the Helms case, he asked you if documents have been requested.,THE PRESIDENT. They have not.,Q. You said they have not. Mr. Lipshutz, your general counsel, indicated to some reporters last week, however, that the matter of decision on release of information is in the White House, is in his office, and that would make it ultimately up to you.,Now, has the Justice Department not asked permission to declassify documents that they may have gotten from other sources, from other departments of the Government in this case?,THE PRESIDENT. If they have asked for it, it has not come to my attention. I can't say that somewhere in the pipeline from the Justice Department, the State Department, the CIA, or even my own counsel, that requests have been made. But I have not been aware of them.,Q. Were questions concerning Mr. Lipshutz's statements communicated to you last Friday after some briefings in the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not received any request from Mr. Lipshutz. Obviously, when something gets to the White House it takes time for them to staff it and give me the options I have to address and, since I'm not an attorney, to give me some opinion on the legalities of. But it has not come to my attention at all.,Q. You cannot say whether he has it in his office?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not know.,CORY MOORE,Q. Mr. President, I understand that you have agreed to speak on the telephone to the man in Ohio who is holding a police official hostage after he releases him. Are you concerned that this might be regarded as a precedent?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am.,Q. What are the factors that you weighed in that regard?,THE PRESIDENT. The request was made to me to talk to Mr. Moore as a precondition for his releasing the police officer who now has been held about 24 hours. I replied that I would be glad to talk to Mr. Moore after the police officer was released.,It is perhaps a dangerous precedent to establish. I weighed that factor before I made my own decision. I understand that Mr. Moore has promised to release the police officer after this news conference, regardless of any comments that I might make on it. And I hope that the police officer will be released. But if he should be released, I will talk to Mr. Moore.1,1 The White House later announced that the President spoke briefly with Cory Moore at 4:13 p.m., March 9.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to go just a little bit further in your discussion of the defensible borders issue.,If I understood you correctly, you're talking about the possibility of something like an Israeli defense line along the Jordan River and perhaps at some point on the Sinai Desert and perhaps at some point on the Golan Heights, that would be defense forces but not legal borders.,Have I understood that correctly, that your feeling is that the Israelis are going to have to have some kind of defense forces along the Jordan River and in those other places?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you added a great deal to what I said. In the first place, I didn't mention any particular parts of the geography around Israel. And I didn't confine the defense capability to Israeli forces. These might very well be international forces. It might very well be a line that's fairly broad, say, 20 kilometers or more, where demilitarization is guaranteed on both sides. It might very well consist of outposts, electronics or, perhaps, personnel outposts as were established in the Sinai region as a result of the Egypt and Israeli agreement.,I'm not going to try to get more specific in saying what will or will not be the case. But that is a possibility that might lead to the alleviation of tension there, and it's one about which I will be discussing this matter with the representatives from the Arab countries when they come.,BOILER FUELS,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Schlesinger recently told the Senate committee that your April 20th energy policy recommendations will emphasize a switch from oil and gas to coal, but he stopped short of saying that you will support mandatory exclusion of oil and gas as boiler fuel. What is your position on that?,THE PRESIDENT. We've not addressed that question yet. How to encourage, or perhaps even to force the end of wasting natural gas just for the generation of heat at central power plant stations is something that we'll have to address. It may be done by legislation; it may be done by economic penalties; it may be done by an appeal to the stationary heat producers to shift on a patriotic basis. I can't yet say which of the proposals will be mandatory and which will be voluntary.,SALT NEGOTIATIONS,Q. On several occasions, Mr. President, you have spoken in terms of the U.S. being ready to move to a quick SALT agreement, omitting cruise missiles, Backfire bombers, if necessary. I'm wondering, sir, have you had any indication yet of Russian intentions on this subject?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet Union, so far as I know, still would like to include the cruise missile question in the present negotiations. They don't want to discuss Backfire bomber at all. And my hope has been and is that by the exclusion of both those controversial items, which will require long and tedious negotiations, that we might move to a rapid agreement at SALT II and immediately begin to discuss, for instance, the Backfire bombers, the cruise missiles in subsequent negotiations. But I do not have any indication yet that the Soviets have changed their position on that issue.,Q. Mr. President, what about nuclear reductions?,THE PRESIDENT. Again, I think you have two approaches to the question.,I have proposed both directly and indirectly to the Soviet Union, publicly and privately, that we try to identify those items on which there is relatively close agreement--not completely yet, because details are very difficult on occasion. But I have, for instance, suggested that we forgo the opportunity to arm satellite bodies and also to forgo the opportunity to destroy observation satellites.,We've also proposed that the Indian Ocean be completely demilitarized, that a comprehensive test ban be put into effect, that prior notification of test missile launchings be exchanged. And I would like to see any of these items on which the Soviets will agree quickly, be concluded, and then get down to the much more difficult negotiations on much more drastic, overall commitments to atomic weapons, leading ultimately to the complete elimination of atomic weapons from the face of the Earth.,This is going to be a long, slow, tedious process. But I think if we and the Soviets could agree on the easier items--and none of them are very easy--quickly, it would show good faith. I think it would let the world know that we are serious in stopping once and for all what has been a continuous and rapid escalation in atomic weapon capabilities since they were first evolved.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-02-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody.,ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES,I would like to make a very brief statement as a progress report to the American people on some items that are important to us.,We have submitted and the Congress is now considering legislation to give me the authority to reorganize the executive branch of government. The Senate committee under Senator Ribicoff has now completed their hearings and they will be marking up the bill beginning tomorrow. The House Committee on Government Operations, under Congressman Jack Brooks, has scheduled hearings to begin on March 1. So, because of the interest of the American people and the Congress and myself in completing this very crucial project, I think the Congress is moving with great expedition to give me that authority.,We've also initiated with directions to the members of the Cabinet and other agency heads a new program to cut down on the extremely great overload of paperwork with a requirement that those who prepare Government regulations, who are responsible for the preparation, sign them.,I've asked my Cabinet officers to read the regulations that are forthcoming from their departments each week until they see the volume and the complexity of them. And we hope to eliminate unnecessary regulations, abbreviate those that are necessary and express them in a language so that we can all understand them.,I've also asked major elements of our society, the university professors and the State officials, in this last week to give me their suggestions on how the regulations might be improved.,We've done the same thing with reports required by the Federal Government. And I hope to reduce drastically the number of reports, the frequency of those reports and the complexity of them.,We will complete the proposed legislation on creating a new Department of Energy this week. The proposed legislation is now on my desk. It will be submitted to the Congress for action the first of next week. And we've consulted very closely with the key leaders in the Congress. And I believe there is going to be a rapid creation of this new department and a heavy emphasis on the importance of energy questions to our people.,We will also present to the American people, probably at a joint session of the Congress speech by me, about April the 20th, a comprehensive energy policy which will involve all the complexities of the energy question--that's something that's long overdue--and it's going to be quite profound on its impact on the American consciousness and our society. And I hope it will be comprehensive enough so that it can be well-balanced and fair to all.,We are quite concerned about the pressures of inflation. The advisers to me on economics are trying to assess all Government programs and private actions that contribute to inflationary pressures. When this analysis is done, I will use every means that I have available to me to express these concerns and possibly corrective actions to the American people as well.,And the last point is that we will have a complete analysis underway now on deregulation. And the first question is the deregulation of the airlines. Legislation is in the Congress now. We will be submitting a message to Congress very shortly on that subject. We will not submit administration legislation because the Congress has already moved substantially forward in dealing with this important issue. And now I'd like to answer questions. Mr. Frank Cormier [Associated Press].,QUESTIONS\nDEFENSE EXPENDITURES,Q. Mr. President, you told the Democratic Platform Committee that you thought present defense expenditures could be reduced by 5-to-7 billion dollars. I think you may have modified your position somewhat since then. Obviously, in your short time in office you didn't find the opportunity to make cuts like that in your predecessor's budget. But isn't it also likely that next year's budget for defense will exceed this year's?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because of inflationary pressures and because of an impossibility of assessing the potential threat to our country from other nations, it's hard to predict exactly what the level of defense spending will be.,In the short time that we had available to work on the previous administration's budget, about 3 weeks of hard work, we were able to reduce the suggested expenditures by almost $3 billion, I think about $2.75 billion. This was done--and I think Senator Stennis in his-recent public statements has confirmed that it has been done without weakening our own defense capability.,The substantial savings in defense spending that will still leave us a muscle will be in such things as the sanitization of weapons, long-range planning,' a more business-like allocation of defense contracting, an assessment of the defense contracts for construction and repair already outstanding, a reassessment of priorities of the evolution of new weapons which in the future can become enormously expensive, a longer assignment of military personnel to a base before they are transferred, some emphasis on the correction of inequities and unfairness in the retirement system.,These things obviously can't be done in 3 weeks, but they will be an ongoing effort on my part. And I think the 1979 budget, which will be my administration's first budget, will show these improvements to a substantial degree, Mr. Cormier.,Q. Will next year's defense budget actually be lower than the one that you just revised?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't say yet.,CIA ACTIVITIES,Q. Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the CIA to pay off King Hussein and other foreign leaders, and what steps are you taking to make yourself more knowledgeable and more accountable for what CIA does?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've adopted a policy, which I am not going to leave, of not commenting directly on any specific CIA activity. But I can tell you that I have begun a complete analysis, which will be completed within the next week, of all activities by the CIA. I've received substantial reports already. I've reviewed the more controversial revelations that have been publicized in the last few days, some quite erroneous, some with some degree of accuracy. These same operations have been reviewed by the Intelligence Oversight Board, an independent board, and also by my predecessor, President Ford.,I have not found anything illegal or improper. If in future assessments, which will come quite early, I discover such an impropriety or an illegality, I will not only take immediate action to correct it but also will let the American people know about it.,I might say this: This is a very serious problem of how in a democracy to have adequate intelligence gathered, assessed, and used to guarantee the security of our country. It's not part of the American nature to do things in secret. Obviously, historically and still at this modern time, there is a necessity to protect sources of information from other nations.,Sometimes other governments cooperate with us fully; sometimes they don't. But I will try to be sure and so will Stan Turner, who will be the next director of the intelligence community. He will try to be sure that everything we do is not only proper and legal but also compatible with the attitudes of the American people.,One other point I'd like to make is this: It can be extremely damaging to our relationship with other nations, to the potential security of our country even in peacetime, for these kinds of operations, which are legitimate and proper, to be revealed. It makes it hard for us to lay a groundwork on which we might predicate a successful meeting of a threat to us in time of war if we don't have some degree of secrecy.,I am quite concerned about the number of people now who have access to this kind of information. And I've been working very closely with the congressional leaders, yesterday and today, to try to reduce the overall number of people who flare access to the sources of information. But within the bounds that I've described--propriety, legality, and the American attitude towards secrecy--I will do the best I can not ever to make a mistake. And I am also assuming on a continuing basis a direct personal responsibility for the operation of all the intelligence agencies in our Government to make sure that they are meeting these standards.,Q. Mr. President, if there has been erroneous information, wouldn't it behoove you to correct the record?,THE PRESIDENT. In some ways we are correcting the record, but if I began to either dispute or confirm every individual story that's written, whether correct or erroneous, on every matter relating to the CIA, then these matters which are necessarily secret would no longer be secret. So, I am not going to comment on individual items that relate to intelligence.,WAGE AND PRICE INCREASES,Q. Mr. President, George Meany says he won't go along with your idea of prenotification on wage and price increases. My question really is, how hard are you going to press Mr. Meany to go along, and do you have anything else in mind that you could use in the way of government involving itself to try to control inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've announced earlier my firm commitment not to have mandatory wage and price laws or authority, not to have standby wage and price authority.,I've not made any proposal to Mr. Meany or any other labor leader nor to any representative of industry or manufacturing. But I will retain the option in the future of assessing what we need to do to control inflation.,I've emphasized always the word \"voluntary,\" and to the extent that I can arrive at a common understanding with industry and labor leaders, that a certain amount of cooperation and information can be exchanged before a major proposal is made, I think that's a legitimate pursuit of mine. I can't force it. It's got to be voluntary. And that's as far as I can go with my answer.,Q. Mr. President, a question directly about the wage and price guidelines, which might be voluntary. How is that for an idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think rigid guidelines are a mistake. If we said that, for instance, that no price increase or no wage increase could exceed 6 percent, this would be too restrictive. It would be contrary to my own philosophy of government. And I think that, because of the diversity of our society--and the fact that it is a free enterprise system--we've got to have some flexibility.,But I'd prefer to deal with these problems that arise on increasing prices on an individual basis. And I also prefer, of course, to work harmoniously with labor and management. But whether I will be successful, I don't know. I am just going to have to do my best.,HUMAN RIGHTS,Q. In your letter to Mr. Sakharov, you said that the United States would use its good offices to seek the release of prisoners of conscience. And you said that you wanted to continue to shape a world responsible to human aspirations.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. As you know, there are human rights problems in many other countries. And some of them, like Iran or the Philippines, we support with arms or we support with American aid. These are countries where many people believe we have more leverage than we might have in the Soviet Union. What, if anything, do you plan to try to do to help victims of political repression in these countries?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, without my trying to take credit for it, there has been a substantial move toward concern about human rights throughout the world. I think this has taken place in probably a dozen or more different countries. There is an arousing interest in the position that our own Government here and our free country does take. Obviously, there are deprivations of human rights, even more brutal than the ones on which we've commented up till now.,In Uganda, the actions there have disgusted the entire civilized world, and as you know, we have no diplomatic relationships with Uganda.1,1 The White House Press Office later issued a correction which stated:,While the United States has withdrawn its mission from Uganda and has no direct diplomatic representation there, U.S. affairs in the Republic of Uganda are carried out through the West German Embassy, and the Republic of Uganda has an operating embassy and charge d'affaires in Washington.,But here is an instance where both Ambassador Andrew Young and I have expressed great .concern about what is there. The British are now considering asking the United Nations to go into Uganda to assess the horrible murders that apparently are taking place in that country, the persecution of those who have aroused the ire of Mr. Amin.,I've expressed my concern about imprisoned political prisoners in South Korea, in Cuba, in many countries in several countries rather in South America, and I will continue to do so. I have never had an inclination to single out the Soviet Union as the only place where human rights are being abridged.,We have, I think, a responsibility and a legal right to express our disapproval of violations of human rights. The Helsinki agreement, the so-called basket 3 provision, ensures that some of these human rights shall be preserved. We are a signatory of the Helsinki agreement. We are, ourselves, culpable in some ways for not giving people adequate right to move around our country, or restricting unnecessarily, in my opinion, visitation to this country by those who disagree with us politically.,So, I think that we all ought to take a position in our country and among our friends and allies, among our potential adversaries, that human rights is something on which we should bear a major responsibility for leadership. And I have made it clear to the Soviet Union and to others in the Eastern European Community that I am not trying to launch a unilateral criticism of them; that I am trying to set a standard in our own country and make my concerns expressed throughout the world, not singled out against any particular country.,CIA DISCLOSURES,Q. Mr. President, the other day--getting back to the Hussein thing--when that story broke, your Press Secretary, when he issued what amounted to a no comment by the White House, someone asked him if this story had broken back during the campaign when you were running for President would you have given a similar response. And he said, \"Well, I don't know.\" So, can I ask you, what would have been your response? Would it have been the same?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. [Laughter],Q. Mr. President, on the same subject, you said earlier that your review of CIA activities had found nothing illegal or improper, and you later said that these activities are legitimate and proper. Isn't that a value judgment that the American public might like to share, but how can they if you refuse to give them any idea of what you have discovered during this review about payments, including ones made in secret?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a value judgment. It's made by the independent Intelligence Oversight Board which was established and appointed by President Ford. This Board has made itself available to the Inspector General and to any employee within the CIA or within the defense intelligence agencies or any other to receive even rumors of impropriety. They have assessed these operations. They made their inquiries in the past, which is in accordance with the Executive order issued by President Ford, to the Attorney General of the United States, and also to the President.,I have read that correspondence. It's quite voluminous. And I think that it's accurate to say that Senator Inouye's committee in the Senate and the appropriate committees in the House have also received this information in the past. I have talked to Senator Inouye and he confirms what I've just told you. And I think he would also confirm that the impropriety or the illegality does not exist on any ongoing CIA operation.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, Charles Kirbo--your friend, Charles Kirbo--seems to feel that you are going to be having a continuing problem with the Congress and that you will have to go over Congress head to the people in order to get results. Is this true?,THE PRESIDENT. I think if you read the whole statement that Mr. Kirbo made, which is just a private citizen's opinion, he would say that every President has had arguments and debates and disagreements with the Congress. And I think that's inevitable in our system of government. That's part of the checks and balances that's very precious to us all.,I have found up till now a growing sense of cooperation with the Congress. I think last week when I was asked roughly the same question, that the troubles were perhaps underestimated by the news media. I think now perhaps the troubles with the Congress are overestimated. I have frequent meetings with the congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican.,And I think that the progress of the legislation that we consider to be crucial, which seemed to be moving very slowly in the past, is now speeding up. So, I don't believe that we will have nearly the problems with the Congress that has been the case in recent years. And I have to say in summary that I am very pleased with my relationship with the Congress now.,ELECTION REFORM,Q. Mr. President, in view of your assignment to Vice President Mondale regarding the election laws, could you give us your views, sir, on the direct election of a President versus the electoral college, and also, do you think that the public financing should be extended to Congress as well as the Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. There are three basic questions that come up. In the first place, I do favor at least an automatic vote by Presidential electors, once the general election is completed. I think the electoral college, for instance, should be eliminated. Whether the ratio among States of votes ought to be changed, I am not prepared to comment on that.,As far as the financing of congressional elections by public funds, as proved to be successful, I believe, in the Presidential election, I strongly favor that, yes. And the other element of the overall package would be a simple way for American people who are citizens and 18 years old to register to vote. And I am committed to that proposition, and the Vice President has graciously consented to take on this overall election process responsibility. Those three will be basic elements of the proposals.,RELATIONS WITH CUBA,Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to Jilt the trade embargo against Cuba as one step toward normalizing relations?,THE PRESIDENT. I think any substantial moves in our relationship with Cuba would have to await further discussions with them indirectly and also some tangible evidence on our part that they are willing to restore basic human rights in Cuba involving the number of prisoners who are being held, their attitude toward overseas adventures, such as the one in Angola, and other matters.,So, I can't say what might come in the future. I am willing, though, to discuss these matters with the Cuban leaders. At this time we have no direct relationships with them politically, but through intermediaries, comments are being exchanged back and forth; most of my comments in public statements like this. But we do have messages coming back from people who visit Cuba.,DEFENSE EXPENDITURES,Q. In answer to an earlier question, Mr. President, you said that you couldn't say whether next year's defense budget would be lower or higher than this year's. But as I understood your earlier position, you did want to achieve a $5 to $7 billion savings, regardless of the overall level of spending. Do you still hold with that figure? Is that still your goal and a commitment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The analysis that I've made of the defense budget so far, which as you know has been limited to about a month's study, just part-time, indicate that that's a goal that will be reached.,NATURAL GAS DEREGULATION,Q. Mr. President, in letters to the Governors of Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana last October, you said unconditionally that you would work with Congress to deregulate new natural gas. And I wondered if you planned to keep that promise, and if so, how will you go about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how I will go about it. I do plan to keep my promises. The position that I have taken and the position that the Governors of Oklahoma and Texas took at Governors' conferences to which I was referring, was the deregulation of natural gas for a limited period of time, 4 to 5 years, to see how it works out, leaving existing contracts in effect.,But I will work with Congress on the deregulation of natural gas as a part of an overall energy policy. By April 20, I think we will be prepared to present to you, the news media, the people, and the Congress, more specific proposals involving direct legislative proposals that will answer your question more fully.,ENERGY PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, we've been told that the central thrust of your new energy program will involve sacrifice and voluntary conservation. Yet the public is always reading stories in the paper of how the major oil companies are withholding natural gas. I'd like to ask how are you going to expect the public to make sacrifices when there is such widespread public suspicion about the role of the oil companies in the energy crisis?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the comprehensive nature of the proposal, the fact it takes in all these very disparate and sometimes conflicting elements at one time, and a long-range projection of our needs in a tangible demonstration to the American people to the extent that I am able to put it forward, that there will be direct ultimate benefits to them, will be the elements that will cause them to make those sacrifices.,At the same time, I want to increase the surety that we have that the reserve supply data given to us by the oil companies and others are accurate. We are now conducting some admittedly superficial studies by Secretary Cecil Andros in Interior, and also they will be followed up by more detailed studies under Dr. Schlesinger, to see whether or not the reserve supplies are adequate and whether or not the oil companies are giving us accurate data.,I think it's obvious to all of us that there are some instances where natural gas is withheld from the market. That's understandable. If I was running an oil company, I would reserve the right to release or to reserve some supplies of natural gas. With the emergency legislation that the Congress did pass, I think in about a week of assessment during the frigid part of the winter it's still very cold--we were given some authority to buy extra gas at a very high price. This is obviously a transient circumstance.,But I believe the American people will be willing to make the sacrifices required if they are convinced that future reports will be accurate, that supplies will not be withheld from the market. And if we can let the oil companies know in a predictable way what our policy will be 2 months or 2 years or 20 years in the future, within the bounds of human reason, then I think they will be much less likely to withhold supplies of oil and natural gas from the market just hoping that they will get some bonanza or increased price in the future if the policies do change.,Q. Mr. President, another question, sir, on the sacrifices that you say your upcoming energy program is going to demand. Is it likely that one of those sacrifices is going to come in the form of a largely increased Federal gasoline tax?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how to answer your questions about specifics of the proposal. I want to make this clear: The purpose of the energy policy evolution is not to cause sacrifice or hardship among the American people. Unless I can demonstrate that in balance the temporary sacrifices in a certain area are far overcome by immediate and ultimate benefits, then nobody is going to buy it. And I believe that we've now got such a horrible conglomeration of confusion in the energy field that nobody knows what is going to happen next.,So, I think that the sacrifices will be far overcome by the benefits that the American people will be easily able to discern for themselves.,RELATIONS WITH CANADA,Q. Mr. President, you said that in spite of the fact that the Canadian people would have to determine their future for themselves, particularly in regard to the separatism issue in Quebec, that you had confidence that the issue would be straightened out relatively peacefully.,Do you really think that there is little concern in this country about the future of a unified Canada, and is there anything really that we can do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. There is a great deal of concern in this country about the future of Canada. And I have complete confidence, as I said in an interview with the Canadian news media, in the sound judgment of the Canadian people. I am familiar, and even more familiar today than I was 2 days ago, after Prime Minister Trudeau's visit, with the problems in Quebec and the inclination of some of the French-Canadians to have an independent status from the rest of the Canadian provinces.,I don't know what is going to be the ultimate outcome, but I believe that we are so closely tied together with Canada on a mutually beneficial basis, sharing problems, sharing opportunities, sharing trade, sharing manufacturing companies that have joint ownership, our exchange of energy sources, our sharing of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Great Lakes, as far as water pollution is concerned, the bringing of Alaskan oil and natural gas down to us, that we have got to have a continuing relationship with Canada.,My own personal preference would be that the commonwealth stay as it is and that there not be a separate Quebec province. But that's a decision for the Canadians to make. And I would certainly make no private or public move to try to determine the outcome of that great debate.,I promised Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].,CAMPAIGN PROMISES,Q. Mr. President, you've had a month now to enjoy the view from the Oval Office. Do you think you will be able to keep fully all the campaign promises you made?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, we have issued what I believe is a complete book of my campaign promises which is, I presume, being made available to all of you.,My determination is to keep all those promises. Obviously, if circumstances should change, I would have to reserve the right to go back to the American people and say now that circumstances have changed, this is a better approach to that particular problem. But I will do my utmost to keep all the campaign promises that I made to the American people.,B--1 BOMBER,Q. Mr. President, with respect to the B-1 you said at various times during the campaign that the B-1 was a waste; you also promised to cut the waste out of the defense budget. When would you expect to stop production of the B-l, as opposed to research and development on the B-1?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I cut out about more than $200 million from the B-1 program in the budget just submitted to the Congress. I have serious questions about whether or not the B-1 ought to be in the future the center of our airborne defense capability. I have several more months before I have to make a decision on that matter.,And the National Security Council, which combines, as you know, State, Treasury, Defense, and other elements of the Government, working very closely with me, is now making a complete reassessment of the need for the B-1 bomber.,I don't know whether we will decide to go on with it or not, and I don't know whether we will expedite production of it or not at this time. Part of the factor to be assessed is the attitude of the Soviet Union. If we can have a general lessening of tension, a demonstrated commitment on their part toward disarmament, it would certainly make it less likely that we would go ahead with the B-1.,But I can't answer the question until I complete my own study, and I think that would have to be terminated by the end of May.,ELECTION REFORM,Q. Mr. President, I was a little unclear about what you are going to propose in the campaign finance law. Are you saying that you will propose to have all congressional elections publicly financed?,THE PRESIDENT. That's my preference, yes.,Q. Mr. President, is that what you have proposed to Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. The Vice President is now doing a study on a complete election law package, and I'd like to reserve my own judgment until I see what his report is to me. But that's my own inclination. It's the position that I took during the campaign. And so far I have no reason to change my mind.,FOREIGN POLICY,Q. Mr. President, you gave us kind of a timetable for your domestic program in your preliminary statement. I wonder if you have a similar timetable of what you hope to achieve in foreign policy between now and the end of the year, such as in Middle East peace, Cyprus, the treaty with Panama?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course I can't answer that question specifically because I don't know what cooperation we will get from other nations, and I don't know what the inclination of those nations in disputed regions of the world want to do toward one another.,Secretary Cyrus Vance has just returned from what I consider to be a very successful trip to the Middle East. He not only probed with the heads of those governments and their cabinet members their own positions both public and private on the controversial issues that have so far prevented a peace in the Middle East. He also had a chance to compare their positions on issues, which ones they found to be in harmony, which ones there was still a dispute.,We also invited the leaders of all those nations to meet with me. They have all accepted, and I will be meeting with the heads of the nations in dispute in the Middle East, all of them, before the end of May.,The first visit of one of those leaders will be Mr. Rabin, I believe, March 12 (7 and 8).* And he will be followed by the leaders from Egypt, from Jordan, and from Syria, from Saudi Arabia. And I look forward to meeting with them.,*White House Press Office clarification.,At that point I hope I will have a very clear picture of what role the American Government ought to play.,The same thing applies to the situation that exists between ourselves and Turkey, ourselves and Greece, ourselves and Cyprus. We can't impose our will on other people, but if they honestly want to seek a solution, we are perfectly willing to offer our good offices as a country with influence and interest to help them resolve their own differences. But it's got to be done primarily by those countries involved.,We have begun again, within the last week, our discussions on the Panama Canal treaty. We have two extremely good negotiators, and I hope that we will have success there. There is no way that I can say at this point what degree of progress we have made. It's just beginning.,So, throughout the areas of high dispute, including South Africa and others that I don't have time to mention, we are probing as best we can to discern some possibility of resolution of those tension areas.,We are meeting today, in fact all this week, with the British, to try to get a renewed proposal to make concerning the questions surrounding Rhodesia, and then, of course, we will still have left Namibia and ultimately the majority rule question in South Africa.,But I've only been in office a month. I don't claim to know all the easy answers. And these questions that have been in existence for 25 or 30 years are not going to be easy to solve. But we are going to do the best we can, openly and forcefully, offering our good services, not trying to impose our will on other people.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Cormier."}
{"president":"Jimmy Carter","date":"1977-02-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. As some of you know, this is my first press conference since I became President 2 1/2 weeks ago. My intention is to have press conferences like this twice a month, and I look forward to those confrontations with the press to kind of balance up the nice and pleasant things that come to me as President.,I am eager to answer your questions. I don't have any earth-shaking announcement to make this afternoon. I want to spend a maximum amount of time each press conference to answer your questions.,So, Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,FOREIGN ARMS SALES,HELEN THOMAS [United Press International]. Mr. President, you cited arms reductions as the prime tenet, one of them, of your foreign policy. Under the circumstances, as a first step, will you block the sale of concussion bombs to a foreign country?,THE PRESIDENT. The sale of concussion bombs to a foreign country is an item that concerns me very much. Within the next week, after this review that has already been undertaken is completed, I will have an announcement to make about that. The previous announcement that concussion bombs would be sold was not cleared with the State Department nor with the Defense Department. I have asked them to analyze the political and military consequences of the sale. I am concerned about it but have not yet decided whether to cancel that sale.,Q. Does that mean, sir, that you are considering blocking the sale?,THE PRESIDENT. That is one of the options that I have, and I will make a decision within the next week.,THE PRESIDENT'S VETO POWER,MR. CORMIER. Mr. President, could you give us your general attitude toward vetoes which were quite popular with your predecessor, and more specifically, might you consider vetoing an economic stimulus package if it came to you in a form significantly different than you had proposed?,THE PRESIDENT. I, of course, reserve the constitutional right to veto legislation that I think is contrary to the best interests of our county. But I think the best way to avoid vetoes is to work intimately with the Congress in the initial stages of the development of legislation.,My own economic stimulus package, which was presented to the Congress, was very carefully worked out, is well balanced, is well considered. It has a steady predictable aspect of it; it's equally balanced between 1977 fiscal year and 1978; it is fair, I think, to the American people; and I think it is adequate. It also was discussed thoroughly with the House and Senate leaders, both those who were elected and those committee chairmen who are responsible for economics, before it was ever announced publicly and before it was introduced.,If such drastic changes were made in it that would cause me to doubt its effectiveness or its advisability, I would of course veto it. But my sense of the Congress attitude is that although some amendments might very well be appended to it, that I can accept the congressional changes. But I will reserve the right, of course, to veto legislation when necessary.,I might say that in every instance--in the preparation of a package of reform that will set up a new energy department, which will be available to the Congress by the first of March, and major energy policy legislation, which will be completed-the study of it--by April 20; and the evolution of welfare reform, which will be completed by May I, and so forth--I am working very carefully, very closely with the Congress, quite a departure, I think, from the experience under the Republican administration with the Democratic Congress.,So, vetoes where necessary, yes. The number of vetoes in prospect would be very small.,PAUL WARNKE,Q. Mr. President, your nominee to head the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Paul Warnke, wrote about a year and a half ago that the U.S. \"should try a policy of restraint while calling for matching restraint from the Soviet Union.\" But Mr. Warnke didn't seem to believe that that had to be guaranteed in advance in an agreement. Is that a view to which you subscribe, and could you explain why or why not?,THE PRESIDENT. I know Mr. Warnke very well. I've met with him several times to discuss his attitude on disarmament matters. I have complete confidence in him. The first two times I asked him to take the job, he turned me down. We tried to find an alternative who is as well qualified as he is to express my own views and those views that would be acceptable to our country. I was unsuccessful in finding someone to equal him. He finally agreed to take the job, at my insistence, as a public service. I believe that his views are well considered by me. And I've accepted them. I think when the Members of the Senate consider what Mr. Warnke stands for, he will be approved overwhelmingly.,I obviously believe that we both have to take initiatives, the Soviet Union and the United States. Most of our discussions will be bilateral in nature. Subsequently, I hope to bring in other nations to discuss, for instance, comprehensive test ban questions, and others, the European nations who are nuclear powers and also the Chinese. That would come later.,But I believe that Mr. Warnke's proposals are sound. And I have no concern about his attitude. There will be instances on nuclear weapons where each country has to take some initiative. But the overall balance of mutual restraint, cutting down on the overall dependence on nuclear weapons is what counts.,And I might add one other point. Mr. Warnke's positions will be carefully coordinated with my own, working closely with State Department, Defense Department officials. Our decisions with the Soviets will be made public. We will consult with our allies whenever possible. Any ratification of an agreement with the Soviet Union would obviously require senatorial approval. So, even if I or Mr. Warnke or one other person in the negotiation process should make a mistake, inadvertently, that mistake would be closely scrutinized by the public and, I think, would be corrected. But I have complete confidence in him.,STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC\nOFFICIALS,Q. Mr. President, have you plugged all the holes so there won't be another Watergate or an executive branch scandal, or do you intend to do something more to raise the standard of conduct?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that all of the country has learned a great lesson from Watergate: to have a maximum amount of openness; to have much stricter standards of conduct required by public officials, those appointed and those elected; to scrutinize very closely the appointment procedure so that if someone does have a concealed conflict of interest financially, it might be revealed.,And I think the new election laws have brought us through the 1976 Presidential elections and others with a minimum of obligation on my part to anyone. I was elected not ever having promised anyone to be appointed to a major position.,And I think that all of these concerns that were so vivid during the Watergate months have now been pretty well ratified in the people's minds. And, therefore, I believe that we won't have any danger of a recurrence of Watergate.,I know I will be cautious as President to avoid any legitimate semblance of dishonesty or concealing information the public has a right to know. I know the Congress and others will be watching me closely, which I welcome.,NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION,Q. Mr. President, just to follow up a bit on Stan's [Stanley W. Cloud, Time magazine] question, could you tell us, sir, do you believe that there should be a rough parity between the nuclear forces of the Soviet Union and the United States? Do you think we ought to, in the arms negotiations, strive for superior force, or do you believe that as long as we have the ability to inflict horrendous damage on them that it really doesn't matter which side has the most bombs?,THE PRESIDENT. At the present time, my judgment is that we have superior nuclear capability. The Soviet Union has more throw weight, larger missiles, larger warheads; we have more missiles, a much higher degree of accuracy, and also, we have three different mechanisms which are each independently adequate to deliver atomic weapons--airplanes, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think that we are roughly equivalent, even though I think we are superior, in that either the Soviet Union or we could destroy a major part of the other nation if a major attack was made with losses in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 million people if a large exchange was initiated.,We have the capability, as do the Soviets, to detect the launching of opposing missiles, and then I, as President, and the leaders in Russia would have to be faced with the question of how much of a retaliatory attack to make. But in the exchange, tens of millions of people would be killed. And the threat of this kind of holocaust is what makes it important that we do keep an adequate deterrent capability. And it also is crucial for all of us to remember that it is necessary to have drastic reduction in dependence on atomic weapons.,Almost every major speech that I have made since I have been involved in national politics, I expressed--committed, first, to stabilize the the situation; second, to have demonstrable reductions in dependence upon atomic weapons and set as our committed long-range goal complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the Earth.,I had a meeting this morning with a representative of the People's Republic of China, and he told me very clearly that the goal of the Chinese Government was to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons to zero.,If we and the Soviet Union can demonstrate an ability to stop the present growth and then to have substantial. reductions, I believe, then, we can go to the French, British, the Chinese, and others and say, \"Would you join us in stopping testing and in moving in clearly monitorable ways to reduce dependence on atomic weapons?',SALT NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, to follow that up, a little bit earlier, sir, if I understood you correctly, you said that you thought that each of the two countries, ourselves and the Soviets, might have to take some initiatives. Now, I am trying to translate that into some of the problems that we face. Is the United States today prepared to take the initiative perhaps in restraining the development of the cruise missile in order to get something going in the SALT talks?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want 'to single out one particular weapon which is still in the development stage, but I will give you a couple of examples that are symbolic in nature, not too profound. One is that I've suggested to the Soviet Union that they let us know and that we let them know before we launch any kind of intercontinental ballistic missile in a test phase. We launch our missiles from Vandenberg Air Force Base. We don't launch them from the standard silos. The Soviet Union does launch missiles from their standard operating silos for test purposes. I think a prior notice that this launch was going to take place 24 hours or 48 hours would help a great deal.,I've called on the Soviet Union to join us in a comprehensive test ban to stop all nuclear testing for at least an extended period of time, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years. The Soviets are interested in using nuclear explosives to divert the course of a river in northern Russia. I don't think they need to test anymore. If they want to put that as a proviso in the agreement that they would like to go ahead and divert that river, I think that would be something that we could negotiate and let us have observers there to learn from them and vice versa. But I think that the initiation of proposals that might be mutually acceptable of this kind is very, very important.,Now, we have two unresolved questions derived from the Vladivostok agreement called SALT II, and that is the cruise missile and the Backfire bomber. I would be willing to go ahead with the Soviet Union, conclude a quick agreement, if they think it advisable, and omit the Backfire bomber and the cruise missile from the negotiations at this stage. And then in a SALT III talk, if necessary, put those two items back in for further discussion.,But I think it is important for us, without any pressure on me to proceed too hastily, in a very careful and methodical way to demonstrate to the world that we are sincere.,Q. I am sorry to pursue the subject, but if I may ask one more question about initiatives. When Mr. Warnke wrote that, he was apparently talking about weapons systems as well as nuclear warheads. And he was talking about perhaps restraining the development of a particular weapons system, hoping for reciprocity by the Soviets.,My question is, would you consider saying to the Soviets, say the B-1 or any other weapons system, we are not going to develop it for 6 months, we'd like to see something from you in the way of reciprocity?,THE PRESIDENT. Again, let me avoid reference to a particular weapons system on our side. Let me refer to a weapons system on their side. The Soviets have a missile with limited range--it is not intercontinental in nature---called the SS-20. They have begun to install those missiles in mobile installations where they can move them in a concealed way from one part of an area to another. It makes it very difficult to pinpoint their exact location.,I would like to see the Soviets cease deployment of the mobile missile, even though it is not of intercontinental type. It is very difficult to distinguish it from the intercontinental missile called the SS16. But if they would agree to a cessation of the use or deployment of the mobile type missiles, for instance, which could be moved around in different locations before launch, that would be a very important point for us to join them in a mutual agreement. It would mean we would not then perhaps spend the large amounts of money to develop our own mobile missile. But if the Soviets should move to a development of an intercontinental missile that can be moved from one place to another undetected, and its location cannot be pinpointed, then that would put a great pressure on us to develop a mobile missile of our own.,So, I think on both sides there has to be some initiation. But as individual weapons systems are restrained, using initiative, you have got to be sure that the overall balance of deterrents is not disturbed.,PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES,Q. Mr. President, the first distribution of emergency public works funds left approximately 23,000 communities, rather 20,000-odd communities, with approximately $22 billion in requests unfulfilled. Your administration has proposed $2 billion additional this year and $2 billion the next. Isn't that still going to leave a long trail of disappointed communities in the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. However, I think it is part of a comprehensive package of 2-year duration that is well balanced. There is a limit on how much money you can spend on public works without wasting money.,And we are asking, through Secretary of Commerce Juanita Kreps, for the Congress to change the allocation formula so that we can orient the available public works money much more accurately where the unemployment rate is highest and where the need is greatest.,FEDERAL PAY INCREASE,Q. Mr. President, do you agree with the procedure under which Congress will get a 29-percent pay increase next week along with other top Federal officials? The question is the procedure. And secondly, do you think this increase is warranted, aside from the procedure?,THE PRESIDENT. President Ford called me before I was inaugurated to ask if I would join him in support of the pay increase that was recommended by the so-called blue ribbon panel. There had not been a pay increase for public officials-judges, and the senior grade executive officers--I think, in 8 years. In many instances, it was greatly disproportionate. I told him I would agree to join him in support of the pay increase, provided he maintained his support along with me for the strict ethics requirement that was also recommended by the blue ribbon study commission. I have received assurance from both the majority leader and the Speaker of the House--the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House--that they will push hard for and pass, if possible, strict ethics legislation.,So, I think that the pay increase is justified in most instances. I haven't studied the details of it. And if tied to a comprehensive ethics bill to put restraints on outside earnings and perhaps conflict of interest, I think it overall would be good for our country.,THE OIL INDUSTRY; ENERGY RESOURCES,Q. Mr. President, two of the massive economic dislocations followed the natural gas crisis: the factory closings, the school closings, and the threat of homes going without natural gas. I would like to ask you, who do you think, philosophically, owns America's energy resources? Is it the private oil companies that extract these from the ground or is it the American people? And I'll ask my follow-up as well. What are your views on nationalization of the oil industry?,THE PRESIDENT. I am against nationalization of the oil industry, to answer the last part first. It is obvious that many of our oil and natural gas resources plus major portions of our coal resources, particularly in the West, are derived from publicly owned lands, both on-shore deposits and the Outer Continental Shelf underneath the surface of the ocean. Those oil and natural gas and coal resources are made available to private firms on a competitive bid basis to explore and then to extract and distribute.,I think this is the best approach to be maintained. I think nationalization of the oil and natural gas business would not be advisable. At the same time, recognizing that the public must be protected, there is a strict regulation of oil and natural gas prices. We will have available for public scrutiny and for congressional action by April 20, a comprehensive, long-range energy policy. I have asked Dr. James Schlesinger--a well-qualified person, strong, able, intelligent, and, I think, a very dedicated man--to lead the evolution of the energy policy itself.,Our country has not had such a policy to guide it, to guide Presidents, Members of Congress, the public, oil companies, consumers in what might be expected in the future. And I believe when this policy is made public, it will obviously engender a great deal of debate. It is going to require substantial sacrifices on the part of the American people. I am going to try to make sure that all the natural gas companies and others that produce don't derive unwarranted profits when we cut back on consumption and when we encourage production.,This past 2 months, we have imported over half of the total amount of oil that we have used--10 million barrels a day on the average. This has got to stop. We don't have adequate reserve supplies of oil stored to meet our needs if we have another embargo or some other very serious problem in the future.,So, the oil, natural gas, coal, atomic power, conservation question has not been addressed. This is a campaign commitment that I made for 2 years, And my campaign commitment as far as developing a policy will be completed by April 20. But I will try to make sure it is fair and comprehensive. If it is not fair, if it is not comprehensive, the American public will not accept it, the Congress will not, and I will have failed. I don't intend to fail in this question.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, House Speaker Tip O'Neill complained yesterday that some of your top advisers seem to have an attitude of confrontation regarding Congress, and this is only the latest of several complaints from the Democratic leadership, that you haven't consulted with them enough. Looking back on it, do you feel that they are overreacting, or do you feel that you have given them cause for some of their complaints?,THE PRESIDENT. We have given them cause for some of the complaints, inadvertently. We have made some mistakes. I have learned in my first 2 1/2 weeks why Abraham Lincoln and some of the older Presidents almost went home when they first got to the White House. The handling of personnel appointments, trying to get the right person in the right position at the right time is a very, very difficult question. We have not been adequately careful in the initial days in dealing with the Congress.,It is hard for me to decide which person to appoint, to have an FBI check, an Internal Revenue Service check, to have the press constantly trying to get the name before anybody else knows it, to have a Congressman find out by reading it in the newspaper. We have really tried to deal fairly with the Members of Congress, but we have not been always successful. But I have initiated now, as you know, a constant series of meetings with the Congress Members, almost every day. And every 2 weeks, I have a breakfast with the Democratic leadership, and we have a thorough discussion of our differences. And I believe that we have made a great deal of progress in correcting those early mistakes.,DOUGLAS ROBINSON,Q. Sir, you have a man working on energy, Douglas G. Robinson. He was formerly, I think, Deputy General Counsel of FEA. He works with Dr. Schlesinger and Dr. O'Leary. Congressman John Moss sent you some information down at Plains about information he had uncovered in Congress about the transgressions of this man in not enforcing pricing and protective regulations against oil, gas, and utilities people. Are you keeping him on knowingly, or you just didn't know about him?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't know about it. But I will check on it after this press conference. I promise.,DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS HIP,Q. Mr. President, regarding your relations with Congress, Representative Shirley Chisholm, as you know, is the elected secretary of the House Democratic caucus, but she has not been included in your regular Tuesday morning breakfast meetings with the leaders, although her counterpart in the Senate, Daniel Inouye, has been included and participates in those meetings.,My question is, Mr. President: In view of the fact that Representative Chisholm is the first black and the first woman who holds a leadership post and in view of your oft-repeated commitments to those two groups, do you plan to do anything to wipe out this inequity?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say that the attendance at those Tuesday morning breakfasts are not decided by me. I ask the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Democratic majority leader in the Senate to decide which Members of the two Houses come to have breakfast with me.,I also tell them about the major subject for discussion. This morning, for instance, it was on reorganization. Chairman Ribicoif in the Senate and Chairman Jack Brooks in the House attended the meeting because of that reason. I don't want to get in the position of inviting specific Members of the Congress to come, but I am sure that if you addressed your question to Speaker O'Neill, he would be glad to give you an answer on it.,Let me say one other thing about that: As far as the executive branch of Government is concerned, I have really tried hard to bring into the Government additional numbers of women and of minority groups. I asked Hamilton Jordan, just before I came over here, for a summary of what we have done so far.,We've only appointed now about twothirds of the subcabinet members in the major departments, but in those major departments headed by a Cabinet Secretary, we have tripled, more than tripled, the number of women involved. I think in the last administration we had eight women. We now have 29 and the number is growing. We have doubled the number of black Americans who serve in those major positions from 8 to 16, and we have tripled the number of Spanish-speaking Americans.,I would guess that this percentage, two or three times more than has been involved in the past, will grow as the additional appointments are made.,THE SOVIET UNION,Q. Mr. President, there have been a series of actions taken in recent days by the Soviet Union, including the expulsion of American journalists and the arrest of Alexander Ginsburg, actions that we have taken issue with in one form or another. How concerned are you that by being outspoken on issues of human rights that we may jeopardize possibly our relations with the Soviet Union on other matters?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this brings up the question that is referred to as linkage. I think we come out better in dealing with the Soviet Union if I am consistently and completely dedicated to the enhancement of human rights, not only as it deals with the Soviet Union but all other countries. I think this can legitimately be severed from our inclination to work with the Soviet Union, for instance, in reducing dependence upon atomic weapons and also in seeking mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe.,I don't want the two to be tied together. I think the previous administration, under Secretary Kissinger, thought that there ought to be this linkage; that if you mentioned human rights or if you failed to invite Mr. Solzhenitsyn to the White House that you might endanger the progress of the SALT talks.,I don't feel that way. I think it ought to be clear, and I have made clear directly in communication to Mr. Brezhnev and in my meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin that I was reserving the right to speak out strong and forcefully whenever human rights are threatened--not every instance, but when I think it is advisable. This is not intended as a public relations attack on the Soviet Union, and I would hope that their leaders could recognize the American people's deep concern about human rights.,I think in many other countries of the world there has been some progress. I think in the Soviet Union there has already been some progress. The number of Jews, for instance, who have been permitted to emigrate from the Soviet Union in the last few months has increased.,If this trend should continue, I would be encouraged. But I would have to take this position of being independent in my own public pronouncements. I've got a lot to learn. I was concerned the other day, for instance, when the AP reporter1 was expelled from Moscow. I had at first thought to retaliate by expelling the AP reporter from Washington. But I found out that was not the right approach to take. [Laughter],1 George A. Krimsky, an Associated Press correspondent who had been reporting on Soviet dissidents active in human rights matters.,But we have got to be firm and we have got to be forceful. But I don't want to tie everything together in one package so that we are timid about insisting on human rights.,Q. Do you interpret this in any way as a kind of testing of you by the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. I don't interpret it as a testing. I regret the fact that the Soviet Union saw fit to expel a newspaper reporter. I regret very deeply the fact that the Soviet Union has now incarcerated Mr. Ginsburg, who has been one of the leaders in the Soviet Union in representing the case of the dissidents. But I can't go in with armed forces and try to change the internal mechanism of the Soviet Government.,But I don't think it is designed to aggravate me or to test me or to test the will of this country. My commitment to human rights is clear. I will maintain that clarity to the maximum extent possible.,I don't want to mislead the American people in dealing with the Soviets or with others. We can't expect overnight success. It requires long, tedious, labored, very carefully considered progress. I am not looking for magic answers, but my determination is very deep.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-10-20","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Won't you all sit down.,It is easier to get in the Rose Garden. I guess we had better go back to it. We just had a doorknob break off. [Laughter]\nREPORTER. That is a sign of the times.,THE PRESIDENT. You can't blame that on me.\nHelen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING PRESIDENT FORD AND WATERGATE INVESTIGATIONS,[1.] Q. Mr. President, regardless of the allegations of influences at the time, and in view of the long national nightmare we went through, do you have any regrets, any remorse for the role that you played in helping to block the first investigation of one of the worst White House scandals in history? And I have a follow-up.,THE. PRESIDENT. I don't believe what I did in working with the Republican members of the House Committee on Banking and Currency was a blocking of an investigation of Watergate. I did that because the Republican members of that committee specifically asked me to get them together.,Now, what that committee would have done was, as I understood it, to investigate a very limited part of certain campaign activities. It didn't have any intention or have any program to do anything beyond that. So what I did was at the request of the responsible people on the Banking and Currency Committee. And under the circumstances, as I knew it then, I think I would do exactly the same thing.,POSSIBILITY OF PARDON FOR CERTAIN WATERGATE FIGURES,[2.] Q. Well, Mr. President, there also is a widespread speculation that you may pardon Mitchell, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman, which is all part of the same package. Is there any validity to that?,THE PRESIDENT. There is absolutely no validity whatsoever to that rumor. In fact, you are the first one that's raised it with me. So I want you to know it and I want everybody else to know it: There is no credence whatsoever to it.\nMs. Lewine [Frances Lewine, Associated Press].,COMMENTS BY CLARENCE KELLEY AND GEN. GEORGE S. BROWN,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in the past week, two top men in your administration, FBI Chief Clarence Brown and General George--I mean Clarence Kelley and General George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--have come under criticism for their comments involving curbs on the press and aid to Israel. And I want to know--you haven't made any comment on this--what is your view of this incident? And if you are elected, would you keep these two men in these responsible jobs?,THE PRESIDENT. I am glad that the Counsel of the White House, through the Attorney General, did stop what I understood was to be a speech by Clarence Kelley. From what I know about the speech, I think it would have been ill-advised and would not reflect the views of President Ford in his relationship with the press.\nNow, General Brown had an interview 6 or 8 months ago. It was released at a time when I am certain that General Brown didn't anticipate it would be released, and it was released in part, not in whole.,General Brown, after consulting with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, did appear before the press--both of them--and explained the entire context of the interview. And the total interview would lead any reasonable person to a different interpretation than the excerpts that were taken from it and were released to the press.,Now I happen to believe General Brown, and I have reviewed the whole text of that interview myself. Some of those statements were impudent (imprudent) and were ill-advised, and I certainly don't believe that General Brown, in that position, ought to make those kind of comments in several instances. But I also don't believe it was fair in the prospective or released text, that certain excerpts should be taken, and several of them taken out of context.,Now, General Brown was just recommended by me, and he was confirmed by the Senate for a 2-year term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I would expect him to stay. He has a superb military record--35 years of devoted service in wartime--and I think he has been a fine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But he made one or two ill-advised statements, and I hope and trust that he won't do it again.,Q. Mr. President, you would keep both him and Mr. Kelley in their jobs?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, because I think Clarence Kelley has taken a very serious situation in the FBI--I think he straightened it out--and I think he is a person that all of us can have trust in as far as the job as the Director of the FBI.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THEMES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, at your last news conference you said that the campaign to date had been, quoting you, \"mired in questions that have little bearing on [upon] the future of this Nation,\" and that you would try to elevate the level of the discourse from there on. Subsequently, you seemed to be preoccupied with suggesting that Mr. Carter was a dissembler and again to use your words, \"an individual who wavers, wanders, wiggles, and waffles,\" and your campaign organization has sponsored reproductions in advertisements of the front cover of Playboy magazine. Is that what you meant by elevating the level of the\ndiscourse?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is graphic and accurate to say that Mr. Carter does Waver, wander, wiggle, and waffle. There are plenty of illustrations, as a matter of fact, that that's true. Now, the language is a little graphic, but there is nothing personal about it. I didn't attack his integrity or anything close to that.,Now, Mr. Carter did have an interview in Playboy magazine. I haven't looked at the magazine. I am sure there are about 7 million Americans, I understand, who will look at it and will probably read the article. [Laughter] But I reiterate what I said once before: I turned down an invitation by Playboy Magazine to have an interview such as Mr. Carter did. These are all factual statements, either by myself, or a factual statement as to an interview that he had in a certain magazine.,ARAB BOYCOTT AGAINST CERTAIN AMERICAN BUSINESSES,[5.] Q.. Mr. President, Mr. Carter yesterday said that if he was elected, he would end the Arab oil boycott. I wonder if you consider this a legitimate matter ..,THE PRESIDENT. You mean the Arab oil embargo or the Arab boycott?,Q. The Arab boycott on Israel--I misspoke. I wonder if you consider this a legitimate objective, and if you would like to do the same thing?,THE PRESIDENT. The Ford administration is the only administration since 1952, when the Arab boycott went into effect, that has done anything in the executive branch of the government. Now, Mr. Carter says that he would end it--very short sentence. I resent the inference of that. The Arab boycott was initiated in 1952. In effect, he is saying that President Eisenhower didn't do anything, that President Kennedy didn't do anything about it, that President Johnson didn't do anything about it, President Nixon didn't do anything about it, and he infers I haven't. Of course, he is inaccurate there. But I resent that he is challenging those other four Presidents--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon--because I know they opposed the Arab boycott just as much as I do and as much as Mr. Carter does. And I wonder how anybody can be so naive as to say in one sentence that he is going to do something that four other outstanding individuals didn't do, even though they opposed the same thing. And I think it is ridiculous for him to make that kind of an allegation.,VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ROBERT DOLE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, since your nomination, your decision to choose Robert Dole as Vice President has been one of the most important ones you've had to make. His record, both during the campaign and in Congress, has been one of extreme partisanship; for example, in his support of nominations to the Supreme Court of Haynsworth and Carswell and his actions on the Watergate investigation.,What can you point to in his career that shows that he has that judgment, that initiative, and that leadership that Americans are looking for in a Vice President and a potential President?,THE PRESIDENT. He served in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, I think, for 16 years. I believe his record as a Representative and as a Senator is an excellent record. In fact, it's a record of longer tenure than Senator Mondale.,So on that basis, he is better qualified than Senator Mondale. They have different philosophies. Mondale is a very liberal Senator, and Dole is a moderate-to-conservative. But I think Bob Dole, on the basis of his record of service in the Congress, is fully qualified to be Vice President.,JIMMY CARTER'S INTERVIEW IN PLAYBOY MAGAZINE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, if I could go back to that Playboy interview for a moment, sir. If you haven't read it or seen Playboy, why do you think it is fair to criticize Mr. Carter about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I have read the article. I haven't read it in the magazine.,Q. Well, if I could follow up on that, when you criticize him, is it because you specifically disagree with some things that he said in that, or is it because of the political benefit that a person might be expected to get in criticizing Playboy magazine?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know why Mr. Carter agreed to the interview. That is not for me to judge. That was a decision made by him. I don't think a President of the United States ought to have an interview in a magazine that has that format. It's a personal conviction.,ARAB BOYCOTT AGAINST CERTAIN AMERICAN BUSINESSES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, a moment ago, when you were talking about the Arab boycott, you were accusing Mr. Carter of inferring that previous Presidents had done nothing about it, but you prefaced that with a statement that the Ford administration is the only one that had done anything about it since 1952. Aren't you and Mr. Carter making the same accusations?,THE PRESIDENT. I've done it. He says that he is going to end it. I think the affirmative action that I've taken--and it has been proven, I think, helpful, because of what has transpired since, I think it was October 7, when the actual order was issued that would force companies who had participated to have their names revealed--I think this will be a big difference. I hope it will.,I am against that Arab boycott. But I repeat: I am the first President that has taken any affirmative action. And I think the way that Mr. Carter stated it was a reflection on previous Presidents who I know felt as strongly as he does that an Arab boycott is contrary to the philosophy that we as Americans have.,Q. If you are saying that previous Presidents did nothing about it, aren't you, in effect, making the same accusation against them?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said he said they had not done anything about it.,Q. You have said the Ford administration is the only one that has done anything.,THE PRESIDENT. Anything that's required that companies put their name on the line that they participated or had received information, that is correct.,ARAB OIL EMBARGO,[9.] Q. During your last debate with Jimmy Carter, Mr. Carter stated that if there was another Arab oil boycott, and he was President of the United States, he would break that boycott by countering it with a boycott of our own.,Mr. President, do you think this is a realistic possibility? Could the United States break down an Arab oil boycott--or embargo, by penalizing them by refusing to sell materials to them? And secondly, even if it is realistic would it be in the best interest of the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. My answer would be that I would not tolerate an Arab oil embargo. But I add very quickly, in the current atmosphere, because of the leadership of the Ford administration, you aren't going to have an Arab oil embargo. Let me tell you why.,In 1973, we had the Yom Kippur war. That was settled. We had the Sinai I agreement, followed by the Sinai II agreement.,This administration, in the Sinai II agreement, was able to expand the peace effort in the Middle East because the Arab nations on the one hand and Israel on the other trust the Ford administration.,You won't find among Arab nations today the same attitude that prevailed at the time of the Yore Kippur war, and you won't find the possibilities of another Middle East war today that you had in 1973. So, the probabilities of an Arab oil embargo are virtually nil because of the leadership of this administration.,Now, furthermore, I do not agree with the proposed recommendation of Mr. Carter, if there was one. He said he would cut off food, he would cut off trade, he would cut off military arms. I think we can avoid any Arab oil embargo and not have to resort to cutting off food that American farmers have produced and sell abroad in order to help our economy here at home.,PRESIDENT FORD'S VISION FOR AMERICA,[10.] Q. Mr. President, many people are saying that the candidates are showing no vision. What is your vision for America?,THE PRESIDENT. My vision for America, first, is that we shall be a nation at peace, as we are today. My vision of the next 4 years is also that we will have a better quality of life; that we will have our younger people having a better opportunity for quality education; that every person who wants a job will have a job; that the best health care will be available at prices people can afford; that we will have a record of safety and security in the streets of America for those 215 million Americans who ought to be able to walk in their community or any other part of the country without the threat of crime. My vision would also include an opportunity for greater recreation capability.,In other words, peace, a job, better health, better education, no crime--or control over the criminal situation--and a better opportunity for recreation-those are the visions that I have.,Q. Many people, though, are asking whether you truly have a vision for the underprivileged, whether you really care.,THE PRESIDENT. When you say a job for everybody who wants to work, I think that certainly indicates that you have a deep concern for the people who are disadvantaged, unemployed.,OUTCOME OF NOVEMBER 2 ELECTION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you've made any wagers with your family, your friends, or your staff, about what the popular and electoral vote will be on November 2, and, if so, could you share them with us?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't made any wagers with my family as to the outcome, but all of us--the four children, Betty, and myself--believe that when the votes are finally counted, the American people will want 4 years of the progress we've made in the last 2, and a better America during that period. But there are no wagers as to whether we are going to win or not.,PROGRAMS FOR MINORITY GROUPS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the comment by Secretary Butz that led to his resignation was made in response to a question about the commitment of this administration to blacks and other minorities. What is the commitment of this administration? What plans do you have to expand the entering into the society of blacks and other minorities in the next 4 years, if you are elected?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have a number of good programs at the present time. We certainly will continue to enforce the Civil Rights Act that was passed when I was in Congress, which I supported. We will enforce it as to the right to vote, as to housing, as to the opportunities for minority business. We will cover the spectrum to make sure that any minority, not just blacks but any minority--Mexican Americans, Chicanos, generally, blacks--all minorities in this country ought to be treated equitably and fairly, and they will under the existing laws as they have been for the last 2-plus years.,UNITED STATES RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Barry Goldwater has said that he agrees with General Brown in the sense that Israel is a military burden of the United States and that we may deplete our own armories to supply Israel and that we may give Israel too many arms, too much arms. Is Israel a burden in your opinion, and will we deplete our own arms in giving Israel arms?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a very good question, and I would like to expand a bit in my response, if I might. The United States is dedicated to the security and survival of Israel. The 3 million Israelis--they're a democratic state in an area where democracy doesn't flourish. We have many, many good, firm, fine ties with the people and with the Government of Israel. I want that to be understood very clearly.,Now, you have to look at the broad picture when you look at the States and Israel's military circumstances. At the time of the Yom Kippur war, the United States came immediately to the aid of Israel with substantial military hardware, military equipment. We drew down from our reserves in Western Europe, in the NATO forces, U.S. hardware that was sent to .Israel. Now, that was not an irreparable situation in NATO because in the interim, from 1973, we have virtually made up that drawdown. But for a period of time, one could say that the immediate needs of Israel in a crisis were a burden to the United States.,On the other hand, since I have been President--August 9, 1974, to the present time--in order to make Israel strong militarily, the Ford administration has either granted or sold about $2 1/2 billion worth of military equipment to the State of Israel. And the net result is, today Israel is stronger militarily than it was prior to the Yom Kippur war because of the support of the Ford administration. So today Israel is not a burden militarily to the United States because of the forthright action of the Ford administration.,So, you have to take the comments that have been made in the proper context. Israel is a strong ally who doesn't want U.S. troops to be participants in any future military engagement there, because Israel is strong and the Ford administration has contributed significantly to making them strong. But in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, some emergency actions had to be taken, Now we have overcome it. Israel is strong; they are a good ally, and we are dedicated to their security and survival.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ISSUES; FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CITIES,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of discussion, sir, and concern that the issues discussed in the campaign have been too narrow, and you and Mr. Carter haven't discussed a broad enough range of issues and that, frankly, very often during the debates, you have been rattling off prerehearsed answers to questions, regardless of the questions. How about that large question, and would you have any particular initiative for America's troubled cities in another term?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me speak very forthrightly. I can't speak for Mr. Carter, but we don't anticipate what those questions are going to be from the members of the press. We answer them based on our knowledge or our experience. And in my case, they are not prerehearsed, and any allegations to that effect just aren't accurate.,Now let me say this about the Ford administration and its reference to the needs and requirements of our major metropolitan areas. The Ford administration, with general revenue sharing, with the Community Development Act, Mass Transit Act, with the LEAA program and a number of other programs, has given more money to major metropolitan cities, to our big cities in this country, than any previous administration. That's a fact.,Now, the net result is sometimes those programs have overlapped. And so about 5 months ago, I asked the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills, to head a Cabinet-level committee called the Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization. And some time--I hope maybe this week or next--we will have the Cabinet committee's recommendations so we can better utilize the vast amounts of money, the billions and billions of dollars that have gone from the Federal Treasury to our cities so that they will be better utilized.1 And I am looking forward to that report. I am looking forward to having it published, because I am told that it has some very good recommendations how we can better utilize what we are making available.,1 For the President's statement on receiving the report, see Item 930.,ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING PRESIDENT FORD AND WATERGATE INVESTIGATIONS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in addition to doing what you did in connection with the proposed Patman inquiry in 1972 at the request of the Republican members of the Patman committee, were you also asked by either Mr. Nixon or by anyone acting for him on the White House staff to do what you did?,THE PRESIDENT. As I recall my testimony, John [John Osborne, The New Republic], before one--maybe both--committees, I said I had never been contacted by President Nixon, by Mr. Ehrlichman, by Mr. Haldeman, or by Mr. Dean. And I said that I had virtually daily contact with Mr. Timmons, who was the head of the legislative liaison office, but, to the best of my recollection. neither he nor anybody in his office asked me to take a hand in the Patman action or the committee action.2 That was my testimony in 1973; it's my testimony, or my answer to your question today.,2 U.S. Representative Wright Patman from Texas was Chairman of the House Banking, Currency, and Housing Committee, which investigated the Watergate break-in.,DEFENSE BUDGET,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you stated that Governor Carter once advocated a $15-billion cut in the defense budget. He said that's not so, that he only wants to cut $5 billion or $7 billion out and he wants to take it all out of waste. I would like to know, why don't you join Governor Carter in coming out in favor of cutting that much waste out of the defense budget?,THE PRESIDENT. First, the record is clear that on two occasions, Governor Carter did say--one in Savannah, Georgia, and one in Los Angeles--and he was quoted in reputable newspapers--that he would cut the defense budget $15 billion.,Now it is true, according to what he says today, that he has gone from a $15-billion cut down to a $5- to $7-billion cut. I am glad to see that as he gets better educated in these matters, that he understands that you can't do that to the Defense Department and be strong enough to meet the challenges of the Soviet Union or anybody else.,All right. The Ford administration, in January of this year, recommended to the Congress a military budget that called for spending--what we call obligation authority--of about $112.5 billion. We said that you could keep the military strong and keep the peace as we have it with that kind of a military budget, providing the Congress would take certain other actions to improve the efficiency and achieve economies in the Defense Department, and I think those proposed economies total about $4 billion.,Now, the Congress, when they got all through, only approved about a billion and a half to $2 billion of those economies that the Ford administration recommended for the Department of Defense. So, we were on record in January for some very specific economies, improved efficiency in the Defense Department. And the net result is, Congress wouldn't go along with it. They wouldn't change the laws. But we are going to send up a budget in January for the Defense Department that will provide for the necessary funding to keep the peace, but we will also send up the kind of economy, efficiency recommendations that we made last January.\nREPORTER. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very much. How do you like the afternoon show? [Laughter]"}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-10-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good evening. Will you please sit down.,STATEMENT ON THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCIAL RECORDS,[1.] I do have a brief opening statement. When I was chosen to be Vice President, I underwent the most intensive scrutiny of any man who has ever been selected for public office in the United States. My past life, my qualifications, my beliefs all were put under a microscope and in full public view.,Nonetheless, all of you here tonight and many in our listening audience are aware of allegations that came forth in recent weeks involving my past political campaigns. As I have said on several occasions, these rumors were false. I am very pleased that this morning the Special Prosecutor has finally put this matter to rest once and for all.,I have told you before that I am deeply privileged to serve as the President of this great Nation. But one thing that means more to me than my desire for public office is my personal reputation for integrity.,Today's announcement by the Special Prosecutor reaffirms the original findings of my Vice-Presidential confirmation hearings. I hope that today's announcement will also accomplish one other major task--that it will elevate the Presidential campaign to a level befitting the American people and the American political tradition.,For too many days, this campaign has been mired in questions that have little bearing upon the future of this Nation. The people of this country deserve better than that. They deserve a campaign that focuses on the most serious issues of our time--on the purposes of government, on the heavy burdens of taxation, on the cost of living, and on the quality of our lives and on the ways to keep America strong, at peace, and free.,Governor Carter and I have profound differences of opinion on these matters. I hope that in the 20 days remaining in this campaign, we can talk seriously and honestly about these differences so that on November 2 the American people can make a clear choice and give us--one of us--a mandate to govern wisely and well during the next 4 years.,Ladies and gentlemen, I will be glad to answer your questions.\nFran [Frances Lewine, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT AND WATERGATE INVESTIGATIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, would you also like to set the record straight tonight on an issue that John Dean1 has raised? Did you at any time use your influence with any Members of Congress or talk to lobbyist Richard Cook about blocking a 1972 Watergate break-in investigation by Wright Patman's House Banking Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. I have reviewed the testimony that I gave before both the House and the Senate committees, and those questions were asked. I responded fully.,1 Counsel to the President 1970-73.,A majority of the members of the House committee and the Senate committee, after full investigation, came to the conclusion that there was no substance to those allegations. I don't believe they are any more pertinent today than they were then, and my record was fully cleared at that time.,WEAPONS SALES TO ISRAEL; INCREASE IN WHEAT PRICE SUPPORTS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in the past several days, you've made two major decisions, one to sell Israel concussion bombs, sophisticated weaponry, even though their request had been hanging fire for many months. You also decided to give the wheat price support the 50-percent boost, even though the Agriculture Department said the day before that there was no economic justification for these. Can you state flatly that none of these decisions were designed to enhance you politically?,THE PRESIDENT. Categorically, those decisions were based on conditions that I think justified fully the decisions that I made. In the case of the four items that were cleared for delivery to the Government of Israel, those items have been on the list for consideration. Those items have been analyzed by the various departments in our Government, and the net result was that I decided, after discussing the matter with my top advisers, that those items should be cleared for the Government of Israel.,Q. But on what justification do you give such weapons, and why did you bypass the Pentagon and the State Department?,THE PRESIDENT. I made the decisions, and that decision is mine. And they may have been a little disappointed that they didn't have an opportunity to leak the decision beforehand. And I felt that it was a decision only for the Commander in Chief, and I made it as such, and based on recommendations that were made to me by responsible people, the top people giving me advice in this regard.,On the other question, regarding the increase in the loan rates, in May of 1975, I vetoed an agricultural bill on the basis that I thought it was not good legislation at that time. But I said at that time, in the veto message, that I would be very watchful to make certain that if conditions changed we would increase the loan rate.,In May of 1975, for example, the price of wheat was about $3.35 a bushel. Recently, the price of wheat was about $2.79 a bushel. There was a very severe drop. And in order to make certain that wheat will be marketed properly and the farmer will have an opportunity to market that wheat which he produced--at our request of full production--and in order for the farmers, the wheat farmers, to have adequate financing to proceed with their full planting of winter wheat, I decided that it was in the best interest of full production for the American farmer that those loan rates be increased. They were based on a commitment I made in May of 1975 and changed conditions today.,INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCIAL RECORDS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in the course of the Watergate Prosecutor's investigation of your income taxes, your taxes were made public--leaked to the press at one point. And in those taxes it showed that at one point you took money from your political organization and used over $1,000 for a family vacation to Vail and several hundred dollars for personal clothing. I wonder if you would address the propriety of action like that.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you have to bear in mind that, as I recall, those initial payments for airline tickets and for the others were made out of what we call the Fifth District account. And within, I think it was a week or 2 weeks at the most, I reimbursed that account fully in both cases.,Q. In the case of reimbursement, the tax information also showed that your personal bank account, as it were, went down in the red something like $3,000, but it was soon reimbursed. And there was a question left as to how you reimbursed that $3,000.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that was my next paycheck. [Laughter]\nI think a few people in this country have written checks and then waited until the end of the month and then mailed the checks and--maybe you haven't done it, but I suspect a few people have--[laughter]--and we mailed those checks after we had the money in the bank account. But I wrote the checks before the end of the month. It's a perfectly legitimate thing, and there was never an overdraft in my account.,THE PRESIDENT'S GOLFING VACATIONS AND TRAVEL,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some questions a few weeks ago about your taking, accepting golfing vacations and travel from lobbyists and corporations. It's been quite some time since these allegations were made. I'm wondering if you can clear this up tonight. Just how often, how many times, did you accept free travel and golfing vacations from lobbyists and corporations?,THE PRESIDENT. To the best of my recollection, the ones that came to light are the ones that are involved. There may be one or two more, but I can't recollect the instances.,ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT AND WATERGATE INVESTIGATIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, if I may follow up on Frances Lewine's first question, I don't think you quite answered the question. The question is not about your testimony at the time specifically, it's about the new allegations from John Dean that, in fact, you did discuss six times with Mr. Cook the matter of blocking the investigation, by the House, of Watergate. And at the time you said--at the time that you went through your investigation that you've mentioned-you said that you did not recollect such discussions. Do you now recollect discussions with Mr. Cook on that subject?,THE PRESIDENT. I will give you exactly the same answer that I gave to the House committee and to the Senate committee, and that answer was satisfactory to the House committee by a vote of 29 to 8 and, I think, a unanimous vote in the Senate committee.,The matter was fully investigated by those two committees, and I think that's a satisfactory answer. And I'm not going to pass judgment on what Mr. Dean now alleges.,Q. Mr. President, would you oppose--on the Dean matter would you oppose a review of White House tapes and investigation by the Special Prosecutor that's been called for by Congressman Conyers and Congresswoman Holtzman?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a decision for the Special Prosecutor to make. I have never, at any time in the just previous investigations or at any other time, interfered with the judgment or the decision of the Special Prosecutor, and I wouldn't in this case.,FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE ECONOMY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you've been going up and down the country-and most recently in New York and New Jersey--saying that things are getting better and things are being improved and there is a definite difference between you and the other candidate, Mr. Carter.,There is a 7.8-percent unemployment rate. The Commerce Department today announced that retail sales fell by 1.1 percent. The stock market took a nosedive. Mr. Friedman, a conservative economist, says nothing that neither you nor Mr. Carter offers will cause a change in. the rise of Federal spending. And finally, Mr. Greenspan, your own adviser, predicted today a continued 6-percent inflation rate.,THE PRESIDENT. Let me set the record.--,Q. I don't understand how things are getting better.,THE PRESIDENT. Let me set the record straight. There is a very distinct difference between Federal spending proposals by President Ford and those of Governor Carter. Governor Carter has endorsed, embraced, sponsored 60-some new programs that will cost $100 billion a year at a minimum and $200 billion, probably, on an annual basis. So there is a distinct difference between Governor Carter on the one hand and myself. He wants to spend more, and I want to hold the lid on Federal spending.,Now, let's talk about the status of the economy. In the first quarter of this calendar year, the rate of growth of GNP was 9.2 percent. It fell in the second quarter to 4.5 percent. It looks like the third quarter will be in the range of about 4 percent. I have checked with the responsible advisers to me in this area, and they expect a resumption of the rate of growth of GNP in October, November, and December of over 5 percent and probably closer to 6 percent. And they expect that same rate of growth in 1977.,We've had a pause. But we could not sustain the rate of growth of the first quarter of 1976, when it was 9.2 or .3. We are now coming out of the dip or the pause that we had, and I believe that all, or practically all economists recognize that the economy is continuing to improve and will get better in this quarter and in 1977.,FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR METROPOLITAN AREAS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in keeping the lid on Federal spending, are you willing to accept the continued physical and social deterioration of the big cities of this country? A Marshall plan sort of approach has been offered. Would you, if elected, move in that direction?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not embrace any spending program that is going to cost the Federal Treasury and the American taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars. We have good programs for the rehabilitation of our major metropolitan areas. I just signed the general revenue sharing bill. We fully fund the Community Development Act. We fully fund the mass transit legislation. We have a number of very good programs that are in operation today.,And about 3 months ago I appointed the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills, to head a Cabinet Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization. That committee is working together very closely so that we get the full benefit out of all the Federal dollars now available to help our inner cities and major metropolitan areas.,I think we're doing a good job, and to all of a sudden just throw money in doesn't make any sense, because you're bound to have more deficits, more taxes, and more inflation. So, I think we ought to make the programs we have today work, and they are working and will solve the problem.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN TRAVEL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, a review of your travel logs from this fall and last fall shows that for a comparable period last fall you spent exactly as much time on the road--15 days last fall--when there was no campaign and no election than you have this fall when there is a hotly contested Presidential election. Doesn't this lend a little bit of credence to Governor Carter's charge that you've been kind of hiding in the White House for most of this campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. Tom [Tom De Frank, Newsweek], didn't you see that wonderful picture of me standing on top of the limousine with, I think, the caption \"Is he hiding?\" The truth is, we are campaigning when we feel that we can be away from the White House and not neglect the primary responsibilities that I have as President of the United States. I think you are familiar with the vast number of bills that I've had to sign. We've done that. That's my prime responsibility, among other things.,We do get out and campaign. We were in New York and New Jersey earlier this week. We're going to Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois between now and Sunday. We will be traveling when we can. But my prime responsibility is to stay in the White House and get the job done here. And I will do that, and then we will campaign after that.,VOTER APATHY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, how do you account for--at this rather late stage in the campaign--so many voters are telling pollsters that they remain undecided, and many more are saying that they may not bother to vote at all?,THE PRESIDENT. It is disturbing that there are these statements to the effect that the voters are apathetic. I believe we have tried to do everything we possibly can to stimulate voter participation. I want a maximum vote in this election on November 2. And in every way that I possibly can, we're going to stimulate it between now and November 2.,I can't give you an answer why there is apathy. I'm going to do what I can to overcome that apathy, and naturally, I hope to convince 51 percent of the people in enough States so that we get enough electoral votes so that we can continue the policies of trust, peace, and growing prosperity in the United States.,THE PRESIDENT'S GOLFING VACATIONS AND TRAVEL,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you think it's proper for a Member of Congress to accept a golfing vacation or a golfing weekend trip, and would you, now that you're in the White House, accept such a trip?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not accepted any such trip since I've been Vice President or President. And when I was in the Congress, I've done as I said in the limited number of instances that have been in the papers.,PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONMAKING,[12.] Q. Mr. President, it's been said that in your debate with Jimmy Carter your statement on Eastern Europe demonstrated a certain lack of ability to think fast on your feet. Without intending to once again review the merits of that debate, how important, in your judgment, is it for a President to think fast on his feet to do his job properly?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's vitally important for a President to make the right decisions in the Oval Office. And I think I've made the right decisions in the Oval Office. I have admitted that in that particular debate, I made a slip in that one instance. But I'd like to compare that one slip with the documented instances that we found in Governor Carter's presentation a week ago, when he made some 14 either misrepresentations or inaccurate statements.,And while we're on that subject, I'd like to say that I feel very strongly that the attitude that he took on that occasion, where he said America was not strong, Where he said the United States Government had tried to get us into another Vietnam in Angola, and where he said the United States had lost respect throughout the world--I don't approve of any candidate for office slandering the good name of the United States. It discourages our allies, and it encourages our adversaries.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN DEBATES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, on the debates, two of them have happened, and one is to come. Do you have any thoughts, perhaps, on changing the rules for the third debate? And also, do you feel impeded since you are President and know more than you can say in public?,THE PRESIDENT. About the only improvement I would make is to get Mr. Carter to answer the questions. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS ON EASTERN EUROPE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us why it took you 6 days and four clarifications before you finally admitted that you had, in fact, made a mistake in the debate in your remarks on Eastern Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it took some thoughtful analysis because, as someone may have noticed, there was a letter to the editor in the New York Times a day or 2 ago by a very prominent ethnic, a man by the name of Janovitz, as I recall, who said that my answer was the right one. But it all depends on how you analyze the answer.,But I wanted to be very clear, to make certain that the Polish Americans and other ethnics in this country knew that I knew that there are some 30 Soviet divisions in Poland and several of the other Eastern European countries.,On the other hand, I want to say very strongly that anybody who has been in Poland, for example, as I have in 1975, and seen the Polish people--the strong, courageous look in their face, the deep feeling that you get from talking with them--although they recognize that the Soviet Union has x number of divisions occupying their country, that freedom is in their heart and in their mind, and they are not going to be dominated over the long run by any outside power.,Now, we concede for the time being, the Soviet Union has that military power there. But we subscribe to the hopes and the aspirations of the courageous Polish people and their relatives here in the United States.,Q. Mr. President, if they tried to overthrow that power, would you look favorably on helping them in some way?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think we should answer that question. I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think we should respond to that kind of a question in a press conference.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN DEBATES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you've had some harsh words for your opponent's performance in the second debate, and yet every public opinion survey that I've seen showed that you lost that debate--and it was one that was on foreign and defense affairs, which are supposed to be your strong suit. Do you agree that you lost that second debate and, if so, why? Or, if you think you won it, why do you think that happened?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there is a poll that shows the conclusion you have just set forth. I don't necessarily agree with that. But there were some very specific answers that were given by people who were interrogated afterwards. And if you look at that list of special questions that were asked of people who responded, it showed that in those cases--and I think they were the very fundamental ones on specific issues--knowledge, firmness, strength--that a majority of the people thought I had prevailed.,NEW NATURAL GAS PRICES,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the Federal Power Commission has authorized the increase in the price of new natural gas. That's something you favored. The original estimate was that it would cost the American consumer $1.3 billion a year. Now we're told that it may be as high or higher than $3 billion a year. Do you think that that price increase should be rolled back or should it stand?,THE PRESIDENT. The fundamental issue is, if you don't get a price increase you aren't going to have any new natural gas. So the question is, are you willing to pay for enough gas to heat our homes and to heat our factories so people will have jobs? We have to give an incentive to people to go out and 'find new natural gas sources, and if you don't give them that incentive, there won't be any heat for their homes or heat for their factories, and we will lose the jobs.,Q. Are you willing to risk another jolt to the economy from this large price increase?,THE PRESIDENT. I think a bigger jolt would be to have the jobs lost and the\nhouses cold.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THEMES,[17.] Q. Mr. President, earlier in your campaign you said you intended to stress positive themes, yet in your most recent campaign appearances you have concentrated on attacking Governor Carter. Tonight you accused him of slandering the name of the United States. Do you think you've done all you can to elevate the level of this campaign, and can we expect you to continue the way you have been in the last week or so?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's very positive to talk about tax reductions, as I have recommended to the American people that we increase the personal exemption from $750 to $1,000. That's very positive, very affirmative, and certainly in contrast to what Mr. Carter wants, which is to increase taxes for people with a medium- or middle-income level, which is about $14,000. That's a distinct difference. I'm on the affirmative side; he's on the negative side.,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service]. [Laughter] You knew I'd get around to you.,THE PRESIDENT'S GOLFING EXPENSES,[18.] Q. Thank you. When you were in Congress, you filed an income tax return for those years saying that you had very little money left over. Like a lot of us, you had about $5 left over for spending money, I believe.,I wonder if you had included your golf fees and your dues at Congressional and Burning Tree. I believe you belonged to both of them, didn't you? And they're very expensive. You must have been strapped for funds. Who was helping you pay those large golfing expenses? You golfed three to five times a week, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, that's an inaccurate statement, and you know it, Sarah. [Laughter] When you are the minority leader of the House of Representatives and on the job, you don't play golf three to five times a week. I'm sorry that you said that, because you know it's not true.,Now, let me just say that I paid for those golfing dues or charges by check. And the committee and everybody else--the Internal Revenue Service, the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, the FBI, and now the Special Prosecutor-have all looked into those in depth and in detail, and they have given me a clean bill of health, and I thank them for it.,INCOME TAX LEGISLATION,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the Washington Post had an article today which noted that Ford Motor Company paid no taxes last year, paid no taxes the year before. Do you think that's fair, and what are you going to do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's proper to remind the American people that those tax laws which are on the statute books were written by the Democrats, who controlled the Congress for the last 22 years. If they're wrong, it's the fault of the majority party in the Congress.,Q. What are you doing to change that?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made recommendations to the Congress over the last year and a half for some modifications in the income tax legislation, but how that would affect that particular company, I can't give you the answer.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN DEBATES,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in a recent speech--I'm afraid I don't recall where-you cut a line from your text in which you said something about the campaign should not be just a quiz show to see who gets to live in the White House for the next 4 years. And I assume you stand by that advance text. Were you trying to suggest that the debates have not been as effective as they should have been and they have not kept up the level of the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News], you know that you read the advance text. I hope you are listening when I speak. You know, on many occasions, I add a little here and I take something else out. Oftentimes, I don't get those texts until maybe a half, three-quarters of an hour before I make the speech. So, I make the judgment myself. Those are the recommendations of the speechwriters.,Now, I didn't think that was an appropriate thing to say, and therefore, I didn't include it in the text that I gave to the meeting that you referred to.,Q. Well then, let me put it this way: Do you think the debates have helped keep up the level of the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the debates have been very wholesome. I think they've been constructive. I was the one that initiated the challenge. I believe that they ought to be an institution in future Presidential campaigns. I really believe that, and for that reason I didn't think that sentence in that prepared text, which I deleted, reflected my own views.,INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCIAL RECORDS,[21.] Q. Mr. President, thank you. A little while ago you gave us an idea of how you balance your family budget--you kite checks. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Oh, no, I don't. No, I don't. I've never been overdrawn, young lady. [Laughter],Q. The question is, then, how is it that you are able to live on from $5 to $13 a week in cash--as has been reported by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal--in 1972?,THE PRESIDENT. I repeat that the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, the Joint Committee on Taxation, two committees in the House and in the Senate, and an overwhelming majority of the Members of the House and Senate believe the testimony. They went back and checked every one of those income tax returns from '73 back 6 years, and they gave me a clean bill of health. And now it's been reinvestigated for the fourth time by the Special Prosecutor, and he concurs with the previous investigations. Those are the facts of life. I write checks. [Laughter]\nThank you all. Thank you very much.\nMs. LEWINE. Thank you."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-09-30","text":"REPORTER. Mr. President, you are well aware of all the stories of allegations concerning your Grand Rapids past and the campaign financing, I know, and that the records allegedly have been subpoenaed by a Special Prosecutor. So, this must be very disturbing, and I suppose you want it cleared up before the election.,I know that you believe that the Judiciary Committee covered it all. But can you say categorically that there has never been any misuse of any of your campaign funds when you ran for Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. First, let me say very emphatically that I strongly believe in the Special Prosecutor concept. I supported, the administration supports the continuation of a Special Prosecutor. I was pleased when the Senate passed a version that included such a provision. And I am disappointed that the House apparently is not going to do it. I should add that I have full confidence in the integrity of Mr. Ruff in his responsibilities as the Special Prosecutor.,Number two, I also believe in the full integrity of the Department of Justice, and I am certain that they will do whatever they are required to under their responsibilities.,Let me add that nobody on my staff has any authority whatsoever to contact either the Special Prosecutor or the Department of Justice to, in any way, hinder or impede whatever investigations are going on.,What I know about the Kent County situation I have picked up in reading the newspapers or seeing on television or radio what has been reported.,I, therefore, am not familiar with the precise charges, whatever they may be. But I can say with complete confidence that I am certain that when the investigation is completed, that I will be free of any allegations such as I've read about.,I would add this final comment: There is a saying that's prevalent in the law that \"justice delayed is justice denied.\" And I am certain that the people responsible for any investigation will live up to the high standards required in the canon of ethics for the legal profession, which does require that in any such investigations that they be full, complete, and concluded as readily as possible.,Q. Well, you don't know for certain whether there are charges or whether\nyou are the target, or do you--,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. And doesn't your curiosity--even if you made public the fact that you were going to ask, I don't think that that would be undue pressure, would it?,THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to be so circumspect, so that we are not under any circumstances accused of any improprieties, that I have told members of my staff that under no circumstances should they make contacts with either the Special Prosecutor or the Department of Justice.,Q. Mr. President, don't you have the right under the current law to ask if you are the target of the Special Prosecutor's investigation? And if that's the case, why don't you want to know that, at least?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't tell you whether under the law I can or can't. But even if we do have that right, I think an inquiry by me or somebody on my staff would undoubtedly be misconstrued, and I just don't want any such allegation being made by anybody.,Q. Mr. President, could you clear up a matter that has been pending for some time and was referred to in this investigation--or at least it was referred to in a newspaper article the other day--that when you were in the House you used to go down here to the Seamans Institute, I think 22d Street or somewhere, like a lot of other House Members did of both parties, and read a little speech that they gave you to read at noon luncheons, and then they would give you a nice little check, maybe they would give you an extra $1,000 or $500 because you were majority--minority leader? I am sure this was probably done by a lot of other Congressmen, but was that true?,THE PRESIDENT. Any time I make a speech, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service], I solicit from members of my staff--I did up in the House--and I asked any organization that I was speaking to to give me ideas on what they thought would be appropriate comments in speaking to that organization.,In the case of the meetings that you speak of, it was before the joint maritime labor organization--that's not the right term--but it's a combination of all the labor organizations that are involved in the maritime industry.,Yes, I asked them for suggestions as to what they thought would be appropriate for discussion before their group. And they, along with the executive branch of the government that had jurisdiction over shipbuilding or any aspects of the maritime industry--I also got recommendations from them. And this combination of ideas for a speech, people on my staff put together in a speech. But they were not the ones who wrote the speech that you are speaking of. They submitted what they thought would be appropriate, and we took their ideas with the suggestions from the staff committees on the House and Senate side, the executive department people, the labor organizations, from the maritime industry overall, and that combination of information went into whatever speeches I made. I think that's a very appropriate way to handle it.,Q. Did they give you a check for this, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes, and those checks were fully reported on my income tax returns. They were reported to any other authority that required it. And all of that matter was looked into by the House and Senate committees at the time of my Vice-Presidential hearing.,Q. But if they had matters pending before the Congress, did you think that was right to take that money when they had matters pending before the Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I was deeply interested in the new legislation that was before the House and the Senate to expand and upgrade our maritime industry. That was a group that likewise felt that way, and I think it was proper.,Q. Mr. President, in your golf outings or social occasions or other vacations with Rod Markley of Ford Motor Company or U.S. Steel, did you discuss Government business with them either when you were a Member of the House or Vice President or President?,THE PRESIDENT. Not to my best recollection.,Q. You never discussed business?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, do you think in the headlines that have run for about the last 10 days and the fact that some of these potential allegations have not been resolved, that there has been any damaging effect on your campaign, or would there be if \"justice delayed\" means that there is no resolution of this before November 2?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's vitally important that any aspects of either one of these matters be fully resolved as quickly as possible. I have no way of knowing what the impact is politically.,Q. Mr. President, one of the issues raised is whether any of this campaign money was actually ever diverted to your personal use. Would you like to say flatly whether that was so or not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether that's an allegation that's being investigated by the Special Prosecutor's Office, but I can say that there was never money given to me by the Kent County Republican Committee. The Kent County Republican Committee may have done some advertising on behalf of my candidacy or the candidacy of other Republican candidates running for public office. That's their function.,They, just for example, always the last week or so, would have a full-page ad with the gubernatorial candidate and the senatorial candidate, the congressional candidate, plus some State legislative officers, and so I suppose they spent their money on that, which is a perfectly proper function of the Kent County Republican Finance Committee and county organization. No money ever went to me personally.,Q. Mr. President, does the timing of the Special Prosecutor's investigation seem strange to you, or do you question the motivation?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not under any circumstances question the motivation or the timing.,Q. Mr. President, are you holding this press conference because Jimmy\nCarter has accused you of keeping silent on these matters?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all.,Q. Mr. President, your staff says they are having some trouble getting records of all these various golfing trips and what-not. Have you ever asked Mr. Whyte 1 if he has records?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's my understanding that Mr. Whyte issued a two or three-page statement a week or 10 days ago which outlined the circumstances of the three trips up to Pine Valley and the two down to Disneyland. I understand he issued that.,1 William G. Whyte, vice president of public affairs of U.S. Steel Corporation.,Q. I mean records of what it cost and who paid and all that sort of thing.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have no access to their records, so they will have to answer that.,Q. Mr. President, you have said that it's vitally important that the matter be resolved as soon as possible. Is it your wish that it be resolved before the election? It is vitally important so the voters can see the full story, or the true story.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's more important to me personally that it be cleared up because I am very proud of my record of personal integrity. And I think that's more important than any impact it might have on the election.,Q. Mr. President, may I just ask you this question: Those marine unions, the Seafarers and the Marine Engineers, supported you down through the years. Then you vetoed a bill that they wanted--I forget the name of it, but I am sure you recall it. After that they shifted over to Jimmy Carter. Do you have any feeling that maybe somebody in the Carter camp may have made some allegation to the Special Prosecutor and that's what triggered this, or is there a political motivation in there somewhere?,THE PRESIDENT. Bob [Bob Schieffer, CBS News], I wouldn't make any allegations of that kind. I don't think--since I don't know--I don't think I ought to make any comment.,Q. Well obviously, though, the Special Prosecutor wouldn't open an investigation, I would think, on just the basis of rumors. Somebody had to make an allegation there.,THE PRESIDENT. What impresses me the most is a statement by the former Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who has said, as I understand it, publicly, that before he left the office of Special Prosecutor he looked into such matters, and he came to the conclusion that there was no reason for action.,Now, that in no way challenges the right or the integrity of Mr. Ruff. But where any such charges came from, I would have no idea.,Q. Let me just make one follow-up. If I understand it, Mr. Jaworski said that he had investigated the Seafarers Union, and I think that was in relation to a $100,000 contribution they made to Richard Nixon. As far as I know, he's never said that he looked into MEBA [Marine Engineers Beneficial Association]-the Marine Engineers. Do you know in fact whether or not he did?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't be that precise.,Q. Mr. President, you said that you instructed that your staff shouldn't make any contacts to the Attorney General or to the prosecutor. Have there been any contacts made by any of these agencies to you, so that you have any information at all either that this is going to be resolved quickly or any information at all?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no information whatsoever.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any information from people back in your old home district, the fifth district, that may have contacted you, presumably old friends of yours?,THE PRESIDENT. I read the Grand Rapids Press, which is a good newspaper, and I read stories concerning this and quotations from people who were former county chairmen or presently county chairmen, so I know what they've said. But they haven't talked extensively about the investigation. I guess they felt that they had testified or made their comments to whoever was investigating it, and they didn't really say very much.,Q. But you haven't talked to any of them personally?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, a number of Pentagon military officers have received disciplinary reprimands for accepting freebies--free weekends, hunting expeditions. If you think there is nothing improper about a Congressman accepting free golfing weekends, what distinction is there?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall, the House passed a resolution sometime in 1968, as I understand it, which says nothing of significance or substance should be received. I do not feel that there was any impropriety on my part or any violation of that regulation.,I am an avid golfer. Most of you know it. I enjoy the company of people while I am playing golf. Every person that's been involved in these allegations I have reciprocated with as far as they coming either to my golf club or coming to our home.,There has been, I would say, substantial reciprocity. And whatever the circumstances of our getting together, has been in a proper way and in no way a violation, in my judgment, of any rule or ethical standard. These are close personal friends and have been for many years. And I have never accepted--or I don't believe they have tendered--any such things on the basis of seeking any special privilege or anything that was improper.,Q. Mr. President, on June 15, before the Southern Baptist Convention, you condemned very strongly what you call \"situation ethics,\" and I was wondering why this golfing vacation wasn't really \"situation ethics.\" When at that time, you said the American people, particularly our young people, cannot be expected to take pride or even to participate in a system of government that is defiled and dishonored, whether in the White House or the halls of Congress.,My question is, do you feel that in view of what the White House has admitted, you have lived up to your own standards here?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said that I don't consider these infrequent weekends a violation of either the rules of the House or any ethical standards. I explained that these were long-standing personal relationships, where there has been virtual reciprocity, and I wouldn't have accepted if there had been any thought in my mind that it was improper or the violation of any code of ethics.,Q. Isn't that \"situation ethics\" though?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think so.,Q. Mr. President, to follow up on Fran Lewine's [Frances L. Lewine, Associated Press] question earlier, she asked you if any of the funds had been diverted for personal use, and your answer, sir, was that you had never received any funds from Kent County. Are we to understand that as a \"no,\" that you have never used any of these funds for personal use?,THE PRESIDENT. From the Kent County Republican Committee?,Q. From any campaign fund?,THE PRESIDENT. I will say any campaign funds for personal use.,Q. Do you find these stories personally painful, someone questioning your integrity?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it naturally has some impact when I know that all of these things have been investigated by some 400 FBI agents and 5 to 6 Internal Revenue agents, with my income taxes going back to 8 or 9 years, when I know that I have been given a clean bill of health not only by the FBI but the Internal Revenue Service, by the Senate and House committees, and an overwhelming vote in the House and Senate.,When I look at the investigation that was made of my personal life, the financial circumstances, probably more than anybody else in the history of this country, I know that there is no problem. So I guess to some extent one is bothered a bit. But as long as my conscience is clear I have no real problem.,Q. Sir, you brought up the matter of the income tax. It's proper, isn't it, if in case a person receives a gift, say of an airplane ticket or something of that sort, it has to be listed on their income tax as a gift? Or does reciprocity cover that when you buy a ticket later?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with the details of that, but the IRS went into all of these matters. They closed out my income tax returns for back 8 or 9 years. They had people go into these with minute detail so I--,Q. Well, what I am asking is, actually I am asking for your legal advice.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not here to give you any legal advice.,Q. Mr. President, is this long-standing personal relationship, personal and friendship though it may be--is nevertheless valuable to United States Steel and to the Ford Motor Company, much as the employers of other people who are friends of yours--for example, John Byrnes,2 who represents a great many interests in this town on tax reform, and--perhaps coincidentally, perhaps you believe this--your position is about like his on tax reform?,I asked you earlier whether you had discussed business with them during these social outings. Rod Markley said you and he discussed the Clean Air Act. I wonder, do you not see that it is to their benefit for you to have this personal relationship?2 U.S. Representative from Wisconsin 1945-73.,THE PRESIDENT. Let me modify what I said a moment ago. In a casual way, of course we might informally talk about certain matters, but I happen to feel that they were not asking me and I was not asking them. The times I've played with Rod have been at Burning Tree, where we are both members and both pay our own way. John Byrnes, I played golf with him because he is a friend of 28 plus years. I don't see anything improper at all.,Q. Do you think that you can separate--,THE PRESIDENT. Absolutely.,Q.--their business as lobbyists and their representation of their corporations from your personal friendship?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, some of their comments could be helpful in what the status is.,Q. Mr. President, yet that seems to be the issue that Carter is raising, though. He seems to be raising the old buddy system issue and saying, in fact, that you can't. Now what can you say to counter that? How can you?,THE PRESIDENT. Maybe he can't, but I can.,Q. Mr. President, may I ask you, you now are aware that some of these expenses were actually paid by the companies and not by your friends. But you were paying, when you had them to your home, you were paying yourself, the taxpayers were not taking care of this. So these companies in effect were financing some of this. What is your thinking about why they wanted to do this, why they were willing to entertain you on these weekends?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you would have to ask the people who offered the invitation. These are personal friends, and I don't ask in advance why you want to pay my green fees. I think that's a matter for them on the basis of their own integrity.,Q. Mr. President, you have been through one debate. Have you got any thoughts on the second one as to a change in format, or anything you would like to do differently?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very satisfied with the format that was used in the first debate. I thought it went very well.,Q. Mr. President, you look more worried than I've seen you in a long time.,THE PRESIDENT. Worried?,Q. Yes, sir. You haven't smiled very much in this news conference. You really look troubled, and I have known you for 10 years. Does this bother you? Is it something that's going to hurt you badly in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I answered a moment ago I am more concerned about my personal reputation. But I am not unhappy. I just am worried about getting over to the signing ceremony for one of these bill signings."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-09-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I have a very short opening statement, and then we will get to the questions.,PROBLEMS CONCERNING SOUTHERN AFRICA,[1.] I met this morning with Secretary Kissinger to discuss his report on his meetings with Prime Minister Vorster and with European leaders. On the basis of this report, I believe that good progress has been made on the problems concerning southern Africa.,It is important to understand that in this diplomatic process now unfolding, the United States is offering its good offices as an intermediary. We are willing to present ideas on how progress can be achieved, but we are not--and I emphasize not--trying to develop a specific American plan.,We have three objectives: first, to prevent an escalation of the violence which in time could threaten our national security; second, to realize popular aspirations while guaranteeing minority rights and ensuring economic progress; third, to resist the intervention in the African situation by outside forces.,In his discussions with Prime Minister Vorster, the Secretary put forward some ideas conveyed to the United States by black African leaders, and Prime Minister Vorster gave us his reactions. As a result of these discussions, Assistant Secretary Schaufele is currently in Africa discussing the situation. On the basis of his report, I will decide whether further progress can be made through a visit by Secretary Kissinger to Africa, starting with black African countries most concerned. We want to create the opportunities and conditions for all races to live side by side.,The United States cannot solve by itself these complicated 'problems. We need the continued good will and dedication of the parties involved.,The process that is now beginning is an extremely important one. It is extremely complicated. There is no guarantee of success. But I believe the United States must now make a major effort because it is the right thing to do. It is in our national interest, and it is in the interest of world peace.\nI will be glad to answer any questions.,QUESTIONS,SENATOR ROBERT DOLE'S CAMPAIGN FINANCES,[2.] Q. Mr. President, when you selected Mr. Dole as your running mate, did you make a thorough check of his finances over and beyond, independently of what he gave you, and how was that done? Was it done through Justice, or where?,THE PRESIDENT. The Office of White House Counsel made a very thorough investigation of all of the individuals who were being considered for the office of Vice President. That was done by demanding that they send to us various information concerning their finances and related matters.,Subsequent to that information being furnished, a member of my staff at the Office of the White House Counsel interrogated the individuals who were being considered, including Senator Dole. As a result of that interrogation and information voluntarily supplied by Senator Dole, it was concluded by the Office of the White House Counsel that all things were in order.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN STRATEGY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, have we gotten a fair sample of your campaign this week, or do you have something else in mind for the future?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], that I decided a long time ago--in fact, when I made my first announcement that I was a candidate--that the principal responsibility I had was that of being President of the United States. And I intend to carry out that responsibility. Secondly, we have a campaign strategy that will unfold in the days and weeks ahead. It is a strategy that we will adhere to, and it is one that has been thoroughly worked out and definitely determined. And you will see how it evolves in the time ahead.,LOCATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, was it your suggestion that the first debate be held in Philadelphia and, if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, I wanted the debates to start today, and we weren't too particular where the location might be. We are certainly in agreement with Philadelphia being the first site.,THE CANDIDATES' POSITIONS ON ABORTION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, Jimmy Carter said today that your position on abortion and his are fundamentally the same. Do you agree with that? And, secondly, do you think the issue should be debated at all in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. First, the Democratic platform and the Republican platform on the issue of abortion are quite different. I subscribe to the Republican platform, and Governor Carter subscribes to the Democratic platform. His position and mine are not identical. My position is that of the Republican platform, and I will stick with it.,Q. But that was not your position before.,THE PRESIDENT. I think--if I might correct you, Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International]--the Republican platform is my platform. It is one that coincides with my long-held views.,Q. Do you think there should be a constitutional amendment against abortion?,THE PRESIDENT. I have had the position for some time that there should be a constitutional amendment that would permit the individual States to make the decision based on a vote of the people of each of the States.\nMr. Rodgers [Walter C. Rodgers, Associated Press Radio].,SALT H NEGOTIATIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, are we any closer to a second SALT agreement with the Russians, and if so, what are the prospects for such an agreement before the election?,THE PRESIDENT. We are continuing to work on the negotiations for a SALT II agreement. A good agreement would be in the best interest of the American people and the world as a whole. The decision on whether such an agreement is signed will have no relevance whatsoever to this current political campaign. We hope that such an agreement can be achieved as soon as possible.,Q. What would you say the prospects are, please, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they are gradually improving, but we have some .very difficult problems yet to resolve.,CAMPAIGN LAWS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, don't you feel that there should be a law that limits what an incumbent President can do in the way of spending time, spending money, and use of employees of the White House and vehicles and other taxpayers' resources on his campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Congress has made its decision in that regard, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service]. And I will, of course, always abide by the laws passed by the Congress.,USE OF MEDIA IN THE CAMPAIGN,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you are in any way perhaps abusing the power of this office by controlling the media, to use the media, as it were, to make statements daily on one subject or another?,THE PRESIDENT. I apologize if I am using the American press. I am trying to do the job as President of the United States. And I hope that between the American press and the President we can convey important information to the American people.,PRESIDENT FORD'S ECONOMIC RECORD,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Carter and Senator Mondale and labor leader George Meany have all in recent speeches, in criticizing your economic record, referred to the Nixon-Ford administration, thus lumping the two together.,Would you prefer to run on your own economic record rather than being associated with the Nixon economic record, specifically, imposition of wageprice controls?,THE PRESIDENT. The Ford record is the record that I will run on as far as foreign policy is concerned, as far as domestic policy is concerned. To take the particular matter that you mentioned, I have consistently said, and I reiterate, that wage and price controls will not be imposed by this administration.\nThis administration has had a good record in handling serious and difficult problems in the domestic economic field. We have added 4 million new people working in the last 12 months, 500,000 more in the last 2 months. So, I will stand on my record, which I think is a good one.,SENATOR DOLE'S CAMPAIGN FINANCES,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some questions in the last few days about Senator Dole. Have you had any contact with him on that subject, in particular about the control of money, or have you attempted to satisfy yourself anew about this, or perhaps your staff?,THE PRESIDENT. The statement made this morning by Mr. Wild,1 I think clarifies the situation very dramatically. Senator Dole was in the Cabinet meeting this morning and my staff has been in contact with his, and we are satisfied today, as we were at the time we made the initial investigation of his campaign finances.,1 The President was referring to Claude C. Wild, Jr., a former Gulf Oil Corporation lobbyist, who recanted a statement made on September 6 that he had given Senator Dole $2,000 in 1970.,UNEMPLOYMENT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE ELECTION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the unemployment rate has gone up for 3 straight months. What, if any, plans do you have to deal with this problem should it continue to rise?,THE PRESIDENT. Our answer is to increase the number of people working. And as I indicated a moment ago, we have added 500,000 more people working in the last 60 days. In addition, we have 88 million people working today, an all-time high. We are going to continue to emphasize that more people are working and more jobs are available. And I am convinced that with our successful efforts against inflation and more jobs, the American people will subscribe to that economic policy.,Q. May I follow up, Mr. President? Do you think the fact that unemployment is high in this particular period, just before the election, may harm you politically?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the American people are more knowledgeable, more sophisticated. They know that employment is going up every month, and that as long as there are people being hired and as long as the layoff rate continues to go down, the American people will be supportive of the economic policy of the Ford administration.,URBAN AREA PROBLEMS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, this afternoon 40 Congressmen from 14 States and the District of Columbia are meeting. This is the newly formed, as you know, Northeast Coalition. What can you say to them were you to send a message to them? They are concerned about industry leaving the Northeast. They are concerned about--I heard what you said to Aldo [Aldo B. Beckman, Chicago Tribune Press Service]--but they are concerned about joblessness, not people with jobs. They are concerned about urban plight. What do you say to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have a good program to try and rehabilitate our major urban cities all throughout the United States, including the Northeast-our revenue sharing program, our community development program.,I signed, after a great deal of work with the Congress, a mass transit bill that is very helpful and beneficial to major industrial centers throughout the United States. We will be glad to work with any group geographically or otherwise, including the Northeast group, to try and help in that regard.,Q. They also say, Mr. President, they are not getting a fair share of the Federal dollars. You mentioned mass transportation. They say that they are getting 15 percent of the dollars whereas there was 40 percent for mass transportation in the Northeast.,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with those particular statistics but those funds are released based on laws by the Congress. So, if there is a problem in that regard, I think the basic law has to be amended.,PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, how do you evaluate the debates as a factor in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. The American people will be the winner. And I am anxious that they get started as quickly as possible, and as I indicated earlier, I proposed the first one be held today.,PRICES OF INDUSTRIAL GOODS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, a related economic question. The steel companies have rescinded a price increase on flat rolled steel, which is a principal component of automobiles. Would you like to see this followed by a similar reduction or rescission of the increases in automobile prices recently announced by the automobile companies?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that the automobile manufacturers would take that into consideration.,Q. I would like to ask it in the framework of the fact that although you are claiming success against inflation, the industrial component of both wholesale and retail prices continues to rise, and this is the component that once it is up it does not go down. It is not volatile like food prices. With respect to the automobile companies, the other basic manufacturing segments of the economy, what would you like to see done? What do you think ought to be done? Or do you think anything needs to be done to try to stabilize the industrial component?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the wholesome competition in the American free enterprise system will solve that problem better than any other way.,PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, what sort of preparations are you making for these debates? Do you, for instance, have one of your aides acting out the role of your opponent so you can get ready that way?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all, Fred [Frederic W. Barnes, Washington Star]. I am obviously doing a great deal of study and preparation for these debates because I want the American people to know not only my own views but the views of Mr. Carter. And I think the best way for that to take place is for me and for himself to set forth those views, and that will be done in three debates.,Q. Mr. President, what is it you are doing in preparation? Are you studying some of Mr. Carter's statements? Are you watching videotapes of Governor Carter?,THE PRESIDENT. The matter is being thoroughly studied by me comprehensively.,MINORITY RIGHTS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the African guaranteeing of minority rights. How many black governments in Africa do you regard as having shown minority rights--or respected them? Could you name some, and how could you go about guaranteeing such minority rights in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. I think in the plans that will evolve--and I hope they do-there will be adequate protection for minority rights in the two areas being considered at the present time.,FBI DIRECTOR CLARENCE KELLEY,[17.] Q. Can you tell us what went into your judgment not to fire or reprimand the FBI Director in light of the questionable allegations raised against him?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer the Kelley matter this way: I was disappointed, to say the least, with the two responses given to the Kelley questions to Governor Carter. One, I think it showed a lack of compassion in the one statement, and a second statement that seemed to be contradictory of the first one.,I hope that Governor Carter understood that Mrs. Kelley at that time was suffering terminal cancer, and that was a very sad and difficult time for the Director of the FBI. Number two, I was confused when in either Connecticut or Brooklyn he said that if he were President yesterday he would fire him, and then at the next stop he would not indicate whether he was going to fire him or keep him if he became President on January 21. So, I am confused on the one hand by his flip-flop on this issue, and I am very disappointed at his lack of compassion on the other.,Now, the recommendation made to me by the Attorney General after thoroughly investigating the facts was that the circumstances were such that the FBI Director should be kept. He has reimbursed the Federal Government of $35 ($335), I think, for the furnishings for his apartment, and he has done a good job in my opinion in straightening out a very difficult situation in the FBI.,ABORTION AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE,[18.] Q. Mr. President, on the matter of abortion, sir, do you feel that this issue, which is so semireligious and so emotional, is a fit subject for a political debate, political discussion?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the American people expect candidates for office to duck any issues just because they are intense, with good people on both sides having different views. I think the American people ought to get an answer from Governor Carter and myself on this issue just like on any other issue.,PRESIDENT FORD'S ACTIVITIES DURING THE CAMPAIGN,[19.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of Mr. Carter's characterization of you as \"timid\" in one statement and as \"a captain hiding in a stateroom\" in another?,THE PRESIDENT. That brings up an interesting point. I understand yesterday that Senator Mondale was complaining because I was not campaigning enough, and on August 4 of 1976, Governor Carter was complaining because I was campaigning too much. I wish they would get their act together. And it just seems to me that the American people want me first to be President and do the job here in the best way possible, and I intend to do it. And I will campaign at the proper time.,Q. Mr. President, in connection with that, if you find your campaign running in a dry gulch, won't you change your plans?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't expect the campaign on behalf of President Ford to run into a dry gulch. We are making good headway. I think the polls reflect it, and we expect to win.,CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS,[20.] Q. Mr. President, sir, the reports of your campaign committee during the primaries indicate that approximately 100 Federal officials gave campaign contributions to the President Ford Committee, and some of them have subsequently said that they did so in response to solicitation letters from Mr. Mosbacher and other officials of the committee. Do you think it is proper for the President Ford Committee to keep those contributions, or should they be sent back?,THE PRESIDENT. I was not familiar with any solicitation of any Federal official on behalf of the President Ford Committee. And when I was shown that some individuals of this administration had voluntarily given to the President Ford Committee, I did not know that they had done so beforehand. So, I am sure there was no pressure, certainly none from me.,PARDON OF FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[21.] Q. Mr. President, today, I believe, is the second anniversary of the pardon of Richard Nixon. I know you said in the past, under the same circumstances you would issue the pardon again. I wonder if you have any thoughts you would share with us about the impact the pardon will have on the election and how you plan to respond to any charges that are made?,THE PRESIDENT. If it is made a political issue, either subtly or directly, it is going to be very difficult to anticipate what the public reaction will be. But I made that judgment 2 years ago today on the basis of the circumstances at that time.,I thought it was in the national interest that I concentrate on the international problems, which were serious, and domestic problems, which were critical. And I felt at that time I should devote 100 percent of my time to the problems both at home and abroad. And I think if the same circumstances prevailed today, I would do the same.,GRANTING ASYLUM TO SOVIET MILITARY DEFECTOR,[22.] Q. Mr. President, this question is in two parts. Has the Soviet Union contacted you personally or this Government with regard to the pilot who has defected and asked for political asylum? And, secondly, are you concerned that your decision to grant political asylum will injure progress in our relations with the Soviet Union and specifically on SALT and matters of that kind?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with any inquiry by the Soviet Union. They may have, but I am just not informed as to that.,Number two, we have decided to grant asylum if the Soviet pilot asks for it. This is a tradition in the United States, and as long as he wants such asylum he will be granted it in the United States. I don't think that granting him asylum will interfere with our relations with the Soviet Union.,FBI DIRECTOR KELLEY,[23.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the Kelley matter for a moment. Governor Carter said yesterday also that the FBI Director should be as pure as Caesar's wife. Do you agree with that statement, and in light of the allegations against Mr. Kelley, do you think he is?,THE PRESIDENT. On the basis of a thorough investigation by the Attorney General, an outstanding lawyer, and I think an outstanding Attorney General, he recommended that I take the action which I did, which was to keep the FBI Director. And I have full faith in the analysis and the recommendations of the Attorney General, and therefore I think I made the right decision."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-07-19","text":"REQUEST FOR ACTION ON LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good afternoon. Before responding to your questions, I have two announcements to make.,First, I am sending later this week a message to the Congress calling for prompt action on a number of legislative programs that Congress must act on before adjournment. I am recommending affirmative action, as quickly as possible, on my further tax reduction proposals, on the remaining portions of my energy independence recommendations, on my stronger anticrime proposals, and, of course, general revenue sharing.,It seems to me that before Congress adjourns, it must undertake a vigorous legislative program if it is to maintain its credibility with the American people.,Secondly, I am sending to the Congress today a recommendation which would further advance our efforts to restore public confidence in the integrity of all three branches of the Federal Government, including the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. It is vitally important--I am determined and I trust Congress is--to ensure that those who hold public office maintain the highest possible standards and are fully accountable to the American people for their behavior while in public office. I hope the Congress will act very promptly on this legislation.\nI will be glad to answer any questions.\nHelen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,PRESIDENT FORD'S DELEGATE SUPPORT,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that you have the Presidential nomination now locked up, and if not, do you think you will have it by the end of the week?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very encouraged with the results over the weekend. I believe that we are getting very close right now to the magic number of 1,130. I am confident by the time we get to Kansas City, we will have 1,130-plus.,Q. How many delegates do you think you have now?,THE PRESIDENT. The best estimate, I think, is 1,103, and we expect some more good news this week. Therefore, by the time we get to Kansas City, I am confident we will have over 1,130.,PROSPECTS FOR DEFEATING JIMMY CARTER,[3.] Q. Mr. President, is Governor Carter beatable?,THE PRESIDENT. Absolutely.,Q. And if so, how?,THE PRESIDENT. By the kind of an affirmative program that we have developed in the last 23 months here in the White House under the Ford administration. I intend to have an affirmative campaign based on the results of turning the economy around, achieving the peace, and the restoration of public trust in the White House itself.,PRESIDENT FORD'S FOREIGN POLICY RECORD,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Jimmy Carter has set forth some of his beliefs on foreign policy. Can you tell us whether you think there are major differences with what you are doing now in foreign policy, and what are they?,THE PRESIDENT. Since I strongly believe that our foreign policy has been a successful one--we have achieved the peace, we have the military capability and the diplomatic skill to maintain that peace--I don't see, from what I have read, any legitimate complaints or objections by any of my Democratic friends, whether they are the candidates for the highest office or the Members of the Congress.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, sir, do you feel that the selection of Walter Mondale as Vice President is going to change your selection of a Vice-Presidential candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. I will make my choice known on the Vice-Presidency based on the best person that could serve as President of the United States. My decision will not be predicated on my Democratic opponent's recommendation of Senator Mondale.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Carter took a month to select his Vice-Presidential nominee. Will you be able to take very long? Will you have enough time to consider?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been thinking about this matter for some time. I know all of the individuals who are being considered very well. I have worked with them, known about them. I have studied carefully their records. Therefore, it won't be a last-minute analysis. It will be one based on a good many years of experience and opportunities to know how they performed in public office or otherwise. So, it is not going to be a last-minute decision where we winnow out individuals in a 48-hour period.,ASSESSMENT OF THE CARTER-MONDALE CANDIDACY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess the Carter-Mondale ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it was obviously the choice of the Democratic Convention, which was well organized and well put together and well controlled. It is a ticket that can be beaten by an affirmative approach that I intend to have in setting forth the improvements that I have made domestically and in foreign policy during the time that I have been honored to be President of the United States.\nIt is a rather typical Democratic ticket when you add up the platform, its endorsement of the record of the Democratic Congress, and the comments that I have heard, both in the acceptance speeches and in subsequent observations.,Q. Can I follow up?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. You said that the ticket---on Saturday, I believe--that the ticket tries to be all things to all people. Just what did you mean by that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if you look at the ticket itself, if you look at the platform, and if you look at the record of the Democratic Congress, you can't help but come to the conclusion that they want to spend a lot of money on the one hand and they talk on the other about some restraint in Federal spending. You can take almost any one of the many issues, and they are on both sides of the issue. So, I think it fits in very precisely with my observation that I made on Saturday.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN APPROACH,[7.] Q. Mr. President, what is the biggest single issue between you and Governor Carter?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to discuss this campaign from that point of view. I think it is important for me to act affirmatively in indicating the results that we have accomplished. I will let Mr. Carter decide the issues where he has some differences.,UNIFICATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, if you do go to the convention with the number of delegates that you think you will go with now, is there anything else at the convention that could really divide the Republicans there?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope not because the Republican Party does have to be as unified as possible if we are going to win the election in 1976. I think that unity can be achieved at the convention in Kansas City, and I will maximize my effort to accomplish that result. Therefore, we will have the job of picking the nominee, and I expect to be the nominee. We have to write the platform. I hope the platform will be one that all can support, and not divisive. And when we leave, we, as a party, must be united individually and collectively.,Q. Mr. President, isn't that, sir, going to be easier said than done though? These Reagan people are very committed. They have worked very hard. It is going to take more than just going into that convention, isn't it, and saying, \"Well come on and be on our side.\" What are you going to say to them?,THE PRESIDENT. I think these delegates, all of them, the ones that support me and the ones that support Mr. Reagan, have a basic philosophical identity. They do represent delegates, one group for me and the other for Mr. Reagan. But the identity of the philosophy is such that I think when the convention is concluded, they can be together on the need and necessity for a candidate who will put forth their philosophy against that of the opposition.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[9.] Q. Wouldn't they be a lot happier if you put Mr. Reagan on the ticket with you? There is going to be a lot of pressure on you to do that, is there not?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to make the judgment here as to who will be the Vice-Presidential nominee. We will have a good Vice-Presidential candidate, and, as I said before, we are not going to exclude anybody.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN APPROACH,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Democrats have already signaled what direction they are going to go by trying to tie your administration with close ties to the Nixon administration. How' do you intend to handle that problem in the campaign and shed that yoke?,THE PRESIDENT. I am going to use the Ford record of 23 months--which is a good one--in turning the economy around, in achieving the peace and maintaining the peace, in the restoration of public confidence in the White House, and, hopefully, the restoration of public confidence in the other two branches of the Federal Government.,Q. Inasmuch as you kept on such former Nixon intimates as Secretaries Kissinger, Simon and Butz and Messrs. Morton, Greenspan, Scowcroft, and Rumsfeld, isn't their branding of your administration the Nixon-Ford administration accurate?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all, because I have made the final decisions in each case.,LIBYAN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, does the United States have evidence or information that President Qadhafi of Libya is financing, planning, encouraging, and serving as the central point of an international terrorist organization and conspiracy?,THE PRESIDENT. We do know that the Libyan Government has in many ways done certain things that might have stimulated terrorist activity, but I don't think we ought to discuss any evidence that we have that might prove or disprove that.,Q. In the light of what you had to say about the Israeli rescue mission, or mission in Uganda, if you have any reason to believe that the Libyan Government is encouraging terrorist operations on an international basis, why, in the sort of classic phrase, why isn't the United States doing something about it?,THE PRESIDENT. We are working in the United Nations, we are working with many governments in trying to put forward a very strong antiterrorist effort in order to stop this kind of very unwarranted, unjustified action, and we'll continue our efforts in that regard.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on Ronald Reagan as a possible running mate. I am sure you read the paper every morning, and there is a quote in here today from Governor Reagan saying, \"Once you become the Vice-Presidential candidate, you have no authority over yourself.\" And he says, \"I have expressed disagreements with a great many things with this administration. No, there is just no way, I wouldn't do it.\"\nDoesn't that really close the door on Ronald Reagan as a running mate?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to pass judgment on what his attitude may be. I will simply reaffirm and reaffirm very strongly, I am not excluding any Republican from consideration as a potential running mate.,EFFECT OF COMMUNISTS IN ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ON U.S. POLICY TOWARD ITALY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, has the United States decided, with or without the concert of Germany, France, and Britain, not to extend any economic aid to Italy if the Communists join the Government in Italy?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said on several occasions that the United States Government, under this administration, would be very disturbed by Communist participation in the Government of Italy. For one reason, it would have a very, I think, unfortunate impact on NATO which is, of course, a very vital part of our international defense arrangement. The United States does have apprehension on a broader basis for Communist participation in the Italian Government.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in view of Jimmy Carter's strength in the South and the Northeastern industrial States, possibly of crucial importance in your campaign, do you now think it may have been unwise for the Republican high command and you to have told Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to get lost?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly don't use your words when I describe the situation that you have sought to so dramatically describe.,The decision by Nelson Rockefeller was one that he made himself. He has been an outstanding Vice President. He has been a close personal friend and adviser, and I will, of course, abide by his decision, as I would by any others.,But, I repeat what I said a moment ago, in my looking around for a Vice-Presidential running mate, I am not excluding anybody.,PRESIDENT FORD'S DELEGATE SUPPORT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, what do you feel your major problems are now to hold the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. Getting a few more delegates.,Q. Where specifically are the problems?,THE PRESIDENT. There are around 100 uncommitted delegates on a pretty wide geographical basis. Of course, Hawaii has 18, Mississippi has 30, and the others are spread through a number of other States. So, we are going to make a maximum effort to convince individual delegates who are uncommitted as well as those two major States that have not yet committed themselves.,U.S.-CHINA TRADE AGREEMENTS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, a question on international trade. The American textile industry is very concerned about the increase in imports of textiles from the People's Republic of China. They would like you to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Peking. What is your view on that? Are you doing anything about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I made a statement 1 about 3 months ago that fully covers that. If you will refer back to that, it will give you a detailed answer.,1 See Item 260.,SELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[17.] Q. Mr. President, can you share with us some of the criteria that you will be using in selecting a Vice President? You have said here today that you will choose the Vice-Presidential nominee only on his basis to become President should something happen to you, but will there be other criteria as well?,THE PRESIDENT. That is the principal one, of course, and any other criteria would have to be secondary to that. But other criteria might be age, compatibility with my own philosophy, the experience both in domestic and international affairs. There are a whole raft of potential criteria that I think have to be put into the formula.,Q. Let me ask you, if I can, then, about the process. As you know, Jimmy Carter had a well-publicized audition, if you will, of various candidates. Will you ask the people that you have in mind to meet with you either here at the White House or a place of their choice so you can discuss with them their philosophy of government and any personal differences that you may have?,THE PRESIDENT. Over the years I have done that with all or most of the people that are being considered, so I don't think we have to go through the similar kind of routine that Governor Carter went through.,As I understood it, he had never met several of the people that he considered. So, I could really understand why he went through that process. Because of my experience and knowledge about all of the individuals that I think are being considered, I don't think that kind of a process has to be carried out.,EFFECT OF COMMUNISTS IN ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ON U.S. POLICY TOWARD ITALY,[18.] Q. Mr. President, if I may follow up on the question of Italy, since it is possibly related to other European countries, is there an American formula, should the Communists go to power in Italy, which will be applied?,THE PRESIDENT. We aren't going to dictate any formula to the Government of Italy or to the people of Italy. That is a decision for them to make. But I have expressed our views concerning Communist involvement in that Government as far as its impact on NATO.,SWINE FLU IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM,[19.] Q. Mr. President, can we ask you about the swine flu program? We understand it is in jeopardy now. The insurance companies will not insure the pharmaceutical companies which are making up the batch of vaccine. What can you do about it? Can the Government supply insurance?,THE PRESIDENT. Last week the Secretary of HEW and Dr. Cooper 2 met with the four manufacturers and their legal counsel. I got a report Friday from Secretary Mathews. He was more optimistic than some of the press stories seemed to indicate. I have not talked to him today, but we are going to find a way, either with or without the help of Congress, to carry out this program that is absolutely essential, a program that was recommended to me unanimously by 25 or 30 of the top medical people in this particular field. So, we are going to find a way, and I think we will eventually do it. And I expect the full cooperation of the industry and all other parties involved.,2 Theodore Cooper, Assistant Secretary for Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.,LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT,[20.] Q. Mr. President, that Watergate reform bill, the Senate version of it goes to the floor today. Until last week the administration, I gather, was very much opposed to it. Now you are in with a major proposal to change it. Can you tell us how the administration came up with these proposals at the 11th hour?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration has had many reservations about several of the provisions in the bill that is on the floor of the Senate at the present time. One, the Senate bill provides, as we understand it--and we have gone into it with some outstanding legal scholars--an unconstitutional method of the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.,So, what we have recommended is a completely constitutional method of selecting a Special Prosecutor, one that would call for a Special Prosecutor recommended by the President, confirmed by the Senate for a 3-year term, with that particular Special Prosecutor being ineligible to serve other than the first 3 years.,That is definitely a constitutional way to have a Special Prosecutor who would have criminal authority over any allegations made against a President, a Vice President, high executive officials, all Members of Congress, and those involved in the judiciary.,Our reservation was not as to the thrust but as to the constitutionality of several provisions, including the one I have just described.,Q. What is your proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is our proposal that we feel would accomplish the job of restoring public confidence in all three branches of the Federal Government and do it in a constitutional way.,PARDON OF FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in his acceptance speech, Senator Mondale specifically attacked you for your pardon of Richard Nixon and received prolonged applause from the people in the hall. And later, Mr. Carter said it was an issue that apparently ran very deep in this country. Do you consider your pardon of Mr. Nixon a liability?,THE PRESIDENT. I decided to grant the pardon in the national interest. At that time the United States was faced with serious economic problems, and we were still involved in a long and difficult war in Southeast Asia. We had very important matters to face and to solve. We could not be involved in the Nixon matter and concentrate fully on the more important matters. I decided in the national interest. I would do it again.,UNIFICATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,[22.] Q. Mr. President, will you tell me, sir, what it is that you are accomplishing when you unite both wings of the party, when it is widely recognized that the party is a minority party in American politics? And how do you win an election that way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are going to unite the Republican Party and appeal to Independent voters and a number of Democrats, just as the Republicans did in 1968 and 1972.,PARDON OF FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the pardon, in both Senator Mondale's speech and in Jimmy Carter's speech, there seemed to be a linkage between the pardon and Watergate, itself. Do you see any such linkage, number one, and secondly, do you think that Watergate should be an issue in this campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I granted the pardon because I thought it was in the national interest. I think the American people will make the decision, not myself, whether it will be an issue or not.,REPUBLICAN CONVENTION BALLOTING PROCEDURE,[24.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect a rules fight at the convention that will allow some delegates to abstain on the first [)allot and possibly the second ballot?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Justice amendment, which we are proposing, would require that all delegates vote according to the laws under which they were selected. And I think that is a very proper amendment to carry out the wishes of the people that supported those individuals at the time they were chosen.,Q. Can I follow up, sir? Do you have an indication from the Reagan people that they will not try and change the Justice amendment?,THE PRESIDENT. To my knowledge, we have not consulted with them.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[25.] Q. Mr. President, how many Vice-Presidential possibilities do you have in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. Quite a few.,Q. Like maybe a half dozen, a dozen?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to get into the numbers game. We have a fine, fine array of talent in the Republican Party and maybe elsewhere. And so we will just keep that open until we make the final choice.,Q. [Inaudible].,THE PRESIDENT. You heard me correctly.,Q. Do your comments on the Vice-Presidency here today rule out any possibility you will declare the nomination open and let the convention in Kansas City decide the Vice-Presidential selection?,THE PRESIDENT. I will certainly make a recommendation, and I hope the convention would follow my recommendation.,Q. Mr. President, since you have known all of the people involved as a potential Vice President so long and so well, is it possible you have made your decision and are delaying the announcement until the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what elsewhere is?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, use your imagination.,FORD ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO PREVENT POSSIBLE ARAB OIL EMBARGO,[26.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Carter has said that if the Arabs were to impose another oil embargo, he would treat that as an economic declaration of war and cut off all U.S. trade with the Arab nations. What do you think of that proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been able, through diplomatic successes, to avoid the possibility of a Middle Eastern war and thereby avoided the possibility of an oil embargo. I am confident that the Ford administration successes, diplomatically, in the Middle East, will preclude any such situation as was indicated by Mr. Carter.,If you are doing things right, if you have the trust of Arab nations, as well as Israel, I don't think we have to look forward to either a Middle Eastern war or an oil embargo.,THE SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES,[27.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask about the Olympics? Now that Taiwan and the African nations have pulled out, what is your assessment of the situation and what changes would you like to see made in the next Olympics?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very proud of the successes I read about of the American team there yesterday. They did very, very well in the 100-meter freestyle and several other events, and I think the American team has done well and will continue to do well.,Q. Has it been overpoliticized?,THE PRESIDENT. We have tried to keep the athletic competition at the international level away from being pawns in international politics. We did our very best to achieve that result. And the net result was, with some unfortunate circumstances, that the athletes are able to compete, and I am proud of the American successes.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN APPROACH,[28.] Q. Mr. President, will your race with Jimmy Carter be a conservative versus a liberal race? What is the difference between your philosophy and Mr. Carter's in those terms?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to pass judgment on my opponent's campaign. We are going to run our own campaign, which is one of a record of accomplishment in foreign policy, domestic policy, and the restoration of trust in the White House. What they do is for them to decide.,Q. You cannot then describe Carter as a liberal?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to pin a label on anybody. I am going to just say that we have done a good job, and on the basis of doing a good job, I think the American people will want the same kind of a job done for the next 4 years.,LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMMITTEE,[29.] Q. Mr. President, when you were Vice President you said that you would not employ anything such as CREEP [Committee for the Re-Election of the President], as President Nixon had, that you would have no separate committee. Now we understand there will be a President Ford election committee and you will not be relying entirely on the Republican National Committee.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is caused by the election reform act that was passed late in 1974. When I made that speech out in Chicago--I think sometime in 1973 or early 1974--that election law had not been enacted. Once that law was enacted, it does require that you maintain a national committee and that the candidate for the Presidency have a separate organization. So, as much as I might want to put the two together, it is precluded by the law itself.,QUALIFICATION TO BE PRESIDENT,[30.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Mondale says that you didn't have the intelligence to be a good President. What do you think?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the American people will judge that.,MEETINGS WITH UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES,[31.] Q. Mr. President, can we assume that you will see all the noncommitted delegates by the time the convention begins?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope I could, but I can't categorically promise that.\nI would like to, definitely.,ABORTION,[32.] Q. Mr. President, the Supreme Court recently handed down another decision on abortion essentially strengthening the first one. What does this do to your position that you prefer a constitutional amendment turning it back to the States? Have you given up hope now for that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see how that recommendation on my part is undercut by the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. I do not believe in abortion on demand. I do think you have a right to have an abortion where the life of the mother is involved, where there was rape. I don't go along with those who advocate an amendment that would be so ironclad you couldn't under any circumstances have an abortion.,I reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions. I think an amendment that permits the voters in a State to decide whether in that State they want or don't want, is a proper way to give the people of this country or in their respective States the decisionmaking power.,Q. Mr. President, don't you think their decision makes it more difficult to get that amendment, however?,THE PRESIDENT. Not necessarily.,PERSONNEL CHANGES IN THE FBI,[33.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment one way or another on that recent shakeup in the FBI on the Kelly dismissal of Mr. Callahan?3,THE PRESIDENT. That was a decision by the Attorney General and by the FBI Director. Mr. Callahan was not a Presidential appointee so it was handled by the proper authorities.3 Nicholas P. Callahan was discharged as Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 16 for alleged illegal administration of the Bureau's Recreational Association Fund.,JIMMY CARTER,[34.] Q. Mr. President, presumably you watched a little bit of the Democratic National Convention on television. If so, would you tell us how Jimmy Carter came across to you as a personality, as a potential campaigner, and as an opponent?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I really had any impression of him. [Laughter],Q. You didn't watch enough to get an impression of him?,THE PRESIDENT. I was pretty busy.,MEETING WITH THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATES,[35.] Q. Mr. President, all 67 members of the New Jersey delegation are already in your column.,THE PRESIDENT. I hope.,Q. Why are you bringing them down here this afternoon to a private meeting from which the press has been barred?,THE PRESIDENT. I am inviting them down because I want to meet them personally, just as I said a few moments ago. I would like very much to have the opportunity of meeting all of the delegates and alternates to the national convention, and this is a good way for me to do with the New Jersey delegation as I have with the other delegations.,Q. What will be the nature of this meeting, and do you have any thoughts about the exclusion of the press from--,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't know until a few moments ago that members of the press were excluded.,Q. Do you want to revoke it? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. We have had a number of such meetings, and the question never came up from the press before, and I just don't see why we should make an exception here.,PRESIDENT FORD'S RATING IN PUBLIC OPINION POLLS,[36.] Q. Mr. President, why are you down so far in the polls when you are pitted against Jimmy Carter?,THE PRESIDENT. The only poll that really counts is the one that is going to come on November 2 when the voters of this country decide in all 50 States. And I will rely on that one.,Q. But how can you account for the preferences there?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think we should analyze the ups and downs of periodic public opinion polls. The real one that counts--and that is the one that is going to decide this great election--is the one that comes November 2."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-07-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. We have no set format. I don't know whose turn it is--AP, UPI.,REACTION TO BICENTENNIAL WEEKEND,[1.] REPORTER. You have nothing in particular on your mind this morning, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am just glad to see you all.,I feel very, very encouraged and very pleased with the results of the Bicentennial weekend. I was pleasantly surprised at the reaction throughout the country. I think it was well reported by the press that not only in Philadelphia, in Valley Forge, in New York, and Washington did everything move along extremely well but it was reported all over the country that there was a real, genuine resurgence of good American feeling toward one another, toward the country, that I think augurs for a real good third century. So, we are well on our way, and I think it will continue.\nFrank [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], anything else?,Q. Not right offhand. [Laughter],REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION,[2.] Q. Mr. President, how do you view your race for the nomination with Governor Reagan? How do you think you stand now in delegates? Are you confident of a victory, initially?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very confident. The projections clearly indicate to me that when we get to Kansas City we will have a first ballot victory. You can read all the numbers, but when you analyze them, I think, objectively the Ford nomination will prevail on the first ballot.,We have had some very good movement in individual States. We have had good results, of course, in North Dakota. We expect good results next week. And so when we go to Kansas City, I am very confident that we will prevail on the first ballot.,VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE,[3.] Q. Who do you want for a Vice-Presidential running mate?,THE PRESIDENT. Fran [Frances Lewine, Associated Press], I don't exclude anybody. We've got a wealth of talent, and I think it's premature to winnow that list down. We have to take into consideration a number of factors--the prime one, of course, being an individual who would be an excellent President. But there are other factors that have to be taken into consideration, and until we get closer to the convention, I think it is too early to make any real speculation.,Q. Would you rule anyone out like--would you rule Mr. Reagan out?,THE PRESIDENT. I repeat, I exclude nobody. And I hope that individuals in the meantime will not exclude themselves, because we want the best ticket we can get to win in November.,ISRAELI RESCUE OF HOSTAGES IN UGANDA,[4.[ Q. Mr. President, Governor Reagan made the statement when apprised of the Israeli rescue raid in Uganda, \"This is what Americans used to do.\" And one of the hostages, who is an American citizen said America didn't \"give a damn about us, Israel freed us.\" I wonder, what is your reaction?,THE PRESIDENT. I can assure you that this administration has taken a firm action wherever we have been confronted with any illegal international action. The best illustration of course is what we did in 1975 in the Mayaguez incident. I think that was a clear warning to any nation that violates international law that this administration will act swiftly and firmly and, I think, successfully.,Q. If I could follow that up, the State Department said--when asked, \"What is the United States doing?\"--said that they had contacted numerous governments as well as the International Red Cross. What else did we do to compare with the Israeli action?,THE PRESIDENT. We took whatever action we felt was appropriate at that time to indicate our strong feeling against international terrorism, and we asked for the full cooperation of all governments to make certain that the hostages Were freed.,And as you know, we indicated to Prime Minister Rabin that we were gratified that the Israelis had taken the very specific action to free the hostages, and at the same time we reiterated our firm opposition to international terrorism.,Q. Did we know in advance of that Israeli raid?,THE PRESIDENT. We did not.,PROSPECTS FOR A REPUBLICAN VICTORY IN NOVEMBER,[5.] Q. Mr. President, is there not concern that if you should win a narrow victory at the convention and receive the nomination by a small majority, that you will have some difficulty winning the election, being a member of the minority party?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. The competition has been close, controversial, and if you win, you win. I talk very affirmatively about the need and necessity for a unified party. I think we can leave Kansas City with a win and a unified party.,And once we get the nomination, we can start pointing out the distinct differences between the prospective Democratic nominee and myself; we can talk about the record that we have. It is a record that I think will be applauded objectively by 99 and 9/10 percent of the delegates to the Republican Convention.,I think it will appeal to a good many Independents, and I have already had some indications that there are some Democrats who think the record of the Ford administration is a good one. So, we will enter the campaign after the convention with a good opportunity to prevail November 2.,PRICE OF OIL,[6.] Q. Mr. President, when you met with the Saudi official 1 this morning, did he indicate to you that oil prices will be going up again at the end of the year, or didn't you discuss this at all?,THE PRESIDENT. There was no discussion of the prospect of any oil price increase. I expressed my appreciation for the action by OPEC in not increasing oil prices in their recent meeting. I pointed out I thought that was in the best interests of the free world and that it would be beneficial not only to the oil consumers but the oil producers in the long run.,1Prince Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz-Saud, the Second Deputy Prime Minister and Commander of the National Guard of Saudi Arabia, met with the President and also presented him with Bicentennial gifts from Saudi Arabia.,DISTRIBUTION OF CONVENTION ACCOMMODATIONS,[7.] Mr. President, this morning Tom Curtis, former FEC Chairman who, as you know, is now working for Ronald Reagan in his campaign, said that he feels the FEC should take action, that the White House is getting unfair treatment at Kansas City--you are getting more rooms. And specifically, according to Mr. Nofziger, 388 hotel rooms are allotted to the Ford campaign and the White House, while only 100 rooms are allotted to the Reagan campaign; Ford groups have received 650 gallery passes, while the Reagan campaign has received only 300. And because the conventions this time are using tax money, Curtis is saying that the FEC should take some action. How do you feel about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course, you have to recognize my good friend Tom Curtis is a Reagan delegate, so I would expect he would take that point of view. We are living up to the letter and the spirit of the law. The decisions in this case were made by the Republican National Committee. I understand they were made unanimously, and, as I am told, it doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission.,But I reiterate that in every instance where there has been a ruling by the FEC, this administration has lived up to the letter as well as the spirit.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to, in the interest of party unity, throw the Vice-Presidential nomination up to the convention--not mention any names, your preference, just let the convention delegates decide?,THE PRESIDENT. We haven't made any decision on that, Phil [Phil Jones, CBS News]. As I said, I have excluded no one from my consideration as far as a running mate is concerned. Whether that would be a possibility, it's just premature to make any commitment.,OLYMPICS DISPUTE OVER TAIWAN,[9.] Q. Mr. President, what would you like for the International Olympic Committee to do to resolve the dispute between Canada and Taiwan?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's tragic that international politics and foreign policy get involved in international sport competition. I strongly feel that the Olympics are a healthy thing for the world as a whole. Competition between athletes from all countries ought to be stimulated rather than curtailed. And so, I hope and trust that the diplomatic problems or the international foreign policy problems can be resolved so that this healthy competition can go on.,Q. Have you done anything about it? Have you contacted the Canadian Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I am being kept abreast of it, but this is a decision that gets involved in Canadian Government decisions on the one hand and the International Olympic Committee on the other. I have expressed myself very clearly that we hope they will continue as broadly based as possible.,ISRAELI RESCUE OF HOSTAGES IN UGANDA,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe that the Israeli violation of Uganda national sovereignty was justified?,THE PRESIDENT. The Department of State and our representatives to the United Nations will set forth our position very clearly in the debate that I think begins today, on one or more resolutions before the Security Council. I am told that our position is a firm one, on good legal grounds, and I will wait and let that be expressed by them during the debate.,PRESIDENT FORD'S PROSPECTS FOR A FIRST-BALLOT NOMINATION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, could we talk about the delegates once again? Do you believe that before you get to Kansas City you are going to have more than you need to get a first ballot victory--that you can cite and name?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, as I said a moment ago, we will have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, which I think infers certainly that we know who will be voting for President Ford's nomination.,ALASKA PIPELINE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what you've learned recently about the extent of the problems on the Alaska pipeline and what the penalties might be in terms of cost and delay?,THE PRESIDENT. I got a very complete report late yesterday afternoon from the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Transportation. I think you know that Under Secretary [Deputy Secretary] of Transportation John Barnum is either leaving or has left to go up there with a group of technical people to make an on-the-spot evaluation of the several reports as to the number of welds that are allegedly defective. I am going to be kept constantly advised as to what they recommend as to a procedure and as to the certainty that the pipeline meets all of the Department of Transportation's regulations for interstate pipeline safety.,We have not gotten into the added cost, whatever it might be, but I am confident that I will be fully advised at all times.,Q. Have you talked with any people from the Justice Department as to the possibility of criminality involved in falsification of records?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter for the Department of Justice to determine. I have not personally communicated with the Department, and I think they have to make any judgments over there, not myself.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN STRATEGY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, will Southern support be vital, and will it be absolutely necessary for your election in November?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope to get support in all 50 States, Dick [Richard Growald, United Press International]. We don't have any regional strategy. I have said repeatedly that I expect to run a national campaign, and that certainly infers that we want support from the South; we want support from the other regions throughout the country.,Q. Do you think you can win without a good hunk of the South?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said, we want Southern support, and I think we will get Southern support, and that will contribute to our victory in November.,SELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Jimmy Carter has been holding auditions for a running mate. Do you have a plan to do anything like that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I know most of the people that are among those that we know would be a potential running mate. I am sure that I will have consultations, but we haven't set out any specific routine for it.,Q. Do you anticipate public announcements of people coming in for briefing sessions?,THE PRESIDENT. [ don't anticipate that kind of a routine, so to speak. As I said, I know all of the people quite intimately. I know their records. I know what they believe in. So I don't have to go through that experience such as Governor Carter is going through, because I don't think he knows some of these people that he is considering as well as I know all of the potential Republican running mates.,Q. Mr. President, I got the impression from what you said to Phil Jones that you might still be seriously considering throwing that choice open to the convention, or at least giving them a list of names. Are you seriously contemplating doing that?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't mean to infer the conclusion you came to. I simply said that we have not made any firm commitment as to what procedure we would take at the time of the convention. I think a Presidential nominee ought to make his wishes known to the delegates. How he proceeds after that, we just haven't made a final decision on it.,FATHER-SON/MOTHER-DAUGHTER EVENTS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in light of your expressed displeasure over the decision by HEW regarding father-son/mother-daughter breakfasts, have you given any thought to perhaps curtailing the powers of the Office for Civil Rights in that Department?,THE PRESIDENT. We haven't given any thought to the curtailing of their overall responsibility. But as President I have a responsibility to review any decisions that they make, and when I saw that decision I was shocked--I go a little stronger than Ron reported yesterday--and I took immediate action because I think that was a very wrong decision. And if there are other decisions that I disagree with in the future, I will exercise my Presidential prerogative to suspend them or to change them. They have a responsibility to carry out what they think is the right determination, but if I disagree, I will certainly take affirmative action in the future, as I did in this case.,WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX STATISTICS,[16.] Q. Your reaction to the WPI figures, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I think those WPI figures of .4 percent fall within the guidelines that we have established. If you annualize that figure, it is less than 5 percent, so it's within the overall expectations that we have for wholesale prices.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[17.] Q. Mr. President, after you have, through this campaign, made some rather harsh observations about Ronald Reagan, how could you seriously consider him as your running mate, a man who could become the President? You have had some pretty tough things to say about him. I can't quite see how you could possibly consider him, if you feel that way.,THE PRESIDENT. I think we all have to understand in a very controversial political campaign you make a point, and sometimes with some political license. We have done that historically in this country. We can go back to the days of President Kennedy and the then Vice President Johnson. No one under any circumstances would have foreseen that that team would end up representing the Democratic Party.,All I am saying is that when you take a look at all of the Republican potentials, including Ronald Reagan, I think they all ought to be included for consideration.,Q. But would it be fair to say that you certainly wouldn't be as comfortable with Ronald Reagan as some others?,THE PRESIDENT. Phi[ [Phil Jones, CBS News], I am not going to get into degrees of comfort--[laughter]--with potential Republican candidates. When I pick that candidate, I expect him to be a good running mate and a good Vice President.,Q. But you said there are no retakes in the Oval Office, indicating that he doesn't have the experience to handle this office. And it just seems that you feel, or have indicated, that he is not qualified to be President.,THE PRESIDENT. I think when we pick the candidate, he will be a qualified person to be Vice President.,HEALTH OF BETTY FORD AND PAT NIXON,[18.] Q. What can you tell us this morning about the health of Mrs. Ford? Is she feeling all right? Also, have you been in touch with the Nixon family about the former First Lady?,THE PRESIDENT. Mrs. Ford came down with a very bad cold yesterday following the church services at the [Washington National] Cathedral. She had a good night. She is going to take it easy for a day or so, and there is no concern, just a typical cold.,I stopped and saw Dr. Lukash 2 when I came to the office this morning. He had not gotten any overnight reports on the condition of Mrs. Nixon. He is going to report to me as soon as he gets any information from her doctor.,2 Rear Adm. William M. Lukash, Physician to the President.,CONVERSATION WITH FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[19.] Q. Did you speak to President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. I called President Nixon.,Q. Can you tell us something of what he told you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he reported the sequence more or less as they have been reported in the press. I extended to him on behalf of Betty and myself our affection and best wishes for Mrs. Nixon's full and complete recovery.,Q. Did you talk about politics?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all.,REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE,[20.] Q. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Republican National Committee is supposed to be neutral until there is a nominee. Am I correct in that assumption?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a valid assumption.,Q. Thank you. Now then, why is Mrs. Smith [Mary Louise Smith, chairman, Republican National Committee I going to the convention as a Ford delegate?,THE PRESIDENT. Because she has an opportunity, like any other citizen of this country, to run and express her personal views. She is running the national committee on a very nonpartisan basis between my opponent and myself.,CONSTRUCTION OF 'FRANS-CANADA GAS PIPELINE,[21.] Q. Mr. President, could we talk about the Alaska pipeline another time? You are from the Middle West, and when the pipeline act was passed in Congress,THE PRESIDENT. I voted for it.,Q. Okay. There was quite a debate, though, about building a trans-Canada pipeline that would deliver oil to the Middle West where it is needed. There is still talk about that, and, in fact, there is some legislation. Would you support legislation to build a pipeline from Valdez [Alaska] across Canada to the Middle West?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that is an active possibility. I think you are referring to the possibility of a gas pipeline--,Q. They were going to double-truck it, apparently.,THE PRESIDENT. ..from northern Canada or northern Alaska to the Middle West as one of several alternatives. There are other alternatives that would involve bringing the gas down to the Gulf of Alaska. That matter is before the Federal Power Commission at the present time. It is also before--in one way or another---before the comparable agency in the Canadian Government. There is legislation that is being sponsored which I think is good legislation, that would expedite the determination as to which route is the preferable one. It would be legislation much like that which was approved for the delivery of Alaskan oil. If that gas is badly needed in the United States--and I am not saying on the West Coast or the Middle West--but I think a decision has to be expedited. And so I would favor such legislation which would expedite the determination by the proper authorities as to which route was the better of the two or which is the best, if there are more than two.,SALT TALKS,[22.] Q. Mr. President, since this is an election year, I wonder if you think there is not much chance of any startling developments in the area of foreign affairs, such as a SALT agreement or MBFR, or in any other area? Do you think it is very difficult to conduct negotiations at a time when frankly the occupancy of the White House is going to be uncertain for next year? Are we sort of at a standstill for the rest of the year in foreign affairs?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said specifically, as far as SALT is concerned, if we can get a good agreement I will make that agreement regardless of any political consequences. We are in the process of thoroughly analyzing our last proposal, the Soviet Union's reaction or last proposal. And if we can move forward on a good SALT agreement, I certainly will push for it, because I think it is in the national interest and in the best interest of mankind as a whole. So, politics won't enter into any decision as far as SALT is concerned. I know of no other major areas that would have any political consideration as far as foreign policy.,Q. How about the SALT agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. I intend to push for it. I am not passing judgment as to whether it will come or won't come, but we are working on it, and I intend to push it. Whether we can achieve an agreement or not is uncertain. But it is in the best interest of the United States and mankind as a whole if we can get the right agreement. And I will do it regardless of the political atmosphere that may prevail here because of our election.,RONALD REAGAN,[23.] Q. Mr. President, can we pin something down? Is Ronald Reagan qualified to be President?,THE PRESIDENT. I said the person I select for the Vice Presidency will be qualified, and I don't exclude anybody.,Q. Therefore, he is qualified?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a fair conclusion--[laughter]--if he is the nominee. [Laughter],PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE,[24.] Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with the way your campaign committee has performed through the primary and convention State season? And after the convention, do you foresee at this point a substantial reorganization of your campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any substantial reorganization. I have said, through Ron and otherwise, that Rog Morton is going to stay on. We intend to add people to the top echelon over there as the need arises for particular jobs that must be handled, such as the convention, such as other responsibilities. I see no anticipated major reorganization. Like any other organization, you look back in retrospect as a Monday morning quarterback--you might have done a little better here and there. But I think the President Ford Committee, considering all the problems, has done a good job.,Q. Do you want Stu Spencer 3 to stay on?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly do. I think Stu Spencer is an extremely able person. He has done a good job.,3Deputy campaign chairman of the President Ford Committee.,SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE DEATH PENALTY,[25.] Q. Mr. President, what was your reaction to the Supreme Court's decisions on the death penalty, and do you approve of the way they are going now?,THE PRESIDENT. I have stated on a number of occasions I support the death penalty at the Federal level for espionage, treason, et cetera. I support the death penalty for the kind of crimes that involve murder, et cetera. I support the direction in which the Supreme Court is going.,REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 1980,[26.] Q. Mr. President, one more question on Mr. Reagan, if you don't mind. At the end of your coming term--I presume that you are going to be elected--Mr. Reagan will be 70 years old. Do you still think he would be qualified at that time to replace you as President?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not speculate as to who the Republican candidate might be in 1980.,Q. It has become a custom for the Vice President to sort of---,THE PRESIDENT. I can only say I don't intend to be the candidate in 1980. [Laughter] But I expect to be the nominee in 1976, and I expect to hold office until January 20, 1981.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CONTACT WITH CONVENTION DELEGATES,[27.] Q. Mr. President, to what extent do you personally get on the telephone and call delegates?,THE PRESIDENT. I do it occasionally.,Q. Well, once a night? Twice a night?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't keep a poll of it or a count, but I like to talk to people.,Q. What do you say to them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I thank them for their interest in the political system. I thank them that they are actively participating, and I compliment them on the job that I know they will do in Kansas City.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-05-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good evening. Won't you please sit down. Before turning to your questions, I have a brief statement.,REQUEST FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION,[1.] Early next week the Congress will return from its Memorial Day recess. For many Americans the summer will have officially begun, and time for vacation will be at hand. However, it is extremely important this not become a vacation for the Congress. There is an immense amount of work piling up on the congressional calendar, and the country needs--and deserves--prompt legislative action in a number of important areas.,The temporary tax cut enacted last year will expire at the end of June. That tax cut must be extended. I have recommended that the Congress not only extend the tax cut permanently but increase by some $10 billion a tax cut in the future. Among the benefits the taxpayers would receive under my proposal is an increase in the personal exemption from $750 per individual to $1,000 per person. This will be enough to permit many people to catch up on their bills and begin saving for the future. When we cut taxes, we must also cut Federal spending.,The Congress has not yet shown discipline enough to hold the line on Federal spending. That's why I vetoed so many big spending bills, and my vetoes so far have saved the taxpayer some $13 billion. I will continue to use my veto until the Congress gets the message and Federal spending is brought under control.,Another major legislative item urgently awaiting congressional action is the reenactment of Federal revenue sharing. There has already been an inexcusably long delay in passing this necessary legislation. Unless revenue sharing is extended before it expires at the end of this year, communities across Ohio and the .rest of the country will be severely penalized. Communities such as here in Columbus and elsewhere would be forced to raise local property taxes and State taxes in order to continue vital public services which revenue sharing would provide. The Congress must reenact my revenue sharing proposal without delay.,Two other items must be given congressional action in the next several weeks. One is the B-1 bomber program. In considering the military procurement bill, the Senate recently voted to delay the B-1 production until February of next year. That vote was both unnecessary and unwise. Our armed forces are manned by the best trained men and women in the world, but they must have the tools to do the job. We need to get on with the B-1 program this year, not next year.,Finally, I urge the Congress to vote in the next few weeks for a full P.L. 480 program. Over the years the Food for Peace program, in addition to playing an important role in the implementation of our foreign policy, has provided expanded markets for American farm products. A provision of the security assistance bill presently pending in Congress would impose a $175 million ceiling on P.L. 480 assistance to Korea. This action would severely hurt the American farmer who depends upon stable markets for his crops and would severely restrict the economic growth potential of one of our key allies. We need strong agricultural exports, and we need a full Food for Peace program. I strongly urge the Congress to remove this limitation.,One other item of significant importance: Last June I proposed to the Congress legislation that would establish a major new private industry in America providing the enriched fuel for nuclear power reactors. My proposal, the Nuclear Fuel Assistance Act, would make it possible for the United States to maintain its leadership as the world's supplier of uranium enrichment services for the peaceful use of nuclear power. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the Congress has made some modifications on my proposal and approved it.\nI have reviewed the changes in the bill and concluded that I will support it. The bill meets five fundamental objectives, which I stated a year ago:,--First, act to meet the future needs, domestic as well as international, for this essential energy source;,--It would end the governmental monopoly on supplying enriched uranium for nuclear power plants;,--Three, establish a procedure whereby private enterprise can bring into commercial use the techniques created by Federal research and development with proper licensing, safeguards, and export controls with the payment of royalties and taxes by private enterprise to the United States Treasury;,--Provided also in the bill is a complementary backup system for expanding existing Federal uranium enrichment capacity if private ventures are unable to meet on time the needs of U.S. and foreign customers;,--Last, assist in controlling nuclear proliferation by persuading other nations to accept international safeguards and forgo developments of nuclear weapons.,Finally, the bill and the committee report also authorize and direct the Energy Research and Development Agency [Administration] to begin planning and designing for the expansion of the existing uranium enrichment at Portsmouth, Ohio.,As soon as Congress passes the Nuclear Fuel Assistance Act, I will ask the Congress to appropriate $170 million for fiscal year 1977 to proceed with the design, the planning, and the procurement of long, lead time construction for the Portsmouth plant. This, I think, is a good program, and I hope the Congress acts so that I can request of the Congress the necessary funding for the complementary program at Portsmouth, Ohio.\nI will be glad to answer the first question.,QUESTIONS,SCHOOL BUSING AND QUALITY EDUCATION,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Udall has accused you of playing politics with busing. Some Ohio civil rights leaders have indicated agreement. What is your answer to this criticism, and also what is your advice to residents of Ohio cities facing court-ordered desegregation next fall?,THE PRESIDENT. First, let me say that I have vigorously opposed court-ordered, forced busing to achieve racial balance as the way to accomplish quality education. I have opposed it from 1954 to the present time. We all know the tragedy that has occurred in many communities where the court has ordered forced busing on a massive basis. I think that's the wrong way to achieve quality education.,Last November, well, before the Presidential primaries got going, I met with the Secretary of HEW and with the Attorney General and asked them to come up with some better alternatives to the achievement of quality education and court-ordered, forced busing. The two Secretaries in my Cabinet have been working on alternative proposals.,The Attorney General is in the process of deciding whether or not, where and when, he should appear on behalf of the Federal Government to see if the Court, the Supreme Court, won't review its previous decisions in this regard. And secondly, the Secretary of HEW is submitting to me in a week or so the alternatives that he would propose to achieve quality education without losing the constitutional right of individuals so that we can do away with segregation and, at the same time, achieve quality education.,Now, the various communities in the State of Ohio that are in various stages of action by various parties, as far as busing is concerned, certainly ought to abide by the law. But we hope that at least possibly the Supreme Court will review its previous decisions and possibly modify or change. We can't tell.,But in the meantime local communities, of course, have to obey the law, and my obligation is to make certain that they do. But we must come back to the fundamental objective--one, quality education. I believe there is a better remedy than court-ordered, forced busing.,Q. Mr. President, there are many civil rights groups who believe that the word \"quality education\" is a code word that does not, is not in conformity with the Supreme Court's 1954 decision that we should have desegregated schools and that separate but equal are not equal. What do you say is your definition of \"quality education?\",THE PRESIDENT. I respectfully disagree with some of the civil rights leaders. I think the best way to outline how we can achieve better or quality education and still insist upon desegregation is set forth in legislation under the title of Equal Educational Opportunity Act, which was passed in 1974.,If the court will follow those guidelines that were included in that legislation, we can protect the constitutional rights of individuals, we can eliminate segregation, and at the same time we can give to individuals, the students, a better educational opportunity and accomplish quality education.,THE \"WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT\" AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel the Wayne Hays1 incident and the prospect of a House investigation of Mr. Hays' conduct will fuel what seems to be an anti-Washington establishment tenor to the Carter and Reagan campaigns? If so, how will it affect you, and as a long-time member of that establishment, how will you cope with it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe it's appropriate for me to comment on a housekeeping problem involving the House of Representatives. I'm sure the House will take whatever appropriate action should be taken. I can't see, under any circumstances, how it would affect me, because at the time I was nominated for the Vice-President, 400 FBI agents investigated my life from birth up to that point, and 89 of them spent about a month in my hometown. So I think on the basis of their investigation and the fact that a Democratic Congress, House and Senate, overwhelmingly approved the record that was made in the Senate Committee on Procedures and the House Committee on the Judiciary, where they cleared me of any problems whatsoever--I don't see how this incident would have any ramification or application as far as I am concerned.,1 U.S. Representative from Ohio.,Q. You don't think it would contribute to that whole anti-Washington mood that Carter and Reagan seem to be exploiting?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't pass judgment on the impact of the anti-Washington feeling, but it certainly has no application as far as I'm concerned.,REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, following your victories in Oregon, Tennessee, and Kentucky, you declared earlier today that you're the Republican with national potential, and you had some reservations about Mr. Reagan. Could you elaborate on your reservations about Mr. Reagan as a Republican candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not going to pass judgment on his capabilities. But I can look back at the various primaries that I have won, and they cover the wide spectrum of the United States not only in the North, the East, the West, and the South but they are broad in their application.,I think it does point out beyond any doubt that I am the most electable Republican candidate. If I am the most electable Republican candidate and can help elect Members of the House and Senate on our side of the aisle, plus State legislatures, I think I am the candidate that is in the best interest of the philosophy of the Republican Party. I will let Mr. Reagan undertake a defense of his electability.,Q. Throughout the campaign you have chided Mr. Reagan for perhaps moving social security funds into the stock market. You said earlier today you thought perhaps his remarks on the TVA and returning it to private industry have hurt him there, and you suggested at times that he would be reckless in his confrontations. Do you have reservations about Mr. Reagan as a man who should sit in the Oval Office?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said, first, that I expect to get the nomination, and I expect to be elected in November. But I have traditionally--and I am proud of it--always supported the Republican nominee.,Q. Was that yes?,THE PRESIDENT. I said I always support the Republican nominee.,EFFORTS TO INCREASE AND CONSERVE ENERGY RESOURCES,[5.] Q. Mr. President, gasoline prices are on their way up again. Is the lack of a conservation ethic in the motoring public to blame, and what is your administration doing to curb U.S. consumption of imported oil?,THE PRESIDENT. In January of 1975, about 15 months ago, I recommended to the Congress a comprehensive energy program. It took the Congress from January of 1975 to mid-December of 1975--10 or 11 months--to come up with a bill that was half a loaf, but it was better than nothing. So, that legislation is what we have to work with.,The net result is we haven't moved as fast as we ought to in producing additional domestic resources for energy in this country. If the Congress had been wise enough to accept the energy bill that I proposed, we would be many, many months ahead of where we are at the present time, and we wouldn't have the kind of uncertainty as to our energy independence in the future.,I'm going to continue to do what I can under this restrictive legislation to free the industry so that it can produce more domestic oil. I hope the Congress is wise enough to pass some affirmative legislation so we get more new natural gas available. I hope that we can stimulate more coal production. I hope and trust that we can add to our nuclear power capability and do the necessary research and development on solar energy and geothermal energy.,Now, if the Congress would move, as I urged them to do better than a year, about 15 months ago, we would be a lot further ahead. I hope and trust that in the process where we are faced with growing demand and unfortunately growing reliance on foreign sources of oil, that we can get wholehearted public conservation efforts. I can assure you that this administration will do all it can under the law to provide for greater conservation.,Q. Are you pleased with the way the American people are viewing the energy crisis as it is now?,THE PRESIDENT. It could be better, but I think the Congress is the greatest culprit.,WITHDRAWAL OF CUBAN TROOPS FROM ANGOLA,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary of State Kissinger is quoted as saying Cuba has pledged to pull its troops out of Angola. It is a positive development, and he has expressed pleasure at this.\nDo we have any indication other than Castro's message to the Swedish Prime Minister that this is in fact about to happen, and has there been any contact, direct or indirect, between Washington and Havana on this subject?,THE PRESIDENT. As I understand the message that was from Mr. Castro to Prime Minister Palme in Sweden, was that it went from Havana to Moscow to Sweden. I think that is somewhat significant. It does indicate that there is a planned withdrawal of some 200 per week, as I recall the figure. That is progress. We are encouraged, but we have had no direct communication as far as any such movement by Cubans out of Angola.,I hope that that trend will be accelerated. That would be even more encouraging. But as far as any direct communication, we have had none.,Q. Does the Cuban withdrawal carry with it any implied intent on the part of the U.S. to recognize the MPLA?,THE PRESIDENT. No. At this stage, certainly not.,PRESIDENT FORD'S PROSPECTS FOR A FIRST-BALLOT NOMINATION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, this morning you said that it would still be politically possible to win the nomination on the first ballot if you lost California. Could you explain how that is realistic?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if we look at the number of delegates we have at the present time and the number we would expect to get from the remaining primaries plus the progress that we anticipate in the various States where they pick their delegates by State conventions, it is our belief that the momentum that started with Maryland and Michigan and kept through Pennsylvania and Ohio and certainly was good for us yesterday, we think with that momentum we can add up to about 1,130 or more.,Q. But wouldn't the California win by Governor Reagan still give him the momentum?,THE PRESIDENT. I would doubt it because we expect to do well in the great State of Ohio, and we certainly expect to do well in New Jersey. And those two primaries come the same day that the vote comes in California.,REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the fact that Mr. Reagan will come to the convention in August with a delegate total very close to your own, do you feel that if you receive the nomination there may be very grave and perhaps irresistible pressure on you to accept Governor Reagan as your running mate?,THE PRESIDENT. I have personally never excluded any Republican for consideration as a Vice-Presidential candidate. But, as I am sure you recognize, Mr. Reagan has indicated publicly on a number of occasions he did not want to be considered for that opportunity to serve as a Vice-Presidential candidate. But as far as I'm concerned, I have excluded no Republican from consideration as a Vice-Presidential nominee.,Q. In view of the fact that each of you has demonstrated great appeal in the primaries, do you feel that there would be a tremendous unity factor in combining the two of you on a single ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I should make any commitment at this time. It is premature because we have to wait and see how the primaries come up and how the State conventions work out. It is just too early for us to make any commitment of the kind that you are suggesting.,CEDAR POINT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the Congress passed the supplementary appropriation bill waiting your signature. Included in it is $1.6 million for Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge to rebuild some badly eroded dikes. The people in northwest Ohio want to know if you are going to sign that and, if you are, how soon?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly am strongly in favor of the project that you indicate. As a matter of fact, we have been pushing in trying to get that $1.6 million for that project. We think it is good, and I am personally in support of it, but I want to wait and personally analyze the overall supplemental appropriation bill before I make a commitment. I will do it the first thing tomorrow morning. And we have time before the 10 days expires.,But, as far as that project is concerned, I fully support it. And, if that was a single item, not a part of a total supplemental appropriation bill, I would sign it tomorrow morning. But I have an obligation to take a look at all of the other items that are in the supplemental appropriation bill. I will do it tomorrow, and hopefully I will be able to sign it because I am strongly in favor of that project.,JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION OF CONGRESSIONAL\nMISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, to follow up on the sex scandal that was discussed just a few minutes ago, you said that it was a housekeeping measure for the Congress. Yet we hear that the Justice Department is looking into this for the possible misuse of Federal moneys. I am wondering if you have asked the Justice Department to look into that at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not asked the Justice Department to look into it. The Justice Department is headed by a very able Attorney General, and I am sure if he or his associates feel there has been any violation of law, under his oath of office, he will undertake that responsibility.,PUBLIC REACTION TO CONGRESSIONAL MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS,[11.] Q. My next question is--you indicated that you didn't see how this could hurt you in any way--my question is, do you think this will hurt the Congress in campaign '76, those incumbents who are running for reelection?,THE PRESIDENT. Those who are not involved I don't think will be adversely affected. I think that, as far as I know, one individual is involved. I can't see how it would be detrimental to those who have no part or have had no connection with it.,CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY BY FORD ADMINISTRATION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you think some of Ronald Reagan's popularity in the primaries is due to his attitude the United States should conduct foreign policy from a strong posture rather than the conciliatory position evident in the last few months, and what would be your reaction to a charge that the program is conciliatory?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I want to deny most emphatically that this administration has been less than forthright and strong in the conduct of its foreign policy. We have been very strong, and let me cite you an illustration.,Back in December, when we knew that the Cubans were getting involved in Angola and we knew the Soviet Union wanted to be very helpful with some $200 million of military equipment, the President Ford administration took a strong position. Regrettably, the Congress didn't stand up and support us. So, the Ford administration was in the forefront, and any charge or allegation to the effect that this administration is anything but forthright and strong in the conduct of foreign policy hasn't studied the record.,So, I can assure you, because we have been strong, because we have been forthright, we have been able to convince our allies that we were reliable, and we have been able to convince our adversaries that we mean business.,Now, the Ford administration has repeatedly believed that if we can negotiate it is better than going to war, and I can assure you that we will negotiate, but negotiate from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness.,ALTERNATIVES TO SCHOOL BUSING,[13.] Q. Mr. President, I was wondering if you could give us some hints about these alternatives that you are considering to forced busing. I just wondered what, beyond the Esch amendment and what is spelled out in the law and what the courts have already examined, what possibly could be an alternative that would hold up in the courts? What are the sorts of things that you are looking at?,THE PRESIDENT. When the proper time comes, Mr. Schieffer [Bob Schieffer, CBS News], we will reveal what Secretary Mathews has recommended to me and the options that I have selected. I think there are some possibilities, but I think it is premature until I have made the final decision to indicate what he has thought might be an improvement over the way we have been handling the situation in the past.,Q. Is it fair to say, though, Mr. President, that this is going to require some major legislative work, major changes in the law?,THE PRESIDENT. Not necessarily, not major legislative changes. It can have some legislative impact, but it is also what we can do administratively.,Q. Why not just go for a constitutional amendment against forced busing?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is too inflexible. And the facts of life are that that constitutional amendment has not gotten, or it can't possibly get a twothirds vote in either the House or the Senate, and it certainly cannot be approved by 75 percent of the States.,So, anybody who talks about a constitutional amendment is not being fair and square with the American people because no Congress that I have seen-and this one is a very liberal one--has done anything to get it to the floor of the House or even to the floor of the Senate, as I recollect.,So, when you talk about a constitutional amendment, you are kidding the American people, and anybody who has been in Congress knows that.,Q. I have some more questions.,THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead.,Q. At least that is saying what you are for. What I am wondering is, why you can't give us a few hints about what the alternatives are that you think will solve the problems?,THE PRESIDENT. At the proper time, Mr. Schieffer, Secretary Mathews will have the option paper before me, and I will be glad to review it and make it public at that time.,SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT FORD FROM DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, since Governors Reagan, Carter, and Wallace have all conducted, to some degree, an anti-Washington campaign, should you be the nominee and Governor Carter be the Democratic nominee, how do you propose to attract the votes of the Reagan supporters, particularly the Wallace crossovers to Reagan?,THE PRESIDENT. I want to appeal to as many Democrats as I possibly can, and that is what I did in Michigan in the recent primary. My opponent very obviously wanted the Wallace element and only the Wallace element. I appealed in 'Michigan to all Democrats and all Independents who wanted to cross over and vote for me if they believed in my record and believed in what I was trying to do. And we got a tremendous number of Democrats in Michigan to cross over, and I'm very proud of it.,Now, after we get the nomination in Kansas City, we will naturally want to get as many Democrats as we can because the Republican Party, according to statistics, has only about 19 percent of the public and the Democratic Party has 35 to 40 percent, as I recall. The rest of the people are Independents.,So, a Republican candidate for the Presidency has to have a lot of support from Independents and a significant support from Democrats. And the experience in Michigan, where I got a broad spectrum of Independents as well as Democrats certainly is conclusive that I have a very good appeal to Independent voters as well as broad-minded and, I think, very wise Democrats.,ALTERNATIVES TO SCHOOL BUSING,[15.] Q. Mr. President, I think any number of people are a little confused about the status of the so-called alternatives to court-ordered busing. Just last week, you told a group of Kentucky editors just before the Kentucky primary that you had three alternatives that you were studying and that you would be making a judgment on them within a few weeks.,At that same meeting, you said the Justice Department may choose Louisville when, in fact, the Justice Department was not at that time considering Louisville. Do you now have those alternatives before you or, as you have indicated tonight, will they come from David Mathews? And finally, as a result of all this confusion, don't you see how the impression is left strongly that you may be doing this for political reasons?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have confused it by not relating the whole sequence of events. I have repeatedly said that last November I called in the Attorney General and the Secretary of HEW and said I wanted a better answer so we could achieve quality education and not tear up society in a city such as Boston. A month or two later they came back with a number of options. I said they ought to winnow them down. This was well before any Presidential primaries were on the agenda.,We have been seriously and constructively working together, and the Attorney General, in due time, as he finds the right case, will go to the Supreme Court if he thinks the record justifies it. And Secretary Mathews will come to me with a more limited number of options at the proper time, and I expect sometime within the next several weeks I will get those recommendations.,Q. But did you not tell the Kentucky editors, as I recall it quite vividly, that you had three alternatives already that you were studying and that you would make a judgment on those shortly?,THE PRESIDENT. I had three, and I have asked Secretary Mathews to review them and to make sure that they might be alternatives that would really be helpful. And he has gone back to review those three alternatives, and I expect shortly he will come up with a more complete recommendation.,WELFARE REFORM,[16.] Q. Mr. President, 200 persons, or interested groups, are suing the Government to block the 1 1/2 million persons who might be dropped from the welfare rolls. What is the Ford administration going to do to change that proposal to be sure that persons on welfare can have the adequate sustenance they need?,THE PRESIDENT. Which part of the welfare program are you talking about? Q. I'm speaking about the part where the proposal states that many of the persons would either receive limited amounts or some would be dropped totally. I know it's a complete package, but how will you deal with that total situation?,THE PRESIDENT. There are a number of areas of welfare where we have sought to take corrective action. One of them is the food stamp program. I have made recommendations in the food stamp program to give more food stamps to the really needy and eliminate from the food stamp program people who are well above the poverty line and in the process save about $1,600 million. Now, that's one part of the welfare program.,There are other areas, and I cannot detect from the way you have described it which one you are talking about, other than the food stamp program because that was $1,600 million, too.,PRESIDENT FORD'S REACTION TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you have reiterated tonight that you are against court-ordered busing to achieve school desegregation, a remedy that's the law of the land. You've also said that you told your Attorney General to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its busing decisions. Just this week you also indicated that you would get your administration to try and reverse a court order protecting porpoises against being killed by tuna fishing.,My question is this, sir: If the President of the United States does not accept court decisions, doesn't that encourage the people of the United States to defy court decisions, and isn't there a danger the law of the land will be eroded?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all, because whether I agree with decisions or not, this administration, through the Attorney General, has insisted that the court decisions, whether they are in Boston or Detroit or anyplace else, be upheld. I have repeatedly said that the administration will uphold the law.,Now, in the case of court-ordered, forced busing, which I fundamentally disagree with as the proper way to get quality education, the Attorney General is looking himself to see whether there is a proper record in any case that would justify the Department of Justice entering as amicus curiae a proceeding before the Supreme Court to see if the Court would review its decision in the Brown 1 case and the several that followed thereafter.,1 At his news conference on Thursday, May 27, 1976, Press Secretary Ron Nessen stated: \"The reference to the Brown case was not correct. Over the years the President has consistently and firmly stated that he supports the Brown decision and in the news conference itself last night a number of times he said that he is opposed to segregation in schools and intends to uphold constitutional rights in school cases. What he was referring to . . . in that remark was some of the more recent court cases since Brown that have ordered forced busing to achieve desegregation.\",I think that's a very proper responsibility for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to take. They need clarification because all of these busing cases are not identical. And if the Department of Justice thinks that they can't administer the law properly under the decisions because of the uncertainties, I think the Department of Justice has an obligation to go to the court and ask for clarification. And that is precisely what the Attorney General may do.,Now, in the case of the decision by Judge Richey involving the tuna industry, that was a decision made by him under the Mammal Protection Act. But the net result is he has literally interpreted the law so that in effect it will ruin the tuna industry in this country and, at the same time, preclude the tuna industry from doing the things that they are doing to cut down the loss of life as far as porpoises are concerned. And the tuna industry, from my own personal examination-and I think you were there--they have considerably changed the kind of nets that they are using so the loss of porpoises has been cut significantly. And apparently Judge Richey, in interpreting the law, didn't take into consideration the tremendous improvements of the tuna industry in trying to save the lives of porpoises.\nNow, in the meantime, one of the Members of the House of Representatives from California has introduced legislation to clarify the Mammal Protection Act. And that legislation would give more flexibility so that the tuna industry can be saved on the one hand and the new procedures of the tuna fishermen, which protects the lives of porpoises, can be carried out. I think that is a responsible position for an administration to take.,Q. Just to follow up my original question, sir, you said in reply to a question on busing on the West Coast, and I think I am quoting you correctly, that \"maybe we need some new judges.\" Mr. President, are you suggesting if elected you might try to pack the Federal courts with judges favorable to your position on busing?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say that the one opportunity I have had to appoint a judge to the United States Supreme Court, he was almost unanimously approved because of his high quality. He wasn't selected because he had any prejudgments or conclusions concerning anything. He was a man of great intellect, great experience, and good judgment. And I would expect in the next 4 years to appoint people of the same quality and caliber, and I would expect the United States Senate to overwhelmingly approve them as they did Justice Stevens.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-05-03","text":"GOOD MORNING. Won't you all please sit down. I am ready for the first question.,QUESTIONS,INDIANA PRIMARY,[1.] REPORTER. Mr. President, Time magazine has published a poll to the effect that Jimmy Carter would defeat you if the election were held today, by a fairly substantial margin. In light of that and your rather convincing defeat in Texas to Mr. Reagan on Saturday, do you feel that Indiana's primary on Tuesday is absolutely crucial for you to stop any momentum that Mr. Reagan might be generating right now?,THE PRESIDENT. We have always considered the Indiana primary a very important primary. As you well know, I have been in Indiana twice; my wife has been here on one occasion. We have a first-class organization. We have the support of the Governor. We have the support of many public officials as well as many, many volunteers, which is an indication of how important we feel the Indiana primary is.,I think any apathy on behalf of my candidacy will have been gone as a result of the situation in Texas. So we think the situation is crucial, and we are making a maximum effort here in Indiana.,Q. Would you care to comment on the Time magazine poll?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the final poll comes in November, and there will be ups and downs. And I'm sure, just as soon as some of these issues are laid before Governor Carter, we will find some erosion of his support. Some of the positions that he was forced to take in the last few days, I think will have some adverse impact on his popularity. But the final test comes in November.,THE PRESIDENT'S DELEGATE SUPPORT,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you have said you expect to win in Kansas City. But after Mr. Reagan swept all 96 delegates in Texas, will you have enough delegates to lock up the nomination before you get to the convention, or will your getting the nomination depend on the uncommitted delegates in Kansas City?,THE PRESIDENT. We certainly hope, and I personally believe, when we get to Kansas City we will have a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination.,Q. On the first ballot?,THE PRESIDENT. We believe so.,Q. And is that predicated or will you have it locked up before California, or does it depend on California?,THE PRESIDENT. We will make that judgment when we get down to the last primary.,ALABAMA, GEORGIA, AND INDIANA PRIMARY ELECTIONS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, you are on a couple other State primary ballots tomorrow, in addition to Indiana. How do you evaluate your chances for victory in the other two, in addition to Indiana, and what would be the impact of your candidacy if you lost all three in one day?,THE PRESIDENT. We certainly would be very disappointed, but we don't think we are going to lose all three. We think our chances are very good here in Indiana, for the reasons that I have given: We have the full backing of the Governor and many public officials; we have a great volunteer organization, and I think any apathy has gone as far as my candidacy is concerned. So, we think Indiana will do very well by us. And the other two States, why, we certainly are underdogs in both Alabama and Georgia, but we are going to make, as we have in the past, a real sincere and very maximum effort in the time that is allowed. After all, I do have to be President, and that takes a lot of time, so we can't campaign as much as my opponent does in the primaries.,Q. Do you rate your chances in Alabama and Georgia as under those in Indiana?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said, we believe the opportunities here in Indiana are very good. In Alabama and Georgia--yes, we are underdogs, so there is a difference in the two situations.,FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, with the compromise bill reconstituting the Federal Election Commission out of conference and pending in Congress this week, have you had a chance to review it, and can you confirm a report that you will sign it if it passes as it came out of conference?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, I strongly recommended that the Congress only approve the necessary defects in the basic law to perfect the constitutional questions raised by the Supreme Court. If Congress had done that promptly, the whole matter would have been resolved a good many weeks ago.,When that bill gets down to the White House, the Oval Office, I will give it very careful, very precise analysis. But at this moment, I can't make any categorical statement as to whether or not I will sign it. Congress, as of this moment, has not yet approved even this so-called compromise bill. So, when they finish their work, after almost 90 days of inaction, then I will make a judgment as quickly as possible.,SOUTH KOREA,[5.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday Governor Carter said that the South Korean Government was a dictatorship and has repressed and called for the gradual withdrawal of troops there and withdrawal of atomic weapons. What is your view on that?,THE PRESIDENT. The South Korean Government is a very important part of our overall Pacific strategy. I think to make any judgment of that kind by Governor Carter, who hasn't had the benefit of the detailed briefings and the detailed recommendations of our top military leaders, I think his judgment at this point is not a very solid one.,We have a good program, a good military relationship with the South Korean Government, and as far as I am concerned, we're going to keep them strong because they are a part of our overall strategy for the Pacific.,JIMMY CARTER,[6.] Q. Mr. President, continuing with Mr. Carter, at a news conference here yesterday, he accused you of weakness as a President. He said that Reagan had pushed you around in the campaign, and you had backed off on issues to accommodate his political pressure. How would you react to those charges?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a very inaccurate charge. There's an old Michigan saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Let me make an observation how Governor Carter has really been pushed around.,For example, when he raised the question of ethnic purity, I think within 24 hours he made a flip-flop. And then, up until that situation arose, why, he had been opposed to the so-called Humphrey-Hawkins bill. And again, within 24 to 48 hours, he came out and endorsed the Humphrey-Hawkins bill.,So, I think his flexibility in this campaign is pretty well recognized. The minute any of his Democratic opponents hit him on something, he backtracks and takes another position. I know of no position that I have taken from the very beginning to now, where I have changed my basic policy or program based on any campaign rhetoric of Governor Reagan.,THE PRESIDENT'S RECORD,[7.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Barry Goldwater said that on a scale of conservatism there might not be 2 percent worth of difference between you and Ronald Reagan. In light of that and the very conservative nature of Indiana Republicans, what is the choice that you offer over Governor Reagan tomorrow?,THE PRESIDENT. There is a very basic choice. A person who has had some experience on a very important job, such as being President of the United States, is a very vital factor. When individuals have to go to the polls and make a decision between somebody who knows the job, who has done a good job, whose policies both domestically and internationally have been successful--and when you look at the record that I offer where we have cut inflation by 75 percent in the 20 months that I have been President; where we now have employed in this country 86,700,000 people--an all-time record; when you look at the fact that I have restored integrity and public confidence in the White House--this is a record based on experience and success, and I don't think the voters are going to trade that for campaign rhetoric, which is what my opponent has basically based his campaign on.,PANAMA CANAL AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, from the questions you receive around the country at Republican forums, it's apparent that Governor Reagan is controlling the issues in this campaign. In your post-mortem on Sunday, when you met with your campaign leaders, I wonder if you can tell us if you have devised any kind of strategy to perhaps take the offensive instead of always reacting to the charges from the former Governor?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there will be any basic change, Aldo [Aldo B. Beckman, Chicago Tribune Press Service], in our campaign program, between now and Kansas City. We always recognized it was going to be a very hard contest and it would probably get more heated as the campaign went on, but we have had some help and assistance just within the last 24 to 48 hours.,For example, on \"Meet the Press\" Sunday, Senator Barry Goldwater came out very forthrightly on my behalf as far as my policy on the Panama Canal is concerned. And this kind of assistance, I think, helps to undercut the validity and the credibility of Governor Reagan's various charges.,And again, I would like to quote from the \"Meet the Press\" program on which Senator Goldwater appeared. And when he was asked this question on the Panama Canal--the question is as follows: \"On the Panama Canal, who is right on that? Whose position do you support? Ford's or Reagan's?\" And Senator Goldwater said the following: \"I have to support Ford's position on it, and I think Reagan would, too, if he knew more about it.\",RONALD REAGAN'S DELEGATE SUPPORT,[9.] Q. Mr. President, if you should lose the three on Tuesday, which you don't expect to do, Governor Reagan would have more delegates than you have, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not going to speculate on something I don't think is going to take place.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Paul Laxalt, the Citizens for Reagan chairman, this morning, underscored what he called the inequities of the Federal election law, saying they favor you, especially in air travel. He cited some $600,000.,And Governor Reagan this morning at a news conference raised the question on the propriety of campaigning on the one hand and holding a revenue sharing meeting at the same time, this close to a primary. Will your expense report show this trip as political or nonpolitical?,THE PRESIDENT. The expenses of this trip will be paid entirely by the President Ford Committee, and the expenses that we pay to the Federal Government will be a matter of public record. And the arrangement for the full payment of this trip coincide precisely with the Federal Election Commission's reports and regulations.,Now that we're talking about full disclosure and who owes how much to the Federal Government, let me raise a question concerning Governor Reagan. I refer here to 1975 income tax payments.,I have fully told the public what I paid, which was 42 percent of the income that I earned in 1975. It's a matter of public record. The press knows it; it's been printed. As far as I know, Governor Reagan has not made public any of his 1975 income tax payments. He has not disclosed it to the press or to the public, and I suggest respectfully that he do the same on this disclosure as we're doing, as far as paying the Government for this particular trip, which is total.,Q. I think the issue was that other candidates have to pay for their expenses and air travel reservations in advance, and this being one of the inequities they cite.,THE PRESIDENT. We are paying precisely according to the regulations of the Federal Election Commission, and we pay in toto, and we are doing it as required by the Federal Election Commission. We have to go by their rules and regulations.,THE PRESIDENT'S SUPPORT OF REPUBLICAN NOMINEE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, should you somehow lose the nomination in Kansas City, would you be able to support the nominee?,THE PRESIDENT. I have traditionally supported the Republican candidate for the Presidency. I supported Senator Goldwater in 1964.,Q. So, that's a yes?,THE PRESIDENT. I have traditionally supported and I would expect to support the Republican nominee.,Q. Along the same lines--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't expect to lose, however, in Kansas City. [Laughter] I wish I could get the same comment from my opponent, who I expect to lose in Kansas City. [Laughter],POSSIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT ACCEPTING VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION,[12.] Q. Would you consider accepting the number two spot on the ticket, should you lose?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course not.,Q. Of course not?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course not.,Q. Why is that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that, first, I anticipate winning in Kansas City and I, therefore, don't anticipate any opportunity to serve as Vice President. I have had that experience, which was helpful in the job that I'm now doing as President. And since I expect to win in Kansas City, I don't think that option will be open to me.,THE ECONOMY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Ronald Reagan says your claims that the state of the economy is good are false. He says the country is $95 billion more in debt than it was a year ago and goes further into debt at the rate of $2 billion a week. Can any President really get the Nation out of debt?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the policies that I have of restraining the growth of Federal spending, cutting that growth in Federal spending by better than 50 percent and, at the same time, saving, if the Congress goes along with my budget that I have submitted, we can have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1979. And the Governor's accusations about the economy are totally without foundation.,We have taken this economy from a year ago--where we were in the midst of the worst economic recession for the last 40 years--and by the Ford administration doing the right thing, we have now cut the rate of inflation by 75 percent. For the first 3 months of this year, the rate of inflation is under 3 percent. And we have regained 2,600,000 jobs throughout the United States in the last 12 months. Furthermore, for the month of March, we have the most people gainfully employed in this country--86,700,000 people.,I should think Governor Reagan would applaud this kind of healthy economy instead of trying to scare people as he apparently is trying to do. The economy is sound, it is getting better and is getting better. And the way he talks, he seems to invite economic difficulties, and I think that's the wrong approach.,DIVISIONS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in the last 48 hours or so you have indicated that you think Ronald Reagan has been rash with some of the issues, and you have accused him outwardly of distorting some of the figures. There was a time when your campaign people were accusing Reagan of taking the campaign to the point where it would be divisive for the Republican Party. Do you worry that you are now taking the campaign to a point where it would hurt the party's chances in November?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think so. But when accusations are made without foundation or there is a distortion of statistics, I think it is my obligation to the American people to tell the truth and to explain what the facts are in the total context.,So, it has not been a personal attack. It has just been an attempt by me to set the record straight, which is an obligation of the President of the United States.,Q. Is it serious to accuse Mr. Reagan of being rash or distorting issues? Do you worry about that hurting the Republican Party?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the Republican voters, once they have heard the facts, will think that what I am saying is divisive.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[15.] Q. Mr. President, one of the lessons being drawn from the Texas results is that the voters there tend to believe what your opponent has been saying about Secretary of State Kissinger and his view that second place is satisfactory for America militarily.,What are you doing to determine if that is indeed the way they feel, and what would Dr. Kissinger's position be if it is indeed an influencing factor?,THE PRESIDENT. Dr. Kissinger has always said to me that at any time that I felt that his staying on as Secretary of State was a political liability, he would be glad to step aside. That is a matter of public record. But again, if I might refer to my good friend and, I think, outstanding statesman in the United States Senate, Barry Goldwater, let me quote what Barry Goldwater said yesterday about the Secretary of State.,Here is what he said on \"Meet the Press\": \"I think the Secretary of State can be said to be doing a good job.\" I respect Barry Goldwater, and it's my judgment that the Secretary of State has done a good job, and I'm glad that Senator Goldwater agrees with me.,Q. The question really is: Do the voters agree at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they will. I think they do.,Q. How about tomorrow here in Indiana?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we will wait and see.,EMPLOYMENT,[16.] Q. Mr. Ford, you have praised yourself in several months, in recent months at least, for reducing unemployment and also for reducing inflation. But the fact remains that in a number of large, inner-city urban areas, a large percentage of minority and poor people remain unemployed and probably will remain unemployed despite the expansion of the economy.,My question to you is, given this fact and the fact that the current comprehensive employment training programs and summer youth employment programs are not absorbing a lot of people who would like to have jobs, don't you think it is time for the Federal Government to step in and, on a limited basis, perhaps, have maybe an economic Marshall plan?,THE PRESIDENT. Every year since I have been President, I have recommended the full funding of what we call the summer youth program, which is primarily aimed at helping to give summer jobs to the youth in our major metropolitan areas.,This is a program which costs about $450 million a year. I recommended it every year, and I have proposed it for this coming summer. In addition, as our economy improves, we are going to get more job opportunities for the youth in our major metropolitan areas, including minority youth.,But, in addition, I have recommended the full funding of what we call the CETA program, which helps to train young people as wall as others to get better jobs or to get jobs in the first instance. That program, plus the summer youth program, plus some of the other programs that we utilize to help cities with their own problems, I think, will be helpful in trying to get the problem that you raise--which is a very legitimate one--solved by this Government.,Q. But the fact remains that there would be a large percentage, literally millions of people in the inner-city areas who would still not have jobs. And I would like to know, as a Republican candidate for the Presidency, do you have any specific programs in mind that would solve this aspect of the problem?,THE PRESIDENT. We have the program of getting the total economy back where it's prosperous, better than it ever has. And five out of the six jobs in this country are in the private sector. And that is where the best job opportunity is for young people, including those in major metropolitan areas.,So, with the summer youth program, with the CETA program and the other programs we have, we think we can solve that problem, and I believe we will.,POLLUTION CONTROL AND THE ECONOMY,[17.] Q. Mr. President, given the upturn in the economy and corporate earnings and profits increasing, does the administration expect to take a more forceful approach in seeking air and water pollution compliance as to purchase of expensive pollution control devices and implementation of these programs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the EPA has the responsibility in that area for clean air and clean water. I believe that their program is basically sound. In some instances, they have gone too far. And I think up in Indiana, as I recall, in the Gary area, they were too rigid, and they required that several of the plants of one of the major steel industries up there close. I think in retrospect that was a bit too arbitrary.,So, I think the EPA has to have a balance in the way it approaches the responsibilities that it has. Sometimes they are too tough. On some occasions, I think they may have been too lenient. But that is the responsibility of the EPA. And I personally feel that we have to establish a balance between what is attainable in clean air and clean water and, at the same time, continue our economic prosperity.,Q. Would too much forcefulness in applying this create some reverse economic problems?,THE PRESIDENT. Well obviously, up in the Gary area, when they forced the closing of several steel plants, it did have an adverse economic impact on that particular community. Whether that was totally arbitrary or not, I'm not the best judge of it. But obviously the closing of those several plants had an adverse economic effect on that area.,DEMOCRATIC CROSSOVER VOTE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS,[18.] Q. Good morning, sir. Some of your aides tell me you're not too pleased about one aspect of the Texas primary, possibly several aspects, but particularly the fact that Democrats crossed over, that you don't feel Democrats should be selecting a Republican Presidential nominee.,THE PRESIDENT. We, of course, believe that Republicans ought to be the major factor in the selection of a Republican candidate for the Presidency. On the other hand, any Democrat who's philosophically in tune with my philosophy, I welcome as a supporter, whether it's in the primary or whether it's in the general election. But the basic responsibility of Republicans is to support their nominee for the convention in Kansas City.,Q. I gather then that you are not terribly distraught at the idea of large crossover votes as long as you get them? Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a very practical way to approach it. [Laughter],EMPLOYMENT AND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, this is not on the election, but I trust you enough to give you my vote tomorrow.,THE PRESIDENT. We thank you very much.,Q. The reason I want to ask you this question is because this is a field that I am interested in because I work with international young people who come to our country to get an education. Now, we have had problems here in Indiana. Many of these young people come on their own, and they want a job, to work. Many of them cannot get permission from the immigration [Immigration and Naturalization Service] to work, which makes it very hard on them even if they do have a job available.,And I wonder, sir, if you might be able to give us directions in what we can do to help these friends, because, you see, this is going to help promote good international relations for us when they get back home. So, that's why I am interested in this.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm a very strong supporter of the student exchange program\nwhere young Americans go abroad and spend a summer and, in some cases, a year in many, many foreign countries. And I'm a strong supporter of foreign students coming to the United States, whether it's for 3 months or 12 mouths.,But we do run into a practical problem. The practical problem is we have unemployment at the national average of about 7.5 percent today. And it does raise the question whether these foreign students coming here take a job away from an American who wants a job to raise his family or to get his education.,And I believe that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has to be very discreet. In some areas of the country where unemployment is not serious, some cities such as those in some instances in Texas, I see no reason why there can't be flexibility and young people would have the opportunity to work.,But in some areas of very high unemployment, unemployment of Americans, I think the Immigration and Naturalization Service has to take a somewhat different point of view because, basically, we have to be concerned about jobs for Americans.,So, it has to be on a selective basis and, if so, I think it can be handled appropriately. I agree with you entirely that these young Europeans or others coming to this country for an education, a living experience with American families, may go back in most instances and are good will ambassadors for the United States.,I strongly believe in the program, but there has to be a balance when it comes to them getting jobs, competing with Americans who also need a job.,Q. I see. One other question: Is there any provision in the United States Government which offers scholarship aid to international students who want to come to our country to study?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes, the Fulbright program and related programs are aimed precisely at trying to get foreign students to come to the United States on a scholarship basis. And that program or those programs have been very, very successful. As a matter of fact, a number of the heads of government around the world today in one way or another have come to the United States and studied and gone back to their country and become leaders in their own individual country. And they did come here in many instances on the basis of scholarships.,Q. Thank you very much, and good luck tomorrow.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.,INTERIOR DEPARTMENT GRANT TO GEORGIA,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Reagan has accused you of taking unfair advantage of your incumbency by dealing out Federal grants, at fortuitous times, in advance of primaries. Yesterday, the Associated Press quoted your Interior Secretary, Thomas Kleppe, as acknowledging that at least part of the reason for awarding a $1 million grant to Georgia for a river reclamation project was the upcoming primary there tomorrow. What's your reaction to this sort of candor?,THE PRESIDENT. I had no foreknowledge of what the Secretary of the Interior was going to do. I did know from a previous trip to Atlanta, Georgia that the people of Georgia were very interested in a reclamation or park beautification program on the Chattahoochee River. They have been working with the Department of Interior for a long period of time in trying to preserve the shorelines of that river in the metropolitan area of Atlanta.,The Secretary of Interior made that decision himself. I'm sure it was meritorious, but if he made it in the last 24 hours, I think it won't be harmful. But I don't know how beneficial it will be.,Q. Do you plan to speak with him about his timing either to commend him or--,THE PRESIDENT. I think a Cabinet officer can handle those kind of matters himself, and I have no intention of contacting him concerning this very meritorious award. The money came out of the Land and Water Conservation Act. It's a preservation of a very historic area in the Atlanta area, and I think it's a good decision. But you will have to ask him or get any question answered by him as to why he did it in the last 48 hours.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very much. Good to be in Indiana."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-04-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Won't you all sit down.,It's been great in Texas for the last 2 days. We are looking forward to a couple more. So, let's get started this morning.,QUESTIONS,RONALD REAGAN,[1.] Q. I would like to ask you about what you said yesterday about Mr. Reagan. Does this represent a new turn in the campaign, where you and he will take on each other directly, confront each other directly and personally?,THE PRESIDENT. It's not a question of personalities. It's a question of which candidate. has the best policies, the best programs; which candidate is the one that is better qualified to do the job. And that is really the issue, what the people in Texas have to decide and what the people throughout the rest of the country must decide.,We have laid out our program, which is a very complete and a very detailed program both at home and abroad, a program with a record. And my opponent is coming up with some rather simple, some rather lacking-in-detail answers, and I think the people in Texas must decide it on those policies rather than on personality.,Q. Why do you not refer to him by name?,THE PRESIDENT. That is sort of a tradition you do in politics.,JIMMY CARTER,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Dick Growald, UPI.,Mr. President, you said you would welcome a battle in November between yourself and Senator Humphrey as providing a clear battle issue of philosophy. What would be the nature of the battle in November between yourself and Jimmy Carter, especially in view of former Governor Carter saying that you have failed to provide leadership in all areas?,THE PRESIDENT. If by chance former Governor Carter is the Democratic nominee, again it will be a challenge between a proven record on my part--where I think we have been very successful in taking a very bad economic situation and turning it around so that we are now on a stable and a constructive road to economic prosperity, and where our foreign policy, in my judgment, has been one of strength and success. It will be a contest between Carter and Ford, on a record and a challenger.,THE PRESIDENT'S TEXAS CAMPAIGN,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Michael Morgan, KHOU-TV, in Houston.,When we were up to speak with you last week at the White House, you mentioned that you thought you had closed the gap here in Texas between yourself and Mr. Reagan. Has this 4-day campaign blitz by you closed the gap even more?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been very, very encouraged by the wonderfully warm reception we have received in Texas for the last 2 days. And I have met with a great many of my volunteer Ford people here in the State of Texas, and they are getting more and more enthusiastic.,I find a good spirit and the determination, and the net result is I think we have closed the gap. We are making it very, very close, and I am always optimistic. And we certainly have generated a lot of momentum that I think could very well give us an opportunity to win.,But we are working hard. We have good leadership, good programs, good policies, and in the next 2 days, we hope to enhance the possibilities of success on Saturday.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Walter Rodgers, representing the Associated Press. There has been a perceptible chill in U.S.-Soviet relations. You have dropped the word detente. Secretary Brezhnev's visit has been scrubbed, and there is no immediate prospect that the SALT II treaty will be signed. To what extent has the campaign been responsible for this very perceptible chill in Soviet relations?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't detected any significant change in the communications between the Soviet Union and the United States Government. We are still working constructively in trying to find an answer to the limitations on strategic weapons.,We are trying to work in every way that I know-to keep the lid on any outbreaks throughout the world. We are certainly encouraged by the purchase by the Soviet Union yesterday of 3,400,000 metric tons of corn and grain, which I think is an indication of their living up to the agreement that we signed for a 5-year grain sale to the Soviet Union. I don't detect any deterioration in the constructive elements of a relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States.,NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS,[5.] Q. Have what you called Mr. Reagan's superficial and simplistic charges done any damage internationally, abroad and, if not, why have they upset you so?,THE PRESIDENT. Because they are not a true picture of our military capability on the one hand and, on the other, they could very well mislead our allies abroad and actually mislead some of our adversaries abroad.,We have a comprehensive, I think, a very strong and fundamentally sound military program. And I can take credit for the fact that we apparently are able to reverse the trend that Congress imposed on previous Presidents as to our military capability.,The United States Government--if my military program that I submitted in January is carried through, there won't be any doubt about the strong and effective capability of our defense program in the years ahead, so that the charges made by my opponent, being lacking in depth, overly simplistic, have, in my judgment, at least created some problems potentially abroad, because people might believe something that is inaccurate.,THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT DURING THE CAMPAIGN,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Bart Cannon; I'm with the Houston News Service. Trying to keep up with your campaign around the country, I have noticed that you made some political appointments in some primary States before you have gone there, and you have also dropped some grants and some Federal funds in those States. I am trying to find out if you think the President should use that kind of influence to buy voters?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a completely inaccurate allegation. The business of Government has to continue. We can't stop making appointments, we can't stop agencies from awarding contracts or awards to cities or to States or to organizations just because a political campaign is in progress. The business of Government has to proceed. And under no circumstances have any of these decisions been made in relationship to any primary.,THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Bill Broom of Ritter Newspapers.,One of the key issues in this Texas Republican primary seems to be whether you are conservative enough, and some newspapermen think they detected a shift toward the right in some of your policies and positions. Will this be a benefit or a handicap to you in the fall?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, Bill, the policies that I have carried out for the last 20 or 21 months in the White House have been the policies that I have believed in in the 25 years that I served in the Congress of the United States. They are middle-of-the-road policies both at home as well as abroad, and nothing that I have done, as far as I can analyze it, would indicate any shift in my basic philosophy or in the implementation of that philosophy. And I believe that being in the middle of the road, as far as the Republicans are concerned, on a nationwide basis, is the right policy. And I know it is the right policy in meeting a Democratic challenger in November.,Q. You are confident then that you are conservative enough to win in Texas, but middle-of-the-road enough to win in the fall, is that right?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so.,NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, David Glodt with KTRK-TV in Houston.,Why suddenly the attacks on Ronald Reagan openly? And secondly, are you saying that Ronald Reagan is, in effect, not fit to be President of the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. When I set forth our defense budget, when I carry out our foreign policy, it is predicated on an in-depth study before we make any decision, where I consult with the best experts that we have within and without the Government. And those policies have been successful, as I have indicated. And when they are challenged by over-simplified one-liners, in my opinion those challenges have to be met head-on by specifics. And that is what I have tried to do on an impersonal basis, and that is what I will do from now on, because this country deserves to know the facts in a complex and very difficult area, and you can't take just part of a problem and come to a certain conclusion. You have to look at the broad spectrum.,Now, some of those statistics that the former Governor has used are statistics that we use in convincing the Congress to give to the President the kind of a defense budget that I have recommended. But in the process, he only takes a very small part of those statistics instead of presenting the total picture. Let me give you an example.,In the strategic area, we have the most accurate, we have the most survivable ballistic missiles in the world and, at the same time, we have far, far more warheads, many more than the Soviet Union has. And in addition, we have in our strategic forces a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio over them in long-range, high-performance aircraft. So what you have to do is to take the total picture and not just a piece, which my opponent has done.,Q. What about--do you feel Mr. Reagan is fit to be President of the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a judgment for the voters of Texas and the voters of the rest of the country to decide. It is really a question of which individual is the best qualified to be President and, in that context, I think my record of performance in office is the best judgment that the voters can make. And I think in the final analysis they will make it for me and against someone who hasn't bad the experience and the continuity in office.,PANAMA CANAL NEGOTIATIONS,[9.] Q. Bonnie Angelo, Time Magazine.,The Panama Canal renegotiations have figured in the Texas primary, in particular. In realistic terms, how important is the Panama Canal to our national defense?,THE PRESIDENT. The Panama Canal is not, in the overall context, as important today as it was in the past, although it is still a very vital part of our capability to move from the east coast to the west coast. And what I am trying to do is to maintain the usability of that canal without hindrance, without bloodshed, without guerrilla warfare, and without antagonizing 309 million individuals in South and Latin America. And if we break off those negotiations, it will unquestionably lead to bloodshed, we will have guerrilla warfare, the possibility of the canal being disabled. It would be very, very possible. So, what we are trying to do is to preserve the usability of that canal ad infinitum, so to speak, so that it will not be lost to us as a part of our economic and military needs and necessities.,THE ECONOMY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Bob Morrison with KTRH-Radio.,I would like to talk about the economy for a minute, if we could. There have been some analysts around the country, also your opponent has said that some of the economic measures that your administration has put into effect are merely stopgap measures, and the country could possibly be in a recession in 1977 and 1978.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, those, of course, are typical campaign scare charges and have no substance whatsoever. We took a very serious economic recession that reached its bottom in April or May, a year ago, and by strong, affirmative, constructive policies we have been able to turn the economy around. We have reduced, for example, the rate of inflation from over 12 percent when I became President, down to less than 3 percent for the first 3 months of 1976. That is a 75-percent reduction in the rate of inflation. Now, those are trends that are going to continue, whether it is an increase in employment, a decrease in unemployment, and a reduction of the rate of inflation. Those are solid achievements, and I think the Ford administration can take credit for them. And we are not going to have any lapse in the months ahead.,Q. Then you feel that the United States is on the course for a peacetime prosperity?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Absolutely.,RONALD REAGAN AND NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Muriel Dobbin with the Baltimore Sun.,You have said you would not rule out Mr. Reagan as the Vice President because of statements he has made in the heat of the campaign, yet yesterday you described Mr. Reagan as superficial, glib, irresponsible, and too inexperienced. Should your comments also be read in terms of campaign rhetoric, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you have to set the record straight. And as I said yesterday, the charges he has made for the last month or two have indicated some desperation on his part, and the more desperate you get, the wilder the charges, and I understand that. I have been through a number of political campaigns, but you have to meet them head on, and that is what we have tried to do by pointing out that the United States is unsurpassed in military capability, that the United States does have this tremendous capability industrially, agriculturally, scientifically, and technically. That is the bottom line, and that's what we ought to be talking about, not undercutting the capability of the United States.,INCOME TAX REFORM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Bob Raleigh with KPRC-Radio in Houston. Income taxes are something near and dear to the hearts of Americans this time of year. Do you favor income tax reforms and, if so, what would you like to see them become?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the best income tax reform that I know of is the kind of a program that I recommended to the Congress in January of last year, where I recommended an increase in the personal exemption for every individual taxpayer from $750 to $1,000. That would affect every individual income taxpayer. That is the kind of reform that is meaningful, particularly to the middle-income taxpayer.,Now, Congress ought to get on with that job. I have recommended for the period after July 1 of this year, an additional $10 billion reduction in taxes-75 percent of it to go to individual taxpayers, 25 percent to business, so that they can increase their productivity, modernize their equipment and plant.,That is the kind of tax reform that means something to people who want jobs on the one hand, and people who want more of their own money in their pockets so they can spend it, rather than have the Federal Government spend it.,Now, all of these other so-called tax reforms have been talked about for as long as I was in Congress. The way to get the job done is to increase personal exemptions as I recommended.,DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Russ Ward of NBC News.,THE PRESIDENT. My old skiing buddy.,Q. A political question, Mr. President. Hubert Humphrey is reported ready to enter the Democratic race on a formal basis. We would be interested in your reaction to this, and then a related question. If Jimmy Carter is the Democratic nominee, as it now appears, how would you propose to go about winning the Southern conservative support that over the years has been needed for a Republican Presidential candidate to win?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not really the best expert on whether or not Hubert Humphrey is going to enter the New Jersey primary, or whether by doing that he can stop Jimmy Carter, or whether Jimmy Carter is going to get the nomination. As an outside observer, I think the win by Jimmy Carter in Pennsylvania Tuesday certainly gave him the kind of momentum that ought to concern Hubert Humphrey and the other Democratic active candidates.,The only way I can see that they could stop him now is to have a smoke-filled room, Democratic brokers' convention, and I think the public would object to that. And so unless they find some other formula, it seems to me that Carter certainly has the edge at the present time by a substantial margin.,Now, if he is the nominee, I think my overall moderate, middle-of-the-road philosophy, both at home and abroad, will meet the challenge in the South as it will in the rest of the country. And we will keep on that, what I think is a constructive policy. And the voters in the South, in my judgment, compared to someone who hasn't had experience, who has not dealt with the hard decisions in the Oval Office will mean that we can be successful in November.,OIL COMPANY DIVESTITURE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Ann Broderick, KRBE News.,There has been talk of getting a divestiture bill through Congress this year. What are your feelings in regard to divestiture, and could you support such a bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Any divestiture bill that I have seen I would oppose. I would oppose it for this reason: We have analyzed all of the various divestiture proposals that have been submitted against two criteria.,First, would a divestiture bill reduce the price of petroleum products to the consumer? The answer is no. A divestiture bill would not reduce the price of gasoline, would not reduce the price of residual oil, would not reduce the price of distillates. And secondly, would a divestiture bill, under any circumstances, stimulate more domestic production of crude oil? The answer is no, because divestiture would undercut the capability of the American petroleum industry to go out and explore and drill for more domestic oil, and we need it very badly. So, when you measure these divestiture bills by those two criteria, you come to the conclusion that those divestiture bills ought to be defeated.,POSSIBILITY OF FORD-REAGAN DEBATE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, good morning. Tom Jarriel with ABC.,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, Tom.,Q. Mr. President, you have said several times here this morning that the public deserves to know the facts, and in the debate over national defense issues that Mr. Reagan is using simplified one-liners, and the issue should be met headon. Would not the best way to meet the issue head-on be for you and he to share a platform and debate this very vital issue? And if one could be arranged, would you welcome a debate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me my proposal for continued military strength, the unsurpassed capability of the United States, is a matter of public record. And Mr. Reagan's charges, as he has made them in a simple, unverified way, in my judgment, is also before the American people. I think the American people can judge it over a period of time in that way much better than a 50-minute debate on public or private television.,THE PRESIDENT'S DELEGATE SUPPORT,[16.] Q. Should you go into the Republican National Convention without the necessary 1,150 delegates supported to you, based on your answer about Mr. Carter and the smoke-filled room, would you then free those delegates at the convention to move and look for another potential nominee?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we fully expect to have 1,130 delegates by Kansas City time, so we aren't considering under any circumstances anything but winning in Kansas City.,WATERGATE AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE,[17.] Q. Mr. President, Len Hart of KILT-Radio in Houston.,\"All the President's Men\" is currently enjoying a tremendous box office success all across the country, as well as here in Houston. How will the release of this motion picture, as well as the release of the book, \"The Final Days,\" have an effect on Presidential politics or the Presidential campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. It certainly should have no effect on my candidacy, because at the time that I was nominated for the Vice Presidency, I had the most thorough investigation by over 400 FBI agents all over the country examining my records from birth on up. And when they got through with their investigation, the Senate Committee on Rules held several hearings; I answered all of their questions. The House Committee on Judiciary held hearings; I answered all their questions. I got approval from the two committees, and I got an overwhelming vote in the Democratic Congress endorsing my candidacy and indicating without any question of a doubt that I had no relationship whatsoever to Watergate.,So, as far as my candidacy is concerned, Watergate and all the problems that took place prior to August of 1974 won't affect me whatsoever or my candidacy. What impact it might have on others, I'm not qualified to say.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, as a man who should know, how much of the book, \"The Final Days,\" can we take seriously; how accurate is it?,THE PRESIDENT. The only part that I am qualified to pass judgment on--as far as I know the book is reasonably accurate. I think, however, that it is in bad taste in a number of cases.,RONALD REAGAN,[19.] Q. Mr. President, I'm David Binder of the New York Times. Following on Muriel Dobbins' and Tom Jarriel's question. Why, Mr. President, why, with a man you have described as irresponsible, simplistic, and whom you compared yesterday to a donkey--[laughter]--why do you take this man so seriously? Why don't you ignore him? Why do you give him such prominence? Why do you have to meet him head-on?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because the charges, in effect, could arouse some apprehension in the minds of Americans, could raise some questions with our allies, could raise some questions with our adversaries. And I want to reassure the American people, I want to reassure our allies, and I certainly don't want any misconceptions of our strength and our will as far as our adversaries are concerned. I feel that I owe it to the American people to tell them the truth, to state the facts, and to analyze for them as well as I can in these complicated areas, the fact that we are strong, that we have the kind of a program that can meet any challenge. I think that is my responsibility as President, regardless of any political campaign.,Q. Well, exactly, I mean, you would tell the truth and analyze the facts and present them and reassure allies with or without this particular opponent? I am just wondering why you build him up so much?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because his charges have gotten a lot of publicity. And there are a lot of clever one-liners that might appeal to some of our fellow citizens if the facts and the overall picture is not presented to them, and that is what I have sought to do.,Q. But do you have the impression that any of our allies or a large portion of the American public has been swayed by your opponent's charges and rhetoric?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't be sure, and I don't want to gamble. I want the public to know the facts, and I want them to be reassured. And I want our allies to be in the same position. We have to be sure that from the facts, the American people can come to the right conclusion. And we can't let any campaigning rhetoric undercut the strength and the will of the American people.,PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO SEEK ELECTION,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Lou Hanlon, KEYH-Radio News.,At the time that you mentioned a moment ago, of your appointment to the office, throughout those hearings that were held you mentioned on several occasions that you did not intend to seek reelection. Do you feel that that will affect your current campaign, or do you think the public will have forgotten about it by now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at that time, I was simply nominated as Vice President and under the circumstances, I felt the statement I made was the proper one. When I became President and looked at the possibilities both in the Democratic Party or in the Republican Party I felt that I was the best person to carry out these effective programs so we could meet the economic challenges at home and handle our foreign affairs in the most successful way. And with that feeling, I decided that it was better for me to announce my candidacy and to seek the election as President for the next 4 years.,That comment made when I was a nominee for Vice President I don't think will undercut my efforts either in the primaries or in the election leading up to November 2.,SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE DEFENSE BUDGET,[21.] Q. Mr. President, John Mashek, U.S. News [and World Report.] Last night in introducing you, Senator Tower seemed to be suggesting that you are contemplating a supplemental appropriation to the defense budget. Are you, in fact, contemplating such a supplemental, and in what areas?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have already submitted a supplemental of some $300 million, as I recall, for the Mark III production line for the ICBM's and some added equipment that would improve that ballistic missile capability.,Now, that decision was made because there has been a slowdown in the SALT II negotiations and that production line was about to terminate under the previous funding, I think, on May 1 of this year.,Just as added insurance and good economics, I recommended sufficient money to continue that production line for the next 6 to 12 months, as I recollect. So, that supplemental is before the Congress. In addition, as I said in the January budget that I submitted, we are currently reviewing our overall Navy shipbuilding program.,The shipbuilding program that I proposed to the Congress added 16 major capital ships, but it has been under review for some time. And we will get a final answer within the next month or two as to whether or not we should add additional capital ships to our Navy program. If we decide that is needed, I will submit a supplemental.,INCREASE IN DEFENSE BUDGET,[22.] Q. Would you agree that the Reagan opposition has given you an impetus to get your record defense budget through Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. No, because I made the decision in November-December of 1975 that I wanted a 14-percent increase in the defense budget, that I wanted the biggest defense budget in the history of the United States with a $14 billion increase in obligation authority and a $10 billion increase in spending for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.,Those decisions were made in November and December of 1975. At that time, my opponent was not a candidate. And therefore, the decision that I made to give to this country the largest, strongest defense budget in the history of the United States was made without any regard whatsoever to the political charges made by my opponent.,And the fact that we submitted that budget, the fact that it appears we have been able to convince the Congress to give it to us, I think is an endorsement of the policy and the new Secretary of Defense.,EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR VETERANS AND MINORITIES,[23.] Q. Bill Vincent, KUHF News at the University of Houston.,Mr. President, your administration is putting forth to the public that you are reducing unemployment. However, a veterans' organization in Washington has reported that unemployment on Vietnam minorities and young veterans is approximately 20 percent. I want to know, as a concerned veteran, what specific policies and programs you will initiate to eliminate this plight among the men and women who served our country?,THE PRESIDENT. First, the best way to get all Americans back to work is the program that I have advocated where we have added 2,600,000 more employees over the last 12 months, including a number of veterans, a number of minorities.,In the case of the minorities, we have had for the younger people the full funding of what we call our Summer Youth Program at a cost of about $450 million for each summer over a 4-month period.,In the case of veterans, we firmly believe in the GI education bill to get young people better qualified to have better jobs. And we have had in the past, and we are working on it, the program to employ, to get private business to employ veterans. The organization is called the National Association of Business, as I recollect--NAB is the abbreviation of it. They are making a major effort to try and get jobs for Vietnam veterans, particularly, and they have had considerable success, although we have got to do better.,VETERANS' EDUCATION BENEFITS,[24.] Q. lust one more question. On the GI bill, do you plan to pass the bill on the delimiting date on Korean veterans and, if so, how will 500,000 veterans who are depending on this money to finish their education do this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the ones who are presently in the educational process, I think you can make a good argument that they ought to have the opportunity to continue it, but there has to come a terminating point at some point in the future. We should take care of those who are presently engaged in getting an education. But I think there has to be a terminal point, whether it is 8 years or 10 years after the conclusion of their military service.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[25.] Q. Good morning, sir. John Cochran, NBC.,Sir, your campaign manager, Rogers Morton, has been quoted as saying you should give some thought to reconsidering Vice President Rockefeller to continue on in that office. And I just wonder if there were any circumstances under which you might say to the Vice President, \"Well, you have done a good job, you have been loyal, and I wonder if you would reconsider about your availability and stay on?\",THE PRESIDENT. The best answer to that is that the Vice President wrote me a letter a few months ago and indicated he did not want to be considered as a potential Vice-Presidential candidate in the future, and I have seen no evidence of any change in his attitude.,Q. I imagine you could be very persuasive though if you wanted him to stay on. Do you think that there could be a circumstance under which he would stay--look around at all the available candidates and say, \"Well, I think he is still the best one?\",THE PRESIDENT. I would not, under any circumstances, assume that he would change his mind. I have seen no evidence of it. So, until that change takes place--and I have seen no desire on his part to have it change--I think we ought to consider all of the other outstanding potential Republican candidates.,Q. So, he would sort of have to make the first move?,THE PRESIDENT. I think under all circumstances that is the proper way to proceed, yes.,DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION IN CONGRESS,[26.] Q. Mr. President, I am Jacqueline Edge for the Highlands Star.\nI would like to know, how can the American public expect any President to act as effectively as he should be able to if Congress is made up largely of members of the opposing political party?,THE PRESIDENT. It does present some problems. [Laughter] But on the other hand, in a number of areas I have gotten some good support from a number of Democrats, some here from Texas, some from Georgia. We wouldn't have been able to sustain the 39 vetoes that I have made without the help of some discerning Democratic Members of the House and Senate and, incidentally, we have saved $13 billion in taxpayers' money by that kind of support from some of the Democrats in the House and the Senate. But, I think to get an affirmative program through, it would be recognized, much easier if we had more Republicans and fewer of the liberal Democrats. The Democrats that I worked with most effectively are the more conservative Democrats, and they have been very helpful. But, we would like to replace some of the liberal Democrats with a lot more Republicans.,JOHN CONNALLY,[27.] Q. Hal Walker, CBS News.,Mr. President, how can you expect to win the State of Texas without the support of such a powerful political figure as former Governor John Connally? What are you doing to get an endorsement from Mr. Connally, and do you expect one between now and Saturday?,THE PRESIDENT. I have had two meetings with my good friend John Connally\nover the last month. He didn't indicate he would endorse me or my opponent, and I never asked him to endorse me. I think the better way for this primary to proceed is for my opponent and myself to meet head-to-head, which we are doing.,It would always be helpful for a distinguished public servant like John Connally to have his endorsement, but he, for good reasons, has decided not to endorse either my opponent or myself. And so we are meeting head-to-head, my opponent and myself, and perhaps that is the best way to have it happen.,REPORT OF SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,[28.] Q. Mr. President, Bob Sirkin, from WFAA-TV in Dallas.,More of the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings were released yesterday, and they said U.S. intelligence agencies felt they not only had a right to break the law but they had the duty to break the law. And I wonder if you agree with that summation and how these findings will influence your future directives to the CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the directives that I initiated for the total intelligence community, including the CIA, the directives that I signed about a month ago, under my directives would not condone any violation of the law and would provide for strict enforcement against anybody in the intelligence community that violated the law.,So, I have already taken care of that problem, and I think the new CIA, the new intelligence community directives are an affirmative answer to the charges that are made by the Senate committee.,Q. Well, sir, do you agree with the findings of this committee in regard to them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well frankly, I have not had an opportunity to read the volumes of their testimony, or their conclusions. I have to look to the future. As far as I know, none of the allegations that they made, such as you have indicated, took place since I became President. They may have taken place beforehand, but I can assure you that they will not take place under the directives that I have given to the intelligence community, including the CIA.,Q. Do you think Senator Tower, then, is proper in not signing the bill?,THE PRESIDENT. It's not a bill; it's the committee report. I have a great deal of respect for Senator John Tower. And if he decided not to sign the committee report, I certainly would back him up.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[29.] Q. Fred Barnes of the Washington Star.,Mr. President, you mentioned a few minutes ago why you don't use Ronald Reagan's name while you are campaigning. I have noticed there is another name you never mention, and that is Richard Nixon. You mention Lyndon Johnson and Dwight Eisenhower and other Presidents but you only refer to Nixon as your predecessor or even as Lyndon Johnson's successor. How come you won't mention his name?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's my judgment that that is an unfortunate era, certainly the period that took place from 1971 or 1973 on, and I think the more that all of us forget that period and the unfortunate developments, the better.,Q. So, you're saying that you are deliberately not mentioning his name?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's better for all of us to just not remind ourselves of that unfortunate period. I do it deliberately.,DEMOCRATIC CROSSOVER VOTE IN TEXAS PRIMARY,[30.] Q. Mr. President, I am Louie Alexander for Newsweek. Here in Texas we understand that many supporters of Governor George Wallace will cross over Saturday to vote in the Republican primary. If that happens, how do you think that will affect the vote for you?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no way of judging whether that element of the Democratic Party will cross over and vote for my opponent. I have said that I want all Democrats who believe in my philosophy, who subscribe to the success that we have had domestically as well as internationally, I want them to vote for me, and I hope they will. But I have no way of judging how many of the Wallace Democrats would subscribe and, therefore, vote for my Republican opponent. There is just no way I can give you a definitive answer on that.,PANAMA CANAL NEGOTIATIONS,[31.] Q. Mr. President, Richard Holwill, National Public Radio.,As you know, the key to the problem over the Panama Canal treaty is the term \"in perpetuity.\" Some months ago, Secretary Kissinger, in talking and discussing the canal, said that we would negotiate a treaty with an indefinite time period. And the Panamanians replied very angrily saying they would negotiate no treaty that disguised \"in perpetuity.\",This morning you used the phrase \"ad infinitum.\" I am wondering if that is a version of disguised \"in perpetuity\" and what the context of that was intended to be?,THE PRESIDENT. The context was that the canal would be open to transit by the United States and all other parties as long as it was economically usable or viable. That was the context in which I used that phrase.,Q. Are you hoping for a treaty which will continue to grant to U.S. authorities police power and other such powers within the Canal Zone?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly. During the term of the treaty, which we would\nexpect would be 40 to 50 years, which again is the estimated economic viability and usability of that canal, we would have the right to operate to maintain and defend it.,CUBAN INVOLVEMENT IN AFRICAN AFFAIRS,[32.] Q. Mr. President, John McDonald with KHTV, here in Houston. Sources in Washington said yesterday that between 50 and 100 Cubans may have arrived in Mozambique, and they are training guerrillas for action in Rhodesia. Now, if this is so and it is \"a move\" by Cuba, are you planning any new diplomatic, economic, or military measures?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been assured by all of the African nations that are involved in that part of Africa that they are not interested whatsoever in any Cuban involvement in the problems of that very controversial part of the world. They recognize what has happened in Angola where you have 10 to 15,000 Cubans. The Cubans with the Soviet backing actually have a tremendous impact on the Government of Angola. And I think most other African nations don't want that to happen. They want their problems solved by themselves without any domination from Cuba, the Soviet Union, or any other world power.,So, it is our best judgment and knowledge, information that these countries are seeking to keep out a dominant influence militarily, economically, or otherwise by Cuba.,MINUTEMAN Ill MISSILES; SALT II NEGOTIATIONS,[33.] Q. Mr. President, Ed Walsh with the Washington Post. Last January, Secretary Rumsfeld in his annual report to Congress said in effect that we already have enough Minuteman missiles and to build more than the 550 we have would not be worth it. That being the case, sir, how do you justify asking Congress for $322 million to do that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if you go back and look at the budget that I submitted in January for the Department of Defense, we said that the Minuteman III production line would close under present plans sometime early this spring. At that time, it looked like we would probably make more progress in a SALT II agreement, and if we had consummated a SALT II agreement, there wouldn't be any need for a further add-on to the Minuteman III production line. That progress has not materialized, and on the basis of good economics, and on the basis of good judgment, which we indicated in our budget presentation, we have decided to proceed with the Minuteman III add-on production.,Q. Does that mean, Mr. President, that if there is a sudden breakthrough, a sudden improvement in the pace of those negotiations, you may withdraw that request?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a possibility, but again, we can't speculate to that degree. This is just good insurance and good economics. And that's why we have asked for the extra money, and we said we might do it if negotiations didn't produce as we hoped they should.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very, very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-04-10","text":"GOOD MORNING. Won't you all sit down, please.,We had a great day in Texas yesterday. One regret--I wish I could have stayed and watched the Rangers1 win that ball game last night. It must have been a real fine game--11 innings, excellent. You all loved it in Texas, didn't you?,1The Texas Rangers major league baseball team.,QUESTIONS,ILLEGAL MEXICAN ALIENS,[1.] Q. Welcome to Texas, Mr. President. The Dallas-Fort Worth Sigma Delta Chi is pleased to have this chance to ask you a few questions.,The first question is, last night you spoke about stopping the flow of illegal drugs across the Mexican border. What is your administration doing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the border?,THE PRESIDENT. First, in the budget that I submitted for fiscal year 1977, we have increased the funds and will make available more personnel to work with local authorities. I have discussed the problem with the President of Mexico, President Echeverria.,The top legal authorities in this country have continued their work with' the authorities on a comparable level in Mexico. It is a very serious matter, and we are doing our utmost in every way possible to prevent the flow of illegal aliens into the United States.,PANAMA CANAL NEGOTIATIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Clements was in Dallas, and at a press conference he was asked a question about the Panama Canal negotiations. He said that there is a possibility that those negotiations might result in a partnership between the United States and Panama in the operation and defense of that canal. Is there such a possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is premature to come to any conclusion as to what might be the final resolution of the long, long-standing differences between the United States and Panama. Three Presidents have had representatives negotiating on this very controversial issue.,I can simply say--and say it very emphatically--that the United States will never give up its defense rights to the Panama Canal and will never give up its operational rights as far as Panama is concerned. Since there is no resolution today, I don't think I should prejudge any detailed, final settlement in this conflict or controversy. I can assure everybody in the United States that we will protect defense and operational responsibilities as far as the Panama Canal is concerned.,PARDON REQUESTS FOR WATERGATE CONSPIRATORS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, if requested, will you commute the sentences of or pardon any other Watergate conspirators?,THE PRESIDENT. I would expect that all requests for pardon or any other action would come through the normal channels, through the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice. It would be inappropriate for me to make any comment because none of those requests have come to me through the proper authorities. Until and unless they do, it is inadvisable for me to make any conclusion one way or another.,U.S. ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL; SITUATION IN LEBANON,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the heightened tension in the Middle East, especially with the Soviet-backed penetration of Syria into Lebanon and increased activity of the PLO, do you think your policy of curtailing defense funds for Israel is expedient, or do you plan to reexamine that policy with regard to restoration of the $550 million in interim funds? Also, what is our Government going to do to prevent a Syrian-Soviet takeover of Lebanon?,THE PRESIDENT. First, let me set the record straight. In the fiscal year 1976 budget for foreign aid, I recommended $1.5 billion for military assistance for Israel, half of which would be forgiven, which means half of it is a grant, not a sale or a loan. And, in addition, I recommended $700 million in economic aid and assistance to Israel for a total of $2.2 billion for Israel in a 12-month period.,Number two, for fiscal year 1977 I recommended $1 billion in military aid and assistance for Israel, again half of which would be forgiven. And I recommended, as I recall, $600 million in economic aid and assistance for Israel for a 12-month period, which means over a 27-month period, I recommended to the Congress $2.5 billion in military assistance--half of which would be forgiven--and something over $1 billion in economic aid for Israel. All of my technical advisers in the executive branch of the Government tell me that those funds are ample for military as well as economic assistance for Israel.,Now, the Congress, on a tentative basis has added another $500 million for military assistance. My technical advisers tell me that this is unneeded, unnecessary for the security and survival of Israel. I think what I have proposed is fully adequate to meet any challenge that Israel might have for its security and survival.,On the second question, our policy in Lebanon, which relates to the whole Middle East, is, number one, to achieve a cease-fire and a permanent cease-fire; number two, to accomplish a political settlement of a very complicated and controversial problem in Lebanon; and number three, we are urging every party, those within the Middle East and others to have restraint until we can achieve a political settlement.,I don't believe that there has been any rash action by any party so far and we certainly will use our maximum diplomatic influence to make certain that doesn't happen.,Q. Mr. President, don't you consider what is happening there in the past week, with all the killing going on--and we know this is backed by Soviet arms--don't you consider this a heightened thing? And don't you consider that rash military action? And, if Syria does take over, and Israel is faced with another border with a hostile force, don't you think in view of all this that perhaps you should reconsider your judgment, your previous judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. You are presenting the worst possible case. We do not expect that to take place or transpire, and we are maximizing our efforts to prevent it, to preclude it. And I don't think it will happen. And therefore, the military recommendations of $2½ billion for Israel is fully adequate to meet the circumstances we think will take place.,CUBAN INTERVENTION ABROAD,[5.] Q. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago, in this very hotel, Secretary Kissinger said that we will no longer tolerate any further Cuban intervention abroad. And I am wondering, just how far you are committed to back up that threat, especially in the view that there are now some 20 Russian combat pilots in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say that the statement made by Secretary Kissinger is, in effect, my statement. I believe that, and he was carrying out what I have personally said myself.,Number two, over a long period of time, there have been Soviet pilots in Cuba. We don't believe that there is any significant change in that situation today from the past, and we certainly will be alert to recognize any change if one does occur, and we would object if there was any significant change.,BLACK VOTE,[6.] Q. Mr. Ford, several members of the Congressional Black Caucus and other black political leaders have said that they will not endorse a Presidential candidate right now because they are not addressing themselves to the specific needs of black Americans, i.e., unemployment, welfare, and things like that. What will you do to get the black American vote, and just how important is that vote to you?,THE PRESIDENT. I want the votes, to the maximum degree possible, of all elements of our society. I don't believe that one should make a specific appeal to any segment of our society for a vote on the basis of what I promise. It is my aim and objective--it has been, it is, and it will be--to have a program that meets the needs of all segments of our society.,I recognize that there are certain interests that one group or another may have. In the case of blacks, the minority economic assistance program. We have done well in that. We have done very well in trying to provide summer youth employment. I recommended the maximum possible under the law, and that has a particular impact on minority youth because they have the highest rate of unemployment.,So, what we try to do is to recognize a problem that affects all of our citizens. If it affects one group more than another, and we get an answer, it, in my opinion, is the right approach. But to offer as a specific program to a particular group in order to get their votes, I don't think that is the way a candidate for the Presidency should operate. I don't intend to do so.,JOHN CONNALLY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, this is a question about John Connally. Milk mustache or not, Mr. Connally would definitely be an asset to you, especially in Texas now, and later as a running mate. If he does not support you in the campaign, will this automatically erase him as a running mate possibility,,THE PRESIDENT. John Connally has made a decision, which was his decision, as I understand it, not to support any of the two Republican candidates in the primary. I respect his judgment. John Connally is a very close, personal friend of mine. I have great respect for his record in public office and his record as a citizen of the State of Texas. I wouldn't think that his failure to support me would in anyway whatsoever prejudice any opportunity to serve in my administration for the next 4 years.,DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your remarks last night concerning drug traffic across the borders of Texas and Mexico, and the increased Government pressure and crackdown on pushers especially, will there be any utilization of the so-called Shafer Commission report, the President's commission on marijuana and dangerous drugs, and a reevaluation of what you consider dangerous drugs and dangerous drug traffic, i.e., with regard to the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not believe in the decriminalization of marijuana. I have said that many, many times. There is no conclusive evidence that I have seen. Much research has been undertaken. I see no preponderance of the evidence which indicates to me that marijuana doesn't have an adverse, potential impact on a person's health. Until there is that kind of evidence, I strongly believe--I am against the decriminalizaton of marijuana.,TEXAS PRIMARY ELECTION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, before coming to Texas you indicated that you felt you were coming as the underdog. How do you feel you will leave?,THE PRESIDENT. I am greatly encouraged, but I still think we are the underdog. I am getting more optimistic, because we have had a great response since we have been in Texas yesterday, and the response today so far has been equally good.,We have a fine leader of our organization in Senator John Tower. We have a wonderful group of volunteer workers. I think we have the right policies not only for Texas, but for the country. So as we move closer and closer to that very crucial primary, I think we will do increasingly better--and we might surprise some people.,DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS AND OIL,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you said that you have the right policies for Texas. Your signing of the energy bill has not been popular in Texas. How are you justifying this to the Texas oil industry?,THE PRESIDENT. I think a little history might be helpful. In January of 1975, in the State of the Union Message, I came out wholeheartedly for the deregulation of oil as well as the deregulation of natural gas. As a matter of fact, I said that Congress should authorize the deregulation of oil by April 1, 1975.,Unfortunately, the Congress did not follow my recommendations of better than a year ago. After laboring long, from January through most of December, the Congress sent me a bill that included 4 of the 13 energy proposals that I recommended, in a mix of good and bad in the remainder of the legislation.,As I analyzed the pros and cons, it seemed to me that the best choice for me under those circumstances was to sign the bill and to try and get the Congress to do what I had recommended in January, which was not only the deregulation of oil but the deregulation of natural gas.,I think we are making headway. We have had some disappointments, but my firm, personal conviction today is what I recommended to the Congress in January of 1975.,FEDERAL SPENDING,[11.] Q. Mr. President, a House committee report released last week indicated that the administration underestimated the proposed budget by nearly $8 billion. Would you comment on this, and also tell us in light of election year pressures, how hard you will fight and how far you will go to hold down Federal spending?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall, that is a matter of judgment. The several budget committees made their own calculations as to what expenditures ought to be. I strongly disagree with the increased expenditures that those budget committees are proposing. The $394.4 billion spending recommendation that I proposed, I believe today is the right one. And I regret that the Congress has recommended, or the two committees in the Congress have recommended, additional spending. I don't think it is necessary.,As I have said many times in the last 19 months, I have vetoed 47 bills, and 39 of those have been sustained. And we have saved the taxpayers $13 billion. If the Congress sends down in the coming months additional bills for overspending, I will continue to veto them again, again, and again. I think the Congress is wrong. We don't need that extra spending.,BLACK VOTE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your answer a few minutes ago about the black vote and whether you would try and achieve this or not, and in view of the fact that many political candidates who have either ignored the possibility of blacks actually putting them in office or not, is it correct to assume that you either don't care about the black vote or that you feel that the black vote will have no weight during this Presidential election?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like as many supporters in the black community as possible. I have always had it in my own congressional races. I have always believed that the black community should play a meaningful part in elections. And I intend to do what I can in presenting the broad programs that I have recommended, and I believe they will help and assist all minorities.,But to go out and offer a particular piece of legislation for any segment of our society in order to get them to vote for me, I think is the wrong approach for a Presidential candidate. I want help and assistance from the black community, but I don't intend to sacrifice my overall approach, which I think is in the best interest of the United States.,APPROPRIATIONS TO HALT HEROIN TRAFFIC,[13.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday you took your hard-line stance again on heroin traffic here in this country. And there has been some talk among Texas representatives that some budget allocations for immigration agents along the Texas-Mexican border could be cut back a little bit, necessitating a drop in the number of agents guarding the border. I think you are aware there has been a larger amount of heroin traffic coming across from Mexico. Would you be in favor of increasing the budget for immigration agents to watch the border?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said last night, 80 to 90 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States today comes across from our southern borders. We have proposed that there be a beefing up of our total Federal law enforcement effort in this area in order to meet this challenge.,Now, if we find at any point that more people are needed or more money is required to meet this problem, I will be very, very anxious to suggest additional appropriations. But it has to be shown as a matter of need.,I think based on the facts that were presented to me in November and December of last year, when we put the budget together, that what we recommended was adequate, fully adequate. But if the circumstances prove otherwise, of course, I would recommend the additional funds, if needed.,JOHN CONNALLY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, have you and Governor Connally had any conversations or talks about the possibility of his being your running mate or taking a high Cabinet position?,THE PRESIDENT. We, in our very delightful dinner at the White House about a week ago, covered a wide range of matters, including politics, but I don't think I should divulge a personal conversation between my good friend and myself. It was a very broad discussion.,VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, while Rogers Morton 2 was in Fort Worth this past week, he predicted that you would probably talk to a wide range of top Republicans before choosing your running mate. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is the obligation of a Presidential candidate to encourage recommendations from all segments of our party. And in Kansas City and perhaps before, I will certainly solicit such recommendations from people in the party from all over the country.2 President Ford Committee campaign manager.,U.S. POLICY TOWARD EASTERN EUROPE,[16.] Q. Mr. President, when Ronald Reagan was in Dallas earlier this week, he reiterated his concerns about Eastern Europe. Last Friday, you reiterated this country's support or responsiveness--I believe you said as responsibly as is possible--to the aspirations for autonomy of Eastern Europe. How far would your administration go in the event of an uprising such as in Hungary in the fifties and Czechoslovakia in the sixties?,THE PRESIDENT. The Helsinki agreement provided that we would support all peaceful means of individuals or nations achieving their freedom. I don't believe that the United States should say we are going to war if certain things happen in Eastern Europe.,I think we ought to work with individuals and with countries to make sure that their freedom and their independence is achieved and maintained. But to say the United States would take military action under certain circumstances is not the proper attitude for a President of the United States to take at a time when we are at peace.,We ought to encourage individual and national freedom and independence. But I don't think we should rattle our sabre. I think we ought to work within the overall context, rather than to say we will do something in a military sense.,Q. Mr. Reagan is rattling his sabre?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to judge that. I can only speak authoritatively about my own policies, which I have tried to, in response to your question.,TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION FOR DRUG ABUSERS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech last night you alluded to the progress that has been made in treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and said that you plan to step up those programs. In this city today, drug treatment programs are operating in excess of their capacity, and in some cases even putting addicts on waiting lists. Can you give us a more specific idea what improvements in those programs you will propose, and when?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the budget for fiscal year 1977, we increased the amount of money for the treatment programs where the Federal Government has a responsibility. On the basis of the recommendations that came to me from the authorities in the executive branch, this money was increased. There will be an added number of treatment opportunities.,If there is a need for specific help here in Dallas, either under the LEAA program or any other Federal program, we will do our utmost to be helpful.,RESIGNATION OF HOWARD CALLAWAY; TEXAS PRIMARY ELECTION,[18.] Q. Mr. President, a couple of campaign questions. One, in view of what has been made public thus far in the Callaway affair,3 do you believe that he acted too hastily in leaving your campaign?,3 See Item 212, footnote 3,,Secondly, in the Texas primary, I believe your Texas campaign chairman, Senator Tower, has been quoted as saying that unless Mr. Reagan gains at least 75 percent of the Texas primary vote or delegates, that he should drop out of the race. Do you agree with that?,THE PRESIDENT. First, the action taken by Bo Callaway was his initiative. He said that although he expected to be totally cleared, he felt that the possibility of Senate hearings, the added news media discussion of his circumstances, would injure my campaign. On the basis of his request, I accepted his resignation. I think he did, under the circumstances, what was right. And I applaud and I thank him for his unselfishness in these circumstances.,Number two, as I said, we are doing our utmost to do well here in Texas, and I think we are going to do increasingly better. I think it is premature for me to make any recommendations to former Governor Reagan; that is a decision for him to make. So, I am not going to, under any circumstances, advise him. That is his choice, not mine.,Q. Can you estimate a percentage in the primary?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't play the numbers game.,RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES,[19.] Q. You talked about cooperation from the Mexican Government in stopping the hard drug flow. What are you doing to get similar cooperation from that Government in stopping the abuse of U.S. citizens in the Mexican prisons?,THE PRESIDENT. We, of course, expect every foreign government to work with us in the protection of the rights of American citizens. We have, through the proper channels in this case, indicated our deep concern for the protection of the rights of American citizens in Mexico.,On the other hand, we repeatedly tell Americans who go to other countries that they have to live up to the laws of those countries. It's a two-way street. We don't condone violence in this country in violation of our laws, and I don't think we should condone violence in other countries in violation of their laws.,But I can assure you, that through proper channels, we have indicated very strongly that the legitimate rights of all Americans in those countries should be fully protected. And we will continue that policy.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[20.] Q. Mr. President, since we are running out of questioners, may I ask you two questions? One is, have you seen \"All the President's Men\" and, if so, what do you think of it?,And the second question is, what you think of a kiss-and-tell Secretary of State? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen \"All of the President's Men.\" I have been a little busy, so I just haven't seen it, and as far I know, I have no plans to see it. But I don't quite understand the second question.,Q. Well, I think it may have reference to the Secretary of State's enjoying parties and things like that, and enjoying the limelight.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Secretary of State--I know from personal contact with him--works about 14 hours a day if not more. And if he wants to have some relaxation, I think that is a personal choice on his part. And as long as he does the job and does it well, which he is doing, I am not going to make any comment about a couple of hours a day where he relaxes and enjoys himself. That is his choice.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON'S REPORT ON HIS TRIP TO CHINA,[21.] Q. Mr. President, it has been reported that former President Nixon's report to you on his trip to China had very little useful substance. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. It was very interesting; it was very useful. I read it not once but several times. I was glad to get it. As I said, it was interesting and useful. We will have to wait and see how some of his comments relate to what has happened or may happen in China, but, other than that, I don't think I should comment.,TEXAS PRIMARY ELECTION,[22.] Q. Both you and Governor Reagan apparently consider yourselves the underdog in Texas. Who is the favorite?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought from everything I have read that Governor Reagan came into Texas with the anticipation and expectation that he would win a substantial majority of the delegates here. That is what I have read from his campaign managers or other people involved in his campaign.,And I looked at the amount of time that he will be spending here, so I believe he anticipates a substantial campaign. He said he was going to all 24 congressional districts; he was going to maximize his effort. As far as I could tell from the press statements, he thinks he is a favorite--or his people do.,We recognize that we came down here as an underdog, but underdogs often win, and we are sure going to try.,Q. As the incumbent President, why do you consider yourself an underdog?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a good question, because the policies that I have followed for the country as a whole have benefited, I think, Texas as well as the rest of the country. Economic conditions are good in Texas, and they are getting better, and they will get even better.,I have strongly supported a very up-to-date, modern, unsurpassed military capability, and Texas has a great many military installations. So, that policy on my part ought to be fully supported by people in Texas.,But from what I understand, in the Republican primary there is a situation where we might be an underdog. I am confident that after getting nominated in Kansas City, against whoever the Democrats nominate, we will do very well in Texas in November.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very much. It is nice to see you, and we expect to have another good day in Texas."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-04-02","text":"THANK YOU very much, Mr. Thompson [Jack Thompson, president, Milwaukee Press Club]. If I could take one minute.,Flying out here this morning, I learned that the Department of Labor issued some more good economic news. They indicated that the unemployment figure went down again for the month of March to 7.5 percent. I ask you to compare that with 8.9, as I recall, in May of 1975.,The most encouraging news was the fact that this report indicates that 86,700,000 people are gainfully employed--the highest number of people employed in the history of the United States--and since March of last year, we have added 2,600,000 more jobs in the United States. So, we are making real progress in reducing unemployment and, at the same time, increasing employment.\nWith that, I will be glad to answer any questions.,QUESTIONS,SCHOOL BUSING,[1.] Q. Mr. President, I've got two questions, if you will.,Milwaukee has been ordered to integrate its public schools. Do you have any thoughts on how to achieve racial integration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have always believed that the constitutional right of equality must be protected by the courts of the land and by all other public officials. On the other hand, I do not believe that court-ordered, forced busing to achieve racial balance is the right way to get quality education.,We have ample evidence that in those instances where it has been applied-court-ordered, forced busing--there has not been an increase in quality education. It is my belief that there is a better way to improve educational opportunities and, at the same time, to improve the integration of our society as guaranteed by the Constitution.,The Esch Amendment, which was passed by the Congress in 1974 and signed by me, provides a series of steps whereby we can desegregate and, at the same time, improve educational opportunity with an emphasis on the neighborhood schools.,I will not pass judgment on any one court order because that is a responsibility of the judicial system, and I will, of course, under the oath of office that I took, have to enforce the law as decided by the courts. But if you want quality education, which I think we all want, court-ordered, forced busing is not the best remedy.,WISCONSIN PRIMARY ELECTION,[2.] Q. Every indication we have says that you will win in Wisconsin. How do you predict that you will do on April 6?,THE PRESIDENT. I always assume--and I think it is true here in Wisconsin-that we will win, but I am not going to get in any numbers game. It is a hard battle. I think we have the affirmative programs and affirmative policies both at home and abroad, and I believe that a majority of the people voting in the Republican primary in Wisconsin will support my candidacy.,TRUCKING INDUSTRY NEGOTIATIONS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to the good job news, now there is a Teamsters strike that might cloud up the job picture. How long will you wait before invoking the Taft-Hartley Act if the talks don't progress?,THE PRESIDENT. We are counting on the labor-management negotiations to settle the differences. I have been in constant communication with the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Bill Usery, who is working with both labor and management trying to get an agreement. As a matter of fact, I talked to him last night, late, and he called me this morning as we arrived here in Milwaukee. And no settlement has been agreed to, but progress is being made, and I don't think it is advisable for me to comment as long as the two parties are negotiating.,I am optimistic and hopeful and, therefore, it is my belief that the proper procedure is to let the negotiations take their course, and I think a settlement will be accomplished.,PANAMA CANAL NEGOTIATIONS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Reagan has raised questions about the sovereignty of the Panama Canal. Will you tell us who owns the Panama Canal, and who will own it in 10 years?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the United States made an agreement a good many years ago for the utilization of a strip of land and for the construction of a canal. The United States over the years has maintained the national security of that strip of land and the operation of that canal, and we have operated the canal.,The White House, with President Johnson first, President Nixon second, and myself third, has been negotiating with the Panamanian Government to find a way to avoid the kind of incident that took place in 1965 where 30 people were killed, including, as I recall, some 10 Americans. If we can negotiate an agreement which will protect our right to defend that canal and to maintain and operate that canal, there is a possibility that an agreement will be reached. But none has yet, and it is something that is in the negotiating process and no further.,SITUATION IN LEBANON,[5.] Q. Mr. President, with Syria poised to invade Lebanon, there are some fears of a full-scale war erupting in the Mideast. How does the administration view the events?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration has taken a very firm position that no outside government should invade Syria (Lebanon). That means no government should move in and try to, with military force, take care of the situation in Syria (Lebanon). Furthermore, we have strongly urged a cease-fire. And 2 days ago, I sent a personal envoy, Mr. Dean Brown, to Lebanon. He has been in contact with the various parties there. I believe that his efforts were significant in getting the cease-fire which is now in place, and if we can keep that cease-fire, get a change in the Government, I think the danger of any invasion by any party will not materialize.,I repeat, we are against the invasion of Lebanon by any force. And we are seeking to get, and have helped to achieve, a cease-fire, which is the first constructive step to stabilize and to improve the situation.,MEETING WITH JOHN CONNALLY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us something about the fruits of your conversations with Governor Connally last night?,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally are very good friends of Betty and mine. We have known them rather well for some 15 years. Over the years, we have always discussed politics; we have always discussed issues, particularly national defense issues. We spent about 3 hours together last night. We covered those same subjects. We talked about politics; we talked about the campaign; we discussed issues. And we certainly discussed the national defense policies, because he was a former Secretary of the Navy, and I was formerly on the Defense Appropriations Committee for 12 years, and I knew him then. And we both understand and, certainly, are knowledgeable about defense policy. But Other than those broad comments, I think I should not say any more.,Q. Did you in any way discuss his role in the campaign, or what he might do for you in Texas?,THE PRESIDENT. We discussed the campaign, both as far as the country was concerned in the primaries as well as the runoff in November of this year. Governor Connally indicated to me that--something he said before--that he thought I would win the nomination. But other than that specific, I don't think I should divulge the content of the discussion.,CAMPAIGN ISSUES,[7.] Q. Mr.. President, Jimmy Carter says the biggest issue in this campaign is restoring integrity to government; Morris Udall says it's jobs; Henry Jackson says it's detente; and Ronald Reagan says it's eliminating the Federal bureaucracy. What, in your opinion, is the most specific, biggest issue in this campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the issue of integrity of government, I think, is settled as far as my candidacy is concerned. A House and Senate committee went into my background, my record in great, great depth, more than any other person has been investigated in the history of the United States. And so as far as I am concerned, I have a proven record of integrity as far as my own life is concerned. But from the point of view of the issues, I think it is the building up and the strengthening, the fortifying of our economy to restore the kind of permanent prosperity that we must have so that anybody who wants a job can have a job and, secondly, that we can get the rate of inflation down in the range of 2 to 3 percent or less.,I also think it is vitally important that we maintain the peace that we have, a peace through strength, a peace through negotiation not confrontation, a peace that will not take us back to the cold war era like some people want. If we can keep peace and maintain or achieve prosperity--and my policies do it--I think those are the issues.,ANGOLA AND VIETNAM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, one other question. How do you justify Secretary of State Kissinger's logic that Cuba should not send their troops to Angola, in light of our own recent involvement in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no comparison whatsoever. In the case of Vietnam, there was an established government. We were invited in to participate in Vietnam. In the case of Angola, there were three forces that were competing--the MPLA [Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola], the FNLA [National Front for the Liberation of Angola], and the UNITA [National Union for the Total Independence of Angola]. There was no government in Angola after the Portuguese left, and so Cuba, by going in with 12,000 Communist mercenaries were trying to establish a government to their liking. It is a totally different situation, not comparable to Vietnam at all. And that kind of adventurism the United States will vigorously condemn, and take appropriate action in the future.,AID TO EDUCATION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I am from the Marquette University radio station. Since you announced your $700 million student aid cut, there has been a bit of an uproar among the students. How would you explain to the students across the country the necessity of a cut this large, when it might force many of them to leave school?,THE PRESIDENT. Just yesterday or the day before, for the fiscal year 1976 and for the school year of 1976-77, I submitted to the Congress a revision in the budget to permit the increase up to $1,100 million in what we call basic opportunity grant programs. Last year when I submitted the budget for that--I recommended roughly $1,100 million--the Congress cut it and made some other changes. Just a day or two ago, I asked the Congress to take it back up to $1,100 million. I hope they will do so. If that is the case it will provide a maximum allowance of $1,400 per student, maximum--an average, as I recall the figure, of about $850 per student. I am trying to get the Congress to do what I asked them to do when I submitted the budget for fiscal year '76--$1,100 million.,PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN STRATEGY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to change your campaign strategy, perhaps take a more direct approach toward Mr. Reagan after his remarks Tuesday night?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have to recognize that Mr. Reagan's political speech the other night was a rerun primarily of what he has been saying in Florida and in North Carolina. It was a speech that was filled with misleading statements. It was a speech that attributed certain quotes to Secretary Kissinger, which were a fabrication and invention. I am not going to get into the details. I am going to talk affirmatively about what we have accomplished both at home and abroad. And I think the voters will support that kind of a program, rather than a political attack without any recommendations how to solve the problems that he discussed.,Q. Do you think Mr. Reagan is an issue in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is for the public in Wisconsin and elsewhere to make the decision.,STRUCTURE AND FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY,[11.] Q. Mr. Ford, this is another question on issues. So far as the campaign rhetoric goes, there seems to be two candidates who have preempted the issue of so-called bloated, stumbling bureaucracy--Carter and Reagan. Yet you are considered by many voters a conservative, and early in your administration you talked about this problem a good deal. If Reagan fades, is this something you could pick up on as a campaign issue, is it something that concerns you?,THE PRESIDENT. I have done more than talk about trying to get the bureaucracy under control. The first decision I made when I became President in August of 1974, was to insist upon a cutback in the projected increase in Federal employment of 55,000. And we achieved that reduction.,Number two, I ordered, about 6 months ago, the Director of OMB to cut back on the number of forms that are required by the American people to fill out and submit to the Federal Government. I ordered a 10-percent cutback. We have achieved a 5-percent cutback already, and by July 1 of this year, I am assured that we will have accomplished our record of a 10-percent cutback in the forms that plague the American people, where they have to fill out this, this, and this. It is a record of performance, both as to a reduction of U.S. Government personnel and a reduction in the redtape and bureaucracy in the Federal Government.,Q. How about the structure of the Federal bureaucracy which Carter talks about completely reorganizing?,THE PRESIDENT. The structure of the Federal Government is always under review, and the Office of OMB is constantly going into every Department to try and get rid of functions and responsibilities in individual Departments to improve their management. It is a possibility that in the next administration, that we would undertake something comparable to the Hoover Commission, which was set up first in 1946 and came through with its .recommendations, and a second Hoover Commission in 1953 or '54, as I recall. That is a possibility in the next administration and, if I am the President, which I think I will be, we will have something comparable to the first two Hoover Commissions.,Q. Would zero-base budgeting be one of the things you would look at?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Hoover Commission did not go into the financing aspects; it went into the organizational structure of the Federal Government. And a third Hoover Commission--if that is the right name--would probably go in again, trying to analyze the existing structure of the Federal Government and make structural recommendations and consolidations and eliminations.,Q. You are not interested in zero-base budgeting as an idea?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very interested in reducing the expenditures of the Federal Government, and if the Congress would go along with my budget for fiscal year 1977, we would cut roughly $28 billion out of the projected Federal budget for that fiscal year. And so I am very definitely interested in reducing the growth of Federal spending. And if the Congress goes along with the budget that I submitted for fiscal '77 and does what I have projected in the next 2 fiscal years, we can have a balanced budget and we can have an additional tax reduction.,VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, at this point in the campaign, who are you considering as your running mate should you win the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a great number of very qualified Republican potentials for Vice President. I have named them from time to time. We have some Governors, some former Governors; we have some Members of the Congress-House and Senate; we have some others outside of government. So, we have a vast potential of excellent candidates, but it is premature now to identify any one or even several.,Q. You haven't narrowed down the list?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not concentrated on that in recent weeks, but I reassure you, we have plenty of excellent potentialities.,REPUBLICAN PARTY UNITY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, it has been said that, perhaps, at least after Kansas City and maybe before, you would like Ronald Reagan's support. Does that cramp your style now in answering him? Is that why you're saying that you don't care to get into a discussion with him on the issues?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is important for the Republican Party and its candidates to maintain as much unanimity and unison as possible, and I have tried to keep down any personal attacks. I have sought to discuss my programs affirmatively, both foreign policy as well as domestic policy. I think that is the way to keep this unity within the Republican Party. And furthermore, never in my history of some 13 campaigns, have I ever personally attacked any opponent. I don't think that is productive.,U.S. MILITARY CAPABILITY AND THE DEFENSE BUDGET,[14.] Q. Would you once again comment on his specific charge in his broadcast, where he says that we are a second-rate power and he quotes Admiral Zumwalt?,THE PRESIDENT. I will be very, very glad to discuss our military capability. The United States is unsurpassed by any other nation as far as military capability is concerned.,Now, let me talk about our strategic forces. The strategic forces of the United States--ballistic missiles--ours are much more accurate than those of the Soviet Union. Ours are much more survivable than the Soviet Union ballistic missiles. We have far more warheads and about a 2 to 1 ratio over the Soviet Union, and it is warheads that do the damage if they are ever used. And we have a lead of about 3 to 1 in strategic aircraft--B-52's and others.,So, the United States has the kind of strategic military capability that our military advisers over the years have indicated they thought was in the best interest of the United States. So any charge that the United States is not fully competent in a strategic sense is inaccurate.,Q. Well, sir, are you saying, then, that we definitely are number one and that Mr. Reagan is absolutely incorrect?,THE PRESIDENT. I am saying that we are absolutely unsurpassed in military capability, and we have the full capability in a military sense to deter aggression, to maintain the peace, and to protect our national security. And we have the kind of a military force that our Chiefs of Staff recommend that we have for our national security.,I might add, if there is any criticism, any legitimate criticism of our military capability, I suggest those who criticize it look at the record of the Congress for the last 6 years, where the Congress has cut $32 billion out of the defense appropriation bills.,And I add very quickly, the two budgets that I have submitted to the Congress for their consideration--I included last year the highest peacetime military budget in the history of the United States. And this January, I submitted again the highest military budget in the history of the United States. Last year, the Congress cut $7 billion out of that budget. This year, as I have indicated, if they make any major reductions, I will veto their appropriation bill for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.,I have an impeccable record of standing for a strong Defense Department and a fully capable, fully trained, fully equipped, and ready military force. And any accusation to the contrary is a lack of knowledge or for political purposes.,Q. Mr. President, if that is the case, and inasmuch as we are told that in Texas today, Senator John Tower is going to challenge Mr. Reagan to debate the Senator on the issue of national security, why do you not accept Mr. Reagan's challenge to debate him yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have indicated over the whole period of time that I should talk affirmatively about the programs and the record that I have. I think that is the way for me to proceed. If Mr. Reagan wants to make the kind of political criticism that he has made on several occasions, including last Wednesday, that is his privilege. But I don't think the American people will buy it.,Q. Well, don't you think the American people would have a better opportunity to weigh the arguments on both sides if you were to shape them at the same forum?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think a debate is needed and necessary. The facts and figures are outlined; I have stated them. As far as we are concerned, we have more survivability, more accuracy, more warheads by a significant amount. We have a 3 to 1 lead in strategic aircraft. Those are the facts, and those are the recommendations of our Joint Chiefs of Staff. And any debate with a person who is not familiar with the facts, I don't think would be helpful.,Q. Mr. President, may we have one more question, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. Mr. President, following up on the $32 billion that you said was lopped off the defense budget, well, if the present trend continues, couldn't the United States very well find themselves in that number two slot?,THE PRESIDENT. If it went over a long period of time, yes. And that is one reason why I strongly am trying to get the Congress to get along with the $112.4 billion defense budget which I recommended in January in what we call obligational authority, and $101.1 billion in expenditures for the Army, Navy, and Air Force and Marines in the next fiscal year.,And if we keep the trend that I have recommended, we will stay ahead of any other military force in the world. And that is why I changed the direction, or changed the trend, so we would maintain the fact that we are unsurpassed.,Q. Sir, if you are not able to push this legislation through, will then we be in a position of being in danger of being number two?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if the Congress makes the cuts in this fiscal year like they have made over the last fiscal year, yes, the trend would continue in the wrong direction--the trend that the Congress has imposed upon Presidents. If the Congress follows my defense budget this year and if they had followed the one last year, the trend would be reversed, and we would continue to maintain our total strategic conventional war capability.,So, the issue is now on the desks of the Congress. My program keeps us unsurpassed. So, the Congress now has the responsibility, and if they cut it, the bill will be vetoed, as I indicated earlier this week.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-03-13","text":"AT THE outset, I am delighted to be here on the Guilford College campus in sunny North Carolina. We had a few tornadoes yesterday and 19-degree temperature this morning, so it is nice to be here.,I am also somewhat cognizant of the State of North Carolina's interest in basketball. I am an avid reader of the sports page. I just hope that I do as well in North Carolina as Phil Ford1 has done for the university and will do in the days ahead.,1 Basketball player for the University of North Carolina,With that, I will be glad to answer questions. I understand the first one is from Howard Covington.2,2 President of Covington Diesel, Inc., Greensboro, N.C,PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN HOWARD CALLAWAY,[1.] Q. Good morning, Mr. President. This morning, in reference to a report concerning Mr. Callaway,3 following the release of that report, Mr. Callaway has told reporters that he would like to say that you have full faith and confidence in him, but that would have to come from you. Would you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Callaway, this morning, asked that he be temporarily relieved of his responsibilities as campaign chairman for the President Ford Committee. It was at his request and I acceded to it. I have known Bo Callaway for 15 or more years. I knew him before he came to Congress; I knew him in the Congress; I knew him as Secretary of the Army. He has been very helpful and effective as the chairman of the President Ford Committee. I have full faith in Bo Callaway. He is stepping aside until all of the allegations have been answered, and we will wait and see. But on a personal basis, he is a man of integrity.,3Howard H. (Bo) Callaway, national campaign chairman of the President Ford Committee, was being investigated for allegedly intervening in a decision by Government officials to expand a resort he controls on Federal land in Colorado.,Q. How long do you expect him to be absent from the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no way of knowing the precise time.,NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR JAMES HOLSHOUSER,[2.] Q. Mr. President, there has been speculation in North Carolina political circles that if you are nominated and elected, Governor Holshouser may be offered a Cabinet appointment. Have you personally considered or discussed such a possibility with him?,THE PRESIDENT. Jim Holshouser is, likewise, a very long and good personal friend of mine. I have known him on the many trips I have taken to North Carolina, when I came down on many occasions to help congressional or other candidates. He has done a superb job as Governor of North Carolina. I certainly would consider him for some high office in the next administration. I would certainly consider him as one of the potential Vice-Presidential candidates. We have a number of outstanding members of the Republican Party in the Congress, as Governors, and certainly Jim Holshouser would be included among them. And with the new administration he would certainly be eligible for an outstanding position in the new administration.,POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CHARGES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, as early as February 6, Ronald Reagan had asked you to take a position on the New River here in North Carolina, and we didn't hear any statements until basically yesterday when it came out. Now, he has been charging that you have used your office for political appointments and also for other political announcements. Doesn't this kind of look like the same sort of thing? So, is his charge more warranted with the New River announcement yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am very delighted that the Secretary of Interior yesterday made the announcement that he had approved the environmental impact statement, which he has now forwarded to the Council on Environmental Quality, which recommends that the New River be included in the Wild and Scenic River Program--some 26.5 miles. It is now before the Council on Environmental Quality.,Secretary Kleppe made the decision totally on his own. He never talked to me about it. I never talked to him about it. The 90-day period, which expired, I think, February 28, gave him the opportunity to examine all of the aspects of it. And he has made the decision 13 days after the deadline, which I think is a reasonable and a responsible period of time.,I have read some of these political allegations about my campaign. Let me answer that very categorically. I have been in 14 political campaigns, including this one. I have also talked affirmatively about my own record, my own campaign, my own promises. I never paid much attention to last-minute political observations or changes. I will run on my own record and not be concerned about these last-minute allegations.,PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN CALLAWAY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to return to the question of Mr. Callaway, if we may. You said that you do not know how long he will be away from the campaign. It is not quite clear to some people as to who will determine whether or not there has been a violation, certainly of ethical practices, on the part of Mr. Callaway. Who will make that determination to clear this matter up?,THE PRESIDENT. They will be made by the proper authorities. The proper authorities could include the Department of Defense where Mr. Callaway was when the charges have been made. It could include any one of the other agencies that might have jurisdiction, but that is a decision to be made by those departments in the investigations that they will undertake.,CAMPAIGN CHARGES CONCERNING WATERGATE,[5.] Q. If those investigations are not beneficial to your campaign or to Mr. Callaway, what do you think that will do to your campaign especially with Mr. Reagan saying that you were connected with Watergate and scandal?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, I think the best answer to any alleged connection that I have with Watergate is the fact that after my nomination for the Vice-Presidency the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Rules held extensive hearings, and the volumes of testimony that were taken absolutely cleared me of any charges connected with Watergate, whatsoever. And then when the nomination went to the floor of the House and to the Senate--in the Senate I think I got 90-some votes and 3 were against me. And bear in mind that is a Democratic or was a Democratic-dominated Senate. When the vote went to the House of Representatives, again totally dominated about 2 to 1 by Democrats, 37 House Members voted against me and 375 or 380 voted for me. So, I think I have a pretty good endorsement of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress that cleared me of any .allegations whatsoever of any connection with Watergate. So, there is no validity to those allegations whatsoever.,Now, the charges against Mr. Callaway will be properly investigated by the proper authorities. And when the decisions will be made as to those allegations, I can't give you the precise time schedule.,NATIONAL SECURITY WIRETAP INVESTIGATION,[6.] Q. If Secretary of State Kissinger is indicted in the current investigation concerning the possibility of illegal wiretapping concerning Morton Halperin,4 will you ask him to resign?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter of private litigation, and since it is now before the courts, I think it would be totally inappropriate for me to make any comment whatsoever, either as to the issues or as to what I might do following the decision of the court authorities.,4 Former stall member of the National Security Council.,Q. Have you thought about that at all?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not because I don't think it is appropriate for me to get involved when there is a judicial process underway.,CAMPAIGN TRIPS BY PRESIDENT FORD AND ADMINISTRATION MEMBERS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, we had Rogers Morton here last week in High Point, we are having Mr. Bush5 tomorrow in Greensboro, we are told by your campaign committee here we will have a number of other Cabinet people here in the next week as well as yourself. With all respect, I would like to ask you who is minding the store?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is a Saturday and a lot of people take Saturday off, you know. [Laughter] And I am expanding my work schedule so I come down and get better acquainted with all the fine people of North Carolina.,5 George Bush, Director of Central Intelligence.,Q. Let's address ourselves to next week then, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am going to be back in Washington tonight. I will be working probably tomorrow a good share of the time. And I will be working in Washington because I firmly believe that my principal responsibility is to carry out the responsibilities of being President. I have tried to maintain that posture. I think I have. The campaigning that I have done has been minimal, it has been mainly focused on weekends which is the right thing to do for a President. If I am able to come to North Carolina 1 day next week, I can assure you it will, under no circumstances, interfere with my Presidential responsibilities. That is my prime duty, and I will maintain that.,Q. Well, who is paying for these political trips for these gentlemen?,THE PRESIDENT. The President Ford Committee is paying totally for my political operations. Who are the other people that you indicated were coming here?,Q. I understand next week that you would have three Cabinet members that would be coming to North Carolina to campaign for you.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if they are coming on a political mission the President Ford Committee will pay for it. If they are coming in their responsibilities as Cabinet officers, they will of course come under the usual circumstances.,PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN CALLAWAY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, I would like for you, sir,. to elaborate on just what are the accusations against Mr. Callaway, what do you know about them, and did you willingly accept his request to step aside or would you have preferred he stayed on?,THE PRESIDENT. I acceded to his request which I thought was the proper thing to do. I am not totally familiar with the allegations and since they are now or will be shortly under investigation, I think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss them because I could hear one side without getting the benefit of the others. And, so, until the proper authorities in the executive branch of the Government have heard the allegations and the refutations by Mr. Callaway, I think it is totally inappropriate for me to even discuss the matter as to substance.,Q. Does that include, sir, not commenting on just what Mr. Callaway said to you about the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Callaway has said to me that he is fully confident that the net result will be that he will be cleared, and until the charges have been fully investigated, I don't think I should pass judgment on it.,EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK,[9.] Q. Mr. President, despite recent figures that reflect decreases in inflation and unemployment, millions of Americans are still without jobs and are forced to pay very high prices for goods. In your opinion, what is viewed as an acceptable limit or level of unemployment and inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't be satisfied until every person who wants a job can get a job. That is the acceptable limit as far as I am concerned. I am encouraged by the fact that since March of last year when unemployment was 8.9, that it has been reduced to the level of 7.6.,I am encouraged by the fact that since March of last year we have gained 2,200,000 jobs, that we are up to the level of 86,300,000 jobs, which is the same as an all-time high of gainful employment in the United States. I do say, however, that we have to continue the pressure as we have had to reduce the unemployment. It is unacceptably high now, but the trend is right. And I can assure you that the policies we are following will continue to reduce unemployment, and I am confident of that result.,PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT ROLE,[10.] Q. You have stated that the primary concern of yours is forcing private enterprise to bear the brunt rather than Federal funding for jobs. Do you feel that private enterprise will continue to hire unemployed persons rather than took first at the bottom line and maintain their profit level?,THE PRESIDENT. First, five out of six jobs in our economic society are in the private sector, so that is where the greatest potential is. I believe that the private sector is expanding, and all the indicators prove that. Cars are selling more rapidly, retail sales are up, consumer confidence is increasing very rapidly. So, the opportunity for the private sector to employ more is obviously there, and I am confident they will. And I think they will do it on the basis that it is good for them, it is good for the country. And I am optimistic that the private sector will have greater opportunities in the months ahead to add to their employment rolls and every indication we see confirms that.,EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES,[11.] I Q. Mr. President, on the subject of jobs, college students, particularly, are a little worried about it now because they have been talking about how they are overqualified, the job market is tight, many of them don't get to use their training in skilled jobs because there is a shortage. Now, can you offer tomorrow's graduates any encouragement?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the job opportunities for graduates in 1976 from colleges will be far greater than the job opportunities that existed in June of 1975 because the economy is improving and it will get increasingly that way.,We have about 2 million new jobseekers every year because we have a burgeoning society in population. So, our job is not to be satisfied with 86,300,000 now gainfully employed, but to absorb in the private sector primarily the new college graduates, the new high school graduates.,I believe that as we move ahead--and this is March--by June the job opportunities for college and high school graduates will be infinitely better. The circumstances certainly point that way very optimistically.,Q. Is the government going to be involved in any of this hiring?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have of course many job opportunities in the Federal Government. In the civilian side, the Federal Government employs roughly 2,100,000 people. There are always retirements. There are some agencies that will be expanding, there are some that will be contracting. But there will be job opportunities in the Federal Government. And I am certain at the State and local level there likewise will be job opportunities.,REDUCTION IN U.S. ARMED FORCES ON TAIWAN,[12.] I Q. Mr. President, evidently, there has been some sort of an agreement between this country and the People's Republic of China under which we are going to withdraw about half our troops from Taiwan this year. My first question is, we have been told after your trip to China and Mr. Kissinger's trip that there have been no secret deals made, and secondly, after the election, are we going to hear that the other half have been withdrawn?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first there are no secret deals made. In 1972, when the Shanghai communiqué was signed, which called for the normalization of relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, it was agreed that there would be a reduction from the U.S. troop commitment on Taiwan. At that time, there were roughly 10,000 U.S. military personnel stationed on Taiwan. It has been gradually reduced from 1972 to the present level of approximately 3,000. This has come about for a number of reasons. One, the situation in Southeast Asia has changed significantly. The war in Vietnam is over and some of those forces there were related to our operations in Vietnam. Other circumstances have changed in the Pacific area.,We have continued, not secretly, but openly, to reduce from approximately 10,000 down to the present level of 3,000, and those present levels will probably be decreased. I cannot give you the precise number, but whatever we have done in that regard has been told to the Congress. It is on the record. Under no circumstances is it a secret deal. It is a part of what was promised in 1972 and the changed military circumstances in the Pacific area.,Q. Mr. President, is there a long-range plan to withdraw our complete troop commitment from Taiwan and someday scale down our recognition of the Nationalist Government on Taiwan?,THE PRESIDENT. We will continue to have some forces on Taiwan. The exact number has not been determined but there is no final decision as to the precise number or the precise timing.,U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in Illinois you said under no circumstances will we play second fiddle to anybody militarily. Does this mean that you consider that we are not now second when the Soviet Union has 50 percent more Polaris submarines and 60 percent more ICBM's than the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. I categorically say that the United States is second to none militarily now, and if the Congress carries out my military budget for fiscal year 1977, we will continue to be second to none militarily. I think what you have to do is take a look at what we have, which is what our military leaders have told me, and previous Presidents, we need for our national security.,We have far more warheads. We have far better accuracy of our ballistic missiles. We have many, many, many more aircraft of a strategic capability-- B-52's, for example. We are in the process of acquiring the B-l's. If you look at the Navy, yes, the Soviet Union has more ships, but we have far, far more tonnage in capital ships because our naval leaders said that is what we needed for our national security. So, we tailor our national security programs based on what is needed for the United States to protect this country, to deter aggression, and to maintain the peace.,And I think our program is second to none, and it will stay second to none if the Congress approves the budget that I recommended for the next fiscal year, which, incidentally, is the highest peacetime budget in the history of the United States.,U.S. POLICY ON THE PANAMA CANAL,[14.] Q. Mr. President, my question is this: Do you see the United States relinquishing control of the Panama Canal in the next 4 years, and, if so, under what circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. Three Presidents have been negotiating since 1965 with the Government of Panama to resolve the dispute that arose following the very sad and tragic incident that happened at that time where some 30 people were killed, including, as I recall, approximately 10 Americans. These negotiations have gone on for about 10-plus years. I can assure you of this: The United States, as long as I am President, will do nothing to give up the control of the operations of the canal and will do nothing to give up the military protection of the canal. And that is what the experts in our Government are most concerned about. And whatever is agreed to, if anything, will be submitted openly to the United States Congress for consideration.,PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN PLANS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Holshouser has said that Ronald Reagan's campaign is all but dead, and he has invited other Republicans to get behind your candidacy. My question is this, sir: Would you not prefer that Ronald Reagan remain in the campaign right down to the wire for the amount of publicity it brings to you and your candidacy? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, I really should not pass judgment on my opponent's campaign, what he will do or what he has done. I can only assure you that the plans we have--and they have been this from the very beginning when some pessimists were saying, \"When are you going to get out?\"--our plans from the beginning have been to stay in and to win in Kansas City. And we are going to do that, and I think we will win in November as well.,U.S. FOREIGN POLICY,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Kissinger this week made some statements critical of some of the other Presidential candidates for the statements they have made concerning your administration's foreign policy. Senator Jackson says this is the first time that he recalls any Secretary of State becoming involved in a political campaign. First, can you say if the White House had prior knowledge of the statements Mr. Kissinger made in his speech, and secondly, do you agree that they are political in nature?,THE PRESIDENT. Over the years, from my own personal knowledge in Presidential campaigns, most candidates, Democratic or Republican, have adopted the attitude that it was in the best interests of the United States not to make foreign policy a political football. I have always adopted that attitude, I think it is the right one. But for the last year, and right up to the present, there have been some political attacks made against foreign policy.,I think that is the wrong approach because we had great success following World War II when there was a true bipartisan foreign policy. I can recall vividly when Senator Arthur Vandenberg worked with President Truman, a Republican and a Democrat, to have a truly bipartisan foreign policy. That was good for the United States. But for about a year now, we have had political sharpshooting from individuals who seek the Presidency, as to foreign policy.,I can simply say this: I think we had a good foreign policy. We are at peace. We have been successful in the Middle East. We have reassured our allies in Western Europe. We have continued to have a proper dialog with the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the People's Republic of China on the other. We are solidifying our foreign relations with countries all over the world. It is an affirmative, constructive policy in the area of foreign affairs, and we are at peace.,And I can assure you that we are going to continue that kind of a foreign policy. When people attack us, when they attack a policy that is successful, I think we have the obligation to speak up frankly, candidly, forthrightly to say that this is a good policy. And I intend to do it, and I see no reason why Secretary Kissinger should not have the option when he is personally attacked, and the policies that he carries out are attacked, because they have been under attack from politicians for the last 12 months.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you say that you support Mr. Kissinger. Can you say unequivocally that he will be the Secretary of State if you are elected?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have answered that question a number of ways all with the same purpose and intent. Secretary Kissinger has done a fine job. I have asked him to stay. He can stay as long as he wants to, as long as I am President, because his policies in my administration, under my direction, have been successful.,RONALD REAGAN'S CAMPAIGN CHARGES,[18.] Q. Earlier, in response to a question about charges from Governor Reagan that you were misusing the powers of your office to your political advantage, you said you paid no attention to last minute political charges. Do you consider the Governor that desperate a candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I really should not pass judgment on whether he is desperate or not desperate. I have never found that last minute political allegations are ever very helpful--the public understands them. And as a candidate who has always run an affirmative campaign, never getting into those kind of charges, I am just not familiar as to when you do it or don't do it because I have never participated in that. That is a judgment he will have to make and the public in North Carolina will have to make.,EFFECT OF PRESIDENT FORD'S PRIMARY VICTORIES ON RONALD REAGAN,[19.] Q. Sir, one of the judgments he has made in Illinois is that there is word being spread by your people that if he is unsuccessful in the initial primaries, he will no longer be a valid candidate for the Presidency in your party. I wonder how you assess the record so far, primary success--yours. And if you do succeed, as you hope you do, of course, in Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, where does that leave you with reference to Mr. Reagan?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me put it in the context of where I think I will be. We started in New Hampshire behind; we won. We started behind in Florida; we won. We were successful in both Vermont and in Massachusetts. I think these successes have, beyond any doubt whatsoever, disposed of the myth that I could not win out of the State of Michigan. I have never lost an election outside of the State of Michigan in 1976 or any other time, so that myth is gone.,I happen to believe that we will be successful in Illinois on Tuesday. I think we will be successful here in North Carolina. I always assume they will be close but the momentum is going, and the people in the other four States have given us that momentum and they have given it to us because we have good programs. We have run a good campaign. What the impact will be on my opponent, that is for him to decide, not for us to determine.,FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in the event that your administration wins the Presidential election, what kind of social proposals will you consider for\nimproving programs for higher education?,THE PRESIDENT. For higher education?,Q. Yes, sir, beyond the secondary level.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the programs that we have carried out since I became President and the programs that I think we will carry out in the next 4 years are aimed at giving financial assistance both in grants and loans and workincentive programs to students.,I believe the student ought to get the aid and assistance. The student is the proper beneficiary. Those programs, I believe, have been successful, and they certainly will be carried out. What programs beyond those for the next 4 years, we will have to wait and see, but we are pushing hard those programs that aid the student. And they have been successful, and I think they will be.,Q. One more question, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS,[21.] Q. You are not speaking on the point on the form of block aids or grants, are you, insofar as you consolidate all of your monetary plans in one form such as you proposed?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have proposed a block grant program [or elementary and secondary schools, which is, I think, a forward looking step because at the present time we have roughly 27 elementary and secondary categorical grant programs. They really keep the decisionmaking as to lower education in Washington, not at the local or State level.,So, I have recommended to the Congress that we consolidate those 20-plus elementary and secondary school programs into 1 block grant program, and then let the same or more amount of money--in fact, we have recommended more money--the decisionmaking be determined at the State and the local level. I believe that the problems of North Carolina elementary and secondary education are quite different than those may be in Alaska or the ones in Maine may be different than those in Florida. So, they end up with the same or more money but the decision as to how that money from the Federal Government should be spent would be made locally.,I think that makes a lot of sense. I know it cuts down on redtape. I know it would cut down on Federal bureaucracy. And I think it would be good for education. But we have, at this point, no specific plans for a block grant program as far as higher education is concerned.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very much. We can all go watch for a couple of minutes the basketball game."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-02-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good evening. Won't you all sit down, please.,REORGANIZATION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,[1.] For over a year the Nation has engaged in exhaustive investigations into the activity of the CIA and other intelligence units of our Government. Fact, hearsay, and closely held secrets, all have been spread out on the public record. We have learned many lessons from this experience, but we must not become obsessed with the deeds of the past. We must act for the future.,Tonight I am announcing plans for the first major reorganization of the intelligence community since 1947.,First, I am establishing by Executive order [11905] a new command structure for foreign intelligence. Henceforth, overall policy directions for intelligence will rest in only one place--the National Security Council, consisting of the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. Management of intelligence will be conducted by a single new committee. That committee will be chaired by the Director of Central Intelligence, George Bush. To monitor the performance of our intelligence operations, I am creating a new independent [Intelligence] Oversight Board to be made up of private citizens. Former Ambassador Robert Murphy will chair the Board and two other distinguished citizens--Steve Ailes and Leo Cherne will be the members. All of these units--the National Security Council, the Committee on Foreign intelligence, and the Oversight Board--will be responsible to me, so that the President will continue to be ultimately accountable for our intelligence activities.,Second, to improve the performance of the intelligence agencies and to restore public confidence in them, I am issuing a comprehensive set of public guidelines which will serve as legally binding charters for our intelligence activities. The charters will provide stringent protections for the rights of American citizens. I will soon meet with congressional leaders to map our legislation to provide judicial safeguards against electronic surveillance and mail openings. I will also support legislation that would prohibit attempts on the lives of foreign leaders in peacetime.,Third, tomorrow, I will send to the Congress special legislation to safeguard critical intelligence secrets. This legislation would make it a crime for a Government employee who has access to certain highly classified information to reveal that information improperly.,I have been guided by two imperatives. As Americans, we must not and will not tolerate actions by our Government which will abridge the rights of our citizens. At the same time, we must maintain a strong and effective intelligence capability in the United States. I will not be a party to the dismantling of the CIA or other intelligence agencies. To be effective, our foreign policy must be based upon a clear understanding of the international environment. To operate without adequate and timely intelligence information will cripple our security in a world that is still hostile to our freedoms.,Nor can we confine our intelligence to the question of whether there will be an imminent military attack. We also need information about the world's economy, about political and social trends, about food supply, population growth and, certainly, about terrorism.,To protect our security diplomatically, militarily, and economically, we must have a comprehensive intelligence capability. The United States is a peace-loving nation and our foreign policy is designed to lessen the threat of war as well as aggression. In recent years, we have made substantial progress toward that goal--in the Middle East, in Europe, in Asia, and elsewhere throughout the world.,Yet, we also recognize that the best way to secure the peace is to be fully prepared to defend our interests. I believe firmly in peace through strength. A central pillar of our strength is, of course, our armed forces. But another great pillar must be our intelligence community--the dedicated men and women who gather vital information around the world and carry out missions that advance our interests in the world.,The overriding task now is to rebuild the confidence as well as the capability of our intelligence services so that we can live securely in peace and freedom.\nAnd now ladies and gentlemen, your questions.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,GEORGE BUSH,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you've talked often lately, including tonight, the need for a strong intelligence capability. You have appointed a Director of Central Intelligence who has little or no intelligence expertise that I am aware of. And I wondered, what do you see as the advantages of having a relative novice directing the intelligence community?,THE PRESIDENT. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of George Bush's capabilities and background. George Bush was our U.N. Ambassador and did a superb job at the United Nations. George Bush was our representative in the People's Republic of China and in that capacity did extremely well. I have known George Bush for a number of years. I served with him in the House of Representatives where he did a very fine job. I am absolutely convinced he will perform superbly as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.,Q. Mr. President, are you arguing that he has intelligence, an intelligence background?,THE PRESIDENT. I think he has the intelligence to do the job and the experience in foreign policy. And, I think, these are major ingredients that make him an outstanding person for this responsibility.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO CHINA,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Robert Strauss1 has suggested that it might behoove you to ask former President Nixon to postpone or cancel his trip to China. There are also reports that you are unhappy because it coincides with the New Hampshire primary. Do you have any plans to ask him to put off the trip?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no such plans. Mr. Nixon is going to the People's Republic of China as a private citizen at the invitation of that Government. I don't believe for any alleged political purposes that I should intervene with the invitation of a foreign government to have a private American citizen visit that country.,1 Chairman, Democratic National Committee.,Q. But do you think if the Chinese Government sends a special plane which lands at a military airport, asks for the top media in this country to cover him--some 20 representatives--you send your special briefing books on the change in leadership, and it still is a private trip in their eyes?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer several of those questions. You have asked a good many of them.,First, there has been no special briefing given to Mr. Nixon. He has received periodic briefings or information concerning world affairs from the national or Federal Government. There was no special briefing given to him in relationship to this trip.,Whether or not he will land at a civilian or a military airport has not been determined. It is a decision on the part of the Chinese Government as to where they would like to land and they have to ask us which of several airports. If and when we get a specific request, we will act on it.,PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, at first reading on your reform of the Central Intelligence Agency, you seem to be putting the Agency more under the dominance and more under the control of the office of the Presidency, and we know that office has abused the CIA in the past. And I am wondering what you have done to make sure that does not occur again since you are not apparently making an outside agent, outside of the White House, responsible for the CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. I think a President ought to be accountable. And what we have sought to do in this case is to make the process and the decisionmaking fall on the shoulders of the President, and he will be held accountable by the American people. In each of the cases--of the Director of the Central Intelligence or any of the other intelligence agencies--the directives or the guidelines will hold special individuals accountable for what happens in their particular area of responsibility. But the final and the ultimate responsibility falls on the shoulders of the President. In my case, I am willing to assume that responsibility, and I can assure you it will be handled in the most appropriate way.,Q. If you are setting a precedent, though, for future Presidents by giving them more authority over the CIA, would you agree that it also invites the prospect of a temptation for abuse of the CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. It should not happen. And I would hope that the American people will elect a President who will not abuse that responsibility. I certainly don't intend to.,POLICY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRESIDENT FORD AND RONALD REAGAN,[5.] Q. Mr. President, last weekend in Florida you suggested that anyone to the right of you politically could not be elected as President. Newsmen assumed you were referring to Ronald Reagan, but you were not entirely specific, and I would like to pin you down now.,Do you believe that Reagan is so far to the right that he cannot win a national election? And, if you do believe that, I would like to know what you base your opinion on, especially in light of the fact that he was twice elected Governor of the most populous State in the country by large margins?,THE PRESIDENT. I was referring to anybody in either political party who is to the right of me, and there are some in the Democratic Party and some--I think Governor Reagan is to the right of me philosophically. It seems to me that there are some differences, for example, between Governor Reagan and myself.,Let's take the issue of social security. He has suggested, from time to time, that it ought to be voluntary, not mandatory as it is under the existing law. He has suggested that maybe the funds from the social security program ought to be invested in the stock market. I disagree with both of those proposals. I believe in the firm integrity of the social security program, and the way I have suggested, it seems to me, is the better approach.,Governor Reagan has suggested a $90 billion cut in Federal expenditures, transferring the responsibilities and the programs to the local and State officials where they either have to abandon the programs or raise taxes to support them. I disagree with that approach.,I think that the better way to do it is to take the Federal funds and transfer them to the State and local units of government so that those services can be provided at the State and local level much more effectively.,These are some of the differences that exist between Mr. Reagan and myself. It is a somewhat different philosophy.,Q. But specifically, do you believe he cannot win a national election?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that anybody to the right of me, Democratic or Republican, can't win a national election.,NEW HAMPSHIRE AND FLORIDA PRIMARIES,[6.] Q. Mr. President, are you ready to say now flatly that you are confident of winning the New Hampshire and/or the Florida primary?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we will do well in both. I certainly was greatly encouraged by the 2 days we were in Florida last weekend. The crowds were very large. The enthusiasm of not only my party workers but the public, generally, was extremely encouraging. We are going to New Hampshire on Thursday and Friday of this week, and I am led to believe that we will be warmly received there. So, I am encouraged in both cases.,Q. Do you expect to win?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when I say I am encouraged, I think that is quite indicative that I think I will do very well.,REORGANIZATION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, your opening remarks concerning the Central Intelligence Agency sounded considerably like an official secrets act which applies in Great Britain. Now, this act has been criticized as being beyond the constitutional realm that we apply here in the United States.,First of all, do you agree with that assessment? And secondly, wouldn't--if you received this kind of legislation--wouldn't this in the future prevent the kind of disclosures which have brought out the abuses in the Central Intelligence Agency?,THE PRESIDENT. I categorically disagree with your assessment. It is a great deal different from the official secrets act that prevails in Great Britain. As a matter of fact, this is much more restrictive on the foreign intelligence community in the United States than anything that has been in existence in the past.,There are a number of specific limitations as to what foreign intelligence agencies in the United States can do. They are spelled out, and there is an official charter for each one of the intelligence agencies.,And I am recommending to the Congress several very specific pieces of legislation which are, I think, constructive and quite contrary to the impression you left with your question.,For example, I am recommending that the Attorney General proceed to work with the Congress to establish legislation for electronic surveillance so that he, representing the administration, would have to go to the court to get the authority even in national security matters. Under the present setup, the Attorney General can simply do it without going to the court if it involves national security. This is quite contrary to the impression that you raised with the question that you asked.,So, I think we are going down the middle trying to make certain and positive that the intelligence capability of this country is first class and, at the same time, that the rights of individuals are adequately protected.,Q. The second part of my question, Mr. President, was whether the legislation to prevent leaks in the third point of your opening remarks would not mean that the United States would once again be subjected, perhaps in the future, to abuses that had been exposed through the fact that people were not put in jail by leaking information?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, under the organization that I have established or will establish tomorrow, and under the legislation that I have recommended, there won't be any abuses, and the people, if there are any abuses, will be held accountable. So, I don't feel at all apprehensive that what happened in the past will be repeated in the future.,THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENT,[8.] Q. Mr. President, your financial statement that was released earlier in the week shows that despite some very heavy tax bites for Federal and State taxes, you ended up with about $135,000 in expendable income last year. It also showed that you made no investments and that you were not able to save any of that. Can you tell us how you can spend $2,600 a week when you don't have to pay any rent or any mortgage payments? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I am glad that you were scrutinizing my complete and full disclosure of my financial activities. Let me say this: During that period of time, I had at least three of my four children in college, and most of you know that that is not a cheap operation. I paid for it. They didn't borrow any money, they didn't get any scholarships, et cetera. That accounts for part of it. And, quite frankly, I have sought to help my children so that at the time when I am no longer in a position to help them financially, I have made some investments for them, which is perfectly permitted under our laws of this country.,So between supporting them in college and trying to help them get a start when they get through college, I think we can account for every penny.,CONGRESSIONAL DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you have not said anything about Members of Congress who reveal classified information. Does that concern you?,THE PRESIDENT. It does, and we have had some experiences. And I am not pointing a finger at anybody, but certain information which we supplied to the Congress--to the House of Representatives--to a committee of the House-somehow either through a Member or through a staff member, highly classified material has been made public. This is something that the Congress, I think, has to address itself to. The Constitution protects a Member of the Congress, but it does not protect the illegal making of such information public for a staff member. But I think the Congress has to clean up its own house, and I have urged them to do so. And I hope they will.,Q. Mr. President, until they take some steps in that direction, will this affect your providing classified information to Capitol Hill?,THE PRESIDENT. In the case of most committees, we have had no trouble whatsoever. There has been good cooperation. The arrangements have been lived up to. On the other hand, even after the House of Representatives, by almost a 2 to 1 margin, said a report that had highly classified information in it should not be released, it was leaked to certain individuals and to certain publications.,I think the House of Representatives ought to take some action. We have agreed to cooperate with them in whatever legal way they would ask us to do so. But I think it is a very serious matter, what happened in this one case.,RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD AND THE 40 COMMITTEE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, will your new Oversight Board supersede the 40 Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have an Oversight Committee composed of three members: Ambassador Murphy, Steve Ailes, and Leo Cherne. That is a group that looks to make certain that there are no violations of the new restrictions and has an oversight responsibility working with the inspector generals in each of the intelligence agencies.,The 40 Committee is having a name change and some change in personnel. It will now be given a new name, but it will have on it the following people: It will have the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, it will have the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Intelligence, George Bush, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It will have two observers-one, the Attorney General and, two, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.,So there are two separate organizations--the one I just described to handle covert operations recommended to the National Security Council and to me as President, and the Oversight Board, which will check up on any abuses.,PROHIBITION OF ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS ON FOREIGN LEADERS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in your opening statement on intelligence, you said that you would support legislation that would prohibit attempts on the lives of foreign leaders. Was it your intention to leave open the possibility of attempts on the lives of people in other cases--that is, people who are not leaders--and, if so, will your specific guidelines to the intelligence community address itself to this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said previously that I would not condone or authorize assassinations, period--certainly not in peacetime. So the legislation, I trust, will follow those guidelines.,UNEMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, to turn to another subject--unemployment--in your State of Michigan, it covers around 13 percent, which is above the 8.5 national average, and you are vetoing the public works bill. As a compromise, do you smile upon Senator Griffin's bill as a compromise?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is a far better piece of legislation than the legislation that the Congress passed and I have vetoed. The bill that came down to the White House really is a hoax. It is a campaign year document. It allegedly says it will provide 800,000 jobs. The truth is it will provide no more than 100,000 to 120,000 jobs at a cost--and this is the unbelievable part--of $25,000 per job.,Now, we can do a better job using that money elsewhere. So, I vetoed it. I hope that we can get it sustained. And, If the Congress comes back with a proposal recommended by Senator Griffin and Congressman Garry Brown which provides for the channeling of Federal funds of significantly less amounts into programs that are ready to go at local levels in areas where the unemployment is over 8 percent and as long as the national unemployment is over 7 percent, it would provide for about $750 million. It could be done quickly. It could be done much more cheaply, and it will be far more effective.,Now, it seems to me that the bill that I vetoed cannot be defended in any way whatsoever. The cost is high per job. It will be late in being implemented. Actually, the jobs won't be available for almost 9 months to 18 months. We hope and expect to be out of the problems we are in, significantly, by that time. So, the alternatives suggested by Senator Griffin and Congressman Brown are far, far better.,FBI INTELLIGENCE GUIDELINES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you made no reference in your opening statement to abuses by the FBI, and some of the greatest abuses in the intelligence gathering were conducted by that agency. What do you have in mind for putting more severe controls on the FBI in intelligence gathering?,THE PRESIDENT. The Attorney General is in the process right now of writing very strict guidelines involving the activities of the FBI, and he expects to have those guidelines available and in place and effective within a relatively short period of time. And those guidelines will take care of the problems that you have raised.,CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, as I understand it then, those guidelines would be the result of Executive action, and, as I understand it as well, much of what you propose here this evening will be the result of Executive actions, some of which you have already taken. Do you foresee no role for the Congress in oversight of intelligence-gathering activity at the time that it is going on, either foreign or domestic?,THE PRESIDENT. I will issue Executive orders involving the foreign intelligence agencies. The Attorney General will do it as it affects the FBI. The Congress, I hope, will establish a joint committee along the format of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee, and this committee called--if this is the proper title, it is up to the Congress, of course--the Joint Intelligence Committee, would have an oversight responsibility as to the programs and the performance of the intelligence communities in the Federal Government.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO CHINA,[15.] Q. Mr. President, following up on Helen's questions, you were asked about the Nixon trip last weekend, and you said in part that it was \"wholesome and healthy for private citizens to make these sorts of trips to China.\" You have mentioned again tonight that former President Nixon is going as a private citizen. With all due respect, Richard Nixon is not exactly your run-of-the-mill private citizen. I would like to ask if you really think it is wholesome and healthy for the conduct of American foreign policy for Mr. Nixon to be making this trip?,THE PRESIDENT. He is not going there involving any foreign policy matters. He is going as a guest of the Chinese Government, and he is going as a private citizen. He has not had any special briefings. He is going under the guidelilies that I have suggested.,Q. You see no complications at all to foreign policy in his trip?,THE PRESIDENT. None whatsoever.,MISUSE OF THE SECRECY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you are concerned considerably over leaks of classified information, national security information, and so on. So, I would like to ask what steps you are taking to assure the public that no one in your administration misuses the classification system or the secrecy label to cover Ills own policy mistakes.,THE PRESIDENT. The recommendations that I will make include that every employee of the executive branch of the Government sign a statement to the effect that he will not divulge classified. information and that he expects punishment for such a release of that information. In addition, I will ask for specific legislation making it a criminal offense for the release of such information. And that, I think, protects the Government against any unauthorized leaks of classified secret information. Now, the Oversight Board and the NSC will take care of any failure to act properly in a noncriminal matter.,Q. I would like to ask the question again, because I think that perhaps we are talking about two different things. Suppose, for example, a member of your administration misused the label \"official secrecy\" to cover a policy error or a mistake that he made, and clamped a secret label on it so that this mistake would not get out. What steps are you taking to assure the public that this does not happen?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the head of the other agencies responsible for the conduct of people working for them, and we have an inspector general system that, I think, will make sure that the other people do their jobs properly.,PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRESIDENT FORD AND RONALD REAGAN,[17.] Q. It is my recollection, Mr. President, that a couple of weeks ago in an interview with Walter Cronkite2 you said that there were no real philosophical differences between yourself and Ronald Reagan. I just wonder, when did you decide that there were some differences?,THE PRESIDENT. Fundamentally, I don't think there are any philosophical differences. There are some pragmatic differences, and these I tried to explain earlier today. I have to make hard decisions as to what legislation I will sign or what legislation I will recommend. That is quite different from being able to propose a plan or a program in words. One is a very hard decision; the other is very easy to say. And I tried to illustrate those pragmatic differences in the carrying out of a basic, moderate, conservative philosophy.,2 The President was interviewed by Walter Cronkite of CBS News on February 3 in the Oval Office at the White House.,Q. But you are saying when he is much to the right of you and so forth, that that is not a philosophical difference then?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think he is to the right of me in a pragmatic and practical way.,DISCRIMINATION BY PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, during the Nixon administration, guidance was issued to Federal executives that their activities should never support or appear to lend support to private organizations which practiced exclusionary discrimination. Does your administration follow that same rule?,THE PRESIDENT. Was that an Executive order?,Q. It was an order that Federal executives' activities should never lend support or appear to lend support to private organizations which practiced exclusionary discrimination.,THE PRESIDENT. I would assume that we carry out the same policy.,Q. Then, can I ask you, Mr. President, why then you lend the prestige of your high office to discrimination by golfing at Burning Tree Country Club which excludes women?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are--no Federal funds go to Burning Tree.,FOOD PRICES,[19.] Q. Mr. President, on food prices it is reality that each year, not seasonal, not monthly, but each year, food prices go up as part of inflation. Now, addressing yourself to the housewife--rising food prices---can you say to her that's something she should accept as a normal way of life or can you project 1 year, 2 years, or what, that inflation will end on food and come back to what is called normal?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made substantial progress in combating inflation. When I became President, the cost of living was over 12 percent per year. It is down in the range of about 6 percent at the present time.,We had some very good results announced last Friday in the Wholesale Price Index. As a matter of fact, as I recall, the food factor in the Wholesale Price Index, as reported last Friday, was a minus, not an increase. And I think we are getting a good, effective handle on the question of inflation-not as good as we want, but we have cut it over 50 percent since I have been President, and we are making increased progress in this regard. I think that we are achieving, particularly in the area of food, a better balance than we have had for a long, long time.,Q. Well, that is why in my original question I rule out seasonal or monthly. The reality is that over the years food prices continue to go up. The price may remain the same, Mr. President, on an item, but the quantity has been diminished.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when I became President, as I recall, the food prices that year had gone up something like 20 percent. It is now estimated that food prices in this calendar year will increase somewhere between 4 and 5 percent. That is a significant improvement. It, I think, ought to get a little praise rather than condemnation. From 20 percent down to 4 or 5 percent is a lot of progress.\nREPORTER. Thank you."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-02-13","text":"Thank you very much, Joe McGovern, members of Sigma Delta Chi, my former colleagues in the House--Lou, Skip, and Bill--distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:,I am extremely happy to be back in the Sunshine State and, likewise, as far as the city of Orlando is concerned, I have been here a number of times. But before we begin the questions, I have one announcement.,INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,[1.] The International Chamber of Commerce has decided to hold its 1978 annual convention here in Orlando. It is expected that the convention will generate about $1 million for your local economy. The United States Travel Service, a division of the Federal Department of Commerce, was instrumental in attracting this convention to the United States, and your own outstanding facilities made Orlando the final choice of the International Chamber.,I think this is an excellent example of how government and the private sector can work together toward a common goal. I congratulate the city of Orlando, and I am pleased that we were able to play a part in this successful venture and effort.,With those brief observations and that good news announcement, I will be glad to respond to the first question.,QUESTIONS,SOLAR RESEARCH CENTER,[2.] Q. Mr. President, a two-part question, sir. Since you took office you have lashed out somewhat, of course, at Congress for its slowness in development of a research and energy conservation plan. We now understand from ERDA that it will be possibly more than 6 months before the site for the solar research center is chosen, and that politics has entered into the picture so much in that site selection that all the States in the Union may soon join in that competition. The question, sir, is the pot--meaning the Ford administration-calling the kettle black?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me get to the process and procedure for the determination of the solar research center.,ERDA, under Dr. Robert Seamans, is in the process right now of preparing the criteria which will be distributed to all applicants for participation in the solar research center. It is expected that the criteria will be developed and made available within several weeks or a month. Following that, any city, any State, any combination of governmental units can apply on the basis of the criteria, the technical criteria, that has been established by the Energy Research and Development Agency [Administration].,As I said, it will be 2 to 4 weeks before the criteria are out. It will probably be 6 months or so after all applications have been received before ERDA can make a final decision. That decision will be made as rapidly as possible. We want to move ahead as quickly as possible, because solar research and solar techniques are very important in our long-range energy program.,Q. Mr. President, would it possibly be in the best interest of the country's taxpayers to develop the center here in Florida, in Brevard County, where the expertise of the Kennedy Space Center is nearby and, particularly, as Brevard County has maintained a 17 percent or more unemployment rate?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly, Brevard County and the whole area have many, many assets that certainly will be important at the time they submit their application under the criteria established by ERDA. But it would be ill-advised and probably completely wrong for me to make any commitment on behalf of ERDA, because that is a technical decision. I am sure that the application will be a good one. I am certain that this area will get excellent consideration. But it would be, I think, wrong for me to make a decision other than to say I know you have lots of sunshine.,AID TO THE ELDERLY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, you have given the first of some special messages to Congress on the problems of the elderly. What kind of help do you propose to help Florida's many senior citizens?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, I fully agree with whatever the increases in social security benefits will be under the cost-of-living escalator clause. That will take place later this year. I fully concur with that.,Number two, I happen to believe that it is vitally important for us to make certain that the Social Security Trust Fund is fully funded. At the present time, it is running in a deficit of about $4 billion per year. Sometime in 1980, if we don't do something, the fund will be depleted. I have recommended one proposal to make sure, to make positive, that those who are retired and those who are to be retired will have a continuous flow of the benefits under social security.,Number three, I have recommended that we incorporate in the law a new program to take care of, roughly, the 3 million individuals, most of whom are among our older citizens, who are suffering from what we call catastrophic illnesses. At the present time, there is no program to take care of those who have extended and serious illnesses. I have proposed a catastrophic health care plan that will rake care of about 3 million people under Medicare. I think it is a good proposal, and I hope the Congress will respond to it.,In addition, I have recommended good funding, I think, for what we call the Older Americans Act. It has a wide variety of services that are incorporated, and I hope the Congress does as I have recommended in the funding of those programs.,Q. On the health care plan you mentioned, Mr. President, Dr. Hobert Jackson, who is vice president of the National Council on Aging, said in Gainesville, that your health care program has some good concepts but, in effect, it would help only 1 in every 300 people affected.,THE PRESIDENT. As I understand it, it would help very specifically, 3 million out of roughly 24 million. Now the good part of it is that these 3 million are the ones who are most adversely affected by the cost of 2, 3, 5 years of extended care in mounting doctor bills. It seems to me that we ought to put special emphasis on taking care of those tragic cases where you have extended illnesses.,In the meantime, under Medicare, there still would be a health care program for those who participate. But we put a new tilt, trying to be helpful to the people affected with a catastrophic illness.,ENERGY INDEPENDENCE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, not too many years ago, another American President put a challenge forth to this country to put a man on the Moon. Technology met that challenge, as you know. That task was met and we (lid put a man on the Moon. The Project Independence was recently launched 2 years ago to make this country energy self-sufficient. Reports are indicating this is failing and failing rather miserably. Why is it failing, Mr. President? Why can't this country be energy self-sufficient, and will you put a timetable on that?,THE PRESIDENT. In January of 1975, in my State of the Union Message, I laid out a 10-year program. I had a number of specific items that, if Congress would respond, we could become energy independent in 10 years, by 1985. Unfortunately, the Congress dillydallied day after day after day and, finally, in December they passed a partial answer to the request that I had made in January. The bill which I signed is a base from which we can operate. It provides for some conservation. It provides, over a 40-month period, for increased production domestically, and it has some conservation features.,On the other hand, it has done nothing to deregulate natural gas. Tragically, we had a setback a week or so ago in the House of Representatives, but we hope we can retrieve that. That would be something that I recommended Congress should do.,In addition, I have recommended for the energy research and development program $2,900 million. It is about a 30-some percent increase in research and development funds for energy--including solar, geothermal, fossil fuels, nuclear energy. And if Congress appropriates the money, it will move us ahead in those fields as well as several other exotic fields. In the case of solar energy, the increase in research and development funds was over 40 percent.,So, we are trying to move ahead in conservation, in increased domestic production, the greater utilization of coal in research and development for the long term. Although the Congress did not respond as well as I would have liked last year, I think we will make more headway in 1976.,Q. Do you have any timetable in mind on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. If the Congress would pass all the things I recommended, we would be well on our way to energy independence by 1985. Even though they have been a little slow, I am always an optimist that they will begin to move.,U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, I have a two-part question concerning U.N. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan. Would you comment on James Reston's1 report that while you were publicly praising Ambassador Moynihan, you and Secretary Kissinger deplored his actions?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Kissinger and myself, both publicly and privately, repeatedly endorsed the positions that Ambassador Moynihan took and the way he handled his job as Ambassador to the United Nations. I think the best evidence of that is what Ambassador Moynihan said on many occasions subsequent to his letter of resignation, where he fully indicated that I had supported him, that Secretary Kissinger had supported him. I think the new Ambassador who will succeed him will carry out the same policy--which are policies of strength in the United Nations, trying to break up the bloc voting, making certain that the position of the United States is strongly put forward, and that we don't take a back seat to anybody. Pat Moynihan did a fine job, and his successor will, too.,1 New York Times vice president and columnist.,Q. Along that same line, on the question of appointment for a new U.N. Ambassador, the Sentinel Star here in Orlando has called on you, editorially, to appoint an eagle and not a pigeon. Which will it be?,THE PRESIDENT. The first Ambassador I appointed to the United Nations was Pat Moynihan. I guess Pat would fall under the heading of an eagle, and I can assure you, as I said a moment ago, that his successor will be just as strong, just as firm as Pat Moynihan was.,DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you already touched on deregulation of natural gas. The oil industry is pushing Congress and Government to deregulate natural gas. This would increase the cost to user States like Florida considerably. It would go at least from 50 cents to $2. Now, what effect would this have on consumer prices, and what effect would it have on the people of Florida?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it really comes down to this. We either have American natural gas or you use foreign oil. And I think the American people would rather have American natural gas than to pay high prices they are paying for Middle Eastern oil at the present time. If we deregulate natural gas in the United States, we will increase the supply, and the price increase will be moderate, and we will control it. But if you rely and continue to rely on Middle Eastern oil, the price is out of our control. It is in the hands of the Arab OPEC nations.,So, I would rather put my gamble on American products right here at home than to depend on the whim and fancy and the price increases of Arab oil.,Q. Do you think natural gas would replace a lot of oil supplies?,THE PRESIDENT. I think if we give the people who are seeking to develop more American gas and oil wells--if they have a fair price--we will develop a greater source of supply. No question about it. But if we keep the price down, it is uneconomical for them to drill. We have to give them an incentive. And I would rather give the incentive to American oil and gas people than I would to OPEC Arab oil drillers. That is just what it amounts to.,INCOME TAX REFORM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, I am from your home area, Traverse City. I interviewed you before you were President. It is nice to see you as President.,Secretary of the Treasury William Simon was here yesterday, and he mentioned he would like to see income tax--a personal income tax--based on a straight, no deduction percentage. Was that his idea, or was that a trial balloon he is sending up for the administration?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of the Treasury, who is a most able member of my Cabinet, has talked to me about this proposal. I think there are some good features in it. But I think it ought to be researched more. I think it ought to be staffed, as we say, among more people than just one individual.,Such a study, if it is not already underway, will get underway. But, I think, it is premature to make any commitment until we have a final evaluation. I can tell you that Secretary Simon is pushing it, but we have not given any green light to a submission as far as the Congress is concerned.,Q. The second part of the question might be, do you have a tax revision plan?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of the Treasury has testified on a number of occasions before the House Committee on Ways and Means and, I think, the Senate Finance Committee with some guidelines of this administration concerning tax reform and tax revision.,The House has passed a bill. We like some of it; we don't like other parts of it. We think the Internal Revenue Code could be simplified. But we are working with the Congress not only on our ideas but some of the things that have come out from the Department of the Treasury.,In the State of the Union Message that I gave a month or so ago, I did recommend some tax changes--one of them to provide an incentive to industry to build new plants, buy new equipment in high unemployment areas, giving them a more rapid amortization.,I also recommended tax changes that would permit individuals to buy stock in American corporations, to become owners, and get a tax deferral during a period of time. I think we ought to broaden the ownership of American industry. That was another tax proposal, and we will be coming forth with some others as the session progresses.,FLORIDA PRIMARY ELECTION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, we are told you are only going to make two visits to Florida before the March 9 primary. Are you confident that only 4 or 5 days of campaigning in Florida can win you the primaries, especially when most political observers see the Ford-Reagan contest as a tossup in this State and that many reports have surfaced that your Florida campaign is in disarray?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me make two very categorical comments: number one, I think I will do well in Florida; number two, my campaign organization is in good shape. Lou Frey has done a good job. We have supplemented his staff with some additional people, because it is getting closer and closer to March 9. Therefore, I think our Florida organization will do a good job, and I think we will win in Florida.,Now, I happen to believe that coming down here on this trip and possibly another one is important. That is why I am here. But, I must say my principal job is to continue to be an effective President. It is more important that I attend to the many, many responsibilities as President, and on weekends or on quick trips, I will try to come down, as I am on this occasion. But, my principal responsibility is to make sure that our domestic and international policies are carried out in the best interest of the country as a whole.,PUBLIC WORKS BILL,[9.] Q. Today you vetoed the $6 billion public works bill that was designed to create 600,000 new jobs. Are you confident that the Nation is making a good enough economic recovery that no new Federal jobs program will be needed?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say we have had some excellent news last week. We got an indication that the unemployment rate had dropped by half percentage point, the best record in 16 years of a drop. In addition, we have 800,000 more Americans gainfully employed in January than we had in December, and 2,100,000 more since last March. The unemployment trend is down; the employment trend is up, and we are very encouraged.,Then we had some good news this morning. The Wholesale Price Index showed no increase, which means that no increase in January, 1.4 percentminus in December, and a zero increase in November. So, for the last 3 months, a quarter of a year, we have had a minus movement as far as the Wholesale Price Index is concerned.,So, both employment and unemployment and the Wholesale Price Index were doing very well, and I am optimistic that if we keep the economy going the way it is going, there is not any need for a $6 billion inflationary, so-called jobs bill.,It seems to me if you add $6 billion to the Federal deficit, which that bill would do, all you are doing is helping to reignite the fires of inflation. In that bill, for every job it will cost the Federal Government $25,000.,I think the better way to solve unemployment is to make certain that the private sector of our economy, where five out of every six jobs exist, gets some inspiration and some incentive and, if the Congress would pass the tax proposal that I recommended, we would be a lot better off than this, I think, inflationary, so-called jobs bill.,FLORIDA PRIMARY ELECTION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Tower, of Texas, was in Orlando campaigning on your behalf earlier this week. During a news conference here, he said your candidacy could survive a loss here in Florida, but that Ronald Reagan's could not. The first part of my question is, do you agree with his assessment, and the second part is, what effect would a Reagan victory here in Florida have on your candidacy?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be a disappointment, because I think we are going to do quite well here. But losing Florida--and I say again, I don't think we will--but losing Florida won't deter me one bit from continuing the effort right up to the last vote in Kansas City in August. I am going to be in this ball game up until the whistle blows, so I think we are going to win in Florida. Even if we lose, we are going to keep campaigning, and we are going to keep in the ball game, and we are going to get the nomination.,Q. As to a possible victory by your campaign here in Florida, what effect would that have on Ronald Reagan's candidacy?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not really the best judge of what the former Governor will do. I think it will be a very serious disappointment to him, but I would not want to prejudge what his actions might be subsequent to that.,JERRY THOMAS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Reagan's Florida campaign manager said this week that you were trying to buy votes by offering an administration post to a prominent Florida conservative, Jerry Thomas, who endorsed you this week. Have you offered him a post, and what is your reaction to the Reagan campaign's charge?,THE PRESIDENT. I first want to say I have known Jerry Thomas for a long time. I campaigned with him when he ran for Governor several years ago. I was trying to help the Republican Party down here in Florida. He was the candidate for Governor. I was impressed with him then and I have been impressed with him all along.,We talked to him some months ago about joining the Ford administration. It looks like such a possibility will take place. I think he will make an excellent top executive in the administration, and I am very honored and very pleased with his endorsement because I think he is a successful State legislator.,He was a good candidate for Governor, and he has been a very successful businessman, and I think we will be lucky to get him, and I am very pleased with his endorsement. I think the charges by some campaign manager are completely without foundation.,U.S. FOREIGN POLICY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, all of the candidates who have campaigned in central Florida have criticized your policy, the administration policy, concerning detente with the Soviet Union. And, in particular, Mr. Reagan said last week the only thing detente has accomplished is our ability to sell Pepsi Cola in Siberia. Just how do comments like this affect the conduct of American foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. First, let me say I am very proud of the accomplishments of our American foreign policy. We are at peace. We are at peace because we are strong. I have submitted strong, affirmative Defense Department budgets to the Congress so we will stay strong. With that kind of military capability, we have been able to implement a policy of peace with strength in foreign policy.,Since I became President 18 months ago, we have strengthened our alliance in Western Europe. It has never been better. Our relations with Japan, a very important ally in the Pacific, are excellent. We have been able to reaffirm our relations with our many other friends around the rest of the globe.,We have made tremendous success in diffusing the volatile situation in the Middle East. We were able, because we were strong, to have the confidence of both Israel on the one hand and Egypt on the other. That is a tremendous stride forward under this administration in foreign policy, and we will make other successful efforts in that area.,We have maintained a growing relationship with the People's Republic of China. At the same time, we have been able to negotiate with strength with the Soviet Union. We are negotiating right now to put a cap on the nuclear arms race. If an agreement is reached, it will be an agreement beneficial to us, equally beneficial to the Soviet Union. It will be an agreement that will keep our powder dry and not put our finger on the nuclear trigger, and it will relax tensions between the two super powers.,That is the kind of a foreign policy that is in the best interest of the United States. I won't comment on any rhetoric concerning a policy that has been successful. I am proud of it. I think most Americans are proud of it, and they should know that it will continue--a policy of peace with strength under the next 4 years of the Ford administration.,CAMPAIGN TACTICS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel like the comment, however, by Mr. Reagan, in particular, violates the so-called 11th commandment that he has pledged to abide--that he will not speak evil of you during the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, things get disappointing, and I think people forget what they might have said at one time, and so it does not bother me. I just want the public to know we have a good foreign policy. We are going to keep it good, and we are not going to worry about some campaign rhetoric.,REPORT OF HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Secretary Kissinger's comment that the House Intelligence Committee report represents to him a new brand of McCarthyism?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a fairly accurate description. I think that that committee report, which the House of Representatives said should not be published by better than a 2 to 1 vote, having been leaked, is an unfair, unjust way to criticize an individual or a policy. And I think it certainly falls within the parameters of McCarthyism.,Let me just add this: Under this administration, we are going to have a strong intelligence community, and we are not going to permit the Congress to dismantle America's intelligence community.\nYou were going to ask another question?,CREATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE,[15.] Q. I was going to ask you if you agree with the proposal for one intelligence oversight committee for Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I am going to make some recommendations to the Congress very shortly involving the entire intelligence community. But I should say that over the years, I have been very sympathetic to a joint House-Senate intelligence committee. I am not saying we are going to recommend that, because that is a prerogative of the Congress, not a prerogative of the executive branch. But I think there is much merit to that proposal.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO CHINA,[16.] Q. Mr. President, were you made aware of former President Nixon's visit to China before and, if so, how? And, also, does that visit have any effect on U.S. foreign policy with China and the Soviets?,THE PRESIDENT. The day that President Nixon called me and told me that he had been invited as a private citizen to the People's Republic of China--I had heard some advance notice that day, but I got the specifics on the phone call that he made to me in mid-afternoon that particular day.,He is going as a private citizen at the invitation of the People's Republic. I have said before and I will repeat here, I have no particular reaction, pro or con, concerning that private visit.,U.S. FOREIGN POLICY,[17.] Q. If we could talk about detente again, do the statements made by your opponent and some of the Democrats and, in particular, Henry Jackson-do they adversely affect U.S. foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think nitpicking of an American foreign policy does not help, although I think our allies understand what is going on. They have lived through American political campaigns before. All we can do is to talk affirmatively and deal straightforwardly with our allies as well as our potential adversaries. I think it would be better if it was not made a campaign issue, as some are making it, but we have a free country, and if they want to make it a partisan political issue or a political issue, they can do so. But I want American people to know that we have a good foreign policy. We are going to keep it up by peace through strength.\nThank you all very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1976-02-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have enjoyed being here. Ron Nessen has enjoyed being here. The next time Ron comes, I think we will get Ron to ski up here. [Laughter]\nWhy don't we have the first question?,NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY,[1.] Q. Mr. President, John Whiteman, Portsmouth Herald.,A survey in a Boston newspaper today says that Mr. Reagan's campaign has contacted more New Hampshire voters than yours, and it suggested the Ford campaign has been out-organized so far.,In an apparently tight race, do you feel the 16 days remaining is sufficient for you to swing enough voters to win this New Hampshire primary campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe in the final analysis the voters in New Hampshire will make a decision on the basis of policies, the policies that I have implemented, the policies that have proven successful as far our economy is concerned, turning it around, starting it up on an upswing. I don't think they will make their decision on the basis of promises or rhetoric.,Secondly, I think our organization is a good organization. I met with 700-- 800, maybe more, this afternoon in Concord--extremely enthusiastic, coming from all over the State. They have done a good job, and they will do a good job.,It is my impression the many times I have been to New Hampshire in the past-not just in the last month--will have an impact because of the numerous times that I have been in New Hampshire over the last 10 or 15 years. I have acquired many friends, many individuals who believe in my policies, so I am not just coming in for a last-minute effort.,I have a vast reservoir of good friends here that I have made over the years including, I think, three times in 1975. So, ours is not a last-minute effort like some campaigns have been. I have policies that are on the record, and I don't have to say I would do this hypothetically.,So, our efforts in the last several days, I think, have been a good climax to what we have done over a great many years.,NUCLEAR ENERGY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Miles Clevesy, Plymouth State College.,Mr. President, in a February 5 Manchester Union Leader article entitled \"Action Irks Governor,\" New Hampshire Governor Moldrim Thomson, Jr., severely criticized your administration for the ruling by the Atomic Energy Safety and Licensing Board which will delay a proposed nuclear energy plant at Seabrook.,The Governor blames the Board for freezing nearly 3,000 badly needed construction jobs in the State and charged that the delay of the nuclear plants construction is costing the electric-consuming public $10 million a month.,As I understand it, Mr. President, you called for construction of 200 major nuclear plants by 1985 in the United States. Would you care to comment on both Governor Thomson's charges and how the constant delays in awarding the permits to Seabrook affect your deadline for 1985 for more such plants?,THE PRESIDENT. Under the laws passed by Congress, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been established. It has the sole jurisdiction to make a decision as to any applicant and any protest made concerning that applicant. Any interference by a President of the United States in that process would be unethical and illegal.,And this President doesn't intend to participate in any unethical or illegal pressure on the Nuclear Regulatory Administration [Commission]. That agency, or that commission, will make a decision and will make it on the facts. I think it has taken too long, but that is their responsibility.,As you indicated, I am a firm advocate of many, many more nuclear power plants in the United States. In January of 1975, in my State of the Union Message, I said it was mandatory that the United States undertake the construction of some 200 additional nuclear power plants all over the United States in order to free us from the oil cartels in the Middle East. Unfortunately, that program has been slow in materializing.,There have been some questions raised as to reliability and safety of some of those nuclear power plants. In order to make certain that power plants built in the future are safe, are reliable, I have recommended in the budget for fiscal year 1977 substantial additional funds for the Energy Research and Development Agency [Administration], called ERDA.,I think we can still meet the goal of 200 nuclear power plants throughout the United States and a fair proportion in the State of New Hampshire.,But, I repeat, this President is not going to undertake any unethical or illegal pressure on any independent regulatory agency in the Federal Government. It would be wrong., and I don't intend to do it.,CONCORDE,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Allen Bridges, WKBR Radio.,When Secretary Coleman announced his decision this past week on the Concorde, is that not an indication that your administration is turning its back on environmentalists?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. Anyone who has read Secretary Coleman's very sizable opinion granting temporary authority for 16 months under very tightly prescribed restrictions--they cannot land or take off before 7 a.m. in the morning, and they cannot land or take off after 10 o'clock in the evening, and there can only be a very limited number of flights per week. And in the meantime, he reserves to himself the total authority to stop any flights if there are any violations of his particular order.,In addition, he has urged the British and the French and the United States to undertake a comprehensive, coordinated effort to study the problems of the ozone. Many environmentalists have raised theoretical problems as to the impact of Concorde's flying at the speed and at the level as it might affect the ozone.,I think Secretary Coleman has written a very excellent, constructive decision. And if this 16-month trial period is carried out, as I believe it will, it will give us some very important information that will permit us to make a final decision,,And I would like to add a postscript. The very limited number of supersonic aircraft that will be flying the so-called Concorde flights are a minuscule number of the total number of military supersonic aircraft that are flying around the world everyday.,But nevertheless, we ought to do what Secretary Coleman suggested--16-month trial period, very rigid regulations, very important testing in the process. I think it was an excellent decision. I fully support it.,200-MILE COASTAL LIMIT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Michael Imsick, UNH Student Press.,In view of the many complications in the establishment of a 200-mile ocean fisheries and economic limit such as free-shipping passage, military access, migratory fish species, the presence of our fishing vessels within 200 miles of other countries and, inevitably, boundary disputes, would you endorse a temporary 200-mile unilateral economic limit until it can be resolved through international agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. This administration has been working very, very hard in the Law of the Sea Conference. We have another meeting of the Law of the Sea Conference in New York in late February or early March.,We now have a draft paper that is substantial progress, which meets in some degree or another all of the problems that you raise. It would be very beneficial for the world as a whole to settle the problems of the 200-mile limit, the ownership of seabeds minerals, the navigation problems, overflight, on-the-surface use of the seas.,If we could settle all of those problems in the Law of the Sea Conference in this meeting that comes up in late February or early March, that would be the best solution. In the meantime, however, I think it is helpful to have some pressure, that if the negotiators dillydally, don't do something affirmatively, then they ought to recognize the United States feels it is vitally important that we do something to protect not only our game fish but our commercial fish.,And therefore, I have said we will give the Law of the Sea Conference through 1976 and some months in 1977 to fish or cut bait. And if they don't, then the United States ought to move unilaterally.,I feel very strongly that way, and I think the negotiators ought to move and stop haggling and find the answers to the problems you are talking about.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN PLANS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, David Wysocki, WKXL Radio, Concord.,You have said you feel your strategy of running on your record plus your past experiences here in New Hampshire will be successful here. Well, I am wondering what if it isn't successful? Will you possibly come back here before the 24th, and what would determine that trip? And also, taking it a step further, suppose you lose in New Hampshire and a couple of the early primaries, will you take the campaign trail more yourself or will you decide that perhaps being President is more important and drop out of the race?,THE PRESIDENT. We are analyzing whether we will or will not come back before the 24th. No final decision has been made. I have been very encouraged by the warm reception, the good results, I think, that have come from this trip, but we have made no final decision. Yet, we have another trip as a possibility.,I do expect to first concentrate on being President of the United States. That is a rather full-time job, and I will make that the most important responsibility I have. But on weekends, a time that I think can be taken from that job and do whatever campaigning seems to be desirable, seems to be necessary--it will be extra, over and above the responsibilities I have as being President.,Let me reiterate something I have said before. I expect to do well in New Hampshire. I think we will do well in some of the other primaries. But I have an old adage that I follow--prepare for the worst because the best will take care of itself.,Now, let me say this. I expect to be a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party in August in Kansas City. I will be there. And whatever happens will have no impact on that. I love a good fight. I will be there representing the viewpoints and the record that I have, and I think we are going to win before as well as there.,Q. Sir, to follow that up, please. You say you will be preparing for the worst, but suppose you do lose New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and some of the others that will have some bearing, of course, on what your campaigning further on will be. Will you go out and campaign more on your own?,THE PRESIDENT. Since I don't anticipate the dire results you are speculating on, I really haven't made any plans to meet that contingency.,NUCLEAR ENERGY,[6.] Q. Cathy Wolf from the Associated Press.,I would like to follow up on that Seabrook question that was asked earlier. Governor Thomson said he was told many, many months ago that one of your top aides had told him that a decision to go ahead for the plant would be made by September. At that time, the NRC Board was still reviewing the entire proposal. Do you know who that aide was, and was such a promise given?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not know who the aide was that gave that alleged information to Governor Thomson. I don't think any aide in the White House would be that knowledgeable to know when and if the Nuclear Regulatory Agency [Commission] would make a decision by a date certain.,There are always factors that come up during the process of hearings and consideration by an independent agency. I understand there have been one or two new developments involved in the Seabrook nuclear power plant.,Those new developments inevitably cause some delay, because even once the decision is made by the nuclear regulatory agencies, unless their decision is fully backed up by the facts, unless their decision totally complies with the law, they, of course--or their decision is subject to court involvement.,The worst thing would be for a President or his people to unethically or illegally get involved in that process. That would really slow the matter up.,Now, if a Governor wants to get involved, or somebody on the outside, they do it at their own risk. But this President isn't going to do anything illegal or unethical concerning that project. I have strong feelings, as I said a moment ago, that we need 200 more nuclear power plants, and I hope the Nuclear Regulatory Agency moves as rapidly as it can on all of them. But that is their decision, and I am not going to try to tell them how to do it.,Q. Well, the Governor made this claim a couple of weeks ago. Had you heard about it at all? Had you heard that he said he had been told by an aide?,THE PRESIDENT. I read it in the newspaper, but I don't think that any person on my staff should try to tell the NRC when and how they ought to make the decision.,Q. Did you check out, Mr. President, whether anyone on your staff had had communication with Governor Thomson on this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I will try to do that.,ABORTION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Rick Beyer, WDCR News.,I would like to know, was your recent change of heart on the Supreme Court ruling on abortion basically a political move to improve your position in New Hampshire? And, if not, I would like to know why you feel that a new constitutional amendment of the kind you advocated for State control of abortion regulations is necessary.,THE PRESIDENT. My decision, adverse to the Supreme Court decision, goes back Some time. I felt at the time the decision was made that it went too far. I publicly expressed that view at that time. And while I was a Member of the House of Representatives, after that decision I made a decision to oppose the constitutional amendment that would preclude any Federal executive, legislative or judicial action against abortions. And I felt then--and it is on the record at that time-that I favored an amendment that would permit individual State action.,That record was laid out long before I became Vice President or President, so it has no application whatsoever to the current situation.,Q. Why do you think such an amendment is necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that it would be very helpful in clarifying and giving to the individual State--we have 50 States, and if they want to make a decision one way or another, if you believe in States' rights, I think it is a very proper, very logical conclusion.,PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, I am Fred Kocher from WMUR-TV in Manchester, New Hampshire.,The Federal District Court in Concord just recently, here in New Hampshire, ruled that a State law here in New Hampshire allowing voluntary prayer in public schools was patently unconstitutional.,My question to you is, do you agree with that kind of court decision, because there are people in this State and in many States that feel that voluntary prayer is a basic constitutional right?,THE PRESIDENT. Some years ago there was a United States Supreme Court decision as to whether or not a woman in Baltimore, as I recollect, had a child who objected to the nondenominational prayer that was conducted in that community.,That Court decision, in effect, said there could be no prayer in public schools in the United States. I read that decision very carefully. I read the dissenting opinion of Justice Potter Stewart very carefully. I subscribe to Justice Potter Stewart's dissenting opinion, and therefore, I disagree with the Supreme Court decision which precludes nondenominational prayers in public schools. I agree with the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said the Court was wrong.,So, I regret the Court decision. I agree with the minority, and I think it is most unfortunate that under reasonable limitations--I think it is regrettable that, under reasonable limitations, there can't be nondenominational prayer in public schools.,Q. What course of action would you suggest at this point, let's say to the Congress or to any group who disagreed like you do?,THE PRESIDENT. The most extreme course of action would be a constitutional amendment. When this matter came up, I was the Republican minority leader in the House, and Senator Everett Dirksen was the Republican minority leader in the Senate. He was a firm advocate of a constitutional amendment to remedy this situation.,I talked with him many, many times about it, because that was one thing he wanted to do because he felt so strongly about it. In the process of my discussions with him, I subscribed to an amendment of that kind.,FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Mike D'Antonio from The New Hampshire. Any cuts in aid to education may make entrance to universities impossible for low- and middle-income people who cannot pay the entire bill without assistance. Will you please comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the primary responsibility for the financing of a State university comes from the State itself. These are State universities, and the funding for the faculty, for the facilities should, of course, come as a major responsibility of the State.,Now, the Federal Government does put in a very substantial amount of funding in several ways. One, the Federal Government finances a great deal of research and development in college laboratories. It puts a great deal of money into State and private universities all over the country for basic research, for applied research.,The other approach that the Federal Government does is to give to students who want to attend a university significant financial assistance. In the budget that I recommended for fiscal year 1977, I proposed $1,100 million for the Basic Opportunity Grants program to help students all over the country so that they would have financial resources so they could go to colleges and universities throughout the United States. This program is focused in on the students who are in need.,Now, we have a number of other individually focused programs for the students. We have the guaranteed loan program, and I have to say parenthetically, the repayment rate on those loans has not been very encouraging. But we also have the work-study group, or program, where on many, if not all campuses, the Federal Government pays, as I recall, 90 percent of the pay that goes to students who work on the campus doing jobs related to the maintenance and so forth of the campuses.,This program, when you add it all up as far as the Federal Government is .Concerned, will be in the range of around $2 billion for students, period. And m addition, we have the grant programs for many, many studies conducted on behalf of the Federal Government in universities themselves. And we have, I should add, a massive dormitory program for State universities and other universities. I saw a very substantial facility as I drove in to the campus today. I suspect that is a federally financed--although I can't be sure--but it looked like one of the many all over the United States where the Federal Government puts up the money, in effect, for the construction of dormitory facilities in many colleges and universities.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any new programs in the works to help students who are applying to institutions like the University of New Hampshire, where State assistance is low, and perhaps they have been cut out by the recent cuts in education funding? Are there any new things aimed at particularly the low-income and middle-income students?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there are any new programs of that kind. Of course, it we get tax reductions for the middle-income wage earner the way I proposed, the middle-income wage earner will have more money to help send his son or daughter to a college or university.,There is one other Federal program that I didn't mention. It is a very substantial one. It is the GI bill, which costs the Federal Government, as I recollect, $3 billion to $4 billion a year to send ex-GI's to colleges and universities so they can complete their training, based on their 36 months entitlement under the Vietnam war program.,FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFORM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I am Tim Clark from the New Hampshire Network. We have seen reports that Treasury Secretary Simon recently proposed, privately to you, that the Federal income tax system be simplified by doing away with all tax deduction and lowering income tax rates across the board.,First of all, did such a proposal reach your desk? Secondly, what was your response, and if it didn't reach your desk, what would be your response to such a proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Simon has talked to me in generalities about a Federal income simplification program. The objective would be to lower income tax rates, but it would take away all or most of the exemptions that are currently in our existing Internal Revenue Code, such as the deduction for contributions to educational institutions, deductions to charitable organizations, and a wide range of other deductions, such as those to the United Fund, to the Red Cross, to the rest. That would be the thrust of the proposal made by Secretary Simon. We had a good discussion about it.,I said I would not embrace it. I thought the better way to proceed would be for him and the Treasury Department to study it and then present to me not something orally, but something on paper so that I could analyze it very concretely and very specifically.,I had some experience with a somewhat comparable proposal that I think President Johnson proposed to the Congress 8 or 9 years ago which, on paper, was a very simple proposal lowering rates but eliminating virtually, if not all, deductions.,I don't think I got any more mail under any program, because every church group, every university, every charitable organization--they didn't want to lose those deductions, because that is how we supply the wherewithal for a great many scholarships, a great many worthy projects to help the poor, to help other people in need.,So, until Secretary Simon comes to me with a concrete proposal that I can analyze the pros and the cons, I am not going to give it the go-ahead sign. If and when that comes, we will make a decision.,Q. Some of the Democratic candidates for President this year are speaking loudly and often about tax reform. If you are not in favor of the Simon proposal, what are your thoughts on reforming the tax system?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think this proposal to which you refer is the kind of reform that some of the Democratic candidates are talking about. They are talking about a wide variety of many other things.,We have sent up through Secretary Simon some specific reductions or loophole closings. They are in part incorporated in the bill that passed the House of Representatives in the last session that is now before Senator Long's Senate Committee on Finance. Even though that \"reform bill\" has some things in it we don't approve of, it does have some we recommended.,So, depending on what the Senate does, I will have to make a decision. I would hope that Senator Long's committee in the Senate would make some modifications. If they do, we could embrace a tax reform bill.,ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Marc Capobianco, The Dartmouth, student paper of Dartmouth College.,As a Congressman, your voting was never less than 70 percent in support of Nixon's policies. As Vice President, you lobbied for Nixon's programs and staunchly defended him against impeachment. As President you consulted with your predecessor and pardoned him. How has your administration definitely distinguished itself in its policies from those of the former President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think one very significant difference is that we have different people in the vast majority of major offices in the Cabinet, in regulatory agencies. We have a new team in many of the major areas of policy determination and policy direction--the Cabinet, regulatory agencies, et cetera.,We have followed a very middle-of-the-road to conservative view in economic policy. It has been a policy decided by me. I didn't go back and look at what the former President did, because he didn't have the hard decisions like we had in 1975. If there is a similarity, it is pure happenstance. The decisions I made in 1975 were mine, predicated on the problems that we faced.,Now, in the field of foreign policy, there is an area of similarity. I believe that SALT I was a good agreement. I believe that if we can get a SALT II agreement, it is in the best interest of this country.,Let me just point out some of the things that will happen if we don't get a SALT II agreement. In the first place, Backfire1 will run free. There won't be any limitations or constraints on it. If we don't get a SALT II agreement, there won't be any definition of a launching weight or throw weight. If we don't get a SALT II, there will be no limitation on launchers or MIRVs after October 1977.,1 The Soviet Backfire bomber.,I happen to feel very strongly that SALT I was a good agreement, and it is desirable for a good agreement for SALT II. If that is a similarity you are complaining about, I think it is a similarity that is worthy of support. Where we are similar, fine; where we differ, it is just one of the differences that are likely to take place.,VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Ron Amadon from WGIR Radio in Manchester. Would you accept Ronald Reagan as your Vice President?,THE PRESIDENT. I said, I guess a month ago, that that was within the realm of possibility. But I also said quite recently, there is a long list of very able United States Senators, present Governors, other public officials, who certainly ought to be considered. Any former Governor, I think, certainly would qualify for consideration.,DEBATES WITH RONALD REAGAN,[13.] Q. If I may follow up on that, sir, would you agree to debate Mr. Reagan during the primary campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any real necessity for it. I have a record. I cast 4,000 votes in the House of Representatives in 25 years on Federal issues. I have been President for 18 months. The public knows what my record is. If they want to compare it to the rhetoric or the words of former Governor Reagan on Federal issues, I think that is a very legitimate study for the American people to make, but I don't think a 30-minute or an hour debate is the preferable way or the better way for the public to find out what the facts are.,They can look at my voting record and the way I have acted in the White House for the last 18 months. It is on the record--meeting practical problems in a practical way, not with speeches. And they can compare that record with the Governor's record as to what he says he would do, and that is a very valid comparison. I don't think that an hour's debate would make any significant difference.,NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Bill Ayedelott, WLTN Radio, Littleton, New Hampshire.,President Ford, this is your second political appearance in New Hampshire in the last 6 months, the first one being this past September on behalf of the candidacy in the special Senate election of Lou Wyman.2,2 See 1975 volume, Items 547-549.,At that time, you were supporting him and his record. He was wholeheartedly supporting you and your administration. Yet, in the outcome of that election, he suffered quite a stinging defeat in what is generally a Republican State.,I am wondering whether you feel that, or whether you are just regarding that as a personal loss for him despite your appearance in his behalf, or whether it might be considered a valid indication that quite a number of New Hampshire voters are dissatisfied with your policies?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it proves one thing--that you can't necessarily translate your own record or your own popularity to another candidate. I am not going to speculate on the impact of that appearance where I was very warmly and very generously received by, I think, over 100,000 people in the short span from 9 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night.,I am not going to speculate whether that warmth and that very generous reception that was given to me in that September day will have an impact on this election or not. I think the only time we can really see is February 24, and I am quite optimistic.,Q. Well, in a follow-up to that, despite that appearance where so many people lined the motorcade and so forth, despite--well, perhaps not despite, but up to this time you are coming to New Hampshire, many political experts in this State and also within your own organization are saying that the race with Governor Reagan is going to be right down to the wire, an unusually tight situation for an incumbent executive.,I am wondering, as a politician, as President, from your viewpoint, what is it that Ronald Reagan is saying that seems so attractive to apparently so many New Hampshire voters, and what is your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't comment on what the former Governor has said that seems, under your analysis, helpful to his campaign. I have a record. We can't say one thing and then do another. We have to deal with reality, and we have. In acting with reality, we have been successful in turning the economy around, being successful in foreign policy.,When the chips are down, I think the people will want a proven quality rather than one who hasn't had those hard decisions to make or those difficult actions to take. I will just wait until February 24.,CAMPAIGN ISSUES,[15.] Q. Jerry Vaillancourt, WFEA in Manchester.,Mr. President, a number of supporters of yours, both locally and from across the country, have come to New Hampshire to criticize Ronald Reagan on such topics as his proposed $90 billion Federal budget reduction plan, his stands on the equal rights amendment, the status of cities in California when he was Governor. But the campaign between the two of you has been rather squeaky clean, if I may say.,Do we have any reason to assume that what the supporters of your candidacy here in New Hampshire say against Ronald Reagan are merely echoing what you really believe or what you would like to say?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think you can get into a political debate and have it at a right level if you indulge in personalities. I certainly never have, and I never will. I hope that the people that have represented me or been interested in my candidacy have asked factual questions, have raised legitimate factual issues. There are plenty that ought to be raised.,I have often wondered over my experience in politics--and I ran 13 times for reelection, or 12 times for reelection, once against an incumbent--and I always believed, and I believe today that when you apply for a job, your prospective employer--in this case, the voters--ought to look at your record. What is wrong with that? When a person applies for a job--and in this case it is the voters in New Hampshire, and the voters in 49 other States--those prospective employers ought to look at your qualifications.,My qualifications are on the record, and I think it is a very legitimate experience for the voters here, as well as elsewhere, to see what the record is. Every employer does that, and in New Hampshire you have thousands and thousands of prospective employers. I think it is a very proper thing. Look at the factual record.,Q. What I am trying to drive at--the people who are asking the questions are not the voters, not the prospective employers, but your supporters, your employees, you might say. What the things your supporters are saying against Mr. Reagan--are they yours?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there has been any serious questioning by them. I understand a number of the New Hampshire State legislators have raised most of the questions about the $90 billion proposal. That is what I understand. The thrust has come concerning that proposal because those State legislators--if they don't get the money from the Federal Government for these many programs--they either have to cut out the services to the people of New Hampshire or raise New Hampshire's taxes. And I think those are very legitimate questions by responsible State legislators.,ENERGY RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION,[16.] Q. Rolene Chamberlin, University of New Hampshire radio station WUNH.,Mr. President, in your proposed 1977 budget, why have you given such a low priority to solar energy and energy conservation, allotting only $91 million for energy conservation out of a $1,975 million ERDA budget?,THE PRESIDENT. Well I am very glad you brought that question up. Let's take solar energy to begin with. I may be a million dollars or so off, but in the current fiscal year for solar energy research, Government-wide, it is about $84 million.,I increased it in the next budget by 35 percent, something over $120 million. I personally disregarded the recommendations of some of the people in the administration who wanted to spend less money for solar energy, and I said no.,And I personally increased in at least three cases, extra research and development money for solar energy. It is the biggest solar energy program in research and development in the history of the United States.,Now, I don't recall precisely the figures for conservation, but on energy research increases, across the board, we increased them--or I increased them, with the submission of my budget--by 30 percent. That is not bad--geothermal, exotic fuels, solar, et cetera. So, we actually went beyond what many of the experts told me we ought to do in research and development--in fossil fuels, across the spectrum.,So, for research, for the new things that can be done to produce more energy other than gas and oil, which in the main we get from foreign sources, we have put forth the biggest research and development budget in the history of the country for energy progress.,Q. But are you still giving more priority to nuclear energy instead of something like recycling?,THE PRESIDENT. We, quite frankly, did put more money in for nuclear research and development, for two reasons. We want to make any nuclear reactors in the future safer, and we want to make them more reliable, and Government research and development is the best way to do it. That is why we put the extra money in for R. & D. for nuclear experiments. I think it is a good investment.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT TO CHINA; DESIGNATION OF ACTING CHINESE PREMIER,[17.] Q. Mr. President, my name is Stewart Powell, and I am with UPI. Can you tell us, please, what are the domestic and international consequences of the change of power in China, and whether you are upset by Nixon's visit there and, thirdly, whether you plan to consult with him personally or have any member of your administration consult with him when he returns?,THE PRESIDENT. President Nixon, former President Nixon, is going to China as a private citizen. He was invited by the Government of the People's Republic of China. He called me Thursday or Friday, I guess Thursday, notified me of his invitation from the Chinese and his acceptance. I am delighted that his health is such that he can go.,I asked him to extend to Chairman Mao and the other leaders my very best. We talked generally about his trip in 1972. There is no commitment on his part to report to me or on my part to ask him to report to me. We will wait and see what happens on his return.,Some 10,000 Americans have visited the People's Republic of China in the last 3 or 4 years. I think it is wholesome and healthy that private citizens undertake these trips.,I can understand the Chinese. He was very instrumental in helping to open up the relations between our country and their country. There is no political ramification at all. He is going as a private citizen, at their invitation.,I just learned late last night of the new acting Premier in the People's Republic. I have not had an opportunity thus far to get any full report from the experts in the State Department and the intelligence community. I think it is premature for me to make any comment until I have had the full benefits of the experts in this area.,ELLIOT RICHARDSON,[18.] Q. Mr. President, Bob Murray, Foster's Daily Democrat.,Other than Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, probably the hardest person to keep track of in the Federal Government has been Elliot Richardson. Under the Nixon-Ford administrations, he has been Ambassador to Great Britain, Secretary of HEW, Defense, and now Commerce.,My question, sir, is, are there specific qualifications for these positions, and if so, has Elliot Richardson--does he and has he had the specific qualifications? And I would also like to know how high up he is on your Vice-Presidential candidate list?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously Secretary of Commerce Richardson has many, many qualifications. Before he came to the Federal Government, he was attorney general for the State of Massachusetts. He was also Lieutenant Governor for Massachusetts.,He had long had an interest in serving in the Federal Government. He had many broad experiences in private life as an attorney. He is a very well educated, a very able, dedicated person. And the fact that I had confidence in him as our Ambassador to Great Britain to ask him to come back to be Secretary of Commerce indicates my strong feeling that he is an outstanding public servant.,I mentioned his name the other day among 10 or maybe more prospective Vice-Presidential candidates. I think that is a clear indication of my additional feeling concerning his capabilities. But to list them or to put him in a certain place on the ladder, I think, is premature as far as Vice President is concerned.,Q. Mr. Ford, are there specific qualifications for these top Government positions, and if there are, is Mr. Richardson that versatile to hold these different positions in such a short period of time?,THE PRESIDENT. One of the very excellent qualifications he has is excellent administrative responsibility. He has always been known as an outstanding administrator, to get an organization working smoothly with a minimum of redtape, with the best service to the customers, so to speak, the American people. I think everybody would say that he has been and is today an outstanding administrator.,NATURAL GAS,[19.] Q. Sue Roman, WTSN Radio.,Mr. Zarb3 was recently in New Hampshire lobbying for the deregulation of interstate natural gas prices, but your critics have charged that this will skyrocket prices, and they also say this is inconsistent with the continued regulation of gasoline and oil prices. How do you defend this position?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is very clear. You either deregulate natural gas and get more American natural gas, or we buy more foreign oil. It is just that simple.,3 Frank G. Zarb, Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration.,Now, I happen to think it's better to develop our own resources. And in the long run, you won't pay significantly more and will not be at the whim and fancy of a foreign oil cartel.,Under the present circumstances, our domestic oil production is going down. Under present circumstances with regulation of natural gas, domestic gas production is going down. And if we don't deregulate natural gas, there will be in a relatively short period of time virtually no domestic natural gas, which means we have to buy more and more foreign oil.,I would rather use our natural gas rather than Arab foreign oil. And, therefore, I strongly feel that the deregulation of American natural gas is in the best interests of this country.,SOVIET INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,[20.] Q. Douglas Cope, WHEB Radio.,Mr. President, there have been reports that the Soviet Union is using radiation listening devices in our embassy in Moscow. How will the presence of these listening devices affect Soviet-American detente?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that is a matter that ought to be discussed at this stage. I have heard rumors concerning it, but I don't think it is a matter that ought to be discussed at this point.,Q. Will Mr. Kissinger be briefing you on this subject?,THE PRESIDENT. The proper authorities in the Federal Government will. If it is true, it's a very serious situation.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very, very much. It's nice to be here. Have a good day--the rest of it."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-12-20","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Well, this morning I spent about 3 hours in the next to last budget review process with a number of appeals, and tomorrow I expect to spend approximately 3 hours on the final decisions on the budget. We have a number of bills, of course, down from the Hill--some easy, some controversial--but we expect to get an awful lot of work done over this weekend.\nWith those very general observations, I would be glad to answer any questions.,FEDERAL BUDGET,[1.] Q. What are some of the hardest budget decisions you are making right now?,THE PRESIDENT. They are all hard, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News], because even though the budget will reflect an increase over the current fiscal year, it will reflect a $28 billion cutback in the growth of Federal spending, and therefore, you have to make hard decisions in practically every department. But if we are going to get a $28 billion tax cut, we have to have a $28 billion cutback in the growth of Federal spending. And we are going to have a $395 billion spending budget for the next fiscal year, and that will permit me to recommend to the Congress a bigger tax reduction than the Congress passed and which I will sign Monday when the bill gets down here.,The American people need and deserve a larger tax cut. And I am delighted that the Congress after a lot of pulling and hauling finally agreed that we would have in principle a tax reduction and a spending limitation on a one-for-one basis. That, I think, is a very sound principle. That is what I have been fighting for. And now that the Congress has made a good faith commitment, I think my larger tax recommendations to cut taxes more than the Congress passed means that we will get a firm handle on the growth of Federal spending.,TAX REDUCTION,[2.] Q. Is the $28 billion what you will propose again next month as far as a tax cut goes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the tax bill that I intend to sign reduces taxes on a full year basis of about $18 billion. My tax reduction proposal will add another $10 billion in additional tax cuts, and it will all be predicated on a restraint, a control in the growth of Federal spending of a like amount.,ENERGY,[3.] Q. What are you going to do on the energy bill, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I have recommendations from people on the outside on both sides of the issue. I have recommendations from my top advisers on both sides of the issue. And I am going to spend a good part of this weekend analyzing the pros and cons. We have had an Economic Policy Board meeting on that issue, and I will make the final decision probably on Monday.,COMMON SITUS PICKETING,[4.] Q. Mr. President, have you decided on situs picketing?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't. That is another measure that I will be working on this weekend. There is, of course, in the Administration differing views. The American people have very strong convictions on both sides of that issue. We have gotten a tremendous amount of mail in opposition to it. We are getting some mail in favor of it. I am going to try and make an honest judgment over this weekend.,Now, of course, that bill, as of this moment, has not come down from the Congress. I hope it will be here so that the difficult decision can be made.,Q. Is there a difference in the mail, Mr. President? I mean, is the mail that is against that bill--does it seem to be more from organized forces?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't tell, but the last count I showed there were something like 620,000 communications against the common situs picketing bill and something less than 10,000, as I recall, for it.,RONALD REAGAN,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you have been working very hard on this budget and had a hard time getting Congress to agree to any spending cuts. Do you have any opinion on this proposal of former Governor Reagan's to cut $90 billion from the Federal budget by turning this over to the States and local communities? What do you think of that idea?,THE PRESIDENT. I met with, I think it was, nine Governors--Democrats as well as Republicans--several days ago. And I got recommendations from them because the Governors, I think, play a very important role not only in running their own States but in working with the Federal Government. And the consensus-well, the unanimous view of all of those Governors was, don't put any extra burdens on us and our taxpayers in each State.,I gather from that that any reduction in the Federal budget of $90 billion, turning all of that extra responsibility over to each of the 50 States, would not be acceptable and would not be supported by the 50 Governors.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[6.] Q. Mr. President, now that we are in the field of politics, tangentially, can you---,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't answer it on that basis.,Q. No, I know you didn't, but we were trying to get in there, so I will try again. [Laughter] Can you tell us anything about your campaign plans for next year? Are you going into New Hampshire and Florida, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a lot of open dates in those months, because we first felt that the most important thing was to do the business of the Federal Government. I am sure that we will participate to some degree in various primary campaigns, but I emphasize, and say it very strongly, that the principal responsibility of the President of the United States is to make sure that he exercises his full responsibilities as President. If there is time for any campaigning--and only time can tell--then I will do what I can, but I have no concrete plans at this moment.,Q. Mr. President, could you give us a sense of how you feel you are doing politically right now, especially in view of that poll that showed Ronald Reagan ahead of you by a substantial margin among both Republicans and Independents?,THE PRESIDENT. The way I judge it is whether I think I am doing a good job as President. I am concentrating on that responsibility. I think we have made substantial progress in the last 16 or 17 months in straightening out a very serious economic problem, in carrying on a sound foreign policy. And in my opinion, the American people in the final analysis will judge whether I should be nominated and/or elected on the basis of how I conduct myself in this office. And that is where the concentration will be.,Q. Just to follow up on that, sir. In view of the fact, of course, you have been President, what do you think is the significance of that poll? What does it tell you, if anything?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure I understand the intent of the question.,Q. Well, since you have been functioning as President and doing the best job you know how, as you say, what is the importance of the poll that shows you trailing Mr. Reagan politically even so?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the final answer, of course, comes in the ballot box. And if I do the job--and I think we have made some great progress certainly in solving economic problems, and I think we have done a very good job on foreign policy--that will be the test, not any interim polls.,Q. Mr. President, after Mr. Callaway stirred up a bit of a storm in Houston with criticizing Mr. Reagan's record as Governor, you talked to him the next day. Did you tell him to lay off this, and what do you think of the way he is running the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I think overall that Bo Callaway has done a good job. I get weekly reports on the status of our organization in the various States, and when I look at that, I am convinced that we are in good shape in most States and we\nare working to improve in those where we are not.,Q. But, Mr. President--excuse me.,THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me just a minute.,Now, I think both Bo Callaway and I agree that there should be no personal attacks on Mr. Reagan. And I understand he feels the same way about any campaign on his behalf. The thing that I think we are going to emphasize-myself particularly and, I hope, Bo and the others--is my record, which is one that is examined on a day-to-day basis by literally millions and millions of people. And I will stand on that record, and Bo is going to accentuate, as I and others will, the success of this record. If the public as a whole wants to examine not only my record but the Governor's record, that of course is the option that they have.,ANGOLA,[7.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday you issued a statement about your sentiments on what the Senate has done on Angola.,THE PRESIDENT. I said it fairly strongly.,Q. You sure did. After you did it, Dr. Kissinger said something a little more-even stronger over at the State Department around 5 o'clock. He said the responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy is not altered or affected simply because Congress has taken an action. I don't know quite how to read that, but I can read that once you spend the money that is in the pipeline there isn't any more. What is the United States policy toward Angola going to be, given the fact that you are going to run out of money in about 2 months?,THE PRESIDENT. Our fundamental purpose in Angola was to make sure that the people of Angola decide their own fate, establish their own government, and proceed as an independent nation. We think it is fundamentally very unwise, very harmful for any foreign power, such as the Soviet Union is obviously doing and as Cuba is doing, to try to dominate any government in that country. All we want is for the majority of the people in Angola to decide for themselves what they want.,Now unfortunately, because the Soviet Union has spent literally millions and millions of dollars and, unfortunately, because Cuba has anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 combat troops in Angola, we think this is a setback for the people in Angola. Now, I take this problem very seriously.,Q. Well, what is to be done with your hands tied, so to speak?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Congress, unfortunately, has tied our hands, and I think it is a serious mistake. I feel very strongly that a great country like the United States should have flexibility to help those people in any one country to decide their own fate. And the action of the Congress is crucial in that it has deprived us of helping a majority of the people in Angola to make their own decisions.,And the problem that I foresee on a broader basis is a good many countries throughout the world consider the United States friendly and helpful, and we have over a period of time helped to maintain free governments around the world. Those countries that have depended on us--and there are many---can't help but have some misgivings, because the Congress has refused any opportunity for us in Angola to help a majority of the people. And they can't help but feel that the same fate might occur as far as they are concerned in the future.,I hope the House of Representatives will have a different view, and we are certainly going to try and get the House of Representatives to reverse the Senate action.,Q. If not, are we through there?,THE PRESIDENT. I never say we are through, but the action of the Senate has seriously handicapped any effort that we could make to achieve a negotiated settlement so that the people of Angola could have a free and independent government.,Q. Mr. President, on that subject, why did we not start earlier in making public our opposition to what the Soviet Union was doing there and telling this country how much money and what effort we were making there, and can you tell us how much money we spent there?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is wise for me to discuss in any detail what we have done or contemplated doing. It was a legitimate covert operation where not one American military personnel was involved in the operation, and we had no intention whatsoever of ever sending any U.S. military personnel there. But to discuss any further details than that, I think, in this case as in any other covert action case, the President just should not discuss it publicly.,THE SOVIET UNION AND CUBA,[8.] Q. Mr. President, now that the Soviet Union is persisting--despite what the Congress did on our side--in pouring equipment and material into Angola, do you see now the possibility that this might seriously harm any chance for a completion of SALT II?,THE PRESIDENT. The persistence of the Soviet Union in Angola with a hundred million dollars or more worth of military aid certainly doesn't help the continuation of detente.,Now, I will add another comment. As I said earlier, there are between 4,000 and 6,000 Cuban combat military personnel in Angola. The action of the Cuban Government in sending combat forces to Angola destroys any opportunity for improvement in relations with the United States. They have made a choice. It, in effect, and I mean very literally, has precluded any improvement in relations with Cuba.,ANGOLA,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any possibility that this matter could be taken to the United Nations or worked on from the diplomatic standpoint now?,THE PRESIDENT. We certainly intended to try to get diplomatic efforts underway and to help in the diplomatic area, but I think our influence in trying to get a diplomatic solution is severely undercut by the action of the United States Senate.,Now, there is a meeting in early January of the Organization of African Union [Unity]--the foreign ministers of that organization. They are meeting the first week or so in Africa. We hope that they will take some action to let the Angolans themselves decide this. In addition, there is a meeting later in January of the heads of government of the OAU. That body, of course, is the one that could do the most. And I know that there are a number of African States who have apprehension about a foreign power dominating a country as rich and potentially strong as Angola. And so I can assure you, to the extent that we can have any impact in diplomatic areas, we are certainly going to maximize our efforts. But I repeat that what the Senate did yesterday undercuts very, very seriously any impact we can have in the diplomatic field.,PRESS SECRETARY NESSEN. Jim Lynn has a lot of tough questions waiting for you, too.,THE PRESIDENT. Two more.,Q. Mr. President, a couple of months ago there were some efforts by the Administration to try and warm relations with Cuba--Dr. Kissinger made some statements, I believe. It is apparent now that at that very time the Cubans had to be gearing up or knew that they were probably at least considering sending troops to Angola. Did our intelligence pick up this fact, and was there any cause and effect? Were we, in effect, trying to persuade them not to participate in Angola, and were we offering friendship to them in return for their not participating?,THE PRESIDENT. The sending of military personnel by Cuba to Angola is a rather recent development in any magnitude. The statements made by the Secretary indicating that if there was a softening, a change on the part of Cuba, it would be reciprocated by us, was made before there was any significant military involvement by Cuba in Angola. I wanted to be on the record and as forceful as I can say. The action of the Cuban Government in the effort that they made to get Puerto Rico free and clear from the United States and the action of the Cuban Government to involve itself in a massive military way in Angola with combat troops ends, as far as I am concerned, any efforts at all to have friendlier relations with the Government of Cuba.,Q. Sir, I don't think you answered my question. Can you tell me if the efforts were connected in any way with the Cuban efforts?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought I answered it.,Q. I am sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. To be very specific and short, no.,TAX REDUCTION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can we go back to the tax cut a moment. As you probably know, there are a lot of people in Washington, including a lot of Democrats, who are saying you caved in, that you could have gotten the same deal a week ago on this nonbinding resolution and that with an election year coining up you couldn't very well give people the Christmas present of higher taxes. Was your decision to accept this bill motivated in any part by election year politics, and do you think you caved in?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the compromise which was achieved was a good tax bill for 6 months, but I under no circumstances believe that I backed off a very fundamental principle which was, if you are going to have a tax reduction, you have to have a corresponding limitation on the growth of Federal spending. I won on that issue 100 percent. And if you tied that principle which the Congress has agreed to with the budget ceiling that I am going to submit of $395 billion, it does mean that the Congress will have to respect their good faith commitment and operate within the $395 billion figure.,Q. Sir, did you have the same deal offered to you though a week or so ago?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. You didn't have the option of taking the deal as some people say?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. Well, the evidence of that is that the Republicans in the House of Representatives roughly a week ago offered as a motion to recommit a $395 billion ceiling for fiscal 1977, and virtually every Republican voted for it and very few Democrats did. That, in my opinion, was a rejection of the ceiling concept at that time. But after the veto of the tax bill and it being sustained, the Democrats in the Congress then came forward with this dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes and a dollar-for-dollar reduction in Federal spending. It was their proposition, but it followed the guidelines that was within the parameters of what we had long sought.,Q. Mr. President, do you expect Congress to go along with the $395 billion ceiling? They haven't said they will so far.,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to submit a budget for $395 billion or less, and I think we can justify it fully. I believe there is a little different attitude up on the Hill among Republicans as well as some Democrats that that is a responsible figure. I think we have a fair chance of achieving it. We are certainly going to try.,NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE,[11.] Q. On John's [John Cochran, NBC News] question, he had asked about political motivation as far as the tax cut. Taking that a step further, what do you think when you look at the cover of Newsweek and some of the other stories that have your face and says \"Ford in Trouble\"? Have you been misjudged by some of the people who are covering politics?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the record is good, and I think time will prove it.,Q. Time magazine? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. The passing of time--and don't take that wrong either. [Laughter] I think when the record is laid out from August a year ago and 1976, I think the public will support what I have done, and it will be done in the ballot box.\nFRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all. Have a good weekend.,Tom [Thomas M. DeFrank, Newsweek], you were going to ask a question. You have been sitting there silently, and that is unusual. [Laughter] Well, go ahead, one for you, Tom.,COMMON SITUS PICKETING,[12.] Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I was going to go back to situs picketing just for a second. There is a lot of speculation around town that Secretary Dunlop might resign if you veto the situs picketing bill, and some of the people standing Over here kind of get that same queasy feeling themselves. I am wondering whether you and Secretary Dunlop have talked about that, whether he has raised that possibility with you, and whether you think if you do veto the bill that that might happen? Do you expect him to?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to speculate on that aspect. I know that he feels very strongly about the legislation. I feel very strongly that he is one of the finest members of my Cabinet. We have had several discussions in depth as to the merits, the substance of the common situs picketing bill. There has been no indication to me that he would resign, but since I haven't made a decision on the legislation yet, I think any discussion is a little academic.,Q. The only other thing I can say is that you will probably like the cover of Newsweek this week better than last week since it--[laughter]--,THE PRESIDENT. I understand that the better half of the Ford family is going to be on it with a little more complimentary cover. [Laughter],Q. That is what I meant.,THE PRESIDENT. I keep telling Betty that I get embarrassed all the time with her polls and good pictures. When they take a picture of her dancing, it is beautiful. When they take a picture of me dancing and publish it, it is not very complimentary. [Laughter]\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-11-26","text":"STATEMENT ON MEASURES TAKEN TO IMPROVE THE FINANCIAL SITUATION OF NEW YORK CITY,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good evening. Before we go to questions, I would like to comment briefly on recent developments in New York. Since early this year, and particularly in the last few weeks, the leaders of New York State and of New York City have been working to overcome the financial difficulties of the city which, as a result of many years of unsound fiscal practices, unbalanced budgets, and increased borrowing, threaten to bring about municipal bankruptcy of an unprecedented magnitude.,As you know, I have been steadfastly opposed to any Federal help for New York City which would permit them to avoid responsibility for managing their own affairs. I will not allow the taxpayers of other States and cities to pay the price of New York's past political errors. It is important to all of us that the fiscal integrity of New York City be restored and that the personal security of 8 million Americans in New York City be fully assured.,It has always been my hope that the leaders of New York, when the chips were down, face up to their responsibilities and take the tough decisions that the facts of the situation require. That is still my hope, and I must say that it is much, much closer to reality today than it was last spring.,I have, quite frankly, been surprised that they have come as far as they have. I doubted that they would act unless ordered to do so by a Federal court. Only in the last month, after I made it clear that New York would have to solve its fundamental financial problems without the help of the Federal taxpayer, has there been a concerted effort to put the finances of the city and the State on a sound basis. They have today informed me of the specifics of New York's self-help program.,This includes: Meaningful spending cuts have been approved to reduce the cost of running the city. Two, more than $200 million in new taxes have been voted. Three, payments to the city's noteholders will be postponed and interest payments will be reduced through the passage of legislation by New York State. Four, banks and other large institutions will have agreed to wait to collect on their loans and to accept lower interest rates. Five, for the first time in years members of municipal unions will be required to bear part of the cost of pension contributions and other reforms will be made in union pension plans. Six, the city pension system is to provide additional loans up to $2.5 billion to the city.,All of these steps, adding up to $4 billion, are part of an effort to provide financing and to bring the city's budget into balance by the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1977.,Only a few months ago we were told that all of these reforms were impossible and could not be accomplished by New York alone. Today they are being done.,This is a realistic program. I want to commend all of those involved in New York City and New York State for their constructive efforts to date. I have been closely watching their progress in meeting their problem.,However, in the next few months New York will lack enough funds to cover its day-to-day operating expenses. This problem is caused by the city having to pay its bills on a daily basis throughout the year while the bulk of its revenues are received during the spring. Most cities are able to borrow short-term funds to cover these needs, traditionally repaying them within their fiscal year.,Because the private credit markets may remain closed to them, representatives of New York have informed me and my Administration that they have acted in good faith, but they still need to borrow money on a short-term basis for a period of time each of the next 2 years in order to provide essential services to the 8 million Americans who live in the Nation's largest city.,Therefore, I have decided to ask the Congress when it returns from recess for authority to provide a temporary line of credit to the State of New York to enable it to supply seasonal financing of essential services for the people of New York City.,There will be stringent conditions. Funds would be loaned to the State on a seasonal basis, normally from July through March, to be repaid with interest in April, May, and June, when the bulk of the city's revenues comes in. All Federal loans will be repaid in full at the end of each year.,There will be no cost to the rest of the taxpayers of the United States.,This is only the beginning of New York's recovery process, and not the end. New York officials must continue to accept primary responsibility. There must be no misunderstanding of my position. If local parties fail to carry out their plan, I am prepared to stop even the seasonal Federal assistance.,I again ask the Congress promptly to amend the Federal bankruptcy laws so that if the New York plan fails, there will be an orderly procedure available. A fundamental issue is involved here--sound fiscal management is an imperative of self-government. I trust we have all learned the hard lesson that no individual, no family, no business, no city, no State, and no nation can go on indefinitely spending more money than it takes in.,As we count our Thanksgiving blessings, we recall that Americans have always believed in helping those who help themselves. New York has finally taken the tough decisions it had to take to help itself. In making the required sacrifices, the people of New York have earned the encouragement of the rest of the country.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,NEW YORK CITY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, I notice that you don't put any dollar figure on the amount of the loans that you would be offering. I wonder if you could supply us with a figure, and also, why were loans necessary rather than loan guarantees?,THE PRESIDENT. The amount in the proposed legislation, which is a maximum ceiling--not necessarily would they have to go up to the ceiling--but the figure is $2,300 million per year, all of it to be repaid at the end of each fiscal year.,The reason we made it a loan rather than :l loan guarantee is very simple. It is a much cleaner transaction between the Federal Government and the State and/or the city. If you have a loan guarantee, you involve other parties. And we think it is much better, we have better control over it, if we make it a direct loan from the Federal Government.,INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING ACTIVITIES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in view of recent revelations, are you fully satisfied that you are aware of everything that the CIA does since you became President, and do you accept full responsibility?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International], I certainly hope that I am fully aware of everything the CIA is doing. I can assure you that if I am not fully informed, I will welcome any information that people may have that I don't know about. But I have specifically asked for all information that I think I need concerning matters of the CIA.,Q. Can you say what steps you are taking to guarantee that the American people will never again learn that a Federal agency plotted on the life of a foreign leader or tried to defame a domestic leader like Martin Luther King?,THE PRESIDENT. I have issued specific instructions to the U.S. intelligence agencies that under no circumstances should any agency in this Government, while I am President, participate in or plan for any assassination of a foreign leader. Equally emphatic instructions have gone to any domestic agency of the Federal Government and/or the CIA, or intelligence agencies, that they should not violate the law involving the right of privacy of any individual in the United States.,NEW YORK CITY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in a nationally televised speech before the National Press Club on October 29, you said, and I quote, \"I can tell you now that I am prepared to veto any bill that has as its purpose a Federal bailout of New York City to prevent a default,\" end of the quote. What has happened in the interim, sir, to make you change your mind? And secondly, do you regard your proposal as a Federal bailout of New York City?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is very simple. New York has bailed itself out, because on October 29, when I made the speech before the Press Club, it was anticipated that on June 30 of 1976, there would be a cash deficit of $3,950 million in the New York City situation. Under the plan that I have embraced, on June 30, 1976, New York City will have a zero cash balance. So New York City, by what they have done in conjunction with New York State, with the noteholders, with the labor organization, the pension fund people, they have bailed out themselves.,Q. The private sector will not invest in New York City apparently because they think it is too great of a gamble to invest any longer in New York City. Can you tell us why you are willing to risk Federal money in investing in New York City when the private sector thinks the risks are too great?,THE PRESIDENT. Unfortunately, because a period of 10 or 12 years where the finances of New York City have been badly handled, there has been a loss of confidence in the private money markets. In order to get New York City to restore their credibility in the money markets, they have taken these steps which have eliminated $3.95 billion cash deficit. And by the fiscal year that begins July 1, 1977, they will be on a balanced budget basis.,Therefore, in the interim while they are restoring their credit credibility, I decided that it was needed and necessary to give short-term financing on a seasonal basis. This, I think, is what we can do without any loss of taxpayers' money. And let me show you what the precautions are that we have taken.,We have said that the money will be loaned to New York City at a rate no less than the Federal Government borrows itself and with the option of the Secretary of the Treasury to impose an additional up to 1 percent on the city when they do borrow from us. And secondly, we include in the legislation a lien for the Federal Government, so that the Federal Government has a priority claim against any other creditor for the repayment of any seasonal loan made by the Federal Government.,The net result is the Federal Government will be held harmless and the taxpayers won't have to lose a penny, and the city of New York will straighten out its fiscal situation.,Q. That is a pretty good deal--l-percent loan. What will you do tomorrow when other mayors around the country call up and say, \"Mr. President, how do we get in on that?\",THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Schieffer [Bob Schieffer, CBS News], I think you misunderstood. They will have to pay the same interest rate that the Federal Government pays when it borrows money, plus up to 1 percent extra. So they are in effect reimbursing us over and above what the Federal Government has to pay to borrow its money.,Q. That is still a good deal.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if the Federal Government is paying 6 percent, then the city of New York will have to pay whatever the difference is. Now other cities, we hope, won't have to be in that situation.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, have the Soviets offered any kind of proposal that could be considered enough of a breakthrough in the SALT talks to justify a visit to Moscow by Dr. Kissinger after the China trip?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are, of course, in communication with the Soviet officials, trying to narrow the differences between our last proposal and their last proposal. I can't say this evening that the differences have yet been sufficiently narrowed to justify that the Secretary go to Moscow, but I think it is worthwhile to continue the process. And if we decide that it looks reasonably optimistic, the prospects are that the Secretary will go to Moscow.,Q. Then if he goes to Moscow, it will signal a breakthrough, is that correct, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. It will signify there has been significant progress.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you do leave for China on Saturday. Do you foresee making any progress on any substantive matters there, and if so, in what areas?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that it is always advantageous for the heads of government of two nations, our Nation with 214 million people and the Chinese leaders of a country with 800-plus million people, to sit down and talk about our areas of agreement and to discuss how we can eliminate any areas of disagreement. It is vitally important that we consult rather than confront. And I can't tell you particularly what the outcome will be on a substantive basis--it will depend on how the talks go--but I think it is very worthwhile for those meetings to be held.,Q. Would you say it is worthwhile from a symbolic standpoint because--that you have set a meeting and must follow through with it, or can it amount to more than that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is definitely a meeting that can have far more meaning than symbolism. I think that the meetings, the talks, can and will be constructive.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[7.] Q. Mr. President, will you agree to a debate with Ronald Reagan during the Republican primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always found that debates are helpful when the views of the participants are not well known. In my case, my views on matters are known virtually every day. I have to make decisions where the public knows how I feel on this issue or that issue or any other issue, and of course, between now and February 24 I have a fairly busy schedule. I am going to be preparing for the State of the Union Message, I will be putting together the Federal budget, and in the meantime, I will be signing or vetoing a lot of legislation. So my views will be very well known by everybody. So, at the present time I can't make any commitment as to whether or not there should or should not be any such debate.,NEW YORK CITY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Mayor Beame in New York was asking as long ago as September for short-term Federal assistance. How is the plan that you propose tonight different from what he was seeking then?,THE PRESIDENT. Significantly different. As I pointed out a minute ago, when the Governor and the mayor were asking for any kind of help, short-term or long-term there was the anticipated deficit for the current fiscal year in New York City of $4 billion. In the meantime, the mayor and the other public officials in New York City, along with the help of private citizens, have reduced that fiscal deficit for this current year to zero. So there is quite a different circumstance.,Q. Well, you seem to be suggesting, Mr. President, that your opposition earlier to assistance for New York was based primarily on a tactical maneuver to get them to make the hard decisions that you say they have now made. Why couldn't you have said then that the aid would be forthcoming if they did all those things?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have always felt that they could do enough, but only because we were firm, have they moved ahead to accomplish what they have done now which is a bailout of New York City by New York officials. If we had shown any give, I think they would not have made the hard decisions that they have made in the last week or so.,THE SUPREME COURT,[9.] Q. Mr. President, will you be submitting your nomination to fill the Douglas vacancy on the Court before your departure for China?,THE PRESIDENT. I will not submit it before I go to China. I will submit it as quickly as I possibly can, because I think it is vitally important that that vacancy on the Court be filled, if at all possible, by the time Congress adjourns in this session. So, we are expediting the process, and we will submit the name as rapidly as possible.,MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee has documented widespread efforts by the FBI to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King before he was assassinated, as you know. And I just wondered, do you think the Federal Government and you, as President, have any responsibility now to see that those who were responsible for that are either purged from Government service if they still are in Government service, or prosecuted if the statute of limitations has not run out on them?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly condemn those actions which were taken regarding Martin Luther King. I think it is abhorrent to all Americans, including myself. Whether or not we can identify the individuals, if they are still alive, is difficult, but I certainly will consult with the Attorney General regarding that matter.,Q. You think an effort should be made, though, to identify those people?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[11.] Q. What reaction, sir, do you have to the statement of Senator Mathias that he may be forming a third force movement, and who do you think that would hurt or help if he does?,THE PRESIDENT. I strongly believe, Mr. Cannon [Lou Cannon, Washington Post], in a two-party system. It has served our country very well over a long period of time, and therefore, I would hope that all Democrats would participate in their party convention and run as a candidate in their primaries. And I would hope that we would have a similar situation in the Republican Party. The two-party system is so valuable, has served us so well, I can't believe that a multiplication of political parties will be beneficial.,Q. Have you attempted to communicate this personally to Senator Mathias, or do you plan to do so?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not communicated with him. And I would just hope that Senator Mathias would continue to be a good Republican, as he has been over the good many years that I have known him.,NEW YORK CITY,[12.] Q. Some Congressional leaders are saying that it may not be possible to enact New York City legislation in time to avert a default by December 11. Does the Administration have a plan to respond if this does occur?,THE PRESIDENT. The bill that I am submitting to the Congress is about a two or three-page bill. It is very simple. I think Congress can take it, hold hearings, and act within a very short period of time, and I see no reason for any delay whatsoever. And I am confident they will.,Q. Is there a contingency plan, sir, in the event Congress does not act in time to avert default on December 11?,THE PRESIDENT. I asked earlier, as I'm sure you know, for a change in the Federal bankruptcy law. 1 That legislation is in the House and Senate committees; hearings have been held. If they want to take a precautionary measure--I don't advocate it--they could enact the change in the Federal bankruptcy law. I would rather have them take what I am sending up the day they get back from recess so we don't have to go through the process of Federal bankruptcy.,1 See Item 646.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, may I follow up on the Mathias question? Do you share Senator Mathias' concern that there is a Republican drift to the right, away from the central center voters, and that this might cost you the election?,THE PRESIDENT. I am certainly not drifting away from my traditional position, which is in the middle of the political spectrum in the Republican Party.,Q. You will recall, I am sure, the days when--the football days when Stagg used to fear Purdue. My question is, do you fear Ronald Reagan, that he might beat you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think so at all, and I am looking forward to a good campaign between now and November of 1976.,Q. Do you think that he is doing you a favor by running against you in the primaries, or is this likely to be divisive?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to speculate on that, Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor]. I am a candidate, I'm going to run on my record--I think it is a good record--and I look forward to the campaign between now and next November.,THE SUPREME COURT,[14.] Q. Mr. President, it is reported that Mrs. Ford is pressing you to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. And I wondered if you could tell us what luck she is having and what influence she has on the positions that you take in governmental matters such as this and others?,THE PRESIDENT. She does propagandize me on a number of matters. She obviously has a great deal of influence. We have discussed this, but I don't think I should indicate in any way whatsoever any individual that I might be considering.,As you may have noted in the list that was submitted by the Attorney General, there were two women--the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills, and Judge Cornelia Kennedy of the district court in the city of Detroit. They are being considered. I am sure that Betty would be very pleased, but I am not making any commitment at this time.,Q. Mr. President, does she lead you to a more \"liberal\" position on things?,THE PRESIDENT. She, I think, has the identical political philosophy that I have.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[15.] Q. Mr. President, are you willing to take the pledge that Governor Reagan has, not to speak ill of other Republicans, to observe the so-called 11th commandment?,THE PRESIDENT. You are speaking of the 11th commandment?,Q. Right.,THE PRESIDENT. I have always thought that the first ten Commandments were pretty good guidelines for most Americans, and I am going to abide by the first ten. I think they will take care of the situation.,GENERAL SECRETARY BREZHNEV OF THE SOVIET UNION,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there has been increased speculation that there may be another Ford-Brezhnev get-together in the works in either December or January, perhaps when and if Secretary Brezhnev goes to Cuba. Can we expect a Ford-Brezhnev get-together in the next 2 months?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said earlier, at the present time on the SALT II negotiations we are making some headway, but we have not come close enough to justify Secretary Kissinger going to Moscow and certainly not to justify a meeting between Secretary Brezhnev and myself.,On the other hand, we are going to pursue as much as we can and maintain our own position of strength, because I think it is in the national interest to put a cap on the strategic arms race. But I can't forecast at this time if and when any such meetings will be held.,Q. Well, do you think it would be helpful to have a Ford-Brezhnev meeting to perhaps break the SALT deadlock, or are we still insisting on an agreement in SALT as a prerequisite for any Ford-Brezhnev meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that Mr. Brezhnev and I should not meet until we make additional progress.,AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in the past the American Bar Association has had great input on the selection of judicial appointees, and I was wondering how you feel about this, whether the ABA's judicial committee should have a veto on your judicial appointments?,THE PRESIDENT. The ABA--the American Bar Association--has done a fine, fine job under very tough circumstances in analyzing the legal qualifications of some 15 or more names that have been submitted to them, and I thank the American Bar Association for their very, very great cooperation. But I don't think in the final analysis they should have a veto over the person that I select.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[18.] Q. Mr. President, has Secretary Kissinger talked to you recently or to any top officials in your Administration about the possibility of resigning? Has he complained to you or others in the White House that he felt he was not receiving sufficient support from the White House, particularly on the House contempt citation move. And if he has, are you in a position to say whether you--to repeat your earlier promise, or your earlier statement, that you wanted him to stay on through the completion of this term?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Kissinger has not spoken to me about resigning. I continue to give him full and complete support because I think he is one of the finest Secretaries of State this country has ever had. I know of no criticism within the White House staff of his performance of duty, and I strongly--and I want to emphasize and reemphasize that I think he has done a superb job under most difficult circumstances. I certainly want him to stay as long as Secretary Kissinger will stay.,THE WARREN COMMISSION,[19.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the Congressional report on the CIA and the recent testimony about FBI activities and continuing doubt in the country, don't you think it would be in the national interest to reopen the assassination investigation of President Kennedy and now Martin Luther King as well?,THE PRESIDENT. I, of course, served on the Warren Commission, and I know a good deal about the hearings and the committee report, obviously. There are some new developments--not evidence but new developments--that according to one of our best staff members, who has kept up to date on it more than I, that he thinks just to lay those charges aside that a new investigation ought to be undertaken.,He, at the same time, said that no new evidence has come up. If those particular developments could be fully investigated without reopening the whole matter that took us 10 months to conclude, I think some responsible group or organization ought to do so--but not to reopen all of the other aspects, because I think they were thoroughly covered by the Warren Commission.,Q. Are you prepared, then, to take that step on the part of the Administration to appoint a task force from the Justice Department, say, to look into the new developments and to report on those as well, or would you rather have it done by an independent organization?,THE PRESIDENT. I think in light of my former membership on the Warren Commission, it might be better done by somebody other than I appoint.,FEDERAL TAXES AND SPENDING,[20.] Q. Mr. President, is it still your intention, sir, to veto any tax cut package that Congress might pass if it does not conform precisely with what you proposed a few weeks ago?,THE PRESIDENT. I intend to veto any tax cut measure that does not couple with it a comparable reduction in the growth of Federal spending.,Q. Well, sir, that implies you might be flexible on the precise numbers. Is that correct, so long as there is a balance?,THE PRESIDENT. I, of course, proposed a $28 billion tax cut, coupled with a $28 billion reduction in Federal spending. I think that is the right level in both cases. The Congress, I hope, will accept it.,INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING ACTIVITIES,[21.] Q. A follow-up question, if I could, Mr. President, to the earlier statement on the Central Intelligence Agency. As you know, there is a gray area in which the CIA might take an action which could eventually lead to danger or assassination of a political leader. Now, in your first news conference you indicated that you supported such covert activities, particularly in the case of Chile. Do you still support those activities, and if so, what kind of philosophy should the constitutional democracy of America take into the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I repeat, under this Administration no agency of the Federal Government will plan or participate in any assassination plot of a foreign leader. The United States, however, in many cases for its own protection, its own national security, must undertake foreign covert operations, but I am not going to discuss the details of them.,Q. Will you allow the country to involve itself in situations which could potentially be dangerous to other leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. The people in the intelligence agencies know what my instructions are. If they violate them, proper action will be taken.,ANGOLA,[22.] Q. Mr. President, in Angola the Soviets are reported to be heavily involved. Do you find this to be consistent with your understanding of detente?,THE PRESIDENT. I agree with the content of the speech made by Secretary Kissinger in Detroit last night, where he said that the Soviet actions in Angola were not helpful in the continuation of detente. I agree with that, and I hope and trust that there will be proper note taken of it.,Q. Do you intend to do anything about it other than making this statement?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to get into the method or procedure. I said that I agree with the statement made by the Secretary, and I believe that the Soviet Union is not helping the cause of detente by what they are doing. And I hope the message comes across.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[23.] Q. Mr. President, there is considerable pessimism these days as to whether peace progress can be maintained in the Golan Heights in the Middle East. The issues seem to be primarily those of land and participation by the Palestine Liberation Organization in negotiations. On the issue of land, it has been reported that the U.S. has assured Israel that it need make only cosmetic changes in its present lines in the Golan Heights. Is that the fact?,THE PRESIDENT. That is pure speculation, and we do hope that the process of negotiation will continue in the Middle East. And I hope and trust that we can get the parties together for a just and permanent peace.,Q. On the issue of Palestine Liberation Organization participation, State Department officials suggested that the Palestinian issue was the core of the problem in the Middle East. Do you agree with that?,THE PRESIDENT. It certainly is a very important part of the problem, because the Palestinians do not recognize the State of Israel. And under those circumstances, it is impossible to bring the Palestinians and the Israelis together to negotiate. So, unless there is some change in their attitude, I think you can see a very serious roadblock exists.,THANKSGIVING,[24.] Q. Mr. President, tomorrow being Thanksgiving Day, I ask this not of Jerry Ford, individual, but as the President of the United States. What do you have, number one, to be thankful for?,THE PRESIDENT. I am primarily thankful for the fact that this country is at peace on this Thanksgiving rather than engaged in a war, as we were for 4 or 5 or 6 years.,NEW YORK CITY,[25.] Q. Mr. President, thank you, sir. As a New York reporter, I am very interested in something you said in your statement. Part of the package that you found to indicate progress on the part of New York officials involved $205 million in taxes, which are a very onerous burden on the middle class in New York, on the working man and woman, including a 25-percent city income tax raise. Now, are you concerned politically that these taxes, these new taxes on a very heavily taxed city, one of the most heavily taxed cities in America, that these taxes are going to become known as the Ford taxes and that you are going to have to kiss the voters of New York goodby next year?,THE PRESIDENT. As I have said repeatedly, the only requirement that I imposed was that the financial situation in New York City be such that we could handle the problem at the Federal level in the way in which we are doing it today.,As I understand it, Governor Carey has taken the full responsibility for the total package, including the taxes that were imposed through his recommendation to the State legislature. I think that is a very courageous stand by Governor Carey.,Under those circumstances, since I didn't recommend any particular tax package, or any additional taxes, I don't see how those taxes can be labeled taxes of this Administration.,Q. Although you do approve of those taxes as part of this package?,THE PRESIDENT. I approve of the financial plan of responsibility which the Governor and the city officials and others have put together.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-11-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. This is a new format, the first press conference just for the local press, and I am looking forward to it.\nMr. Merriner, will you ask the first question?,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[1.] Q. Jim Merriner, Atlanta Constitution. Will Rogers Morton take an active role in your campaign, and will Bo Callaway's role be downgraded in substance, if not in his actual title?,THE PRESIDENT. First, Bo Callaway is doing a fine job. He will continue as he has been. Rogers Morton is Secretary of Commerce. As long as he holds that post, he will have no official responsibilities with the President Ford Committee.,When he leaves the post on or about February 1, he has said he would like to help in any capacity where he can be helpful, but under no circumstances that I foresee would he do anything more than a part-time aide in that area.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the Secretary of State, saying he was acting on your orders today, was cited by the House intelligence committee for refusing to divulge certain documents. What is your reaction?,THE PRESIDENT. The Pike committee in the House of Representatives several days ago made a demand for a very substantial number of documents. They wanted, for example, in this area documents from 1962 to 1972, documents which included recommendations from previous Secretaries of State to then Presidents.,It requested, for example, recommendations from a number of departments through the 40 Committee, which is our intelligence covert activity group that recommends to Presidents action that a President would approve or disapprove.,On the advice of the Attorney General, after thoroughly analyzing the documents requested, the Attorney General has advised me to exercise Executive privilege, which I have.,Q. Do you expect him to be cited by the full Congress and be indeed fined or sent to prison?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't speculate on what the House of Representatives might do, but we have taken this action with reluctance. But it is important to preserve Executive privilege where recommendations are made by top officials to a President, and I regret very, very much that the committee has taken this action.,I think it is shocking. I think it has very broad and serious ramifications. Over a period of 5 months, I have tried to cooperate with that committee, giving them tremendous amounts of material, a very substantial number of documents in order to cooperate. But in this case it doesn't involve my Administration. It involves the period from 1962 to 1972.,I think it is wrong, and therefore, to protect the confidentiality of recommendations from previous Secretaries of State to previous Presidents, I have exercised Executive privilege.,Q. Thank you, and to identify myself, I am Gloria Lane with WSB Television.,THE PRESIDENT. Nice to see you.,NEW YORK CITY,[3.] Q. Craig Lesser, WBHF, Cartersville. Sir, considering Governor Carey's latest proposals as well as the serious possibility of a defeat in the New York primary, to what extent do you support Secretary Simon's latest proposal of aid to New York?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me clear up one thing. I don't believe there is a primary as such in New York City. I expect to get very substantial support in New York State when they make the decision at the convention.,The situation in reference to New York is precisely this: Based on the factual situation, I have not changed my decision and have not agreed for any bailout of New York City. For the first time we have in writing things that the State of New York, the City of New York, the investors, and labor organizations have agreed to do. But as of this moment, nothing factually has been done.,One of the matters that they must do, of course, is to reenact a piece of legislation that permits cities and municipalities to extend maturity dates and to reduce interest rates on certain obligations.,That legislation, I am told, has not yet been enacted. It is, in effect, a procedure under State law that is somewhat comparable to a Federal bankruptcy procedure. But on the basis of the facts now, there is no change in my position.,We are analyzing the documents received from Governor Carey. We will consult with others, I am encouraged. But until we have analyzed, until they have acted, there is absolutely no change in my position.,Q. Consider if the legislation is passed that Governor Carey did suggest yesterday.,THE PRESIDENT. There are a number of other things that have to be done. They have to agree to raise their taxes--city and State. They have to agree to reduce expenditures quite substantially. Investors have to agree to extend maturities and to reduce interest rates. Labor organizations have to renegotiate the pension plans that have been in effect.,This is a series of steps that must be taken. If and when they are done, of course, we will take another look at it. It is perfectly conceivable, with .all of those constructive steps, they might be able to handle their seasonal financing without any Federal intervention.,But there is a long way to go. We have it on paper, they have promised, but we don't have any action at the present time.,THE SUPREME COURT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I am Bill Cotterell with United Press International. Sir, what qualities are you looking for in a Supreme Court Justice? How much have you narrowed down the list, and does it include any Democrats, women, Southerners, or, sir, members of your Cabinet? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I am looking for the best person--the best person qualified. We have a preliminary list that the Attorney General has put together. I have asked a number of people to suggest names, and a number of people have made such suggestions. They are being communicated to the Attorney General. He will consult with the bar. Their observations will certainly be considered by me.,The list could be quite comprehensive, but until it is submitted to me as a firm list by the Attorney General after this consultation process, I can't make any determination who will be on it and who won't be on it. But we are trying to expedite it, because it is vitally important that the vacancy on the Court be filled as quickly as possible.,Q. How quickly do you think you can do it?,THE PRESIDENT. I hesitate to put a deadline, but I can assure you we are trying to maximize the speed, because the Court does need a full nine-member membership. They have some very serious cases coming before it. And I would hope that within 3 weeks at the most we would have some name submitted to the United States Senate.,SENATOR EDWARD BROOKE,[5.] Q. Katherine Johnston, Associated Press. Mr. President, you said today in North Carolina that you would consider the possibility of Senator Edward Brooke running as your Vice-Presidential mate in 1976. Do you consider Brooke a serious contender, and would a black enhance your chances of winning the election?,THE PRESIDENT. I was asked a question by one of the students at North Carolina Central University, was there anyone in a minority group who I would consider. And I readily said Senator Edward Brooke, a man of experience, integrity, and certainly an outstanding Member of the United States Senate.,I don't rule out anyone. The field is wide open since the Vice President withdrew. At the proper time, I will make a specific recommendation. I am simply saying that Senator Brooke is certainly a person, among many others, who ought to be considered.,THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Mike Christenson of the Atlanta Journal. How can you possibly benefit politically from deregulation of the trucking industry, as you proposed?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if the trucking industry has been overregulated as far as the consumer is concerned and they have a competitive advantage over other forms of transportation, I think some deregulation is called for.,The recommendations made to me, which I submitted to the Congress yesterday, are carefully thought out. We have not only analyzed what has been done under the ICC over a period of time, we have consulted with the trucking industry, we have consulted with the labor organizations related to trucking.,We think that this is a bona fide, legitimate area for some deregulation, and I think it will benefit the consumer. I think it will improve and strengthen the trucking industry. Therefore, I strongly favor what we have submitted.,Q. Do you think this will help you politically?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it will, because there are elements in the trucking industry, there are consumers who deal with the trucking industry who are very supportive of this. So, I think on balance, first, it is right, and if something is right, I think it is politically beneficial.,THE SUPREME COURT,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Nick Taylor with WXIA-TV in Atlanta. Returning to the Supreme Court for a moment, what sort of philosophical makeup would you like to see in the Supreme Court when you fill the seat vacated by Justice Douglas?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is appropriate to start discussing such characteristics as philosophical views or other criteria that might be used. I want the best person to fill that vacancy that I can possibly get, and I think it is premature and unwise to draw a prescription, because everybody then will take a person and relate it to that prescription. I would rather have the names submitted. I will analyze them, and I will submit one name. But I think it is unwise to draw up a prescription at this time.,Q. Would you expect the Court, once your appointment is made, to continue the moves away from the sort of libertarian attitudes espoused by the Warren Court?,THE PRESIDENT. I have felt that the Court has moved somewhat in a direction that I approve in the last several years, yes.,REVENUE SHARING AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Don Hicks, with WBIE Radio in Atlanta. My question is, what is your Administration's position in regard to continued funding of revenue sharing and also CETA programs?,THE PRESIDENT. I strongly favor general revenue sharing. About 4 months ago I requested that the Congress renew the present law for a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the Congress hasn't moved in this area as rapidly as I think they should. I hope that mayors and Governors and other local officials will join with me in urging the Congress to extend the present general revenue sharing legislation.,I also favor the CETA legislation, the Comprehensive Education (Employment) and Training Act. I think it is good legislation. I recommended that it be fully funded. I think it was very helpful in the recession that we were in, and I hope that we can continue it in the future.,GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Shelby McCash, with the Macon Telegraph and News. One of the candidates for President on the Democratic ticket, Jimmy Carter by name, is proposing a massive reorganization of the Federal bureaucracy, trimming down Government, I think, by several hundred agencies and bureaus, he claims. If this is a feasible and worthwhile goal, why isn't your Administration taking the initiative to do this?,THE PRESIDENT. He has never submitted such a plan to me--[laughter]--so I am not familiar with the details of it.,We, of course, have been undertaking for the last 6 months a very broad program to deregulate the American business, the American people. We think this is a big step in the right direction.,I think the biggest danger we fear is not the elimination of agencies--although I think some can be done away with. I think the biggest danger with this Congress, they want to foist more agencies on the President, and I might say to my good friend, the former Governor, that this Democratic Congress is the one that is trying to add to the agencies, not subtract from them.,Q. But there are a few you believe that could be eliminated? Nothing like 300, however?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a slight exaggeration.,ARMY TRAINING STATIONS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I am Beryl Sellers, from the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer. Recently, the Department of the Army has come out in favor of a one-station training program for soldiers, but this program has run into some serious trouble in Congress. I want to ask you, do you favor this program, and if so, what can you do to salvage it?,THE PRESIDENT. That particular recommendation has not come to me from the Department of Defense. In theory, I think it makes sense. You do run into, however, various Members of the House and Senate in those States where a base might be closed or a station eliminated. And so that is the problem. But until the actual recommendation has come to me--I have not, of course, made a decision.,Q. You have received no recommendation from the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct, sir.,FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD NOMINEE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Bob Ketchersid, WSB Radio, Atlanta. What is your reaction, sir, to the Senate Banking Committee's action just a couple of days ago refusing to confirm Ben Blackburn to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Ben Blackburn would have been a good Chairman of the Home Loan Bank Board. I regret the decision by the Senate committee. I think he could have and would have performed his responsibilities in a most able way, .and I think it is unfortunate that the decision was against him 8 to 5.,Q. Do you have any plans to renominate him or perhaps to name him to another Government post?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not had that matter before me since the action by the Senate committee.,UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE ON ZIONISM,[12.] Q. Diane Tannen, WGAC Radio in Augusta. Some 32 nations abstained on the United Nations Zionist resolution vote. Are you now reassessing American foreign policy toward these ambivalent countries, and if so, what specific changes can be expected?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are, of course, very disappointed with the vote taken in the United Nations.1 Ambassador Moynihan made a very, very strong speech setting forth the policy of this Government, strongly urging that the United Nations defeat the resolution. I think the United Nations by that resolution has seriously handicapped, at least to some extent, its usefulness. I hope and trust, however, that it will realize and understand the ramifications and will not proceed any further in that direction or anything comparable to it.,1 Seventy-two nations voted in favor of the resolution, 35 nations voted against approval, and there were 32 abstentions.,I do not, however, think that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations just because of the unwise action on this resolution. You can always do better trying to correct something from within than from without. We have no particular plans for any recriminatory action against any of those 32 nations. We just think they were very wrong.,Q. Thank you, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. There was some 70 nations--excuse me--that voted that way.,ENERGY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Ron Wilson, Georgia Network in Atlanta. What direction are you leaning in now on the energy compromise bill, and are you in favor of extending oil price controls?,THE PRESIDENT. The energy conference report was orally agreed to by the conferees, night before last. I had a 2-hour meeting with a number of the conferees last evening. A number of the conferees are uncertain as to some of the specifics.,I am reserving judgment on that legislation until the conferees put the agreements in writing in legislative form. And I am told they won't have that done for about a week.,I would hope we could have an energy bill that I could sign, but it would be very unwise for me to make a decision without having looked at and read and analyzed the specifics once the committee puts it in writing. But we hope to do that sometime next week.,OIL PRICE CONTROLS,[14.] Q. On oil price controls, are you in favor of extending those passed this Saturday?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the 30-day extension to give all of us more time-which the Senate has passed and which the House of Representatives probably will pass today--I think that is desirable just to give us 30 more days to analyze the Congressional action once they put it in writing. I will sign a 30-day extension.,GOVERNOR GEORGE WALLACE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Walt Smith, United Press International. How does the entry of Governor George Wallace into the Democratic race, his formal entry this week--how do you think that affects the Democratic race, and specifically, do you think that Governor Wallace will get a spot on the Democratic ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. I am really not an authority on what might or might not happen in the Democratic Party. I know, of course, that in 1972 he ran very well in my State. I think he will probably run very well in my State again in 1976. He will be a factor--that is perfectly obvious. Whether he will be on the ticket or not, I just don't think I am qualified to give you an answer.,Q. As a follow-up question, if he decided to go the third party route, do you think that that would have a definite effect upon the election? Could it throw it into the House of Representatives?,THE PRESIDENT. It is very possible. It almost did in 1968 when, I think, three or four States, if they had gone one way or another, differently, might have thrown it into the United States House of Representatives.,I think the impact of Governor Wallace running as a third party candidate depends somewhat upon the Democratic nominee, and we don't know that, of course. So, I don't think I should speculate until we get more information, one, as to whether Governor Wallace is going to be on the Democratic ticket; two, whether he will be a third party candidate; and, who the Democratic nominee will be. Those are uncertainties at the present time.,GASOLINE TAX,[16.] Q. I am Sally Lofton with Southeastern Newspapers. Governor George Busbee is attempting to convince Congress that the Federal Government should allow States to preempt a portion of Federal taxes on motor fuel. I just wanted to know what your position is on this.,THE PRESIDENT. I recommended to the Congress several months ago a proposed new highway act, and one of my recommendations was that the Congress should take off one of the cents that is now charged by the Federal Government in the gas tax and turn it over to the States. I think that would help the States to finance their share of highway construction. The Congress thus far has not acted on my recommendation. It .appears that Governor Busbee and myself agree in this regard.,TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NOMINATION,[17.] Q. Mr. President, I am Alma Bowen from the Times in Gainesville, Georgia. I wanted to ask you about the Tennessee Valley Authority. You have appointed a man on the Board of Directors who is from Mississippi, and I understand he is having problems, or there has been a delay in confirmation of this appointment in the Senate. And my question is, if this man is not confirmed, would you consider a man from Georgia, since some TVA lakes are located here and a lot of citizens up there want a representative from Georgia on the Board of Directors?,THE PRESIDENT. If Mr. Hooper is not confirmed for the TVA Board membership, I will certainly consider qualified individuals from any of the States that are affected by TVA, including Georgia.,PERSONNEL CHANGES IN THE ADMINISTRATION,[18.] Q. John Patrick, TV-5 News Scene, WAGA-TV. Mr. President, Time magazine this week was highly critical of your dismissals of Messrs. Schlesinger and Colby, labeling it bad management and subverting morale in many Government departments. Do you consider having your own team more important than the effect of another high-level change in your Administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the changes that I made, or have recommended, are constructive. I was pleased yesterday that the Senate Committee on Armed Services voted 16 to nothing to approve Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.,I think that is a good indication that he is a highly qualified man and will do a good job. I think George Bush will do the same in the CIA. I believe that Elliot Richardson later, when he replaces Rogers Morton, will be a highly qualified and a good appointee. I think these are all constructive, and I respectfully disagree with the conclusions as you state them.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan any other changes in your Administration very soon?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any Cabinet changes in mind. I think it is fairly well set.,But I would like to clarify one thing. Again, up in Raleigh, I was asked a question by one of the students relating to the Cabinet, and I said it was set. And then somebody raised a question, well, does this preclude Carla Hills, Bill Coleman, Ed Levi, and others from maybe being considered for a United States Supreme Court appointment.,I want to clarify it by saying that if I nominated any one of those three, I would think it was a promotion. So, it is in a different category than asking someone to resign from the Cabinet. That would be a promotion, and I would not say that I am precluding them from being considered for a Supreme Court appointment.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Charles Hayslett, with the Journal. Your remarks of a few moments ago suggested a healthy respect for Governor Wallace's political strength. Assuming you win your party's nomination, who would you rather face in the South---Governor Wallace or Governor Carter? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a very speculative, hypothetical question, as far as the Democratic nominee is concerned. So, I really don't think at this time I am qualified to give you an answer.,Q. Would you take a shot at it? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it is so speculative and so hypothetical that I don't really think I should answer it.,THE SOUTH AND THE 1976 ELECTION,[20.] Q. Mr. President, I am Tim Dobbs with WMAZ Radio and Television in Macon, Georgia. Continuing in the same vein of thought with my newspaper colleague there, there seems to be a great deal more emphasis being placed on the South in the early days of these campaign times, more Presidential candidates than we have seen in some time, more often--yourself, for instance, have been in Georgia three times this year. Do you feel that the South would possibly be a trigger or could be the region of the country which could be a deciding factor in the election?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I like Georgians and I like to come to Georgia. Furthermore, the South is a growing, burgeoning part of our country. It is, populationwise, a bigger percentage today than it has been, say, 20 or 30 years ago. It is more significant politically. Therefore, I think that is very understandable that more Presidential candidates are coming to Georgia and to other Southern States.,Q. A follow-up question: One of the Presidential candidates who has not yet said he is a Presidential candidate, Mr. Reagan, was asked about Southern strategy, and he said there is no such thing in his view as Southern strategy per se as far as the Presidential election is concerned. Do you agree with that?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no Southern strategy as such. I have been to, I think, 20-some, almost 30 States. I have traveled here as well as elsewhere in the South. I think it is important to visit as many of the States of the Union as possible. But as far as having a geographical thrust of my campaign, the answer is no. I want to prevail in all 50 States.,MR. MERRINER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Merriner. It is nice to see you all."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-11-03","text":"STATEMENT ANNOUNCING PERSONNEL CHANGES IN THE ADMINISTRATION,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good evening. I have several announcements to make tonight.,First, with respect to foreign policy and national security affairs: You will recall that when I became President a year ago last August, I indicated that I believed it was essential to guarantee stability and continuity in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. I made a conscious decision at that time not to change personnel in the important national security area. I have, however, made a number of significant changes in the Cabinet in the domestic area.,We have now successfully reassured our allies that the United States will stand firm in the face of any threat to our national interest and convinced potential adversaries that America will aggressively seek out ways to reduce the threat of war.,Therefore, I am tonight announcing several personnel changes which I believe will strengthen the Administration in the important area of national security affairs.,SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,I intend to nominate Donald Rumsfeld as my new Secretary of Defense. Don has served with distinction as a Congressman from Illinois, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, and as Ambassador to NATO. For the past year he has been my senior White House Assistant and a member of my Cabinet. He has the experience and skill needed to help our country maintain a defense capability second to none.,The Nation owes Secretary Schlesinger a deep debt of gratitude for his able service to his country as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Director of the CIA, and as Secretary of Defense.,ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS,Henry Kissinger has been serving with great distinction and success as Secretary of State and as my Assistant for National Security Affairs. Secretary Kissinger will relinquish his post as Assistant to the President to devote his full time to his important responsibilities as Secretary of State.,Brent Scowcroft, who has been serving ably for 3 years as Deputy Assistant at the White House, will move up to Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.,DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE,For the past year George Bush has been U.S. Representative to the People's Republic of China. He has served with great skill as a Congressman and as Ambassador to the United Nations. It is my intention to nominate Ambassador Bush to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.,The CIA is one of our Nation's most important institutions. In recent months it has been the focus of some controversy. During this difficult period, Bill Colby, as Director of the CIA, has done an outstanding job of working with the Congress to look into and to correct any abuses that may have occurred in the past, while maintaining an effective foreign intelligence capability.,ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT,Mr. Richard Cheney, who has been serving effectively as Deputy Assistant, will replace Don Rumsfeld as Assistant to the President and will take over his responsibilities for coordinating the White House staff.,SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,In a separate area, I have one additional personnel announcement to make.\nSome weeks ago, Secretary of Commerce Rogers Morton indicated to me that after the first of the year he would like to reduce the pace of his activities and resign his current position to return to the private sector.,Rog Morton has served with great distinction in the Congress, and in two Cabinet posts for the last 5 years. He has earned the respect of Americans everywhere. He has been a long and close personal friend. I am deeply grateful for his valuable service, and I will be calling on his assistance in the future.,Elliot Richardson will be nominated to become Secretary of Commerce. An able former Secretary of Defense, Secretary of HEW, and Attorney General, Mr. Richardson is presently serving as our Ambassador to Great Britain. I know he will do an important job in his new assignment.,I hope that the Senate will move rapidly to confirm my nominees for those positions which require confirmation.,Now, to the questions. Mr. Growald [Richard H. Growald, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[2.] Q. Thank you, Mr. President, for your rundown on the personnel changes. There has been one other personnel change, or a suggested change today. And I wonder, in your estimation, Mr. President, has the Vice President, by his action today, sacrificed himself on your political behalf, and have you in any way urged him to do so?,THE PRESIDENT. The decision by Vice President Rockefeller was a decision on his own. He made the decision and delivered to me personally the letter that has now been published.1,1 Earlier in the day the Vice President had presented a letter to the President at the White House. The text of the letter, dated November 3, 1975, and released by the Office of the Vice President, read as follows: Dear Mr.' President:,The time is virtually at hand when you will be firming up your program for the Presidential primaries, the Republican National Convention and the Presidential Campaign of 1976. Involving, as this must, difficult calculations, considerations and decisions, it will clearly help you in this task if the range of options is simplified at the earliest time.,As I have told you and the American people, I have been honored by your nomination of me as Vice President and by the approval of the Congress. In association with you in the months since that time, I have come to have the highest regard for your dedication to the Presidency and for your courage, resolution and forthrightness. Your friendship and that of Mrs. Ford mean much to Mrs. Rockefeller and myself.\n. My acceptance of the Vice Presidency, as you know, was based upon my concern to help restore national unity and confidence after the shattering experience of Watergate. Working under your leadership toward\nthis goal has been challenging and rewarding as our basic institutions are surmounting the unprecedented crisis and the nation is returning to its regular elective presidential pattern next year.,Regarding next year and my own situation, I have made clear to you and to the public that I was not a candidate for the Vice Presidency, that no one realistically can be such, and that the choice of a Vice Presidential running mate is, and must be, up to the Presidential candidate to recommend to a national party convention.,After much thought, I have decided further that I do not wish my name to enter into your consideration for the upcoming Republican Vice Presidential nominee. I wish you to know this now for your own planning. I shall, of course, continue to serve as Vice President to discharge my Constitutional obligations and to assist in ever? way I can in carrying on to cope with the problems that confront the nation until the installation once again of a President and Vice President duly elected by the people of this great Republic.\nSincerely yours,\nNELSON A. ROCKEFELLER,The Vice President has done a superb job and will continue to do so in the months ahead. But under no circumstances was it a request by me. It was a decision by him.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President. A follow-up question. Would you accept Governor Reagan or former Governor Connally as your running mate next year?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a long time, many months, to discuss and to think about that matter. I will give it my closest attention as to my running mate. But we have got lots of time, and we will think about all of those alternatives as we move ahead and try to do the business of the Government.,Q. Mr. President, have you any commitment in your conversations with Governor Rockefeller that he will support you in 1976, or might he conceivably go off and seek the job himself?,THE PRESIDENT. Vice President Rockefeller has assured me categorically that he will support me in 1976.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[3.] Q. Mr. President, we are told that not only have there been personnel changes in the area of foreign policy and national security matters but the decisionmaking process has been altered as well, that Secretary Kissinger now will have to share access to you on a regular basis with the new Defense Secretary and with Mr. Bush of CIA. That leaves a very strong impression that Secretary Kissinger's influence in both these fields has been substantially reduced. Is that a correct impression?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me state affirmatively that Secretary Kissinger has done a superb job as Secretary of State and as my Assistant for National Security Affairs. He will continue to handle the responsibilities of a foreign policy which I think has been not only successful but in the best interest of the United States.,There will be organizational changes, as I have indicated, and there will be closer liaison and cooperation as is necessary as we move ahead. But Secretary Kissinger will have the dominant role in the formulation of and the carrying out of foreign policy.,PERSONNEL CHANGES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us why Mr. Schlesinger and Mr. Colby did not fit on your new team?,THE PRESIDENT. I think any President has to have the opportunity to put together his own team. They were kept on when I assumed office because I wanted continuity. But any President, to do the job that is needed and necessary, has to have his own team in the area of foreign policy. I believe the team that I have assembled, as I have indicated tonight, will do a first-class job.,Q. Mr. President, there are reports, though, sir, that Secretary Schlesinger was in conflict with your attitude on detente and with Secretary Kissinger's. Can you address yourself to that?,THE PRESIDENT. There were no basic differences. I wanted the team that I selected. And as President I think it is important that a President have that kind of a team on an affirmative basis. And I have it in Secretary Kissinger and in Don Rumsfeld and Brent Scowcroft. I put it on the affirmative side that they are my choices and that we can work together effectively to carry out an effective foreign policy.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you have said many times that Vice President Rockefeller along with you made a team that was one you liked and that you said there was no reason to break up that team. What I want to know is, did you urge him not to withdraw from the race for the Vice-Presidential nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. The Vice President came to me and indicated that what he said in the letter was his decision, and I accepted it.,Q. One other question on the Vice-Presidential race. Does the nomination of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary and the nomination of Mr. Bush as CIA Director, does that eliminate them as Vice-Presidential running mate possibilities?,THE PRESIDENT. They are first-class public officials. They have important responsibilities. I don't think they are eliminated from consideration by anybody--the delegates to the convention or myself.,FOREIGN POLICY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, would you be more specific and tell us exactly how the appointment of Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush to their new posts will strengthen your team in the area of foreign affairs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have indicated that Ambassador Bush had been an Ambassador at the United Nations for 2 years. He has been in China for better than a year. He is a man of experience in public life as a Member of Congress. And Don Rumsfeld has had excellent service in the Congress. He has been in the White House for 14 months. He was in NATO. Don Rumsfeld has experience and the kind of working relationship with me that I think will be very helpful.,Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up, does this have any specific implication for policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I have indicated that in my judgment we have been very successful in the execution of foreign policy on behalf of the United States. We have achieved great success in the Middle East. We strengthened NATO. We have continued our relations on a good basis with the People's Republic of China. We are working with the Soviet Union in certain areas to relieve tension. The foreign policy of this country is in good hands. But I wanted a team that was my team, and this team of Kissinger and Rumsfeld, Bush and Scowcroft, gives to me the kind of team that I think can carry out and execute a continuing, successful foreign policy.,DETENTE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Schlesinger has expressed publicly some apprehension about detente. And I wonder if you can give us some assurance that the United States is getting at least as much out of it as the Soviet Union is?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me assure you that my record in the Congress and as Vice President and as President has been one of strength in national security affairs, in international relations. I believe that in our attempt to ease tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States, we have achieved a two-way street, and I believe that the policy that I will follow, the team that I have, will continue that policy in the future.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you expect, sir, that the Central Intelligence Agency, under Ambassador Bush's tenure, would continue to have the same relationship with the Congressional investigation as during Mr. Colby's period in office?,THE PRESIDENT. The Central Intelligence Agency will continue its policy of notifying the responsible committees in the Congress as to developments. They have done it in the past; they will continue it in the future. I can see no change in the relations of the Central Intelligence Agency with the Congress under Mr. Bush different from what they have been under Mr. Colby.,Q. Specifically, sir, as the Church committee continues its investigation, your instructions to Mr. Bush would be to cooperate fully with that investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. I have given that word to Mr. Colby. He has carried it out in a very responsible way, and Mr. Bush will continue that policy.\nMr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,PERSONNEL CHANGES,[9.] Q. Mr. President, how do you make a high-level personnel shift of this kind, such a fast shift? Did you ask for suggestions, or did you do this largely on your own?,THE PRESIDENT. I did it totally on my own. It was my decision. I fitted the pieces together, and they fitted excellently. It was my decision.,Q. With Mr. Rumsfeld, who is involved in your decision, would he have any input into the overall decision?,THE PRESIDENT. He did not.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[10.] Q. Could you tell us, Mr. President, when you and Mr. Rockefeller first discussed his withdrawal and what reasons he gave you for it other than what he stated in his letter?,THE PRESIDENT. The letter speaks for itself. I don't think I should amplify it. And the accompanying statement, which was agreed to between him and myself, indicates our personal views. I don't think we have to go beyond the letter or the joint statement. 2\nMr. Kole [John W. Kole, Milwaukee Journal].,2 The joint statement, as released by the Vice President's press office, read as follows:,The President and the Vice, President have a complete understanding between them regarding the Vice President's decision. The letter speaks for itself. The initiative was the Vice President's.,GEORGE BUSH AND DONALD RUMSFELD,[11.] Q. Mr. President, will these changes that you have made, do you feel, give you a more directly responsive intelligence community than you have had hitherto. In other words, do you feel your putting Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld in these two important positions gives you a more direct control over the intelligence community than it has been previously?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bush and Don Rumsfeld are long personal friends of mine. I have known of their fine record. I have an excellent relationship with them. I am certain that they will contribute very significantly. And these are my guys and the ones that I wanted. And I hope and trust that their confirmation will be quick in the United States Senate.,FURTHER PERSONNEL CHANGES,[12.] Q. Mr. President, when do you expect to fill the vacancies--the Ambassadorship vacancies--in London and in Peking. And do you plan any further changes is your campaign committee?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not addressed the questions of replacements for Mr. Bush or Mr. Richardson, and I have no specific changes in mind at the President Fort] Committee. In due time there will be a person to succeed David Packard.,Q. There will be no change at the top, sir--Mr. Callaway?,THE PRESIDENT. I have indicated what the changes are.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the Pentagon and Secretary Schlesiuger have been less than enthusiastic about the Administration's SALT policies. Can we expect to see an acceleration toward an agreement now that this power shift has occurred?,THE PRESIDENT. The Defense Department, Secretary Schlesinger and the others, were very forthcoming and very strong in endorsing the agreement that I reached at Vladivostok. They wholeheartedly agreed with the decisions that were reached there. We expect to continue to pursue, but not under any pressure, negotiations with the Soviet Union in strategic arms limitations. We have differences. But I think it is in the national interest for us to continue to work toward a SALT II agreement. But we are under no time pressure to do so.,Q. But you do see the possibilities for a second-stage agreement, then?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be in the national interest if we can get mutual concessions by the Soviet Union on the one hand and by us on the other.,NATIONAL DEFENSE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, if you were Mr. Brezhnev, how would you analyze the removal of an American Secretary of State who is known for his advocacy of a strong national defense, possibly a stronger national defense than his rivals in the bureaucracy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you misstated \"Secretary of State\" at the outset.,Q. Right.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say very emphatically there is no one in this Government more emphatic for a strong national defense and the maintenance of our own national security than myself, Secretary Kissinger, and Don Rumsfeld, and many others who I could mention by name. From the top on down, we believe in strong national defense. And we have sought to implement it, and we need some more help in the Congress. I won't speculate on what Mr. Brezhnev might feel concerning these changes.,Q. Have you possibly been in contact with him directly or indirectly to explain what they mean, to leave no misunderstanding on his part?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not.,PERSONNEL CHANGES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, with all due respect, sir, you have been talking about your desire to make your own team, but in fact, you have replaced half the team and you haven't replaced the other half. Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Scowcroft are really part of someone else's team whom you have elected to keep. It seems to me that you really haven't answered the question: What did Secretary Schlesinger do wrong that you didn't like?,THE PRESIDENT. I have affirmatively answered the question by saying that I wanted my own team, and I am keeping Secretary Kissinger because I think he has done an outstanding job in the field of foreign policy.,I wanted a change in the Defense Department because I wanted, in that case, a person that I have known and worked with intimately for a long period of time, a person who is experienced in the field of foreign policy and who served in the Department of Defense as a naval aviator. The President has the right and I believe ought to have the team with him that he wants to carry out the policies in the national interest. And the team I have selected will do so.,RONALD REAGAN,[16.] Q. Mr. President, how worried are you about Ronald Reagan? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I am not worried about any competitor, Democratic or Republican.,PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL,[17.] Q. Much of the criticism of your travel has been directed at the idea that you are greatly concerned about a challenge from your right, and that is why you have been to California three times. I was wondering if you feel that criticism is justified?,THE PRESIDENT. It's ridiculous.\nYes, Tom [Thomas M. DeFrank, Newsweek].,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that the China trip is being reduced from a possible 5 or 6 days in China to 3 or possibly 4 days. Is that so, and if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. For a long period of time, Mr. DeFrank, we have had tentative plans to visit the People's Republic of China. Secretary Kissinger was there several weeks ago. As far as we are concerned, those trip plans are still on, and the length of the trip will be decided in the negotiations between Secretary Kissinger and the Foreign Minister of the People's Republic. And I don't think there is any significance in the areas that you have raised.,Q. Mr. President, hasn't there been a good deal of debate between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Rumsfeld and others about the advisability of adding stops to that trip. And haven't the Chinese indicated that they would not be particularly happy if you did add some stops to that trip?,THE PRESIDENT. As far as I know, the answer to your question is no.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[19.] Q. Several Members of the Senate are concerned that Secretary Kissinger will still have total domination of foreign policy in part because your national security adviser, General Scowcroft, is regarded as a Kissinger man. Now how do you answer that criticism?,THE PRESIDENT. I have known Brent Scowcroft intimately for the last 14 months. I have been tremendously impressed with his experience and capabilities. I know that he speaks an independent mind. I know it personally. So, I don't think that criticism is valid.,Q. Can you explain what you mean when you say that Secretary Kissinger will have a dominant role in the foreign policy sector?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, a Secretary of State--that's his responsibility.,Q. In a military role, will Mr. Rumsfeld have the dominant role?,THE PRESIDENT. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense.,NEW YORK CITY,[20.] Q. Mr. President, on another subject, if I may, sir, are you still convinced, sir, that the city of New York does not have to default? And if so, do you plan to call Mayor Beame and Governor Carey here to tell them your reasons--the reasons why you think New York can avoid default?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that New York City can avoid default. They can take stronger action than they have taken. I believe the State of New York can take stronger action to be of assistance to the city of New York. This is a matter that can be, with forthright action, taken care of in the city or the city with the cooperation of the State. I hope they will, and if they don't, I believe then the proper action to be taken is that which I publicly stated last Wednesday.,Q. Mr. President, in the event that they do not, Mr. President, are you still convinced that there will be no domino effect on the American and the world financial markets?,THE PRESIDENT. Absolutely. I have verified that with a number of experts within and without the Government. And there is no probability, no serious probability that there will be any national repercussions. And I am convinced that the market has already discounted the possibility of any financial in New York City. And I think the actions of the last 3 or 4 days verify that correct assumption.,SENATOR HUGH SCOTT,[21.] Q. Mr. President, there are persistent reports that Hugh Scott is under consideration for appointment to Peking. Can you say if you are thinking about him?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said a moment ago, we haven't thought about replacements for George Bush and Elliot Richardson. I can say this, that Hugh Scott is a great student of Chinese culture and history. He has been to China on a number of occasions. But I have not had an opportunity to focus in on the replacement for Mr. Bush.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[22.] Q. Mr. President, did Vice President Rockefeller decide to step aside either because of differing views with you over the New York financial situation or to give you a greater degree of maneuverability as you move politically toward the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. Our differences over the handling of New York City are minimal, as I said once before. The difference is his interpretation of what might be the money market reaction if and when New York City defaults. Those differences are a matter of judgment. Certainly he did not take the action that he did because of that difference.,I think the letter speaks for itself and I greatly respect his judgment in all matters. And I have been proud to have him on the team, and he will continue to do a first-class job in many important responsibilities.,Q. Mr. President, does that mean, sir, that he did decide to step aside in order to give you a greater degree of maneuverability? The letter does not explain why he decided to step aside.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that he will have to answer that. I think the letter in effect answers your question. But if you want to pursue it further, you should do it with him.,PERSONNEL CHANGES,[23.] Q. Mr. President, we were told this morning after your meeting with Mr. Rockefeller that you were in an exceptionally good mood. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. [ have been in a good mood all day.,Q. I suggest perhaps a feeling of relief. I wonder if you could tell us in your own words what your feelings are now and were then?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the decisions that I have made and the announcements that I have made officially give to me the people and the team and organizational structure to continue to carry out an affirmative, successful foreign policy on a global basis and to keep our national security forces second to none. I, therefore, feel very pleased with the acceptance on the part of individuals for these new responsibilities. They are important, not for me, but primarily for the country.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[24.] Q. Mr. President, you recently have had two resignations--,THE PRESIDENT. Now, don't make a speech, Wally [Walter Rodgers, Associated Press Radio]. [Laughter],Q. No, sir. You recently have had two resignations from your campaign committee, and some of your aides have said you are having problems in your primary organization, especially in New Hampshire and perhaps Florida. I was wondering, is your campaign in trouble?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is. I was in Florida yesterday and talked to Lou Frey. He is very encouraged. We have some very encouraging news about the organization in New Hampshire. I am very happy about it.,Q. Could you tell me, please, the basis for your optimism going into the election year? Why are you confident that you will not only be your party's nominee, beating Reagan, and why you will beat the Democrats?,THE PRESIDENT. You couldn't have asked a better question, Wally. I am happy and I am optimistic about the nomination and the election because I am convinced the American people feel that we have been successful in foreign policy--the Middle East, Europe, et cetera. I am convinced that we are well on the road to a good economic situation in 1976. So, when you combine peace and prosperity, any incumbent President ought to be very happy.,PRESIDENT SADAT OF EGYPT,[25.] Q. Mr. President, you will be concluding talks with Egyptian President Sadat on Wednesday. Can you tell us whether the President will be going home with a commitment--or what he thinks is a commitment--for future military aid for his country?,THE PRESIDENT. The final decisions in these areas will be made on Wednesday and properly announced. We have had very successful negotiations, but I think it is premature for me to make any announcement at this time on those matters.,VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE,[26.] Q. Mr. President, with Vice President Rockefeller out of the picture for 1976, you have indicated that you don't want to give us a name tonight, but maybe you will give us some kind of an idea as to what kind of qualities you will be looking for in your Vice-Presidential running mate. Specifically, are there any parameters with regard to age, political philosophy, what region of the country he comes from? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. There will be plenty of time for me to think about and discuss with others the answer to the question that you have asked, and it is certainly premature for me to make any comment at this time in that very important area.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[27.] Q. Mr. President, in addition to the differences you mentioned between yourself and Vice President Rockefeller, did he talk to you at all about the effect of your position against aid to New York and other cities on your campaign for next year?,THE PRESIDENT. He has not.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[28.] Q. Mr. President, you gave no indication of exactly what you were unhappy with in terms of the dual roles of Secretary Kissinger. He has stated publicly that he considers those dual roles of great importance to the execution of foreign policy.,THE PRESIDENT. I indicated that the team I put together will affirmatively satisfy the way I want an organizational structure set up. That is the way I wanted it, that is the way it is, and I think it will work effectively.,Q. Another question in that regard, Mr. President. There have been charges that the Secretary is stretched too thin or that by having the dual roles he is able to have an undue influence over the course of foreign policy. Were those problems?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't like to answer speculative comments or rumors. I have done what I did because I, as President, wanted the organization and the people that I have selected. That is the answer to the question.,PERSONNEL CHANGES,[29.] Q. Mr. President, why has it taken you 15 months to form your team and set up your structure in national security and foreign affairs?,THE PRESIDENT. I felt it was very important at the outset because of the unusual circumstances under which I became President to have continuity, to have stability in the area of national security and foreign policy. That was absolutely essential. And as a result of that we continued a successful foreign policy.,As time went on I felt that in this area once we had confirmed with our allies our assurances, once we had confirmed with our potential adversaries that we were in a position to continue a relaxation of tensions, that then I could select, without any rupture of those relations, the kind of people, the individuals that I wanted to work with very, very intimately. And I have so selected.,Q. To follow up with a slightly repetitious question: Are you saying and intending to be understood to say that neither personal nor policy differences between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Schlesinger contributed to this change?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.\nFRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-10-10","text":"STATEMENT ON GRAIN SALES TO POLAND AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS,Thank you very much, Mr. Barnes, members of the Detroit Press Club, and guests:,[1.] A very short announcement at the outset:,As most of you know, the United States had requested last month that the Government of Poland refrain from additional purchases of U.S. grain until the October crop report. Because today's crop report contains, as we expected, an excellent crop forecast, I have today authorized that Poland be notified that it may now resume purchases. We anticipate that their purchases will be spread out over a period of time. With respect to future grain sales to the Soviet Union, both for this year's crop and for the long-term contract, negotiations are continuing, and we hope to conclude an agreement in the very near future.,Secretary Butz will be holding a briefing in Washington at 4:30 p.m., going over the crop report and the Polish grain sale.,With that announcement, the first question from Mr. Clark Hallas [Detroit News].,QUESTIONS,MICHIGAN GOVERNOR WILLIAM MILLIKEN,[2.] Q. Mr. President, have you urged Governor Milliken to run for the Senate seat to be vacated by Senator Hart?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not urged Governor Milliken to run for the Senate seat. Governor Milliken, I think, has to make that judgment or that decision himself.,There are already some announced, or tentatively announced, candidates, and it seems to me that that is a decision for the Governor to make. He knows the situation better than I.,Q. Would you welcome his entry into the race?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Governor Milliken has been an outstanding Governor. I think the State of Michigan has been most fortunate to have him as our Governor. But I think this is a decision that Bill ought to make himself, and I ought not to get involved.,Q. May I ask you one more question?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,DETROIT,[3.] Q. Has your Administration, or does your Administration plan to take any action soon on the \"Move Detroit Forward\" plan?,THE PRESIDENT. We have directed every Federal agency that would have any relationship to the \"Move Detroit Forward\" program to cooperate to the maximum, and there are a number of Federal agencies that do have money under their various categorical and block grant programs.,At the moment, I don't think it is feasible to go beyond what they can do within appropriations, and if they do that, there will be a substantial amount of money made available. And we are doing it as expeditiously as possible. But at this time, I don't think we should make any commitments beyond what is authorized in the various appropriation acts.,GENERAL SECRETARY BREZHNEV OF THE SOVIET UNION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, with each passing week it would appear that the prospects for a Washington summit this year with Chairman Brezhnev become dimmer and dimmer, and I wondered if you could offer us any evidence to the contrary?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been in contact, of course, with the Soviet Union. In fact, our technical negotiators are trying to work out some of the answers to the various technical problems that have really been resolved and we are in agreement on.,There are some differences. We are continuing to explore ways to reconcile those differences. But at this moment, we are not in a position to make any announcement as to a set time when such a meeting between Mr. Brezhnev and myself will be held.,FEDERAL TAXES AND SPENDING,[5.] Q. Jim Harrington, WXYZ-TV. Mr. President, the Democrats in the Congress and the leaders have challenged you to be specific about what cuts you would make to match that tax cut. Could you enumerate some programs that you think could stand some trimming, and would, of necessity, aid to cities like Detroit be included?,THE PRESIDENT. I had the Office of Management and Budget put together for me, over a period of several months, areas in the Federal budget where we might make some reductions, and they submitted to me a book about that thick. And there are many more options than the $28 billion that I think ought to be cut out of the growth of Federal spending--and I emphasize \"growth,\" because even with a $28 billion reduction, it means that there will be an increase over the anticipated expenditures for this fiscal year of roughly $23 to $25 billion.,So, it is not a cutback in actuality, it is a cutback in growth. And we have a number of target areas, and I am going to analyze those and find a sufficient number to come within the $28 billion reduction so we can have a comparable tax cut. But let me give you several just as examples.,I believe that the food stamp program can be substantially reduced. There are many, many illustrations of abuse--many, many illustrations where people have been paid where they didn't really qualify. The error rate is very high. I am going to submit as soon as Congress comes back from their fourth or fifth recess--[laughter]--reductions at least that will save a billion dollars in this area.,Now, in addition, we think that there are some areas in the medical field again where there have been many, many abuses. Costs have escalated unbelievably in the medical field where the Federal Government makes payments. We think that there can be a tightening up in this area. Those are two, I think, very good illustrations where I think there can be a cutback in the growth of Federal spending.,Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], how are you today?,GUN CONTROL,[6.] Q. I think we can both remember a time when this city was not known for its homicide rate. And recently the head of the Secret Service and several police chiefs of metropolitan areas have testified that if there was a total ban on the manufacture, sale, and use of handguns across the board that crime would be really seriously reduced. At what point do you think you could ever come to this kind of thinking?,THE PRESIDENT. Helen, as soon as I am convinced that the gun itself is the culprit. In actuality, it is the person who uses the gun that causes the trouble. What we have to do is to make certain that the people who use the gun are punished. And if you will recall from the crime message that I submitted to the Congress several months ago,1 we provided for stricter legislation so that a person using a gun in an attempt or in the actual committing of a crime, that person had a mandatory sentence and went to jail. This is the way, in my opinion, to prevent the illegal use of guns and not penalize the people who are collectors or individuals who properly use guns.,1 See Item 341.,I have not yet been convinced that the gun is the culprit. It is the person who uses the gun that ought to be punished for illegal purposes.,Q. And you don't think that there is an undue proliferation of guns in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. I did recommend that we ought to make it much more difficult to obtain what we call \"Saturday night specials.\" There is, under existing law, a prohibition against the importation of Saturday night specials. Under the legislation that I recommended, it prohibits within the United States the assembly or manufacture of Saturday night specials--these are the cheap handguns. If we do that, that will significantly help in the problem that we are talking about.,JIMMY HOFFA,[7.] Q. Mr. President, more than 3 months ago Jimmy Hoffa 2 disappeared without much more than a trace by tracking dogs. Are you satisfied with the investigation by Federal agencies into that case, or would you prefer a special select Congressional committee to look into that, into Teamster pension funds and mob connections with unions?,THE PRESIDENT. The Attorney General, who is an outstanding member of the Cabinet, the Department of Justice, and the FBI are doing a maximum job in investigating any Federal relationship as far as the disappearance of Mr. Hoffa is concerned. I have full faith in the Attorney General, Department of Justice, and in the FBI, and where there is any Federal connection, I can assure you they will continue tracking every possible lead maximizing their effort.,2 Former president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,This is a very strange case. I don't see how any Congressional committee can undertake any criminal investigation. That is not the function or the responsibility of a Congressional committee, and I think we ought to leave that responsibility with the appropriate agencies in the executive branch of the Government where the Attorney General and others have taken their oath of office to handle matters of this sort.,I can think of one recent case where, after a period of some 19 months, they finally found the individual that they were seeking to find, and apparently, in this case the problem is very difficult. But I have full faith in the ability of those who have that responsibility.,LABOR UNIONS,[8.] Q. A followup question, and elaborate on it.,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. Would you like to see something similar to the McClellan committee back in the fifties look into reports of mob connections specifically with the Teamsters or other unions?,THE PRESIDENT. That, of course, is a responsibility of the Congress itself, the Senate, in the case as it was back in the fifties. They could do it now if they wanted to.,If you are referring to allegations that I have heard about or read about concerning the Teamster pension fund and any relation to that and how it has been handled, the Congress passed last year, I believe I signed into law a pension reform act. 3 And under that legislation, the executive branch of the Government has the full right to make any investigations.,3 See 1974 volume, Items 45 and 46.,Under that legislation, those who handle the pension funds have to make very specific reports on a very short-term or periodic time, and it seems to me that in that area it is the responsibility of the Department of Labor to investigate that aspect of this particular case.,Q. Is that being done, sir, or do you know?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure it is.,MICHIGAN-MICHIGAN STATE FOOTBALL GAME,[9.] Q. What is your prediction on the game in Lansing tomorrow? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are both my friends, and I like my friends. [Laughter],FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I notice that former President Nixon is back in circulation with his old friends. I am wondering, given that, if you have talked to him, plan to talk to him, one; plan to see him; or if, given his interest, his expressed interest in foreign affairs, there might be a place in your Administration for him?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I am delighted to see that former President Nixon is apparently much better, feeling well. I talked to him when I was in California several weeks ago on the telephone. He sounded better on the phone at that time, and I am very happy that his health is apparently much, much better.,I have had no request from him to participate in any way in the handling of foreign affairs. I have had no request from him to participate in the campaign. As I have said on several occasions, I run my own campaign on my own record, and I expect to do that in 1976. And as President, I expect to conduct or handle foreign affairs as a President should, in conjunction with the recommendations of the Secretary of State.,Q. If he should request to serve you in some way, would you entertain that notion?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I should speculate on something of that kind. He hasn't done it, and I have seen no indication that he might.,DETROIT HOUSING,[11.] Q. Terry Murphy, WJBK-TV. Detroit, Mr. President, has more HUD homes than any other city in the country, yet thousands of them are abandoned and rotting away. Other than Carla Hills' promised tour of this city, what else are you going to do to put people into these homes and clean up the mess?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my understanding that the Secretary of HUD has worked out an arrangement with the city officials and with the State officials, under Governor Milliken, to have a joint effort with the Federal Government committing $5 million to purchase and rehabilitate a thousand of these homes out of roughly 14,900, as I recollect.,This is a good example of what the Federal Government, in partnership with State and local units of government, can do with these homes, where the homes have been foreclosed and the Federal Government has jurisdiction.,If we find that this program, which I understand is to be implemented in the northwest part of Detroit, works, then I would hope we can expand it in the months ahead.,Q. The program's still run, though, by the Federal Government, rather than State and local officials, because I know--,THE PRESIDENT. As I understand it, it is a partnership arrangement. I can't tell you who actually has the specific jurisdiction, but it is a partnership where the Federal Government not only has the legal title under foreclosure of the homes but the Federal Government is putting up $3 million this year and $2 million next year for the rehabilitation of a thousand homes. And I understand they are in the process of actually implementing the program for about 250 right at the present time.,GRAIN SALES TO THE SOVIET UNION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I am wondering why you removed the embargo on the Poles and not the Russians? You said the crop report, after all, was excellent, but you said you have got to go ahead now with the Russian grain deal, you have got to have negotiations on that. The farmers would like to go ahead and get this money now and worry about a long-term, 5-year grain deal later. Why don't you just go ahead and remove the embargo now?,THE PRESIDENT. It is very important to negotiate, and you can negotiate from strength, I think, if we make certain, make positive, that we get a long-term agreement which is in our best interest in return for additional sales to the Soviet Union on the crops that they want to buy in 1975.,It is a very simple explanation. We have the grain, we want a 5-year or longer term, and we want good arrangements. I think we are coming very close, we are working very hard at it. And I think we are probably going to have some results.,But it is just a matter of good old Yankee trader actions--and the Yankee traders did pretty well for a long time in this country. I just think we ought to handle it that way rather than to be too soft or not a tough negotiator.,Q. Well, in all this tough trading, are you going to make your mid-October deadline, and also, are you horsetrading for oil? Are you holding out for that?,THE PRESIDENT. We are discussing a potential oil deal that will have some favorable aspects, if it is negotiated. As far as we are concerned, that is a little more difficult. In that case, they have the commodity and we want it. So, they have somewhat better bargaining position in that case than we.,So, as I said a moment ago, we are trying to be good, hard-nosed Yankee traders. And when we end up with an arrangement or a negotiated agreement, I can assure you that the United States will do as well in the areas where we want help, and I think we have to expect that they will do well in those areas where they have an interest.,Q. And that October 15 deadline?\nTHE PRESIDENT. The October 15 deadline--it is within the realm of possibility.,ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Bill Willoughby, Royal Oak Tribune. How does the proposed energy research corporation fit into the $395 billion spending ceiling you proposed?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, you have to understand that the energy independence authority is a 10-year project, and it requires a utilization of the Federal Treasury at a very, very slow pace. In fact, in fiscal year 1977, which is the fiscal year where I think they ought to set a $395 billion ceiling, the amount of money that would be withdrawn from the Federal Treasury is minimal.,So, it really has a very insignificant impact on fiscal year 1977, which is where I recommend that the Congress establish a $395 billion spending limit.,Now, in the years after that, there will be a drawdown on the Federal Treasury, but I hasten to point out that we expect the EIA to end up being a moneymaking proposition from the point of view of the Federal Treasury.,It is a drawdown in 1 year, and over the 10-year period, we expect Uncle Sam to get all, or virtually all of his money back. And in addition, the EIA will help us significantly in the development of what we call synthetic fuels or exotic fuels, where at the present time private enterprise isn't willing to take the gamble or make the risk. But nevertheless, I am convinced in some of these areas--solar energy, synthetic fuels, and other areas--this is the only way we can do it.,And therefore, I think it is a good program, .and I repeat, it will have a minimal, insignificant effect in fiscal 1977 when the $395 billion ceiling is established.,Q. Why is private enterprise not willing to take the risk?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you can use one or two other comparisons. Back in World War II, when we were cut off from our rubber supplies, the natural rubber supplies, the Federal Government had to go in and develop a synthetic rubber-producing capability.,At that time, private enterprise thought the research had not gone far enough, and the need was so great that private capital was not in a position to undertake such a mammoth operation. So, the Federal Government did. And after the war, as you may recall, after the process had been developed and was a going concern, the Federal Government sold those synthetic rubber plants to private enterprise and made a profit out of them. This is the same concept we are talking about with EIA.,PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the apparent success of the negotiations with the Soviet Union involving their oil and our grain, are you contemplating or planning similar discussions with the People's Republic of China on their oil reserves and our grain either here or when you go to Peking?,THE PRESIDENT. The agenda for the prospective trip to the People's Republic has not yet been established. Secretary Kissinger is leaving for the People's Republic within the next week or 10 days, as I recall. Until he comes back with the agenda, I don't think I am in a position to say what it might be.,I caution you--you used one word, Saul [Saul Kohler, Newhouse News Service], that--I think it is going to work, but you were a little overly optimistic in relationship to grain and oil. All I can say is I am optimistic. But we are dealing with some tough traders, and I don't want to create the impression that it is all signed on the dotted line, because we have got some things we want to get and they, in return, want some things that they want. And until the ink is dry on it, we're not going to make any announcement.,AID TO CITIES,[15.] Q. You said last night that the Federal Government cannot afford to bail out the big cities, mainly New York City. Treasury Secretary Simon and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Burns have suggested that maybe New York State might impose some taxes for 1-, 2-, or 3-year periods to help out New York City. Can States really afford to help out these floundering big cities, or can they afford not to?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hesitate to pass judgment on the fiscal capability of any State. I don't pretend to be an expert on State financing. But I have watched with considerable interest what has been happening in New York City and its relationship to the State of New York.,A month or two ago the State of New York took some action, not raising any additional taxes to help New York State [City] out, but to rearrange some borrowing. And one of the requirements was that the city of New York had to present a valid plan showing that they had straightened out their financial mess, that they had a plan that would lead them out of this terrible fiscal situation they are in. I was naturally disappointed to find that this State group or board that they established turned back Mayor Beame's tentative proposal--said it was insufficient, they hadn't done enough.,I think that is a good role for the State, and a State ought to put responsibility, and if after the State has made an honest effort to balance their fiscal situation, to take whatever hard choices they have to make, I think the next step is for a State to assist, if they have to, in whatever legitimate way there is. I have still the same reservations I had before that the Federal Government should police the fiscal management of all of the cities in this country. I don't believe that we should decide at Washington whether a city has run its fiscal affairs properly. That is a role for the State governments, not a role for the Federal Government.,Q. You get some pretty big cities, though, that control an awful lot of money and corporations having their headquarters in these cities. If they die, there is going to be some problems.,THE PRESIDENT. There is no reason why they should die. Let's take the city of New York. Their annual budget is roughly $12.2 billion. The Federal Government today contributes $3,400 million to New York City's total revenue, roughly 25 percent. It would seem to me that a city with good management could find a way to supply the rest of the revenue. And we do almost the same thing to most cities. But in the case of New York, I know precisely what the facts are. And the city has some responsibility. And if we start managing--what is it, 10,000 cities throughout the country--I think that is the wrong role and responsibility for the Federal Government. The people who vote in New York City ought to elect the kind of people to public office who will handle their local taxes and the money that comes from the Federal Government properly. And if they don't elect those people, I don't see why that burden should fall on the other 200-and-some million people all over the United States.,Q. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Barnes [Fred Barnes, Washington Star].,THE CONGRESS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you have said several times that you don't intend to make Congress the main target in your campaign for election in 1976, but today your Press Secretary, Ron Nessen, said you are now referring to Congress as the \"Can't Do Congress,\" and that sounds very much like a campaign slogan to me. And I wonder if you have changed your plans and now plan to make Congress the whipping boy in your campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am just being objective about their record. [Laughter] And I casually said at our meeting this morning with Mr. Nessen--we were ticking off the things that Congress hasn't done--and I casually said, \"That sounds like a 'Can't Do Congress.'\",What haven't they done? They haven't passed an energy program, and I recommended it to them in January of 1975--9 months. They first said, \"Give us 60 days and we will pass it,\" and then they said, \"A few more months and we will pass something, another few months.\" It has been 9 months, and they haven't passed an energy bill. Apparently, they can't do it.,After I announced the $28 billion tax reduction and a $28 billion cutback in the growth of Federal spending, all I heard from Congress was, \"We can't do it. The rules of the Congress won't permit us to do it.\",And then they had a lot of other alibis. Well, their plaintive plea was, \"We can't do it.\" Now I cited, as you know, Mr. Barnes, last night two instances-one in 1967, one in 1968--where those Congresses did do it. And all they have to do is go back and look at the history books, the Congressional Record, and they will find it can be done. And I hasten to add, and very seriously, this Congress is called, or was called, a reform Congress. They reformed a lot of other rules.,Now, it would seem to me to satisfy the legitimate desires of the American people that they get a $28 billion tax reduction and get a reduction in the growth of Federal spending, that this Congress of 535 elected people ought to find a way in the parliamentary situation to respond to the desires of the American people. It takes a little imagination. It takes a little effort. Instead of whining and whimpering, as Ron Nessen said, they ought to get out there and do the job.,Q. Is that a slogan you are going to be using though, about a \"Can't Do Congress\"? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, as soon as they pass a tax reduction of $28 billion and a reduction in spending growth of $28 billion, we will stop using the term.,SCHOOL BUSING,[17.] Q. Mr. President, the name is Mitch Kehetian of the Macomb Daily. In our county and in counties across this State and Nation, again we have local elections coming up next month. And again the local candidates are talking about forced busing. Others say it is rhetoric. But just several weeks ago you yourself reaffirmed your position opposed to forced busing.,We hear it in Congress, we hear it on Capitol Hill, we hear it in Lansing, we hear it in Macomb County, Oakland County, yet the buses keep rolling and the judges keep ordering more buses. Could you tell me what I can go back and tell our readers in Macomb County as to what the truth is on the question of busing? Is it rhetoric, or are they coming?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have a Constitution, and the courts have the obligation to interpret the Constitution. And the Court, back in 1954, made the basic decision which, in effect, has precipitated the numerous court decisions that result in court-ordered forced busing to achieve racial balance in public school systems.,They allege that this is the way that the courts ought to achieve quality education. I strongly, vehemently disagree with the Court's decision, based on the Constitution, as the best way to achieve quality education. I have had that view for 10 years or more.,Now, until the courts decide that there is a better way to achieve quality education under their interpretation of the Constitution, there is nothing that a President can do, there is nothing that the Congress can do, except what the Congress did a year ago under the leadership of Congressman Marv Esch, who introduced an amendment in the House of Representatives, which was passed and approved in both the House and the Senate, which listed seven or eight steps to achieve the constitutional handling of how to achieve quality education, and the last of that criteria was busing.,Unfortunately, few courts, few Federal courts, have followed the guidelines of the Esch amendment. I wish they would. But until the Court either uses that criteria or changes their way in which they want to constitutionally achieve quality education, there is nothing a President can do, and not much more that a Member of the House or Senate can do.,I think it is deplorable, I think it is the wrong answer, and I just hope that the judges will use in their wisdom a way to find a better answer to what is going on at the present time.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Don [Don Irwin, Los Angeles Times], how are you?,FEDERAL SPENDING,[18.] Q. Mr. President, when you spoke, sir, of Congress using its imagination in developing a way to respond to your tax cut proposal, did you have in mind the possibility of a nonbinding resolution that would set them on a course as an interim step?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Irwin, I have no intention of recommending a nonbinding resolution establishing a spending ceiling of $395 billion, which is $25 billion above what the ending figure is for the present fiscal year. I want the Congress to put a little meat on the bone. I want the Congress to do something in a meaningful way.,And Congressman Del Latta of Ohio, a very senior Member of the House of Representatives, introduced day before yesterday a resolution which is a binding resolution. And I hope and trust that when the Congress returns, they will approve the Latta amendment, or the Latta resolution, which does put a firm ceiling of $395 billion, which is roughly $25 billion more than we will spend in this fiscal year, but $28 billion less than the projected spending for the next fiscal year. I want something meaningful, not a lot of verbiage.,FOOD STAMP PROGRAM,[19.] Q. Terri Jones, WJPR-TV. Mr. President, families in Detroit and around Michigan are still suffering from massive layoffs. There is a bill that is currently under consideration, bill H.R. 7887, that would give food stamp applicants food stamps immediately upon application without waiting for the qualifying period, and then if found ineligible, they would be cut off. What is your reaction to that bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that there should be a determination as to a person's qualification. There is too much room for abuse. That program has had more abuses per capita than any other welfare or any other program that I am familiar with in the Federal Government.,Under the proposal that I am going to submit when Congress returns, it will add benefits to the people who need food stamps, but it will take a substantial amount away from, or eliminate a lot of people who don't need food stamps. And the net result will be a minimum reduction in the overall cost of about a billionplus dollars.,Speaking of the food stamp program, 5 or 6 years ago, when it got started, it cost about $30 million a year. The present cost on an annual basis of the food stamp program today is almost $7 billion. It has had the greatest growth in dollars of any program in the Federal Government in the last few years, because they have had too many abuses, and the program you speak of, in my opinion, opens the door to more abuse.,People who should qualify can qualify and can get the benefits, I think, expeditiously, and even under that present setup, the abuses are horrendous. So, I think we ought to tie it down, give more to the needy and less to those that shouldn't qualify.,RONALD REAGAN,[20.] Q. Mr. President, I have a two-part question involving Governor Reagan. There are some reports in the past few weeks that are confusing. One report one time will say that you have managed to blunt Governor Reagan's conservative attempt, and then a few days later we have a report that your campaign organization is in disarray and that your people are really worried about Governor Reagan. I would like to know if you are really worried about Governor Reagan challenging you for the Presidential nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. Phil [Phil Jones, CBS News], I am not worried about any Democrat or any Republican competitor. I expect to be nominated, and I think the prospects are excellent to be elected President in 1976. And I don't sit around worrying about any competitor, whether it is Republican or Democrat.,We are going to run our own campaign. I think we will have a good record to run on, in foreign policy and domestic policy, and I will take my chances on that record. And I am not going to worry about what some other candidate does, whether it is a Republican candidate or any one of 20 Democrats.,Q. Senator Goldwater has been quoted as saying that he might support Governor Reagan for the nomination rather than you. What is our reaction to this, or do you think it will have any effect on your nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Goldwater is a very close, personal friend of mine. I admire his record in the Senate. I saw the report. It is a newspaper story. I have heard nothing--,Q. What do you mean by that? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, it speaks for itself--[laughter]--and until I hear that there is a change from what I think the attitude is of Barry Goldwater, I am not going to comment about it.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[21.] Q. Mr. President, Dennis Pajot of the Oakland Press. Back here, we hear a lot of concern about unemployment and a lot of talk about your record of unemployment as the election year comes up. And we understand that one proposal by Congress to address unemployment would be to increase Federal funding for public works. I was wondering if you would veto such a program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if you are talking about the $5 billion program, which I understand is somewhere in the House of Representatives, based on what we know about those kinds of programs in past years of economic disability or difficulty, I believe that it is uneconomical, it won't solve the unemployment problem, and the probability is I would veto it.,We find--and this has been done historically--that if you have unemployment in one year and you take the kind of program you are talking about and approve it, you are out of the recession or you are over your economic difficulties before you put any number of people back to work.,It just takes a long time. If we are going to do anything, I think, in this area, I think we ought to expedite our highway construction program, our water and sewer pollution programs, which are going programs that are in the mill. But to take the program I think you are referring to, I think the help would come much too late and it wouldn't provide for the kind of meaningful things that we could get from EPA.,Q. Is that just that program or any Federal funding for public works?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if you will recall, back early this [last] fall I met with 10 or 12 Governors, and at their request, I did approve an extra allowance of $2 billion for highway projects that could be initiated by June 30.,That program was in a going program where they had projects that were ready for contracts to be let. I did that. We have been trying to expedite the Environmental Protection Agency programs for water and sewer projects.,Those are the kind of projects that have specific meaning and can be gotten underway quickly, rather than pulling projects out of a grab-bag, which I understand is what that legislation involves that I believe you mentioned.,TAX PROGRAM,[22.] Q. Mr. President, you said last night that the tax program had as one of its central purposes, if I understood you correctly, building more equity into the tax system as it applies to individuals. If that is the case, would you explain why it is equitable to give a tax cut of slightly more than. $300 to people with incomes of $50,000, and to take away the tax credit of $300 for those whose incomes are $5,000 or less?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what you are talking about, Mr. Naughton [James Naughton, New York Times], is that in the 1975 tax act, Senator Russell Long got the Senate to approve what is called an earned income credit, and this is, in effect--that was not a tax reduction. It was paying people who didn't pay taxes, so that it was not a tax reduction--they weren't paying taxes anyhow.,What my proposal does is to treat that group of taxpayers just like all other taxpayers. They don't pay any more taxes, and the amount that is going to a well-off person is roughly the same in my proposal as it was in the 1975 tax act.,But where we would provide equity, we give a larger tax reduction to those people who have an income--a family income between $8,000 and $25,000. This is the group that got short shrift in the 1975 act, and this is the group that are hard-working, industrious people who deserve a better break instead of getting cut short on every tax reduction.,And so, I have complete faith in the way in which this tax reduction bill that I am proposing is handled. The poor pay no more taxes than they were required under the 1975 act. The very wealthy get no more tax reduction. But the middle-income people .are the ones who will be the biggest beneficiary and get a larger tax reduction, as they should, under my tax proposal.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[23.] Q. Bill Black, WJR News. Mr. President, despite recent improvements in the economy, one of four in the Detroit area are still out of work, some for more than 2 years. One, what would you say to those who have been out of work for more than 2 years, and two, how much impact will unemployment and the economy have on the next election?,THE PRESIDENT. We are making headway in a good many areas in trying to eliminate unemployment. Even though the unemployment statistic has not gone down--except it went from 9.1 down to 8.3--the encouraging thing is that in the last 6 months we have had 1,600,000 more people added to the employment rolls, and the trend is going up. There are longer hours being worked. The economy is out of the recession and starting toward a better time, and this is going to have an impact in Detroit in the automobile industry.,The automobile industry has responded very well to the needs in the energy program. And let me tell you how it is going to help employment. The automobile industry in the last 2 years has increased gasoline efficiency by 27 percent--14 percent this year over last year. I think the automobile industry, by responding to the need of people, is going to have an excellent year, and that will have a very good impact here in Detroit and in other automotive centers like Flint and Lansing, et cetera.,Now, we believe that there will be a continuing downtrend in unemployment rate between now and the end of calendar year 1976. It won't be as low as we want it, but it will be going down, and furthermore, we will be making continuous improvement in the rate of inflation. I believe, with those trends--a lesser rate of inflation, a downward trend in the unemployment statistic--it will be a good environment politically for the right candidates.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,[24.] Q. Would you consider yourself a cinch next year?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I sure don't. I never enter a ball game thinking I am going to win, but I sure work at it as though I am going to lose. And I think we do, with the programs we have, our prospects aren't bad.,Q. Thank you, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I will take one more. I am being prompted to--,FEDERAL SPENDING,[25.] Q. Mr. President, would you expand on your answer about where you think Congress should make the $28 billion in cuts besides food stamps-for example, in revenue sharing--and what cuts should be made in defense spending?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said in my speech the other night, I think it was Monday night, I said that there had to be a sharing of reduced spending, and I included in my remarks the Defense Department. I think they can manage the Defense Department better than they have been managing it. I think we can be harder bargainers with weapons suppliers. I think we can cut out some of the frills in the military--frills that I don't like, that have been there just because they are there by tradition. I think we ought to cut them all out. I think the Defense Department can run a tighter ship, and they w:ill have to.\nThank you very much.\nLEONARD R. BARNES [president, Detroit Press Club]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-10-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good evening. How are you all tonight?,Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,THE MIDDLE EAST,[1.] Q. Mr. President, it now seems pretty certain that Congress will approve sending American civilians to the Sinai. My question is: Will any of these Americans be drawn from the military establishment, CIA, or the intelligence agencies, and is recruiting underway now?,THE PRESIDENT. I can only tell you that the American technicians will be American civilians. They are highly qualified, very technically oriented individuals who have to operate very sophisticated electronics equipment. The actual recruiting, I assume, will begin very shortly. I am certain they will not be in the military.,Q. Well, they may not be in the military after they go to the Sinai, but are they being drawn from that area?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't give you the specifics on that, except that I can assure you that they are civilian technicians and will have no relationship to our military.,NEW YORK CITY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, we are well aware of your opposition to a Federal bailout of New York City, but does that necessarily mean that you would veto any legislation you might get from Congress that would aim in that general direction?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think any legislation that I have heard people comment about or any legislation that I have read about would justify approval by myself. The legislation that I have heard about is a long way from getting through the Congress.,Every place I go, I check with Members of the Congress--Democratic or Republican--and I check, as some of you may know, with people in various communities. And I find no substantial sentiment for any legislation of one kind or another in the Congress to bail out New York City. So, I think it is very premature to make any comment other than nothing I have seen so far seems to fit the bill.\nYes, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,FEDERAL TAXES AND SPENDING,[3.] Q. Mr. President, you have said that, or have indicated, or some of your people have, that you would veto a tax bill if it is not tied to this budget ceiling. My question is, would you really shoot Santa Claus in an election year? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor, I have said with great emphasis that the American people want a $28 billion tax cut and a $28 billion reduction in the growth of Federal expenditures. They know that that is the right way to meet the problem of getting our long-term reform in tax legislation and to achieve a responsible program in spending limitations.,I absolutely, without any equivocation, say that if the Congress plays politics by sending a tax reduction bill to my desk without any responsible restraint on Federal spending, the answer is, as I said the other night, I would not hesitate to veto it.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow that and ask you, have you taken any polls to find out whether the American people really support this program, because you and others have said that the American people want this? How do you know they want this?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been watching some of the polls taken nationally for the last several months, and there is a general consensus that Federal spending ought to be controlled. And I believe there is a strong feeling that the Federal Government should take less out of the taxpayer's pocket so the taxpayer can spend it himself.,Q. Mr. President, to stay with the tax and spending program, critics of the program say that since your $28 billion in tax cuts would start on January 1, about 9 months before the spending cuts, that what you really have is a highly inflationary fiscal policy for the first part of next year. What is your response to that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want any misunderstanding on that. Our tax cut proposal tied in with a spending limitation was not aimed at affecting the economy in any significant way whatsoever. On the other hand, if the Congress is critical and wants to put a spending limitation on the last 6 months of fiscal 1976, I will be glad to cooperate with them. I think that might be very wholesome in that the present spending limitation that the Congress has imposed for fiscal '76 is too high. So, if they want to cooperate for the last 6 months of fiscal 1976, I will be right there helping them.,Q. Mr. President, to follow that, would you say why you went as high as $28 billion at a time when your economic advisers suggested that economic recovery was not only on schedule but ahead of schedule?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I indicated a moment ago, the proposal for a tax cut and a spending cut was not aimed at necessarily affecting the economy. It was aimed primarily at getting a meaningful tax reduction on a permanent basis to get us straightened out in where the burden of Federal taxes should fall on individuals, giving a bigger tax break between the incomes of $8,000 to $25,000.,In addition, the proposal was aimed at getting a handle on this tremendous growth in Federal spending. As I indicated the other night, if we don't pass one new law, if we don't make any change whatsoever in eligibility or rates, the increase in Federal spending in the next 12 months, from July 1, will be $50 billion--an increase in spending of $50 billion. We picked the figure of $28 billion as a reduction in that $50 billion in order to get some of these escalation programs under control.,ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, on another subject, the Vice President says that high-level Administration critics of your $100 billion energy plan should either support the plan or resign. Do you agree?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen any public statements by any of my advisers that they are not in accord with the recommendation that I am submitting officially to the Congress tomorrow.,We have some differences in an administration where I have a number of very able, articulate individuals. They don't always agree on every subject. But I know of no public statement attributed to any one of them where they officially disagree with my decision.,Q. But isn't Secretary Simon a persistent critic of this plan?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't heard him say anything to me directly in contravention of my decision. And although he did raise some questions during the consideration of it, as far as I know he has not publicly come out and condemned it.,CANCELLATION OF LOUISVILLE TRIP,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports tonight that you have decided not to go to Louisville, Kentucky, for a Republican dinner next week. Is that a sign for security reasons that perhaps you are going to be held hostage in the Oval Office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I was advised by local officials, as well as others, that under the current circumstances I should cancel the trip to Louisville, and as a result, it is being canceled. But I would like to add there are some unusual circumstances in Louisville at the present time.,I am going, however, to several other places--to Detroit tomorrow night and to Connecticut next week--and under no circumstances does this decision involving Kentucky have any impact on my decision to travel where I think it is the right thing to do, bearing in mind any security problems that might be raised.,Q. What are the circumstances in Louisville, and does it have anything to do with the busing problems they have had there?,THE PRESIDENT. There has been some turmoil in Louisville as a result of courtordered forced busing to achieve racial balance in the public schools. And I think all of you know that I have consistently and vigorously opposed courtordered forced busing to achieve racial balance.,I think there is a better answer to quality education. And this problem in Louisville at the present time has created some local disturbances, and rather than involve any potential injury to anybody else and for other security reasons, I have decided to cancel the trip.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[6.] Q. Mr. President, some of your political allies, Lee Nunn 1 arid others, have criticized Bo Callaway recently about his direction of your election campaign. They say he is too reluctant to spend money and that he has not built. the kind of organization that is needed for a Presidential campaign. My question is this: Has this criticism been conveyed to you, do you have any plans for shoring up your campaign organization, and do you expect to retain Bo Callaway for the duration of the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer the last question first. I have great faith and trust, and I fully support Bo Callaway. The criticism that I have heard--and I understand that Lee Nunn wrote a letter to the White House; I have not seen it. I have heard about it. Lee Nunn is a very dedicated person. He is a good personal friend of mine. For various reasons, I guess he didn't fit in comfortably with the organizational structure and the decisionmaking process of Bo Callaway. It is an honest difference of opinion as to organization. So, Lee took the step that he did. I certainly will examine his comments and criticisms and will bear them in mind as we proceed ahead.,1 Treasurer of the President Ford Committee,Q. I have a follow-up. Specifically, do you have any plans for improving your campaign organization, or are you satisfied with Mr. Callaway's organizing effort?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have a very, very good campaign organization, and if you will go around the States, we have an excellent one in California. We have an outstanding one in Illinois. We have a good one in Michigan. We are putting together a first-class one in Pennsylvania. New York State is in excellent shape. In my judgment, we have established in many, many States excellent organizations. I think we are really moving exceedingly well in the nomination process.,Bo Callaway has worked hard. He has done a fine job. Our organization, with a few exceptions, is in good shape. So, I have no specific plans to make any substantial changes.,Q. Mr. President, if I might, the Associated Press today reported that the President Ford Committee has taken in $700,000 for your campaign. The story also says that one-third of that money came in the form of the maximum $1,000 check. Most of the rest, almost all of the rest, came in the form of very large donations of checks of over $250 or more. Many of those donations came from corporation executives, bank presidents, real estate offices, and so on. So, my question is: Does this confirm the allegations of your critics that your Administration is overly friendly with big business?,THE PRESIDENT. Nothing could be sillier. And the net result is that people who want to contribute, contribute voluntarily, and I welcome those contributions. I can assure you that we are going to get a very broad-based contribution from many, many people all over the country, and there is just nothing to it. It is a silly accusation.,Q. Mr. President, along that line, a report published this week says the new political director of your campaign ran a school for dirty tricks several years ago--displaying wiretap equipment, teaching campaign workers to make phony telephone calls to disrupt the opposition. Since that has never been your style of campaigning, do you intend to ask Mr. Callaway to investigate and take appropriate action if it is warranted?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my understanding that Mr. Spencer 2 has categorically denied those charges. He is an honorable person. I believe him. And as you indicated, I have never, under any circumstances, in any of my campaigns, permitted or participated in such activities. There will be none in my campaign for nomination and for election as President. And so there is just no further comment needed.,2 Stuart Spencer, deputy campaign chairman.,Q. Mr. President, since you got back from Europe in early August, you visited nearly half the States in the Union. You have made dozens of public appearances on the road, and many, if not most, of those public appearances have been speeches at Republican fundraising events. Yet you and your aides have said repeatedly that none of these appearances have any relation at all to your campaign for election in 1976. Wouldn't it be a little more candid to concede the obvious?,THE PRESIDENT. As President and as a member of the Republican Party and the leader of the Republican Party, I have an obligation to try and strengthen and rebuild the Republican Party organization in many, many States. That is what I have been doing. As I recall in the various appearances before State Republican fundraising dinners, I have raised something over $2 million, most of which goes to the State organization; part of it goes to the national organization to pay the expenses of the trip that I take to that particular community.,As President and as the leader of the Republican Party, if I am asked to participate in one of those meetings, I am glad to do it, because I firmly believe that the strengthening of a State organization is very helpful for all Republican candidates, including the candidate for President. I think that is a part of the function that I have as head of the party.,Q. Nevertheless, Mr. President, don't these appearances at these fundraising events inevitably have some favorable impact on your candidacy?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't necessarily say on my candidacy. I hope on my election.,GRAIN SALES TO THE SOVIET UNION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, a two-part question: Is there any delay in the formal announcement of our negotiations with the Soviets on the wheat sale, and as a companion question, are we also negotiating with the Russians on the sale of their oil at a favorable price to us?,THE PRESIDENT. We have coming out tomorrow, I think at 3:00 or 3:30, an announcement as to the status of our wheat, corn, soybean crop reports. When we put on the temporary suspension of the sale of these commodities overseas to the Soviet Union and to others, we said we would await that crop report. As soon as we get that report, I presume there will be some announcements as to further sales to one or more countries.3,3 See Item 622 [ 1].,Now, we are negotiating right at the present time with the Soviet Union for a 5-year sale of grain of an annual amount which is very substantial, with an option, perhaps, for them to buy more. It will be a very good agreement if some of the final details are worked out.,At the same time, there are some negotiations going on involving the purchase by the United States of Soviet oil. Whether or not the two will be tied together is not firmly decided yet. We are more likely to have one announced and then continue negotiations on the other. But on the other hand, it is possible that we will be successful in both.,Q. Mr. President, will the price, do you hope, be lower than the established price by OPEC?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as far as grain is concerned, of course the Soviet Union will buy our grain in our open American markets at the market prices. You don't buy in an open market in the Soviet Union; you pay what the Government decides. Now we hope that in the negotiations we can negotiate a favorable price, but we have not concluded those negotiations at the present time.,MARIJUANA,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in Knoxville earlier this week you were asked by an interviewer for your thoughts on your son's use--or saying that he smoked marijuana, and you said that you admired his candor, but you sort of stopped there. I was just wondering, Mr. President, could you tell us what are your thoughts about young people using marijuana?,THE PRESIDENT. I disapprove of young people using marijuana. I believe the preponderance of the evidence so far is that it is not a healthy habit to have. I personally disapprove of it. And on the other hand, I think it is a very honorable thing for a son to frankly admit that on a very limited basis, had done so.,And as I said in Nashville (Knoxville), all of our children have been brought up to be honest with their parents and honest otherwise, and I respect them for that and I hope they continue that very fine trait. But I repeat, as far as I am personally concerned, I do not approve of the smoking of marijuana.,NEW YORK CITY,[9.] Q. Mr. President, to return to New York City for a moment-[laughter]--Secretary Simon.-,THE PRESIDENT. My wife is up there tonight.,Q. I hope she has a good time, sir. [Laughter],Secretary Simon and Chairman Burns have testified that if Congress does decide to do something to help New York, it should contain tough provisions to make sure that New York City balances its budget and to discourage other cities from following the Federal route. Should legislation come to you containing these tough provisions, might you then consider it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I always consider any legislation passed by the Congress, but I certainly have to look at the small print on any legislation that is aimed at bailing New York City out when their financial or fiscal record has not been a good one.,As I recall what Chairman Burns said the other day in testimony--that if a city came up with a balanced budget and if a State guaranteed to provide necessary revenue to keep that in balance, and if there was a long-time responsible fiscal policy, then he would recommend such legislation.,Well, if you have all of those factors--a balanced budget, the State guaranteeing the payment of the money by additional State taxes, and the other factor-it hardly seems needed or necessary for the Federal Government to get involved.,Q. Well, sir, the only question is the short run, and Congress is thinking of coming up with something to help New York over the short run. Might you, if all of these other elements were there, might you support some help in the short run?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think it is a healthy thing for the Federal Government to bail out a city, and I mean any city that has handled its fiscal affairs as irresponsibly over a long period of time as New York City has. Now, I have great sympathy for the people of New York, the 6 or 8 million people there. They have got a terrible program. Their government expenditures are out of control. Unless they come in with a balanced budget, unless they get some State aid from the State of New York by some means or other, I just am very reluctant to say anything other than \"no\" until I see the fine print, until I see what New York City has done. And it is interesting to note that the \"Big Mac\" committee 4 has turned down Mayor Beame's program as being not sufficient. So, it hasn't gotten by the State yet, much less come back down to Washington.\nMr. Beckman [Aldo Beckman, Chicago Tribune].,4 The Municipal Assistance Corporation was created by the State of New York and was empowered to issue bonds. Funds from the bond sales were intended for the assistance of New York City.,CONGRESSIONAL SALARIES,[10.] Q. Mr. President, we hear you makelots of speeches about your determination to hold inflation down. I wonder if you could tell us why you signed a bill that gives Congress a vested interest in inflation and ties their salaries to the cost-of-living index?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you know, Mr. Beckman, that instead of recommending that their salaries be increased to 8.66, I recommended that their salary increases be limited to 5 percent. I think that is responsible action on my part.,Q. You don't find any problem with their salaries being tied to the cost of living?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that judges, I believe that top officials in the executive branch and Members of Congress who haven't had a pay increase for 6 1/2 years ought to get a cost-of-living pay increase. But I decided to make it 5 percent rather than 8.66 percent.,SCHOOL LUNCH LEGISLATION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, were you surprised by the Congressional vote to override your veto of the school lunch bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all, because it had a very fine label and the facts were not sufficiently exposed to the public roger the public interested in writing the Congress that they ought not to override. And as you well know, my proposal took as good care of the children who need free lunches, if not better, than the bill that was passed by the Congress. The only difference between the Congress and myself was the Congress said that free lunches could be paid by the Federal Government for families that had an income of $9,770. I don't think the taxpayers as a whole ought to subsidize with free lunches families who have that kind of income.,Q. Mr. President, was the veto useful then for the sake of making that point?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope so.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you have taken a number of political positions which are attractive to the conservative members of the Republican Party. I refer to the tax and the veto of social programs, New York. Is it your campaign strategy to keep to the right in your own party until after New Hampshire and Florida and then move back to the center when you are running against a Democrat?,THE PRESIDENT. I think if you look at my total record since I have been President, and certainly while I was in the House of Representatives, I was in the middle of the road both in domestic action as well as in foreign policy, and I intend to stay there.,I think it is the area where most Americans agree. It has been my record for 27 years in politics, and I don't intend to deviate for any temporary political advantage.,FEDERAL TAXES AND SPENDING,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there has been talk about the great difficulty of combining the tax cut with the Government expenditure ceiling in one package. And we asked Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Simon, and they say, well, that is up to Congress. Well, you are an expert in that subject as a former House minority leader. What would you suggest along that line?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would suggest to the Congress that they go back to December of 1967 where they will find that Congress for the next fiscal year passed a spending limitation and at the same time took action on taxes. And I would suggest they go back to June of 1968, and they will find that the Congress passed a spending limitation at the same time they considered a tax measure for the next fiscal year. They would learn from history and from precedents that it had been done.,And if this new Congress, this reform Congress, can't use enough imagination to put together a tax reduction and a spending limitation, I think the American people ought to know about it, because other Congresses have done it, and the American people believe in a tax reduction and a spending limitation. And I can't imagine Congress not having enough imagination to combine a spending limitation and a tax reduction. If they don't, there ought to be some changes up on Capitol Hill.,FOOD STAMP PROGRAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, your Agriculture Department people had indicated earlier this week that they would have this week your food stamp proposal. Well, they didn't. Now there are reports that there is conflict within your Administration on this, that your people just can't get together. We understand the proposal won't be ready now until the Congress comes back from its recess. What is the story?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Congress just left, or is just about to go on a 10-day recess. And even if we had sent our food stamp control legislation up, there would not have been any Member of Congress here to consider it. So, we are going to send it up the day that Congress returns from their recess and will have done some preliminary work with certain Members of Congress.,We have been working with Senator Buckley and with Congressman Michel, who are the authors of a very fine food stamp reform bill. So, when we send ours up the day Congress comes back from recess, there will be ample time for the House and Senate to consider it.,Q. Sir, can you give us a preview of what is in it and what you are trying to accomplish?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are trying to save at least a billion dollars a year in the present food stamp program. What we are trying to do is to give more benefits in the food stamp program to those people who need them and to take away the benefits from people who don't need food stamps. And that legislation, which I am going to recommend, will save at least a billion dollars. It will do away with most of the abuses in the food stamp program, and I certainly hope the Congress does something about it.\nFRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you all very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-09-16","text":"VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,REPORTER. [1.] Mr. President, you are beginning to get some flak now from people who think you haven't been minding the store, and in the last 2 days I noticed you had one announced business session yesterday and you have, I believe, only one today. I assume you are doing something besides playing with the puppies, so, what are you doing? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have some big decisions coming up that involve, for example, the course of action that we will take on any SALT II agreement, and we have some very important decisions concerning the energy matter. We have some decisions to make that involve the delivery of material to the House and Senate committees, the Church committee and the Pike committee. So, I would say the day has been full, even though there haven't been any announced public meetings of any kind.,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,ISRAEL,[2.] Q. I think you probably read the Post today and also Jack Anderson concerning secret accords with Israel for supplying the newest technology, including missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads and so forth. Is this true?\nTHE PRESIDENT That material has all been submitted to the responsible committees in the Congress. The announcement concerning the F-16 and the Pershing missile--those are not firm commitments. They do involve negotiations between the United States and Israel. They are on a shopping list, and they will be discussed with representatives of the Israeli Government.,Q. But do you really think you should arm one power in the Middle East at a time when you are moving toward peace with the potential of offensive weapons in that--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have for a long, long time supplied Israel with very substantial amounts of military hardware. This was a policy established a good many years ago, and we have always felt that the survival of Israel in the Middle East was very important. And the military hardware that we have in the past and will in the future provide for that survival--as I indicated at the outset, these items were on a list open for discussion between the United States and the Israeli Government.,Q. Mr. President, is the United States moving towards a security treaty with Israel? This document which we read in the Post suggests quite a close, more formalized defense relationship with Israel.,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't say a security treaty. I would simply reiterate what I have said before, that historically the United States has supplied Israel with very substantial military weaponry, and it is our plan to do so in the future. But there is no firm commitment on any of the weapons that I think got the headlines this morning. They are merely open for discussion.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in one of your early press conferences you expressed approval of the CIA activities in Chile as something that they have done historically. Now you are quoted as saying you may be open-minded on whether the covert activities of the CIA ought to be kept in the CIA or separated from it. What has caused you to change your mind, if you have?,THE PRESIDENT. Since that comment in either the first or second press conference, we have had the Rockefeller Commission report, we have had the benefit of the Murphy Commission 1 recommendations. I have had the various departments and agencies of the Federal Government that have any jurisdiction analyze those recommendations. And we are now in the White House itself taking into account all of the proposals, and we'll make legislative recommendations to the Congress and we'll propose some administrative changes.,1 The Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy, chaired by former Ambassador Robert Murphy.,I think you have to certainly benefit from these exhaustive investigations, but I don't want to make any commitment one way or another until we actually submit the legislative proposals to the Congress and decide to do whatever we want to do administratively.,Q. I'd like to clear up one point, though. Are you ruling out political activity by American agencies, or is it just a question of whether the CIA would do it or some other agency would do it?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't rule out necessary political activity by the United States if it involves our security.,ISRAEL,[4.] Q. Sir, part of this agreement with Israel involves our providing them with oil either through foreign credits or giving oil to them from our own supply. We don't have enough for ourselves and can't afford to pay for what we are getting. How can we supply Israel over several years?,THE PRESIDENT. We believe there are sources available to Israel to keep Israel secure after they have given up the oil fields in the Middle East. We are not concerned that these supplies will be turned off, and therefore, it will have no adverse impact, as we see it, on our own supplies.,Q. But we will pay for this oil, will we not? We will pay for this through foreign credits?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a part of the overall military economic agreement with Israel, and it is a step, I believe, in maintaining the peace. I think it is fair to point out that several months ago 76 Senators sent me a letter actually urging that I recommend to the Congress more money for Israel and no guarantee of peace, whereas at the present time we have made this agreement--or Israel and Egypt have made this agreement--and the prospective cost to the United States is less than what the 76 Senators recommended that we propose to the Congress for Israel.,So, we not only have peace and a step toward a broader peace but it is also at a lesser cost than what the 76 Senators promoted.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the Pike committee. They have subpoenaed CIA materials from you, returnable tomorrow. Will you honor that subpoena?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Let me give some background, first, on what the situation is. Various agencies of the Federal Government, with my approval, have given to the Pike committee everything they have asked for, including some very highly classified material.,Now, I was disappointed in the manner in which that committee handled some of this most highly classified material. I think it is fair to point out--I don't want you to misconstrue what I am saying--but it is fair to point out that some of that material is specifically protected by law, and if a private citizen were to release that information involving communications intelligence, it would be a criminal--a serious criminal offense.,I am not saying that the Congress has violated a criminal law, or this committee has done so. I only use that as an illustration to show how serious the Congress felt the release of that information would be, because they passed a law saying if you or any one of you released it, it would be a serious criminal offense.,Now, the committee has all of the information that it asked for, some highly class, fled. They have all of the information that they need to make a legislative determination as to whether the intelligence community was properly organized, properly managed, did its job well.,I am very concerned as to the damage to our intelligence sources if the procedure used by the committee in this last instance is to be the procedure used by the committee in the future. Until I find from the committee what their procedure is going to be, I will not give them the information.,I have to have from them what their procedure is under this very important classified or secret material that we have given them and that they want.,TAX REDUCTION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, some Members of Congress are talking like an extension of the tax cut is already an accomplished fact next year. In fact, they are saying that an even larger cut needs to come. What is your thinking right now on the tax cut next year?,THE. PRESIDENT. We have made no firm decision on that. We will, in a reasonably short period of time, make a recommendation. If the economy needs any additional stimulant, we will, of course, recommend a continuation of the present tax cut.,If we find that the economy is continuing to come out of the recession, as it is, and there is no danger of added inflationary problems, we would probably not recommend a continuation of the tax cut. But we do feel that we have some additional time before making a specific request of the Congress for action in this area.,SCHOOL BUSING,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you have been saying that there is a better way than busing to achieve quality education. You suggested some better ways, such as improving facilities and the teacher-pupil ratio. Are you prepared to approve of more money to do things like that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we, of course, do have in the emergency school aid legislation and appropriations a substantial amount of money that is available, and we have made money available to Boston, and we have--if my memory is correct-done the same in Louisville, although I will have to check that.,The thing that bothers me about actions of some of the courts, where they are involved in the school busing controversy, is that they apparently have not taken into consideration the law that was passed and signed by me on August 12 [21], 1974, 3 days after I was sworn in.,That law included what was known then, and still is, as the Esch amendment. I just happen to have a copy of the Esch amendment here--[laughter]-that sets forth seven specific proposals that the courts should follow before they actually use the busing remedy.,It is in Title 2 of the Education Amendments of 1974, Section 214. This section establishes a priority of remedies, and it says, in effect, that the courts and other Government agencies shall require the first of the following remedies, or the first combination of the remedies, which would correct a denial of rights.,It says, for example, assigning students to schools closest to their homes, taking into account both school capacities and natural physical barriers; two, assigning students to the closest school, taking into account only school capacities; three, permitting students to transfer from a school in which a majority of the students are of their race to one in which a minority are of their race; four, creating or revising attendance zones or grade structures without requiring transportation; construction of new schools or closing of inferior schools; establishment of magnet schools. Then it goes on to say that students should not be transferred to a school other than the school closest or the next closest to his place of residence.,Now, those recommendations included in the law in many instances apparently have not been followed by the courts. I think the courts ought to take into cognizance the legislative recommendations that are as a matter of law at the present.,Now, in addition, there are other things that I have mentioned before-improved facilities, upgrading the teachers if necessary, including better pupilteacher ratios.,Q. Mr. President, that requires a lot more money than just the emergency funds that you talk about. Are you going to propose increases?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think it is going to require a great deal more money, Bonnie [Bonnie Angelo, Time magazine]. Really, that is a very substantial sum, and it has been used up in Boston, and I believe it is being used in Louisville.,It is not nearly as much money if you focus it in on the places where the tension is the highest and the problem is the greatest, particularly if the courts follow the law as was enacted by the Congress in 1974.,SCHOOL INTEGRATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, on two occasions over the weekend in discussing busing you mentioned a 1954 Supreme Court decision as the basis for busing. It is my recollection that that Supreme Court decision in Brown v. the Board of Education related to striking separate but equal. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you are correct, and I don't think I said that decision in any way ordered court busing. It was the decision in '54 that declared unconstitutional the long accepted practice in many States of having separate but equal schools. But as an outgrowth of that court decision there have been the subsequent decisions that have involved busing.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[9.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, a good many Congressional offices are receiving mail which runs contrary to your proposal for a Middle East peace settlement, particularly objecting to the use of American civilian technicians in the Sinai. I was wondering, sir, if, as you say, that is worth the risk? How long are those Americans going to be there, and is that not an open-ended commitment?,THE PRESIDENT. They will be there during the term of the agreement unless I, or another President, withdraw them because of any danger to their lives. It is a case of not more than 200 American civilians performing a highly technical warning station responsibility in a U.N. buffer zone. I think it is a good contribution by the United States to the establishment and permanency of peace in the Middle East.,Q. I'd like to follow up, sir, if I could, please. May I follow up, please? I'd like to ask what you would do if in the course of their term in the Sinai, the PLO moved in and kidnaped some of them, captured them, or if perhaps they were killed? Would you then use American intervention; the question being, then, is: Can you flatly rule out there would be no American intervention to protect those technicians?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to speculate on something that I do not anticipate will happen. I think I or any other President would use utmost caution in the protection of the lives of any Americans.,Q. Mr. President, to follow that up: If you are committed to the use of Americans on the Egyptian front, would you also, later perhaps, be committed to the principle of using Americans on the Jordanian or the Syrian front?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I should speculate about any negotiations or agreement that have not yet begun. It is a very valuable contribution to peace in the present agreement, but I would not want to make any commitment concerning any other.,THE PRESIDENT'S SAFETY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I believe when you were talking the other day about security out in Sacramento and when you were talking about going out and meeting crowds, I believe one reason that you have given for that is that you want to go out and get the ideas of the American people. I wonder in talking and going into crowds and working the crowds, as we call it, and shaking hands, you don't really exchange ideas with people, and that seems to be one of the most dangerous parts of these trips of yours.,THE PRESIDENT. You'd be very much amazed at how often people in the course of shaking hands or greeting them, they will make specific recommendations or comments. It is rather amazing and very encouraging that they will do precisely as you indicate they might not do. And it is very helpful in that regard.,PRESIDENT SADAT OF EGYPT,[11.] Q. Mr. President, was President Sadat aware before he initialed this agreement, signed the agreement, that the U.S. would be discussing with Israel the missiles and the other shopping list of things that you have mentioned, in specifics?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they were familiar with the fact we anticipated a commitment to Israel for sizable military hardware. I can't indicate to you whether they knew the precise weapons or not, but they knew, of course, that we were going to make a substantial commitment in weapons to Israel.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in recent weeks you have been saying some especially nice things about Vice President Rockefeller. You said you don't dump a good teammate, and you have endorsed his performance as Vice President, but yet you have always backed away from giving a flat endorsement of him as your running mate in 1976. Why won't you do that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that is the tradition at this early stage of a Presidential convention and Presidential race. There is no need of my reiterating the many nice things I have said about him, because he knows how I feel about him.,Everybody, I think, who has read or heard knows precisely how I feel about the fine job he has done. And he and I are in no disagreement on the comments I have made or the attitude that I have taken. So, I think the record should just stand where it is.,PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL EXPENSES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, regarding the early stage of the campaign, there has been some suggestion that you are probably deriving an unfair advantage by not having your political travel expenses charged against your Presidential campaign amount. Do you feel comfortable with this?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been very, very scrupulous in our bookkeeping to make certain that we cannot be legitimately criticized. A President has really three functions: one, being President and attending public affairs or civic affairs; he has another responsibility as the head of a political party--and in those cases, of course, the national committee, the Republican National Committee, assumes the cost--and where I am involved as a candidate, the President Ford Committee will pick up the tab.,We are keeping very scrupulous books. We are, of course, going to abide by any decision of the Federal Election Commission, and I hope they will clarify in the very near future any of the problems that might arise. But our books are being kept very, very carefully.,Q. Mr. President, do you expect that decision imminently, very soon?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to forecast when they are going to make the decision, but the sooner the better, I think, so we have a clarification.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Vice President Rockefeller has been going around saying that he is not a candidate for the Vice Presidency and he is not seeking support. This seems to be contrary to what you have specifically recommended, that he go and line up delegate support. How do you account for this difference if you and Vice President Rockefeller see eye-to-eye?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is a difference of degree, not of any real substance. Obviously, if he makes appearances before Republican groups, I am sure he is going to have a favorable impact on them. And my impression is that he has made a favorable impact on the various Republican groups where he has spoken or met with the individuals. Now, whether that can be translated into getting delegates or not, only time will tell. But the difference you alluded to, I think, is one of not great substance.,ISRAEL,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in this agreement published in the Post today, it refers to the United States viewing with particular gravity threats made against Israel, made by a world power, and goes on to say that the United States would promptly consult with Israel on support or assistance that it could lend. Now, does this go forward toward a security treaty, or does it not? And if so, doesn't it have to be taken to the Congress first to be approved?,THE PRESIDENT. That language does not constitute a treaty. The words speak for themselves.,DISCIPLINING OF SUBMARINE COMMANDER,[16.] Q. Mr. President, as an old Navy man.--,THE PRESIDENT. Old is right. [Laughter],Q. do you think the discipline given the commander of the submarine on which the go-go dancer performed was perhaps not quite in the tradition of the Navy that you knew? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I think I ought to refer that to the Navy where the matter is being, I am sure, thoroughly and properly handled under the procedures in the Navy code of conduct, or whatever they--,FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,[17.] Q. Mr. President, the cost of living keeps going up and up and Chairman Burns is now saying once again, as he has before, that monetary policy-that is, the Fed--just can't carry the burden of trying to curb inflation. Once again, it is talking again about an incomes policy, starting perhaps with jawboning, voluntary jawboning, and holding down wages and prices and perhaps the dressing up of the wage and price controls. I know you are against wage and price controls, but do you think it is fair for Mr. Burns to have to carry this load by himself?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to reiterate my firm opposition to wage and price controls. I don't think it is fair to put all of the burden in the battle against inflation on the shoulders of the Federal Reserve Board. I have repeatedly indicated that Federal fiscal policy was as important as monetary policy in the battle against inflation. And that is why I have consistently said we had to hold the line on Federal spending, and that is precisely why I drew that $60 billion deficit line in the Oval Office 3 or 4 months ago.,Unfortunately, the Congress hasn't gotten the message, because they have not only approved a higher deficit--$68.5 billion--but they have already breached their own $68.5 billion deficit by roughly $5 billion. So, although I feel that Federal fiscal policy is a useful tool in combating inflation, I see very, very little cooperation from the Congress in a responsible Federal fiscal policy.,Q. If I might follow up, Mr. President, this very thing of the Congress not getting your message or not agreeing with it is the thing that the Nation's bankers are concerned about and are talking about at the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. And a great many of them are saying it is all very well for the President to go around saying he will never put on wage and price controls and calling for fiscal responsibility, but the facts are, the reality is that there isn't going to be any fiscal responsibility, there isn't going to be any hold-down sufficient to curb inflation, and that sooner or later you are going to have to put in wage and price controls or at least some approximation of an incomes policy. Now, what is your response to the bankers when they say the rhetoric is all very well, but what are we going to do?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't had any pleas from bankers to impose wage and price controls,Q. An incomes policy?,THE PRESIDENT. --- and I haven't had any recommendations from any organization, such as bankers, for an incomes policy. We do have a wage-price council that has on some occasions investigated price increases and, on several occasions, have been helpful in trying to get a moderation of a price increase. But I do not believe on the basis of past history of wage and price controls during peacetime that they worked.,I think it is a quick fix that has long-range detrimental repercussions. And therefore, under the current circumstances, I think it would be unwise to even intimate that I would favor wage and price controls. I am still opposed to them, and I think there are better remedies.,TURKEY,[18.] Q. Mr. President, does the potential agreement between Israel and Egypt with the United States' participation make your job easier on the Turkish aid matter in Congress? Is there a parallel that you can draw, that your legislative people can draw for the Congressmen?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe there is any neat analogy between the two, but the fact that we have made headway in the Middle East and achieved it through negotiation ought to be helpful in convincing the Congress that negotiations in the Turkish aid embargo is the way to solve the problem. But there is no direct connection between the two problems as such.\nFRANK CORMIER (Associated Press). Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. One more, and then we will end.,MARIJUANA,[19.] Q. Do you favor the decriminalization of the private use of marijuana?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not believe we have sufficient evidence at the present time to warrant any recommendation in that regard.,Q. Have you read the Sharer Commission report? 2 Your predecessor did not. I am wondering if you would--,THE PRESIDENT. I have read summaries of a number of studies in this area, and there is no consensus. And therefore, until more information is available, I would not make any such recommendation.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you very much.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.,2 The Commission on Marihuana and Drug; Abuse, chaired by former Gov. Raymond P. Sharer, presented its report to President Nixon on March 21, 1972."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-07-12","text":"RELEASE OF LEBANESE TERRORISTS' HOSTAGE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good morning. I have one short announcement, a very important announcement.,I am deeply relieved at the report of the safe release of Colonel Morgan. Since his abduction on the 29th of June, the United States Government, with the close cooperation of the Government of Lebanon, has been trying to secure Colonel Morgan's return, and we are extremely glad to report that that has occurred.1,1On June 29, 1975, Col. Ernest R. Morgan, USA, was kidnaped by members of the Socialist Revolutionary Action Organization near the Beirut Airport. He was released to Lebanese Premier Rashid Karami on July 12, following the United States' refusal to defer to the organization's ransom demands.,At the same time, the United States is greatly appreciative of the extraordinary efforts of the Government of Lebanon in obtaining Colonel Morgan's release and for the assistance of others who have worked toward this end.,At this point, I would be glad to recognize Mr. Neil Mehler of the Chicago Tribune.,QUESTIONS,ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican leaders with whom you met for breakfast say you talked to them of your campaign and of unity in the party here. How can you insure that there won't be a reoccurrence of the 1972 situation in which the Presidential campaign was competing for dollars in Illinois and competing for resources, especially when the party is at low ebb here now?,THE PRESIDENT. The meeting we held this morning brought in all elements of the party in Illinois, and I outlined to them how my own personal campaign will work closely with, not with a part, but all elements of the Republican Party in the State of Illinois.,We have this understanding at the outset, and I think it will improve rather than deteriorate. Under no circumstances will we have a repetition of the unfortunate developments in 1972.\nYes, Mr. Leubsdorf [Carl Leubsdorf, Associated Press].,OIL PRICES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, last night you warned again of the dangers to inflation from Congressional spending, but many economists in the Congressional budget office think the greatest single threat at the moment is the forthcoming decontrol of domestic oil prices. With that in mind, are you prepared to accept the legislation that is being worked out now that would extend the control program to the end of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a very complicated question. I would accept an extension of the existing legislation that permits some overall control and flexibility on the part of the President.,At the same time, we do have to move to stimulate additional domestic production of oil in the United States. And I, early this next week, will submit to the Congress a responsible, well-timed decontrol of domestic oil so that there will not be a precipitous rise, but at the same time offer encouragement for those that are seeking to increase and improve our domestic oil production. This, of course, would make it far better from the point of view of the United States, because we would be less vulnerable to the foreign oil imports.,What I will try to do is to phase out control in a responsible and reasonable way under existing law, and if the Congress goes along with that program, I would welcome an extension of the existing law for overall control.,GASOLINE PRICES,[4.] Q. As a followup to that, as you know, the price of gasoline is now in the mid-60's per gallon. How high do you think it can go and still be economically and politically acceptable?,THE PRESIDENT. If we don't increase domestic production of oil and become more and more vulnerable to foreign oil imports, then gasoline prices could rise substantially.,My program for a self-sufficient energy program in the United States will preclude any precipitous rise in domestic gasoline prices. So, the Congress has to work with me in trying to get an energy program that will increase production at home so we will not be held vulnerable to foreign oil price increases.,I believe that we are making some headway, but the Congress must move more quickly if we are to foreclose the kind of gasoline price increases that might occur if we stay vulnerable to foreign oil imports.,Q. But there is no specific figure that you would like to hold it to?,THE PRESIDENT. No, because the Congress hasn't acted. Until we know what the Congress does, I can't predict with certainty what the domestic production will be.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[5.] Q. Mr. President, would you consider extending the pardon of former President Nixon to cover his recent testimony to Federal prosecutors and members of the grand jury?,THE. PRESIDENT. I don't think I should speculate on something like that. Nothing has happened. The decision I made in September was the right decision as to the time and otherwise, and I don't think I should speculate on something that hasn't taken place and may not take place.,VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, as you near the end of your first year in office and prepare to start campaigning for election to a full term, what do you consider your biggest personal accomplishments and failings as President?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that we have done the following: One, we have restored public confidence in the White House and in the executive branch of the Government.,On the economic side, we have made substantial progress in reducing the rate of inflation. A year ago, the rate of inflation was 12 to 14 percent. We have cut it in half; it is now roughly 6 percent. We are not satisfied, but it is going to be a constant struggle to reduce the rate of inflation in the months ahead, and I think we will be successful.,Secondly, in the economic field we are concerned about the rate of unemployment. We don't believe that an 8-percent or 9-percent rate of unemployment is acceptable. We are tailoring our domestic economic plans on reducing the rate of unemployment, and I believe that in the months ahead, you will see a moderation and certainly a decline in the next 6 to 12 months.,I am encouraged--and I think this is a good sign--that despite the rate of unemployment, in the last 2 months the actual number of people employed in the United States has gone up by roughly 450,000. I think that is an accomplishment, bearing in mind the overall economic circumstances.,In addition, we have taken some other steps aimed at making the United States energy self-sufficient and less vulnerable to foreign oil imports. In addition, we have promoted what I think is very important--some constructive steps to deregulate the American economy, getting rid of those regulations that are no longer needed and necessary. And progress in this area, I think, will be more significant in the months ahead.,When I look at the overall, concerning the problems we had on our doorstep when I took office last August, I think whether it is in foreign policy, where we have strengthened our relationship with the NATO countries, handled our disengagement in Indochina, took forceful action in the Mayaguez case, or whether you look at the overall domestically, in my judgment, considerable progress has been made.,Q. What do you consider your major failings?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will leave that to my opponents. [Laughter] I don't think there have been many.,LEBANESE TERRORISTS' HOSTAGE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what was negotiated in order to obtain the release of Colonel Morgan?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, our representatives in Lebanon worked very closely with the Government of Lebanon and with other elements in order to make sure that Colonel Morgan was returned. We have a policy--and I think it is the right policy--that we will not as a government pay ransom, and as far as I know, it was not done in this case by our Government. But by working closely and firmly with all parties, we were, thank goodness, able to return Colonel Morgan safely.,THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,[8.] Q. Sir, your aides tell us this is a nonpolitical trip, but as mentioned earlier, you did meet with local Republicans, as you have done on several nonpolitical trips in the past. Now, other Presidents have done the same thing. But my question is: Since you have talked of setting high ethical standards for your campaign, do you think it is being totally candid to call these trips nonpolitical?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. If you look at the schedule that we have followed so far on this trip and the things that we are doing later, such as the commencement address to Chicago State University, this press conference, the activities in Michigan, in all honesty I think it is a nonpolitical trip.,Q. And you will continue to conduct some political business on trips paid for by the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is political business. If we have an early morning breakfast at roughly 8:00 and spend maybe 25 to 45 minutes, I don't think that can be construed to be political in the overall sense of the other things that we do.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[9.] Q. Mr. President, is Vice President Rockefeller going to be on the ticket with you, or is he out of the campaign now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the delegates to the Republican National Convention will make that decision, just as they will make a decision as to whether or not I will be the Presidential candidate in 1976. Both Vice President Rockefeller and myself are going to be campaigning for delegates to the Republican National Convention next year, but the final judgment will be made by those delegates.,Q. But he won't be part of your campaign; this will be separate?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Vice President Rockefeller clarified that himself in a comment to the press several days ago when he indicated that he expected me, as a candidate, to try and get a majority of the delegates to the 1976 campaign and he, in effect, would do the same. And he disavowed any differences between me or himself in our efforts in the months ahead.,CONDUCT OF AMERICAN BUSINESSES OVERSEAS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, several major American corporations have recently acknowledged large bribes to Government officials overseas to get business. Northrop Corporation paid $450,000 for two Saudi Arabian generals in a military sales contract that was negotiated by the Defense Department. The question, sir, is: Does your Administration tolerate this conduct, particularly in the military sales program, or is it necessary to meet the competition?,THE PRESIDENT. If the payments are legally construed to be bribes, I forcefully condemn such payments. I am not going to discuss the legal ramifications of these payments. Some people have one view and some another, as lawyers often do, but if they are determined to be bribes, I forcefully condemn them.,Q. Sir, under American law, there is no American law to prohibit these practices, and I am just wondering if you see a need for a change in the law, particularly as it relates to defense contracts.,THE PRESIDENT. If there isn't a law that covers a bribe in these circumstances, then I think such legislation should be enacted.,URBAN PROGRAMS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, some of your critics say that your Administration is insensitive to the urban crisis. I know that you met last night for about 20 minutes with Mayor Daley. Did you discuss the urban crisis with him, and what about the criticism?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I don't think there is legitimate criticism that this Administration isn't compassionate. This Administration, on the record, has an achievement of compassion. And let me quickly illustrate.,We have made available for the cities, for individuals, in the budget that I submitted for the current fiscal year, more money to meet the problems of the less fortunate in our society and for the cities that need help and assistance.,We have recommended to the Congress, for example, the extension of general revenue sharing, and instead of limiting the amount of money, we have provided for an annual increase that would go to the cities, providing, of course, the Congress approves it.,We have made some other recommendations which would make it easier for the cities to meet the problem with general revenue sharing.,Now, I also pointed out to Mayor Daley--and it was a very friendly and, I think, very constructive discussion--that the general revenue sharing program plus the multitude of categorical grant programs will be helpful in the solution of the financial problems, the human problems in our cities, and that we have to get together--the mayors, the White House, and the Congress--to make sure that these programs and these dollars are available, and too much tinkering with the existing law in the general revenue sharing might be harmful rather than helpful.\nI also was glad to tell Mayor Daley--I think he knew it maybe a few hours before--but to say that we had sympathy for the transit system here, there was an award made by the Department of Transportation of $107 million to help and assist at the local level in improving transit operations in this city.,MAYOR RICHARD DALEY OF CHICAGO,[12.] Q. By the way, it was announced prior to yesterday that Mayor Delay would not greet your plane, and then he did meet it. Was there pressure brought from the White House for the mayor of Chicago to come to meet you?,THE PRESIDENT. There was no pressure brought from the White House. I can only say I have seen Mayor Daley on a number of occasions. We have a good personal relationship. I was delighted and pleased that Mrs. Daley and the Mayor met Mrs. Ford and myself, and we were especially pleased that they had the time to come to our suite in the hotel and sit for roughly a half an hour and talk about family matters, business matters. And I think that kind of a relationship is wholesome for the city of Chicago, and it is certainly beneficial to me.,GRAIN SALES TO THE SOVIET UNION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the United States is apparently prepared to approve negotiations of a multi-ton wheat and grain sale with the Soviet Union. Other countries are facing drought and may ask for sales, too. My questions are: How much can we sell without dipping in too much to our harvest this year, and won't this increase costs of bread and food later this year to our consumers?,THE PRESIDENT. First, we should thank the farmers of this country for their tremendous productivity. We are fortunate in America to be the breadbasket of the world. Our farmers do a tremendous job in the production of food for us and for the world as a whole.,We are anticipating the largest corn crop, the largest wheat crop in the history of the United States, but there are some uncertainties.,We hope that there will be a sale to the Soviet Union. It will be helpful to the American farmer and will be a reward for his productivity. We hope that there will be ample supplies of corn and wheat and feed grains so that we can help other nations around the world through our Food for Peace program.,And if there is this sizable crop in the variety of areas, it will mean that we can expand our Food for Peace program and act in a humanitarian way to the less fortunate.,I have no idea at this point what the amount will be of the sale to the Soviet Union, if it does materialize. But I think the fact that we can make one is a blessing, and I hope we do make one. But I want to assure you, as I do the American consumer, that we are alert to the danger of too big a sale or too much shipment overseas, because the American consumer has a stake in this problem as well.,So, we have to find a careful line to tread, of selling all we can, but protecting the rights of the American consumer and utilizing the productivity of the American farmer to help our balance of payments, to improve our humanitarian efforts overseas, and to indirectly help us in our relations with other countries.,Q. But a sale of any substantial size would mean some increase in the loaf of bread here, wouldn't it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I am in a position-or anyone else is in a position--to define what a substantial sale is. A big sale with big wheat and feed grain and corn production would have a minimal effect on consumer prices in the United States. I can only assure you and the American people that we are watching all aspects of this problem and we will keep alert to any pitfalls or dangers that might result.,EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the equal rights amendment has had an extraordinarily difficult time getting passed here in Illinois. At one time, your wife made several calls here. In the next session of the legislature, would you get on the phone and call some local Republicans, asking, urging them to pass the ERA?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think Betty does a fine job in this effort. I, of course, voted for the equal rights amendment when I was in the Congress. My record is clear. She is an effective spokesman, and I see no decrease in her enthusiasm for this. So, come next year, I suspect she can speak for both of us.,Q. A followup. What about your own personal effort? And just how important is the issue of sex discrimination going to be in terms of your campaign,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have appointed to the executive branch of the Government a number of outstanding women to serve in positions of great responsibility. We have a member of my Cabinet, Mrs. Carla Hills, who is Secretary of HUD. The head of the National Labor Relations Board [Betty Southard Murphy] is a woman and an outstanding person in that area of great responsibility.,We will continue to recognize women of talent and experience, because they have and will contribute significantly in the executive branch of the Government. And obviously, in our campaign you will see a lot of fine, attractive, able, articulate women out there selling the candidacy.,THE OIL INDUSTRY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the Federal Energy Administration suggested this past Thursday that 12 big oil companies may have inflated oil costs by $165 million. The FEA also recently accused a big company in Virginia of overcharging the State utility. My question is whether you think Americans can trust the oil companies today, or whether they might logically conclude that companies have been manipulating recent events to drive up their prices and profits.,THE PRESIDENT. I am very pleased that the Federal energy agency has taken the action that you indicate. It proves to me that they are on the job and they are protecting the consumer's interests, and I expect them to continue such efforts. And they will do it under the law, and they will do it with emphasis.,I am not going to pass judgment on the oil companies, whether they are conspiring or not. The Department of Justice, the Federal energy office will make sure that they live up to the law.,Q. Do you think people should trust them, and do you trust that they have done everything possible to create as much domestic production as possible in these times?,THE PRESIDENT. I am convinced that the oil industry in this country is doing everything it possibly can under the law to increase domestic oil production. There is no question about that in my mind. They are limited in some respects by law as to what they can do with the resources they have available. I think we ought to applaud what they have done in the past and urge them to increase their efforts in the future.,But we have to get some changes in the law--and the Congress hasn't done anything here--in order to increase very substantially our domestic oil production.,AMERICAN GOVERNMENT,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there is some talk that the people are losing control of the government to the experts--following up something that he is saying-the oil people are running the oil controls and the utility people are running the utility controls. Who can we yell at? How can we hear the voice of the people?,THE PRESIDENT. I think our system overall, when you compare it with any other system throughout the world, is running very well. We have some problems. The problems, however, are complicated by legislation or nonlegislation, by the fact that we haven't in the past focused quickly enough on some of the problems that we now have on our doorstep.,But this Government--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branch-can respond to meet those problems. And the American people do have faith. And I think their faith will be justified as we make headway in our economic problems, energy problems, and the like.,I concede there may be some disappointment, but the American people have the opportunity under our system, fortunately, to make changes--if they are not happy--in a legitimate and proper way.,REGULATORY REFORM,[17.] Q. Well, on the other side of that, perhaps, how are you doing on deregulating, on getting rid of this maze of redtape?,THE PRESIDENT. I will make two points. One, I have met with 24 Members of the Congress, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, working to get the various commissions and other regulators to reduce regulation, to give the American people a chance themselves to solve these problems.,Secondly, last week, I met with the Chairmen and the respective members of every one of the regulatory commissions, and we pointed out very specifically that they had an obligation to reduce the burdens they have placed on people and the economy so that our free economy can do more for itself than they can with their regulations.,I think we will make some headway. If we don't, we will change some of the commissions.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that CIA agents have been working clandestinely in the White House and perhaps in some other Government departments or agencies. Is this true?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as far as I know personally, there are no people presently employed in the White House who have a relationship with the CIA of which I am personally unaware.,Q. Do you know whether the report--I think the reports concerned administrations before yours, the Nixon administration. Do you know whether there were CIA agents working clandestinely in the White House at that time?,THE PRESIDENT. That matter is being analyzed. As you indicated, the allegations concern not my Administration, but the previous administration. I can assure you that the facts will come out, if I have anything to say about it. But I reaffirm what I said. As far as I know personally, there are no people presently employed in the White House in this Administration who have a relationship with the CIA of which I am unaware.,Q. Excuse me, sir, but who is looking into the allegations that they were there in earlier administrations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the press for one. [Laughter] And I applaud that. Secondly, I assume the Congress will make some investigation. And of course, we, in a responsible way, will find out if we can, in a responsible way, of any such connections in the past.,RONALD REAGAN,[19.] Q. Mr. President, within the last week it became known that Governor Reagan was starting a committee, or a committee was being started in his behalf, looking toward the '76 campaign. And Mr. Callaway, your campaign manager, put a good deal of distance between himself and Mr. Rockefeller. He said he would do nothing to insure or promote Mr. Rockefeller's retention on the ticket. I wonder if there is any connection between those two events?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there is any connection between the two events. We made our decision to actually and officially announce my own candidacy. And with the appointment of Bo Callaway to be the chairman of my campaign effort, he made some comments concerning how Vice President Rockefeller and I will conduct our efforts in the months ahead--the Vice President seeking his delegates, and I seeking mine.,We, of course, had no liaison with Governor Reagan and his people. They made the judgment on timing, I assume, on their own basis.,Q. Mr. President, what I meant was, is the fear of a Reagan candidacy one of the reasons why you are taking this unusual step of saying that Mr. Rockefeller is on his own to seek delegates?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think there is any connection whatsoever. The tradition has been that a President announces his candidacy for the high office, or other candidates do, and I don't see any relationship at all between what I have done and what Governor Reagan has done, or people have done on his behalf, and what the Vice President's effort is.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[20.] Q. Mr. President, to get back to that CIA thing for just a minute, I wondered in the analysis that you have done so far, have you been able to determine yet whether Alexander Butterfield,2 who was mentioned so prominently in the news stories yesterday, did anything in an undercover way or anything that leads you to believe he was doing something that former President Nixon didn't know about?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no specific information in that regard, and until we get it or it is made available to us, I think it is premature to make any comment.\nMR. LEUBSORF. Thank you, Mr. President.,2 Deputy Assistant to the President 1969-72."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-06-25","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a delightful place to have a press conference, and I hope all of you feel the same way.\nI do have an opening statement.,HOUSING,[1.] I commend the House of Representatives for its vote to sustain my veto of the housing legislation. This vote demonstrates a growing sense of fiscal responsibility in the Congress and a realization by an increasing number of Congressmen that economic recovery need not be bought at the price of unwise legislation and costly inflation.,I am prepared to work with the Congress in reaching our common objectives--a revitalized housing industry, more jobs in construction, and a sound economy. I again urge the Congress to extend for another year the Emergency Home Purchase Assistance Act of 1974 and to expand it by another $7,750 million as quickly as possible.,To head off the foreclosure of homes whose owners are temporarily out of work, I again ask the Congress to act expeditiously on legislation introduced by Congressmen Lud Ashley of Ohio and Garry Brown of Michigan and others to provide mortgage payment relief and coinsurance for lenders who refrain from such foreclosures.\nI am confident that we can and will meet to solve these problems.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,NUCLEAR WEAPONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the United States, as a matter of policy, has consistently disavowed the first use of nuclear weapons. Is that still our policy in view of recent developments?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the United States has a policy that means that we have the maximum flexibility for the determination of what is in our own national interest. We had a change of some degree about a year and a half ago.,When I took office, or since I have taken office, I have discussed this change to maximize our flexibility and to give us the greatest opportunity for our own national security with Secretary Schlesinger, and I can assure you that it is a good\npolicy, and it is a policy that I think will help to deter war and preserve the peace.,Q. Well, may I follow up, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. You haven't said whether you will use the first strike, in terms of tactical or strategic, and don't you think the American people should know?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is appropriate for me to discuss at a press conference what our utilization will be of our tactical or strategic weapons. This is a matter that has to be determined if and when there are any requirements for our national interests. And I don't believe under these circumstances that I should discuss how, when, or what kind of weapons should be used.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,THE MIDDLE EAST,[3.] Q. Mr. President, like your formal declaration of candidacy, the completion of the Middle East reassessment is getting closer every day. I wonder, how close is it now, and does it look more like a return to step-by-step diplomacy or a move to Geneva?,THE PRESIDENT. The reassessment that we are undertaking in regard to the Middle East has not been concluded. We have met with a number of heads of government in the Middle East. We have discussed the alternatives and options with a number of other people who are knowledgeable in this area. But I cannot give you a date as to when that reassessment will be concluded.,Obviously, it is getting closer and closer because we must not permit, to the degree that we can affect it, a stalemate or stagnation, because the longer we have no movement toward peace in the Middle East, the more likely we are to have war and all of its ill ramifications.,I can only say we are working on the problem with countries in the Middle East and with others and that the reassessment will be concluded in an appropriate time, and it will provide for movement, as far as we are concerned.,Q. Is it more likely to be in the direction of Geneva or more shuttle diplomacy?,THE PRESIDENT. The options are still open.\nYes, Mr. Barnes [Fred Barnes, Washington Star].,PUBLIC OPINION POLLS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, your popularity in the public opinion polls has risen rather dramatically recently, and I know you have discussed this matter with pollster Louis Harris. To what do you attribute your improvement in the public opinion polls recently?,THE PRESIDENT. Naturally, I am pleased that the polls have shown improvement. I think this is a reflection of the fact that we have had a consistently strong policy, domestically, aimed at doing something affirmatively about inflation and showing our concern and compassion in the field of finding a remedy to the recession.,I think it also reflects some of the hard decisions we had to make in the area of foreign policy. Obviously, the Mayaguez incident and the way it was handled has had a good reaction, but we have done other things in foreign policy. The trip to Europe, I think, was effective in that it showed the Alliance is strong and we are committed to the Alliance. And of course, the Alliance has contained aggression and maintained peace in Western Europe.,So, there is a whole series of things that, in my judgment, have been good for the country. And when something is good for the Nation, people who have something to do with it do benefit to some extent.,FOREIGN POLICY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of foreign policy, Secretary Kissinger spoke in Atlanta the other night, and he had something to say about our alliances, that no country should imagine that it is doing us a favor by remaining in an alliance with us. Is this a signal of a new attitude toward our allies?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is a signal of a new attitude. Any bilateral agreement is in the mutual interest of both parties, and any alliance, such as the North Atlantic Alliance, is also in the mutual interest of all of the participants.,Now, occasionally, I suspect, some partner gets the impression that his country is getting less out of an alliance than another. We think it is important to keep them on a mutual basis, and we intend to do so. But there was nothing in Secretary Kissinger's comments in Atlanta the other night that was aimed at any one country or any one alliance.,Q. Well, if he might have had Turkey in mind as one country, I am just wondering if this is a diplomatic thing to say at this time when our bases are at stake and the welfare of NATO?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Kissinger's comment, as I said a moment ago, was not aimed at any one country or any one alliance. We are concerned about the conflict in the Mediterranean, which has resulted from the Cyprus difficulty of about 18 months or more ago, which has resulted in differences between Turkey and Greece.,I can assure you that we are going to work as we have in the past to try and find an answer to that problem. But I don't think the Secretary's comment in Atlanta was aimed at either Greece or Turkey or any particular alliance.\nMr. Shabecoff [Philip Shabecoff, New York Times].,UNEMPLOYMENT,[6.] Q. Mr. President, your aides say that unemployment next year, an election year, will be very high, perhaps as high as 8 million Americans. Yesterday, George Meany charged your Administration with callous disregard for human misery. My question is this, sir: Why should the American people vote to put back in office a President whose policies accept such a high rate of unemployment among the American people?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't accept that as a figure that we want. We have to be realistic in that, with the high inflation we had of a year ago--12 to 14 percent-we have to do something affirmatively in regard to inflation, and we cut the inflation rate in the last 6 months by 50 percent.,As you bring down inflation, we may have to suffer for a short period of time higher unemployment than we like. But I am convinced that with the policies we are pursuing, we can gradually increase employment and gradually decrease unemployment.,I am glad to indicate that in the last 2 months, according to the statisticians, we have had an increase of about 550,000 more people gainfully employed. This is a good trend, and I think you are going to see it increasing. And I hope in the process that we will go down from the 9.2 percent unemployment--I think we will--that we reported several weeks ago.,Q. If I may follow up, sir. Your own Administration's forecasts say that unemployment won't go down to 5 percent until 1980. My question is: Don't you consider this to be a potent political issue next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is an unacceptable figure. I hope they are wrong. I can only point out that 6 months or a year ago, some of my advisers were telling me that inflation in 1975 would be 8 or 9 percent. It is down to 6 percent. So, I think we can hopefully expect the same kind of improvement over the speculation in unemployment that we had in forecasting inflation.,TAX REDUCTION,[7.] Q. If the economy has not shown a significant upturn sometime late this fall, would you consider asking Congress to extend for another year the tax reduction that is now in effect?,THE PRESIDENT. If the evidence shows that the tax reduction measures that were approved early this year were beneficial in moving the economy forward, and if we are convinced that the tax reductions would not create a deficit of a sizable magnitude, more than we can afford, and if we have an economic situation that is not moving ahead, not improving, yes, I would consider recommending to the Congress that the tax reductions be extended for another year.,Q. Have you discussed this with Congressional leaders as a possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not discussed it with Congressional leaders. We keep a close check on economic indicators within the White House, and we have analyzed the alternatives in this situation. And if the conditions prevail that I indicated a moment ago, we would consider this as an option.\nYes, Mr. Brokaw [Tom Brokaw, NBC News].,OIL PRICES,[8.] Mr. President, the Congressional budget office is concerned that if the Middle East oil producers raise the price of oil this fall, as they have threatened to do, it will prolong the American recession and delay the recovery. If the Middle East oil producers do, in fact, increase the price of oil, would you expect the American people to just swallow that increase or would you have a definitive Administration response to an increase from the Middle East, and if you do, what would it be?,THE PRESIDENT. First, any increase in foreign oil would be, in my judgment, very disruptive and totally unacceptable.,As you know, I have been trying to get the Congress to pass an energy program that would make us less vulnerable to any price increase by foreign oil sources. Unfortunately, the Congress has done nothing, but we are going to continue pressing the Congress to act.,Now, our program, which I hope the Congress will pass eventually, would produce more domestic oil and make us less dependent on foreign oil. In the meantime, we have to work with our allies, the oil-consuming nations, to bring our policies closer together so we can act in negotiations with the oil-producing countries. And the International Energy Agency, which was formed by the oil-consuming nations, has made some progress in this area. I hope that through this organization and our domestic energy program, we can meet the challenge, or the prospective or possible challenge, of the OPEC nations.,Q. Is that what you mean when you say that an increase from the Middle East would be unacceptable, or do you have something else in mind, and could you spell that out? What does \"unacceptable\" mean?,THE PRESIDENT. It means that it is unacceptable in the sense that we as a nation individually and we as a nation in conjunction with our allies are going to find some answers other than OPEC oil.\nYes, Mr. Schieffer [Bob Schieffer, CBS News].,REPUBLIC OF KOREA,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in response to your comments to Helen at the beginning of the news conference, let me just ask you this question point blank: If North Korea attacked South Korea, would you use nuclear weapons to stop that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think, Mr. Schieffer, that I ought to, in a news conference like this, discuss what I might or would do under the circumstances you describe. We have a strong deterrent force, strategically and tactically, and of course, those forces will be used in a flexible way in our own national interest, but I do not believe it is in our national interest to discuss how or when they would be used under the circumstances.,Q. You are flatly not ruling it out, though?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not either confirming it or denying it. I am saying we have the forces and they will be used in our national interest, as they should be.\nMr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,THE SOVIET UNION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, your old sidekick, the former Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, has written in a magazine article that the Russians have repeatedly violated the SALT agreement and have mocked detente, and he also has some things to say about what they are doing in Portugal and the Middle East. How concerned are you about these charges?,THE PRESIDENT. I have investigated the allegations that the Soviet Union has violated the SALT agreements, that they have used loopholes to do certain things that were intended not to be done under the agreement.,I have found that they have not violated the SALT agreement, they have not used any loopholes. And in order to determine whether they have or they have not, there is a standing consultative group that is an organization for the purpose of deciding after investigation whether there have been any violations. And that group, after looking into the allegations, came to the conclusion there had been no violations.,Now, as I indicated in Brussels at a press conference, we are concerned about developments in Portugal. We do not believe that a Communist-dominated government in Portugal is compatible with NATO.,Now, it has not reached that stage yet, and we are hopeful that it will not, and some of the developments in the last several days are somewhat encouraging. We certainly have a concern and a care and a great friendship for the Portuguese people. And we will do what we can in a legitimate, proper way to make sure that the rights of the Portuguese people are protected.,CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE,[11.] Q. Can I also ask you in connection with this, do you then see that the European Security Conference is likely to come off as the Russians would like to have it come off, in late July, in Helsinki?,THE PRESIDENT. There have been rather protracted negotiations involving the European Security Conference. It didn't look a few months ago that there would be any conclusion this summer. But there have been some compromises made, and there may be some others achieved that would permit a summit this summer in Helsinki. But it has not yet reached the stage where I could say there will be a summit, because the compromises have not been finally achieved.\nYes, Carroll [Carroll Kilpatrick, Washington Post].,JOHN CONNALLY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of curiosity about your recent meeting with Governor Connally.1 Do you expect him to take part in the campaign next year, or is he going to run himself?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, John Connally is an old and a very dear friend of mine. He is a man who has had vast experience in government. He was Governor of the State of Texas for 4 or 6 years, Secretary of the Navy under President Kennedy, he was Secretary of the Treasury under President Nixon.,1The President met with Mr. Connally at the White House on June 18, 1975.,He is the kind of a person with this experience who can be very helpful in giving advice, and we had a very broad discussion on a number of matters involving domestic affairs and foreign policy.,I hope in the months ahead that I can have future meetings of this kind with John Connally, because I admire him as a person and I respect his experience and ability in government.,I don't know whether he is going to run for any office or not. He didn't indicate that to me, but he does have a great interest in government, and he said he was going to be interested in all aspects of policy, both domestic and foreign.\nYes, Mr. Warren [Lucian C. Warren, Buffalo Evening News].,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, would you update us on your own campaign plans, when and how you plan to announce for the nomination and how much money your committee intends to raise in the primaries, whether you expect to face any primary opposition?,THE PRESIDENT. I did authorize a few days ago the filing of the necessary documents for the establishment of a committee so that money could be collected and disbursements could be made. Dean Burch was indicated as the chairman and David Packard was indicated as the treasurer.,This organization is the foundation of what we intend to do, and within a relatively short period of time, I will make a formal announcement that I will be a candidate. I have said repeatedly for some time that I intend to be one.,We have taken one step, another step will be taken very shortly, and we expect to raise sufficient money to put on a good campaign. It will be run exactly according to the law, and I don't know whether we will have preconvention opposition or not.,It has always been my philosophy in politics that you run your own campaign, you run on your record, and you do your best to convince delegates they ought to vote for you--and the people, that they ought to vote for you. I never really predicate my plans on what somebody else might do.,OIL PRICES,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you, sir, you said that if the Arabs hike their oil prices or there were another embargo, it would be very disruptive for the economy. You have also said recently that the recession has bottomed out or is bottoming out. May I ask you what will happen to your predictions that the recession is bottoming out if the oil-producing nations hike the price of oil by $2 to $4 a barrel, as they are threatening to do this October?,THE PRESIDENT. If such an oil price were put into effect, it would have an impact on our economy. It would undoubtedly have a much more significant impact on the economies of Western Europe, Japan, and probably an even more adverse impact on the economies of the developing nations. It would have an adverse impact worldwide.\nI think it would be very unwise for OPEC to raise their prices under these circumstances, because an unhealthy economy in the United States and worldwide is not in their best interest.,Q. Mr. President, are you making any current efforts to persuade the oilproducing nations not to increase their prices this autumn, as they have threatened, and are you meeting with any success?,THE PRESIDENT. We are seeking to solidify our consumer nation organization so that we act in concert when we have to meet with the producing nations.,And equally importantly, I am trying to get the United States Congress to do something affirmatively in the field of energy so we don't have to worry about OPEC price increases.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,[15.] Q. Mr. President, on energy, much of the country does not seem to think that we have a real energy crisis. People are acting as if there is no tomorrow. And part of the problem may be that our leadership should show in a personal way how we can save energy. Could you tell us, sir, what you personally are doing, what the White House is doing, and what the Administration is doing to lead and show how we can save energy?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Morton, who is the head of the energy council in the White House, has been working with every department of the Federal Government to get them to reduce the consumption of energy--electricity.,We have taken other steps that are probably less significant but, I think, in the overall are helpful. In the White House, we try to be as conservative as possible in the utilization of electrical energy. I haven't checked the figures, but we do our best in that regard.,Q. Sir, in this line, would you endorse something that might save a great deal of energy and also strike a blow for male liberation, for example, endorse something like sportshirts for summer wear in Washington, D.C., and other hot climates?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am a great believer in that attire, but I am not sure that that would be too significant in the saving of energy, the kind of energy we are talking about.\nYes, Mr. Beckman [Aldo Beckman, Chicago Tribune].,SOVIET INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the Rockefeller Commission was told about extensive electronic surveillance by Soviet intelligence agents and American ability to piggyback onto that monitoring. Can you tell us how long that has been going on and what is being done about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that I should comment on a matter of that kind. I can say very emphatically that we have an expert intelligence-gathering community in our Federal Government and we have a first-class counterintelligence organization in the United States Government. I have full faith in their responsibilities in any field such as that that you mention.\nYes, Mr. Knap [Ted Knap, Scripps-Howard Newspapers].,INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT,[17.] Q. You said, in answer to an earlier question, that the unemployment rate projected by your chief economic advisers is unacceptable. That projection is that unemployment would remain at about 8 percent through most of next year, and you said you would consider asking for an extension of the tax cut. Is it your present thinking that you probably would recommend extending the tax cut if unemployment is that high, that is, about 8 percent at the start of next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have to take into consideration not only the unemployment rate but also the impact an increase in the budget deficit of some $20 billion, on inflation.,We have two very serious problems. One, we are licking inflation, and one, we are working on unemployment. And as we move ahead, we have to be most careful that we don't reignite the fires of inflation, because every economist with whom I have talked tells me that if in our efforts to do something quickly in the field of unemployment, we could end up with a new round of inflation, and if you have a new round of inflation of the magnitude of 10, 14, 15, 20 percent, you will have another recession, and unemployment at that time will go to about 14 to 15 percent.,So, what we have to do is very carefully, very judiciously look at both sides of the coin. And we are. And I believe that we have made great strides in doing something about inflation. And I am optimistic that we can do something about more employment and less unemployment.\nMR. CORONER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. Hope you had a good time out here."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-06-09","text":"STATEMENT ANNOUNCING RELEASE OF REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON CIA ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good evening. On Friday, the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States presented its report to me. I read the report this past weekend, and I have decided it should be made available to the public. It will be released tomorrow.1,1 The report is entitled \"Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States--June 1975\" (Government Printing Office, 299 pp.).,I thank the Vice President and the other members of the Commission and the staff. It will be obvious to those who read the report that the Commission has done an extensive job of looking into the allegations that the CIA exceeded its authority by conducting domestic operations in violation of its statute. My reading of the report leads me to the conclusion that the panel has been fair, frank, and balanced.,I will ask the Attorney General to study all the materials gathered by the Commission on any matter to determine whether action should be undertaken against any individuals.,I am asking each of the Federal agencies and departments affected by the report to study its recommendations and report back to me with their comments.,In addition to investigating the original allegations of improper domestic activities by the CIA, the Commission, at my request, subsequently looked into allegations concerning possible domestic involvement in political assassination attempts. The Commission has reported that it did not complete every aspect of that investigation. The materials they have developed concerning these allegations have been turned over to me in classified form.,Because the investigation of political assassination allegations is incomplete and because the allegations involve extremely sensitive matters, I have decided that it is not in the national interest to make public materials relating to these allegations at this time. However, under procedures that will serve the national interest, I will make available to the Senate and House Select Committees these materials, together with other related materials in the executive branch.,I know that the Members of the Congress involved will exercise utmost prudence in the handling of such information.,As I have stated previously, I am totally opposed to political assassinations. This Administration has not and will not use such means as instruments of national policy. However, in fairness, none of us should jump to the conclusions as to events that may have occurred in the past 15 or 20 years.,After I have further studied the recommendations of the Commission, I will order or submit to the Congress the necessary measures to insure that the intelligence community functions in a way designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.,It remains my deep personal conviction that the CIA and other units of the intelligence community are vital to the survival of this country. As we take the steps necessary to insure the proper functioning of the intelligence community, we must also be certain that the United States maintains the intelligence capability absolutely necessary for the full protection of our national interests. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, will you turn over to the Justice Department the materials on the allegations of assassination plots as well .as the other materials? And if so, would you expect them to conduct their own investigation then in that field to determine whether criminal prosecution might be in order?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier, I will turn over the material that has been given to me by the Rockefeller Commission, and I will turn over to the Justice Department other material within the executive branch of the Federal Government so that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General will have full access to whatever we have for a determination by them as to any need to prosecute any individual.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[3.] Q. Mr. President, at a recent news conference you said that you had learned the lessons of Vietnam. Since then, I have received a letter from Mrs. Catherine Litchfield of Dedham, Massachusetts. She lost a son in Vietnam, and on her behalf and on behalf of many, many parents with her plight, I would like to ask you, what are those lessons you learned from the Vietnam experience?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, Miss Thomas, there are a number of lessons that we can learn from Vietnam. One, that we have to work with other governments that feel as we do--that freedom is vitally important. We cannot, however, fight their battles for them. Those countries who believe in freedom as we do must carry the burden. We can help them, not with U.S. military personnel but with arms and economic aid, so that they can protect their own national interest and protect the freedom of their citizens.,I think we also may have learned some lessons concerning how we would conduct a military operation. There was, of course, from the period of 1961 or 1962 through the end of our military involvement in Vietnam, a great deal of controversy whether the military operations in Vietnam were carried out in the proper way, some dispute between civilian and military leaders as to the proper prosecution of a military engagement. I think we can learn something from those differences, and if we ever become engaged in any military operation in the future--and I hope we don't--I trust we've learned something about how we should handle such an operation.,Q. Does that mean that you would not conduct a limited war again with a certain amount of restraint on the part of our bombers and so forth?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to pass judgment at this time on any hypothetical situation. I simply am indicating that from that unfortunate experience in Vietnam, we ought to be able to be in a better position to judge how we should conduct ourselves in the future.\nYes, Mr. Kilpatrick [Carroll Kilpatrick, Washington Post].,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[4.] Q. What is the nature of the Federal law that may have been violated by the CIA? I can understand where a State law may have been violated, but is there a Federal statute you have in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. Involving the CIA? Well, in 1947, the Congress passed the basic charter of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the law passed by the Congress gives certain responsibilities to the CIA in the handling of intelligence overseas. It was understood, as I have read excerpts from the debate of 1947, that the Central Intelligence Agency should not be involved in any domestic activities.,Now, if individuals within the CIA violated that basic charter, it will be for the Attorney General to make a judgment as to whether there should be any prosecution. In the broader sense, however, if it is determined that the Central Intelligence Agency, as an organization, has violated its charter, then, of course, corrective action will have to be taken. And without revealing what was in the report from the Rockefeller Commission, I believe there will be certain recommendations for some legislation and some administrative action that ought to be taken to make certain and positive that the Agency does its job and that the rights of Americans, domestically, are well protected.,Q. I was wondering why you had the Rockefeller Commission stop short in its work and not complete its investigation into alleged political assassinations. Why did you not reach a conclusion in that particular area?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say at the outset, I did not tell the Rockefeller Commission that it should not proceed further. The Rockefeller Commission, on its own, decided that it wanted to conclude its operations on the basis of the original responsibilities given to it.,The Commission at the outset was told it should investigate allegations concerning domestic violations of its charter. Subsequent to that, there were questions--I should say--raised about political assassinations. I suggested that the Commission undertake an investigation of any domestic involvement in political assassinations.,The Commission, after the original 90 days it was given to complete its report, requested an extension for an additional time, and I gave them an additional 60 days.,Sometime in early May, the Commission decided that it wanted to conclude its original assignment, and they decided that they should make the report which will be released tomorrow to the public. And they have turned over to me the material they collected concerning any political assassinations.,Q. This was a Presidential commission, of course. Do you agree with their conclusion to stop without reaching a conclusion in this particular area?,THE PRESIDENT. I do for this reason: that the material they have collected, the interviews, the hearings, any other material that they are giving to me, I am turning over to the Attorney General along with other material that we are collecting within the executive branch of the Government so that the proper agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government will be in a position to analyze and to prosecute if there is any need to do so.,Q. Sir, if I may press you on that just a little bit. Why aren't they the proper agency to do that? They were assigned by you to look into the CIA and find out what was wrong. They obviously got into something very controversial and then all of a sudden they just stopped. Why didn't you tell them, \"Go on, fellows, and get to the bottom of this.\" Isn't that the way investigations are usually conducted?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have to bear in mind the original assignment of the Rockefeller Commission, which was to investigate any alleged illegal activities domestically. The CIA has a charter only to conduct intelligence matters overseas, and the allegation was made by many that the CIA had involved itself into domestic intelligence matters.,I asked the Rockefeller Commission to undertake an investigation of the original charges, which was a very major responsibility. I think they decided that they should conclude their investigation of the basic charges and give to me for proper utilization by the Attorney General for any further investigation and prosecution. I think it's a responsible manner in which to handle this situation.,Q. But you don't think you are going to open yourself up to some kind of charge of coverup by doing it this way?,THE PRESIDENT. I am convinced that with the Attorney General, Mr. Ed Levi, we have a man who is going to carry out his sworn obligation to conduct an investigation on the broadest basis and to prosecute if there is any problem. I have full faith in the Attorney General, and I should add that the Senate and House committees are also in the process of making further investigations as they have been charged with the responsibility by the Congress, so there's not going to be any possibility of any coverup, because we are giving them the material that the Rockefeller Commission developed in their hearings, plus any other material that is available in the executive branch.,Q. Mr. President, do you foresee any time in the future when that material from the Rockefeller Commission that relates to assassination plots and other White House material that you say you'll now turn over to Congressional committees-do you foresee any time when it might be in the public interest to have that released?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there may be, and if you noticed in my opening statement I said at this time that I wouldn't want to prejudge that at the moment.,Q. Mr. President, what part was played, in your thinking, by concern about the memories of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy and the fear that not fully substantiated allegations coming out, especially about the late President Kennedy at this time, would lay you open to the charge of trying to interfere with a candidacy of Senator Kennedy?,THE PRESIDENT. I was personally very cognizant of anything that I divulged, passing judgment in hindsight as to decisions made in the last 15 or 20 years. I have read the summary from the Rockefeller Commission concerning political assassinations. I have read other material collected by the executive branch of the Government, going back to late 1959 and running up through 1967 or '68. I have read that myself, and under no circumstances do I want to sit in 1975 passing judgment on decisions made by honorable people under unusual circumstances. I think historians will make those judgments better than anybody in 1975, including myself. So it is my feeling that I, the Members of Congress, and others ought to reserve judgment. And that's why I caution the House and Senate committees to use utmost prudence in how they handle the material I'm giving them.,Q. When you say, sir, that you don't want to sit in judgment on decisions made by others some 15 years ago, are you suggesting that there were decisions made by the Presidents in that time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, quite the contrary. I am not passing judgment on whether they were right or wrong. I simply am saying that for us, 15 to 20 years later, to put ourselves in the position of people who had the responsibility in the highest echelons of our Government--we shouldn't be Monday morning quarterbacks, if I could invent a cliche. I think it's better to let history tell the story rather than contemporaries.,Q. Mr. President, in the view of what some people have called the post-Watergate morality, do you believe that the CIA's credibility can be restored until and unless the story of the allegations of political assassination are disclosed fully to the public?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course I do. I believe that the credibility of the CIA can be and will be restored by the report of the Rockefeller Commission and the recommendations of the several Congressional committees.,I believe that there can be internal improvement in the CIA. I think there can be legislative recommendations that I hope the Congress will enact, and the net result will be that we will have a strong, effective, and proper Central Intelligence Agency.,I have complete faith that we can do the job, that we will do it, and that we will have a CIA that will do the job for us.,EUROPE,[5.] Q. I wonder if I can change the subject to Europe and the future. There are reports in Europe, sir, that both the United States and the Soviet Union seem to be less and less interested in the security conference that is due up this year. Could you tell me something about the future timetable, when that might come up, how SALT is doing, when you might be seeing Mr. Brezhnev, and so forth? There seems to be some slippage in this.,THE PRESIDENT. While I was in Europe, I discussed with many European leaders the status of the European Security Conference, their views. It appears that there are some compromises being made on both sides between the Warsaw Pact nations and European nations, including ourselves, that will potentially bring the European Security Conference to a conclusion. Those final compromises have not been made, but it's getting closer and closer.,I hope that there will be sufficient understanding on both sides to bring about an ending to this long, long negotiation. If it does, in the near future we probably would have a summit in Helsinki.,The negotiations on SALT II are progressing, I think, constructively. The technicians are now working on the problems of verification and other matters that are very important, but can be better outlined and put together by the technicians.,I'm optimistic that we can have a SALT II agreement, but I can assure you, as I have others, that we are going to make sure, make certain that our national security interest is very, very adequately protected, and I think it can be, as I look at the overall picture.,Q. To follow up, sir, when do you think Mr. Brezhnev might be coming here? Would you give a ballpark guess on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope, if negotiations go the way they are, sometime in the fall of 1975.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in turning to the economy, the unemployment figures for the month of May were at a 34-year high--9.2 percent. What is your assessment of where the economy will stand at the end of this year, and pick some random date in the future--let's say October or November of the election year-as to where it will stand then?,THE PRESIDENT. I am optimistic that the economy has bottomed out. We've had a lot more good news than we've had bad news. The bad news, of course, was the increase in the unemployment to 9.2 percent, but I hastily add that for the second month in a row, we've had an increase in actual employment. As a matter of fact, over the last 2 months, we've had about a 450,000 increase in people employed in the domestic economy. In addition, we're continuing our headway in the battle against inflation. We've cut the rate of inflation by about 50 percent in the last 6 months.,The civilian economy showed some other encouraging factors. The Department of Commerce, last week, released a report that showed that the 12 economic indicators were up 4.2 percent, one of the largest, if not the largest increase in the last several years. New orders, housing permits are up.,We've got, I think, an accumulation of encouraging signs, and I believe that toward the end of the year it will look better. And I happen to believe, in 1976 the economy will look even better, and we're going to work at it.,Q. Would you care to give out a figure, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,REPUBLIC OF KOREA,[7.] Q. Mr. President, to follow on Helen's question, sir, do you believe that the language of our mutual defense treaty with South Korea requires the presence of American troops there, or can the United States fulfill its commitment short of that?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe it is highly desirable under our mutual defense treaty with South Korea to maintain a U.S. military contingent in South Korea. We have now roughly 38,000 U.S. military personnel in South Korea. I think it's keeping the peace in Korea, and I think it's important for the maintenance of peace in the Korean peninsula that that force stay in South Korea.,Q. Are you thinking of keeping them there indefinitely, or do you hope to review that question next year?,THE PRESIDENT. It's constantly under review.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, to get back to the CIA, some senior assistants of yours have blamed Vice President Rockefeller for having suggested the public report on the CIA would contain assassination findings and for announcing plans to issue the Commission report before checking with you. Has this caused you any embarrassment, or anyone in the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. It hasn't embarrassed me. I have, of course, been in constant contact with the Vice President. I understood that the Commission was going to make the decision that it would not get any further into the political assassination area, that they wanted to conclude their Commission investigation and file its report. The Vice President and I understand each other perfectly.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[9.] Q. The Prime Minister of Israel is coming on Wednesday, I believe, and you met with Egyptian President Sadat a week ago. As you go into this next phase of consultations, are you any more prepared to give Israel stronger guarantees?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my meeting with Prime Minister Rabin of Israel, which is to be held on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, will be a meeting where I will get his personal assessment of the overall situation in the Middle East.,We will discuss the options that I see as possible: either a resumption of the suspended step-by-step negotiations or a comprehensive recommendation that I would make to probably reconvene the Geneva conference or a step-by-step process under the umbrella of the Geneva conference.,I'm going to go into these alternatives or these options in depth with Prime Minister Rabin, and when we have concluded our discussions, I'll be in a better position to know how our Government should proceed in trying to achieve a broader peace, a more permanent peace, with fairness and equity in the Middle East.\nMr. DeFrank [Tom DeFrank, Newsweek].,CANDIDACY IN 1976,[10.] Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You keep saying that you're going to announce your candidacy for election in 1976 at the appropriate time, but nothing happens. Are we getting any closer to that appropriate time, and if so, can you tell us about that?,THE PRESIDENT. You're getting closer and closer, but I have not picked a specific time for that announcement. There is no doubt of my intention. I reiterate it again tonight, but all I can say is we're getting closer and closer to a specific announcement. [Laughter]\nMr. Barnes [Fred Barnes, Washington Star].,THE MIDDLE EAST,[11.] Q. Mr. President, when you were in Salzburg, you appeared to be especially friendly with Egyptian President Sadat. Was this public display of friendliness with him designed in any way to pressure Israel to make new concessions toward a Middle East settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. I did enjoy my opportunity to get acquainted with President Sadat, and I not only enjoyed his company but I benefited from his analysis of the Middle East and related matters. But I have the same relationship with Prime Minister Rabin. I have known him longer, and this will be the second or third opportunity that I've had a chance to meet with him, plus my opportunities when he was the Israeli Ambassador here.,I think I can be benefited immeasurably by meeting face-to-face with people like Prime Minister Rabin and President Sadat. This judgment by our Government in this area is a major decision, and we have to get the broadest possible information to make the best judgment. And in both instances, as well as others, I am glad to have the help and assistance of those who come from that area of the world.,THE CONGRESS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, some of your critics in Congress argue that your veto of legislation, such as the public service jobs bill, amounts to a minority rule. Is it your judgment that the next year, year and a half will be a series of veto confrontations and stalemate?.,THE PRESIDENT. There is no need for it if the Congress acts responsibly in the handling of the Federal fiscal affairs. I would hope that the veto that was sustained last week will put the proper environment on Capitol Hill for a responsible fiscal policy by the Congress.,If the Congress ignores the desire on the part of the President and more than a third of the House to be responsible fiscally, then of course, we will have more vetoes.,I would hope that there might be a lesson learned, and that we will have responsibility rather than irresponsibility by the Congress.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-05-30","text":"THE NATO MEETING,THE PRESIDENT. [l.] Let me first set out the basic reasons why we welcomed the United Kingdom's proposal for this meeting at the highest level and why we gave it support and thought it was very timely.,We wanted to reaffirm the need for undiminished defense efforts and to have a general discussion of the problems associated with collective defense.,Second, we wanted an opportunity in this Atlantic forum to review the issues on what we have called the new agenda--the energy problem and its ramifications, the food problem, the interaction of national economies.\nWe think--and we very much agree with Chancellor Schmidt and others-- that these problems affect the well-being and future of all of the countries of the Alliance, as much as would a potential military threat.,Of course, we know there are other international bodies to deal specifically with these problems, but we feel that this political forum is a good and suitable one in which to have a broad discussion of the approaches.,Third, we felt it timely to review the status of East-West relations, the progress of our efforts to achieve meaningful detente with countries of the East. This is particularly so because the Geneva Conference on Cooperation and Security in Europe is in its decisive phase.,Fourth, and finally, there are clearly some problems within the Alliance itself. We felt it was desirable to have an opportunity to review these where appropriate, to have some bilateral and private contacts.,Among these problems is the dispute between Greece and Turkey and the uncertain developments in Portugal, which concern us.,I have been extremely pleased by the tone and the content of the remarks that were made around the NATO table. I feel that these discussions, the numerous bilateral contacts, the informal talks at the King's dinner last night and the Secretary General's luncheon today, and the final public statement 1 fully justified this meeting.,1 The text of the final communique issued at the conclusion of the NATO meetings in Brussels is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 11, p. 578).,In terms of our objectives, the common interests of all of the allies in a strong defense and in safeguarding our security by common efforts were reaffirmed. We also recognize that there is much room for improvement in this area, including with respect to more efficient use of the existing resources.,I think new impetus has been given to the work of the military bodies of the Alliance. All of us came away, in my judgment, with a sense of urgency in dealing with the items on the new agenda, and we were especially pleased to hear Chancellor Schmidt's review of these issues.,I think it was a good expression of political will by the allies following the recent sessions of IEA and the OECD. We reaffirmed the need for giving detente real meaning in terms of the values of our countries.,We agreed to continue the close and full consultations among allies on East-West relations, as well as to continue to pool our efforts in ongoing negotiations like CSCE and MBFR.,We faced Alliance problems in a mature and a quite constructive way. I was struck by the fact that all allies stressed common interests even when--as in the case of Greece and Turkey--there exist differences in particular instances.,It is a measure of the general sense of satisfaction with this meeting that quite spontaneously there arose sentiment for holding these high-level meetings at more regular intervals, as proposed by Prime Minister Trudeau. I Would strongly support this.,We can be quite flexible about the precise manner in which such meetings are prepared and held, but it is clear that there was widespread feeling among allies that contact at the highest level, the highest political level, is valuable.,Finally, I found it noteworthy that many allies stressed that they did not feel the need of any special American reassurance concerning our commitment to the Alliance. They stressed that they consider our commitment firm and vigorous. Their confidence is fully justified.,With that, I will be glad to recognize Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the NATO communique laid heavy emphasis on military preparedness, and I wonder if this reflects any misgivings about the future of detente?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly did not have that impression, Mr. Cormier. The feeling was that by strengthening our allied forces, we could be more effective in implementing the detente approach.,On the other hand, any weakening of our military forces within the Alliance could make it more difficult to proceed with detente between not only the United States and the Soviet Union but between the East and the West in general.,NUCLEAR WEAPONS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, would you use nuclear weapons if there was a conventional attack on Europe by the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International], I don't think that I should discuss military decisions at this time. I think a decision of that kind would have to be made in the proper channels. I, of course, would not expect, if our strength continues and detente prospers, that there would be any need for such a hypothetical circumstance developing.,BRUSSELS MEETINGS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what do you consider to be the most important achievements of your visit to Brussels?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith [Joseph Kingsbury-Smith, Hearst Newspapers], I think it was extremely healthy for the heads of state to get together on this occasion. Because there had been some difficulties, some traumatic experiences in Southeast Asia, there were rumors to the effect that the United States, because of that experience there, was retreating to an isolationist stature. It seemed to me that it was wise, under those circumstances, for me to come here representing the United States and speak so firmly, so unequivocally as to our commitment to the Alliance.,But in addition, the exchange of views among the heads of state on the need for close cooperation in the economic field--and I say the economic field in file broadest sense--we recognize that the free world must have a healthy economy if we are to sustain an adequate military stature. And it is important, therefore, that we work together to move us all out of the recession that has been plaguing us for the last few months, and the exchange of views in this area, in my judgment, will be helpful in meeting this particular challenge.,Of course, within the parameters of the economic problems, we did follow on the IEA, the OECD, on the questions of energy and other commodities. So those three areas--particularly, plus, I think, the meeting itself--gave the people of the 15 countries a feeling that unity did exist and that we had a solidarity that would continue the blessings that we have had in the last 26 years.,PORTUGAL,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in your interview with the five foreign journalists last week, you expressed your concern about Portugal, and I wonder if, after your meetings with the Portuguese leaders, that concern has been eased or not?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], we had an extremely candid discussion with the Portuguese Prime Minister and his colleagues. The Portuguese Prime Minister explained the goals of the political movement in his country. He explained, in some detail, the political setup as it existed and as they anticipated it would be for a period in the future.,I spoke very frankly about the concern of democratic forces in Portugal, and I particularly emphasized this because all of us in the Alliance greeted the revolution that took place there about a year ago. We had much hope and we had much sympathy for the trend that had developed as a result of that revolution.,Equally, however, I did point out the contradiction that would arise if Communist elements came to dominate the political life of Portugal, and it is my judgment that others among the allies had a somewhat similar concern.\nThere is a general agreement that the situation must be watched with care and concern, but also with deep sympathy and friendship with the people of Portugal.,What I said last week, I think, coincides with what I have said today. We are all hopeful, but we have to be watchful.,SPAIN,[6.] Q. Mr. President, after the NATO rebuff with Spain,2 what new proposals have you in mind to shape the American-Spanish agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Could the question be repeated?,2 On May 29, 1975, the NATO Council had rejected an American proposal to consider Spanish membership in NATO.,Q. The NATO rebuff with Spain. What proposals do you have in mind at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. We will be negotiating, of course, with the Spanish Government for the extension of base rights and the bilateral relationship. I don't think it is proper for me at this time to get into the details of those negotiations and the talks that will take place tomorrow.,I might, since the question was raised about Spain, indicate the situation as it developed here in the last 24 to 36 hours.,As I think most of you know, I believe very strongly that the role played by Spain through its contribution to Western defense, by its bilateral U.S. defense relations, is an important one. The bilateral relations that the United States has with Spain, as we see it, does contribute significantly to the defense of the West.,Now, without speaking personally for any one of the other allies, I think this is an understood fact, and hopefully, therefore, the negotiations that you speak of can be concluded successfully.,Now, if I could add one other comment vis-a-vis Spain and the allies. We, the United States, continue to favor a Spanish relationship with the Alliance. We think this is important, even though we recognize the unlikelihood of it taking place in the future or the immediate future.,But it is an issue that the Alliance must face, and we hope that as time moves on, there will be a better understanding of it and hopefully a developing relationship.,GREECE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in your address to the NATO conference, you talked about partial membership or special arrangements in the Alliance. We all know that Greece has a special arrangement now and that France has a special arrangement now. Would you tell us the differences, as you see them, between those two relationships and what ought to be done with them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the comment that was included in my prepared text did not refer to France's permanent relationship. The comment in the text had specific relationship to the circumstances involving Greece.,As you know, following the Cyprus difficulties of last summer, Greece made a decision to terminate its previous relationship with the allies. It is now in a different relationship than any one of the others in the Alliance.,It is a relationship, however, that we hope, once the Greek-Turkish dispute is resolved over Cyprus, that Greece will return to its previous status within the Alliance. And of course, the meetings that have been held between Greece and Turkey over the last several months, and the meeting that the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey are having tomorrow, will hopefully lead to some progress in this dispute.,If that progress materializes and the dispute is settled, we are most hopeful that Greece will return to its permanent previous relationship within the Alliance.,CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the NATO communique refers to the need for deeds in terms of the accomplishments projected for the European Security Conference, and you also have referred to that, sir. Also, we have the problem of the SALT negotiation to be concluded. Do you see, sir, any risk that the timetable may be upset, which could affect the convening of a summit conference in Washington with Secretary General Brezhnev?,THE PRESIDENT. The CSCE negotiations are reaching a point where there is some reason for optimism. There are some points that must be resolved, but progress is being made.,I am not in a position to forecast when the final agreement will be achieved. if it is, but there is a possibility that the time schedule of several months ago might materialize, and if it does, then I think the follow-on SALT II meeting in Washington can also be on schedule.,But in both cases, there is no final agreement, so I hesitate to be precise as to a date in either case.,BRUSSELS MEETINGS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in your head-to-head talks with some of the leaders from the other nations, did you carry the ball in the discussions or did you rely on Secretary Kissinger to do most of your talking? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Those bilateral discussions between myself and the heads of state were carried out in the traditional fashion. In each case, the foreign minister representing the other government and Secretary Kissinger were present. They were constructive. They were, I think, a free discussion where the parties there fully participated.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[10.] Q. Mr. President, in your meetings with the full Council and with the individual heads of state and government, did there come up in the conversation the difficulties you have had in trying to get a Middle East peace settlement, and did you come away with a feeling that you will have support of the member nations in your efforts in Vienna [Salzburg] with President Sadat and later in Washington with Rabin?,THE PRESIDENT. In almost every bilateral meeting, the question of the Middle East did come up. In each instance, we gave our reassessment procedure. We indicated that I was meeting with President Sadat in Salzburg and then subsequently meeting with Prime Minister Rabin in Washington.,We pointed out the three alternatives that have been well written about. We indicated that any views or recommendations that might be made by the heads of state or the foreign ministers would be most welcome.,We did reemphasize that our objective in the Middle East was peace, that we could not tolerate stagnation or a stalemate. We felt that movement was essential in the recommendations that I do make, sometime the latter part of June, early July, will be a position of movement aimed at the objective of a secure peace in the Middle East, and I think, the feeling of the allies here was one of--supportive of the general objectives without getting into any of the procedures or the details.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-05-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good evening. Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[1.] Q. Mr. President, what are the lessons of Vietnam in terms of the Presidency, the Congress, and the American people--in terms of secret diplomacy and fighting a land war in Asia? And also, would you welcome a Congressional inquiry into how we got in and how we got out of Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, the war in Vietnam is over. It was sad and tragic in many respects. I think it would be unfortunate for us to rehash allegations as to individuals that might be to blame or administrations that might be at fault.,It seems to me that it's over. We ought to look ahead, and I think a Congressional inquiry at this time would only be divisive, not helpful.,Q. Mr. President, may I ask you, then, don't you think we can learn from the past?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, I think the lessons of the past in Vietnam have already been learned--learned by Presidents, learned by Congress, learned by the American people. And we should have our focus on the future. As far as I'm concerned, that is where we will concentrate.\nMiss Lewine [Fran Lewine, Associated Press].,THE MIDDLE EAST,[2.] Q. Mr. President, your forthcoming meetings with Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Rabin--do they represent the beginning of a new American-led negotiation in the Middle East toward a peace settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. They do not represent a new negotiating process. I am meeting with President Sadat and Prime Minister Rabin for the purpose of getting from them any recommendations they might have as to how we can maintain the peace in the Middle East, how we can come to some final settlement that will be beneficial to all of the parties.,We are in the process of reassessing our Middle East policy, and they can make a very valuable contribution with their on-the-spot recommendations.,Q. Mr. President, do you now see any hopeful signs that there is any movement there off dead center?,THE PRESIDENT. I am always optimistic. I believe that the leaders of all of the countries, both Arab and Israeli as well as others, recognize the seriousness of any new military engagement in the Middle East and the ramifications that might come from it.,So, I'm optimistic that as we try to move ahead, aimed at avoiding a stalemate, avoiding stagnation, that we can work with other countries in order to ensure the peace and a settlement that will be satisfactory to all parties.,VIETNAMESE REFUGEES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, you have been reported as being \"damn mad\" about the adverse reaction of the American people to the Vietnamese refugees. I would like to ask you, how do you explain that reaction? What in your judgment is the cause of that?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], I am primarily very upset, because the United States has had a long tradition of opening its doors to immigrants from all countries. We are a country built by immigrants from all areas of the world, and we have always been a humanitarian nation. And when I read or heard some of the comments made a few days ago, I was disappointed and very upset.,I was encouraged this afternoon, however. I understand that the executive committee of the AFL-CIO passed a resolution urging that the United States open its doors and make opportunities available for the South Vietnamese who have been driven or escaped from their country.,I understand that the American Jewish Committee has likewise passed a resolution this afternoon, endorsing the policy of making opportunities available in the United States for South Vietnamese. And I am very proud of those Governors like Governor Pryor of Arkansas, Governor Askew of Florida, Governor Longley of Maine, Governor Evans of Washington, Governor Ariyoshi of Hawaii as well as Mayor Alioto, who have communicated with me and indicated their support for a policy of giving the opportunity of South Vietnamese to come from this country to escape the possibility of death in their country under the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, and individuals who wanted an opportunity for freedom.,I think this is the right attitude for Americans to take, and I am delighted for the support that I have gotten.,Q. Could I follow that and ask you why, in your judgment, is there such a widespread adverse reaction to this?,THE PRESIDENT. I understand the attitude of some. We have serious economic problems. But out of the 120,000 refugees who are either here or on their way, 60 percent of those are children. They ought to be given an opportunity. Only 35,000 heads of families will be moved into our total society.,Now, I understand people who are concerned with our economic problems. But we have assimilated between 50 and 100,000 Hungarians in the mid-fifties, we have brought into this country some 500 to 600,000 Cubans. They have been good citizens, and we ought to welcome these people in the same way. And despite our economic problems, I am convinced that the vast majority of Americans today want these people to have another opportunity to escape the probability of death, and therefore, I applaud those who feel that way.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask a political question. What steps have you taken so far toward the creation of a campaign organization in 1976? And if you haven't taken any steps, what steps do you plan to take in the future? And when do you plan to take them?,THE PRESIDENT. Within the last week, a group headed by Dean Burch have indicated that they would like to get started in a very informal way to kick off a campaign at the proper time. This group is meeting within the next few days. I understand they expect to get a great many more who will join them.,The precise time when we will take the formal step to declare my candidacy has not yet been determined, but I would only reiterate my intention to become a candidate.,Q. Mr. President, you have said many times that you intend to become a candidate, and yet there seems to be continual skepticism in some quarters of your own party that you really will be. Why do you think that skepticism has endured?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm surprised myself that there is any skepticism. I know my intention; I have said it repeatedly, as you have indicated. I intend to be a candidate. I believe that I have the best opportunity to solidify the Republican Party, getting strength from both the right as well as the left within the Republican spectrum and to put on a good campaign against the individual that the Democratic Party nominates.,There should be no skepticism about my intention. I will be at the proper time a candidate in a legal sense, and no one should feel otherwise.,Q. Mr. President, if I could follow that up, sir. Will you this year be going out and speaking at Republican gatherings, doing the kind of political things that Presidents often do in the year before they run for election?,THE PRESIDENT. I undoubtedly will make an effort to help the Republican Party. I think that is a proper function for a President. I did it a week or so ago for the Republican Party in the State of Virginia, and I will do similar activities in the future. But that effort will be aimed at helping the party. We need a strong two-party system, and I have a responsibility to try and help the Republican Party.,Miss McGrory [Mary McGrory, Washington Star-News], may I congratulate you on your Pulitzer Prize, and I am delighted to recognize you.,CLEMENCY PROGRAM,[5.] Q. Thank you very much, Mr. President.,I was wondering if, now that the war is over for everybody and we are admitting many thousands of Vietnamese, including, we are told, some young men who did not obey their country's draft laws, have you reconsidered your position on amnesty towards young Americans?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss McGrory, about 6 months ago, I initiated a program under former Congressman Charles Goodell and a group of eight others to grant relief, or amnesty to some 120,000 individuals who were either deserters or did not comply with the Selective Service laws.,As I recollect, up to a week or so ago, approximately 30,000 out of that group had applied. I assume that most of them will have a change in their status. I hope so. And therefore, I have taken, I think, a step that was right. It is a good program, and I just wish that more had taken advantage of it.,At the present time, we are in the process--or they, the Commission are in the process of handling the applications. I hope they will expedite and be very generous in their consideration of the records of those who have applied.\nThere is always a chance in the future if the facts justify it.,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[6.] Q. Even though the war is over, sir, there are many Americans who must still live with the agonies that it caused them. I speak primarily of those wounded and crippled and the families of those who died. In very human and personal terms, how would you speak to them about the sacrifices that were made?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, let me say very emphatically, they made a great sacrifice. The 56,000 that died and the countless thousands who were wounded-I honor and respect them, and their contribution was most significant. I think their contribution was not in vain.,Five Presidents carried out a national policy. Six Congresses endorsed that policy, which was a policy of our country. And they carried out that responsibility as a member of our Armed Forces.,I think we should praise them, congratulate them, and we have an unbelievable commitment to them in the future. All we can say is, thank you very much for what they have done for freedom.,FOREIGN POLICY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that you spoke to some Virginia Republicans the weekend before last, and at that time, you said that in 1976 we will have some excellent results in foreign policy. After the past few weeks, we can all use a little good news. Can you tell us just what you do expect in 1976?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think between now and the end of 1976, we are going to make progress in the negotiations for a SALT II agreement. It hasn't been finalized, but the atmosphere is good. There is going to be some hard negotiating, but I will approach that important meeting with Mr. Brezhnev aimed at achieving results, and I think his attitude will reflect the same.,I think you are going to find a greater solidarity in Europe. I am going to Europe the latter part of this month to strengthen that solidarity and to work on a more unified position in solving our joint economic problems, in trying to solve the energy problems that are serious for all of us.,It is my judgment that we can move ahead even in the Pacific. We will have to not reassess, but assess how we can proceed. But it is my aim to tie more closely together South Korea with the United States, to reaffirm our commitments to Taiwan, to work more closely with Indonesia, with the Philippines, and with other Pacific nations. These are the kind of, I believe, forward movements in foreign policy that will be beneficial in the maintenance of peace.,Q. Mr. President, I would very much like to follow that up one second. Is your job going to be complicated by what happened in Southeast Asia? You have gone out of your way in the past week or two to say the United States will honor its foreign commitments. What sort of private feedback are you getting from foreign capitals? Is there a lack of confidence now, a loss of confidence in the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. We do get reactions from foreign governments wondering what our position will be, asking where we will go and what our policy will be. We have indicated to our friends that we will maintain our commitments. We understand the perception that some countries may have as a result of the setback in South Vietnam. But that perception is not a reality, because the United States is strong militarily. The United States is strong economically, despite our current problems. And we are going to maintain our leadership on a worldwide basis. And we want our friends to know that we will stand by them, and we want any potential adversaries to know that we will stand up to them.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there have been persistent reports here in Washington that the Rockefeller Commission is looking into reports that somehow or the other, discussions of the assassination of Fidel Castro may have somehow triggered the assassination of John Kennedy. Can you tell us, is there any connection between those two events?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot give you the inside information on the Rockefeller Commission, because I established it for the purpose of investigating the CIA and making any recommendations concerning it. It is my understanding that they are taking a very broad look. Until I get their report, I think it would be premature for me to make any comment as to precisely where they are going with their investigation.,Now, as a former member of the Warren Commission, a commission that I think did a good job--we found, as a Warren Commission, no connection of anything between Cuba and the United States. We found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic.,ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, after 8 years of a Republican in the White House, there probably will be a lot of people who next year will say it is time for a change. Now what accomplishments can you cite to rebut the argument that there should be such a change?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think there ought to be a change. I strongly believe that a continuation of the basic policies of the last 8 years will be good for America. And let me take a minute or two to talk about foreign policy.,A Republican administration ended the war in Vietnam. They withdrew 550,000 American military personnel. They brought back all of the POW's. The United States under a Republican administration took the first meaningful steps in trying to control nuclear arms, and I think we are going to have continued success in that area.,In the domestic area, we have gone through a difficult time, but when you look at the overall--a period of 8 years--I think domestically, there will be far more pluses than minuses. And therefore, it is my judgment that the American people--if we sell the program properly, we will have an excellent opportunity of prevailing in November of 1976.,Q. Mr. President, on the economic issue--I assume that is what you are saying here--but if the economy is at a low ebb next year, if unemployment is about what it is now, can you win?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the economic conditions in 1976 will be comparable to those today. I think we are at the end of the recession. I believe that we can look forward to some improvement economically in the third and fourth quarters of 1975, and they ought to improve in 1976. Therefore, in my judgment, we will be looking in the future towards better times at home and a good foreign policy abroad.,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, events in Indochina outran the deliberative process of the Congress, and you weren't given the clearly defined authority to use U.S. forces to evacuate there because of Cambodia and Vietnam. My question goes to the matter of whether it was a personal dilemma for you as Commander in Chief to use U.S. forces without the expressed concurrence of the Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Our prime objective, of course, both in the evacuation from Phnom Penh in Cambodia and in Saigon was to bring all Americans out of both locations. Now, in the process it did appear to be wise, particularly in Saigon, to take out a number of South Vietnamese.,We did that because, number one, we felt that a number of these South Vietnamese had been very loyal to the United States and deserved an opportunity to live in freedom, and secondly, the possibility existed if we had not brought out some South Vietnamese, that there could have been anti-American attitudes developed that would have complicated the evacuation of our American personnel. So, I felt that what we did could be fully justified in not only evacuating Americans but evacuating some of the South Vietnamese who wanted to come to the United States.,Q. Mr. President, Secretary Kissinger said that all of the Americans who wanted to leave South Vietnam were evacuated, but there may be some reason to believe not all were evacuated. Some organizations, for example, report at least eight missionaries captured in the northern part of South Vietnam. So, I am wondering if there is some process to check this sort of thing out, and what could be done about it?,THE PRESIDENT. We certainly made a maximum effort to get every American out. We found in the last week, that on a certain day they could tell us that there were 1,000 Americans that were ready to come out, and we would take 3 or 400 out, and then the next day we would find that a number of other Americans had come into Saigon and wanted to get out.,So, we certainly made a tremendous effort to get all Americans out. I am sure there are some who are left. At this time, I can't give you the specifics as to how we will seek to get any Americans who are still there, but we will do all we can to achieve that result.,Q. Mr. President, you have praised Ambassador Graham Martin's record in Vietnam, and you have also defended the evacuation of Vietnamese civilians. Yet, there is some evidence that Mr. Martin's actions made it impossible for some Vietnamese to escape who were longstanding employees of the United States Government and others were evacuated on the basis of their ability to pay. Have you investigated any of these charges, and do you still believe that Ambassador Martin's record is one of effectiveness?,THE PRESIDENT. Because of the ability of Ambassador Martin to handle a tough situation--and it was very difficult--we got all Americans out and we got roughly 120,000-plus South Vietnamese.,Now, I am familiar with some individuals who are critical of the way in which Ambassador Martin handled it. I never had much faith in Monday morning quarterbacks or grandstand quarterbacks. I would rather put faith in the man who carried out a very successful evacuation of Americans and a tremendous number of South Vietnamese.,Rather than be critical of somebody who, I think, did a good job, I think we ought to praise him. If some of these people want to, in hindsight--who didn't have the responsibility--criticize him, I think we will accept it for what it's worth.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some references tonight to the economic situation. The overall unemployment rate is 9 percent, but among black teenagers and young black males and some other minority groups it is three times that. What plans do you have to cope with the social consequences of that kind of unemployment?,THE PRESIDENT. We are concerned about the unemployment of the youth, particularly, and the highest percentage, of course, of unemployment falls in the black youth group.,I submitted to the Congress about a month ago a request for $450 million, as I recollect, to fund a young people's employment program for this coming summer. Now, unfortunately, the Congress hasn't approved that funding, and the steps that have been taken, I think, will hamper the possibility of getting that funding to meet this problem. And they have added about $3 billion over and above extra funding that I don't think can be justified. If the Congress would approve the request that I made for roughly $450 million, we would be in a position right now to do something about the problem that you raise.,Q. Mr. President, the record of recent years is that that kind of summer jobs and that kind of thing has not prevented what really is a chronic long-term problem of 30-percent unemployment among young minority groups. What I am really asking is this: A great many economists think that instead of coming out of this recession dramatically, we are just going to have a long period of stagflation where we don't have a really serious situation, but we don't have things very well, indeed, and this kind of chronic unemployment among minority groups just persists.,What I am trying to find out is: Other than summer jobs and that kind of thing, do you think this is really a serious problem that the United States ought to address and try to do something about? And if you do, what are your plans for it?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think it is a serious problem, but the most important problem is to meet the present difficulty which begins with the end of the school year. And that is why I think the Congress ought to act quickly on the request that I made for summer employment.,Now, in the long run, the best way to get the young people properly employed in our economy is to have a healthy economy, not a government dominated economy. I think we are in the process of coming out of the recession. I am optimistic in the future, and when we, in the third and fourth quarters of this year, have the success that I think we are going to have, some of the problems will be answered that you have raised.\nMr. Jones [Phil Jones, CBS News].,CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM CONFLICT,[12.] Q. You apparently had some intelligence reports about a bloodbath in Cambodia. I am wondering if you can bring us up to date on anything in this area in Cambodia, and whether or not there is any report of a bloodbath in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We do have some intelligence reports to the effect that in Cambodia, some 80 or 90 former Cambodian officials were executed, and in addition, their wives were executed. This is very hard intelligence; that is, I think, very factual evidence of the bloodbath that has taken place or is in the process of taking place in Cambodia.,Now, a turn to Vietnam. As you know, there is a very tight censorship in South Vietnam. The news that gets out is pretty heavily controlled by the North Vietnamese and by the Vietcong. So, we really don't have the same kind of hard evidence there that we have had in Cambodia in the instance that I have indicated.,But I think probably the best evidence of the probability is that 120,000-plus South Vietnamese fled because they knew that the probability existed that if they stayed,' their life would be in jeopardy. That is the best evidence of what probably will take place.,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow up on this--you say you don't have any hard evidence. Do you have any report, any intelligence reports that indicate this is going on?,THE PRESIDENT. As of the moment, we have not.,VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,[13.] Q. May I ask you something, sir, and simply a matter of style and nothing of substance. Reading Mr. Hersey, who has spent a week with you,1 and reading others, you seem to be a kind of a peaceful, quiet man, a placid man. Do you ever get mad at people? Do you ever chew people out? Do you yell? Do you fire people? Do you kick people around?,THE PRESIDENT. I have learned to control my temper. I get very upset internally, but I have learned that that is not the best way to solve a problem. I do have occasional outbursts on the golf course, but in dealing with people I have found that the best way to meet a personnel problem or to handle a serious matter where a decision has to be made--that if you can keep cool, you can make a better decision. I have learned that over a long period of time.,1See footnote 1, page 636.,Q. If I may follow up, sir. You were described as very angry about those rumors that you were going through a political charade and were secretly not going to run--this story in the news magazine a week or so ago. How did you express yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't shout.,Q. They said you were \"damn mad.\",THE PRESIDENT. I didn't raise the devil with anybody. I simply indicated to my staff that the stories were totally untrue, which they are, and that no such meeting took place where such a policy was outlined by me.,I found the best way to handle the matter is to be very firm, very calm but very forthright, dealing not only with my staff but with others. I think they understand what I mean by the way I say it, but you don't have to shout to do it.,GUN CONTROL,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Attorney General Levi has proposed a banning of handguns in high crime areas, and the Justice Department says that the White House cleared that position before he made it clear. Does that represent an extension of your proposal that the \"Saturday night specials\" only be controlled?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, it is my understanding that the Attorney General, when he made that speech, indicated that this was an alternative way of meeting the problem created by Saturday night specials. It is my understanding that he did not recommend this as the way to handle the problem. I think it is a unique approach, and it is being discussed with the Department of Justice within our Domestic Council, but there is no firm decision on whether that approach or any other approach is the right way to meet the problem.,Q. Do you expect effective gun control legislation to be passed, and are you going to get behind effective control?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to recommend the registration of gunowners, and I am not going to recommend the registration of guns, or handguns, I should say. If we can find some responsible way to do it other than that approach, we certainly will consider them.,HOUSING,[15.] Q. Mr. President, a growing number of Americans, lower and middle class, are being priced out of the housing market. And now there is new evidence that mortgage rates may be turning around--indeed, the FHA has increased its rate by half a percentage. Can you tell the American people tonight, makers of houses, potential buyers of houses--can you give them any assurance that in the next months, the next year or two, more housing will be available at relatively moderate prices and that interest rates will stay down?,THE PRESIDENT. The most encouraging development in the housing area is the fact that the inflow of deposits in the savings and loans has gone up very substantially. It is my recollection that in the last reported month, about $4 billion in deposits flowed into savings and loans, and that over the last 3 months, it has been a very favorable inflow into the S & L's. This means, of course, that there is money available for home buyers, and it is my judgment that once we start the upturn from the present recession, that the consumer interest in buying homes will increase significantly and with the money available in the S & L's, I think, the prospects for an upturn in the housing industry are very encouraging.,Q. Do you approve the FHA increase, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I approve the increase, because if you are going to have FHA handling of mortgages, if you are going to have the government guarantees, they must be competitive with other interest rates. And I happen to think that an FHA loan or a VA loan--either are very good, and we want those competitive with the regular, conventional interest rates. And therefore, to make them competitive, I agreed with the decision.\nMISS LEWINE. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-04-03","text":"THE PRESIDENT. At the outset, let me express my appreciation to Mayor Pete Wilson and the fine people of San Diego for the very warm welcome.,I also am delighted to see one or more of my former colleagues in the Congress here. It is always nice to see them. And Al 1 and others who may be here, good morning.\nI have a short opening statement.,1 Representative Alphonzo Bell of California.,STATEMENT ON UNITED STATES HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[1.] We are seeing a great human tragedy as untold numbers of Vietnamese flee the North Vietnamese onslaught. The United States has been doing and will continue to do its utmost to assist these people.,I have directed all available naval ships to stand off Indochina to do whatever is necessary to assist. We have appealed to the United Nations to use its moral influence to permit these innocent people to leave, and we call on North Vietnam to permit the movement of refugees to the area of their choice.,While I have been in California, I have been spending many hours on the refugee problem and our humanitarian efforts. I have directed that money from a $2 million special foreign aid children's fund be made available to fly 2,000 South Vietnamese orphans to the United States as soon as possible. I have also directed American officials in Saigon to act immediately to cut redtape and other bureaucratic obstacles preventing these children from coming to the United States.,I have directed that C-5A aircraft and other aircraft, especially equipped to care for these orphans during the flight, be sent to Saigon. I expect these flights to begin within the next 36 to 48 hours. These orphans will be flown to Travis Air Force Base in California and other bases on the west coast and cared for in those locations.,These 2,000 Vietnamese orphans are all in the process of being adopted by American families. This is the least we can do, and we will do much, much more.\nThe first question is from Mr. George Dissinger of the San Diego Tribune.,QUESTIONS,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM AND CAMBODIA,[2.] Q. Mr. President, are you ready to accept a Communist takeover of South Vietnam and Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that that would not take place in either case. My whole Congressional life in recent years was aimed at avoiding it. My complete efforts as President of the United States were aimed at avoiding that.,I am an optimist, despite the sad and tragic events that we see unfolding. I will do my utmost in the future--as I have in the past--to avoid that result.,Q. Mr. President, I understand you are soon going to ask Congress for new authority to extend humanitarian aid in Southeast Asia. I wondered if you stand by your request, though, for more military aid for South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We do intend to ask for more humanitarian aid. I should point out that the Administration request for $135 million for humanitarian aid in South Vietnam was, unfortunately, reduced to $55 million by Congressional action. Obviously, we will ask for more. The precise amount we have not yet determined.,We will continue to push for the $300 million that we have asked for and Congress had authorized for military assistance to South Vietnam, and the possibility exists that we may ask for more.,Q. Mr. President, how and why did the U.S. miscalculate the intentions of the will of the South Vietnamese to resist?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that we miscalculated the will of the South Vietnamese to carry on their fight for their own freedom.,There were several situations that developed that I think got beyond the control of the Vietnamese people. The unilateral military decision to withdraw created a chaotic situation in Vietnam that appears to have brought about tremendous disorganization.,I believe that the will of the South Vietnamese people to fight for their freedom is best evidenced by the fact that they are fleeing from the North Vietnamese, and that clearly is an indication they don't want to live under the kind of government that exists in North Vietnam.,The will of the South Vietnamese people, I think, still exists. They want freedom under a different kind of government than has existed in North Vietnam. The problem is how to organize that will under the traumatic experiences of the present.,Q. Unilateral decision by whom?,THE PRESIDENT. It was a unilateral decision by President Thieu to order a withdrawal from the broad, exposed areas that were under the control of the South Vietnamese military.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, what is your response to the South Vietnamese Ambassador to Washington's statement that we had not lived up to the Paris peace accords and that the Communists are safer allies?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't comment on his statement. I will say this: that the North Vietnamese repeatedly and in massive efforts violated the Paris peace accords. They sent North Vietnamese regular forces into South Vietnam in massive numbers--I think around 150,000 to 175,000 well-trained North Vietnamese regular forces--in violation of the Paris peace accords, moved into South Vietnam. We have objected to that violation.,I still believe that the United States, in this case and in other cases, is a reliable ally. And although I am saddened by the events that we have read about and seen, it is a tragedy unbelievable in its ramifications.,I must say that I am frustrated by the action of the Congress in not responding to some of the requests both for economic and humanitarian and military assistance in South Vietnam. And I am frustrated by the limitations that were placed on the Chief Executive over the last 2 years.,But let me add very strongly: I am convinced that this country is going to continue its leadership. We will stand by our allies, and I specifically warn any adversaries they should not, under any circumstances, feel that the tragedy of Vietnam is an indication that the American people have lost their will or their desire to stand up for freedom anyplace in the world.,Q. Well, Mr. President, can you explain why President Thieu, with our close military ties as allies, did not tell you what he was going to do in terms of the retreat?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the only answer to that can come from President Thieu.,Q. Mr. Ford, recently you said the fall of Cambodia could threaten the national security of this country. Now, considering the probable fall of South Vietnam to Communist forces, do you feel that will threaten our national security, and if so, how?,THE PRESIDENT. At the moment, I do not anticipate the fall of South Vietnam, and I greatly respect and admire the tremendous fight that the Government and the people of Cambodia are putting up against the insurgents who are trying to take over Cambodia.,I believe that in any case where the United States does not live up to its moral or treaty obligations, it can't help but have an adverse impact on other allies we have around the world.,We read in European papers to the effect that Western Europe ought to have some questions. Let me say to our Western European allies: We are going to stand behind our commitments to NATO, and we are going to stand behind our commitments to other allies around the world.,But there has to be in the minds of some people, a feeling that maybe the tragedy of Indochina might affect our relations with their country. I repeat, the United States is going to continue its leadership and stand by its allies.,Q. Are you, in fact, a believer of the domino theory--if Southeast Asia falls, then perhaps some of the other countries in the Pacific are next?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that there is a great deal of credibility to the domino theory. I hope it does not happen. I hope that other countries in Southeast Asia-Thailand, the Philippines--don't misread the will of the American people and the leadership of this country to believing that we are going to abandon our position in Southeast Asia. We are not.,But I do know from the things I read and the messages that I hear, that some of them do get uneasy. I hope and trust they believe me when I say we are going to stand by our allies.,PROTECTION OF AMERICANS OVERSEAS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, as you are well aware, there are about 7,000 Americans still in Saigon. They are in danger not only from Communist attack but from South Vietnamese reprisals. There are reports the South Vietnamese are in a bad temper toward Americans. Do you feel that under the War Powers Act and also under the limitations voted by Congress in 1973 on combat by Americans in Indochina that you could send troops in to protect those Americans, and would you, if it came to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I can assure you that I will abide totally with the War Powers Act that was enacted by the Congress several years ago. At the same time, I likewise assure you that we have contingency plans to meet all problems involving evacuation, if that should become necessary. At this point, I do not believe that I should answer specifically how those contingency plans might be carried out.,Q. Sir, you don't want to talk specifically. Can you tell us, however, if you do believe that you do have the authority to send in troops? You are not saying, I understand, whether you would, but do you have the authority?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my interpretation of that legislation that a President has certain limited authority to protect American lives. And to that extent, I will use that law.,VIETNAMESE WAR ORPHANS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, despite your statement here this morning about war orphans, there apparently is a lot of redtape in Washington. A San Diego man, who is trying to get four Vietnamese children out of that country, has received hundreds of calls from people all over the Western United States wanting to help, even adopt children. But despite this outpouring of compassion by the American people, all he gets in Washington is, \"No way. There is nothing that can be done.\" Why is he running into this problem if we are trying to help?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, having had some experience in the past with the Federal bureaucracy when we had a similar problem involving Korean orphans, I understand the frustration and the problem.,But I am assured that all bureaucratic redtape is being eliminated to the maximum degree and that we will make a total effort, as I indicated in my opening statement, to see to it that South Vietnamese war orphans are brought to the United States.,Q. Do you think something can be done before it is too late for many of them?,THE PRESIDENT. I can only say we will do what has to be done, what can be done, as a practical matter. I cannot guarantee that every single South Vietnamese war orphan will get here, but I can assure you that we intend to do everything possible in that humanitarian effort.,INFLATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the Gallup poll shows that a very healthy majority of the American people, 60 percent of the American people, are more concerned about the high cost of living than they are about any other issue, including the recession and international developments.,I would like to ask you, in view of that, if Congress does not respond to your repeated appeals to hold down spending and not exceed a level that would produce a deficit of $60 billion, if they don't do that, and Government borrowing increases to cover the deficit, do you have any plans--is there anything you plan to do beyond just these appeals to Congress to prevent a resurgence of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I clearly indicated last Saturday night when I approved the Tax Reduction Act, I have drawn the line on additional Federal spending. That is as far as we dare go. If we go beyond that, we amplify the potentialities for a resurgence of double-digit inflation. I intend to appeal to the Congress to hold the lid, and I intend to appeal to the American people to get their Members of Congress--Senators and Congressmen--to stop coming to the White House with one spending bill after another.,In addition, I am asking the Congress to enact a provision that would make applicable for fiscal year 1976 the budget control act that was enacted last year by the Congress.,Under the present law, the budget control act, which forces the Congress to set a ceiling, does not actually come into effect until fiscal year 1977. It seems to me in the crisis that we face today, that the Congress ought to amend the budget control act and make it applicable to fiscal year 1976, so they will impose on' themselves--the individual Members of Congress, House and Senate--a spending limitation.,Now, they are going through sort of a practice session on it. I wish they would abandon the practice session and get down to the ball game and they, themselves, set a spending limit at the level that I indicated.,Q. What I am asking, Mr. President, is if you have any strings to your bow other than these Congressional strings? In other words, what I am asking you is, do you plan any executive action to try to curb a resurgence or prevent a resurgence of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the executive actions will be directives to the various departments of the Government to limit their spending even within the appropriated amounts that Congress has made available.,We are expecting every department to spend as little as possible to carry out their programs or their mandates, and this includes holding the line on Federal personnel; it includes the limitations on spending for anything that cannot be justified. Under the law, that is the maximum that I can do in an executive capacity.,PRESIDENT THIEU OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, if it would alleviate the refugee problem in South Vietnam and bring about something of a temporary cease-fire, would you urge President Thieu to resign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that it is my prerogative to tell the head of state elected by the people to leave office. I don't believe whether it is one head of state or another makes any difference in our efforts to help in the humanitarian program.,We are going to carry it on, I hope, with the full cooperation of the South Vietnamese Government. And I don't think it appropriate for me to ask him, under these circumstances, to resign. And I don't think his resignation would have any significance on our humanitarian efforts.,VIETNAMESE REFUGEES,[7.] Q. In that regard, are there any plans underway by the U.S. Government to accept large numbers of Vietnamese refugees in this country other than the 2,000 orphans that you have talked about?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, under existing law, action by the Attorney General can permit refugees who are fleeing problems in their own country to come to the United States. This authority was used after World War II. This authority was used after the Hungarian invasion by the Soviet Union. This authority has been used on a number of other occasions. I can assure you that that authority is being examined, and if it will be helpful, I certainly will approve it.,RECESSION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, what is your judgment now on when you expect the recession to end and recovery to begin? Is it the third quarter of this year, or will it be later?,THE PRESIDENT. Our best judgment is that the recession will turn around during the third quarter of this calendar year. We are already seeing some significant changes in the statistics that give us more certainty that the recession will end and that economic recovery will begin in the third quarter of this calendar year.,Q. Could you tell us what those signs are, please, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The latest report shows that there has been an increase in the ordering of manufactured goods--the first time, I think, in 6 months that there has been an increase rather than a decrease.,Interest rates are dropping; more money for borrowers is being made available. The inflation is receding, or at least the rate of inflation is receding. As of the last report, it would annualize at about 7.2 percent, contrasted with a 12- or 13-percent rate of inflation in 1974.,When you add up all these various economic indicators, it does show that the recession is receding and that economic conditions will get better in the third quarter of 1975.,FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE 1976 CAMPAIGN,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in line with the spending question, last year when you campaigned in California, you asked voters to help defeat the big spenders in Congress, and if they happened to be Republicans, well, so be it. Do you plan to use the same philosophy in campaigning next year and to the extent that you will openly campaign against Republicans whose philosophies or policies may contradict yours? And if so, how does this sit with your statement that the Republican Party is broad enough for all views?,THE PRESIDENT. I expect to be campaigning very hard for my own reelection-or election in 1976. I will, of course, urge that voters in every State support those candidates who believe as I do that we have got to hold a line on and restrain excessive Federal spending.,My enthusiasm for an individual candidate will, of course, depend upon his strong support for my policy of fiscal restraint, but I am not going to pass judgment today on individuals, whether in one party or another.,Q. Does this mean then that there is a possibility that during that campaign you could come out openly in support of a Democrat as opposed to a Republican?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe in the need for the country to have individual Members of the House and Senate who believe that these massive Federal spending programs are bad for America.,And I certainly will look with favor on anyone who believes as I do that we cannot spend ourself into prosperity, a tax cut approach is a far better way, and that massive spending programs are not good for America.,CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you now head an Administration which came to power on a strong law-and-order platform, but the crime rate since 1969 has done nothing but go up, and the statistics include crimes at the highest levels of government.,And my question is whether you think it would be fair for the Democrats to charge that this Administration is soft on crime, or at least is incapable of dealing with the problem.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, unfortunately for the country, the crime rate has been increasing for the last 10 or 15 years, whether it was under a Democratic administration, under President Kennedy or President Johnson or, except for, I think, 1 year under the former President, the crime rate has been going up.,I don't think it is a partisan issue. It is my judgment that we have to maximize our effort--the Federal Government, State government, and local units of government-to try and have proper enforcement of the law, which includes the prosecution of people who violate the law.,I can only assure you that to the extent that the Federal Government can do something about it, we, this Administration, will do it. The facts of life are that most law enforcement is the local responsibility.,Through the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, the Federal Government has been spending for the last several years around $800 million to help local units of government, State units of government in the upgrading of their law enforcement capability--helping police departments, helping sheriffs' departments, helping the courts--and will continue to do it. But the principal responsibility rests at the local level.,Q. Will you be able to spend any more money, under your proposition that the line has to be drawn somewhere, on fighting the crime problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I think in the budget that I submitted there is ample money for a Federal effort to carry out the Federal role in the area of law enforcement.,PRESIDENT'S WAR POWERS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke a few minutes ago about being frustrated by the limitations of the War Powers Act. If it were not forbidden now, would you like to send American planes and naval forces and possibly ground forces into Vietnam to try to turn the situation around?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said that there are no plans whatsoever for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. On the other hand, I think history does prove that if a Chief Executive has a potential, it, to some extent, is a deterrent against aggressors.,Q. So, that is your frustration--because you do not have that power to at least threaten the possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not use the word \"threat.\" I said the potential for power, I think, over the years has indicated that that potential is a deterrent against aggression by one country against another.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the possible primary entries by Governor Reagan and perhaps Governor Thomson of New Hampshire, would you be good enough to discuss your own timetable? When will you set up your committee, specifically, and can you also tell us, do you plan to enter any primaries yourself or through a stand-in candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not defined our precise timetable nor our precise plans for the pre-convention campaign. We are in the process of putting together our timetable and our plan. I have said repeatedly that I intend to be a candidate, but I have made no categorical announcement to that effect. But the matter is not being neglected.,WARREN COMMISSION REPORT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in light of current concerns regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and the recent showings of the Zapruder films, do you still have the same confidence in the finding of the Warren Commission that you had as a member of that Commission?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have to read very carefully what the Warren Commission said. And I, as a member of the Warren Commission, helped to participate in the drafting of the language. We said that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. We said that the Commission had found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic. Those words were very carefully drafted. And so far, I have seen no evidence that would dispute the conclusions to which we came.,We were most careful, because in 1963 and '64, when we most carefully analyzed all the evidence available, there was none of the involvement of anybody--or anybody as a group--in the assassination.,It is my understanding that the Rockefeller Commission may, if the facts seem to justify it, take a look at it--at the problem--and I suspect that the House and Senate committees that are currently investigating CIA history may do the same.,But the Commission was right when it .made its determination, and it was accurate, at least to this point--and I want to reemphasize that--as to the evidence that we saw.,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[14.] Q. Mr. President, some people are saying this week that despite all our massive aid in Vietnam and all the lives that were lost there, that the whole thing has come to nothing. Now, how do you feel about this, and do you think there is any lesson to be learned in what has been happening over there?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the program of the previous four or five Presidents-President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, and myself-were aimed in the right direction, that we should help those people who are willing to fight for freedom for themselves.,That was a sound policy. Unfortunately, events that were beyond our control as a country have made it appear that that policy was wrong. I still believe that policy was right if the United States had carried it out, as we promised to do at the time of the Paris peace accords, where we promised, with the signing of the Paris peace accords, that we would make military hardware available to the South Vietnamese Government on a replacement, one-for-one basis. Unfortunately, we did not carry out that promise.,Q. Well, are you blaming Congress for this, then?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not assessing blame on anyone. The facts are that in fiscal year 1974, there was a substantial reduction made by the Congress in the amount of military equipment requested for South Vietnam.,In fiscal year 1975, the current fiscal year, the Administration asked for $1,400 million in military assistance for South Vietnam. Congress put a ceiling of $1 billion on it and actually appropriated only $700 million.,Those are the facts. I think it is up to the American people to pass judgment on who was at fault or where the blame may rest. That is a current judgment.,I think historians in the future will write who was to blame in this tragic situation. But the American people ought to know the facts. And the facts are as I have indicated.,I think it is a great tragedy, what we are seeing in Vietnam today. I think it could have been avoided. But I am not going to point a finger. The American people will make that judgment. I think it is more important for me and the American people and the Congress, in the weeks and months ahead, to do what we can to work together to meet the problems of the future.,And that is what I intend to do, and I will go more than halfway with the Congress in seeking to achieve that result. I think we have the capability in America. I think we have the will to overcome what appears to be a disaster in Southeast Asia. To the extent that I can, I hope to give that leadership.,Q. Mr. President, regardless of what caused it, it seems apparent that for the first time in our Nation's history, the enemy is about to win a war where Americans fought and died. Do you think that those 55,000 lives were wasted?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think they were wasted, providing the United States had carried out the solemn commitments that were made in Paris at the time American fighting was stopped in South Vietnam, at a time when the agreement provided that all of our troops should be withdrawn, that all of our POW's should be returned. If we had carried out the commitments that were made at that time, the tragic sacrifices that were made by many--those who were killed, those who were wounded--would not have been in vain. But when I see us not carrying through, then it raises a quite different question.,Q. Is that a yes, then, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I still think there is an opportunity to salvage the situation in Vietnam, and if we salvage it, giving the South Vietnamese an opportunity to fight for their freedom--which I think they are anxious to do if given an honest opportunity--then there was not a sacrifice that was inappropriate or unwise.,FOREIGN POLICY,[15.] Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,Q. In a speech you are going to deliver here in San Diego this afternoon,2 you warn against fatalism, despair, and the prophets of doom. And yet, as I look back over the past 8 months or a year--and I don't mean to suggest that these are in any way your responsibility or fault--I have a laundry list which cites Portugal as having a leftist government, raising serious questions about its future in NATO; Greece and Turkey are at each other's throats, threatening the southern flanks of that alliance; we are familiar that Secretary Kissinger's mission failed in his peace talks with Egypt and Israel; and we don't need to rehash the situation in Cambodia and South Vietnam.,2 See Item 167.,That being the case, sir, how can you say that the world outlook--and particularly as you address it in your speech next week on the state of the world-is anything but bleak for the United States, when many of the minuses which I cited are actually pluses for the Soviets?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the speech that I am giving to Congress and to the American people next week will deal with many of the problems that you have raised. I think we do face a crisis. But I am optimistic that if the Congress joins with me, and the American people support the Congress and me, as President, we can overcome those difficulties.,We can play a constructive role in Portugal, not interfering with their internal decisions--but Portugal is an important ally in Western Europe.,We can find ways to solve the problem in Cyprus and, hopefully, keep both Greece and Turkey strong and viable members of NATO.,We can, despite the difficulties that transpired in the Middle East in the last several weeks, find a way to keep a peace movement moving in that very volatile area.,It may mean--and probably does--that we will have to take the problem m Geneva. I would have preferred it otherwise. But the facts are that if Congress and the American people and the President work together--as I expect they will--then, in my judgment, those disappointments can become pluses.,Q. But, sir, can you cite any specific reasons for the optimism you express?,THE PRESIDENT. The historical character of the American people--that is the main ingredient that, in my judgment, will take America from the disappointments of the present to the optimism of the future.\nFRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-03-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. It has been a great and wonderful day here in South Bend. I thank everybody for it. And I am looking forward to this news conference.\nMr. Jack Colwell [South Bend Tribune].,NOTRE DAME PRESIDENT HESBURGH,[1.] Q. You and Father Hesburgh today had some very kind things to say about one another, and it also gave you an opportunity to speak with him privately. Do you have any plans for any additional appointments or duties for Father Hesburgh in your Administration?,THE PRESIDENT. Father Hesburgh has done a superb job on the Clemency Board, which is a very time-consuming responsibility. The Clemency Board has had a great upsurge in applicants.,I think Father Hesburgh and the others on the Clemency Board are going to be pretty busy in the months ahead. But let me assure you and others that someone who has .as much talent and tremendous civic interest, once that job is over, I think we can use someone like Father Hesburgh in many more responsibilities.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,CAMBODIA,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you have said that the question of personalities is really not vital to a settlement in Cambodia. My question is, is the survival of a non-Communist government in Cambodia vital to the U.S. security in Southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, I think it is. I cannot help but notice that since the military situation in Cambodia has become very serious, and since the North Vietnamese have apparently launched a very substantial additional military effort against South Vietnam, against the Paris peace accords, there has been, as I understand it, in Thailand, according to the news announcements this morning, a potential request from Thailand that we withdraw our forces from that country.,I noticed in the morning news summary before I left Washington that the President of the Philippines, Mr. Marcos, is reviewing the Philippine relationship with the United States.,I think these potential developments to some extent tend to validate the so-called domino theory, and if we have one country after another, allies of the United States, losing faith in our word, losing faith in our agreements with them, yes, I think the first one to go could vitally affect the national security of the United States.,Q. May I ask you one more question that has been on my mind for a long time? Since you supported the invasion of Cambodia 5 years ago, would you do the same today?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a hypothetical question, Miss Thomas, because under the law I have no such authority to do so. I did support the activities then, the so-called Cambodian incursion, because the North Vietnamese were using that area in Cambodia for many military strikes against U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam. It was a successful military operation. It saved many American lives, because those sanctuaries were destroyed.,Since I do not have the authority to undertake any such military obligation-we have no U.S. military forces in South Vietnam--I think it is a hypothetical question, which really I cannot answer.,FEDERAL FARM ASSISTANCE,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your commitments for Food for Peace programs and your national interest in slowing down increase of food prices, what kinds of farm support legislation would you support?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe the current farm legislation is good legislation. I helped, when I was in the Congress, to obtain its enactment. It has resulted in freeing the Federal Government from trying to run agriculture in the United States. It has resulted in the greatest production of food and fiber in the United States.,It seems to me that this law which was passed several years ago is good legislation. It has supplied our needs. It has made it possible for the United States to contribute very significantly in the Food for Peace effort around the world.,Therefore, I think it is wise, under these circumstances, for us to keep this law and not tinker with it at the present time.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Clark Clifford said today that he has already been questioned by the Rockefeller Commission about a possible CIA assassination plot. Since you created the Commission, I wonder if you think this is a proper area for the Commission to get into?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], let me say at the outset that this Administration does not condone, under any circumstances, any assassination attempts. We in this Administration will not participate under any circumstances in activities of that sort. Now, I have watched with interest and personal attention the stories and some allegations to the effect that assassinations were discussed and potentially undertaken.,I have asked members of my staff to analyze the best way in which this serious problem can be handled. I did discuss it with the Vice President last week. And I expect within the next several days that I will decide the best course of action for the Rockefeller Commission or any executive branch investigation of such allegations.,Q. I gather, sir, then that you think it should be gone into at least semipublicly?,THE PRESIDENT. It is a serious matter, and I will decide within the next few\ndays the best course of action for the executive branch to take on these allegations.,PROGRAMS FOR THE POOR,[5.] Q. Mr. President, earlier here today a number of young people protested it was inappropriate for you to receive an honorary Notre Dame degree because they considered your lack of sensitivity to the poor and your decision to re-fund the war in Indochina. What would be your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you will find that the budget that I submitted in January of this year was a very sound budget. It was not an austere budget. It did provide substantially for the poor in many respects. It provided for an expanded Community Development Act of $1,600 million more for next year than for the current fiscal year. It did provide $202 million for the Older American Act, which is a substantial increase in this area over the last several years.,We have proposed, and we will support, a responsible program to help the poor in this country. And I think the budget that I submitted in January does just that.,FOREIGN ASSISTANCE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech here at Notre Dame earlier today, you made a strong pitch for continued foreign aid despite the recession. And I was surprised that you failed to mention your proposal for more military aid to Cambodia and South Vietnam. Now, I know military aid to Southeast Asia has been unpopular on many college campuses, and I wonder if your failure to mention that was because you feared you might be booed or there might be a walkout by students if you professed your policy on that issue?,THE PRESIDENT. The speech that I made this morning on the Notre Dame campus was aimed at the broad concept that the United States must participate in world aft:airs, that this was one world in which we all live. I pointed out I had always supported, as a Member of Congress, the mutual security and the foreign aid programs, both economic, point 4, Food for Peace, as well as the military assistance program.,It seemed to me that we needed a restatement of the basic reason why foreign aid is important, that we live in an interdependent world and that the United States has to make its full contribution in that regard.,The details can be discussed, the details can be argued, but we needed a restatement, a strong restatement of the broad, general reasons why this country has to be a part of the one world concept, working with our allies, trying to eliminate difficulties between ourselves and our adversaries. And it seemed to me if that could be restated, we could work out the details within that concept and not reinflame the differences and difficulties that existed while U.S. troops were stationed and fighting in South Vietnam.,Q. Let me follow that up. If you had made a strong plea today for military aid for Cambodia and South Vietnam, do you think it would have been well received by the student audience?,THE PRESIDENT. Since I did not consider that as a part of my remarks, I really did not consider the hypothetical question you are asking me.,ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican candidate for mayor of Chicago, Mr. John Hoellen, has stated over the weekend that he was either snubbed or given very short shrift by you at the White House. The Cook County Republican committee is in a state of chaos, and the Republican committee in Illinois is not much better off. What are you going to do for Mr. Hoellen, and what are you going to do for the Republican Party in Illinois in order to win it in 1976?,THE PRESIDENT. I seldom interject myself into local partisan elections. I do believe, however, that the President ought to be as helpful as he can in a statewide, partisan way at the proper time.,I do believe that the State organization in Illinois is rebuilding and getting ready for the State and national elections in 1976. I consult with Senator Percy. I consult with the Illinois Republican delegation. And I think in that way I can be a participant in making the Republican Party in Illinois a viable political party in the very important elections of 1976.,Q. Are you going to have Donald Rumsfeld to assess the situation? It has been reported that you would.,THE PRESIDENT. Don Rumsfeld made a speech in Illinois Friday night, and I have not had an opportunity to discuss with him his observations based on that speech, but I do intend to, probably tomorrow or the next day. I have a great deal of faith in Don's understanding of the problems in Illinois and a great deal of faith in his judgment as to how I and we can help in that regard.,U.S. MONEY SUPPLY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, at a time when you say you are trying to end the recession, the money supply in the United States has not increased hardly at all. In the last 6 months of 1974, the money supply grew by less than 1 percent, and in November, December, and January it actually showed a decrease, one of the very few times it has in modern times. Are you personally satisfied, from the standpoint of ending the recession, with the speed or with the rate of growth in the money supply in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. I met with Arthur Burns, the head of the Federal Reserve, last week. He, of course, is the head of a very autonomous part of our Federal Government, but I do meet with him frequently to get the benefit of his views on our economic circumstances.,I did ask what was the situation, because there had been criticism such as you have indicated. It was pointed out to me by him--and there were a number of charts that were shown which show the facts to be contrary to the facts that you have stated--that M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, and M7--all of them show an increase, and I am one who has great faith in Dr. Burns.,We are showing an increase in the money supply. There will be an adequate money supply available for the current economic circumstances we face, and there will be an adequate money supply to meet the problems we have down the road.,INTEREST RATES,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I don't know what Dr. Burns' charts showed you about long-term interest rates which, as you know, are the principal factor in capital formation, but I want to ask you this: A lot of people, a lot of economists, are worried that Dr. Burns and Mr. Greenspan, and so forth, are going to take this thing down just as far as they can and wring the last bit of inflation out of it that they can and then try to turn it around. Are you satisfied--or what confidence do you have that we won't go so far with this thing that we can't turn it around?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, we have made substantial progress in trying to win the battle against inflation.,Last October, the rate of inflation was something like 13 percent. The last figures released about 3 weeks ago showed it was down to 7.2 percent on an annualized basis.,Now, in the charts that I also looked at--it showed that short-term interest rates had gone from something like 13 percent down to about 6 percent, and it showed that the trend on long-term interest rates was also a favorable one, going more slowly down than the short-term interest rates. But the trend is encouraging, and if we act responsibly and don't have a larger deficit than I have proposed in the Federal Government, so that the Federal Government does not go in and sop up all of the money that is needed, we can keep the trend in long-term interest rates going down.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, many of the steelworkers and autoworkers in your State and in Indiana are still out of work. What can you say to them by the way of encouragement? How far do they have to wait?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the biggest stimulant we could get to the economy right now, which means more jobs for autoworkers and steelworkers, is to get the Congress of the United States to move quickly to enact a substantial tax reduction at the Federal level.,In January--I believe on January 15 in the State of the Union Message--I urged a $16½ billion tax reduction bill as quickly as possible. It is now 2 months and 2 days, and the Congress has not completed action on that tax reduction bill. I hope that before Congress goes on its Easter recess, it will enact a tax reduction bill like the one I proposed or one that is reasonably acceptable.,If we could get a tax reduction bill out of the Congress promptly, that would be the best hope to stimulate the economy and to provide jobs for the autoworkers and steelworkers, who are at the present time--particularly the autoworkers--in desperate straits.,VICE PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you have hinted about it before but so far you have stopped short of saying flatly that Vice President Rockefeller will be your running mate in 1976. My question, sir, is: Will he be?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not think that I had ever equivocated on that, and if the interpretation is that I have, then I want to straighten it out right now.,Nelson Rockefeller has been an exceptionally active and able Vice President. I said when I nominated him I wanted him to be a partner. He has been, in the responsibilities on the Rockefeller Commission, in his responsibilities in the Domestic Council.,I think he deserves great praise. And I see no reason whatsoever that that team should not be together in the campaign in 1976.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to the Rockefeller Commission's investigation into the CIA, would you, at any time, consider changing their mandate to include an investigation of possible domestic activities by the CIA in regard to assassination attempts?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me reiterate, as a preface, I will not condone--in fact, I condemn--any CIA involvement in any assassination planning or action.,Now, I did indicate, in answer to a previous question, that I am personally analyzing, looking at all of the more recent charges of any assassination attempts by the CIA or actual assassinations from its inception to the present.,I am personally analyzing all of these charges. I have asked my staff to bring all of the material that is available to me personally. I have talked to Vice President Rockefeller about it. And I will determine within the next few days the best course of action to make sure that the matter is handled in the most appropriate way.,CAMBODIA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the State Department announced today that it had found some over $20 billion (million) in 1974 funds that had been voted for aid to Cambodia and had not been sent, and that it was making that money available now. Is this an artifice to get around Congressional appropriations? And are there other sources of such funds that could be found?,THE PRESIDENT. I was informed last Friday of what appears to be very sloppy bookkeeping in the Department of Defense, and I condemn it, if it is, and I will not condone it in the future.,I was surprised by these revelations. I don't think it was anything malicious. I don't think it was any purposeful action. But if the money is available and was appropriated by the Congress for the purposes set forth, it will be used according to the law.,Q. Have similar investigations of past Vietnam appropriations been made?,THE PRESIDENT. The Inspector General, as I understand it, found out the $21 million in Cambodian military aid that was revealed last week to me and publicly announced today. The Inspector General has a continuing responsibility to find out any and all circumstances, such as the one that we are discussing.,ACADEMIC COMMUNITY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, as Father Hesburgh put it in his speech today, you are the first President to set foot on a first-rate campus in about 10 years. In that context, in light of the fact that President Nixon fired Father Hesburgh from the Civil Rights Commission, I wonder if you would elaborate on your feelings about restoring better relations with the academic world and the task ahead of you in that respect.,THE PRESIDENT. One of the first actions that I took, one of the first trips that I undertook, was to go to the campus of Ohio State University. I might say parenthetically, for a Michigan graduate to go to Ohio State is doing double duty.,But I was well received there, and I had a fine opportunity to present a new concept that we have for higher education. This is another opportunity on the Notre Dame campus to continue that dialog that I hope will not only expand but grow by leaps and bounds between the academic community and the Federal Government.,There is no reason why we should not work together. There are a great many reasons why we should use the talent, the ability, the personnel that does exist on the campuses all over the United States, and I certainly intend to do so in the months ahead.,Q. The second part of the question: How much of a job is there ahead of you to restore better relations?,THE PRESIDENT. Based on the very warm welcome I received at Notre Dame today, I think we are on a good footing, and I certainly will bend over backwards to continue it and to expand it.,I think the dialog is excellent. About a week or 10 days ago I met with 10 or 15 top college and university presidents. That was another step in this better rapport between the academic community and this Administration. I can assure you we intend to do everything possible to make sure that it works.,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, will you be giving Congress all the material that is asked for as part of its investigation of intelligence activities?,THE PRESIDENT. The Senate committee has asked for a considerable amount of material. That request is currently being analyzed by the top members of my staff. I will make a judgment on that as soon as we have had an opportunity to review all of the very substantial number of requests.,I can assure you and others that we will do all we can to indicate maximum cooperation, but until we have had an opportunity to review this request in detail, I am not in a position to give you a categorical answer.,Q. Am I to understand that this executive branch investigation that you raised the possibility of, outside the Rockefeller Commission, would possibly make it necessary or advisable for you to delay giving Congress the material it has asked for?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there is any necessary conflict between the Rockefeller Commission and the one or more Congressional committees. The Rockefeller Commission has been in operation now for a month or two, so they are underway.\nThey had planned to finish their work within the next months, as I recollect. They may have to go beyond that, depending on certain circumstances, but we intend to make as full a disclosure as is possible without jeopardizing America's national security.,REVENUE SHARING,[16.] Q. Mr. President, tonight you are meeting with several Midwestern Governors. In light of some sagging revenues at State and local levels and your own budget tightening, what can you tell them about your long-range plans for return of the Federal dollar both to State and municipalities--revenue sharing and this type of thing?,THE PRESIDENT. In my State of the Union Message and in the Budget Message, I indicated that I was recommending an extension of the general revenue sharing program with the annual add-on that takes care of the inflation impact as far as the State and local units of government are concerned. So, I am on record now urging the Congress to extend the existing general revenue sharing program.,Q. Have the dollar amounts that you have been able to expend been affected by the current events?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my best recollection that the amount we recommended for the first year of the extended program is close to $7 billion a year, which is a substantial increase over the amount that was used in the first year of the present program.,It is a very, I think, generous proposal. It does crank in the inflation factor. And if the Congress goes along, I think it will be materially beneficial to the States and local units of government.,GASOLINE TAX,[17.] Q. Mr. President, we have not asked you about the gasoline tax lately. This afternoon or this morning, on Air Force One, what Mr. Zarb said led me to believe there may be a softening of the Administration's attitude. Are you still willing to stand by your earlier statement that you will veto any gasoline tax?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I could not help but notice over the weekend 102 Democrats joined in a statement in the House of Representatives condemning a gasoline tax.,I think a gasoline tax of the magnitude that several have proposed is not the right approach, and I do not think the Congress will approve it. I think the energy crisis--the energy program can be best implemented by the proposal I submitted in January. And I hope that in the negotiations between Mr. Zarb and myself with the Members of Congress on the respective committees--will result in an approach that is comparable to mine, because I think the Congress will pass that.,I have very grave doubts that the Congress would pass a gasoline tax. And certainly my feeling in that regard was reaffirmed by 102 Democrats putting their name on the line saying they would not vote for one. And I think there is a better way to do it, and we are going to work with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, hoping to find an answer that is more like the approach that I have recommended.,Q. To follow that up, you did say a gasoline tax of the magnitude that is being proposed by some. I seem to note a shift in your position there. Now, Mr. Ullman has come down from 40 cents to possibly 25 cents. If he were to come down a little further, would you be willing to talk about maybe a 20 cent tax?,THE PRESIDENT. I read a news report a few minutes ago which said' that the bill that he had introduced included a gas tax up to 37 cents over a 3- or 4-year span. I don't think that is the right approach, and I don't think it is feasible in trying to get the Congress to act. Therefore, I go back to a program that we proposed which I think will be the answer, which I think the Congress eventually will buy substantially.,I am very happy that we are negotiating. We are trying to find an answer with Mr. Ullman, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I am encouraged by what I understand is the progress that is being made.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Mr. Cormier. Thank you all very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-03-06","text":"STATEMENT ON UNITED STATES MILITARY AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO\nCAMBODIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good evening. Before we start the questions tonight, I would like to make a statement on the subject of assistance to Cambodia and to Vietnam.,There are three issues--the first, the future of the people who live there. It is a concern that is humanitarian--food for those who hunger and medical supplies for the men and women and children who are suffering the ravages of war. We seek to stop the bloodshed and end the horror and the tragedy that we see on television as rockets are fired wantonly into Phnom Penh.,I would like to be able to say that the killing would cease if we were to stop our aid, but that is not the case. The record shows, in both Vietnam and Cambodia, that Communist takeover of an area does not bring an end to violence, but on the contrary, subjects the innocent to new horrors.,We cannot meet humanitarian needs unless we provide some military assistance. Only through a combination of humanitarian endeavors and military aid do we have a chance to stop the fighting in that country in such a way as to end the bloodshed.,The second issue is whether the problems of Indochina will be settled by conquest or by negotiation. Both the Governments of Cambodia and the United States have made vigorous and continued efforts over the last few years to bring about a cease-fire and a political settlement.,The Cambodian Government declared a unilateral cease-fire and called for negotiations immediately after the peace accords of January 1973. It has since repeatedly expressed its willingness to be flexible in seeking a negotiated end to the conflict. Its leaders have made clear that they are willing to do whatever they can do to bring peace to the country.,The United States has backed these peace efforts. Yesterday, we made public an outline of our unceasing efforts over the years, including six separate initiatives since I became President.1,1On March 5, 1975, the Department of State Office of Press Relations had made available a summary of negotiating efforts on Cambodia.,Let me assure you: We will support any negotiations and accept any outcome that the parties themselves will agree to. As far as the United States is concerned, the personalities involved will not themselves constitute obstacles of any kind to a settlement.,Yet all of our efforts have been rebuffed. Peace in Cambodia has not been prevented by our failure to offer reasonable solutions. The aggressor believes it can win its objectives on the battlefield. This belief will be encouraged if we cut off assistance to our friends.,We want an end to the killing and a negotiated settlement. But there is no hope of success unless the Congress acts quickly to provide the necessary means for Cambodia to survive.,If we abandon our allies, we will be saying to all the world that war pays. Aggression will not stop; rather it will increase. In Cambodia, the aggressors will have shown that if negotiations are resisted, the United States will weary, abandon its friends, and force will prevail.,The third issue is the reliability of the United States. If we cease to help our friends in Indochina, we will have violated their trust that we would help them with arms, with food, and with supplies so long as they remain determined to fight for their own freedom. We will have been false to ourselves, to our word, and to our friends. No one should think for a moment that we can walk away from that without a deep sense of shame.,This is not a question of involvement or reinvolvement in Indochina. We have ended our involvement. All American forces have come home. They will not go back.,Time is short. There are two things the United States can do to affect the outcome. For my part, I will continue to seek a negotiated settlement. I ask the Congress to do its part by providing the assistance required to make such a settlement possible.\nTime is running out.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,CAMBODIA,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you wound up saying, \"Time is running out\" in Cambodia. Can you give us any assurance that even if the aid is voted it will get there in time? Is it stockpiled and ready to roll, or what is the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. If we don't give the aid, there is no hope. If we do get the necessary legislation from the Congress and it comes quickly--I would say within the next 10 days or 2 weeks---it will be possible to get the necessary aid to Cambodia, both economic assistance, humanitarian assistance, and military assistance. I believe there is a hope that we can help our friends to continue long enough to get into the wet season, then there will be an opportunity for the kind of negotiation which I think offers the best hope for a peace in Cambodia.\nMr. Growald [Richard Growald, United Press International].,CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us what Director Colby has told you of any CIA connection with the assassination of foreign leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not in a position to give you any factual account. I have had a full report from Mr. Colby on the operations that have been alluded to in the news media in the last week or so, really involving such actions that might have taken place beginning back in the 1960's.,I don't think it is appropriate for me at this time to go any further. We do have an investigation of the CIA, of our intelligence agencies, by the Congress, both overt and covert, going back from the inception of the CIA. And of course, we do have the Rockefeller Commission going into any CIA activities in the domestic front.\nBut for me to comment beyond that, I think, would be inappropriate at this\ntime.,CAMBODIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, you say that there would be a deep sense of shame in the country if Cambodia should fall. If that would be the case, sir, can you explain why there seems to be such a broad feeling of apathy in the country and also in the Congress toward providing any more aid for either Cambodia or South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe there is a growing concern which has been accentuated since we have seen the horror stories on television in recent weeks--the wanton use of rockets in the city of Phnom Penh, the children lying stricken on the streets, and people under great stress and strain--bloody scenes of the worst kind.,I think this kind of depicting of a tragedy there has aroused American concern, and I think it is a growing concern as the prospect of tragedy of this kind becomes even more evident.,So, I have noticed in the last week in the United States Congress, in a bipartisan way, a great deal more interest in trying to find an answer. And yesterday I spent an hour-plus with Members of Congress who came back from a trip to Cambodia and South Vietnam, and they saw firsthand the kind of killing, the kind of bloodshed, and it had a severe impact on these Members of Congress, some of whom have been very, very strongly opposed to our involvement in the past in Vietnam. And I think their impact will be significant in the Congress as well as in the country.\nMr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, the question is raised by many critics of our policy in Southeast Asia as to why we can conduct a policy of detente with the two Communist super powers in the world and could not follow a policy of detente should Cambodia and South Vietnam go Communist. Could you explain that to us?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have to understand the differences that we have\nwith China--the People's Republic of China--and with the Soviet Union. We do not accept their ideology. We do not accept their philosophy. On the other hand, we have to recognize that both countries have great power bases in the world, not only in population but in the regions in which they exist.,We do not expect to recognize or to believe in their philosophies. But it is important for us, the United States, to try and remove any of the obstacles that keep us from working together to solve some of the problems that exist throughout the world, including Indochina.,The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have supplied and are supplying military assistance to South Vietnam and Cambodia. We have to work with them to try and get an answer in that part of the world. But at the same time, I think that effort can be increased and the prospects improved if we continue the detente between ourselves and both of those powers.\nTom [Tom Brokaw, NBC News].,Q, Mr. President, putting it bluntly, wouldn't we just be continuing a bloodbath that already exists in Cambodia if we voted the $222 million in assistance?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think so, because the prospects are that with the kind of military assistance and economic and humanitarian aid we are proposing, the government forces hopefully can hold out. Now, if we do not, the prospects are almost certain that Phnom Penh will be overrun. And we know from previous experiences that the overrunning of a community or an area results in the murder and the bloodshed that comes when they pick up and sort out the people who were the schoolteachers, the leaders, the government officials.,This was told very dramatically to me yesterday by several Members of the Congress who were there and talked to some of the people who were in some of these communities or villages that were overrun.,It is an unbelievable horror story. And if we can hold out--and I think the prospects are encouraging--then I think we will avoid that kind of massacre and innocent murdering of people who really do not deserve that kind of treatment.,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow up: As I understand it, the Administration's point is that if we vote the aid that we will have the possibility of a negotiated settlement, not just the avoidance of a bloodbath. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct, sir.,Q. And yet, just yesterday, as you indicated in your statement, the State Department listed at least six unsuccessful efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Cambodia, dating to the summer of 1973, when American bombing stopped there. The Cambodian Government was certainly stronger then than it would be with just conceivably another $220 million.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think if you look at that long list of bona fide, legitimate negotiated efforts, the best prospects came when the enemy felt that it would be better off to negotiate than to fight.,Now, if we can strengthen the government forces now and get into the wet season, then I believe .the opportunity to negotiate will be infinitely better, certainly better than if the government forces are routed and the rebels--the Khmer Rouge--take over and do what they have done in other communities where they have had this kin. d of opportunity.,Q. Mr. President, you said, sir, that if the funds are provided that hopefully they can hold out. How long are you talking about? How long can they hold out? In other words, how long do you feel this aid will be necessary to continue?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this aid that we have requested on an emergency basis from the Congress is anticipated to provide the necessary humanitarian effort and the necessary military effort to get them through the dry season, which ends roughly the latter part of June or the first of July.,THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, if I might, I am sure you have seen news accounts to the effect that the conservatives, especially within your own party, are considering starting a third party in 1976, and they are bolting.,And I understand yesterday that a group of conservative Republican Senators met with you, and afterwards they came out and talked with reporters at the White House and told us that they were unhappy with your policies, they thought you were going too far to the left. And in fact, they said they wanted you to know that you could no longer take the right wing of your party for granted.,That being the case, sir, do you intend to go out and court conservative Republican support to woo them back for 1976, and do you think anything short of dropping Nelson Rockefeller from the ticket will do that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say the meeting that I had with about 11 very\nfine Republican Members of the United States Senate was a very, very frank discussion, and I think very constructive.,Some of them indicated that in certain areas they had disagreements with me. In other areas, they indicated a very strong support for the position that I have taken on various issues.\nIt is my feeling that the Republican Party has to be a broad-based, widespectrum party if it is going to be a viable force in the political situation in the United States.,I happen to believe that Nelson Rockefeller is doing a very fine job as Vice President, and if we can broaden the base of the Republican Party, I think we have an excellent chance to prevail in 1976.,My maximum effort will be in getting all elements of the Republican Party on the team, and I think, in the final analysis, we will.,Q. Mr. President, as a followup, sir, can you really broaden that base without losing the right wing of your party?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes, I think we can. In 1968 and 1972 that was achieved and we were successful. I think it can be done in 1976.,SENATE FILIBUSTER RULE,[6.] Q. On Rule 22, when Mr. Rockefeller ruled,2 had you approved what he was doing beforehand? Do you agree with the ruling, and do you agree with the assertion of some of the Senators you met with that it is going to make it much harder for your program to get by in the Senate with three-fifths rather than two-thirds?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have to understand that the Vice President occupies\nthe position as presiding officer of the United States Senate under the Constitution. He has a constitutional responsibility in that regard.,2While presiding in the Senate on February 20, 1975, Vice President Rockefeller ruled that a reform measure, changing from two-thirds to three-fifths the vote needed to end a filibuster, could be effected by a simple majority.,I am in the executive branch of the Government. He, in that part. of his responsibility, is in the legislative branch. He has the obligation under the Constitution to make a ruling, to preside in the United States Senate.,I think it is unappropriate or inappropriate, I should say, for me to tell him, as a member of the legislative branch in that capacity, how he should rule. And therefore, I did not. I have had a number of discussions with the Vice President as to my personal philosophy concerning the United States Senate. I happen to believe that the United States Senate ought to be a somewhat different legislative body than the House of Representatives, where by a 51-percent vote, a majority can prevail.,But our Founding Fathers very wisely thought that the Senate ought to be a little different, and they provided that the Senate should have other rules, other parliamentary procedures, including the requirement of more than 51 percent to conduct its business under certain circumstances.,I expressed those views to the Vice President, but I went no further, and I do not think it would have been appropriate for me to go any further.,Q. To just follow that question up, do you think that it is going to be harder for you to get your programs through the Congress with this prospective change in the filibuster rule?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it will be any more difficult to get the programs through. It might be more difficult in other ways, but I do not think it will be more difficult to get the programs through.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[7.] Q. Mr. President, some people who have visited former President Nixon in recent months have quoted him as saying that he would like to, after his illness is over, become a major figure in the Republican Party again. Do you foresee any time in the future when it would be beneficial for the Republican Party to have him reemerge as a leader?,THE PRESIDENT. I think any comment that I make in that regard is inappropriate at the present time. Mr. Nixon is still recovering from a very serious illness. And for me to speculate down the road, I think, is unwise at this point.,TAX REDUCTIONS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Simon said the other day that he thought the jobless rate, unemployment rate, could rise to as much as 9 percent before things turned around. Now, in view of this', would you be willing to go for a larger tax reduction? Would you be willing to raise it, say, $10 billion or some other figure?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, I have doubts that it will go to 9 percent. It might. But without commenting on whether it will or won't, if there is a need for a greater stimulant, I would certainly go for a greater tax reduction than for increased spending. I think that the tax reduction route is a lot more desirable than just increasing spending on some of these categorical programs or other programs that really do not help the individual as much as a tax reduction which would put money back in his pocket.,I believe that the program we have, as it appears to be moving through the Congress, is, at this stage of the game, moving in the right direction. The big problem is not the size of the tax reduction, but the slowness with which the Congress is acting on it and the failure of the Congress thus far to limit the tax reduction to something that can be enacted into law quickly.,What we need is speed and a figure of $16 to $19 billion in tax reduction. If we delay--and I hope it is not--then delay is more of a problem than the size.,Q. Sir, in the bill that came out of the House, you really got a different kind of character to that bill than the one you proposed. Theirs has a greater percentage going to lower income groups, and yours would go more to middle and higher income groups. Would you veto a bill if it got to your desk in the form it came from the House, or how would you feel about the House bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is wise for me to speculate on what I would do with the House bill. It does have to go through the Senate committee, it does have to go through the Senate itself, and then it has to go to conference and come down to me. For me to speculate at this stage, I think, is very unwise.,I would like to add this, however: I agree with Secretary of the Treasury Simon, who testified yesterday or the day before that there ought to be a larger increase for the middle-income taxpayer. I think the House version of the bill was much too limited. It didn't give a sufficiently large rebate or tax reduction to the middle-income taxpayers, and those people, I think, deserve a break because in recent years they have gotten a heavier and heavier burden imposed on them.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I am wondering if you agree, sir, with Leon Jaworski, who feels that the time has now come for former President Nixon to tell the truth about Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is appropriate for me to give any advice to Mr. Nixon on that matter at this time. A fairly comprehensive story has been told in the impeachment hearings in the House, in the testimony of many, many people in the court here in the District of Columbia. I think the proper place for any further discussion in this regard is in the court system of the United States.,TERRORIST ATTACK AT TEL AVIV,[10.] Q. What effect do you think last night's massacre in Tel Aviv will have on the current Kissinger negotiations, and what advice would you give to Israel to counteract such terrorist attacks?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer the last first. I don't think it is appropriate for me to give any advice to Israel or any other nation as to what they should do in circumstances like that. I hope that the very ill-advised action, the terrorist action in Israel, or in Tel Aviv last night was absolutely unwarranted under any circumstances. I condemn it because I think it is not only inhumane but it is the wrong way to try and resolve the difficult problems in the Middle East.,I would hope that that terrorist activity would not, under any circumstances, destroy the prospects or the possibilities for further peace accomplishments in the Middle East.,Q. Mr. President, to follow up on that, have you considered asking Israel to become part of NATO?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not.,CAMBODIA,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you sounded encouraged about the prospect for Cambodian aid. Can you give us an estimate of what you think the chances are now of it being passed?,THE PRESIDENT. They are certainly better than they were. I had a meeting this morning with Senator Sparkman and Senator Hubert Humphrey and Senator Clifford Case. They want to help. They say the prospects are 50-50. But if they are that, I think we ought to try and make the effort, because I think the stakes are very, very high when you involve the innocent people who are being killed in Cambodia.,Q. May I follow up? If the Congress does not provide the aid and the Lon Nol government should fall, would the country be in for any recrimination from this Administration? Would we have another \"who lost China\" debate, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. I first would hope we get the aid and the government is able to negotiate a settlement. I do not think--at least from my point of view-that I would go around the country pointing my finger at anybody. I think the facts would speak for themselves.,Q. Mr. President, from some of the remarks the Senators who met with you today made, they did not indicate that they were quite in as much agreement as you have indicated, but Senator Humphrey, for one, asked, as part of a negotiated settlement that you spoke of, if you would be willing to seek the orderly resignation of President Lon Nol.,THE PRESIDENT. I do not believe it is the proper role of this Government to ask the head of another state to resign. I said in my opening statement that we believe that the settlement ought to be undertaken, and it is not one that revolves around any one individual. And I would hope that some formula--some individuals on both sides could sit down and negotiate a settlement to stop the bloodshed.,Q. Could I follow up? On that, are you saying that the United States will support any government, no matter how weak or corrupt, in a situation like this?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not saying we would support any government. I am saying that we would support any government that we can see coming out of the present situation or the negotiated settlement.,PROGRAMS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED,[12.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday on unemployment you requested $1.6 billion for public service jobs to run through mid-1976.3 Now, your advisers meantime keep predicting that the problem will improve in mid-'75, just a month or two from now. How do you reconcile those two positions?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the requested additional manpower training funds that I requested will fully fund the authorized amount that was approved by the Congress last year. We believe that this amount is needed to take care of any potential contingencies.,3 For a statement by the White House Press Secretary summarizing the President's observations and decisions following a meeting with economic and energy advisers, see the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 11, p. 242).,We think there will be an improvement toward the end of this year and certainly in the beginning of next year on the unemployment. On the other hand, we think it is wise at this time to be prepared for any adverse developments.,Q. You mentioned earlier that it might go to 9. Are you revising upward the figure from 8.5?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think I said that I was not going to agree to any figure, but I did say that if we had any such development, the better way to solve it would be for a further tax cut rather than some of these additional spending programs, and the most important thing was to get the Congress to act affirmatively, quickly, on the tax bill. I am very disturbed with their lack of affirmative action as quickly as I think it should come.,OIL PRICES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, out of the OPEC summit meeting in Algiers today came a declaration that oil prices should be pegged to inflation and the prices they have to pay for the products they buy. Do you think this kind of inflation indexing system is fair?,THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to organize the consuming nations, and we have been quite successful. I believe that once that organization has been put together--and it is well along--that we should sit down and negotiate any matters with the producing nations.,I personally have many reservations about the suggestion that has been made by the OPEC organization. I think the best way for us to answer that problem is to be organized and to negotiate rather than to speculate in advance.,BUDGET DEFICIT,[14.] Q. Mr. President, things have been sort of piling up since you announced your $52 billion prospective deficit. You have now postponed your tax proposal for March and April. You have put out $2 billion for highways, another $2 billion for relief jobs, and now the Congress has refused to put a ceiling on food stamps. My question is this: Just how high do you think this $52 billion deficit is going to go, and where do you think it is at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the $52 billion deficit was too high, in my judgment. We did our best to keep it down, and the Congress so far has added substantially to it by not approving the recommended rescissions and deferrals that I proposed.,I think I recommended in one group about a $950 million rescission, or deferral, and Congress only approved about $110 or $120 million of that. They have, in addition, as you indicated, added about $650 million in additional food stamp costs. I am disturbed.,And I will continue to work trying to convince the Congress that a deficit of $52 billion is too much, and anything above that is very, very bad. If they think the way to stimulate the economy is to blow the Federal budget, I think they are wrong. I think the better procedure, if we need any additional stimulant, is through a tax cut.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. Have a good night."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-02-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. First, let me express my appreciation to the people of Florida for their hospitality. It has been a pleasure being here, and I look forward to the rest of the day.,STATEMENT ON DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING,COMMUNITY,[1.] Before answering questions, I have a short prepared statement that I would like to make at the outset. It reads as follows:,There have been reports in recent weeks of attempts in the international banking community to discriminate against certain institutions or individuals on religious or ethnic grounds.,There should be no doubt about the position of this Administration and the United States. Such discrimination is totally contrary to the American tradition and repugnant to American principles. It has no place in the free practice of commerce as it has flourished in this country.,Foreign businessmen and investors are most welcome in the United States when they are willing to conform to the principles of our society. However, any allegations of discrimination will be fully investigated and appropriate action taken under the laws of the United States.\nMr. McDermott [John McDermott, Miami Herald].,QUESTIONS,THE MIDDLE EAST,[2.] Q. Mr. President, what was behind Dr. Kissinger's recent observation that some day we might have to go in and destroy the oil wells of the Middle East? Do you envision such a possibility ever happening?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not recollect the precise statement that is attributed to the Secretary. I suspect you are referring to the oft-quoted statement about \"strangulation.\",I have answered that question, as has the Secretary, on a number of occasions. To be repetitive at this point, I think, might only increase speculation. The facts are that there was an answer to a very hypothetical question of the most extreme circumstances, and both the Secretary and I have indicated our views on the subject.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM AND CAMBODIA,[3.] Q. Mr. President, is what you call our moral commitment to arm South Vietnam and Cambodia open-ended? And what are you doing specifically to bring the warring parties to the peace table?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the commitment that we have to the South Vietnamese and the commitment that we have to some extent in Cambodia is one that we as the United States agreed at the Paris peace accords, that we would withdraw our forces and that, hopefully, peace would be established in Indochina.,Part of our commitment was that we would, in the process or as the result of the withdrawal of our own military personnel, we would continue to supply arms on a replacement basis, and that commitment was predicated on the willingness of the South Vietnamese to fight aggression from North Vietnam.,The South Vietnamese are fighting, are trying to protect their country, and are seeking to defend their country from invasion. It seems to me that as we look back at our participation in the Paris accords and the promises that were made, as long as they were willing to fight against aggression and invasion, that we had an obligation to help them with military equipment on a replacement basis.,The situation there is one that I am willing to negotiate with the Congress. I indicated that if the Congress would join with me, we would make a firm and final decision on a 3-year basis to permit South Vietnam to get over the current crisis that they face.,I think that would be a reasonable solution. I am told that the South Vietnamese in a 3-year period, with our military and economic aid, would be able to handle the situation.,Q. What about Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. In Cambodia, the problem there is extremely critical. Unless there is additional U.S. military aid, as I have recommended, the Cambodians will run out of ammunition in a relatively short period of time. I think that would be most unfortunate, because if they are able, between now and the end of the dry season, to maintain their national integrity--the present government-there is a possibility of negotiations that might end the war in Cambodia.,ENERGY AND ECONOMIC PROGRAMS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, with reference to your energy-economic program, Congress is going off in one direction, you have suggested another direction. You have also suggested that you are willing to compromise. I wonder if you might specify some of those areas of compromise?,THE PRESIDENT. I wish there was a single plan proposed by the majority party in the Congress. It is a slight exaggeration, but there are many, many plans that have been discussed by the majority party. I can think of three in particular: the plan that is proposed by Senator Pastore, the plan that is proposed by Congressman Jim Wright of Texas, and the plan that has been proposed by Chairman Al Ullman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. And I understand there are many more.,What we need is a plan that the Democrats can agree on, if they can, and then we can sit down and, hopefully, negotiate. I am willing to cooperate, but we have to have something to cooperate with. And so far, they have not come up with anything where they are in agreement. So, until they do, we are going to pursue our plan, which I think is fair and equitable and a solution to the energy problem.,Q. Are you saying you need a single package plan from the Democrats before you will negotiate?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a fair statement, and I think it is a fair proposition. We have to sit around a table with a group or somebody, where they say, \"Here is our plan\" and \"Here is my plan.\" And then we can try to integrate them. But until they have some consensus on their side, we are in the position where there is no real viable plan for us to take a look at.,Now, I intend to keep the pressure on. The pressure that I have used in legal and legitimate ways has precipitated more response in the Congress than any time in the last 3 years. We still have some time, and when I get back to Washington, if they have got a plan where they agree, then we can sit down and negotiate.,TAX REDUCTION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, some of the news executives who had breakfast with you this morning report that you talked about Congress not acting on an antirecession tax cut until June. Are you really that pessimistic about the outlook?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly hope that Congress acts before then, but I submitted my economic plan for the stimulation of our economy so we could reduce unemployment, so we could increase employment, in January--I think it was January 15 of this year.,And our proposal was very simple, and hopefully it would result in Congress acting very quickly. It is almost 5 weeks now, and the House of Representatives has not yet acted. I hope they act this week. Hearings probably will start in the Senate Committee on Finance next week. And then it has to go to the Senate. And then, if there are differences between the Senate plan and the House plan, it will halve to go to conference. That could conceivably take until June.,I think that is very ill-advised and extremely serious. We had hoped that Congress would act by the middle of March at the latest, and they could have if they had taken the simple specific tax reductions that I recommended.,Unfortunately, the parliamentary process has been slowed down in the Congress, and the country has been the loser. We need a stimulant now, and I hope the Congress will realize the urgency of the need for action. And I trust that now that they have been reminded of their slowness, that they will expedite the process.,THE OIL INDUSTRY,[6.] Q. Good morning, Mr. President. I am Dick Powers from the [Fort Lauderdale] Sun-Sentinel. Last week, here in south Florida, George Meany proposed the nationalization, as an ultimate solution, of the oil industry. Heretofore, there have been proposals from Congress for the nationalization of health insurance and for utilities and for the railroads. Do you see these proposals as a reluctance on the part of the American people to tough out our economic woes and accelerate a drift into socialism, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think the nationalization of any industry in the United States is in our best interest, nor do I think a government monopoly in any industry is a good answer. Without being critical of individual employees of the Postal Service, I think the Postal Service has not been as good an answer as we would like to the delivery of mail; we are trying to improve it. But it does seem to me that there is a better answer to the energy problem than the nationalization of the oil industry.,We do have to stimulate production. We do have to, through the windfall profits tax that I have proposed, keep profits at a reasonable level. We do have to make sure that we get away from foreign oil imports. But I honestly do not believe that nationalization is the best answer.,OIL PRICES,[7.] Q. Mr. President, on oil--with your favoring of a minimum price level and oil deregulation--won't you be guaranteeing to the oil companies a revenue bonanza that is based solely on the arbitrarily high price levels that have been set in the past year or so by the OPEC countries?,THE PRESIDENT. My energy program does not guarantee any specific price except that we have been negotiating with other consuming nations for what is a minimum price or a floor price.,A minimum price at a reasonable level is a way in which we can continue to stimulate domestic production of additional oil, additional natural gas, and other energy sources such as solar, geothermal, et cetera.,We are not guaranteeing oil companies any particular price, and if there is a windfall profit, then the Congress has an obligation to enact my windfall profits tax so that there will not be inequitable benefits from the energy crisis by the oil companies.,GASOLINE RATIONING AND OIL IMPORT ALLOCATIONS,[8.] Q. Bill Groves from Jacksonville [WJXT-TV]. Mr. President, is it true that either rationing or allocation would be less inflationary than the package you have proposed and would be less burdensome on those least able to pay?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that is the fundamental issue that is involved. Rationing, gasoline rationing, for example, would be very inequitable, and it would not provide any stimulant for new sources of energy, either oil, natural gas, or any of the others.,Allocation--import allocations I assume you are referring to-according to the experts that have looked at it, that I have listened to, tell me that would probably be more injurious to our economy than any other procedure that was used. You would have government officials making arbitrary decisions as to how much oil could go. to one industry or to another, and that would inevitably be discriminatory.,I happen to think that the price mechanism procedure which I have proposed is a better plan, because it gives flexibility to users to make those basic decisions. Now, the plan that I have recommended has--according to the experts that we have talked with and I have listened to--would have a one-shot increase in cost. On the other hand, through the tax rebate program that I have recommended, the added energy cost to individuals, to business, to government would be returned to those people who have had an added cost.,So, it would be neutral as far as the users are concerned, and it would stimulate production, which is what we really want.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[9.] Q. Mr. President, now that unemployment has reached a very high point--and it seems likely to go even higher--is there anything that you can do as President to alleviate the situation without going to Congress. And if there is, what is it and do you intend to do it, and if so, when?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, number one, we submitted an economic plan to the\nCongress, a tax reduction proposal that would have returned to taxpayers or resulted in a reduction in taxes of some $16.5 billion. That proposal is on the agenda of the Congress.,I wish they would act more quickly, and some of our problems might be alleviated. Other than that, I think we have to seek to restore public confidence in the system and in the prospects for economic revival.,There is some evidence that the public now believes, as most experts agree, that we are bottoming out, so to speak, and the prospects for an increase in employment and a decrease in unemployment will come sometime in the third or fourth quarter of 1975.,Q. So, what you are saying then is that there is really nothing more that you as President can do.,THE PRESIDENT. I do not believe so. On the other hand, if there is anything-instead of increasing expenditures, as some have suggested--I would favor a larger tax decrease, but at the present moment I do not think we have reached that point.,I simply would hope that the Congress would act so we could find out whether that is enough stimulant. But other than that, I know of no other proposal.,CUBA,[10.] Q. Mr. President, your Hispanic adviser, Fernando DeBaca, told the Miami News yesterday that you have never formally reevaluated U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba since you became the President. Are you in the process of reevaluating the Government's position? And do you foresee any lifting of economic and diplomatic sanctions toward Cuba in the immediate future?,THE PRESIDENT. Very frequently in my daily meetings with Secretary of State Kissinger we discuss Latin American policy, including our policy toward Cuba. The policy today is the same as it has been, which is that if Cuba will reevaluate and give us some indication of a change of its policy toward the United States, then we certainly would take another look. But thus far, there is no sign of Mr. Castro's change of heart, and so we think it is in our best interest to continue the policies that are in effect at the present time.,ARMS SALES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, a number of responsible Americans, including Senator Mansfield, have expressed concern that we are selling more arms than ever to more nations. We now sell to Pakistan as well as India, to Arab countries as well as Israel. What is your credo in regard to arms sales? Is it influenced by the state of the economy, and what do you say to those who say that such sales are immoral?,THE PRESIDENT. First, let me be very specific. The sale of U.S. military equipment to any country is not predicated on trying to help the U.S. economy. We do have a policy of selling arms to other nations if that country feels it has an internal security problem, and number two, if it is necessary for one or any of the countries to maintain their national integrity or security.,We believe that in many areas of the world, a proper military balance is essential for internal as well as external security of various countries. And where other nations, such as the Soviet Union, do sell or give arms to one country or another, if another country feels that for its own security it needs additional military equipment and has the cash, then we feel that it is proper to make a sale from the United States to that country.,PROGRAMS FOR THE ELDERLY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, south Florida has a disproportionate number of elderly persons, thousands of poor and elderly who are finding it hard to even have one hot meal a day. How can we justify Federal programs that would reduce or take away what little assistance they are getting now, particularly when we continue to pump billions of dollars in foreign aid overseas? The question they are asking is, when does charity begin at home?,THE PRESIDENT. Let's take the food for the elderly program. In this current fiscal year the Federal Government is spending $202.5 million for that program under the older citizens legislation, which is six times what it was 4 years ago. Now, we will continue to monitor the situation, and if that is inadequate, we will do our utmost to find additional funding.,But I think it has to be put in perspective that $202 million-plus is not an inconsequential amount just for that one program, plus the other programs that are aimed at helping our older citizens.,I feel very strongly that they should be given adequate aid and assistance plus social security, and I should say that I have not recommended a reduction in social security, but have recommended a 5-percent increase in social security benefits, along with other programs.,WATERGATE PARDONS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, good morning. I wonder now that the sentences have been handed down in the Watergate case against the former top administration figures, how you would feel on the issue of pardon for those men, especially in the light of their contention that they have done nothing that is any more wrong than the President under whom they served.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me, number one, since they are appealing their sentencing, that it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment one way or another. And number two, if and when the time comes, the proper thing for them to do would be to apply in the regular procedure or process, which is through the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice.,Q. Without getting into specific cases on the general premise, would you be sympathetic more in these particular cases toward a pardon because of the circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it would be appropriate to make a comment in that regard, because they are limited in number and I would not want to prejudice their current appeal by any comment that I might make.,ENERGY COSTS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, Florida boasts some of the highest electrical power bills in the Nation. Won't the people who pay those bills be hurt substantially by your foreign oil import program, since most, if not all, of the oil that Florida power companies burn comes from Venezuela?,THE PRESIDENT. The energy program that I have recommended would not result in Florida paying a disproportionate share of any cost increase. As a matter of fact, under the administrative action that I have taken, we have, under the first dollar, exempted heating oil as far as Florida is concerned, as far as New England is concerned, as far as Hawaii--the areas that are, as you indicate, in the same circumstances as Florida.,And under the permanent program that I have recommended, the added energy cost to a family or to business or to government would be rebated to the individual, to the business, and to the governments; so there would be a neutral impact. Therefore, it seems to me that my proposal is extremely equitable and would not result in any disproportionate burden being placed on Florida or any State in a comparable situation.,INTERNATIONAL BANKING COMMUNITY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, your opening statement seemed to imply that the United States was planning some sort of action against the Arab nations that have embargoed Jewish-owned banks. Could you be more specific? What sort of thing might we do in this case, if the embargoes continue?,THE PRESIDENT. All we have so far are some allegations. I have asked the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State to investigate any allegations. The actual action that would be taken will be forthcoming from recommendations by those departments. They have not been placed on my desk at the present time.,FOREIGN POLICY,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you have referred to the question of aid to Cambodia as a moral one relating to the credibility of the United States. But is the issue of credibility really at stake when so many of those with whom we would want to maintain it criticized our involvement in that area to begin with and long urged us to get out before we did?,THE PRESIDENT. Are you referring, sir, to other nations?,Q. Other nations, yes.,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think we can conduct American foreign policy on the basis of what other nations think is in our best interest. The United States has to predicate its foreign policy on what it thinks is in America's best interest.,Now, we respect the right of other nations to be critical of what we do, but it is my responsibility and, I think, the responsibility of people in authority in the United States to make decisions that are based on ,what we think is good for America, and that is the way it will be decided as long as I am President.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a new crop of reports in recent days about the possibility of Secretary Kissinger leaving office this year to be succeeded by Ambassador Elliot Richardson. Could you comment on these reports, and specifically, do you expect Dr. Kissinger to remain in office at least until November of next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I happen to feel very strongly that Secretary Henry Kissinger is an outstanding Secretary of State, and he and I have never discussed any change in his responsibilities. I know of no plans of any kind whatsoever on my part or his part to change the responsibilities, the very heavy and important responsibilities that he has.,On the other hand, I recently submitted the name of Elliot Richardson to be Ambassador to Great Britain. I picked him because I think he will do a first-class job there, and he has been recently confirmed. And I am confident, when he goes to London, he will carry out those responsibilities in that job in a very exemplary way.,ILLEGAL ALIENS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, it is estimated by immigration officials here in south Florida that there are up to 90,000 illegal aliens gainfully employed in southeast Florida alone. It is also estimated our unemployment figure runs close to that amount. What is your office doing to address itself to this particular problem?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been trying to strengthen the .arm of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Justice, in order to handle in an appropriate way the illegal alien problem.,Florida has a serious problem. California has an equally serious problem. We are trying to work with the Mexican Government, for example, primarily out in the Western States. We are fully cognizant of the adverse impact that illegal aliens have on employment opportunities of American citizens, but we are trying to stop the flow in. We are seeking to send back illegal aliens as quickly as possible under the laws of the United States.,THE 25TH AMENDMENT,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Pastore is proposing that there be a special election any time an appointed Vice President succeeds to the Presidency; that is, if there is more than 1 year of the term remaining. Since you are the only such person, what is your feeling about it? Would you recommend or endorse a change in the 25th amendment?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure that I ought to pass judgment on the validity of the 25th amendment. I guess I could say it worked pretty well this time. [Laughter],But I think it is appropriate that the Congress take another look at the 25th amendment. It was passed, as I think most of us know, not to meet the unique circumstances that developed in 1973 and 1974.,Perhaps this experience does require the Congress to take a look, to see whether there is a better way or a different way where a Vice President might be selected.,Q. Well, do you feel any handicap for not having won a Presidential election and still holding the office?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no.,ENERGY AND ECONOMIC PROGRAMS,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Jim Reynolds, WIOD News, Miami. You have stated that the Congress has been slow to act on two of the Nation's major issues--energy and the tax cut. As a former Congressman, can you give us any insight into why you feel the Congress is having this difficulty?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the failure of the Congress to act quickly enough in reducing taxes, as I recommended, I am really perplexed, because we recommended a very simple method of returning $16.5 billion to the American people and to American business. That should have been quickly considered, acted on very rapidly, and I do not understand why there has been the kind of delay that has taken place.,In the case of the energy problem, that is more understandable. Even though I don't like it, it is a very comprehensive program that involves 170 pages in one bill that I recommended and that will require hearings and action.,But what disappoints me--and this I do not understand--is why there have not been hearings before the proper committees in the House and the Senate on either my plan or the thoughts that the Democratic Members in the Congress have on their plans.,But that is why I have the pressure on with the import levy. I think they are now beginning to focus on the need and the necessity. Up until recently, they just hoped the problem would go away. Now they are beginning to realize it is serious, and hopefully there will be some affirmative action.,CAMBODIA,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in answering an earlier question about Cambodia, you used the phrase \"the commitment that we have to some extent to Cambodia,\" to distinguish it from Vietnam. Just what is our commitment to Cambodia when, at the time that the American troops went in there in 1970, people were told that there was not going to be any long-term commitment? Could you explain that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Cambodia is in a somewhat different situation from Vietnam. Vietnam is involved in the Paris accords; Cambodia was not, in an official way. So, our obligation, which I think is important, is that they want to 'maintain their national integrity and their security of their country against outside forces.,The policy of this country is to help those nations with military hardware, not U.S. military personnel, where the government and the people of a country want to protect their country from foreign aggression or foreign invasion.,This is, to a substantial degree, in post-World War II, the tradition of the United States, and I think if people in a country want to fight for freedom for their country, to the degree that we can, I think we ought to expand freedom around the world.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-02-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Won't you please sit down. And before responding to the first question, I do wish to thank Governor Bennett and the other Governors who were here with me in Topeka. I wish to thank the people of the State of Kansas and, particularly, the people in the Topeka area for the very wonderful and very warm reception. It has been a very good day.\nMr. Morgan [Ray Morgan, Kansas City Star].,THE MIDDLE EAST,[1.] Q. Mr. President, your energy and economic concerns will go down the drain for naught if we have war in the Middle East. Could you please give us your latest information on Dr. Kissinger's negotiations in the Middle East and whether or not you think there is the possibility of a quick settlement in the wake of those negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Morgan, the Secretary of State left Sunday night for a most important mission in the Middle East. He will be gone approximately 10 days, visiting a number of Arab as well as Israeli--and he will be more or less on an exploratory mission. We believe that the possibility exists for a step-by-step progress in the Middle East, but no one can be certain in that very volatile and very difficult area.,The Secretary of State will come back,' hopefully, with some encouraging news. And then, if the news is encouraging, he will probably go back shortly thereafter for what we would hope would be a settlement on a step-by-step basis.,It is my judgment that unless progress is made, there is a very serious prospect of another war in the Middle East which, if it did occur, of course raises the possibility of another oil embargo. I would hope that by the Secretary of State's efforts that we can make this progress, avoiding another conflict and avoiding the prospects of another oil embargo.,The Secretary of State has my full backing. I think we are fortunate to have a person with that knowledge, that dedication, and that record of success. So, I am an optimist. But it is a difficult assignment, and I think he deserves the full support of the American people and the Congress, because it is in our benefit and the world as a whole.,ENERGY PROGRAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, a number of Republicans as well as Democrats-Arthur Burns, for one--have raised serious questions about your energy program. I wonder if you, at any point, ever have any second thoughts yourself about it.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], I don't have any second thoughts about it. I concede that in putting this program together--and here is a copy of the bill, 167 pages--that I had to make some very difficult decisions. All of the decisions were not easy; there were some gray areas. But at least it is a program. And it is my strong feeling that if there is a better program, Congress should come up with it. So far, they have come up with no program.,So, as long as I have something that is affirmative, that I think meets the problem head on, I have no regrets about proposing it to the Congress and to the American people. I welcome any suggestions that are constructive. I welcome an alternative program or plan, if one can be put together by the Congress. But I will not tolerate delay; I will not tolerate inaction. It is my judgment that the crisis is far too serious, that the need is very obvious, and therefore, I intend to continue trying to give some leadership for a solution to our vulnerability to foreign oil cartels.,HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION,[3.] Q. Mr. President, without diminishing your attempt to do that, is there an inconsistency, do you think, in your proposal to conserve energy by increasing, in effect, its price, presumably for gasoline as well and, at the same time, releasing $2 billion in highway funds today to build more highways so we can drive more?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a good question, but I think there is a good answer. The reason I released $2 billion to the States for the construction of additional highways was because over the last 10 days or 2 weeks I have met with a number of Governors, Democratic and Republican, and all of them, more or less, assured me of the following:,Number one, that in most cases they had State funds that could be used right away, and they--or most of them--have promised me that if I did release this $2 billion for highway construction, that they could get bids and have the contracted work underway within a few months.,We all know that the highway construction industry is depressed. We know that unemployment in the highway construction industry is very high. We know that better highways save lives. We know that highway construction jobs are meaningful employment. We think that this program, when it gets underway, will provide roughly, both direct and indirect, about 140,000 or more jobs. We think that the promotion of safety, employment, the utilization of State matching funds, and the opportunity to get action justifies what I have done.,And it seems to me that there is no inconsistency in doing this at the same time we are trying to conserve fuel, because better highways save fuel. And furthermore, it could have a favorable impact in giving to States as well as to local communities the right to use some of the money, some of the money for mass transit, which is an energy saver, a fuel saver.,ANTIRECESSION MEASURES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, your Press Secretary says that you are considering new emergency measures if the recession worsens. What are these new measures, and what would trigger the new initiatives--what developments? Specifically, how high would unemployment have to go?,THE PRESIDENT. Congratulations on your new success in joining the Gridiron Club.1 [Laughter],1The questioner, Helen Thomas of United Press International, had recently been elected the first woman member of the Gridiron Club.,Q. Answer the question. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. You made it unanimously, too.,Well, to answer your question, the action that I took today, I think, is constructive. It is an effort at the request of a number of Governors to move in an area where they think some beneficial results will accrue. It is a response to a particular situation.,I think it is important to maintain, basically, my deep concern about an acceleration of Federal expenditures at the present time, but at the same time being cognizant of unique circumstances, which I think this was. And if and when other such circumstances arise, I will be willing to take a look at them and make an honest judgment as to whether they are helpful or harmful.\n[5.] Q. Well, Mr. President, may I ask you: Mr. Meany says that unemployment could go as high as 10 percent. Is that true, and if not, what assurances can you give that it will not?,UNEMPLOYMENT,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I watched my good friend, George Meany, on Sunday when he pulled that figure out of the air.2 I think Mr. Meany, I might say parenthetically, will approve of my release of $2 billion in highway construction funds, because he has repeatedly said that these people have a high unemployment rate, these people are skilled craftsmen, and such a program would help get some of them back to work.,2AFL-CIO president George Meany had appeared on CBS News' \"Face the Nation\" on February 9, 1975.,But we don't foresee a figure as high as that forecast by Mr. Meany. As a matter of fact, we are convinced--with the tax reductions that we have proposed and that I think the Congress will approve--we believe with the other actions that we are taking, unemployment, the rate of unemployment will gradually go down at the end of 1975 and be improved in 1976.,ENERGY PROGRAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your answer to Mr. Cormier, in your talks at Houston and here today, did you hear any convincing arguments that might make you modify your energy proposals, and if so, which and how?,THE PRESIDENT. There was one question raised by individuals both in and out of government, both in Houston as well as in Topeka, about one provision. And that is whether or not, as a part of the windfall profits tax, there ought to be a provision for a plowback--which means that if a company derives revenue from their oil and gas developments, could they plow those revenues back into further exploration and development and thereby avoid a tax on those revenues or those profits.,This was a very close call at the time I made the decision when we put this program together. The Congress is in the process--or I hope it will soon be in the processor taking up my energy program. There ought to be ample opportunity for the proponents and the opponents to state their views and convince the Congress one way or another.,I can understand some justification for the plowback provision. I don't think it is a serious change in my proposal, but I will point out to the Congress that if they incorporate the plowback provision, it will probably mean a loss of about $3 to $4 billion annually in tax revenues to the Federal Government, and if so, there will be less money to return to energy users than the figure that I have recommended.,But there is, on the other hand, a good argument that a plowback provision might stimulate more production, so it is a very close call. And although I favor what I have recommended, I can understand the reasons for the plowback provision.,ENERGY CONSERVATION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, voluntary conservation still seems to be a weak hope in the program and to some of us more skeptical. Does it still rate a high priority with the Administration, and if it does, do you see the need for any more restrictive plan?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have to have voluntary cooperation from 213 million Americans. I think their affirmative participation is very vital. On the other hand, it seems to me that we need stronger action, and that is why I have recommended to the Congress this comprehensive program and this, I think, very fair and equitable effort to get some action.,This program has four basic foundations: number one, conservation by the price mechanism; number two, added supply by stimulating exploration and development; number three, equity in the return of tax money to people, to business, to States; and number four, security. This program gets America going in making us invulnerable against foreign oil cartels. And yet, we do need voluntary cooperation at the same time.,JOHN CONNALLY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have tried to set, in writing, standards of ethics for members of your Administration. I want to ask you about your meeting last night in Houston with former Texas Governor John Connally, who, as you know, is under indictment.3 On second thought, do you think there might be anything improper for the Nation's chief legal officer to meet with a man who is under indictment? We know that you did not discuss that indictment with him; we were assured of that by your Press Secretary.,3 On July 29, 1974, Mr. Connally was indicted on charges of bribery, perjury, and conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with an effort to raise milk price support levels while he was Secretary of the Treasury in 1971. He was acquitted of the charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 17, 1975.,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say, very categorically, I have known former Governor Connally for a great many years. He was appointed Secretary of the Navy by former President Kennedy. He was elected Governor of Texas on three occasions and served 6 years. He was Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. Nixon. He is a very knowledgeable public servant. It seems to me that with a man of that vast governmental experience, at the State as well as at the Federal level, the things that I discussed with him could be very helpful to me.,I see no conflict whatsoever. Mr. Connally has been indicted, he will get a fair trial, and I shouldn't comment on the outcome. But until he has been convicted, I think it is very appropriate for me to meet with him to discuss matters involving the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign policy.,Q. Sir, may I follow that up? Would you have any objection if members of your Justice Department were to meet privately with persons who were under indictment in cases that were being prosecuted by the Justice Department?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that people in the Department of Justice who have the responsibility of actually carrying out their responsibilities as prosecutors--I think there is quite a difference. They make the judgments as to prosecution; my position is not exactly that. And my reason for meeting with former Governor Connally, former Secretary of the Treasury, was to discuss non--or no matters involving his present legal difficulties.,FEDERAL FARM ASSISTANCE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to turn to the timing of your farming programs for just a moment. The farmers here in Kansas say they are suffering now from increased operations costs and also from a depressed market that they blame on export controls. Some western Kansans are even considering abandoning their crops that are in the ground now. So, if your plan doesn't take effect until the first of the fiscal year, do you have some emergency alternatives to help Kansas farmers?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the thing that might be helpful is the decision that has been made to, in effect, eliminate any monitoring of foreign sales of American agricultural commodities.,I did impose a monitoring system, not export controls, on the sale of American agricultural commodities about 4 months ago, when there were these several unexpected, very sizable sales to the Soviet Union. But we have found that our agricultural reserves are fully adequate. We have found that the crop forecasts, particularly in winter wheat, are very encouraging. And therefore, I have, in effect, removed the monitoring system.,It seems to me that the American farmers are the kind of good Americans that will produce, because I happen to think they will not only have a good market, which they have today, but they also are good Americans in that they know what they produce will help us in our balance of payments and our humanitarian efforts on a worldwide basis.,Q. If I could follow up on that just a second. There is still going to be a time lag, though, on the increased operation cost. Is there something you are going to do to help them out on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We discussed that with several of the Governors, both in Houston as well as here today, and Mr. Frank Zarb, the head of the Federal Energy Administration, has promised that there will be some beneficial relief given to American agriculture under my energy proposals.,DEFENSE AND DOMESTIC PROGRAMS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I am Dennis Farney with the Wall Street Journal. You have been talking in terms of wanting to compromise with the Democratic Congress, and yet your major proposals have been quite provocative. You want to increase Pentagon spending and cut back on spending for some popular domestic programs, which is about the opposite of what the Democrats want to do. Aren't you really picking a fight with Congress and preparing the way for a possible campaign against Congress in 1976?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't believe that the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate are going to weaken our national defense program by gutting the requested appropriations for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.,The Democrats that I know in the Congress are just as dedicated to a strong national security program as I am, so I don't think this Democratic Congress will undercut our national security efforts. They will make some changes, but I don't think--I certainly hope they won't gut the Defense Department.,Now, I have made some recommendations to cap, not to cut back, programs aimed at helping people. As a matter of fact, in the budget that I submitted, the Defense Department gets only 27 percent. The domestic programs that you mention get about 44 or 45 percent of the total expenditures out of the Federal Government.,So, I think we have come to a pretty good balance. And I think the Democrats, when they look at the budget for fiscal 1976, will realize that there is a good balance. And I think they will go along to a far greater degree than what might appear to be the case at the present time.,ENERGY PROGRAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, just how much headway do you consider you have made for your energy proposals with the Governors in the three regional meetings you have had with them so far? 4,4 The President met with Governors of the Northeastern States at the White House on January 23, 1975, (Item 42), the Southeastern States in Atlanta, Ga., on February 3, and the Midwestern States in Topeka, Kans., on February 11.,THE. PRESIDENT. Well, there is some good news and some bad news. I think we have made more headway than if I had stayed in Washington and written them letters. I think they now understand the program, which was a major reason for my meeting with them individually in 3 and 4-hour sessions. I think they have a better understanding of the program, and there is more support now than there was before.,I don't hear many Governors calling for gas rationing, which shows very good sense. I don't hear many Governors calling for arbitrary allocation, because they realize, as I do, that arbitrary allocation or quotas--they would be the most harmful method of achieving conservation and would have a terribly depressing impact on our economy.,So, they understand the program. Therefore, I think they are more supportive, although some of them have some reservations about a part here and a part there.,I must say that I did not hear a single Governor, in all the ones I met with, who endorsed what the Congress is trying to force on me. The Governors understand you have to make progress, and they know that this bill that the Congress is working on is a bill that is a backward step. So, even though they may have some reservations about a part here and a part there in my program, I think they are more for this than they are for what the Congress is allegedly working on.,PRESIDENT THIEU OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that your advance planning schedule shows a tentative visit by President Thieu to this country in late April. Can you tell us if you are seriously considering such an invitation and why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Beckman [Aldo Beckman, Chicago Tribune], I am not familiar with any invitation. I am not familiar with any prospective visit.,Q. Would you consider inviting Mr. Thieu to this country?,THE PRESIDENT. I really had not thought of it, and I know of no prospective visit.,KANSAS REPUBLICAN PARTY,[13.] Q. Since Kansas is traditionally Republican, would you please assess the health of the Republican Party?,THE PRESIDENT. Would you repeat that, please?,Q. Since Kansas is traditionally Republican, I am sure that many of our citizens would like you to assess the health of the party, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well,. I, as a Republican President, can't help but be impressed by the success here in Kansas. You have got a fine Governor. You have got the legislature in the control of the Republican Party here. You have got low unemployment in Kansas. You have got good economic conditions. I think this is a good achievement record for the Republican Party in Kansas as well as a whole, so I just hope we can spread this good progress through 49 other States.,FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a lot of speculation recently about former President Nixon's future. You talked with your predecessor by phone last weekend. Can you tell us if Mr. Nixon is considering a return to the national scene? Would you welcome that? And would you perhaps consider appointing Mr. Nixon to an influential diplomatic post, such as Ambassador to China?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Nixon called me last Saturday. The content of that conversation, since he initiated it, I think should come from Mr. Nixon himself.,Mr. Nixon is recovering from a very, very serious illness. I see no prospects for any appointment because of his health. And any other comments concerning the conversation, I think, should come from him.,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[15.] Q. Mr. President, are you and Dr. Kissinger still insisting on increased aid to Vietnam, South Vietnam, and if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the United States made a very significant contribution in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately and tragically, we lost some 55,000 American lives, spent literally billions.,The South Vietnamese are now trying to carry on on their own. We have no U.S. military forces there. We are living up to the Paris accords. The last Congress authorized $300 million more in military assistance for South Vietnam on the basis that that would give them sufficient military assistance so that they could fight aggression by North Vietnam.,I am convinced that that $300 million would give to the South Vietnamese an opportunity to defend themselves against aggression. I strongly believe that it is a proper recommendation to the Congress. I hope that the Congress will respond.,Q. But would you accept some sort of compromise proposal from those Members of Congress who don't think the way you do?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think $300 million in further military assistance is the right answer to give the South Vietnamese the necessary military hardware to defend themselves. Anything less than that makes their defense of their country less effective, and I think they ought to be given enough to defend themselves. And $300 million, according to my advisers, is the minimum for that purpose.,FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMAN,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Peter Kumpa of the Baltimore Sun. President Truman is one of your heroes, and you share some things in common with him--a Midwestern background, succession from the Vice Presidency, and a so-called do-nothing Congress. But Mr. Truman was a Democrat and a champion of the little guy. He was a spender for social causes. Now, you are not a spender. You are a Republican and a champion of free enterprise. Where did your admiration for Mr. Truman begin? How do you feel you are like him, and how do you feel you are different?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I never alleged that I was like him; I simply have a great admiration for him. I admire him because he was forthright. He believed in certain things, whether I did or not, and he was willing to go out and fight for them. I think that is a very admirable trait.,Mr. Truman deeply believed in maintaining a strong U.S., both militarily and economically. I share that view. I believe that we insure the peace by being strong, and Mr. Truman, by his various actions, felt the same way. And Mr. Truman wanted a strong domestic economy. I admired that. I believe in it. For those traits and those basic views, whether we agreed on every detail, I admire him tremendously.,Q. As I recall, Grand Rapids was one of the very first stops on Mr. Truman's whistlestop campaign in 1948. He was there on a Monday morning in the rain, and 25,000 people showed up. Were you there to see him that time when you were running for Congress, and is that the kind of road you would like to emulate in 1976?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not sure I was there. That was my first campaign, and I was probably out talking to some of my good agricultural constituents or making speeches elsewhere. But I was glad that he came to Grand Rapids. I got a taste of the kind of campaign that he initiated, carried out, and was successful.,I think you have to be aggressive. I think you have to be forthright. I think you have to be candid. And Mr. Truman was all of those put together. It was a successful campaign. It might be necessary to do it in 1976.,ECONOMIC AND ENERGY PROGRAMS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, what was the main thrust of objections by Governors, particularly Democratic Governors, not only to your energy policies but to your economic policies?,THE PRESIDENT. There was very little objection to my proposal for a tax reduction. I can't say they agreed with every detail, but they agreed that a tax reduction was necessary as a stimulant.,They did raise some objection about some of the capping that we recommended for Federal Government pay, for some of the retirement programs where there is an escalation, as you, I am sure, know. We didn't cut back those programs. We said they should be limited to a 5-percent increase. I suspect that they felt that there should have been an increase permitted to the maximum.,On the other hand, they were generally fearful of the additional $17 billion deficit over the $52 billion, because they know that a deficit of $69 billion will have a very adverse impact on their financing efforts. So, I would say they had mixed emotions about the economic plan, but basically they supported it.,On the energy program, there was no major criticism. We simply tried to explain it. There were some suggestions, but I repeat what I said a moment ago: I think they respected this program, which is an answer; whether they liked every part of it, they preferred this program to a four-page step backward.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[18.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on Helen's earlier question. Your Press Secretary said last week that Mr. Greenspan and, I presume, you as well are sticking to the prediction that unemployment will peak at 8.5 percent and that that figure of 8.5 percent will probably be reached about midsummer. In view of the new unemployment figures which came Out last week, I am wondering whether you think those figures might be a little unrealistic\nnow?,THE PRESIDENT. My own personal feeling is that there may be some increases. But I think the hump will have been reached sooner than some of the experts are forecasting, and that the trend will start in the other direction, particularly if the Congress moves in getting the tax reductions that I recommended January 15 enacted into law, and providing they do some of the other things that are necessary to stimulate the economy.,I don't want to get in a numbers game about what the unemployment figure might be at a certain date. I am more interested in trying to get Congress to act on the programs that will get us moving forward, both in energy as well as the economy.,OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Kansas has about 20,000 low-producing oil and gas wells. Do you have any incentives in your program to stimulate low producers, and if not, why not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the overall energy program that I have recommended, we call for the decontrol of all domestic oil and gas production. We think permitting all domestic oil and gas production to go up in price with a windfall profits tax or a plowback provision will provide an incentive to some of the older domestic oil wells in the State of Kansas as well as elsewhere. Particularly, the plowback provision will stimulate additional production in these wells as well as further exploration and development.,I think there is more hope--let me put it this way, if I might. If the Congress is so unwise to impose mandatorily gas rationing or quotas or allocations, there is no incentive, none whatsoever for greater domestic production, including greater domestic production in Kansas out of the 20 or 30 or 40,000 oil wells in Kansas.,So, my program does recommend an incentive, a stimulant to greater production. What I hear some people are advocating, there is no chance of any stimulation to greater production.,LABOR DEMONSTRATIONS,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Leonard Woodcock of the UAW [United Auto Workers] is talking about organizing 250,000 unemployed labor members to come to Washington to march on the Capitol this spring or summer to demand action by the Government. How would you view such marches--which you hear increasingly talked about in labor circles? Would you consider them a serious threat to the domestic tranquillity?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly respect the right of any individual or any group to come to the Congress and to the President and petition where they have a grievance that they feel ought to be so presented to the executive or legislative branches of the Federal Government.,I hope that we can show there will be an improvement in the economy so that a march or such marches in the summer will not be necessary. But I would be the last person to say that an individual or a group doesn't have the right to so take such action.,Now, I think it is just a great deal better from the point of view of domestic tranquillity for all of us to concentrate on achieving an answer on our domestic problems, action by the Congress, administrative decisions by me. This, I think, is more productive than something that could upset some of the people in Washington and elsewhere.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-02-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be in Atlanta. I have enjoyed the stay, and am looking forward to this press conference. Mr. Cutts of the Atlanta paper [Beau Cutts, Atlanta Constitution].,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[1.] Q. In the last 24 hours you have spoken at length about domestic concerns. I would like to ask you what options you will have to help maintain a non-Communist government in Vietnam if the Congress does not go along with your supplemental appropriation request as well as this fiscal year '76 request for Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. If the Congress does not respond to the requested additional military assistance for the current fiscal year, an amount which the Congress last year previously authorized, it will certainly complicate the military situation from the point of view of the South Vietnamese.,The South Vietnamese on their own, with our financial assistance, our military aid, have done very well, but the Congress did not fully fund the requested military assistance that was requested. I believe that if the Congress funds the additional money that I have proposed for this fiscal year and continues the money that I have recommended for next fiscal year, the South Vietnamese can and will be able to defend themselves against the aggressors from the North.,Q. Yes, sir, the question is, if the Congress fails to do that, what options will you have then?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that the time for me to answer that question is at the present. I, in the first place, believe the Congress will fund the money that I have requested, and if they do, then I have no need to look at any other options, because they will be capable of defending themselves.,The good judgment of the Congress will fund. The South Vietnamese will defend themselves. And I do not think there will be any other needed options.\nYes, Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,JUSTICE WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, when you were a Congressman and called for the impeachment of Justice Douglas, did you have access or were you slipped any secret FBI data?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not know what the source was of information that was given to me, but I was given information by a high-ranking official of the Department of Justice. I do not know what the source of that information was.,Q. Was it Attorney General Mitchell, then Attorney General Mitchell?,THE PRESIDENT. It was not the Attorney General, John Mitchell.,Q. Was it FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover?,THE PRESIDENT. It was not. Two times and you are out, Helen. [Laughter],CANDIDACY IN 1976,[3.] Q. Mr. President, we have a story that Senator Howard Baker from up here in Tennessee is seriously considering seeking the Republican nomination. In view of a late poll which gives you a rating of 60 percent negative with the American people, in view of your findings here, sir, what is your feeling about any chance or any opportunity you will seek a full term as President?,THE PRESIDENT. I have indicated that it is my intention to be a candidate in 1976, and of course, in our system anybody can, if they so desire, qualify to be a candidate in any primary. I can only indicate what my intention might be, and I pass no judgment on what anybody else might do.,Q. Do you think the economic situation, though, that you will be able to lick it, of course, increasing your chances?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the economic situation in 1976 will be an improving economic picture. It won't perhaps be as good as we would like it, but I believe that unemployment will be going down and employment will be going up, and we will be doing a considerable amount better in the battle against inflation than we did in the last 12 months.,So, with the optimism that I think will come from more employment, less unemployment, and a better battle against inflation, I think the economic circumstances will be good enough to justify at least my seeking reelection.,GENERAL SECRETARY BREZHNEV OF THE SOVIET UNION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, when you left Vladivostok in November, we were led to understand that General Secretary Brezhnev would be in Washington in May or June. The time is running short; a lot has happened in American-Soviet relations since then. Do you still look forward to welcoming Mr. Brezhnev just 3 or 4 months from now?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], I look forward to having the General Secretary in the United States in the summer of 1975. The negotiations which we concluded in Vladivostok are moving along in the negotiations that are necessary to put the final draft. These negotiations are taking place in Geneva.,I see no reason why we cannot reconcile any of the relatively minor differences. The basic agreement is still in effect, and I am confident that we can welcome the General Secretary to the United States in the summer of 1975, and I look forward to it.,ECONOMIC AND ENERGY PROGRAMS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, I am Alva Haywood, president of the Georgia Press Association. Your program for the solution of the problems of energy and the economic situation is submitted to Congress as a package, and you are asking Congress to approve this as a package. The concern, sir, is that Congress will lift out points of your program, substitute points of their program, and leave some areas lacking. Would you comment on the possibilities of such a situation?,THE PRESIDENT. It is true, as you have stated, that I submitted to the Congress a comprehensive plan or program to solve our energy problem. As a matter of fact, the bill that we sent to the Congress is about 196 pages, and that did not include the tax proposals, because a President does not submit, in writing, tax proposals; he submits the ideas. And it did not include the proposal I am submitting for the strip mining bill of 1975. But this is a comprehensive, interrelated program to solve our energy problem by reducing consumption and stimulating additional production.,The Congress, I hope, will consider it as a package. Now, if they do not agree with the package, I think the Congress has an obligation to come up with their package. I do not believe they can pick and choose with press release answers. They have to have something solid.,Now, if they want to change, in a minor way, a part of my package, I will understand it. But they cannot come up with a part of an answer, because the problem is altogether too broad and sweeping. It affects us in industry, in our homes, in our driving, et cetera. I just hope the Congress understands the need for a comprehensive plan and will act accordingly.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[6.] Q. Mr. President, recently in Washington, the big city mayors expressed concern over the high unemployment rate, particularly in the cities where it runs, as you know, much ahead of the national unemployment rate. Considering that your Budget Message predicts that we may have high unemployment for up to another year to 18 months, have your advisers given you any forecast on the possible effect in terms of the concern of the mayors, which was a return to urban violence, the possible effect of continued high unemployment for such a prolonged period of time?,THE PRESIDENT. I did notice the request of the mayors for an additional $15 billion over and above what I have recommended in helping the cities through general revenue sharing, through the community development program, through the emergency unemployment program. I believe that the combination of recommendations I have made--in those I have mentioned and some others--will meet the problems in our major metropolitan cities, and I do not believe that we should go beyond those in meeting the particular problems in those communities.,Q. With your austerity program, will they be able to get that $15 billion that they requested?,THE PRESIDENT. I must respectfully disagree with the way you labeled my program as an \"austerity program.\" It is not an austerity program when you submit a budget for $349 billion, $36 billion more than the budget for the current fiscal year, and a budget that provides for $15 billion more in income transfer payments. So, it is not an austere budget. It is a very expensive budget. Because we have good programs to help the unemployed, to train those people who are unemployed, to help people on social security and other retirement programs, I do not believe we need the extra $15 billion recommended by the various mayors.,THE CONGRESS AND NATIONAL DEFENSE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Ron Wilson, Georgia Network. Would you comment, please, on Senator Jackson's assessment of the 94th Congress? He says it could possibly be the most dangerous in history in terms of the willingness on the part of some Congressmen to relax our defense posture. 11 The reporter erred in attributing the remarks to Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington. The remarks were made by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona.,THE PRESIDENT. I had not seen Senator Jackson's description of the potentials of the 94th Congress. I hope that that description is not an accurate one, and I am going to wait and see whether they do take the kind of action that might destroy our military capability. I usually agree with Senator Jackson on national defense appropriations, policies, et cetera. If this Congress does slash, without rhyme or reason, the military budget that I have submitted, it could jeopardize our national security. I think it is premature to say they will. I certainly hope they don't. But I can say, without any hesitation, that I will vigorously oppose any attempt to slash, without rhyme or reason, our military strength as represented in the budget that I have submitted.,RECESSION .AND BUDGET DEFICITS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, some people believe that your economic advisers-particularly Mr. Greenspan and Secretary Simon--would like to have this recession get somewhat deeper so that it will take a bigger bite out of. inflation. Is that a correct assessment?,THE PRESIDENT. I have spent a good many hours with Alan Greenspan as we went over the various options in our economic and energy program. I can say most strongly that Alan Greenspan does not want us to have more adverse economic conditions than we have today.,He has joined with me in supporting the program that I submitted, a $16 billion tax reduction or rebate, and he has also joined with me in recommending a $17 billion curtailment of certain Federal budgetary expenses.,It seems to me that this is a well-balanced program. It is not aimed at trying to make our economic circumstances worse. It is aimed at trying to balance our economy, so that we recover from the recession as quickly as possible and, at the same time, avoid the potential dangers of a rekindling of double-digit inflation.,I think the Congress is cognizant of the problem. I hope the Congress acts responsibly. And I am an optimist enough to believe they will.,Q. If that is the case, Mr. President, why is it that the deficits that you have proposed for fiscal 1975 and fiscal 1976 amount to only a little more than 2 percent of the gross national product in '75 and a little over 3 percent of the gross national product in '76? How can you turn around a trillion-and-a-half dollar economy with net stimulants that are that small?,THE PRESIDENT. I looked at a chart the other day that shows the deficits in our Federal Government for the last 10 or 15 years, and the deficit that we will have in 1976 is higher as a percentage of GNP than any deficit in the last 10 or 15 years, as I recollect.,The deficit in 1975, which is $35 billion, is among the top-ranking deficits as a percentage of GNP. So, two of those back-to-back, in my opinion, are potentially dangerous from the point of view of rekindling inflation, and they are sufficiently stimulative to, I think, take us out of the current recession.,HIGHWAY TRUST FUNDS,[9.] Q. I am Sally Lofton, with Southeastern Newspapers. Forty million dollars, which had been intended for highway construction in Georgia, was included in highway trust funds impounded by President Nixon, and I was wondering if you plan to release any of these funds?,THE PRESIDENT. Last evening I met with a number of the Governors from the Southern and Southeastern States. They did raise that question, urging that I release some of the deferrals or rescissions in the Highway Trust Fund. I mean deferrals, not rescissions.,I have promised them that I will take a look at their recommendation. Some of them said their States were ready to go, they could let bids within 30 days and get construction underway very quickly.,I will talk to the Federal Highway Commissioner, former Governor Tiemann of Nebraska, and will let the Governors know whether we think this is something that ought to be done promptly.,Q. Was Governor Busbee one of the ones who said he was ready to go?,THE PRESIDENT. As I recall, he and several others, including Governor Askew of Florida.,JUSTICE WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Bob Schieffer [CBS News]. I would like to follow up on Helen's question. You told us the two officials who did not give you that information. Would you tell us who did? And beyond that, can you tell us what sort of information it was, and beyond that, what did you do with it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the information that was given to me was to a substantial degree included in the speech that I made on the floor of the House, which is a printed document and has been widely distributed. The information was given to me by Mr. Will Wilson, who was then one of the Assistant Attorney Generals.,ARAB INVESTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I am Bobby Branch, and I publish a country newspaper in Perry, Georgia.,THE PRESIDENT. What have we got--segregation here between the Washington press corps and the local press corps? [Laughter],Q. Yes, sir. In view of the recent Arab oil interest investments in America-and even here in Georgia, the State government is actively seeking Arab investments--I was wondering what your opinion was on the trend in this direction?,THE PRESIDENT. There have been some recent news stories to the effect that the Iranian Government, for example, wanted to invest in Pan Am. They were thinking of buying six TWA jets that were not being used. And there is a story about one of the Arab countries buying a substantial interest in one of our largest banks in the State of Michigan.,The Department of State, the National Security Council are looking into this question. It is a matter, I think, that will require our best analysis and probably a final decision by myself. But we are not in the position where I can give you a categorical answer at this point.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to return, if I could, please, to your answer to a question which was asked a little earlier, in which you expressed optimism that the economy would improve next year over its present situation and that that would help your chances for reelection.,By your own statistics, sir, unemployment will be 7.9 percent next year, and that is higher than it is now. The gross national product will drop, I believe, 3.3 percent now, which would be a bigger drop than last year, and we will continue to have double-digit inflation.,With that grim economic outlook, sir, on what do you base your hope for reelection, inasmuch as your own statistics make the outlook worse next year than it presently is?,THE PRESIDENT. Let's trace the history of inflation. From December 1973 to December 1974, the cost of living went up 12.2 percent. From December 1974 to December 1975, we expect the cost of living to go up 9 percent. Between December of '75 to December of 1976, we expect the cost of living to go up 7 percent, so that is a very significant improvement, and it is not double-digit inflation. It is almost cutting in half the inflation that we had from December '73 to December '74. From the point of view of unemployment, it is true that we expect, in 1975, inflation to average over, I think it is, 8.4 or 8.5 percent.,We do expect, however, by the second and third quarter of 1975 to have a switch that will be on the plus side. It will be a switch that will probably mean a 5-percent increase in the GNP. It will undoubtedly mean an increase of about 2 million in those employed.,So, the trend will be good, with higher employment and improvement in the gross national product and a slight downtrend in unemployment figures. They will get better the further we go into 1976, so I am not as pessimistic as you appear to be, and I am not as pessimistic when you look at the trends, not the averages, as some of the computer readouts tend to lead you to believe.,ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Peter Dannon, WAGA Television, Atlanta. Sir, we are told the confidence of the businessman and the consumer is essential to economic recovery. Two questions, sir.\nFirst, your estimation of this confidence, and second, is there a possibility that as a lot of people who have not been badly hurt by our economic problems become increasingly bored with this talk of economic uncertainty, is there a possibility of a spontaneous recovery of confidence, regardless of what is done in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I happen to subscribe to the idea that the actions of the American people are oftentimes infinitely more important than what the Congress or the President do in Washington, D.C. If we get a restoration of public confidence, which has been falling rapidly and has been a major contributing factor to our economic problems, if we get a restoration of that--and there is some evidence that that is taking place--then, in my judgment, we will get a faster recovery than what some of the experts are forecasting.,Now, there has been in the last several weeks a very interesting development, and the changes in our economy in the last 2 or 3 months have shown certain sudden actions that most people did not forecast nor anticipate.,We have had a tremendous inventory sell-out, much more rapid than anybody forecast. This means that in a relatively short period of time--much more quickly than anyone expected a couple of months ago--that as you bottom out and you get a reasonable balance between inventory and production, that the recovery will come more quickly than some of the experts had forecast or anticipated.,This development, plus what I think is a restoration of public confidence, gives to me the feeling that we are going to do better at the end of this year than what some of the experts are saying.,Q. Could you suggest a guideline or something we can look for in the next few months that might, as a guidepost, help restore this confidence? Any specific objective in the next couple of months that would relate to the American people and their confidence in whether or not to spend their dollars?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the unusual and, I think, successful marketing techniques shown by the automotive industry in the last month and the announcement that some of the appliance manufacturers are going to use the same marketing techniques--good old American free enterprise--I think this approach will have a very good stimulant, not only to the facts of the economy but to public confidence. So, if they keep up this good, hard marketing practice, in my judgment, that is the best guideline that I can think of.,TAX REBATES,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I am Dennis Farney, with the Wall Street Journal. The House Ways and Means Committee has rejected your tax rebate formula in favor of one that would provide more help to low- and middle-income people. At the same time, the committee seems inclined to perhaps continue some of its tax cuts indefinitely, instead of ending them after 1 year as you have proposed. Could you live with these changes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, the House Committee on Ways and Means\nhas only taken tentative action. Their procedure is to make tentative decisions and then go back in the final analysis and either agree with or change what they have made as they have gone along. This is only the first of four major steps, maybe five. The House has to approve it, the Senate Committee on Finance has to act, the Senate, and then in conference. So, I think it is premature for me to make any categorical judgment as to whether I would accept what the tentative agreements are in House Committee on Ways and Means. I think I had better wait and pass judgment on what looks like might be the final version.,ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, John Pruitt of WSB Television. You have called for relaxing of pollution controls because of the energy crisis, and some have accused you of abandoning the environmental movement.,I would like to know what you think is going to happen to the environmental movement and the strides that have been made in the past few years as a result of your proposals?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that I have recommended any major shift away from our environmental goals. Let me take one that I am very familiar with.,Under existing law, within the next 2 years the automobile manufacturers would have to go to a substantially higher emission standard. And the automobile manufacturers are testifying right now that if they are forced to go to that very, very high standard, there will be an added cost to every automobile that is produced and there will be no improvement and probably a decrease in the efficiency of automobiles, which means that cars sold in the next 3 or 4 years will guzzle more gasoline, not less gasoline.,With the effort that I think is reasonable, we can increase automobile efficiency by 40 percent and still achieve an increase in environmental emission standards. And here is what I have recommended: that the Congress change the law to improve the environmental emission standards from the present law to the California standards, and in return for that change of the law, the automotive manufacturers have agreed with me in writing to increase automotive efficiency 40 percent in the next 5 years, which means we will get 40 percent more miles per gallon and still have a higher emission standard than we have today in our automobiles that are sold throughout the country.,Now, in the case of the Clean Air Act that would permit the utilities that are now using oil to go to coal, we have asked for some postponement. We have not abandoned the goal, but in order to cut down our importation of foreign oil, we have asked the Congress--and the head of EPA, Russell Train, has agreed-that this is a reasonable request.,I think under the crisis we face, a short stretch-out is understandable and desirable in this area. So, I have not abandoned any improvement in our clean air efforts. I have simply, in the one case, moved up to the California standard and, in the other, stretched out the situation to some extent. This, in my opinion, is a realistic approach, a proper balancing of environmental needs and energy demands.,I can assure you that in our judgment it is a reasonable position and it is wholly agreed to by Mr. Train, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.,ECONOMIC STIMULANTS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Philip Shabecoff, the New York Times. Sir, your economic policies apparently would allow a high rate of unemployment for years to come in order to prevent a new round of inflation. Sir, isn't there some approach you could take other than this that would avoid this human suffering?,THE PRESIDENT. The proposal that I have submitted to the Congress provides for a very substantial stimulant to get us out of the current recession. I hope the Congress will act quickly, and the quicker the better. That will be the best demonstration of what the President and the Congress can do to turn the direction of our economy from a recession to an improvement.,It is my judgment that any additional stimulant at this time could lead to the kind of inflation that we fought so hard to overcome for the last 12 months. If we were to substantially increase--I emphasize \"substantially increase\"--the deficit of $52 billion, it could provide a tremendous stimulant, but what would that do?,It would probably dry up our financial markets, with Uncle Sam going in to borrow $60 to $70 billion in 12 months, plus $30-some billion in this fiscal year.,It would probably force interest rates high again, instead of the trend we are on now with lower interest rates. And it undoubtedly, with high interest rates, hard-to-get credit, and higher and higher inflation, would start us right down the road we have just avoided and, I think, multiply, not help our present economic circumstances.,WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS,[17.] Q. Sir, to follow up, some economists and some Democrats have proposed--,THE PRESIDENT. I am glad you say Democrats are not economists, or vice versa. [Laughter],Q. Sir, there is a proposal that a larger degree of stimulation combined with wage and price controls would solve the problem of the recession, while preventing another round of inflation. Do you, sir, regard wage and price controls as worse than an 8-percent unemployment rate for the next 2 years?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think, when you are faced with the kind of adverse economic circumstances we have today, a recession which we are trying to get out of, that wage-an&price-control medicine is the answer to the economic problem. And I believe that the stimulant I have proposed with the tax reduction, with the responsible expenditure limitations, is a very fine line that will permit us to get out of the recession and avoid double-digit inflation. And to put on top of this kind of an economy wage and price controls would be the worst kind of medicine that I can foresee.,FISCAL ADVICE TO STATE LEGISLATURES,[18.] Q. Mr. President, I am Selby McCash, with the Macon Telegraph and the Macon News. The Georgia General Assembly is in session at the moment, and many State legislatures are. What advice could you give the State lawmakers to augment and supplement your programs on economy and energy? Quite simply, is there anything these gentlemen on the State level can do?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that State legislatures have an obligation, such as we have in the Federal Government, to try and handle their fiscal affairs in a responsible way. I do not think the State legislatures or municipal governments should act irresponsibly and then come to the Federal Government for more funds over and above what has been recommended in the budget that I have submitted to the Congress.,If they have financial problems, I think they have to face up to them. I believe that they will have to tighten their belts, in some cases, on the expenditure side and they may have to increase taxes, as Governor Carey of New York has proposed. But anyhow, they should not act irresponsibly and then come to the Federal Government and expect us, under our circumstances, to bail them out.,WHITE HOUSE BUDGET,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you have asked the country to sacrifice to help us out in this time of trouble, but our own budget shows that the Executive Office of the President has outlays of 65 percent more in fiscal year 1975 over fiscal year 1974. Furthermore, we look at the kind of habits in the Administration: Not many days ago, Secretary Kissinger had a speech in Los Angeles, and to make one speech, he takes two planes--two very large planes--and spends tens of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money. Don't you think it is time for the White House to tighten its belt and other members of the Administration to do the same thing?,THE PRESIDENT. I can assure you, since I took over, that we have thoroughly looked into the personnel of the White House, and if my memory is correct, we have cut back about 10 percent in personnel. The increases that have come-again, my memory suggests--is that the White House is now being charged rent by GSA just as GSA charges every other Federal department for federally owned office buildings that are occupied by a department.,And there has been an increase in compensation for Federal employees, which I happen to oppose and asked to be deferred. So, when you add up the items that I have indicated, plus the 10-percent reduction in personnel, at least as far as we are concerned, it is my judgment that we have been cutting back rather than adding to.,Now, in the case of Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Kissinger is a very important person in this Government at this time, and it would be tragic if anything happened to him as a result of not taking necessary precautions. And I, for one, do not want any lack of precaution to result in anything that would hurt, in my opinion, the carrying out of our foreign policy, which is a success.,I happen to think the protection of his life, which is important to the foreign policy of this country, is worth the expenditure that you indicated.,Q. As a followup, Mr. President, you say that you have to pay rent now on the White House. What happens if you cannot pay your bills? Do they throw you out? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, you ask Mr. Sampson. I think they will take it out of our appropriation bill.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1975-01-21","text":"STATEMENT ON THE ENERGY PROGRAM,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Before getting into questions, I would like to take a few moments to briefly review with you several critical energy issues.,The energy decisions which I announced as a part of my State of the Union Address resulted from the most comprehensive review this Nation has ever had of our energy problems. This study demonstrated that there are only three basic alternatives.,The first--to continue doing what we have been doing. I have rejected this, because if we do continue, we will be importing 25 percent more oil by 1977. By 1985, we will be dependent on foreign sources for more than half of our oil. This would subject the economy of the United States to very serious disruption if these supplies were once again curtailed. The embargo of 1973 occurred during a period when a little more than one-third of our oil came from foreign sources. The disruptions we suffered then were just a small taste of what would likely happen in the event of a future embargo when we would be far more vulnerable.,Some have suggested rationing as the second alternative. I can understand why many in Congress and elsewhere are attempting to find a solution which does not entail sacrifice and hardship. But there is no easy solution, and I never promised one.,I believe that those who propose rationing do not have a clear understanding of what their plan would entail for the American people. Many of us, of course, remember rationing during World War II. I have no doubt that this Nation is capable of sustaining a rationing program during a short emergency. However, to really curb demand, we would have to embark on a long-range rationing program of more than 5 years. Those favoring rationing must be thinking of a short-term program, not a serious, long-term effort to end energy dependency.,Further, there is no simple way to reach our goals by rationing. Rationing provides no stimulus to increase domestic petroleum supply or accelerate alternative energy sources. By concentrating exclusively on gasoline rationing, many other areas for energy conservation are overlooked.,In addition to being ineffective, gas rationing is inequitable. Even a rationing system that is designed with the best motives in mind and implemented by the most conscientious administrators would not be fair. If you were to go around the country and ask individuals what they should get under a \"fair\" rationing system, you would find that there would be simply not enough gasoline to go around. In fact, to reach our 1975 goal of reducing foreign oil imports by 1 million barrels per day, a gas rationing system would limit each driver to less than 9 gallons a week.,Inequities would be everywhere: How would people in remote areas of the country get enough gas to drive into town? How would farmers get enough gas to harvest their crops? What would happen to people who must drive a long way to work each day? And who would make those decisions?,It is essential that we recognize the size of the problem which we are attempting to solve. As a consequence, we must evaluate each energy program to see whether, in fact, it actually confronts and solves the problem. It does us little good to impose rationing or a gasoline tax or simply shut down gasoline stations on Sunday. These will not give us energy independence.,The alternative I have chosen relies on freedom of individual choice--giving people and businesses an incentive to save energy. This is the only way to achieve our energy goal. The need for action is obvious.,Therefore, later this week, I will sign a Presidential proclamation [4341] which will set in motion the most important and far-reaching energy conservation program in our Nation's history. It is the first step toward regaining our energy freedom. We must reverse our increasing dependency on imported oil. It seriously threatens our national security and the very existence of our freedom and leadership in the free world.\nThe proclamation is designed to impose higher fees on imported oil which are equitable and fair. For example, it will contain special provisions to avoid undue hardships on certain regions of the country, such as the Northeast, which are heavily dependent upon high-cost foreign oil. On Thursday, I will meet with the Governors of the Northeast States on their special problems.,It is absolutely critical that Congress act quickly on my energy proposals. The increased revenues which the Government will collect from energy taxes must be returned to consumers and businesses through my proposed tax cut. To ensure speedy enactment of the program, I will, of course, work with the Congress.,I will not sit by and watch the Nation continue to talk about an energy crisis and do nothing about it. Nor will I take halfway measures which fail to change the direction that has put our Nation in this position. We have the resources in this country, the technological capability, and the spirit to regain our energy independence. I will, of course, use all of my powers as President to make certain that we succeed.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], please.,QUESTIONS,ENERGY PROGRAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you just said that you are willing to work with the Congress on this package. How flexible are you in compromising with those Democrats who argue that your tax plan plus the higher gas, crude oil levies bear most heavily on the poor?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have submitted a tax rebate program that is aimed at getting money back into the hands of individuals to the extent of $12 billionplus as quickly as possible, with a cap on the 12-percent rebate--the cap being $1,000. We think this is fair and equitable, particularly when you combine it with the method of returning the $19 billion to individual taxpayers under the energy program.,The two, in my judgment, do provide equity, in that we increase the low-income allowance and we try to equalize the burden on the less well off, at the same time giving the people in the middle-income brackets a fair share. Now, that is our proposal.,Of course, the Congress will have witnesses; they will act independently. But I think if they take a good look at our program, they will see that it is well-balanced, giving the poor a fair break, giving the people in the middle income a fair opportunity to get their funds. And I hope the Congress won't make too many changes in it.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,THE MIDDLE EAST,[3.] Q. On recent occasions, several times you have warned of the serious possibility of another war in the Middle East. Why, then, is the United States contributing so heavily to the military buildup there? And I have a followup.,THE PRESIDENT. The United States does feel that the danger of war in the Middle East is very serious. I have said it repeatedly, and I say it again here today. But in order to avoid that, we are maximizing our diplomatic efforts with Israel as well as with several Arab States.,In order to maintain the internal security of the various countries, in order to maintain equilibrium in arms capability, one nation against the other, we are supplying some arms to various states in that region. I think, while we negotiate, or while we expand our diplomatic efforts, it is important to maintain a certain degree of military capability on all sides.,PRESIDENT'S WAR POWERS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, both you and Secretary Kissinger have said that in case of strangulation of the West by oil producers, you would use military force--and you were hypothetically speaking. I think on that same basis the American people would like to know whether you would require a Congressional declaration of war or whether you would bypass that constitutional process, as some of your predecessors have done?,THE PRESIDENT. I can assure you that on any occasion where there was any commitment of U.S. military personnel to any engagement, we would use the complete constitutional process that is required of the President.\nYes, Mr. Brokaw [Tom Brokaw, NBC News].,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, I believe I have detected the subtle thunder of politics interwoven among the bid by Washington officials to come up with a program for the Nation's energy and the economy. My question goes to you, sir. Do you feel that your political future is tied directly to turning the economy around, and more specifically, can a man be elected to your office when polls show that a large majority of the public does not have confidence in his handling of the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think any President or any candidate for the Presidency is affected by the status of the economy. In my judgment, the program I have submitted both to answer the energy problem and to meet the difficulties we are having in the economy today will be reflected in a definite improvement in our economy in the months ahead.,The plan for energy, if approved by the Congress, will get us on the road to meet our difficulties in the field of energy. It will make us less vulnerable to outside or foreign sources.,I am convinced both programs are sound. We may be at a low point now, but I am convinced that the months ahead will prove that we were right and that the political prospects, if they are affected by that, will likewise be improved. Yes, Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[6.] Q Mr. President, are there circumstances in which the U.S. might actively reenter the Vietnam war?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot foresee any at the moment.,Q. Are you ruling out the possibility of bombing, U.S. bombing over there, or naval action?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is appropriate for me to forecast any specific actions that might be taken. I would simply say that any military actions, if taken, would be only taken following the actions under our constitutional and legal procedures.,ENERGY PROGRAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, some critics of your energy and tax proposals say that it looks like a \"made in Detroit\" plan and that it is more an effort to rescue or revive the auto industry in that it does not attack the horsepower and weight of automobiles and the gas-guzzling machines. I would like to ask you whether you considered these options and, if so, why you rejected them.,THE PRESIDENT. I can assure you, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], we considered every option, including the options that some are talking about--gas rationing, closing gas stations on Sunday, and things of that nature-but we did not think any of those proposals were the right solution.,Let me just take one that you mentioned--a tax on new automobiles, I assume, that had a high horsepower. Well, I really do not think that is any solution, because automobiles in that category are not the ones that are bought by most people. So, the impact really would be minimal.,All of these little pieces that people talk about are not a part of a comprehensive plan, the kind of a program that I have submitted to the Congress and to the American people.,Until someone comes up with a total plan, such as we have come up with, I think it is unfortunate to have this rather limited criticism.,ECONOMIC AND ENERGY PROGRAMS,[8.] Q. Would your plan come apart if any piece of it were not approved by the Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is so comprehensive that one piece not being implemented would not bring about its downfall. But I can assure you that it is so well-integrated that every piece is essential if we are to achieve the maximum result, which is no vulnerability against foreign sources of energy after 1985.,THE CONGRESS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in recent days the Democratic Caucus seems to have emerged as the power up in the House. How can you, as the President, deal with the caucus instead of the more traditional power bases such as Speaker, minority leader, committee chairmen?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know and have worked with many of the new forces that have emerged in the House of Representatives on the Democratic side. I will, of course, concentrate my working relationship with the Speaker and with the majority leader and the other elected leaders, but I will also, of course, be required to work with the committee chairmen, whoever they may be. We will have to be very pragmatic as we try to get our legislation through, and that means working with the majority from the top to the most junior Member.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on Helen Thomas' question. There has been considerable discussion, as you know, about this question of military intervention in the Middle East, and you and others have said that it might be considered if the West's economies were strangled. Mr. President, as you know, the Charter of the United Nations says that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.,Now, Mr. President, I would like to know whether this section of the Charter of the United Nations was considered, taken under consideration before these statements were made by members of the Administration, and if not, why not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the hypothetical question which was put to Secretary Kissinger, a hypothetical question of the most extreme kind, I think, called for the answer that the Secretary gave, and I fully endorse that answer.,I can't tell you whether Secretary Kissinger considered that part of the United Nations Charter at the time he made that comment, but if a country is being strangled--and I use \"strangled\" in the sense of the hypothetical question--that, in effect, means that a country has the right to protect itself against death.,Q. Mr. President, would a new oil embargo be considered strangulation?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly none comparable to the one in 1973.,NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE,[ll.] Q. Mr. President, your fiscal austerity program--because of that, will you have to abandon plans for a national health insurance?,THE PRESIDENT. Unfortunately, the \"no new program\" guideline that I laid down does mean the deferral of any recommendation by me of a national health insurance program.,BUDGET DEFICIT,[12.] Q. Mr. President, when you were minority leader of the House, would you not have been horrified by a President who proposed to--who predicted a $30 billion deficit and then proposed a big tax cut on top of it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am horrified as President. [Laughter] But unfortunately, because of the economic problems we have--the recession--our revenues have dropped very substantially. And because of the recession, we have had to pay out substantially more in unemployment compensation and for the Public Service Employment Act. The net result is that we were looking at a $30 billionplus deficit, whether we did anything.,And in order to stimulate the economy and to provide jobs and to get money back into the hands of the American people, I felt that in these extenuating circumstances that a tax reduction or rebate was absolutely essential, and I believe that it is the right medicine for our current illness. And I think if we had done nothing, the patient would have been in much worse condition.,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM AND CAMBODIA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, does the state of the American economy permit additional military and economic aid to Vietnam or Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe it does. When the budget was submitted for fiscal 1975, in January of 1974, the request was for $1.4 billion for military assistance. The Congress cut that to $700 million.,The request that I will submit for military assistance in a supplemental will be $300 million. I think it is a proper action by us to help a nation and a people prevent aggression in violation of the Paris accords.,AMNESTY PROGRAM EXTENSION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the deadline for draft deserters and draft dodgers is about to run out for your amnesty program. I was just wondering--are you considering extending that deadline, or will it die as it's now scheduled?,THE PRESIDENT. I am in the process right now of analyzing whether there should be an extension of the amnesty program beyond the January 31 deadline. I have not made a final decision on that at this point.,THE SOVIET UNION,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you bring us up to date with an evaluation of the state of detente with the Soviet Union in the light of what happened to the trade agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my judgment that the detente with the Soviet Union will be continued, broadened, expanded. I think that is in our interest, and I think it is in the interest of the Soviet Union.,I, of course, was disappointed that the trade agreement was canceled, but it is my judgment that we can continue to work with the Soviet Union to expand trade, regardless. And I would hope that we can work with the Congress to eliminate any of the problems in the trade bill that might have precipitated the action by the Soviet Union.,GASOLINE RATIONING,[16.] Q. Mr. President, would you consider gasoline rationing if that was the choice you were given by Congress and they rejected your plan for increased taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is the obligation of the Congress, if they favor gas rationing, to make it mandatory. I do not approve of it because I think it is the wrong solution to the problem.,Gas rationing, as I indicated, does not provide any stimulant whatsoever for alternative sources of energy. It would not provide us any of the wherewithal to find new sources of energy, whether it is solar, geothermal. It would not provide us any capability of further exploration of crude oil.,I think gas rationing would provide many inequities. As I illustrated in my opening statement, in my judgment gas rationing would provide an inflexible answer to a problem that has to be solved by some new initiatives, and a 5-year to 10-year gas rationing program, which is what it would have to be, would hamstring rather than help our solution.,OIL IMPORT FEES,[17.] Q. Mr. President, if requested by Congress, would you consider postponing for a time--90 days perhaps--your plan to increase the tariff on imported oil?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is important for the Congress to understand, in the solution of the energy program, that we should move forward and not take a backward step.,If we were to postpone the imposition of the $1 extra per barrel on imported oil, it would start the momentum going for the cutback of 1 million barrels per day in foreign oil imports, and the sooner we start that, the better it will be in the conservation of energy, which is essential to our present and future well-being.,REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM,[18.] Q. Mr. President, a two-part followup on Vietnam. What is your assessment of the military situation there, and are you considering any additional measures, beyond a supplemental, of assistance to the South Vietnamese Government?,THE PRESIDENT. The North Vietnamese have infiltrated with substantial military personnel and many, many weapons in violation of the Paris accords. They are attacking, in many instances, major metropolitan areas and province capitals.,The South Vietnamese are fighting as skillfully and with firmness against this attack by the North Vietnamese. I think it is essential for their morale as well as for their security that we proceed with the supplemental that I am recommending, which will be submitted either this week or next week.,Now, I am not anticipating any further action beyond that supplemental at this time.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY AND UNEMPLOYMENT,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you have painted a pretty bleak picture of the economy. Just what can the American people expect in the months ahead? How high will unemployment go, and how soon will your medicine start taking hold?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you can get a variety of answers as to how high unemployment will go, but you can take one figure of 7.5 percent, some say over 8 percent. Either figure is too high. And my program, if implemented by the Congress, will remedy the situation.\nNow, it seems to me that by the late summer we ought to see a turnaround both as to economic activity and, I hope, a betterment in the unemployment figures.,THE CONGRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in your State of the Union Message, you urged Congress not to restrict your ability to conduct foreign policy. Did you have in mind Senator Jackson's amendment on the emigration of Soviet Jews, and do you consider this to be an example of the meddling by Congress in foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't wish to get in any dispute with Members of Congress. I think that such restrictive amendments as the one that was imposed on the trade bill and the Eximbank legislation and the limitation that was imposed on several pieces of legislation involving the continuation of military aid to Turkey, those kind of limitations, in my judgment, are harmful to a President in the execution and implementation of foreign policy.,I don't think that I should speculate as to what actually precipitated the action of the Soviet Union in the cancellation of the trade agreement.,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in an earlier Vietnam question you left open the option for yourself of possibly asking Congress for the authority to engage in bombing or naval action in the future. In light of the lengthy involvement by the United States in Vietnam and the pains that that created, can you say now whether or not there are any circumstances under which you might foresee yourself doing that, or would you care to rule out that prospect?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is appropriate for me to speculate on a matter of that kind.,SOCIAL SECURITY AND FOOD STAMPS,[22.] Q. Mr. President, you have proposed a 5-percent ceiling on the automatic cost-of-living increase attached to social security, and your Administration has, in addition, proposed an increase in the amount of money that the elderly poor must pay for food stamps. Do you stick by both of those positions? What do you say to those who argue that the elderly poor are being asked to assume an unfair burden of the hardships and sacrifices?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is proper to indicate that I am not requesting Congress to keep the social security payments at the present level. I am saying that in order to have a total effort in this country, to combat inflation and to help the economy, that there should be a 5-percent increase, but no more.\nI think that is a fair recommendation under the circumstances, and I would say that the requirement that requires that people who want food stamps pay. 30 percent of their income is also a proper requirement.,GENERAL SECRETARY BREZHNEV OF THE SOVIET UNION,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the rapport you seem to have established with Mr. Brezhnev at Vladivostok, can you shed any light on the conflicting reports about his current political and personal health? Specifically, have you had any direct contact with him since your trip?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not had any direct contact. We have communicated on several occasions, but we have had no personal or direct contact.,GASOLINE RATIONING,[24.] Q. Mr. President, can we assume by your comments here and objections to gas rationing, that you would veto a gas rationing program if it were to come to the White House for you to sign?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said that I would not hesitate to veto any additional spending programs or new programs that would cause new spending. I have pretty well outlined the objections which I think are valid against any gas rationing program.,Now, if the Congress wants to require mandatory gas rationing, that is a judgment they can make, as bad as I think it would be; and a program of that kind that was a superficial answer, in my judgment, I would veto.,FUEL OIL PRICES,[25.] Q. Sir, as we all know, the State of the Union says that the price of fuel oil in this country is so great now that people cannot pay it. They are telling their Congressmen this. You propose to put an additional price on that on February 1 and then give them back, as an offset, a rebate in tax in May and September. How are the people going to pay these fuel bills in the meantime?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have not analyzed the energy tax reduction in full. The money that would go back to individuals--the $19 billion--because of added energy costs, would go back to them through the change in the withholding tax and by--to the poorest--an $80 payment per person, any individual who was an adult.,So, I think the payback or the reduction in taxes would coincide with any added energy payments they would have to make.,WAGE, PRICE, AND PROFIT CONTROLS,[26.] Q. Mr. President, the figures show that last year the United States had an inflation of 12.2 percent--the highest in its peacetime history. You have expressed in the State of the Union and elsewhere your fear that your programs for stimulating the economy may bring back a new surge of inflation in future months. Under those circumstances, don't you think it would be prudent to ask Congress for standby authority for wage and price controls and some restraint on profit margins if this happens?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not believe, in the economic environment we are in today, that standby price and wage controls are the right remedy. I do not think that any profit control is a proper remedy, either.,The free economy over the years has proven to be the best answer, and our experiences in the last several years with wage and price controls has been not a very good one. So, I personally think, in the current circumstances, that we should not have standby or mandatory price and wage controls.,INFLATION AND RECESSION,[27.] Q. In that event, Mr. President, have you and your advisers been concerned, or had any anxiety that this cycle of inflation and recession, inflation and recession--this cycle, this dreary cycle--really will just continue year after year and, at some point, one or the other of them will get completely out of control?,THE PRESIDENT. My economic program is aimed at stimulating the economy sufficiently to get us over the immediate recession we are in at the present time. And I believe if the Congress will take the actions that I have recommended to slow down the growth of spending and, at the same time, pass the energy program that I have recommended, we can continue to make headway against inflation and, at the same time, get over the hump of our current recession.,VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY,[28.] Q. Mr. President, you are now approaching 6 months in office. Could you tell us a little bit about how you like the job, about your personal philosophy towards it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think I have said several times that I enjoy the challenge of the job. It is not an easy one, but I enjoy the day-to-day responsibilities, challenges. I work hard at it. I try to have an open-door policy to Members of Congress, to the public, and to the Administration members individually as well as collectively.,I feel we are making headway, and we can and will make more headway if the Congress will work with me on some of these problems.,TAX REBATES,[29.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you, please, in view of the lack of confidence which has been expressed in the economy to date, what makes you think that your proposal for tax rebates would provide any real stimulus to buying powers so the public would spend its way out of a recession? What makes you think that it won't all be eaten up in higher fuel taxes and the rest will be put in the bank for lack of public confidence?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the $12 billion tax rebate predicated on 1974 income taxes, if the Congress acts promptly so we can make the first payment in May, will provide a stimulant; and the tax refunds or tax reductions that will be predicated on the energy package will also, in my opinion, be helpful as far as the economy is concerned.,Now, I can't tell you how people are going to either spend or save the money that they will get in the rebate, but if they spend it, that is good. If they save it, that might be helpful, too, because it will go into a bank or a savings and loan, and it will provide funds for the housing market, for the sale of automobiles. In either case, I think there will be benefits and advantages to the rebate. MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. It is nice to be here. We will do it more often now."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1974-12-02","text":"TRIP TO JAPAN, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, AND THE SOVIET UNION,OPENING STATEMENT THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Perhaps I can anticipate some of your questions by summarizing my recent visits to Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Soviet Union.,In Japan, we succeeded in establishing a new era of relations between our two countries. We demonstrated our continuing commitment to the independence and to the security of South Korea. At Vladivostok we put a firm ceiling on the strategic arms race, which heretofore has eluded us since the nuclear age began. I believe this is something for which future generations will thank us.,Finally, Secretary Kissinger's mission maintained the momentum in China with the People's Republic of China.,My meetings at Vladivostok with General Secretary Brezhnev were a valuable opportunity to review Soviet-American relations and chart their future course. Although this was our original purpose, Secretary Brezhnev and I found it possible to go beyond this get-acquainted stage.,Building on the achievements of the past 3 years, we agreed that the prospects were favorable for more substantial and, may I say, very intensive negotiations on the primary issue of a limitation of strategic arms. In the end, we agreed on the general framework for a new agreement that will last through 1985.,We agreed it is realistic to aim at completing this agreement next year. This is possible because we made major breakthroughs on two critical issues:,Number one, we agreed to put a ceiling of 2,400 each on the total number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and heavy bombers.,Two, we agreed to limit the number of missiles that can be armed with multiple warheads--MIRV's. Of each side's total of 2,400, 1,320 can be so armed.,These ceilings are well below the force levels which would otherwise have been expected over the next 10 years and very substantially below the forces which would result from an all-out arms race over that same period.,What we have done is to set firm and equal limits on the strategic forces of each side, thus preventing an arms race with all its terror, instability, war-breeding tension, and economic waste.,We have, in addition, created the solid basis from which future arms reductions can be made and, hopefully, will be negotiated.,It will take more detailed negotiations to convert this agreed framework into a comprehensive accord. But we have made a long step toward peace on a basis of equality, the only basis on which an agreement was possible.,Beyond this, our improved relations with the other nations of Asia developed on this journey will continue to serve the interests of the United States and the cause of peace for months to come. Economy, energy, security, and trade relations were discussed, which will be of mutual benefit to us all.,I would like to repeat publicly my thanks and gratitude for the hospitality extended to me by all of my hosts and, through me, to the American people.,Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International], I am glad to respond to your question.,QUESTIONS [2.] Q. Mr. President, this pact permits the nuclear buildup to go ahead. Since you want to cut Government spending, how many billions of dollars will this cost the American people over the years, and also, do you think that the Russians stalled last July because they knew that Mr. Nixon was doomed in the Presidency and preferred to deal with his successor?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to correct, if I might, one impression. This does not permit an agreed buildup. It puts a cap on future buildups, and it actually reduces a part of the buildup at the present time.\nIt is important, I should say, however, in order for us to maintain equality, which is a keystone of this program, to have an adequate amount of military expenditures. But I can say this without hesitation or qualification: If we had not had this agreement, it would have required the United States to substantially increase its military expenditures in the strategic areas.,So, we put a cap on the arms race. We actually made some reductions below present programs. It is a good agreement, and I think that the American people will buy it, because it provides for equality and it provides for a negotiated reduction in several years ahead.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,[3.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that you and Mr. Brezhnev made some progress in maybe fashioning a complementary approach to negotiations in the Middle East. More specifically, perhaps the Soviets would agree to try to persuade the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist, and we then might try to persuade Israel to talk to the PLO. Is there any truth to this?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier, Mr. Brezhnev and I did discuss at some length our different views on the settlement of the Middle East. There are some differences, but they are not as major as it would appear.,We indicated that, in our judgment, it was important for continuous progress to be made, perhaps with negotiations between Israel and one or more of the other Arab nations.,We also agreed that at a certain point a Geneva conference might be the final answer. So, as we discussed our what appeared to be different views at the outset, I think we came to an agreement that it was in the interest of the nations in the Middle East, the interest of the world at large, that both parties make a maximum effort to keep negotiations going.,We think our step-by-step approach is the right one for the time being, but we don't preclude the possibility of a Geneva conference.,[4.] Q. You say that this is going to reduce a part of the buildup. Does that mean, then, that we are going to spend less on defense next year than we are spending this year?,THE PRESIDENT. It does not mean that, because only a part of our total defense program is related to strategic arms research, development, deployment, and operations and maintenance. We do have an obligation within the limits of 2,400 on delivery systems and 1,320 on MIRV's to keep our forces up to that level.,And I think we can, with about the same expenditure level for the next fiscal year, as at the present.,But in the other programs, in our tactical forces and other military programs, there is an inflationary cost. The military has that inflation just like you and I do, so we will probably have to increase our military budget next year just to take care of the costs of inflation.,Q. Just to follow up, we are not quite to that ceiling yet, are we? Do you intend to stay below that ceiling, or are you going to try to reach that ceiling?,THE PRESIDENT. I intend to stay below the ceiling. That is the agreement. But we do have an obligation to stay up to that ceiling, and the budget that I will recommend will keep our strategic forces either up to or aimed at that objective.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, since it is widely believed the Soviet Union has larger rockets capable of carrying heavier payloads and being MIRVed, to a larger extent carrying more warheads, can you tell us what the relative position would be between the United States and the Soviet Union in terms of warheads if each side goes to the maximum number of 1,320 on the MIRVed limit?,THE PRESIDENT. On delivery systems, we are equal. On the MIRVing, we are equal. I think the question you are asking is throw weight. It is recognized that the Soviet Union has a heavier throw weight, but the agreement does not preclude the United States from increasing its throw weight capability.,A number of years ago, our military decided that we wanted smaller missiles that were more accurate. That has been the decision of our military.,Now, if the military decides at the present time that they want to increase the throw weight, we have that right under the agreement, and I can tell you that we have the capability to do so.,So, if there is an inequality in throw weight, it can be remedied if our military recommended and the Congress appropriates the money.,Q. Mr. President, if you find the Soviet Union leaning, then, toward getting the maximum throw weight or the maximum number of warheads on their MIRV missiles, would you then recommend that the United States accelerate and move from smaller missiles to larger ones?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet military guidelines were for heavier missiles, heavier throw weight. Our military took a different point of view some years ago. The Soviet Union is limited as to delivery systems and as to MIRV's within the delivery systems. They cannot go beyond those.,The agreement gives us the flexibility to move up in throw weight if we want to. It does not preclude the Soviets from increasing throw weight, but I think for good reasons they have no justification for doing so.\nYes, Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Christian Science Monitor].,[6.] Q. Wouldn't your stated accomplishments in Russia have carried more long-range credibility if they had been put initially and then described later on in less sanguine and more modest terms?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if I understand the question, when I came back a week ago yesterday, we did not have in writing what is called an aide memoire, which was the specific agreement in writing that General Secretary Brezhnev and I had agreed to verbally. That has now been received.,Until that had been received and we had checked it out, we felt it was wise to speak in generalities. I am giving to you and to the American people tonight the specific figures. They are, I think, constructive. It is a good agreement. It is an agreement--if I might repeat--that puts a cap on the arms race, it makes some reductions, and it gives us an opportunity to negotiate.,So, I don't think a week's delay in the specifics has handicapped our presentation.,[7.] Q. More specifically, what percentage of the state of progress in Russia was yours and how much was Mr. Nixon's?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't really think I ought to get into an evaluation of that. The United States has been working on a strategic arms limitation agreement for 3 or 4 years. I think we made headway in SALT I. I think we have made a real breakthrough in SALT Two.,Q. Mr. President, I would like to get back to the cost of missiles for one moment, if we may. I understand we are now spending about $15 billion a year in strategic arms, and there is an enormous amount of missile building to be done under this agreement over the next 10 years, both in MIRV's and in throw weight. Will our costs continue at about the level they are now for the next 10 years or will it be more?,THE PRESIDENT. My best judgment is that our strategic arms costs will hold relatively the same. It will not be substantially expanded other than for any increase resulting from inflation.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, under the agreement, the United States tactical nuclear weapons at the forward bases in Europe were not included. Do you expect that they will be reduced or eliminated under some future mutual balanced force reduction agreement with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. One of the very significant benefits of the agreement from Vladivostok was the fact we didn't have to include in the 2,400 or the 1,320-either the delivery systems or the MIRV's--as far as the forward base systems were concerned.,I am sure you know we are involved in mutual balanced force reductions in Western Europe. When we get closer to an agreement there--and I hope we will; we are presently negotiating in Vienna in this area--it is hopeful that we can make some reductions, both in numbers of military personnel between ourselves and the allies on the one side and the Warsaw Pact nations and the Soviet Union on the other, as well as any arms reductions.,Q. Beyond your hope, is that a commitment that you made to the Soviet leaders in Vladivostok?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we made no agreement concerning the mutual balanced force reductions. We did agree to continue negotiations.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied that the Soviets are carrying out the spirit and the letter of the 1972 arms limitation agreements?,THE PRESIDENT. We know of no violations, either on the part of the Soviet Union or by ourselves. There have been some allegations that the Soviet Union has violated the SALT I agreement. We don't think they have.,There are, however, some ambiguities. When the SALT I agreement was agreed to, there was established a standing consultative commission made up of the Soviet Union and the United States. That commission can meet twice a year to analyze any allegations as to violations of SALT I. It is our intention to call for a meeting of that group--I think in January of next year--to analyze any of the ambiguities that have been alleged. We don't think there have been any violations, but I have a responsibility to find out. And we intend to follow through under the agreed procedure of the 1972 agreements.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, since there is no limit in this agreement on throw weight and since there is no limit on multiple warheads, and since additional multiple warheads could be put on the bigger missiles, more or less ad infinitum, how can you say that this is a lid or cap on the arms race?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it certainly, number one, puts a limit on the delivery systems--2,400--and as I indicated at the outset, this does result in a cutback as far as the Soviet Union is concerned.,The 1,320 limitation on MIRV's does put a lid on the planned or programmed program for ourselves as well as the Soviet Union.,Now, the throw weight problem is one that we can remedy if we want to. Our military took a different point of view some years ago when they designed our ballistic missiles, but we have that flexibility.,Now, if we decide to go to a heavier throw weight, we can add on a MIRVed missile a greater number of individual warheads. That is a choice of flexibility that we have, and I think it is one of the benefits of this agreement.,Q. You wouldn't describe that as an arms race?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is an attempt, if our military wanted to achieve an equality in this particular area. We have equality on delivery systems and the right to MIRV from those delivery systems. In the other, if it is our choice, we can go up in throw weight.\nYes, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask you, what about conventional weapons? We have heard from Senator Goldwater and. we have heard from Admiral Zumwalt1 that we are very weak on conventional weapons and we need more of those, rather than the kind that you have in your agreement.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, this agreement, Sarah, was limited to strategic arms. We hope, as I indicated a moment ago, to continue our negotiations for the mutual balanced force reductions in Europe. That, of course, would have a limit on the conventional weapons.,1 Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., USN (Ret.), Chief of Naval Operations 1970-74.,In the meantime, I think it is of mandatory importance for the United States to maintain its conventional capability--the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines--because the United States, through a responsible military program, can maintain the peace.,If we cut back our defense in conventional weapons, I think we will have weakened our position for the maintenance of peace. I don't intend to propose a bud, get in that regard.,Q. Mr. President, do you think that we can do both of these, then?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so.,[12.] Q. To follow up on Frank Cormier's question, did you and Mr. Brezhnev discuss some kind of a trade-off whereby Israel would deal with the PLO and the PLO would recognize Israel's right to exist as a state?,THE PRESIDENT. We didn't get into that detail. Israel has indicated that it would not negotiate with the PLO. We have no way of forcing them to do so.,The discussion between Mr. Brezhnev and myself, as far as the Middle East was concerned, was to state our position and their position, and as we discussed it, I think we came to a higher degree of agreement in that our position was understood by them and the prospects of a Geneva agreement was understood by us.,MR. CORMIER. I understand you would like to devote about half of the news conference to domestic affairs, and I think we are about at the halfway point.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.,THE ECONOMY OPENING STATEMENT [13.] I would be glad to talk about both of them a lot longer, but let me make a statement about the economy and then we will have questions on that.,Before turning to domestic questions, which I am' sure will concentrate on our economic problems, I would like to say this: We are currently facing three serious challenges--inflation, recession, and energy.\nInflation, which is a deadly, long-range enemy that cannot be ignored.\nRecession, which is a serious threat that already has hurt many, many citizens and alarms many, many more. Hopefully, it is a shorter-range evil, but neither can be ignored, nor will it be.,Assuring adequate energy will require our best efforts. The energy crisis also contributes both to inflation and to recessionary pressures.,Much of the program that I recommended to the Congress and the American people on October 8 is still pending before the Congress. It was designed to meet all three of these challenges. It was balanced to deal with an already rampaging inflation and already anticipated recessionary forces.,And make no mistake--it is imperative that we fight both inflation and recession at the same time. The question is one of balance and changing circumstances. At least four measures deserve special and, I think, immediate attention by this Congress. They cannot wait until next March or April.,I have recommended a series of budget-reducing actions totaling $4.6 billion so that the Federal Government can set an example of fiscal restraint.,Furthermore, I urge the Congress not to add any more spending. As you can see from this chart [indicating] the Congress has already added, or is about to add, over $1 billion to this year's spending and, I add with emphasis, against my recommendations.,Anticipating rising unemployment 2 months ago, I asked for a national employment assistance act to provide useful work for those who had exhausted their unemployment benefits and others not previously covered. Action on this is essential before the present Congress adjourns.,Action is needed on the Trade Reform Act. This can help immeasurably in fighting both recession and inflation, by creating more jobs and providing more goods as well.,The tax reform bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means of the House provides needed tax relief for low-income citizens while taxing windfall profits of certain oil companies. I don't support every provision in this committee bill, but on balance it is a good bill and badly needed at this time.,Congress has not only ample time but the clear obligation to complete action on several vital energy proposals before adjournment.,Times are nowhere near desperate enough to paraphrase President F. D. Roosevelt's great rallying cry that \"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.\" Still it is a good thing to remember. But I do want to say to my fellow Americans that our greatest danger today is to fall victim to the more exaggerated alarms that are being generated about the underlying health and strength of our economy.,We are going to take some lumps, and we are going to take some bumps, but with the help of the Congress and the American people, we are perfectly able to cope with our present and foreseeable economic problems.,But action is more helpful than criticism. And every week that the Congress delays makes the prospects a little bleaker.\nI will be glad to answer any questions.,QUESTIONS [14.] Q. Mr. President, many people feel that the country is ahead of the Government, that people. are prepared to sacrifice if they know that everyone is going to be biting the same bullet at the same time. How does this jibe with your information?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the American people are ready to make more sacrifices than maybe the Congress and even the executive branch, including the President, believe they will.,I have a great respect and admiration for the strength and the willingness to sacrifice of the American people. I have tried to give them a program that does require some sacrifice--a 5 percent surtax on 28 percent of the taxpayers--so we could alleviate the problems of the people in the lower income brackets.,I have made some other suggestions, but I believe the Congress, along with myself, have to give some leadership to the American people, who I believe are willing to respond. And I have tried to present a program that would call for that response.,I hope the Congress responds, and if they don't like my program, will come up with one of their own that will equally call upon the American people to make some sacrifices.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in the absence of an Arab oil embargo this winter, could you please give the American people some indication as to whether they can expect a gasoline shortage this winter; that is, long lines at gas stations comparable to last winter? And also, your predecessor made a firm commitment to the effect that Americans would not, under his Administration, have to pay a dollar a gallon for gasoline. Can you make that same assurance over the next 12 months?,THE PRESIDENT. In 1974 at this point, the use of gasoline has been less than the anticipated growth. In other words, we are using less now than the experts forecast we would use when they were laying out the charts as to the anticipated demand. The net result is that we have more gasoline in storage today than we had a year ago at this time.,Now, that is not enough to carry us through in case there was an oil embargo, but we are in a healthier position today than we were a year ago.,Nevertheless, it is my judgment that we have to keep the pressure on the savings of energy, including a hold-down on gasoline consumption. We are trying to reduce our importation of oil from overseas by 1 million barrels per day. We are making headway in that regard.,We haven't achieved it, but the net result is we don't anticipate, at this point, from any foreseeable circumstances, any gas rationing, nor do we foresee any serious shortage.,Q. Mr. President, I don't believe you answered my question about can you make the same assurance that your predecessor did about gasoline not going to a dollar a gallon.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't foresee gasoline going to a dollar a gallon. It is what, 45 to 55 cents a gallon today, depending on where you buy it. I see no prospects of the cost of gasoline going up to a dollar a gallon.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, this question perhaps goes back to the earlier part of the news conference, but it has an economic impact. And that is how much will it cost to reach the ceiling which you negotiated with Mr. Brezhnev, and when do you expect that the United States will reach this ceiling?,THE PRESIDENT. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, I think we must continue our present strategic research development, deployment, maintenance programs.,And we are going to move into the present program some additional new weapons systems--the B-1 aircraft, the Trident submarine. The net result is that costs will probably go up as we phase out some and phase in some and phase out others.\nNow, the total annual cost will be relatively the same plus the cost of inflation.,Q. Is it $18 billion?,THE PRESIDENT. It is in that ballpark.,Q. And for how many years do you expect this to continue, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Until we are able to negotiate a reduction below the 2,400 delivery systems and the 1,320 MIRV systems.,[17.] Q. Although you have repeatedly said that you will not recommend a gasoline tax increase, your advisers on energy seem to be lobbying for this as if we are going to be in a very bad economic situation, very bad in regard to the drain of our assets overseas. Now, will you reconsider your objection to this?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not been persuaded that a 20-cent increase in the gas tax is the right answer. I was interested in a poll that was published today which indicated that 81 percent of the American people agree with my position.,Well, if 81 percent of the American people agree with my position, I really don't think a 20-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax will go through the Congress, even if I recommended it.,So, it is my judgment that if we have to, by taxation, cut down on consumption, there must be a better way to do it rather than a 20-cent-a-gallon increase in the gas tax. If 81 percent of the American people agree with me and don't agree with the various people who are advocating this, I think I am on pretty solid ground.,[18.] Q. The American Conference of Mayors has put as their number one priority the renewal and continuance of the revenue sharing program. Do you plan, in your State of the Union Message to Congress, to ask for a renewal of that program on its present basis?,THE PRESIDENT. I have indicated while I was Vice President, since I have been President, that I think the general revenue sharing program has been a good one. It is now provided from the Federal Treasury around $16 billion to State find local units of government. I had an hour-plus meeting with the Domestic Council and others several days ago, and we analyzed the program. I think it ought to be extended.,I think it has produced a great deal of good at the local level as well as at the State level. Now, we are in the process of analyzing any internal changes, but overall, I think the program is good, and I want to work with the mayors and the Governors and the county commissioners to make sure that the Congress extends this sound program.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, does the Justice Department suit to break up AT&T have your full approval, and are you satisfied as to the impact that such a breakup would have on the efficiency and cost of telephone service in the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. I was kept informed, but I don't think I should pass judgment on every antitrust suit that is contemplated by the Department of Justice.,If they think they have a case, I think they ought to take the initiative within broad guidelines that I firmly believe in personally.,Now in this case, as I understand it, it is not a suit aimed at AT&T simply because of its size. It is aimed at AT&T because of its alleged activities that result in noncompetition.,Now the Antitrust Act says, in effect, that the elimination of competition is grounds for antitrust action by the Department of Justice. If that is the basis-and I understand it is--then in my opinion the Department of Justice was acting properly.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, would you continue to favor your national employment assistance act even if Congress did not pass a tax program to raise the revenue necessary to pay for it?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope the Congress would be responsible and pass legislation that would provide the revenue to pay for the Unemployment Act extension that I recommended and the public service employment program that I recommended.,I think this was a sound balance we proposed, or I recommended, that we ought to tax the wealthier people, the top 28 percent of the American people, to spread the difficulties of a recession and inflation.,I think it would be irresponsible for the Congress to add expenditures and not provide any additional revenues.,Q. Mr. President, a followup, please. If you can get the one without the other, would you take it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will pass judgment on that when that alternative is on my desk.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, is it wise, is it fair to concentrate much of your budget-cutting recommendations on health, education, and welfare, and veterans-what we might call the human fringe suffering from inflation most-while not recommending at all any increased stringency in military weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that is a fair challenge to my program. What I did at the time I looked at the budget was to take into consideration the reductions that the Congress had made in the defense budget, and the Congress had already cut the defense budget $2.6 billion. I recommended an additional $400 to $500 million cut, making it roughly a $3 billion total cut in the proposed expenditures of the Department of Defense.,Now, since the Defense Department had already had a sizable reduction by the Congress, I felt we had to go across the rest of the spectrum of the Federal Government to find additional reductions.,Now, what we have done was to require certain individuals, for example, who wanted food stamps to pay slightly more in order to qualify for food stamps. We called upon the Congress to slow down, in some instances, public works projects.,We tried in the $4.6 billion reduction to spread the reductions across the board, and I think if you look at what the Congress did in the first place and what we have proposed in the second, it is a fairly well balanced program.,[22.] Q. To follow up, a question that is reaching but is still in the economic ballpark: If the ceiling works, will there ever be a saving, an actual saving, in expenditures for strategic weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Very, very definitely, and that is the fundamental question that we have answered. If there had been no ceiling of 2,400 on launchers and 1,320 on MIRV's, we would have had an arms race. The Soviet Union had plans and programs, we believe, to substantially increase the number of launchers and to substantially go beyond 1,320 on the MIRV's.,And we have the capability, and I think if there had been an arms race with the Soviet Union going higher and higher and higher, we as a nation, for our own security, would have been forced to do precisely the same.,So, Mr. Brezhnev and I agreed that we first had to cap the arms race, both in launchers and in MIRV's. We have done that, and I wish to compliment Mr. Brezhnev, because his opening statement, if I can paraphrase it, was that he and I, his country and ours, had an obligation to not indulge in an arms race, to put a cap on the proposed expenditures in both categories.,It was a statesmanlike approach at the outset, and because he believed that, and because I believe it, I think we made substantial progress, and I strongly defend what we did.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1974-10-29","text":"APPOINTMENTS IN THE ENERGY PROGRAM THE PRESIDENT. [1.] This morning, before the press conference, I would like to announce several appointments, and then we will have the press conference subsequently.,At the outset, let me remind you that on October 8, I announced that Rog Morton would be the head of the Energy [Resources] Council and that subsequently I would make several other appointments predicated on legislation enacted by the Congress and some reorganization in the [Federal] Energy Administration [FEA].,Rog Morton is here. Rog--I think most of you know him; he is pretty hard to miss. [Laughter] But the new appointments are as follows:,Dr. Robert Seamans, former Secretary of the Air Force and formerly a very high-ranking official in NASA, had a great deal to do with the manned space program, will be the new Administrator of the ERDA, the Energy Research and Development Agency [Administration].\nBob, we are glad to have you on board.,Then to head FEA, John Sawhill is resigning, and we will give him a good appointment in the Government, but the new head of FEA will be Andy Gibson, who was an Assistant Secretary of Commerce and was in charge of the Maritime Administration, will be the new head of FEA.\nAndy, glad to have you on board.,Then, for the new nuclear regulatory agency, I am nominating Bill Anders, who is currently a member of the AEC, but who will be the Chairman, once confirmed, of the new regulatory agency.,You are all familiar with Bill Anders' record as an astronaut and his service as a member of the Atomic Energy Commission.,And then, Dixy Lee Ray will be the new Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Matters.\nDixy Lee.,This is the new team that will be in charge of the energy program, which we will see moving ahead, I think, under Rog Morton's stewardship with the new faces and the experience of Bob Seamans, Andy Gibson, Bill Anders, and Dixy Lee Ray.,And I thank all of them for taking on these new responsibilities. I think they are an outstanding group of administrators with experience both outside of Government and within the Government.,So, Rog, you have got a good group, and I am proud of them, and I think they will do a first-class job. Thank you very, very much.,Well, with those preliminary announcements, I will be glad now to respond to any questions.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS THE ECONOMY [2.] Q. Mr. President, the Government's leading economic indicators announced today show that last month they experienced the sharpest drop in 23 years. Might this sort of thing prompt you to amend your economic program to put more emphasis on fighting recession rather that fighting inflation? And if so, what steps might you take?,THE PRESIDENT. The 31-point program that I submitted to the Congress and the American people did take into recognition the problems of some deterioration in some parts of the economy and at the same time recognized the need to do something about inflation.,It was a finely tuned, I think, constructive program to meet both of these problems.,Now, the program is before the Congress and the Congress must act on certain aspects of it. This, perhaps, will take some time, and in the interim, if there are any economic factors which justify a change, I will be open to suggestions.,But at this point, I still believe the plan or program, as I submitted it, is sound, both to meet the challenge of inflation and any deterioration in the economy.,VOTER INTEREST IN THE ELECTION [3.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the Watergate and inflation and other urgent problems facing the Nation, how do you account for the voter apathy in this country? And I have a follow-up.,THE PRESIDENT. I wish I knew the answer to that, Mr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Christian Science Monitor]. It would seem to me that with the problems we have, particularly at home--both Watergate and others--that the voters should be extremely interested in the kind of Members of the House and Senate that are elected or defeated.,One of the reasons that I am campaigning is to try and get the voters off of apathy and on to interest. I happen to believe that a big public showing of voter participation would be very helpful, and I am disturbed that these forecasters say that only 42 percent of the eligible voters are going to vote on November 5. So, if I can in any way stimulate voter interest, I intend to do so.,Q. That leads to my second question. Do you think you are breaking through this apathy, are you shaking up this interest? What is your finding?,THE PRESIDENT. From my contacts with Members of Congress or candidates who are in the various places where I have stopped, they tell me that voter interest has been stimulated by my appearance. I suspect we will get a few who don't approve of my appearance in a certain community, but I believe overall there has been an increase in voter interest as a result of my visits. And as I said, that is one reason why I intend to continue them.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International ].,VICE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE ROCKEFELLER [4.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that Nelson Rockefeller will be confirmed as Vice President, and when?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that Nelson Rockefeller will be confirmed. I strongly support him today as I did when I nominated him in August. I hope and trust that the Senate and House committees, as well as the two bodies themselves, will act promptly on the nomination. I think he would make a very good Vice President.,Q. Then you don't think the financial problems that have suddenly cropped up will affect the outcome? 1,THE PRESIDENT. I do not.,1 See Item 127 [16],THE PRESIDENT'S CONGRESSIONAL VOTING RECORD [5.] Q. Mr. President, the Democratic Study Group, in an analysis they made of your voting record over the last 3 years you were in the House, showed you voted 86 percent of the time in support of spending proposals beyond the Nixon budget, and it amounted to some $16.9 billion. How do you square that with your campaign argument that the Democrats are the big spenders?,THE PRESIDENT. I think their own survey, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago. Daily News], showed that I had a much better record of saving than the Democrats did in the House of Representatives.,In other words, their own document showed that the Democrats were much bigger spenders than I was and that I was a much better saver than they were. So, I will rely on their document to prove that I am a saver and they are spenders.,Q. Mr. President, do you know how you came out net?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my recollection that I was about 8 percentage points better than the Democrats as a whole, so even using their figures or their document, I am a saver and the Democrats are spenders.,VETERANS EDUCATION BILL [6.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I want to know if you are going to sign the veterans G.I. education bill that has been left at the Senate so you would not pocket veto it, but they are ready to send it down if you are ready to say today you will sign it.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I worked very closely, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service], with the members of that conference committee in trying to find a solution to a bill that I want to sign. The bill has not come down. It has not been staffed out by my staff. Until it arrives at the White House, I am not going to prejudge what I am going to do. I hope that we can find a way for me to sign it, because I want to help the Vietnam veterans, particularly, but until it comes down to the White House, I think it is premature for me to make any decision.,Q. Sir, it calls for an 18 percent cost-of-living increase, plus up to 23 percent, and that additional would pay for the cost of going to college. Would that be agreeable to you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I recall, that compromise is 20 percent.,Q. Twenty-three percent.,THE PRESIDENT. But in addition, they did add a $600 loan provision to the veteran. They did add 9 more months of eligibility beyond what either World War II or Korean veterans got in the way of educational benefits.,So when they, the Congress, send the conference report down to me, we will staff it out. I will make an honest judgment. I hope it is a piece of legislation that I can sign.,BUDGET REDUCTIONS [7.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech before Congress on the economy, you said you would do the hard work of making decisions where to cut. Could you give us some specific examples, maybe half a dozen, of the programs you would like to cut?,THE PRESIDENT. I have had one meeting with the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] and others on that very subject, and later today, before I go to Grand Rapids, I am spending another hour with the same group. We have a long list of items where they give me certain options.,We have not made any final determination. If all of them were put into effect--and some of them would require legislative action by the Congress-I think the anticipated saving in fiscal year 1975 would be around $7.5 billion.,We are going to make a maximum effort to cut at least $5.4 billion, so there is some flexibility between the 5.4 and the 7.5, and I am going to continue to work on it. And when Congress comes back, we will have some recommendations.,Q. Mr. President, as to specifics now of some of those programs that you would put priorities to cut,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not give any specifics, because it is a long shopping list, and I think it is unwise for me to be categorical as long as I try to make an honest judgment on which of maybe a hundred or more proposals they have submitted to me for consideration.,THE MIDDLE EAST; PLANS FOR TRIP TO JAPAN [8.] Q. Mr. President, I have a two-part question on foreign affairs.,Number one, the emergence of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] in the Middle East, how does this affect our position regarding the Middle East?,And the second part, also on foreign affairs, negative reports out of Japan, anti-American feelings and items like that, whether you are reconsidering going to Japan.,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer the second question first.,No developments in Japan have changed my attitude. I intend to go to Japan, as has been planned for some time.,The decision by the Arab nations to turn over the negotiating for the west bank to the PLO may or may not--at this stage we aren't certain what impact it will have on our role in the Middle East.,We, of course, feel that there must be movement toward settlement of the problems between Israel and Egypt on the one hand, between Israel and Jordan or the PLO on the other, and the problems between Israel and Syria in the other category.,We have not had an opportunity yet to make any firm decision on what impact there will be from this Arab decision. I can only say that we think it is of maximum importance that continued movement toward peace on a justifiable basis in the Middle East is vital to that area of the world, and probably to the world as a whole.,OUTLOOK FOR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS [9.] Q. Mr. President--you, as one who knows the House better than we do--what is your best estimate of Republican losses or gains in the House, and what would be the level which would make your efforts seem all worthwhile?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't like to get into a numbers game. I did on one occasion back in 1966, but I had somewhat different responsibilities then. I can only say that it is important to have a competitive relationship or ratio in the House as well as in the Senate.,It seems to me that if you have a reasonably close ratio of Democrats to Republicans, the public is better off. They get better legislation. They get better handling of appropriations. They get, I think, a better tax bill, whenever the relationship between the two major political parties is reasonably similar.,At the present time in the House, I think it is 243 [247] to 187. I would hope that that ratio would not be seriously changed.,RESIGNATION OF JOHN SAWHILL [10.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you about your energy program. Why have you dumped John Sawhill? Was his advice too blunt and politically unattractive at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. I put a new man in charge--Secretary Morton. He replaced the Secretary of State (the Treasury), Bill Simon, who went over to the economic council [ Economic Policy Board ].,Rogers Morton and I discussed the kind of a team that he wanted and that I thought would do a good job. And the people that I have nominated fit that pattern.,THE VICE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE [11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could return to the Rockefeller affair. If you had known then, before the nomination, all that is public knowledge now about Mr. Rockefeller's financial dealings, would you still have named him to be your Vice President?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I would. Nelson Rockefeller has been a superb Governor of the State of New York. He served both Democratic and Republican Presidents in the past in the executive branch of the Government. It is my judgment that he would be a very good Vice President. And therefore, these disclosures indicate that he does believe in helping his friends. And a man of that wealth certainly, in my judgment, has that right to give as long as the law is obeyed, and as I understand it, he has.,It seems to me that his qualifications from previous public service fully qualify him to be Vice President. And therefore, I fully support his nomination.,THE 25TH AMENDMENT [12.] Q. Mr. President, as the only living veteran of the 25th amendment, how say you as to its continuance?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the 25th amendment has served a good purpose despite my own involvement in it. But leave that aside. It was, of course, if you go back and study the history of it, actually proposed and approved for quite different reasons.,On the other hand, in the last year, certain circumstances have arisen which, in my judgment, may prompt the need for some changes.,I think, for example, the Congress ought to study the desirability of putting a time limitation on the time that the Congress should have for the consideration-approval or rejection. But these are matters that Congress can, in the remaining days of this session or in the next session, investigate, because of the experiences of the last year or so.,CONDITION OF THE ECONOMY [13.] Q. Mr. President, your friend, Paul McCracken, has said that we are entering a V-shaped recession and that we ought to call a spade a spade. Yet Administration officials have been avoiding the word \"recession.\" Would you apply that term to our economic condition now?,THE PRESIDENT. Recession has been defined. I think the national bureau of economic research [Bureau of Economic Analysis] actually is the authority on this matter. It is my understanding they are going to come up with some answer on this question in the very near future.,But let me make an observation of my own, if I might. We are facing some difficult economic circumstances. We have too many people unemployed, and we want to do something about it. And my economic package that I submitted to the Congress and the American people will do something about it.,The American people are concerned about inflation, and my economic program would do something about inflation. So, what we have tried to do, instead of getting into semantics, is to offer constructive proposals to meet the problem. Whether it is a recession or not a recession is immaterial. We have problems. The plan I submitted is aimed at solving these problems. And therefore, I really do not care what the name is. We want solutions. And my proposal, I think, will offer that opportunity.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS [14.] Q. Mr. President, since Secretary Kissinger has been to Moscow, do you have any optimistic outlook now on the SALT agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the Secretary's discussions with the General Secretary, Mr. Brezhnev, were very constructive. Some of the differences, as I understand it, between their view and ours, have been narrowed. And as a result of the progress that was made in Moscow, the announcement was made [on October 26, 1974] that I would meet with Mr. Brezhnev in Vladivostok the latter part of November. We hope that each step will mean more progress and that we will end up with a SALT Two agreement.,OIL IMPORTS [15.] Q. Mr. President, your Press Secretary, Mr. Nessen, has hinted or implied that you may be considering limiting oil imports; that is, limiting imports of Arab oil, if necessary, to make your goal of cutting oil imports by 1 million [barrels] a day, perhaps in the form of a dollar figure, a dollar limit on imports. Are you considering it? Is this a live possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. Our first objective is to cut the 6 million barrels per day imports of crude oil by 1 million barrels. We believe that, with the energy conservation recommendations we have made, that objective can be accomplished.,However, if there isn't the saving of 1 million barrels per day of oil imports by voluntary action, we will, of course, move to any other alternative, including the possibility of mandatory limitations, to achieve that result.,That is essential from the point of view of our economy, our balance of payments, et cetera.,THE VICE PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE [16.] Q. Mr. President, if Rockefeller is confirmed, would you ask him to refrain from giving gifts as he has given in the past to public officials and other politicians?,THE PRESIDENT. My judgment would be that Mr. Rockefeller would use excellent judgment in the future in however he wishes to dispense the funds that he has available. I think that his approach in the future would certainly be related to the experiences he has had in the past.,CONGRESSIONAL PAY INCREASE [17.] Q. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk on the Hill that Congress might come back after the election and vote themselves a pay increase. There is also talk if they don't do it this fall, it certainly will be voted early next year. Would you sign a bill that would provide Congress with a pay increase at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is premature for me to make any judgment. I have not talked to the Democratic or Republican leadership about the matter. I know of no specific proposal by the Congress nor by this Administration, so I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to make any judgment at this point.,PLANS FOR CABINET CHANGES [18.] Q. Are you planning any other Cabinet changes, particularly in the Agriculture Department?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Secretary Butz, over a period of 3 or 4 years, has done a good job. He has been very outspoken. He is a good, hard worker, and I have no plans to remove the Secretary of Agriculture or no specific plans to call for the resignation of any other Cabinet officer.,FORMER PRESIDENT'S TAPES AND DOCUMENTS [19.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us the status of negotiations on the Nixon administration's tapes and documents? Are they still in the White House or,THE PRESIDENT. They are being held--I can't give you the precise location-but they are being held under an agreement with the Special Prosecutor's office, and of course, now there are two other elements that have developed. One, Judge Richey has issued an injunction concerning all or some of the documents.2 A third involvement is a law suit by former President Nixon against the head of GSA, Mr. Sampson. So we think, under the circumstances, and particularly under our agreement with the Special Prosecutor's office, they should remain intact until legal matters and any other commitments have been handled.2 On October 21, 1974, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order preventing former President Nixon from obtaining control of his Presidential tape recordings and documents in the custody of the United States.,RESIGNATION OF MR. SAWHILL [20.] Q. To follow that up, the Mr. Sawhill matter for a minute--,THE PRESIDENT. I can't see who asked that. I can't see with the lights and without my glasses.,Q. Kraslow [David Kraslow, Cox Newspapers]. What policy differences, sir, did you have, you and Mr. Morton have with Mr. Sawhill which precipitated his resignation?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said a moment ago, I appointed a new man to head up the Energy Council, and that requires, I think, when you give a man a new assignment, the opportunity to make recommendations for those that will work with him on the Council. It seems to me that with Rog Morton being given that job, he ought to have the right, with my approval, to make changes, and that is why we made the changes. I think they are good people. Mr. Sawhill, who I admire, will be offered a first-class assignment in this Administration.,Q. Are you saying, Mr. President, that there were no policy disagreements?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there were any major policy differences. I think there may have been some differences in approach or technique, but if you give a man a job, you have to give him the people he wants to carry out that responsibility.,CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE CONGRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY [21.] Q. Mr. President, in Oklahoma City, you said that overwhelming victories in Congress this fall by the opposition party, being the Democrats, would seriously jeopardize world peace. This is our first chance to question you on that. I was wondering if you would elaborate on that. Did you mean it in the sense that some Democrats accused you of, demagoguery, or is this consistent with your original announced policy that you were going to try to unify the country after Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the facts that I referred to involved the conflict we had with a majority of the Members of the House and Senate over the limitations and restrictions they put on the continuing resolution. Those limitations and restrictions on that particular piece of legislation, in my judgment and in the judgment of the Secretary of State, will make it more difficult for the United States to help the Greeks. It will make it more difficult for us to work to bring about a negotiated settlement in the Cyprus matter.,That Congressional limitation will not help our relations with Turkey.\nI point out that both the United States and Turkey are members of NATO, and if our relationship with Turkey is destroyed or harmed, it will hurt our interest as well as NATO's.,Secondly, we do have an agreement with Turkey as to some military installations, and those installations are important for both Turkey and ourselves. And if, through Congressional action, we undercut our relationship with Turkey, hurt our relations with NATO, hurt the Greeks, because it will make it more difficult for a settlement of the Cyprus matter, then I think the Congress has made a mistake. And if a Congress that is more prone to do that is elected on November 5, it will make our efforts much harder to execute and implement foreign policy to build for peace and maintain the peace.,As Mr. Nessen explained in a subsequent press conference, I was referring as much to Republicans as I was to Democrats who don't cooperate in giving a President of the United States an opportunity to meet the day-to-day problems that are involved in foreign policy.,A President has to be able to act. He has to be able to work with allies and with some potential adversaries. And if the Congress is going to so limit a President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, that he has no flexibility, in my opinion, the opportunity for a successful foreign policy is harmed considerably.,Q. A followup question, please, Mr. President.,How would overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress undermine your policy and Secretary Kissinger's policy of detente and relations with China?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say at the outset the Democratic leadership--both Senator Mansfield and the Speaker of the House and other leading Democrats-were very helpful to me in that struggle that I just described.,If you will carefully read, which I have, reread my statements both in Oklahoma City and Cleveland, I was very careful not to be critical of the Democratic leadership, because they did try very hard.,The problem was the troops did not believe either their own leadership or the President of the United States.,If we have a runaway Congress that does not understand the need and necessity for the broadening of detente, that does not understand the need and necessity for a continuation of our policy vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China, then it is going to make it much harder for a President to carry out a policy of peace abroad.\nNow, a runaway Congress is one that does not, at least, pay some attention to their own leadership on both sides of the aisle and to the President of the United States.,PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON [22.] Q. Mr. President, can I get back to the conversation with General Haig in early August. I know you said there was no deal or no commitment, but sometimes things are done more subtly. When he brought up as a sixth option the possibility of a pardon, did you point out to him that in your testimony on confirmation you had indicated opposition to such a move, or did you in some way indicate to him that you might be inclined, without exactly saying so, that you might be inclined to go along with an early pardon?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the testimony I gave before the House Committee on the Judiciary or subcommittee of that committee speaks for itself, and I will stand by that testimony.,I would like to point out, in addition, in the testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I answered it as follows:,One, I did not think the American people would stand for a pardon, in answer to the hypothetical question that was asked me.,Secondly, because I was not familiar with the precise authority and power of a President to grant a pardon, I did not want to get into any of the technicalities involving that issue, but the testimony I gave before the House committee will speak for itself, and I will let it stand at that.,FISCAL YEAR 1976 BUDGET [23.] Q. Mr. President, looking a bit further down the road on your anti-inflation program, sir, do you have any particular figures or program in mind for your 1976 budget, which is now in the process of being prepared?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is another matter that I will be working with Roy Ash and his people on after we get through the long shopping list of proposed rescissions, deferrals, and cutbacks for fiscal year 1975.,I can assure you it will be a tight budget, very tight budget, because we do have to hold the lid on spending, not only in the remaining months of fiscal year 1975 but we have to reassure the American people that in the next fiscal year we will be just as firm in controlling and holding down expenditures.,Q. Mr. President, when you say a tight budget, do you mean a budget surplus or balanced or possible deficit?,THE PRESIDENT. Our objective will be a balanced budget. We will do the very best we can.,REPORTER. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1974-10-21","text":"PRESIDENT FORD. [1.] It has been a very great privilege and pleasure, Mr. President, to have the opportunity of visiting your country today and to discuss with you a number of very important issues. And let me just emphasize one.,You, of course, are the author and promoter of some very far-reaching action in the United Nations which we believe, as a charter for economic development throughout the world, has very great merit and very great support, and I compliment you for it. And I can assure you that I and Secretary Kissinger will work with you and others in your Government in trying to find the key and the answer to the economic development of all parts of our great globe.,It is nice to have you in the United States, and I thank you for the warm welcome given to me by you as well as all the people of Mexico.,QUESTIONS ACCESS TO MEXICAN OIL [2.] Q. I would like to address a question to both Presidents. Among the issues you discussed today, was there a discussion of American access to the recently discovered oil deposits in southern Mexico, and could you give us an estimate of the size of those deposits?\nPRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA.1 Yes. Mexico is selling to whoever wants to buy the oil at the market price in the world market. We sell our surplus oil. I hope that we can drill for more oil in Mexico in order to be able to export a greater amount.,1President Echeverria spoke in Spanish and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.,We have sold to the United States, to Uruguay, to Brazil, and to Israel, and we hope to continue to sell without making any differences among the buyers in order to contribute to satisfy the demand.,TRADE REFORM LEGISLATION [3.] Q. I would like to know, President Ford, if, during your talks, there was any mention made of the trade reform act, and if so, what are the repercussions that this will have for Mexico?,PRESIDENT FORD. I am very happy and very pleased that you raised the question. The new trade legislation, which I hope will pass the Congress this year, will significantly increase the trade relations between Mexico and the United States, helping to balance the trade between Mexico and the United States.,This trade legislation which I have worked very hard to promote, which I believe will pass the United States Senate and I believe the Congress, will be very helpful in making good trade relations between the United States and Mexico.,MIGRANT FARMWORKERS [4.] Q. Can you tell us whether any progress has been made on a new approach resolving the question of migrant farmworkers from Mexico and the related questions involved in that?,PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA. Yes. Yes, we did discuss this point and I brought up in the name of Mexico, I told the President of the United States that we have definitely desisted from our intention of signing an agreement, and this is due to the fact that we made a revision of the previous agreement, and we saw that in practice, in the way it works, it is not good. It gives opposite results from the ones we want.,What happened at that time was that, attracted by this agreement that we had with the United States, the migrant workers, or the would-be migrant workers, would come to the border cities of the United States. And then it happened that they did not receive a contract, and then they stayed at the border city and increased the number of the population or else they went illegally into the United States.\nNow, with the policy of self-criticism that at present prevails in Mexico, we have reviewed this matter, and we have come to realize and accept that the responsibility belongs to Mexico.,In Mexico, we need to increase the sources of employment. We need to send more resources out into the countryside. We need to organize the farmers in a better way. We need to keep them within the land. I do not know if President Ford has anything to add, because we analyzed this point jointly.,PRESIDENT FORD. As you can see, we discussed this matter in great depth. It has a long history. It has current problems. In fact, we have some new problems. And in order to get an up-to-date reading on what should be done, how we can best help, we have decided to reanalyze--through a commission that will bring up the data that involves those going from Mexico to the United States and will update data that will involve individuals who are in the United States seeking employment, trying to find the right answer. And this revitalized commission, I think, will give both of us, and our countries, better answers to solve the problem.,PRESIDENT ECHEVEIRRIA. Now, however, there is a point that Mexico insists upon in reference to the migrant workers--whether they are legally in the country or illegally in the country. That is, Mexico insists that they enjoy the rights and prerogatives that is granted by the law to any person.,When a person is contracted legally and comes to work in the United States, this person under contract has certain rights--the right to a decent salary, the right to social security, and that is to say all the rights that are granted by the law. This is when the person comes to work legally.,Now, if the migrant worker comes in illegally, he still has some rights that must be observed--this is basic.,CUBA [5.] Q. I have a question for President Ford. I would like to ask President Ford whether the hemispheric problems were taken up, and if they did take up the hemispheric problems, what is the attitude of the United States with reference to Cuba and if this attitude is to be maintained at the next Conference of Foreign Ministers.,PRESIDENT FORD. We did take up the question of the United States' attitude toward Cuba. I indicated that we had not seen any change in the attitude of Mr. Castro or any of the other individuals in the Cuban Government, and inasmuch as there had been no change, no attitude that was different regarding the United States, it was not expected that our attitude would change toward Cuba.,We did discuss the meeting that is to be held in Quito, I think, on November 7 or 8, where the matter will be brought before the OAS. But our attitude as of the present time is, since no change in the attitude of Cuba, we certainly have to retain our point of view concerning them.,EXTENT OF MEXICAN OIL DEPOSITS [6.] Q. President Echeverria, I wonder if you could answer one part of Mr. Shaw's [Gaylord Shaw, Associated Press] question which was not answered, and that is, can you give us some estimate of the size of the new oil discovery in Mexico?,PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA. Yes, the discoveries are very important and significant, and the significance we can find in the following figures. Of the 640,000 barrels a day that are obtained throughout all of Mexico, 37 percent--that is 241,000 barrels-come from only a few wells. This has made it possible for us now to begin to export, after having transcended the stage where it was necessary for us to import in order to satisfy our own consumption.,Therefore, this is very important for the Mexican economy, first and foremost, if we take into account the prices that prevail for oil in the world market, prices which we respect.,RESULTS OF MEETING [7.] Q. This is a question for both Presidents. Can you give us a list of the specific agreements that you reached today?,PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA. Actually, no, we did not come to international agreements. It was the first meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in order to get together to discuss, to analyze very frankly, very openly, very clearly, very directly, some of the problems that have already been dealt with in this room.,For me, the most important part of our meeting is the way in which President Ford underlined to me personally, and later on here during our meeting in this place, the importance that he gives the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.,And I thank President Ford and the people of the United States for this opinion that has been expressed to me, because actually, this is a complete change from what it was before, and this is very valuable support for this charter that is gaining ground within the United Nations, and for the already 100 and some odd countries that are supporting the charter.,The United States had never before expressed as much interest as it has now in the approval of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. Of course, it rather matters that we still have to elucidate, that we have to define, but I feel very optimistic that we shall.\nREPORTER. Muchas gracias."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1974-10-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I never promised you a rose garden, but I guess Ron Nessen did. So, I hope you enjoy this new setting and the new format, and I hope I enjoy it, too.,MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ECHEVERRIA [1.] I do have one business announcement. I am pleased to announce this afternoon that President Echeverria of Mexico and I have agreed to hold a meeting on the U.S.-Mexican border on Monday, October 21.,I am very much looking forward to this opportunity to meet with President Echeverria in the Nogales area, and we plan to visit both sides of the border. The United States and Mexico have a long tradition of friendly and cooperative relations. It is my hope that our meeting will contribute to maintaining that relationship and to strengthen the good will between our countries over the years to come.,At this meeting, we will discuss, obviously, a wide range of subjects of interest to both countries.,One of the first responses to our WIN program yesterday was John Osborne's 1 signing up, and I have his application right here. Thank you, John.,1White House correspondent for the New Republic.,Well, the first question. Dick Lerner [Richard E. Lerner, United Press International].,QUESTIONS\nINFLATION AND RECESSION [2.] Q. Mr. President, a few things were left unsaid in your economic address yesterday. I was wondering if you could say now if the United States is in a recession, and how soon Americans can expect to see a meaningful reduction of inflation and unemployment?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think the United States is in a recession. We do have economic problems, but it is a very mixed situation, and that was the reason that we had some 31 specific recommendations in my speech yesterday.\nWe have to be very, very careful to make sure that we don't tighten the screws too tightly and precipitate us into some economic difficulty. And at the same time, we had to have provisions and programs that would meet the challenge of inflation.,I am convinced if the Congress responds, if the American people respond in a voluntary way, that we can have, hopefully early in 1975, some meaningful reduction in the rate of inflation.\nYes, Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,INCOME SURTAX [3.] Q. Mr. President, no one that I know of has suggested that inflation can be licked within a year, and yet the surtax you seek is only for one year. Is there a pretty good chance you will next year have to go back and ask for it all over again, assuming you get it this time?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that the surtax requested to be applicable in calendar year 1975 will have to be extended beyond December 31, 1975. We are in a temporary situation. And the surtax on both personal and corporate income will provide us sufficient income to meet the additional expenses for our community improvement program and, at the same time, will help to dampen inflation by reducing the amount of money of 28 percent of the taxpayers of this country.,And you might be interested--I checked on it this morning--there has been some criticism of this surtax, both political and otherwise: For a family of four, with a $20,000 gross income, that is wages, the 1-year extra tax will amount to $42, which is 12 cents a day.\nFor a person on a $15,000-a-year income, family of four, there is no extra tax.,And if you take it to $16,000 a day--a year, I mean--the added cost of the 5 percent surtax is $3, which is less than one cent a day.,FURTHER ECONOMIC MEASURES [4.] Q. Mr. President, following up on Dick Lerner's question, if your economic program does not have the impact that you hope it will by early 1975, what other measures might be necessary? What proposals do you have in mind to follow on this program if it indeed is unsuccessful?,THE PRESIDENT. I am confident, in the first instance, that if all 31 of the recommendations are implemented, including those that I have asked the Congress to give me, that the program will work. We are going to concentrate on making it work. I, therefore, don't think we should speculate about something that I don't think will take place.,GASOLINE TAXES AND RATIONING [5.] Q. Mr. President, some people think--a great many people, in fact-think that your proposals were not tough enough, or at least tough on the wrong people. In view of your somewhat apocalyptic vision of what will happen to this country if we don't lick inflation, why didn't you propose mandatory gasoline taxes or gasoline rationing in order to conserve fuel, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. We believe that the surtax charges that we have recommended are a more equitable approach to the achievement of greater income so we could give some relief to the less well-off, the people who are suffering greater hardship.,We took a look at the gasoline tax recommendations, and we found that this might be harmful to people, and it would be more harmful to the people less able to pay. And in balancing out all of the tax proposals, we came to the conclusion that what we have recommended, which affects only 28 percent of the personal income tax payers in this country, was the appropriate way to raise the revenue and dampen inflation.,Q. If the purpose is to conserve fuel, because oil being such a large factor in inflation, why not gasoline rationing now?,THE PRESIDENT. We believe that the American people will respond to our volunteer program. In my recommendations yesterday to the Congress, I said we would cut the foreign importation of fuel by 1 million barrels per day, which is I million out of the 6 million that is currently imported per day.,Now, the American people last year, in a much greater crisis where we had the embargo, responded very, very well and did as well, if not better, than we are asking them to do now.,So, I don't think we have to put a tax on gasoline users to achieve our objective. And if we can do it by volunteer action, I think it is far preferable and more in the tradition of the American system.,PROJECT INDEPENDENCE [6.] Q. Mr. President, in June of last year, President Nixon recommended a program. He called for $10 billion for 5 years in the hope of making the United States self-sufficient in energy.\nNow it is 16 months; can you update that for us?,THE PRESIDENT. I must confess that we haven't done as well in Project Independence as I think most of us had hoped. This concerns me, and one of the reasons that I indicated yesterday that I was appointing Secretary of Interior Morton to head up the energy council was to get this moving. We are going to concentrate in this area.,Now all of the blame can't be placed on the executive branch. There have been a number of legislative proposals before the Congress that would increase domestic supplies. Unfortunately, in too many cases the Congress has not responded, so the Congress has to share some of the blame with the executive branch.,But I can assure you that with Rog Morton heading this new organization, we are going to do a better job, and I think we will get the cooperation of the American people.,MEETINGS WITH SOVIET LEADERS [7.] Q. I am sure you have other questions on economics, but let me ask just one on international affairs. There are reports that you are planning some sort of a summit conference with Chairman Brezhnev of the Soviet Union. Can you give us some details on that?,THE PRESIDENT. When I took the oath of office, I indicated that I would continue our country's efforts to broaden and to expand the policies of detente with the Soviet Union.,Since I have been in office, I have had a number of discussions with responsible leaders in the Soviet Union. About 10 days ago, I met with their Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko.,Dr. Kissinger is going to the Soviet Union the latter part of this month to continue these discussions.,Now, as you well know, Mr. Brezhnev has been invited to come to the United States in 1975. If there is a reason for us to meet before that meeting in the United States, I will certainly consider it.,ARMS PROPOSALS FOR SOVIET UNION [8.] Q. To follow up a little, do you expect the United States to have any kind of a proposal on arms to present to the Soviet Union before the end of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. We are resolving our position in this very important and very critical area. When Dr. Kissinger goes to the Soviet Union the latter part of this month, we will have some guidelines, some specific guidelines, for him to discuss in a preliminary way with the Soviet Union.,WAGES AND PRICES [9.] Q. If inflation is as serious a problem as you have said, can you point to any of your proposals that would persuade businesses to lower prices now or that would encourage labor unions to moderate their wage demands in forthcoming contracts?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said in my remarks before the Congress yesterday, there is no quick fix or no immediate panacea in the fight against inflation. It has taken us roughly 10 years to get this unfortunate momentum for price increases at its present rate.,We do have in the 31-proposal package that I submitted some recommendations which will increase supply of very important ingredients. And we have in those recommendations some proposals to remove some of the restrictive practices of the Government, of private industry, of labor. And if those restrictive practices are eliminated, I think we can look forward to a reduction in prices both in the private sector and as far as the Government is concerned.,PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON [10.] Q. Mr. President, at your last news conference you assured us that there had been no deal made on the Nixon pardon either with the former President or with any of his staff members. Since there have been published reports that the pardon was indeed discussed with former chief of staff Haig, I wonder if you could tell us the nature of that conversation, if those reports are indeed accurate?,THE PRESIDENT. Since this last press conference, I have agreed to appear before the Hungate subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. I will appear before that subcommittee, and until I do appear, I think it is most appropriate that I defer any comment on that subject.,INFLATION [11.] Q. Mr. President, two of your main anti-inflation proposals, the tax surcharge and cutting Government spending, are intended to curb inflation by reducing demand. But many economists do not believe that this is a demand inflation. They believe it is a wage-price spiral and a shortage inflation.,In view of that, how can the tax surcharge and the cut in Government spending reduce inflation if they are directed at a kind of inflation that we don't have?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer that question in two parts if I might.,If the Federal Government reduces its expenditures, and we are going to do it by roughly $5 billion, it makes money more easily available in the money markets of the United States so that home purchasers will have more money at a better rate of interest to borrow so they can build homes. This will stimulate the homebuilding industry and, I think, provide jobs.,Now, the 5 percent surtax is only on 28 percent of the total personal income tax payers in this United States, the people who are better able to pay these minimal amounts extra. I don't think taking away from a family who is earning $20,000 the sum of $42 a year is going to have any serious adverse impact on the purchasing power of that family.,Q. I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing, Mr. President. I am talking about the fact that these are proposals directed at reducing demand and many economists don't think we have that kind of inflation. You are talking about stimulating homebuilding, and I am forced to repeat my question: Why are we attacking the wrong kind of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I respectfully disagree with you. I think, if we stimulate homebuilding because we are reducing Federal expenditures and providing more money in the marketplace, I think we are stimulating production. And I think the people who are being taxed, or I hope will be taxed, aren't going to lose sufficiently of their earned income that they are going to cut down significantly in what they buy in the marketplace.,OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCES [12.] Q. This morning, Secretary Simon indicated that the Administration was still supporting oil depletion allowances. You yesterday endorsed the Ways and Means package which calls for the phase-out of oil depletion allowances. How do you reconcile your speech and Secretary Simon's testimony this morning?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that bill before the Committee on Ways and Means has a number of very good features, and it has some that I don't necessarily embrace in toto, and I am sure that Secretary Simon doesn't. But I do believe that on balance, it is important for me to endorse that bill.,And when you endorse a bill of that magnitude, I think you have to take it as a package because it does close some of the loopholes. It provides a sufficient amount of income so we can grant additional relief to the people in the lowest brackets of income taxpayers.\nIt is my recollection that that bill does phase out not only foreign oil depletion allowance but it provides for a gradual phase-out of the domestic oil depletion allowance.,I am not going to quibble with the committee in every detail. I think we have to buy a package that has far more good in it than those things that I might object to.,Q. Mr. President, is it your own view that the oil depletion allowance should be phased out?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is yes.2,2 At his news briefing on October 10, 1974, Press Secretary Ron Nessen said:,\"The President, after reviewing the transcript of yesterday's news conference, asked me to state more precisely his position on the oil depiction allowance.,\"As long as the price of oil continues to be controlled, the President believes the elimination of the percentage depletion on domestic oil production would be a mistake.,\"The President feels that oil should be sold on a free market basis, and he thinks that many oil producers would be glad to trade percentage depletion in order to achieve the important result of a free market for oil.\n\"As for the foreign oil depiction allowance, the President believes that should be phased out immediately and finally.\",FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION [13.] Q. Mr. President, on another question other than the economy, on a subject you haven't talked about before I don't believe; what is the Federal role in public education as you see it? And I have a follow-up.,THE PRESIDENT. The role of the Federal Government---,Q. How little?\nTHE PRESIDENT-- in the field of education is about what we are currently doing with the Federal aid to education legislation for primary and elementary schools. And I just signed the new education act. It was a step in the direction of consolidating some 35 categorical grant programs into six or seven. I think this is approximately the role of the Federal Government in primary and secondary education.,In higher education, if my recollection is correct, I voted for the existing higher education act. Therefore, I feel that it fundamentally is what the Federal Government should do in this area.,Q. Specifically, what are your views on Federal aid to private and parochial schools?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have personally expressed, over a long period of time, that I think a tax credit proposal is a good proposal. The Supreme Court, unfortunately a year or so ago, in effect declared such a program--I think it was in the Pennsylvania case3--as unconstitutional. I think that is regrettable because competition in education, between private and public, is good for the student. There is no reason why there should be a monopoly in education just on the public side. And private education has contributed over a long period of time at the primary, secondary, and graduate levels significantly to a better educated America. And I would hope that we could find some constitutional way in which to help private schools.,3 Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York (413 U.S. 756).,ACCESS TO INCOME TAX RETURNS [14.] Q. In the matter of income tax privacy, Mr. President, can you explain the difference between your Executive order [11805] on White House practices, which is very tough on safeguarding the taxpayers, and the legislation which you sent to the Hill, which Congressional experts say is weaker than what went on under the Nixon Administration when there were reported attempts by the White House to subvert the Internal Revenue Service?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if that legislation is weaker than the Executive order that I issued, we will resubmit other legislation.\nMr. DeFrank [Thomas M. DeFrank, Newsweek].,TRANSITION FUNDS FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENT [15.] Q. Mr. President, you recently asked Congress to appropriate $850,000 to cover transition expenses of former President Nixon. The House has already cut that figure down to $200,000. The Senate seems likely to do the same.,Some of your aides have said in the last few days that they believe that the cutback from $850,000 to $200,000 is both stingy and punitive, and I use their words.,I am wondering if you agree with them that the cutback is stingy and punitive and whether or not you intend to ask the Congress to restore some of those funds?,THE PRESIDENT. A recommendation was made to the Congress for the figure of $850,000 for the transition period. About 10 years ago Congress passed a law which provided for transition expenses for an outgoing President. The amount that was submitted on this occasion was roughly comparable to the amounts that have been made available to other Presidents who were leaving office.,Now, the facts and the figures I think can be shown that what was recommended for Mr. Nixon was comparable to others. The Congress, of course, has the right to take whatever action it wants, but under the circumstances, I am not going to use such language myself. I will let the Congress make its decision, right or wrong.,Q. Mr. President, do you feel then, or are you going to ask the Congress to restore some of that funding, or do you believe they should restore it?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't the bill before me yet. It is still up on the Hill, and until it comes down here, I don't think I should make any judgment.,GIFTS BY GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER [16.] Q. Mr. President, have you inquired into the matter of gifts by Governor Rockefeller, and, if so, does a question of possible impropriety occur in any instance, in your judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. The gifts by Governor Rockefeller to the three individuals that I am familiar with--I have looked into the one that involved Dr. Kissinger--but, I think, to put this in proper perspective you have to recognize that Governor Rockefeller is a very wealthy man and that he has been extremely generous with many, many charities over a good many years, and he obviously has sought to compensate former employees or friends for whatever services they performed.,In the case of Dr. Kissinger, I have been assured that every tax that could be applied has been paid and that all legal problems involving that particular case were solved satisfactorily. Under those circumstances, I do not think there was any impropriety in the relationship between Dr. Kissinger and former Governor Rockefeller.,Q. Since you are familiar only with the Kissinger gift, do you plan to inquire into the others?,THE PRESIDENT. I will, but I haven't as deeply because Mr. Morhouse and Mr. Ronan 4 are or were State employees. But I assume that in those two cases, as I found out in the Dr. Kissinger case, that the law had been adhered to and that there was no impropriety.,4 L. Judson Morhouse, former New York State Republican chairman, and William J. Ronan, chairman of the New York Port Authority.,MASS TRANSIT LEGISLATION [17.] Q. Sir, if you accept that mass transit is an essential part of the energysaving program, can you explain why you did not lend your support to a comprehensive Federal mass transit bill now before Congress, in your very important speech yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to that is very simple. I had some considerable part in working out the compromise on the Williams-Minish bill. If you will recall, I had about 15 mayors from all over the country down here to see me, including some business people.,I told them I wanted to help. Within a day or so, I called Senator Williams. After it was suggested, we worked out a figure and a time and a formula. And as a result, Senator Williams, in conjunction with other Members of the Congress, arrived at a mass transit bill that provides for a little over $11 billion over a period of 6 years with a formula between capital outlays and operating expenses.,I think we made a big step forward, and I compliment the Congress for cooperating. And there was no need for me to mention in that speech yesterday something that was fair accompli the day before.,SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER [18.] Q. Mr. President, in your recent U.N. speech, you added some last-minute remarks praising Secretary of State Kissinger, and last night you made an extraordinary move of going out to Andrews Air Force Base to see him off on his trip abroad.,Are you upset by the criticism that Secretary Kissinger is receiving from the press, the public, and Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I would put it this way, Mr. Jones [Phil Jones, CBS News]. I am very fond of Dr. Kissinger on a personal basis. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the superb job that he has done since he has been the Director of the National Security Agency (Council) and also as Secretary of State.,I think what he has done for peace in the world, what he is continuing to do for peace throughout the world, deserves whatever good and appropriate things I can say about him and whatever little extra effort I can make to show my appreciation. And I intend to continue to do it.,Q. Sir, do you feel that his effectiveness is being undermined by this criticism?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen any adverse effects so far. We are making headway and, I think, constructively in all of the areas where I think and he thinks it is important for us to do things to preserve peace and build a broader base for peace.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY [19.] Q. Mr. President, at your first news conference you told us that you probably would run for a term of your own. Since then there has been what you have termed the surprisingly harsh reaction to the pardon of former President Nixon and the tragic illness of your own wife. Do you still plan to be a candidate in 1976?,THE PRESIDENT. The words that I used, if I recall accurately, were I would probably be a candidate in 1976. I have seen nothing to change that decision, and if and when there is, I will promptly notify you.,BOSTON SCHOOL DESEGREGATION [20.] Q. Mr. President, Boston's Mayor, Kevin White, has appealed to the Federal Government to send U.S. marshals to help restore order in Boston's school desegregation crisis. And black groups have asked for federalizing the National Guard and sending in Federal troops. As the Chief Executive, what do you plan to do, and what comments do you have on this situation?,THE PRESIDENT. At the outset, I wish to make it very, very direct: I deplore the violence that I have read about and seen on television. I think that is most unfortunate. I would like to add this, however: The court decision in that case,5 in my judgment, was not the best solution to quality education in Boston.,5 Tallulah Morgan et al. v. John J. Kerrigan et al. (379 Fed. Supp. 410).,I have consistently opposed forced busing to achieve racial balance as a solution to quality education, and therefore, I respectfully disagree with the judge's order.,But having said that, I think it is of maximum importance that the citizens of Boston respect the law. And I hope and trust that it is not necessary to call in Federal officials or Federal law enforcement agencies.,Now, the marshals, if my information is accurate, are under the jurisdiction of the court, not directly under my jurisdiction. As far as I know, no specific request has come to me for any further Federal involvement, and therefore, I am not in a position to act under those circumstances.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1974-09-16","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, this press conference is being held at a time when many Americans are observing the Jewish religious New Year. It begins a period of self-examination and reconciliation. In opening this press conference, I am mindful that the spirit of this holy day has a meaning for all Americans.,In examining one's deeds of the last year and in assuming responsibility for past actions and personal decisions, one can reach a point of growth and change. The purpose of looking back is to go forward with a new and enlightened dedication to our highest values.,The record of the past year does not have to be endlessly relived, but can be transformed by commitment to new insights and new actions in the year to come.\nLadies and gentlemen, I am ready for your questions. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON [1.] Q. Mr. President, some Congressional Republicans who have talked to you have hinted that you may have had a secret reason for granting President Nixon a pardon sooner than you indicated you would at the last news conference, and I wonder if you could tell us what that reason was?,THE PRESIDENT. At the outset, let me say I had no secret reason, and I don't recall telling any Republican that I had such a reason.,Let me review quickly, if I might, the things that transpired following the last news conference.,As many of you know, I answered two, maybe three, questions concerning a pardon at that time. On return to the office, I felt that I had to have my counsel undertake a thorough examination as to what my right of pardon was under the Constitution. I also felt that it was very important that I find out what legal actions, if any, were contemplated by the Special Prosecutor.,That information was found out, and it was indicated to me that the possibility exists, the very real possibility, that the [former] President would be charged with obstructing justice and 10 other possible criminal actions.,In addition, I asked my general counsel to find out, if he could, how long such criminal proceedings would take, from the indictment, the carrying on of the trial, et cetera. And I was informed that this would take a year, maybe somewhat longer, for the whole process to go through.,I also asked my counsel to find out whether or not, under decisions of the judicial system, a fair trial could be given to the former President.,After I got that information, which took 2 or 3 days, I then began to evaluate, in my own mind, whether or not I should take the action which I subsequently did.\nMiss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Throughout your Vice Presidency, you said that you didn't believe that former President Nixon had ever committed an impeachable offense. Is that still your belief, or do you believe that his acceptance of a pardon implies his guilt or is an admission of guilt?,THE PRESIDENT. The fact that 38 members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrat and Republican, have unanimously agreed in the report that was filed that the former President was guilty of an impeachable offense, I think, is very persuasive evidence. And the second question, I don't--,Q. Was it an admission of guilt?,THE PRESIDENT. Was the acceptance of the pardon by the President an admission of guilt? The acceptance of a pardon, I think. can be construed by many, if not all, as an admission of guilt.\nYes, Mr. Nessen [Ron Nessen, NBC News].,Q. What reports have you received on Mr. Nixon's health, and what effect, if any, did this have on your decision to pardon him now?,THE PRESIDENT. I have asked Dr. Lukash, who is the head physician in the White House, to keep me posted in proper channels as to the former President's health. I have been informed on a routine day-to-day basis, but I don't think I am at liberty to give any information as to those reports that I have received.,You also asked what impact did the President's health have on my decision. I think it is well known that just before I gave my statement, at the time that I gave the pardon, I personally wrote in a phrase \"the threat to the President's health.\",The main concern that I had at the time I made the decision was to heal the wounds throughout the United States. For a period of 18 months or longer, we had had turmoil and divisiveness in the American society. At the same time, the United States had major problems, both at home and abroad, that needed the maximum personal attention of the President and many others in the Government.,It seemed to me that as long as this divisiveness continued, this turmoil existed, caused by the charges and countercharges, the responsible people in the Government could not give their total attention to the problems that we had to solve at home and abroad.,And the net result was I was more anxious to heal the Nation--that was the top priority. And I felt then, and I feel now, that the action I took will do that. I couldn't be oblivious, however, to news accounts that I had concerning the President's health, but the major reason for the action I took related to the effort to reconcile divisions in our country and to heal the wounds that had festered far too long.,Q. Mr. President, after you had told us that you were going to allow the legal process to go on before you decided whether to pardon him, why did you decide on Sunday morning, abruptly, to pardon President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't decide abruptly. I explained a moment ago the process that I went through subsequent to the last press conference. And when I had assembled all of that information that came to me through my counsel, I then most carefully analyzed the situation in the country, and I decided that we could not afford in America an extended period of continued turmoil. And the fact that the trial and all of the parts thereof would have lasted a year, perhaps more, with the continuation of the divisions in America, I felt that I should take the action that I did promptly and effectively.,FORMER PRESIDENT'S TAPES AND DOCUMENTS [2.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you a question about the decision relating to custody of the Nixon tapes and documents. Considering the enormous interest that the Special Prosecutor's office had in those documents for further investigation, I am wondering why the negotiations with Mr. Nixon's representatives were conducted strictly between the counsel in your office without bringing in discussions with either Mr. Jaworski's representatives or those from the Justice Department?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, I did receive a memorandum, or legal opinion, from the Department of Justice which indicated that in the opinion of the Department of Justice, the documents, tapes--the ownership of them-were in the hands of the former President.1 And historically, that has been the case for all Presidents.,1In a news briefing held on September 8, 1974, Counsel to the President Philip W. Buchen announced, in regard to the status of the Presidential materials of Richard Nixon, that Attorney General William B. Saxbe had determined that \"such materials are the present property of Mr. Nixon; however, it is also concluded that during the time the materials remain in the custody of the United States, they are subject to subpoenas and court orders directed to any official who controls that custody.\",The texts of the Attorney. General's legal opinion, dated September 6, 1974, and a September 6 letter of agreement between Mr. Nixon and Administrator of General Services Arthur F. Sampson concerning control of and access to Mr. Nixon's Presidential materials, were released by the White House September 8. They are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 10, pp. 1104 and 1105).,Now, the negotiations for the handling of the tapes and documents were undertaken and consummated by my staff and the staff of the former President. I believe that they have been properly preserved, and they will be available under subpoena for any criminal proceeding. Now, the Special Prosecutor's staff has indicated some concern. I am saying tonight that my staff is working with the Special Prosecutor's staff to try and alleviate any concerns that they have. I hope a satisfactory arrangement can be worked out.,PREVIOUS STATEMENTS ON PARDON [3.] Q. Mr. President, during your confirmation hearings as Vice President, you said that you did not think that the country would stand for a President to pardon his predecessor. Has your mind changed about such public opinion?,THE PRESIDENT. In those hearings before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I was asked a hypothetical question. And in answer to that hypothetical question, I responded by saying that I did not think the American people would stand for such an action.,Now that I am in the White House and don't have to answer hypothetical questions but have to deal with reality, it was my judgment, after analyzing all of the facts, that it was in the best interest of the United States for me to take the action that I did.,I think if you will reread what I said in answer to that hypothetical question, I did not say I wouldn't. I simply said that under the way the question was phrased, the American people would object.,But I am absolutely convinced, when dealing with reality in this very, very difficult situation, that I made the right decision in an effort--an honest, conscientious effort--to end the divisions and the turmoil in the United States.\nMr. Lisagor [ Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News ].,SAFEGUARDING OF TAPES AND DOCUMENTS [4.] Q. Mr. President, is there any safeguard in the tapes agreement that was made with Mr. Nixon, first, with their destruction in the event anything happens to him, because under the agreement they will be destroyed, and secondly, should not the tapes be kept in the White House until the Special Prosecutor has finished dealing with them?,THE PRESIDENT. The tapes and the documents are still in our possession, and we are, as I said a moment ago, working with the Special Prosecutor's office to alleviate any concerns they have as to their disposition and their availability.,The agreement as to destruction is quite clear-cut. As long as Mr. Nixon is alive and during the period of time that is set forth, they are available for subpoena by a court involving any criminal proceedings. I think this is a necessary requirement for the protection of evidence for any such action.,THE CIA AND CHILE [5.] Q. Mr. President, recent Congressional testimony has indicated that the CIA, under the direction of a committee headed by Dr. Kissinger, attempted to destabilize the Government of Chile under former President Allende.,Is it the policy of your Administration to attempt to destabilize the governments of other democracies?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer in general. I think this is a very important question.,Our Government, like other governments, does take certain actions in the intelligence field to help implement foreign policy and protect national security. I am informed reliably that Communist nations spend vastly more money than we do for the same kind of purposes.,Now, in this particular case, as I understand it--and there is no doubt in my mind--our Government had no involvement whatsoever in the Allende coup. To my knowledge, nobody has charged that. The facts are we had no involvement in any way whatsoever in the coup itself.,In a period of time, 3 or 4 years ago, there was an effort being made by the Allende government to destroy opposition news media, both the writing press as well as the electronic press, and to destroy opposition political parties.,The effort that was made in this case was to help and assist the preservation of opposition newspapers and electronic media and to preserve opposition political parties.,I think this is in the best interest of the people in Chile and, certainly, in our best interest.\nNow, may I add one further comment.,The 40 Committee was established in 1948. It has been in existence under Presidents since that time. That Committee reviews every covert operation undertaken by our Government, and that information is relayed to the responsible Congressional committees where it is reviewed by House and Senate committees.,It seems to me that the 40 Committee should continue in existence, and I am going to meet with the responsible Congressional committees to see whether or not they want any changes in the review process so that the Congress, as well as the President, are fully informed and are fully included in the operations for any such action.\nMr. Sperling [Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor].,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON PARDON DECISION [6.] Q. In view of public reaction, do you think that the Nixon pardon really served to bind up the Nation's wounds? I wonder if you would assess public reaction to that move.,THE PRESIDENT. I must say that the decision has created more antagonism than I anticipated. But as I look over the long haul with a trial, or several trials, of a former President, criminal trials, the possibility of a former President being in the dock, so to speak, and the divisions that would have existed not just for a limited period of time but for a long period of time, it seems to me that when I had the choice between that possibility and the possibility of taking direct action hoping to conclude it, I am still convinced, despite the public reaction so far, that the decision I made was the right one.,Q. Mr. President, in regard to the pardon, you talk about the realities of the situation. Now those realities, rightly or wrongly, include a good many people who speculate about whether or not there is some sort of arrangement-they even, some of them, call it a deal--between you and the former President, or between your staff and his staff--resignation in exchange for a full pardon.,The question is: Is there or was there, to your knowledge, any kind of understanding about this?,THE PRESIDENT. There was no understanding, no deal between me and the former President, nor between my staff and the staff of the former President, none whatsoever.,ACCESS TO INCOME TAX RETURNS [7.] Q. Mr. President, sir, there is a bill that the Treasury Department has put forward, I think it is about 38 pages. Under this bill, which deals with getting hold of the returns, Internal Revenue returns, of citizens of the country, you could take action to get those returns whenever you wanted to.,I wonder if you are aware of this and if you feel that you need to get those returns of citizens?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my understanding that a President has, by tradition and practice and by law, the right to have access to income tax returns. I personally think that is something that should be kept very closely held. A person's income tax return is a very precious thing to that individual, and therefore, I am about to issue an Executive order [11805] that makes it even more restrictive as to how those returns can be handled. And I do think that a proposed piece of legislation that is coming to me and subsequently will be submitted, as I recollect, to the Congress would also greatly tighten up the availability or accessibility of income tax returns. I think they should be closely held, and I car; assure you that they will be most judiciously handled as far as I am concerned.,OWNERSHIP OF PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS [8.] Q. Mr. President, looking beyond the Nixon papers and in view of some criticism in Congress, do you believe we may have now reached the point where Presidential White House papers should remain in the Government's hands as the property of the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. As far as I am personally concerned, I can see a legitimate reason for Presidential papers remaining the property of the Government. In my own case, I made a decision some years ago to turn over all of my Congressional papers, all of my Vice Presidential papers, to the University of Michigan archives.,As far as I am concerned, whether they go to the archives for use or whether they stay the possession of the Government, I don't think it makes too much difference. I have no desire, personally, to retain whatever papers come out of my Administration. Mr. Mollenhoff [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune].,THE PARDON DECISION [9.] Q. Mr. President, at the last press conference you said, \"The code of ethics that will be followed will be the example that I set.\" Do you find any conflicts of interest in the decision to grant a sweeping pardon to your life-long friend and your financial benefactor with no consultation for advice and judgment for the legal fallout?,THE PRESIDENT. The decision to grant a pardon to Mr. Nixon was made primarily, as I have expressed, for the purpose of trying to heal the wounds throughout the country between Americans on one side of the issue or the other. Mr. Nixon nominated me for the office of Vice President. I was confirmed overwhelmingly in the House as well as in the Senate. Every action I have taken, Mr. Mollenhoff, is predicated on my conscience without any concern or consideration as to favor as far as I am concerned.,CONDITIONAL AMNESTY AND THE PARDON DECISION [10.] Q. If your intention was to heal the wounds of the Nation, sir, why did you grant only a conditional amnesty to the Vietnam war draft evaders while granting a full pardon to President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. The only connection between those two cases is the effort that I made in the one to heal the wounds involving the charges against Mr. Nixon and my honest and conscientious effort to heal the wounds for those who had deserted military service or dodged the draft. That is the only connection between the two.,In one case, you have a President who was forced to resign because of circumstances involving his Administration, and he has been shamed and disgraced by that resignation. In the case of the draft dodgers and Army and military deserters, we are trying to heal the wounds by the action that I took with the signing of the proclamation this morning.,REPORTS ON WATERGATE INVESTIGATION [11.] Q. Mr. President, another concern that has been voiced around the country since the pardon is that the judicial process as it finally unwinds may not write the definitive chapter on Watergate and perhaps with particular regard to Mr. Nixon's particular involvement, however total, however it may have been in truth. My question is, would you consider appointing a special commission with extraordinary powers to look into all of the evidentiary material and to write that chapter and not leave it to later history?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me as I look at what has been done, I think you find a mass of evidence that has been accumulated. In the first instance, you have the very intensive investigation conducted by the House Committee on the Judiciary. It was a very well-conducted investigation. It came up with volumes of information.,In addition, the Special Prosecutor's office under Mr. Jaworski has conducted an intensive investigation and the Special Prosecutor's office will issue a report at the conclusion of their responsibilities that I think will probably make additional information available to the American people.,And thirdly, as the various criminal trials proceed in the months ahead, there obviously will be additional information made available to the American people. So, when you see what has been done and what undoubtedly will be done, I think the full story will be made available to the American people.,SUCCESSORS TO GENERAL HAIG AND PRESS SECRETARY TER HORST [12.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us an idea who will succeed General Haig, and how are you coming on your search for a Press Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. Do I have a lot of candidates here? [Laughter] No shows. [Laughter],I have several people in mind to replace General Haig, but I have made no decision on that. It was just announced today that the NATO countries have accepted him as the officer handling those responsibilities.2,2The President's nomination of Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr., to be Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, was approved by the NATO Defense Planning Committee.,I think he is to take office succeeding General Goodpaster on December 15. He assumes his responsibilities as the head of U.S. military forces November 1. In the next few days undoubtedly I will make the decision as to the individual to succeed him.,As far as the Press Secretary is concerned, we are actively working on that, and we hope to have an announcement in a relatively short period of time.,THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S HEALTH [13.] Q. Mr. President, prior to your deciding to pardon Mr. Nixon, did you have, apart from those reports, any information either from associates of the President or from his family or from any other source about his health, about his medical condition?,THE PRESIDENT. Prior to the decision that I made granting a pardon to Mr. Nixon, I had no other specific information concerning his health other than what I had read in the news media or heard in the news media. I had not gotten any information from any of the Nixon family.,The sole source was what I had read in the news media plus one other fact. On Saturday, before the Sunday, a member of my staff was working with me on the several decisions I had to make. He was, from my staff, the one who had been in negotiations on Friday with the President and his staff. At the conclusion of some decisions that were made, I asked him, how did the President look, and he reported to me his observations.,But other than what I had read or heard and this particular incident, I had no precise information concerning the President's health.\nYes, Mr. Joyce [Thomas H. Joyce, Newsweek Magazine].,POSSIBILITY OF A DEPRESSION [14.] Q. Mr. President, your own economic advisers are suggesting--say the economy is very bad and they're very pessimistic--we are hearing the word \"depression\" used now. I wonder how you feel about whether we are heading for a depression?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say very strongly that the United States is not going to have a depression. The overall economy of the United States is strong. Employment is still high. We do have the problem of inflation. We do have related problems, and we are going to come up with some answers that I hope will solve those problems.,We are not going to have a depression. We are going to work to make sure that our economy improves in the months ahead.,FOOD AID POLICY [15.] Q. Mr. President ,in the face of massive food shortages and the prospects of significant starvation, will the United States be able to significantly increase its food aid to foreign countries, and what is our position going to be at the Rome conference on participation in the world grain reserves?,THE PRESIDENT. Within the next few days a very major decision in this area will be made. I am not at liberty to tell you what the answer will be because it has not been decided.,But it is my hope that the United States for humanitarian purposes will be able to increase its contribution to those nations that have suffered because of drought or any of the other problems related to human needs.,INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW [16.] Q. Back to the CIA. Under what international law do we have a right to attempt to destabilize the constitutionally elected government of another country, and does the Soviet Union have a similar right to try to destabilize the Government of Canada, for example, or the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to pass judgment on whether it is permitted or authorized under international law. It is a recognized fact that historically, as well as presently, such actions are taken in the best interest of the countries involved.,ADMINISTRATION OPENNESS AND CANDOR [17.] Q. Mr. President, last month when you assumed the Presidency, you pledged openness and candor. Last week you decided on the ex-President's pardon in virtually total secrecy. Despite all you have said tonight, there would still seem to be some confusion, some contradiction.,My question is this: Are your watchwords of your Administration still openness and candor?,THE PRESIDENT. Without any question, without any reservation. And I think in the one instance that you cite, it was a sole decision, and, believe me, it wasn't easy. And since I was the only one who could make that decision, I thought I had to search my own soul after consulting with a limited number of people. And I did it. And I think in the long run it was the right decision.\nMR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Gerald R. Ford","date":"1974-08-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,At the outset, I have a very important and a very serious announcement. There was a little confusion about the date of this press conference. My wife Betty had scheduled her first press conference for the same day. And obviously, I had scheduled my first press conference for this occasion. So, Betty's was postponed.,We worked this out between us in a calm and orderly way. She will postpone her press conference until next week, and until then, I will be making my own breakfast, my own lunch, and my own dinner. [Laughter]\nHelen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,QUESTIONS,IMMUNITY OR PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON\n[1.] Q. Mr. President, aside from the Special Prosecutor's role, do you agree with the bar association that the law applies equally to all men, or do you agree with Governor Rockefeller that former President Nixon should have immunity from prosecution? And specifically, would you use your pardon authority, if necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say at the outset that I made a statement in this room a few moments after the swearing in. And on that occasion I said the following: that I had hoped that our former President, who brought peace to millions, would find it for himself.,Now, the expression made by Governor Rockefeller, I think, coincides with the general view and the point of view of the American people. I subscribe to that point of view, but let me add, in the last 10 days or 2 weeks I have asked for prayers for guidance on this very important point.,In this situation, I am the final authority. There have been no charges made, there has been no action by the courts, there has been no action by any jury. And until any legal process has been undertaken, I think it is unwise and untimely for me to make any commitment.,POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY\n[2.] Q. Mr. President, you have been in office 19 days now, and already some of your natural, conservative allies are grumbling that you are moving too far to the left. Does this trouble\nyou?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have deviated from my basic philosophy nor have I deviated from what I think is the right action. I have selected an outstanding person to be the Vice President. I have made a decision concerning amnesty, which I think is right and proper--no amnesty, no revenge--and that individuals who have violated either the draft laws or have evaded selective service or deserted can earn their way or work their way back. I don't think these are views that fall in the political spectrum right or left.,I intend to make the same kind of judgments in other matters because I think they are right and I think they are for the good of the country.,PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAM\n[3.] Q. Mr. President, may I follow that with one more example, possibly; that is, there is a report that the Administration is considering a $4 billion public works program in case the inflation rate gets higher than it is, say 6 percent. Is that under consideration?,THE PRESIDENT. I think most of you know that we do have a public service employment program on the statute books which is funded right today, not for any major program, but to take care of those areas in our country where there are limited areas of unemployment caused by the energy crisis or any other reason.,There is a recommendation from some of my advisers saying that if the economy gets any more serious, that this ought to be a program--a broader, more expensive public service program. We will approach this problem with compassion and action if there is a need for it.,1976 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN\n[4.] Q. Sir, two political questions: Do you definitely plan to run for President in 1976, and if so, would you choose Governor Rockefeller as your running mate or would you leave that choice up to the convention's free choice?,THE PRESIDENT. I will repeat what has been said on my behalf, that I will probably be a candidate in 1976. I think Governor Rockefeller and myself are a good team, but, of course, the final judgment in this matter will be that of the delegates to the national convention.,POSSIBILITY OF PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON\n[5.] Q. May I just follow up on Helen's question. Are you saying, sir, that the option of a pardon for former President Nixon is still an option that you will consider, depending on what the courts will do?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course, I make the final decision. And until it gets to me, I make no commitment one way or another. But I do have the right as President of the United States to make that decision.,Q. And you are not ruling it out?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not ruling it out. It is an option and a proper option for any President.,ACTION BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR\n[6.] Q. Do you feel the Special Prosecutor can in good conscience pursue cases against former top Nixon aides as long as there is the possibility that the former President may not also be pursued in the courts?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski, has an obligation to take whatever action he sees fit in conformity with his oath of office, and that should include any and all individuals.,PREVENTION OF FURTHER \"WATERGATES\"\n[7.] Q. What do you plan to do as President to see to it that we have no further Watergates?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I indicated that, one, we would have an open Administration. I will be as candid and as forthright as I possibly can. I will expect any individuals in my Administration to be exactly the same. There will be no tightly controlled operation of the White House Staff. I have a policy of seeking advice from a number of top members of my staff. There will be no one person, nor any limited number of individuals, who make decisions. I will make the decisions and take the blame for them or whatever benefit might be the case.,I said in one of my speeches after the swearing in, there would be no illegal wiretaps, there would be none of the other things that to a degree helped to precipitate the Watergate crisis.,CODE OF ETHICS\n[8.] Q. Do you plan to set up a code of ethics for the executive branch?,THE PRESIDENT. The code of ethics that will be followed will be the example that I set.,CONTROL OF INFLATION\n[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans now for immediate steps to control and curtail inflation, even before your summit conference on the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. We have announced that as far as fiscal control is concerned, we will spend less in the Federal Government in the current fiscal year than $300 billion. That is a reduction of $5,500 million at a minimum.,This, I think, will have two effects: Number one, it will be substantially beneficial, it will make our borrowings from the money market less, freeing more money for housing, for the utilities to borrow, and, in addition, I think it will convince people who might have some doubts that we mean business.,But in the meantime, we are collecting other ideas from labor, from management, from agriculture, from a wide variety of the segments of our population to see if they have any better ideas for us to win the battle against inflation.,WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS\n[10.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, a number of people have questioned your opposition to a return to wage and price controls. Gardner Ackley, a University of Michigan economist that you have listened to in the past, recently testified before Congress that if we are really frightened about inflation, we ought to think about returning to wage and price controls.,Can you foresee any circumstances under which you would be willing to do that and make them work?,THE PRESIDENT. I foresee no circumstances under which I can see the reimposition of wage and price controls. The situation is precisely this: This past week I had a meeting with the Democratic and Republican leadership, plus my own advisers in the field of our national economy. There was an agreement, number one, that I would not ask for any wage and price control legislation. There was agreement by the leadership on both sides of the aisle that there was no possibility whatsoever that this Congress in 1974 would approve any such legislation. Number three, labor and management almost unanimously agree that wage and price controls at the present time or any foreseeable circumstances were unwise.,Under all of those circumstances, it means wage and price controls are out, period.,DUTIES OF THE VICE PRESIDENT\n[11.] Q. Can you give us your present thinking on how best you might use Mr. Rockefeller as Vice President once he is confirmed?,THE PRESIDENT. I have a lot of ideas. Until Congress confirms Mr. Rockefeller, we are sort of in a honeymoon period. I really shouldn't make any commitments until we actually get married.,But to be serious, if I might, I think Governor Rockefeller can be extremely important in the new Administration as my teammate in doing effective work in the area of the Domestic Council. We have to prepare legislative proposals that will go to the Congress when the new Congress comes back in January.,I believe that Governor Rockefeller will take over my responsibilities heading the subcommittee of the Domestic Council on privacy. Governor Rockefeller, with his vast experience in foreign policy, can make a significant contribution to some of our decision making in the area of foreign policy. Obviously, in addition, he can be helpful, I think, in the political arena under certain guidelines and some restrictions.,WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS\n[12.] Q. Mr. President, you just ruled out wage and price controls, but I just would like to ask you why Mr. Nixon, when he was President, felt he was compelled to go back to them because the situation was getting out of hand? Can you just reinforce what you told Mr. Brokaw [Tom Brokaw, NBC News], why you think the situation is not that much out of hand yet?,THE PRESIDENT. I can only refer you to the circumstances and the decision of President Nixon in August of 1971. That was a decision he made under quite different circumstances. We are in totally different circumstances today. We have gone through a 3-year period, more or less. I think we have learned a few economic lessons that wage and price controls in the current circumstances didn't work, probably created more dislocations and inequities. I see no justification today, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the decision in 1971, to reimpose wage and price controls today.,ECONOMIC ADVISERS\n[13.] Q. Mr. President, you are still working with the same team of economic advisers who advised your predecessor. As a matter of putting your own stamp on your own Administration, perhaps spurring confidence, do you plan to change the cast of characters?,THE PRESIDENT. There is one significant change, just within the last 48 hours. Herb Stein, who did a superb job for President Nixon, is going back to the University of Virginia, and Alan Greenspan is taking over, and he has been on board, I think, 2 days. That is a distinct change.,I think Mr. Greenspan will do an excellent job. We are soliciting, through the economic summit, the views of a great many people from the total spectrum of the American society. Their ideas will be vitally important in any new, innovative approaches that we take. So, I think, between now and the 28th of September, when I think the second day of the summit ends, we will have the benefit of a great many wise, experienced individuals in labor, management, agriculture, et cetera, and this will give us, I hope, any new approaches that are wise and beneficial.,OIL PRICES AND PRODUCTION\n[14.] Q. Some oil governments and some commercial cartels, notably Aramco [Arabian-American Oil Company] in Saudi Arabia are restricting oil production in order to keep oil prices artificially high. Now the U.S. can't do anything about Venezuela, but it can conceivably vis-a-vis cartels like Aramco. What steps and actions do you plan to take in this regard?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this points up very vividly the need and necessity for us to accelerate every aspect of Project Independence. I think it highlights the need and necessity for us to proceed with more oil and gas drilling, a greater supply domestically. I believe it points up the requirement that we expedite the licensing processes for new nuclear reactors. I think it points up very dramatically the need that we expand our geothermal, our solar research and development in the fields of energy.,In the meantime, it seems to me that the effort that was made several months ago to put together a group of consumer-industrial nations requires that this group meet frequently and act as much as possible in concert, because if we have any economic adverse repercussions because of high oil prices and poor investment policies, it could create serious economic problems throughout the industrial world. So it does require, I believe, the short-term action by consumer nations and the long-term actions under Project Independence.,COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR\n[15.] Q. Mr. President, to further pursue Helen's inquiry, have there been any communications between the Special Prosecutor's office and anyone on your staff regarding President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. Not to my knowledge.,ADVICE TO WAGE EARNERS\n[16.] Q. Mr. President, the beneficial effects of budget cutting on inflation will take some time to dribble down to the wage earner. What advice would you give the wage earner today who is having trouble stretching his dollar over his needs?,THE PRESIDENT. I think every wage earner has to realize we are going through a serious economic problem with inflation in double digits, not as bad as people in many Western European countries, but it will require him or her to follow the example of their Federal Government which is going to tighten its belt and likewise for an interim period of time watch every penny.,INDIAN OCEAN NAVAL BASES\n[17.] Q. Mr. President, you said last March in an interview, I think in Sea Power magazine, that you came down quite strongly in favor of establishing a U.S. Indian Ocean fleet with the necessary bases to support it. Do you still stand by that and do you favor the development of Diego Garcia? 1,THE PRESIDENT. I favor the limited expansion of our base at Diego Garcia. I don't view this as any challenge to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union already has three major naval operating bases in the Indian Ocean. This particular proposed construction, I think, is a wise policy, and it ought not to ignite any escalation of the problems in the Middle East.\nYes, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].,1 Diego Garcia, an island approximately 1,000 nautical miles south of India, was part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The United States Navy maintained a communications station on the island.,VETERANS BENEFITS LEGISLATION [18.] Q. I want to ask you about this new veterans benefits bill which Congress passed in the last hours. I understand this is a bill that you favored and maybe have spurred the Congressmen to pass. It saves $200 million.,Now my question is: Is that a real savings when it gives the disabled man less money than an able man and disrupts completely the veterans going to college in September?,THE PRESIDENT. I had no part in just how that House action was taken. I did discuss, coming back from the VFW meeting in Chicago, with a number of Members of the House and Senate, the problem that I faced with the bill that came out of conference, which would have added $780-some million over and above the budget for this year and a substantial increase for a number of succeeding years.,But that particular compromise was put together and brought to the floor of the House without any participation by me. I think there are some good provisions in that particular House action. It does tend to equalize the benefits for Vietnam veterans with the benefits that were given to World War II and to Korean veterans.,There are some, I think, inequities, and you probably pointed out one. I hope when the Congress reconvenes within a week or so that they will go back to conference, take a good look, and hopefully eliminate any inequities and keep the price down because it is inflationary the way it was and it may be the way it was proposed by the House.,ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET [19.] Q. Mr. President, concerning the Federal budget, will the domestic social programs have to bear the whole brunt of the anti-inflation fight or can some money come out of the defense budget, and if so, how much?,THE PRESIDENT. No budget for any department is sacrosanct, and that includes the defense budget. I insist, however, that sufficient money be made available to the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force so that we are strong militarily for the purpose of deterring war or meeting any challenge by any adversary. But if there is any fat in the defense budget, it ought to be cut out by Congress or eliminated by the Secretary of Defense.,In the meantime, all other departments must be scrutinized carefully so that they don't have any fat and marginal programs are eliminated.\nMrs. Tufty [Esther Van Wagoner Tufty, Tufty News Service].,DOMESTIC PRIORITIES [20.] Q. Mr. President, you have given top priority to inflation. Do you have a list of priorities, and if so, what is number two?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, public enemy number one, and that is the one we have to lick, is inflation. If we take care of inflation and get our economy back on the road to a healthy future, I think most of our other domestic programs or problems will be solved.,We won't have high unemployment. We will have ample job opportunities. We will, I believe, give greater opportunities to minorities to have jobs. If we can lick inflation, and we are going to try, and I think we are going to have a good program, most of our other domestic programs will be solved.,OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY [21.] Q. Do you have any plans to revive the Office of Economic Opportunity, and if so, in what areas?,THE PRESIDENT. As I am sure you know, the old poverty program has been significantly changed over the last several years. The Head start program has been taken out of OEC [OEO] and turned over to the Department of HEW. The health aspects of the old poverty program are also over in HEW.,The Congress just approved, and Mr. Nixon approved, a Legal Services Corporation, which was another part of the old poverty program. So, we end up really with just the CAP program, community action program.,Now I think most people who have objectively looked at the community action program and the Model Cities program and maybe some of the other similar programs--there is duplication, there is overlapping.,And under the new housing and urban development bill, local communities are given substantial sums to take a look at the Model Cities programs and related programs, and they may be able to take up the slack of the ending of the community action programs.,ISRAELI CAPITAL [22.] Q. Mr. President, my question applies to a 1972 statement in which you said that an impediment to a regional peace settlement is an impediment to preserve the fiction that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. My question, sir, is would you, now that you set foreign policy, request that the embassy be shifted from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem along with 17 other national embassies?,THE PRESIDENT. Under the current circumstances and the importance of getting a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I think that particular proposal ought to stand aside. We must come up with some answers between Israel and the Arab nations in order to achieve a peace that is both fair and durable.,POLICY TOWARD CUBA [23.] Q. Mr. President, do you contemplate any changes in our policy with Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. The policy that we have toward Cuba today is determined by the sanctions voted by the Organization of American States, and we abide by those actions that were taken by the members of that organization.,Now if Cuba changes its policy toward us and toward its Latin neighbors, we, of course, would exercise the option, depending on what the changes were, to change our policy. But before we made any change, we would certainly act in concert with the other members of the Organization of American States.,POSSIBILITY OF PARDON FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENT [24.] Q. Mr. President, you have emphasized here your option of granting a pardon to the former President.,THE PRESIDENT. I intend to.,Q. You intend to have that option. If an indictment is brought, would you grant a pardon before any trial took place?,THE PRESIDENT. I said at the outset that until the matter reaches me, I am not going to make any comment during the process of whatever charges are made.,ECONOMIC POLICIES [25.] Q. Mr. President, two questions, related: How long will the transition last, in your opinion, and, secondly, how soon would it be proper and fair for Democrats on the campaign trail this fall to hold you accountable for the economic policy and the economic problems the country faces?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't judge what the Democrats are going to say about my policies. They have been very friendly so far and very cooperative. I think it is a fair statement that our problems domestically, our economic problems, are the joint responsibility of Government. As a matter of fact, I think the last poll indicated that most Americans felt that our difficulties were caused by Government action and that, of course, includes the President and the Democratic Congress. So, we are all in this boat together, along with labor and management and everybody else. I don't think making partisan politics out of a serious domestic problem is good politics.,FEDERAL PAY RAISE [26.] Q. Mr. President, in your fight against inflation, what, if anything, do you intend to do about the next Federal pay raise?,THE PRESIDENT. I have made no judgment on that yet, the recommendation has not come to my desk.,SALT TALKS [27.] Q. Mr. President, when do you expect the SALT talks to resume, and is there a disagreement over our position in the Pentagon and State Department and other agencies?,THE PRESIDENT. At the present time, there is an effort being made to bring the Department of Defense, the State Department, and any others together for a resolution of our, the United States, position regarding SALT Two. This decision will be made in a relatively near future. I don't think there are any basic difficulties that cannot be resolved internally within our Government. I believe that Secretary Kissinger is going to be meeting with representatives from the Soviet Union in the near future, I think in October, if my memory is correct, and we, of course, will then proceed on a timetable to try and negotiate SALT Two. I think a properly negotiated, effective strategic arms limitation agreement is in the best interests of ourselves, the Soviet Union, and a stable international situation.\nFRANK CORMIER (Associated Press). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1974-03-06","text":"SENATE VOTE TO SUSTAIN THE ENERGY\nBILL VETO,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Ladies and gentlemen, I have two brief announcements before going to your questions.,First, I want to congratulate, on radio and television, Miss Helen Thomas for being selected as the White House bureau chief for UPI. As I understand it, Miss Thomas, this is the first time in history that a woman has been selected for that high post. We congratulate you.,MISS THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Second, I also want to congratulate the Members of the Senate who voted to sustain the veto of the energy bill. We are not necessarily associating you with that, Miss Thomas. [Laughter],In voting to sustain the President's veto, the Members of the Senate vetoed longer gas lines and vetoed nationwide rationing.,What we must now do is to move forward on the various measures that I have proposed that will accomplish the goal that this bill mistakenly was aimed to accomplish, and that is to get down the price of gasoline. That can only be done by increasing the supplies of gasoline and other types of energy.,That is why I trust that the Congress will move expeditiously on the proposals that I have made for the deregulation of natural gas, for doing something with regard to those measures in the field in the environment which restrict the production of coal, which could greatly alleviate the energy crisis--to the extent it is still a crisis--to go forward also on the Elk Hills production and exploration for oil in that Federal area, and in the longer sense, to go forward with the various proposals that we have made for organization in the energy field, which will allow us to develop our nuclear power, new sources of energy, and to achieve the goal we all want to achieve, of independence for the United States for energy by at least, and preferably before, the year 1980.,I believe the way to get the price of gasoline down is to produce more, and these measures which the Congress has had before it for a number of months should be acted upon in order to accomplish that goal.,QUESTIONS,MATERIALS FOR HOUSE JUDICIARY\nCOMMITTEE,[2.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], since Miss Thomas has already been mentioned, you get the first question.,Q. Mr. President, your lawyer announced today that you will turn over to the House Judiciary Committee all of the materials that you made available to the Special Prosecutor. I am wondering, sir, what about other materials that the committee might want to see that the Prosecutor didn't see?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier, that matter has been under discussion, as you probably know, between Mr. St. Clair, White House Counsel, and Mr. Doar, the counsel for the committee. And Mr. St. Clair has made, I think, a very forthcoming offer. He has indicated that we will respond to any written interrogatories under oath that the committee may have on matters that they do not think are covered adequately by the materials that have been submitted to Mr. Jaworski. And in addition, he has indicated that in the event that that is not satisfactory, in order to bring the matter to a complete and, we hope, early conclusion, that the President will be glad to meet with members of the committee--perhaps the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee--at the White House to answer any further questions under oath that they may have.,As far as other materials are concerned, those matters will continue to be under discussion between White House Counsel and Mr. Doar. It is the goal for all of us, I think, the goal of the committee--I think it would be theirs, it certainly is mine--to get a prompt conclusion to this matter as soon as possible.,And I would say further that as far as the materials we have turned over, they include not only the famous subpoenaed tapes, which were turned over to Mr. Jaworski, but they include, in addition to that, 11 additional tapes--a total of 19 tapes--over 700 documents, and enough material that Mr. Jaworski was able to say that he knew all and that the grand jury had all the information that it needed in order to bring to a conclusion its Watergate investigation.,CONVERSATIONS AT MARCH 21ST\nMEETING,[3.] Miss Thomas.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Haldeman, your former top aide in the White House, has been charged with perjury because he testified that you said it would be wrong to pay hush money to silence the Watergate defendants, and last August you said that was accurate. Can you, and will you, provide proof that you did indeed say it would be wrong?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, it would be improper, as, of course, you know, for me to comment on the substance of any charges or indictment that have been made against any of the defendants in this matter. However, it is proper for me to comment on what I said and what I did on the 21st of March, which is the date in question.,On that occasion, Mr. Dean asked to see me, and when he came into the office, soon after his arrival he said that he wanted to tell me some things that he had not told me about the Watergate matter. And for the first time, on March 21, he told me that payments had been made to defendants for the purpose of keeping them quiet, not simply for their defense.,If it had been simply for their defense, that would have been proper, I understand. But if it was for the purpose of keeping them quiet--you describe it as \"hush money\"--that, of course, would have been an obstruction of justice.,I examined him at great length. We examined all of the options at great length during our discussion, and we considered them on a tentative basis--every option as to what the defendants would do, as to who in the White House might be involved, and other information that up to that time had not been disclosed to me by Mr. Dean.,Then we came to what I considered to be the bottom line. I pointed out that raising the money, paying the money, was something that could be done, but I pointed out that that was linked to clemency, that no individual is simply going to stay in jail because people are taking care of his family or his counsel, as the case might be, and that unless a promise of clemency was made, that the objective of so-called \"hush money\" would not be achieved.,I am paraphrasing what was a relatively long conversation.,I then said that to pay clemency was wrong. In fact, I think I can quote it directly. I said, \"It is wrong, that's for sure.\" Mr. Haldeman was present when I said that. Mr. Dean was present. Both agreed with my conclusion.,Now, when individuals read the entire transcript of the 21st meeting, or hear the entire tape, where we discussed all these options, they may reach different interpretations, but I know what I meant, and I know also what I did.,I meant that the whole transaction was wrong, the transaction for the purpose of keeping this whole matter covered up. That was why I directed that Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Mitchell, who was then in New York, meet in Washington that evening, if possible-it had turned out that they could not meet until the next day--so that we could find what would be the best way to get the whole story out.,I also know what I did with regard to clemency and with regard to the payment of money. I never at any time authorized clemency for any of the defendants. I never at any time authorized the payment of money to any of the defendants. And after we had met on the 22d, I sent Mr. Dean to Camp David to write a full report of everything that he knew.,That report was not forthcoming, and consequently, on the 30th of August (March), a week later, I directed Mr. Ehrlichman to conduct an independent investigation, which he did conduct and presented to me on the 14th of April.,And also on the 30th, on that same day--Mr. Ziegler announced this to the press corps after I had issued the direction--I directed that all members of the White House Staff who were called by the grand jury should appear before the grand jury and testify fully with regard to any knowledge whatever they bad with regard to their involvement, if they were involved, or anybody else's involvement.,In other words, the policy was one of full disclosure, and that was the decision that was made at the conclusion of the meeting.,CLEMENCY,[4.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Without regard to past events or hush money or anything like that, would you now consider granting clemency to any former assistant who might ultimately be convicted?,THE PRESIDENT. The matter of clemency, Mr. Theis, is something that can only be granted and only be considered on an individual basis, depending upon the circumstances involved.,I can only say that under no circumstances has any defendant or potential defendant been offered clemency, and none will be offered clemency. That would be improper, and I will not engage in that activity.,INFLATION AND THE CONSUMER,[5.] Q. Mr. President, some economists are warning that consumers are becoming so disenchanted with inflation that they may reduce their spending drastically later this year as sort of a consumer revolt. Do you share this fear, and what encouragement do you have for consumers in this time of the worst inflation in 25 years?,THE PRESIDENT. First, with regard to the inflation, as I pointed out just a week ago in a press conference, there are two major factors that have caused it. In fact, they have been responsible for two-thirds of the inflation.,One is energy--increased prices for energy--and the second is food.,Now, the back of the energy crisis has been broken, and as we go toward the end of the year, I would say toward the middle of the year we will see the prices of energy being kept in check and, we trust, even moving downward.,As far as food is concerned, if the Department of Agriculture's reports are accurate and if the weather holds up properly, we will have a record food crop, particularly a record wheat crop, and that will tend to bring the price upsurge in food under control.,And so, as far as the future is concerned for inflation, while it is still a very sticky problem and will remain so for some time, we see the problem being much less difficult as the year goes on than it is at the present time.,Now, the other point that I should make is that when you talk about the consumer revolt, that, of course, relates, I suppose, to the economy in general. I saw a report, as you may have, this afternoon from the University of Pennsylvania, where they indicated that they thought we were either in, or headed for, a recession.,I state again, based on my consultation with my own economic advisers and also consultation with people outside the Government, the best advice I can get, that there will not be a recession in 1974.,I think that progress that we will make on the energy front, progress that we are going to make on the food front, and also the continued strength in other areas of the economy will mean that the last half of the year will see an upward turn in the economy.,I believe, in other words, that we are not going to see a situation where we have rising prices as well as rising unemployment, which, of course, would mean a recession. That, of course, is a projection that I give, based not simply on my knowledge but based on all of the facts that I am able to get from the economists who should know something about it.,NEWS CONFERENCES; CAMPAIGN REFORM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask two questions, if I may. One is that you surprised a lot of us by calling a second news conference within 8 days, and I am wondering if that is the start of a new policy. Secondly, I would like to ask this question: It has always been the custom that foreign money from foreign citizens is permitted to be accepted and spent in American political campaigns at all levels, and in your campaign in 1972, I think, at least $150,000 came in from foreign citizens. Do you think that is right, and if not, will your campaign financing reform bill include a prohibition of that kind of money?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Harlow1 on a, shall we say, leak basis, has already indicated some of the answers to the second part of the question. And the leaks in this case are correct. All contributions from foreign sources are prohibited under the campaign reform that we have recommended.,1 Bryce N. Harlow, Counsellor to the President.,And going further, I think you might be interested to know some of the other items that are actually going to be in the reform package. One is that all cash contributions are prohibited if they are above $50. All contributions in cases of Presidential campaigns will be limited to $15,000 per person per candidate in the case of Congressional and Senatorial campaigns, $3,000.,One of the points that we have ruled out--and incidentally, I am not touching on some unfair campaign practices and other items that are very interesting in the proposal, because I want you to be able to write something Friday as well as today on this matter--but I would say that among the other matters that I think are of particular interest to all of the members of the press is the fact that we believe that candidates should have a right to defend themselves against false charges that are made during a campaign, whether by their opponents or by the press.,Now, that is a very, shall we say, difficult ground in terms of the first amendment, and we will try to be very consistent with whatever the constitutional requirements are, but that is a proposal that we have considered.,One thing that we do not do, however, is to endorse public financing. I know there is a great deal of support for public financing in the Congress, and it may be that eventually, if a bill does reach my desk, it will be in it.,I oppose it for this reason: The public financing proposals before the Congress, for the most part, are ones that would have the campaigns financed out of the general treasury. Now, what this would mean very simply would be that a taxpayer would be taxed to support a candidate or a party to whom he was opposed. That is not right. I think that that would, in effect, be taxation without representation.,And so, therefore, for that and other reasons, I oppose public financing.,One of the other reasons, incidentally, is that I believe it is a healthy thing for people to contribute to campaigns and particularly in the smaller contributions areas.,I looked-up the figures: I found that 700,000 people contributed $100 or less to Senator McGovern's campaign; over 900,000 people contributed $100 or less to the Presidential campaign of our side. I think that kind of participation by people who in that way participate in politics should not be discouraged. It should be encouraged. In other words, I think campaigns should be financed by the candidates and not by the taxpayers.,CLEMENCY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, to follow up an earlier answer--as I understand it, you said that you are not ruling out the possibility that you might grant clemency to a former aide. Is that correct, you are really not ruling that out, and if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Mr. Schram [Martin J. Schram, Newsday], I am simply saying that I am not ruling out granting clemency to any individual depending upon a personal tragedy or something of that sort.,What I am saying, that I am not going to grant clemency because they happen to be involved in Watergate--that, I am ruling out.,WATERGATE AND THE 1974 ELECTIONS,Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. You had one last week, Clark [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune], now.,[8.] Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News].\nIn fact, you had two.,Q. Mr. President, many people are saying that Watergate played a prominent role in the election of a Democrat in the Congressional district in Cincinnati yesterday. What is your opinion of that?,THE PRESIDENT. It might have. In fact, it was said also it may have had an effect on the election in Michigan.2,2 In two special elections, Thomas A. Luken was elected to the First Congressional District of Ohio on March 5, 1974, and Richard F. Vander Veen, a Democrat, was elected to the Fifth Congressional District of Michigan on February 18.,But reflecting for a moment on off-year elections--and I know you are somewhat of an expert on this; of course, all of you are experts on off-year elections--a first point is that we have had six since the 1972 elections. The Republicans have won three and we have lost three. In fact, yesterday we won in California, as you know, and when one Republican can beat eight Democrats in one race, that is a pretty good showing3,3 Robert Lagomarsino was elected to the 13th Congressional District of California on March 5, 1974.,The other point is that as far as off year elections, as distinguished from the British system where they seem to point as to what will happen in the general election, they seem to have exactly the reverse effect in this country.,For example, I found that between 1964 and 1966 the Republicans won 5 and the Democrats won 7 Congressional seats, and yet the Republicans won 47 seats in 1966.,Also, reflecting to the past, after General Eisenhower's landslide victory in 1956, we lost 47 seats in the House just 2 years later in 1958 because of a recession. And after President Johnson's landslide victory in 1964, his party lost 47 seats in the House, just 2 years later, because of a war.\nThis year, we are not going to have a war. We are going to be making further progress toward peace--at least that is our goal, and I think we will achieve it-and we are not going to have a recession.,So, I believe that the dire predictions that are made as to what is going to happen in November, because of what has been happening this spring, will be proved to be wrong.,MATERIALS FOR IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION,[9.] Mr. Kempster [Norman Kempster, Washington Star-News].,Q. Mr. President, in your answer to Mr. Cormier's question, you spoke of an expeditious conclusion of the impeachment hearings in the House. Would it not serve the purpose of a speedy conclusion of these hearings for you to give the committee whatever materials, tapes, and documents they consider pertinent to their investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. It would not lead to a speedy conclusion; it would delay it in my opinion. Because if all that is really involved in this instance is to cart everything that is in the White House down to a committee and to have them paw through it on a fishing expedition, it will take them not a matter of months, so that they can complete their investigation and, we trust, their decision by the first of May--which I understand is Mr. Rodino's object--but it would take them months and perhaps even as long as a year.,We will furnish the information we furnished Mr. Jaworski, the Special Prosecutor, all of which he considered to be relevant. We will furnish, as I have indicated, written interrogatories on any other relevant material. And we will also agree to meet with the chairman, the ranking member, as designated by the committee, to answer any other questions they may have. I believe that that will serve the purpose.,IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES,[10.] Q. Mr. President, your attorneys have taken what is seen as the narrow view on impeachment, saying that impeachment should be limited to very serious crimes committed in one's official capacity. My question is, would you consider the crimes returned in the indictments last week---those of perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy--to be impeachable crimes if they did apply to you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have also quit beating my wife. [Laughter],Of course, the crime of perjury is a serious crime, and of course, the crime of obstruction of justice is a serious crime and would be an impeachable offense, and I do not expect that the House committee will find that the President is guilty of any of these crimes to which you have referred.,When you refer to a narrow view of what is an impeachable crime, I would say that might leave in the minds of some of our viewers and listeners a connotation which would be inaccurate. It is the constitutional view. The Constitution is very precise. Even Senator Ervin agrees that that view is the right one, and if Senator Ervin agrees, it must be the right one.,LEGAL EXPENSES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Attorney General Saxbe has expressed the opinion that at some point in the impeachment procedure you might have to start paying for your own legal defense. Sir, do you have any plans to hire your own lawyers at your own, rather than public, expense?,THE PRESIDENT. If the Attorney General should rule that I should pay for my own defense, I shall, of course, do so.,I should point out, however, that I am not a defendant until the House passes a bill of impeachment. I would then be a defendant, and if the Attorney General of the United States should rule that the President should pay for his defense, I will find somebody to loan me the money. [Laughter],GRANTS OF IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on a comment that you made just a minute ago, where, taking back to March, you said that you had ruled out immunity from prosecution for all of your aides, and in the same answer, you said you wanted full disclosure of all of the facts about Watergate. One of the purposes of granting immunity from prosecution is to get disclosure from a person who knows what is going on to crack the case. And some people have suggested that the order against immunity from prosecution was aimed at deterring John Dean from testifying and disclosing the facts.,Now, how would you answer that thesis?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on the contrary, I think that the use of immunity for any major White House employee would be highly improper. After all, someone who has the position of Counsel to the President should come forward and testify as to everything that he knows, and he should not require as the price for telling the truth getting immunity. That was my view then; it is my view now.,I should also point out that in the case of Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Colson--all of whom have been indicted-it is significant to note that none of them have used the shield of the fifth amendment, as they could have, and pled self-incrimination.,None of them have bargained for pleas, as they could have in order to get a lighter sentence. Each of them has testified freely before the committee; each of them has testified before the grand jury; each apparently believes in his innocence.,Under these circumstances, while they have been convicted in the press over and over again, while they have been convicted before committees over and over again, they are now before a court, and they are entitled to, they will receive from me and, I think, from every fair-minded American the presumption of innocence that any individual is entitled to, because a court of law is the proper place for such matters to be decided.,OIL EMBARGO,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Kissinger has reported to you on his recent Middle East mission. Did he bring an optimistic report on the lifting of the oil embargo?,THE PRESIDENT. The oil embargo is a matter the discussion of which would not serve a useful purpose at this time, except to say that a meeting is now scheduled, as I understand it, on the 11th of March by the oil-producing countries.,It will take place in Egypt, I think, which, of course, is not an oil-producing country, but where apparently the Egyptians have some influence on that decision. 4,4 The embargo talks, originally scheduled for March 10, 1974, in Cairo, Egypt, were postponed when three of the oil-producing countries-Algeria, Libya, and Syria--failed to send representatives. The meeting took place on March 13 in Tripoli, Libya.,However, as I pointed out about 10 days ago in my news conference, progress on the diplomatic front, while it is not linked to lifting of the embargo, inevitably has an effect on it.,We have had progress on the diplomatic front, first the settlement for the disengagement on the Egyptian front, and second, while it is an even more difficult problem than the Egyptian disengagement, the agreement of the Syrians and the Israelis to come to Washington 2 weeks from now to discuss how a disengagement can be worked out on the Syrian front.,The United States will use its influence just as strongly as we can with both parties to get a disengagement on the Syrian front as quickly as possible, which is just and equitable to both sides.,We believe that the progress--the motion, I should describe, that is taking place on the diplomatic front, will inevitably have a constructive effect on the oil-producing companies [countries] insofar as their decision on the embargo, but I am going to leave that decision to them because indicating what they will do might lead them to do otherwise.,MARCH 21ST MEETING,[14.] Q. Mr. President, you said earlier, if my notes are correct, that on March 21, Mr. Dean told you for the first time that payments were made to defendants to keep them quiet and that you considered a number of options. Did you not consider the option of blowing the whistle, of turning that information over to the authorities immediately, and on reflection now, do you think you should have?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, among the options we considered was getting out a full report, a report that he would write. Among the options we considered the next day--and we started to consider it that day--was to have everybody testify before the Ervin committee and waive executive privilege, which was a course of action which Attorney General Mitchell recommended.,Yes, the option of a full disclosure at that time by everybody concerned was one that was considered. The difficulty that I had was that for months these matters had not been brought to my attention. I had not been informed of the payments to the defendants. I had not been informed with regard to the alleged coverup. I had not been informed about the possible involvement of some White House aides.,I felt it was my responsibility to conduct my own investigation with all the assistance I could get from those who could provide information before moving to what would be a proper way of getting this story out to the country.,At all times, it had been my goal to have a complete disclosure of this whole situation because, as you know, I have said there can be no cloud over the White House. I want that cloud removed. That is one of the reasons we have cooperated as we have with the Special Prosecutor. We will also cooperate with the Rodino committee. The facts will come out.,Q. Mr. President, I have a follow-up on that question right there, on the March 21 st meeting. You have referred to your own personal desire to have complete disclosure, and you have also mentioned here this evening that anybody who heard the tape of that March 21st meeting, or different people hearing that tape or reading the transcript, might get different impressions. Have you ever considered the option of making that tape and transcript public so that the American people can read it and hear it and make their own judgment on what happened at that meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have. We have a problem there, however, in that that tape, as well as the others--as was, I think, probably implied at least in the hearing today--affects the rights of the defendants and also the possibilities of the prosecution, and under the circumstances, of course, we must be, to a certain extent, guided by that.,I think eventually the entire tape will be made available. And as far as I am concerned, when any individual who is looking at it objectively not only hears it or reads what the transcript is but also sees what was done after that particular conversation took place, will conclude, first, that the President had no knowledge before the 21st, which Mr. Dean himself said when he came into the meeting; second, that the President never authorized clemency, in fact, rejected it on several occasions in that meeting; and third, that the President never authorized the payment of money to the defendants for the purpose of hushing them up.,PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE\nJUDICIARY COMMITTEE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you have spoken tonight of your willingness to take questions under oath in the White House from the senior Democratic and Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee. Would you consider, as an aid to rebuilding public confidence in your leadership and in speeding up the procedure, in taking questions in a public forum from the entire House Judiciary Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a matter which I am leaving to Mr. St. Clair and Mr. Doar to work out as to what proper procedure could be developed. What I want is one that will get the facts, get them quickly, and one that will not delay the proceedings. But Mr. Doar and Mr. St. Clair are discussing the matter, and I will defer any response until they have completed their discussions.,ATTORNEY JOHN J. WILSON;\nINTERPRETATION OF TAPES,[16.] Q. Mr. President, is Mr. Wilson, the attorney for Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman, working with the White House or with you in concert in any way? And secondly, you have said that when others hear the tape of the 21st, they may well reach a different interpretation than the one you have presented tonight. Why is that?,THE PRESIDENT. First, Mr. Wilson, of course, is not working with the White House, and neither are the attorneys for any of the other defendants. His only contact with the White House is one that would be perfectly proper in terms of information that a defendant or potential defendant would be entitled to.,As far as interpretations of tapes, not only this one but others, are concerned, any individual who wants to can take anyone's statement and interpret it any way he wants.,What I say is that I know what I said, I know what I meant, I know what I did, and I think that any fair-minded person will reach the same conclusion that I have repeated here several times tonight.,DEFENSE BUDGET,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you met this week with the leaders of the Appropriations Committee partly in regard to the defense budget. And later, Senator McClellan said he would favor slashing $3 billion from that budget, which as you know is nearly $90 billion, higher than in wartime. Could you tell us if you think that is a dangerous cut, and if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator McClellan told me that he wanted to cut the budget by $3 billion, and he is a watchdog of the treasury, and incidentally, so is Congressman Mahon. They both indicated they wanted to cut the budget. However, neither of them indicated that they wanted to take the muscle out of defense.,I would say the primary part of our discussion was with regard to the necessity for having the defense budget where it was. I also pointed out to them, because Senator McClellan was particularly interested in this, that we were negotiating at this time for a mutual balanced reduction of forces in Europe. I said, in order to accomplish that, we had to maintain our forces at the present level in order to get a reduction on the other side, rather than to do it unilaterally.,I believe, finally, that Senator McClellan and Chairman Mahon will be responsible, and the cuts, if they are made, will be ones that will not weaken the United States.,PAYMENTS TO DEFENDANTS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, just to follow up an earlier question about Watergate and the indictments, I was wondering if you figured out, sir, why the payment of $75,000 in alleged hush money occurred the same day you said you disapproved of the practice? I am talking about the March 21 st conversation.,THE PRESIDENT. I have no information as to when a payment was made, to what you have referred. All I have information on is as to my own actions and my own directions, and my actions and directions were clear and very precise. I did not authorize payments, and I did not have knowledge of payments to which you have referred.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT,[19.] Q. Mr. President, can I ask you--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News] isn't wire service, but he always has a question.,Q.--some legal scholars, including Senator Ervin, have said that the truth will never be fully established unless all witnesses subject themselves or submit to cross-examination. Are there circumstances under which you would submit to cross-examination if it would serve to clear up this Watergate affair?,THE PRESIDENT. Well first, Mr. Lisagor, I will do nothing to weaken the Office of the Presidency. And to submit to cross-examination under circumstances that would, in effect, put the President in the box when he was not indicted, in effect, by the House of Representatives--where he would be in the box if he went to the Senate--I think would be improper. However, as far as I am concerned, as I have indicated, I will have written interrogatories, and I will be willing to meet with the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, both of whom, I understand, are very good lawyers and very good cross-examiners, to take any questions that they may have if they have any at the conclusion of their own investigation.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1974-02-25","text":"THE ENERGY SITUATION,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Ladies and gentlemen, before going to your questions, I have a brief report on the energy situation, the progress we have made to date, and also the problems that we have in the future.,You will recall that last October when we saw the energy crisis developing as a result of the embargo and other matters, that there were dire predictions that we would have problems with home heating oil and, even, fuel to run our factories.,As a result of the cooperation of the American people--and they deserve most of the credit--and also the management on the part of Mr. Simon and his organization, we have now passed through that crisis. The home fuel oil, as far as it is concerned, as we know, has been furnished; no one has suffered as a result. And as far as our plants are concerned, all have had the fuel that is required to keep the plants going.,The major problem that remains is one that was brought home to me when I talked to one of the soundmen before coming in. I asked him if he was having any trouble getting gas. He said, \"Yes, when I went to the service station this morning, they wouldn't give me any because my gage was wrong. They thought that I had more than half a tank. Actually, I had zero in the tank.\",I have seen this problem as I have driven around in the Miami area and also in the Washington area--the gas lines, the fact, too, that in the Eastern States generally we do have a problem of shortage of gasoline, which has been, of course, very difficult for many people going to work, going to school, or what have you.,Mr. Simon last week, as you know, at my direction allocated additional gasoline for these particular areas, and he is prepared to take more action in the future to deal with this problem.,As far as the entire situation is concerned, I am able to report tonight that as a result of the cooperation of the American people, as a result, too, of our own energy conservation program within the Government, that I now believe confidently that there is much better than an even chance that there will be no need for gas rationing in the United States.,As far as that is concerned, however, I should point out that while the crisis has passed, the problem still remains, and it is a very serious one.,And having reported somewhat positively up to this point, let me point out some of the negative situations that we confront.,One has to do with the Congress. The Congress, of course, is working hard on this problem, but I regret to say that the bill presently before the Congress is one that if it reaches my desk in its present form, I will have to veto it.,I will have to veto it, because what it does is simply to manage the shortage rather than to deal with the real problem and what should be our real goal, and that is to get rid of the shortage.,For example, there is a provision in the bill, the present bill, that provides for a rollback of prices. Now this, of course, would be immediately popular, but it would mean, if we did have such a rollback, that we would not only have more and longer gas lines, but a rollback of prices would lead to shortages which would require, without question, rationing all over the country.,That would mean 17,000 to 20,000 more Federal bureaucrats to run the system at a cost of $1 1/2 billion a year. And this we should avoid. This we can avoid.,And that is why I again urge the Congress to act responsibly on the measures that we have presented to the Congress to deal with the problem of price and profits through the windfall profits measure that we have submitted and to deal with the problem of gas shortage overall by getting more supplies, and that means the deregulation of natural gas so that it is competitive as far as price is concerned; the amendment of some of our environmental actions so that we can use more coal and thereby take some of the pressure off of the demands for gasoline and other fuels; the deepwater ports; and the other measures that I have mentioned on many occasions to the Nation and also before members of the press.,Looking to the future, I believe, we can say now that while the crisis has been passed, the problem remains. It is a serious problem, but it is one that can be dealt with. And our goal of becoming completely independent in energy, independent of any foreign source, is one that we can achieve, but it will require the continued cooperation of the American people, which I am sure we will get, and responsible action by the Congress, action directed not simply toward distributing a shortage and making it worse, but action which will increase supplies and thereby get rid of the shortage.,QUESTIONS,IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION,[2.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International], I think you are number one tonight.,Q. Mr. President, to heal the divisions in this country, would you be willing to waive executive privilege to give the Judiciary Committee what it says it needs to end any question of your involvement in Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, as you know, the matter of the Judiciary Committee's investigation is now being discussed by White House Counsel, Mr. [James D.] St. Clair, and Mr. Doar.1 And as I indicated in my State of the Union Address, I am prepared to cooperate with the committee in any way consistent with my constitutional responsibility to defend the Office of the Presidency against any action which would weaken that office and the ability of future Presidents to carry out the great responsibilities that any President will have.,1John M. Doar was special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.,Mr. Doar is conducting those negotiations with Mr. St. Clair, and whatever is eventually arranged, which will bring a prompt resolution of this matter, I will cooperate in.,INFLATION,[3] Q. Mr. President, John Dunlop, the price controller, has said, \"I don't think we know how to restrain inflation.\" How confident are you that in the latter half of the year we can restrain inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], the problem of inflation is still a very nagging one. The last figures, as you know, the one percent increase in one month of the consumer price index, was a very troublesome one.,Looking to the future, we are keenly aware of this problem, and we are preparing to deal with it.,First, we believe that it is vitally important to get at the source of the problem. One is in the field of energy. The way to get at the source of the problem in the field of energy is to increase supplies. I have already directed my comments to that point.,The other is in the field of food, and in the field of food we have the same objective-to increase supplies. And Secretary Butz indicates to me and to other members of the Cabinet and the Cost of Living Council that he expects that our supplies, through the balance of this year, of food will go up and that that will have a restraining influence as far as food costs are concerned.,With regard to inflation, I should point out, too, that almost two-thirds of the price increase, the increase in prices last year, which was at a very high rate, was due to energy and also to the problem of food.,By getting at these two problems and by continuing our Cost of Living Council activities in the areas that Secretary Shultz has testified to, I believe that we will bring inflation under control as the year goes on. But I would not underestimate the problem.,We are going to continue to fight it. It is going to have to take responsibility on the part of the Congress to keep the Budget within the limits that we have laid out. It is also going to take an effort on the part of our farmers, an effort on the part of the Administration in the field of energy and the rest, so that we can get the supplies up, because the answer to higher prices is not simply controls. Controls have been tried, and controls have been found wanting. The answer to higher prices is to get up the supplies. That will bring the price down.,IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, to follow up Miss Thomas' question, you say you will cooperate with the Judiciary Committee, but you can't say yet precisely to what extent. Can you tell us if you anticipate you will be able to cooperate at least to the extent you cooperated with Mr. Jaworski in terms of turning over to the Judiciary Committee roughly the same tapes and documents that Mr. Jaworski has? 2,2 On February 15, 1974, the White House released a statement by James D. St. Clair summarizing the steps taken by the Administration to cooperate with the Special Prosecutor. The statement, released at Key Biscayne, Fla., is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 10, p. 214).,THE. PRESIDENT. Well, this is a matter, Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News], that has been discussed by Mr. St. Clair with Mr. Doar, and the decision will be made, based on what arrangements are developed between the two for the confidentiality of those particular items where they must remain confidential and also based on whether or not turning over to the committee will, in any way, jeopardize the rights of defendants or impair the ability of the prosecution to carry on its proper functions in the cases that may develop. It is a matter that we are talking about, and it is a matter where we will be cooperative within those guidelines.,DEFINITION OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, may I follow on to my colleague's question and also to Miss Thomas' question. Within the past week or 10 days, the House Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department have issued differing interpretations of what, by constitutional definition, is an impeachable offense for a President.,Now, as we all know, you are an experienced student of the Constitution, and I think people would be interested to know what you consider to be an impeachable offense for a President, particularly on the dividing line, whether it requires that the House determine that they believe that the President may have committed a crime or whether dereliction of duty, not upholding the Constitution, is enough in itself to constitute an impeachable offense?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News], you don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that the .Constitution is very precise in defining what is an impeachable offense. And in this respect it is the opinion of White House Counsel and a number of other constitutional lawyers, who are perhaps more up-to-date on this than I am at this time, that a criminal offense on the part of the President is the requirement for impeachment.,This is a matter which will be presented, however, to the committee by Mr. St. Clair in a brief which he presently is preparing.3,3On February 28, 1974, the White House issued the text of a 61-page document submitted to the House Judiciary Committee entitled \"An Analysis of the Constitutional Standards for Impeachment.\" The text is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 10, p. 270).,SUPPLY AND PRICE OF GASOLINE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on your discussion of the energy situation. When you said that the crisis is ended, that the problem is still with us, I think for most people the problem is waiting for a long time in line for gasoline, and another part of it is the price of gasoline going up, as it has been.,What can you tell the American people about when lines for gasoline may become shorter under your program, and what do you see in terms of the future of the price of gasoline?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the lines for gasoline will become shorter in the spring and summer months. In fact, that is the purpose of our program, and I think we will achieve it.,As far as the price of gasoline is concerned, I would be less than candid if I were not to say that the price of gasoline is not going to go down until more supplies of gasoline come into the country and also until other fuels come on stream which will reduce the pressure which is upward on the price of gasoline.,Obviously, too, when the embargo is lifted, that is and will have some effect on the price of gasoline.,OIL EMBARGO,[7.] Q. Mr. President, when do you think the embargo might be lifted?,THE PRESIDENT. The embargo question is one that I know is on the minds of all of us, and it is one that presently is under consideration, as you know, by the oil-producing countries.,I should point out here that Dr. Kissinger's trip to the Mideast is directed toward getting a disengagement or getting talks started with regard to a disengagement on the Syrian front. That, following on the disengagement on the Egyptian front, I think, will have a positive effect, although it is not linked to the problem of the embargo directly.,If I could perhaps elaborate just a bit on that: As far as the oil-producing countries are concerned we believe it is in their interest to lift the embargo. They should do that independently of what happens on the front of the negotiation with regard to developing a permanent peace in the Mideast.,As far as we are concerned, we believe that getting a permanent peace in the Mideast is a goal worth achieving, apart from the embargo.,But while they are not conditioned on one another by either party, what happens in one area inevitably affects what happens in the other. And I can say, based on the conversations I have had with the foreign ministers I met with last week and based on the reports I have received to date, I believe we are going to make continued progress on the peace front. I believe that will be helpful in bringing progress on getting the embargo lifted.,By the same token, if the embargo is not lifted, it will naturally slow down the efforts that we are making on the peace front. And it is because I believe that we are going to make progress in developing those particular items that are essential towards movement toward a permanent peace in the Mideast that the oil-producing countries will conclude that they should move on the embargo front.,PRESIDENTIAL TESTIMONY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, has the Special Prosecutor requested your testimony in any form, and if asked, would you testify?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I believe it is a matter of record that the Special Prosecutor transmitted a request that I testify before the grand jury, and on constitutional grounds, I respectfully declined to do so.,I did offer, of course, to respond to any interrogatories that the Special Prosecutor might want to submit or to meet with him personally and answer questions, and he indicated that he did not want to proceed in that way.,SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, however an impeachable offense is defined, under the system, the impeachment proceeding is the courtroom of the President. You have said many times that these matters belong in .the courts. So, wouldn't it be in your best interests and in the best interest of the country to have this matter finally resolved in a proper judicial forum, that is, a full impeachment trial in the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, a full impeachment trial in the Senate, under our Constitution, comes only when the House determines that there is an impeachable offense. It is my belief that .the House, after it conducts its inquiry, will not reach that determination. I do not expect to be impeached.,THE SHAH OF IRAN AND THE OIL EMBARGO,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Shah of Iran said in an interview that the United States is getting as much oil now as it did before the embargo, and Mr. Simon of the Federal Energy Office said that such a statement is irresponsible and reckless. Can you straighten us out? Are we getting as much oil, and why would the Shah say this?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I would not say that the Shah was irresponsible and reckless. However, his information, I think, is different from ours, and we have good reason to know what we are getting.,We are getting substantially less from the oil-producing countries in the Mideast than we were before the embargo. That is why we are, of course, very anxious to get the embargo lifted as soon as possible.,ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you have told the American people that there will be no recession this year. If the unemployment rate should go above 5 1/2 percent of the labor force, what do you plan to do about this as an antirecession move, and would that include a tax cut?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to my statement that there will be no recession, I have met with my economic advisers just last week. I went over this question in great detail.,We are going through what I would say is a downturn in the economy at this point, but not a recession. And for the balance of the year, the prospects are good. They are good, because we are going to be dealing with the energy crisis-what was a crisis--as a problem. That will be helpful.,We expect to have an increase insofar as food is concerned, and as far as other elements of the economy are concerned, there are very great areas of strength. The last half of the year we expect to be on an upward curve rather than the down curve.,However, those are projections made by economists, and I gave directions to the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Ash, and to our economic advisers that we will be and should be prepared to deal effectively with any areas of the country-and there may be spot areas of hardship--through the budget means, and we have various contingency plans ready to go.,We will not stand by and allow this country--because of the energy crisis and because of some of the problems we have had on the inflation front--stand by and allow a recession to occur. That is why I have been so positive in saying that there will be no recession.\nI had better turn this way.,VETERANS BENEFITS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I want to ask you something. I think you are not--\nTHE PRESIDENT [to Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service]. You have the loudest voice, you go right ahead.,Q. Good, thank you, sir. I don't think you are fully informed about some of the things that are happening in the Government in a domestic way. I am sure it is not your fault, but maybe the people that you appointed to office aren't giving you right information.,For example, I have just discovered that the Veterans Administration has absolutely no means of telling precisely what is the national problem regarding the payments of checks to boys going to school under GI bill, and many a young man in this country is being disillusioned totally by his Government these days because of the hardships being put upon him.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is a question which you very properly bring to the attention of the Nation. It is a question that has already been brought to my attention, I am sure, by a number of people,Q. But, sir, you had Mr.---,THE PRESIDENT. --and the question-if I may give the answer now--is very simply this. Mr. Don Johnson of the Veterans Administration, as you know, acted expeditiously when we had a case in California. We have another one in Illinois at the present time.,There are great numbers of veterans. We have an adequate program to deal with it, and I can assure you that when any matter is brought to my attention or to his, we will deal with it as quickly as we can, because our Vietnam veterans and all veterans deserve whatever the law provides for them, and I will see that they get it.,Q. He is the very man I am talking about who is not giving you the correct information. He stood up here at the White House the other day and gave us false information. He has no real system for getting at the statistics on this problem.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if he isn't listening to this program, I will report to him just what you said. [Laughter],He may have heard even though he wasn't listening to the program. [Laughter],REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES AND THE 1974\nELECTIONS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, this is a political question.,THE PRESIDENT. The others weren't political? [Laughter],Q. Jerry Ford's old House seat was won by a Democrat who campaigned mainly on the theme that you should be removed or impeached or that you should resign. What advice could you give Republican candidates this year to counter that argument?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I want Republican candidates to win where they are deserving candidates. And second, I recall the year 1948 when we confidently expected to gain in the House and when Mr. Fulbright, as you may recall, called for President Truman's resignation in the spring because the economy was in a slump and President Truman had other problems, and we proceeded to campaign against Mr. Truman. He was the issue. And we took a bad licking in the Congress in 1948.,What my advice to the candidates very simply would be is this: It is that 9 months before an election, no one can predict what can happen in this country. What will affect the election in this year 1974 is what always affects elections--peace and prosperity.,On the peace front, we are doing well, and I think we will continue to do well. With regard to the prosperity issue, the bread and butter issue, as I have already indicated, I think that this economy is going to be moving up.,I think, therefore, it will be a good year for those candidates who stand for the Administration.,THE PRESIDENT'S INCOME TAXES,[14.] Q. Mr. President, as you prepare to sign your income tax returns for this year, do you intend to pay State or local income taxes, and have you had any second thoughts about your claimed deduction for the gift of the Vice Presidential papers?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to any State taxes or concern, I will pay any that the law requires. As I understand, in California a ruling has been made, apparently, that even though I have a residence in California that there is not a requirement that I pay California taxes.,I would be glad to pay those taxes and, of course, deduct that from my Federal income tax liability as others can do if they desire to do so.,With regard to the gift of papers that I made to the Government, there is no question about my intent. All of my Vice Presidential papers were delivered to the Archives in March, 4 months before the deadline. The paperwork on it apparently was not concluded until after that time.,This raises a legal question as to whether or not the deduction, therefore, is proper. That is why I voluntarily asked the Senate control committee of the House and Senate to look into the matter and to advise me as to whether or not the deduction was a proper one. If it was not a proper one, I, of course, will be glad to pay the tax.,ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN AND DETENTE,[15.] Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, what is your personal reaction to the expulsion by the Soviet Union of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and will it any way affect our policy of detente?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my personal reaction is that I am, of course, an admirer of a man who has won a Nobel Prize for literature and one who has also shown, as he has shown, such great courage.,Second, as far as our relations with the Soviets are concerned, if I thought that breaking relations with the Soviets or turning off our policy of negotiation and turning back to confrontation would help him or help thousands of others like him in the Soviet Union, we might do that.,On the other hand, I look back to the years of confrontation, and I find that men like him, as a matter of fact, rather than being sent to Paris, would have been sent to Siberia or probably worse.,As far as our relations with the Soviets are concerned, we shall continue. We shall continue to negotiate, recognizing that they don't like our system or approve of it and I don't like their system or approve of it. Mr. Brezhnev knows that, and I know it, and we have discussed it quite bluntly and directly.,However, it is essential that both nations, being the super powers that we are, continue to make progress toward limiting arms, toward avoiding confrontations which might explode into war, as it might have in the Mideast if we had not had this period of negotiation, and also continuing those negotiations for reduction of forces in Europe and reduction of arms, or certainly the limitation of arms, and the various other initiatives that we are undertaking with the Soviets.,In a nutshell, this is what we have to consider: Do we want to go back to a period when the United States and the Soviet Union, the two great super powers, stood in confrontation against each other and risk a runaway nuclear arms race and also crisis in Berlin, in the Mideast, even again in Southeast Asia or other places of the world, or do we want to continue on a path in which we recognize our differences but try to recognize also the fact that we must either live together or we will all die together?,RESIGNATION AND THE 1974 ELECTIONS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you have said on many occasions that you would not resign from the office to which you were elected, but what if within the next few months it became evident that your party was going to suffer a disastrous defeat in this year's elections. Would you then reconsider your resolve on this?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I want my party to succeed, but more important, I want the Presidency to survive. And it is vitally important in this Nation that the Presidency of the United States not be hostage to what happens to the popularity of a President at one time or another. The stability of this office, the ability of the President to continue to govern, the ability, for example, of this President to continue the great initiatives which have led to a more peaceful world than we have had for a generation, and to move on the domestic front in the many areas that I have described, all of these things, these goals, are yet before us.,We have a lot of work left to do, more than 3 years left to do, and I am going to stay here until I get it done.,INSPECTION OF INCOME TAX RETURNS BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you have made a very strong defense on the confidentiality of Presidential documents and other matters, and you have launched a program to protect the privacy of citizens of the United States.,In light of this, would you explain how you happened to issue an Executive order [11697] last year, once modified, to allow the Agriculture Department to examine key points of individual income tax returns of America's 3 million farmers and a Justice Department advisory opinion saying that this Executive order should serve as a model for all the Federal Government departments?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a matter of fact, in the privacy message [address], which, as you know, I issued on Saturday, I did not raise this question specifically, but certainly I want that question, along with others, considered. Because in this whole area of privacy, it isn't just a question of those who run credit bureaus and banks and others with their huge computers, but the Federal Government itself, in its activities, can very much impinge on the privacy of individuals.,This is a matter that I think should be considered by the Commission that I have appointed, which is chaired, as you know, by the Vice President.,POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS,[18.] Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your personal lawyer, Mr. Herb Kalmbach, entered a plea of guilty today to a criminal charge of accepting $100,000 in exchange for an ambassadorial post. In your capacity as President you approve of ambassadors and send the nominations to the Senate. Were you consulted in any manner on this engagement and this contribution by Mr. Kalmbach or anyone else in the White House, and have you done any research on this in the White House to determine who is responsible for it?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to the first question is no; the answer to the second question is yes. And I would go further and say that ambassadorships have not been for sale, to my knowledge, ambassadorships cannot be purchased, and I would not approve an ambassadorship unless the man or woman was qualified, clearly apart from any contributions.,FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW,[19.] Q. Mr. President, at our last meeting we were remiss in asking you for your reaction to the resignation of Vice President Agnew, and so, for the sake of filling in that hiatus in the record, I would ask you if you believe that the conduct of the Vice President, and particularly his conduct surrounding and leading up to his resignation, in fact brought dishonor upon his office, this Administration, and the country?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be very easy for me to jump on the Vice President when he is down. I can only say that in his period of service that he rendered dedicated service in all of the assignments that I gave to him.,He went through, along with his family, a terribly difficult situation, and he resigned, as I think he thought he should, because of the embarrassment that he knew that would cause to the Administration and also because he felt that in view of the criminal offense that was charged that he should not stay in office. Now at this point, I am not going to join anybody else in kicking him when he is down.,TAX DEDUCTION FOR VICE PRESIDENTIAL\nPAPERS,[20.] Q. Mr. President, thank you very much. To follow on an earlier question about taxes, April 21, 1969, was a significant day for you in taxes and for the country, too. That is the notary date on the deed that allowed you to give your papers to the Government and pay just token taxes for e years. On that same date, you had a tax reform message in which you said, and I quote: Special preferences in the law permit far too many Americans to pay less than their fair share of taxes. Too many others bear too much of the tax burden.,Now, Mr. President, do you think you paid your fair share of taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would point out that those who made deductions, such as I made in this particular instance, included John Kenneth Galbraith, Jerome Wiesner, Vice President Humphrey, President Johnson, a number of others.4 I did not write that law. When it was brought to my attention, rather vigorously by President Johnson when I saw him shortly after my election, he thought that it would be wise for me to give my papers to the Government and take the proper deduction.\nI did that. Under the circumstances, as you know now, that deduction is no longer allowed. As far as I am concerned, I think that was probably a proper decision.,4 At his news conference on February 26, 1974, Deputy Press Secretary Gerald L. Warren stated: \"The information that Mr. Wiesner had donated certain papers was reported in December by wire services and others, and apparently Mr. Wiesner did not take a deduction of the value of those papers .... The President certainly regrets the mention of Mr. Wiesner.\",Mr. Wiesner was president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mr. Galbraith was a professor of economics at Harvard University.,OIL EMBARGO,[21.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News] is next.,Q. In your State of the Union Address, you mentioned that Arab leaders had assured you that they were calling an urgent meeting to discuss or consider the lifting of the embargo. Were you misled by the Arab leaders or what happened to that meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor, we were informed that they were calling an urgent meeting. We expected that to take place on the 14th of February, but the Arab leaders, as you know, are not a united group necessarily, and that is an understatement. Under the circumstances, while the Arab leaders who had given us this assurance tried to go forward with the meeting, they were unable to get the cooperation of others.,I believe now, however, that they will get that cooperation, that the meeting will be held, and I believe that they will lift the embargo.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-10-26","text":"THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, before going to your questions, I have a statement with regard to the Mideast which I think will anticipate some of the questions, because this will update the information which is breaking rather fast in that area, as you know, for the past 2 days.,The cease-fire is holding. There have been some violations, but generally speaking it can be said that it is holding at this time. As you know, as a result of the U.N. resolution which was agreed to yesterday by a vote of 14 to 0, a peacekeeping force will go to the Mideast, and this force, however, will not include any forces from the major powers, including, of course, the United States and the Soviet Union.,The question, however, has arisen as to whether observers from major powers could go to the Mideast. My up-to-the-minute report on that, and I just talked to Dr. Kissinger 5 minutes before coming down, is this: We will send observers to the Mideast if requested by the Secretary General of the United Nations, and we have reason to expect that we will receive such a request.,With regard to the peacekeeping force, I think it is important for all of you ladies and gentlemen, and particularly for those listening on radio and television, to know why the United States has insisted that major powers not be part of the peacekeeping force and that major powers not introduce military forces into the Mideast. A very significant and potentially explosive crisis developed on Wednesday of this week. We obtained information which led us to believe that the Soviet Union was planning to send a very substantial force into the Mideast, a military force.,When I received that information, I ordered, shortly after midnight on Thursday morning, an alert for all American forces around the world. This was a precautionary alert. The purpose of that was to indicate to the Soviet Union that we could not accept any unilateral move on their part 'to move military forces into the Mideast. At the same time, in the early morning hours, I also proceeded on the diplomatic front. In a message to Mr. Brezhnev--an urgent message--I indicated to him our reasoning, and I urged that we not proceed along that course and that, instead, we join in the United Nations in supporting a resolution which would exclude any major powers from participating in a peacekeeping force.,As a result of that communication and the return that I received from Mr. Brezhnev-we had several exchanges, I should say--we reached the conclusion that we would jointly support the resolution which was adopted in the United Nations.,We now come, of course, to the critical time in terms of the future of the Mideast. And here, the outlook is far more hopeful than what we have been through this past week. I think I could safely say that the chances for not just a cease-fire-which we presently have and which, of course, we have had in the Mideast for some time--but the outlook for a permanent peace is the best that it has been in 20 years.,The reason for this is that the two major powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, have agreed--this was one of the results of Dr. Kissinger's trip to Moscow 1--have agreed that we would participate in trying to expedite the talks between the parties involved. That does not mean that the two major powers will impose a settlement. It does mean, however, that we will use our influence with the nations in the area to expedite a settlement.,1On October 20, 1973, the White House announced that, at the request of the Soviet Government, the President had agreed to send Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to visit Moscow for direct discussions with the Soviet leadership on means to end hostilities in the Middle East.,The reason we feel this is important is that first, from the standpoint of the nations in the Mideast, none of them-Israel, Egypt, Syria, none of them--can or should go through the agony of another war.,The losses in this war on both sides have been very, very high. And the tragedy must not occur again. There have been four of these wars, as you ladies and gentlemen know, over the past 20 years. But beyond that, it is vitally important to the peace of the world that this potential trouble spot, which is really one of the most potentially explosive areas in the world, that it not become an area in which the major powers come together in confrontation.,What the developments of this week should indicate to all of us is that the United States and the Soviet Union, who admittedly have very different objectives in the Mideast, have now agreed that it is not in their interest to have a confrontation there, a confrontation which might lead to a nuclear confrontation, and neither of the two major powers wants that.,We have agreed, also, that if we are to avoid that, it is necessary for us to use our influence more than we have in the past, to get the negotiating track moving again, but this time, moving to a conclusion-not simply a temporary truce but a permanent peace.,I do not mean to suggest that it is going to come quickly, because the parties involved are still rather far apart. But I do say that now there are greater incentives within the area to find a peaceful solution, and there are enormous incentives as far as the United States is concerned, and the Soviet Union and other major powers, to find such a solution.,Turning now to the subject of our attempts to get a cease-fire on the home front, that is a bit more difficult.,PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS,[2.] Today, White House Counsel contacted Judge Sirica--we tried yesterday, but he was in Boston, as you know--and arrangements were made to meet with Judge Sirica on Tuesday to work out the delivery of the tapes to Judge Sirica.2,2On October 23, 1973, Charles Alan Wright, consultant to the Counsel to the President, announced before Judge John J. Sirica in the U.S. District Court that \"the President of the United States would comply in all respects with the order of August 29 as modified by the order of the court of appeals.\" Later the same day, the White House released the transcript of a news briefing containing information on the President's decision to turn the tape recordings over to Judge Sirica. Participants in the news briefing were Mr. Wright and Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Assistant to the President. The news briefing is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 9, p. 1275).,WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,[3.] Also, in consultations that we have had in the White House today, we have decided that next week the Acting Attorney General, Mr. Bork, will appoint a new Special Prosecutor for what is called the Watergate matter. The Special Prosecutor will have independence. He will have total cooperation from the executive branch, and he will have as his primary responsibility to bring this matter which has so long concerned the American people, bring it to an expeditious conclusion, because we have to remember that under our Constitution, it has always been held that justice delayed is justice denied. It is time for those who are guilty to be prosecuted and for those who are innocent to be cleared. And I can assure you ladies and gentlemen, and all of our listeners tonight, that I have no greater interest than to see that the new Special Prosecutor has the cooperation from the executive branch and the independence that he needs to bring about that conclusion.,QUESTIONS,THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,[4.] And now I will go to Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press],Q. Mr. President, would the new Special Prosecutor have your go-ahead to go to court if necessary to obtain evidence from your files that he felt were vital?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Cormier, I would anticipate that that would not be necessary. I believe that as we look at the events which led to the dismissal of Mr. Cox, we find that these are matters that can be worked out and should be worked out in cooperation and not by having a suit filed by a Special Prosecutor within the executive branch against the President of the United States.,This, incidentally, is not a new attitude on the part of a President. Every President since George Washington has tried to protect the confidentiality of Presidential conversations, and you remember the famous case involving Thomas Jefferson where Chief Justice Marshall, then sitting as a trial judge, subpoenaed the letter which Jefferson had written which Marshall thought or felt was necessary evidence in the trial of Aaron Burr. Jefferson refused to do so, but it did not result in a suit. What happened was, of course, a compromise in which a summary of the contents of the letter which was relevant to the trial was produced by Jefferson, and the Chief Justice of the United States, acting in his capacity as Chief Justice, accepted that.,That is exactly, of course, what we tried to do in this instant case.,I think it would be well if I could take just a moment, Mr. Cormier, in answering your question to point out what we tried to do and why we feel it was the proper solution to a very aggravating and difficult problem.,The matter of the tapes has been one that has concerned me because of my feeling that I have a constitutional responsibility to defend the Office of the Presidency from any encroachments on confidentiality which might affect future Presidents in their abilities to conduct the kind of conversations and discussions they need to conduct to carry on the responsibilities of this office. And of course, the Special Prosecutor felt that he needed the tapes for the purpose of his prosecution.,That was why, working with the Attorney General, we worked out what we thought. Was an acceptable compromise, one in which Judge Stennis, now Senator Stennis, would hear the tapes and would provide a complete and full disclosure, not only to Judge Sirica but also to the Senate committee.,Attorney General Richardson approved of this proposition. Senator Baker, Senator Ervin approved of the proposition. Mr. Cox was the only one that rejected it.,Under the circumstances, when he rejected it and indicated that despite the approval of the Attorney General, of course, of the President, and of the two major Senators on the Ervin committee, when he rejected the proposal, I had no choice but to dismiss him.,Under those circumstances, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Ruckelshaus felt that because of the nature of their confirmation that their commitment to Mr. Cox had to take precedence over any commitment they might have to carry out an order from the President.,Under those circumstances, I accepted with regret the resignations of two fine public servants.,Now we come to a new Special Prosecutor. We will cooperate with him, and I do not anticipate that we will come to the time when he would consider it necessary to take the President to court. I think our cooperation will be adequate.,Q. This is perhaps another way of asking Frank's question, but if the Special Prosecutor considers that information contained in Presidential documents is needed to prosecute the Watergate case, will you give him the documents, beyond the nine tapes which you have already given him?,THE PRESIDENT. I have answered that question before. We will not provide Presidential documents to a Special Prosecutor. We will provide, as we have in great numbers, all kinds of documents from the White House, but if it is a document involving a conversation with the President, I would have to stand on the principle of confidentiality. However, information that is needed from such documents would be provided. That is what we have been trying to do.,Q. Mr. President, you know in the Congress there is a great deal of suspicion over any arrangement which will permit the executive branch to investigate itself or which will establish a Special Prosecutor which you may fire again. And 53 Senators, a majority, have now cosponsored a resolution which would permit Judge Sirica to establish and name an independent prosecutor, separate and apart from the White House and the executive branch. Do you believe this arrangement would be constitutional, and would you go along with it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would suggest that the action that we are going to take, appointing a Special Prosecutor, would be satisfactory to the Congress and that they would not proceed with that particular matter.,THOUGHTS ON QUESTIONS OF IMPEACHMENT OR RESIGNATION,[5.] Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News],Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could share with us your thoughts, tell us what goes through your mind when you hear people, people who love this country and people who believe in you, say reluctantly that perhaps you should resign or be impeached.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am glad we don't take the vote of this room, let me say. And I understand the feelings of people with regard to impeachment and resignation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rather, you may remember that when I made the rather difficult decision--I thought the most difficult decision of my first term-on December 18, the bombing by B-52's of North Vietnam, that exactly the same words were used on the networks--I don't mean by you, but they were quoted on the networks--that were used now: tyrant, dictator, he has lost his senses, he should resign, he should be impeached.,But I stuck it out, and as a result of that, we not only got our prisoners of war home, as I have often said, on their feet rather than on their knees, but we brought peace to Vietnam, something we haven't had and didn't for over 12 years.,It was a hard decision, and it was one that many of my friends in the press who had consistently supported me on the war up to that time disagreed with. Now, in this instance I realize there are people who feel that the actions that I have taken with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Cox are grounds for impeachment.,I would respectfully suggest that even Mr. Cox and Mr. Richardson have agreed that the President had the right, constitutional right, to dismiss anybody in the Federal Government. And second, I should also point out that as far as the tapes are concerned, rather than being in defiance of the law, I am in compliance with the law.,As far as what goes through my mind, I would simply say that I intend to continue to carry out, to the best of my ability, the responsibilities I was elected to carry out last November. The events of this past week--I know, for example, in your head office in New York, some thought that it was simply a blown-up exercise; there wasn't a real crisis. I wish it had been that. It was a real crisis. It was the most difficult crisis we have had since the Cuban confrontation of 1962.,But because we had had our initiative with the Soviet Union, because I had a basis of communication with Mr. Brezhnev, we not only avoided a confrontation but we moved a great step forward toward real peace in the Mideast.,Now, as long as I can carry out that kind of responsibility, I am going to continue to do this job.,MOTIVES OF MR. COX,[6.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagot, Chicago Daily News],Q. There have been reports that you felt that Mr. Cox was somehow out to get you. I would like to ask you if you did feel that, and if so, what evidence did you have.?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor, I understand Mr. Cox is going to testify next week under oath before the Judiciary Committee, and I would suggest that he perhaps would be better qualified 'to answer that question.,As far as I am concerned, we had cooperated with the Special Prosecutor. We tried to work out in a cooperative way this matter of the production of the tapes. He seemed to be more interested in the issue than he was in a settlement, and under the circumstances, I had no choice but to dismiss him. But I am not going to question his motives as to whether or not he was out to get me. Perhaps the Senators would like to ask that question.,THE NATION'S CONFIDENCE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in 1968, before you were elected, you wrote that too many shocks can drain a nation of its energy and even cause a rebellion against creative change and progress. Do you think America is at that point now?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that many would speculate--I have noted a lot on the networks, particularly, and sometimes even in the newspapers. But this is a very strong country, and the American people, I think, can ride through the shocks that they have--the difference now from what it was in the days of shocks, even when Mr. Lisagor and I first met 25 years ago, is the electronic media.,I have never heard or seen such outrageous, vicious, distorted reporting in 27 years of public life. I am not blaming anybody for that. Perhaps what happened is that what we did brought it about, and therefore, the media decided that they would have to take that particular line.,But when people are pounded night after night with that kind of frantic, hysterical reporting, it naturally shakes their confidence. And yet, I should point out that even in this week, when many thought that the President was shell-shocked, unable to act, the President acted decisively in the interests of peace, in the interests of the country, and I can assure you that whatever shocks gentlemen of the press may have, or others, political people, these shocks will not affect me in my doing my job.,THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to the Middle East crisis for a moment, do you consider that the crisis is over now, and how much longer will the American forces be kept on alert around the world?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to the alert, the alert has already been discontinued with regard to NORAD, that is, the North American [Air Defense] Command, and with regard to SAC [Strategic Air Command]. As far as other forces are concerned, they are being maintained in a state of readiness, and obviously, Soviet Union forces are being maintained in a state of readiness.,Now, as far as the crisis in the Mideast is concerned, I don't want to leave any impression that we aren't going to continue to have problems with regard to the cease-fire. There will be outbreaks because of the proximity of the antagonistic forces, and there will be some very, very tough negotiating in attempting to reach a diplomatic settlement. But I think now that all parties are going to approach this problem of trying to reach a settlement with a more sober and a more determined attitude than ever before, because the Mideast can't afford--Israel can't afford, Egypt can't afford, Syria can't afford-another war. The world cannot afford a war in that part of the world. And because the Soviet Union and the United States have potentially conflicting interests there, we both now realize that we cannot allow our differences in the Mideast to jeopardize even greater interests that we have, for example, in continuing a detente in Europe, in continuing the negotiations which can lead to a limitation of nuclear arms and eventually reducing the burden of nuclear arms, and in continuing in other ways that can contribute to the peace of the world.,As a matter of fact, I would suggest that with all of the criticism of detente, that without detente, we might have had a major conflict in the Middle East. With detente, we avoided it.,OIL AND THE MIDDLE EAST,[9.] Q. Mr. President, a question from the electronic media, related to the Middle East--,THE PRESIDENT [to Forrest J. Boyd, Mutual Broadcasting System]. Radio.,Q. Radio, yes. I have heard that there was a meeting at the State Department this afternoon of major oil company executives on the fuel shortage. Whether or not you can confirm that, has this confrontation in the Middle East caused a still more severe oil problem, and is there any thinking now of gasoline rationing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have contingency plans for gasoline rationing and so forth, which I hope never have to be put into place.,But with regard to the oil shortage, which you referred to, one of the major factors which gave enormous urgency to our efforts to settle this particular crisis was the potential of an oil cutoff.,Let me say that I have also noted that in the State Department---or from the State Department--today a statement raised a little difficulty in Europe to the effect that our European friends hadn't been as cooperative as they might have been in attempting to help us work out the Middle East settlement or at least the settlement to the extent that we have worked it out as of the resolution of yesterday.,I can only say on that score that Europe, which gets 80 percent of its oil from the Mideast, would have frozen to death this winter unless there had been a settlement, and Japan, of course, is in that same position. The United States, of course, gets only approximately 10 percent of its oil from the Mideast.,What I am simply suggesting is this: that with regard to the fuel shortage, potentially, in the United States and in the world, it is indispensable at this time that we avoid any further Mideast crisis so that the flow of oil to Europe, to Japan, and to the United States can continue.,EXCHANGES WITH GENERAL SECRETARY BREZHNEV,[10.] Q. Mr. President, against this background of detente, Mr. Brezhnev's note to you has been described as rough or perhaps brutal by one Senator3 Can you characterize it for us and for history in any way?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I could characterize it, but, Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service], it wouldn't be in the national interest to do so. My notes to him he might characterize as being rather rough. However, I would rather--perhaps it would be best to characterize it. Rather than saying, Mr. Theis, that his note to me was rough and brutal, I would say that it was very firm, and it left very little to the imagination as to what he intended.,3Senator Henry M. Jackson made the characterization earlier the same day.,And my response was also very firm and left little to the imagination of how we would react. And it is because he and I know each other, and it is because we have had this personal contact, that notes ex- changed in that way result in a settlement rather than a confrontation.,MR. REBOZO AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS,[11.] Mr. Deakin?,Q. Yes, Mr. Deakin [James Deakin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch]. Is it credible, can the American people believe that your close friend, Mr. Rebozo, for 3 years, during which time you saw him weekly sometimes, kept from you the fact that he had $100,000 in cash from Mr. Howard Hughes? Is that credible? Is it credible that your personal attorney, Mr. Kalmbach, knew about this money for at least a year and never told you about it?,And if this was a campaign contribution, as your press secretaries say, who authorized Mr. Rebozo to collect campaign contributions for your reelection or for the Republican Party?,What campaign committee was he an official of?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is obviously not credible to you, and I suppose that it would sound incredible to many people who do not know how I operate. In terms of campaign contributions, I have had a rule, Mr. Deakin, which Mr. Stans, Mr. Kaitabach, Mr. Rebozo, and every contributor will agree has been the rule--I have refused always to accept contributions myself. I have refused to have any discussion of contributions. As a matter of fact, my orders to Mr. Stans were that after the campaign was over, I would then send notes of appreciation to those that contributed, but before the election, I did not want to have any information from anybody with regard to campaign contributions.,Now, with regard to Mr. Rebozo, let me say that he showed, I think, very good judgment in doing what he did. He received a contribution. He was prepared to turn it over to the finance chairman when the finance chairman was appointed. But in that interlude, after he received the contribution and before the finance chairman was appointed, the Hughes company, as you all know, had an internal fight of massive proportions, and he felt that such a contribution to the campaign might prove to be embarrassing.,At the conclusion of the campaign, he decided that it would be in the best interests of everybody concerned rather than to turn the money over then, to be used in the '74 campaigns, to return it intact. And I would say that any individual, and particularly a banker, who would have a contribution of $100,000 and not touch it--because it was turned back in exactly the form it was received--I think that is a pretty good indication that he is a totally honest man, which he is.,PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, after the tapes are presented to Judge Sircia and they are processed under the procedure outlined by the U.S. Court of Appeals, will you make those tapes public?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, that is not the procedure that the court has ordered, and it would not be proper. Judge Sirica, under the circuit court's order, is to listen to the tapes and, then, is to present to the grand jury the pertinent evidence with regard to its investigation. Publication of the tapes has not been ordered by the circuit court of appeals, and Judge Sirica, of course, would not do anything that would be in contravention of what the circuit court of appeals has ordered.,PRESIDENTIAL STRESS,[13.] Mr. terhorst [J.F. terhorst, Detroit News],Q. Mr. President, Harry Truman used to talk about the heat in the kitchen---,THE PRESIDENT. I know what he meant.,Q. -- and a lot of people have been wondering how you are bearing up emotionally under the stress of recent events. Can you discuss that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, those who saw me during the Middle East crisis thought I bore up rather well, and, Mr. terhorst, I have a quality which is--I guess I must have inherited it from my Midwestern mother and father--which is that the tougher it gets, the cooler I get. Of course, it isn't pleasant to get criticism. Some of it is justified, of course. It isn't pleasant to find your honesty questioned. It isn't pleasant to find, for example, that, speaking of my friend Mr. Rebozo, that despite the fact that those who printed it, and those who said it, knew it was untrue-said that he had a million-dollar trust fund for me that he was handling--it was nevertheless put on one of the networks, knowing it was untrue. It isn't pleasant, for example, to hear or read that a million dollars in campaign funds went into my San Clemente property and, even after we had a complete audit, to have it repeated.,Those are things which, of course, do tend to get under the skin of the man who holds this office. But as far as I am concerned, I have learned to expect it. It has been my lot throughout my political life, and I suppose because I have been through so much, that may be one of the reasons that when I have to face an international crisis, I have what it takes.,WATERGATE INFLUENCE ON MIDDLE EAST CRISIS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you a question about the Mideast. To what extent do you think your Watergate troubles influenced Soviet thinking about your ability to respond in the Mideast, and did your Watergate problems convince you that the United States needed a strong response in the Mideast to convince other nations that you have not been weakened?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have noted speculation to the effect that the Watergate problems may have led the Soviet Union to miscalculate. I tend to disagree with that, however.,I think Mr. Brezhnev probably can't quite understand how the President of the United States wouldn't be able to handle the Watergate problems. He would be able to handle it all right, if he had them. [Laughter] But I think what happens is that what Mr. Brezhnev does understand is the power of the United States. What he does know is the President of the United States.,What he also knows is that the President of the United States, when he was under unmerciful assault at the time of Cambodia at the time of May 8, when I ordered the bombing and the mining of North Vietnam, at the time of December 18, still went ahead and did what he thought was right; the fact that Mr. Brezhnev knew that regardless of the pressures at home, regardless of what people see and hear on television night after night, he would do what was right. That is what made Mr. Brezhnev act as he did.,PRESIDENTIAL VIEWS ON TELEVISION COVERAGE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you have lambasted the television networks pretty well. Could I ask you, at the risk of reopening an obvious wound, you say after you have put on a lot of heat that you don't blame anyone. I find that a little puzzling. What is it about the television coverage of you in these past weeks and months that has so aroused your anger?,THE PRESIDENT [to Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News]. Don't get the impression that you arouse my anger. [Laughter],Q. I'm afraid, sir, that I have that impression. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects.,REGAINING THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE,[16.] Q. Mr. President, businessmen increasingly are saying that many chief executive officers of corporations do not get the latitude you have had, if they have the personnel problems that you have had, to stay in the job and correct them. You have said you are going to stay. Do you have any plan set out to regain confidence of people across the country and these businessmen who are beginning to talk about this matter? Do you have any plans besides the Special Prosecutor, which looks backward; do you have any plan that looks forward for regaining confidence of people?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly have. First, to move forward in building a structure of peace in the world, in which we have made enormous progress in the past and which we are going to make more progress in, in the future; our European initiative, our continued initiative with the Soviet Union, with the People's Republic of China. That will be the major legacy of this Administration.,Moving forward at home in our continuing battle against the high cost of living, in which we are now finally beginning to make some progress, and moving forward also on the matters that you referred to, it is true that what happened in Watergate, the campaign abuses, were deplorable. They have been very damaging to this Administration; they have been damaging certainly to the country as well.,Let me say, too, I didn't want to leave an impression with my good friend from CBS over here that I don't respect the reporters. What I was simply saying was this: that when a commentator takes a bit of news and then, with knowledge of what the facts are, distorts it, viciously, I have no respect for that individual.,EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,[17.] Q. Mr. President!,THE PRESIDENT [to Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune]. You are so loud, I will have to take you.,Q. I have to be, because you happen to dodge my questions all of the time.,THE PRESIDENT. You had three last time.,Q. Last May, you went before the American people, and you said executive privilege will not be invoked as to any testimony concerning possible criminal conduct or discussing of possible criminal conduct, including the Watergate affair and the alleged coverup.,If you have revised or modified this position, as you seem to have done, could you explain the rationale of a law-and-order Administration covering up evidence, prima facie evidence, of high crimes and misdemeanors?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I should point out that perhaps all the other reporters in the room are aware of the fact that we have waived executive privilege on all individuals within the Administration. It has been the greatest waiver of executive privilege in the whole history of this Nation.,And as far as any other matters are concerned, the matters of the tapes, the matters of Presidential conversations, those are matters in which the President has a responsibility to defend this office, which I shall continue to do.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-10-03","text":"SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER'S TRIP TO THE FAR EAST,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Won't you be seated, ladies and gentlemen. I guess I should say, all of those who can find seats.,Dr. Kissinger, as you know from an announcement that I understand got out about 30 minutes ago from Peking, will visit Peking on October 26 to 29. This is part of the continuing dialog between the People's Republic of China and the United States which began with my visit to China last year.,The subjects that will be discussed include those that have been discussed on previous occasions--trade, for example, where it is interesting to note that the amount of bilateral trade between the two countries, which was approximately $6 million in 1971, will be an estimated $800 million in 1973. Scientific and cultural exchanges will be a major subject for discussions--and, of course, other matters of mutual concern to the two nations.,In addition, Dr. Kissinger has been invited by the Foreign Minister of Japan, Mr. Ohira, to stop in Japan on his visit to the Far East. He will do so. The timing of that visit, however, has not yet been agreed upon and will be announced as soon as we hear from the Japanese.,Incidentally, I learned that 12 to 15 members of the press will be invited, if they desire to go, to go on the trip with the Secretary of State, and if you would put in your applications at the State Department, in this instance, I think that they will be honored in the order in which they are received.,Now, I will be glad to take questions on other subjects, since I understand Mr. Warren has been rather busy with his briefings lately.,QUESTIONS COUNSELLOR HARLOW,[2.] Mr. President, would you tell us why you sent Bryce Harlow out to Arizona last month just after the Vice President and Mr. Goldwater conferred?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't send him to Arizona, as far as I know. I think he went to Oklahoma.,Q. He was reported to have gone to Phoenix.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he might have. He might have. I think that what had happened was that Senator Goldwater had indicated an interest in the status of the situation with regard to the Vice President's case, and Mr. Harlow, being somewhat familiar with that matter, was the best man to provide that information for him.,VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that the Vice President should resign if he is indicted?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Vice President has addressed that question, and his answer is an altogether proper one. The Vice President is in a different position, for example, than a member of the President's Cabinet or a member of his staff. I have indicated that if a member of the President's Cabinet or his staff is indicted, he would have to resign pending the outcome of the trial.,However, the Vice President, like the President, is elected by all the people. He holds that office in his own right, and the decision as to whether he should resign is for him to make. He has indicated that he will not resign if indicted, and therefore, that decision on his part should be respected.,Q. Mr. President, have you ever asked for him to consider resigning?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not. I have noted the lively discussion about resignation here in the press room, and I understand that. But let me say that in all the conversations I have had with the Vice President, I have never asked him to resign. I have always told him--and he understands this position--that this matter is one for him to decide.,I would say further that as far as our discussions are concerned, they are privileged, and I will not go further than that, other than to say that we both agreed that we could make public the fact that the charges that have been made against him, and which he has denied publicly, he has denied to me privately on three occasions.,THE PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE AT SAN CLEMENTE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, at your last press conference you said that some of the Government work done at San Clemente had diminished the value of the property for use as a home. I would like to ask about two items that are in the GSA [General Services Administration] reports on it.,First, do you think that the $13,500 electrical heating system that was installed diminished its value? And, second, do you think that when the GSA hired a local landscape architect to redesign the flower beds on the west side of the residence four times a year, that they were spending the taxpayers' money wisely?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can plow that ground again, I guess. If any of you have lived in California, you will know that gas heat costs less than electric heat. I preferred the first, gas heat. For security reasons, apparently, they decided that it presented a fire hazard which could not be tolerated. And so that decision was made.,With regard to the other matters that have been brought up, I think full statements have been made over and over again on this, and I really think anything I would say in answer to your question, in view of the way you have already presented it as a statement, would not convince you or anybody else.,UNFILLED POSITIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask you two questions in one, because both relate to--,THE PRESIDENT. You are like Mr. Mollenhoff [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune]. You can ask three if you like.,Q. I will just ask a doubleheader, all right? Both are related to unfilled jobs. That is why I am putting them together.,We have not had an Ambassador in the Soviet Union now for going on to 9 months, and the Chairman of your Commission on Civil Rights, that job has been unfilled about 8 or 9 months, also. What are your plans on that?,THE PRESIDENT. The Ambassador to the Soviet Union is a very important post, and as a matter of fact, I discussed that with Dr. Kissinger just yesterday. I think we will have an announcement on it within the next e or 3 weeks.,With regard to the other position, that is one also that we consider to be very important, and it is at present being considered within the Domestic Council. I am sure a recommendation will be made to me soon, and we will try to fill it.,The main thing about these appointments, as I am sure you all know, is to get the right person, man or woman, for the job rather than to do it in too much of a hurry.,SENATOR PERCY AND THE 1976 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION,[6.] Mr. Beckman [Aldo B. Beckman, Chicago Tribune Press Service].,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us if you will actively oppose Senator Percy's efforts to win the 1976 Republican nomination, and if you will not, can you tell us what has changed since February when you suggested that you might?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have noted that particularly in the Chicago papers, not only the Tribune but the Sun-Times and the News--and is there another one there, too?,Q. Today.,THE PRESIDENT. And Today that there has been much speculation about my meeting with Senator Percy. It was a very candid discussion. I did say at one point, due to a misunderstanding, that I thought that Senator Percy should not be a candidate in '76, and as I told him when we met, that statement was made because I had understood that he had opposed Elliot Richardson for Attorney General right after I had announced that I was sending his name to the Senate, which I thought was a highly irresponsible thing to do in view of the fact that both Elliot Richardson and Senator Percy are in what we call the more liberal wing of the Republican Party.,Senator Percy, however, later explained that his resolution in that respect, that would have affected Elliot Richardson, had been misinterpreted, that he had actually introduced it prior to the time that I had made my announcement. Now, so much for the statement that was made in February.,Second, to put it all in perspective, whether it is Senator Percy on the one side, or one of several Governors or former Governors who might be a candidate, or mayor of Indianapolis, or a number of Senators and one or two House Members--all of them have a right to seek the Presidency if they so desire.,As far as I am concerned, I will make no decision with regard to supporting or opposing any one of these candidates until they have been tried in the field of battle. I think that we learned in the year 1972 that when an individual moves from the Senate--and I am referring now to the primaries--to the big leagues, or when he moves from the governorship to the big leagues--and we learned this in other years--that sometimes he can't hit the big league pitching. And I would like to see how these various potential candidates handle themselves in the primaries before making any decision with regard\" to who should be the candidate.,I am. not saying now, incidentally, categorically that I will endorse a candidate before the convention. I reserve the right to make that decision at a later time. But certainly, I would say finally that Senator Percy has been a vigorous campaigner for the Senate, an articulate spokesman--not always on the side of the Administration, but I respect differences of opinion--and he has every right to seek the Presidency. He will not be opposed at this time, and should he prove to be the strongest candidate, he will not be opposed, certainly, if he receives the nomination. I will support whoever receives that nomination.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT,[7.] Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News]. No. Go ahead, I am sorry.,Q. Mr. Risher [Eugene V. Risher, United Press International].,THE PRESIDENT. Gene Risher. You look like Jarriel though.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. YOU are not paid as much as he is though.,Q. I know.,THE PRESIDENT. UPI please note--a raise in salary.,Q. Could you tell us, Mr. President, if you have done any contingency planning about a possible Vice President in the event that Vice President Agnew leaves office for any reason?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Risher, certainly not. It would be highly inappropriate to have any contingency planning with regard to what should happen if the Vice President leaves office.,As far as the Vice President is concerned, I have said in my statement of the 25th of September that he has denied the charges that have been made against him, that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, which is the right of every American citizen, and I urge all of my fellow Americans to give him that presumption of innocence, as I certainly do. And particularly that presumption of innocence, I think, should be underlined in view of his years of distinguished service as Vice President, having in mind, too, the fact that the charges that have been made against him do not relate in any way to his activities as Vice President of the United States.,I would say further in that respect that I would hope that in this rather white-hot atmosphere, which I understand has developed since the Vice President's case came to public attention, that he will not be tried and convicted in the press and on television by leaks and innuendo and the rest. There is nothing really that is more harmful to the rights of an individual than to be tried and convicted in the press before he has an opportunity to present his case, and I would urge all of you ladies and gentlemen, because I know you want to be responsible in this respect, to make your judgments on the basis of all the evidence, not on the basis.,Q. Mr. President,THE PRESIDENT. Let me finish.--make your judgment on the basis of all the evidence and not simply on the basis of a unilateral charge that is made, not under oath.,Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Mollenhoff, yes, you.,Q. On that particular point, you have been briefed in some detail .on the evidence in the Agnew problem. You are also a lawyer with some expertise. You could tell us--,THE PRESIDENT. Some would question that.,Q. whether there is any substance to Mr. Agnew's charges that this is a frivolous investigation, that it is a frame-up, and that it is in fact a smear.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Mollenhoff, when you say that I have been briefed on the charges, I should respond to that by saying that I have not heard the witnesses. I have only been briefed on what it is believed the witnesses might testify to.,As far as the charges are concerned, they are serious and not frivolous. The Vice President's complaint, as you know, is that the leaks that have come out on this particular matter have convicted him in advance, and it is that particular point that concerns him, and it concerns me as well.,As a matter of fact, in the strongest terms I have spoken to the Attorney General about this matter. He shares my view. He has taken personal charge of the investigation with regard to leaks, and incidentally, he has assured me, Mr. Mollenhoff, that the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Petersen, whom, as you recall, I praised rather highly in my 22d of August press conference in San Clemente, was in no way--neither he nor members of his office in the Justice Department-involved in the leaks involving the Vice President.,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow up, please.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, you may follow up.,Q. Thank you.,In view of that remark, do you then still support Mr. Petersen's handling of the investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. If I did not support Mr. Petersen's handling of the investigation, he would have been removed at this time. But it would be a disservice to an individual who has served both Administrations with distinction for many, many years, to remove him from handling the investigation unless there was clear evidence that he had been guilty of an indiscretion, and I have taken this matter up quite directly with the Attorney General.,The Attorney General assures me that his investigation--his, the Attorney General's investigation--indicates that Mr. Petersen has handled this investigation without prejudice in advance and without, of course, engaging in what, in my view, is the totally inexcusable and inappropriate conduct of leaking information on a grand jury investigation.,PLANS FOR EUROPEAN TRIP,[8.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. In view of your sidewalk remark the other night 1 about travel plans, can you pinpoint for us any better your timing of your trip to Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis, it is difficult to pinpoint 'the timing of a trip to Europe, but in order that all of you can make your plans a little better, the trip to Europe will be made within the next few months, and the timing will be based on these factors: first, the progress which is made on the discussions now going on with regard to a declaration of principles with regard to the alliance and with regard to economic matters as well.,1On Monday, October 1, following dinner at a Washington restaurant, the President stopped to talk with an Italian family outside the restaurant and mentioned that he hoped to visit Europe in a few months.,The latter, as you know, I discussed with Mr. Ortoli when he was here.2 That progress is going on, incidentally, well ahead of schedule according to Dr. Kissinger. As soon as those preliminary negotiations are completed and as soon as it is clear on both sides of the Atlantic that this will be a trip not for protocol purposes, but one that will have real substance in it, then we will work out a date.,2The President met with Francois-Xavier Ortoli, President of the Commission of the European Communities, at the White House on October 1, 1973.,Now, the second factor, however, which enters into this is the Congressional schedule. I cannot take a trip to Europe or anyplace else at a time when there are matters before the Congress of very great significance. That is why I cannot pinpoint this in terms of saying that just as soon as the Europeans are ready, we will go.,If the Europeans are ready at a time that we have a heavy calendar in Congress, I shall have to postpone the trip until that.,But I would say I am thinking in terms of the next 3 or 4 months, but it might be sooner than that; probably not much later.,Now, with regard to Japan, I agreed with Mr. Tanaka, when he was here, that I would visit Japan before the end of 1974. We will, of course, make those plans again consistent with our developments on the bilateral side and at a time when we think that there is a matter of substance to be discussed or matters of substance to be discussed and at a time which is consistent with my responsibilities on the domestic front.,AUSTRIAN DECISION ON JEWISH EMIGREES FROM THE SOVIET UNION,[9.] Q. Could I ask, Mr. President--,THE PRESIDENT. This lady is--,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. You don't mind a lady going ahead of you, do you?,Q. No, sir.,Q. Thank you, sir.,Do you have any comment to make on the Austrian decision to close the Russian emigrant facilities?,THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me.,Q. The Austrian decision to close the Russian emigrant facilities.,THE PRESIDENT. I heard your question, but I wanted the radio to hear it, too.,Q. Oh, thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have. The Austrians are in a very difficult position here. As you know, I stopped in Austria on my way to Moscow and for the first time--no, the second time, met the Prime Minister, Mr. Kreisky, and anybody who knows his background knows that he is certainly not anti-Semitic. But Austria is in the eye of a hurricane, and Austria, therefore, being a relatively small country and relatively weak militarily, et cetera, is making a very, what I am sure for Mr. Kreisky, painful decision in this respect.,I recall, for example, that at the time of the Hungarian revolution, Austria opened its arms very generously to thousands of refugees, and I know that is the Austrian tradition and custom. I would hope--and I would express this--I would hope that the Prime Minister would reconsider his decision, even though I know he has even lately reiterated it, reconsider it for this fundamental reason that goes far beyond his country and even ours, and that is that we simply cannot have governments, small or large, give in to international blackmail by terrorist groups. That is what is involved.,Not to mention, of course, the fact that we all have a concern for the emigrees. They must have a place to come. So, on humanitarian grounds and on geopolitical grounds of the highest order, I believe that that decision should be reconsidered, but naturally, I am not going to put my friend, Mr. Kreisky, in the position of trying to dictate to him what it should be.,Now, you go ahead with your question.,PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS,[10.] Q. Sir, there is at least the possibility that if you don't give up the Watergate tapes, some of the cases or potential cases against your former aides might be aborted. I wonder if you are concerned about this and, further, whether you might see some room for compromise in the appellate court suggestion?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, since the appellate court is still considering the matter, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about what should be done with regard to compromise. As you know, discussions, extended discussions, took place between Mr. Buzhardt and the Special Prosecutor in this respect, and they agreed to disagree.3,3On September 20, 1973, the White House issued a letter from Charles Alan Wright, consultant to the Counsel to the President, to Hugh E. Kline, United States Court of Appeals Clerk, which reported the failure to reach a compromise on examination of the, subpoenaed Presidential tape recordings. The text of the letter is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 9, p.1166).,As far as the tapes are concerned, I have stated my position, and I restate it again today. The position is that the confidentiality of Presidential discussions must be maintained. And whether it is a Presidential paper, a memorandum of conversation prepared by a member of his staff after meeting with the President, or whether it is a tape of a conversation, it is the responsibility of the President, with regard to the separation-of-powers principle, to defend the integrity of those conversations so that Presidents in the future will be able to conduct freewheeling, extended conversations with no holds barred with foreign visitors and, of course, with those who come to see him from the United States.,UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with the proposition put forth by your CEA nominee, Mr. Fellner,4 that the country will have to abandon its goal of 4 percent unemployment and move to 5 percent, or perhaps higher, to fight inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I noticed Mr. Fellner's rather, shall we say, outspoken comments and also his comments with regard to Phase IV, where he said he thought that we should apparently--at least the press indicated that he thought that we should junk Phase IV pretty soon, or sooner than we certainly intend to do so.,4William J. Fellner was nominated to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers on September 25, 1973.,Before answering that question, let me say that I have found that economists are the most independent breed of the human species, except for members of the press. And the reason for that is that the American economy is highly unpredictable. It is a free economy.,I have found that my economic advisers are not always right, but they are always sure in everything that they recommend.,Now, as far as Mr. Fellner is concerned, whether the goal should be 4 percent or 5 percent is not really the point. The main thing is to get unemployment down as low as we can.,At the present time, this economy is going at full bore ahead--that is on the plus side--despite the unacceptable rate of inflation, and unemployment is, we trust, going to either stay where it is or come down.,But I am not going to say that we are going to abandon IV or go to V or go to VI. Our goal is to see that every American who wants to work, and who is qualified to work, can get a job. That is one that we must never give up on, and the percentages are not the main factor.,JAPAN AND EUROPE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, just a point of clarification.,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. In your discussion of the declaration of principles, there was an intention to include Japan as well as the European Communities. Is that still the case or has that been changed?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me explain what we feel now with regard to including Japan.,I have told all of our foreign visitors, Chancellor Brandt, and of course, Prime Minister Heath, President Pompidou, that it is vitally important that Japan-which is now the second major economic power in the world and, of course, in the Pacific, a potential, very great force for peace and stability--that Japan not be out of the club.,Now, they all agree. The difficulty is in writing a declaration with regard to the Atlantic Alliance which fits Japan; the difficulty is writing one with regard to the European Economic Community which fits Japan.,So, what we are presently thinking of is three declarations, one for the Atlantic Alliance, one for the Economic Community, and then a more general declaration to which the Japanese might be willing to adhere.,Now, I have gone beyond what we have worked out, but that is what we can expect.,Let me say finally that in that respect, I know that these declarations may not seem too important when we consider the domestic problems that presently obsess us. But it is essential at a time that we are having negotiations with the Soviets and with the People's Republic of China--it is essential that we breathe new life and new purpose and new spirit into the American-Atlantic Alliance and into the free world community, which includes Japan, and unless we do so, unless, for example, the Atlantic Alliance speaks to our times rather than to the times 25 years ago, it is going to fragment. Our European friends realize this, and I am glad to note that even the economic experts like Ortoli recognize it, too.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-09-05","text":"STATEMENT ABOUT LEGISLATIVE GOALS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, before going to your questions, I have a brief announcement that I think will be of interest not only to our listeners and to you but also to the Congress.,The Congress is returning today from its August recess, as I am, and as I look over the record of accomplishment this year, I find it is very disappointing in terms of the Administration initiatives, those initiatives that I believe are bipartisan in character and of vital importance to all of the American people.,Consequently, I will be sending what is in effect a new State of the Union message, one which will concentrate on the measures presently before the Congress which have not been acted upon and which I consider urgent to be acted upon before the end of this year.,I am not trying to present to the Congress an impossible task; consequently, I will not cover the whole waterfront, but it is important that in several areas that action be taken, or it will be too late to act for the interests of the people.,In my statement today, I will cover four or five areas that will be included in that message, which will be distributed to you on Sunday night and delivered to the Congress Monday at the time of the opening of business.,FIGHTING INFLATION,[2.] The first is the very high priority area of fighting inflation. As you know, we are going into a new set of tough controls on September 13. In addition to that, the Federal Reserve is tightening up on the money supply, and we are moving on the supply front, particularly in the field of agriculture, so that we can eventually look forward to halting the rise in food prices and, we trust, eventually lowering them.,These three areas are vitally important in fighting inflation, but the three alone are not enough without a fourth area. Inflation must be fought on four fronts at all times. And the fourth area, of course, is the Federal budget. It is very disconcerting to note that already before the Congress are spending proposals which, if enacted, would bust the budget to the tune of at least $6 billion. These proposals I do not look forward to vetoing and to go through the agony of having to fight with the Congress on the veto.,I trust that the Congress, in the spirit that Mr. \"Tip\" O'Neill1 suggested, may work with the Executive in this instance in finding a way to control the spending so that we do not break the budget and raise the prices of the family budget for every American.,1Representative Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, was majority leader of the House of Representatives.,NATIONAL DEFENSE,[3.] The second area has to do with the area of national defense. I have noted that several Members of the Congress have suggested that the way to balance the budget is to add to the domestic budget, to whatever amount they would like, and then to take it out of defense. This would be a fatal mistake, because we can have the finest domestic programs in the world and it isn't going to make any difference if we don't have our freedom and if we are not around to enjoy them.,At the present time, we are in negotiations with regard to the reduction of our forces in Europe. The Soviet Union, as you note, is moving forward in the modernization of its own weapon system, which they have a right to do trader the present SALT agreement. But we are looking forward in the next summit meeting, in which preparations are already going forward, to limiting nuclear arms including MIRV's [multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle] which, of course, will add a new dimension to their strength as well as to ours--limiting nuclear arms and thereby reducing not only the burden of armament but the danger of war for the whole world.,This great effort will be destroyed in the event that the Congress reduces the Federal budget for defense in a substantial amount. It means that we will go into these negotiations in a second-class position, and there will be no incentive whatever for the Soviet Union or others involved to negotiate with us for the mutual reduction, which is the only way to assure that we can have peace as well as limiting the burden of arms.,ENERGY,[4.] The third area is one that many of you ladies and gentlemen have been writing about for some months, and with very good reason, the area of energy. We were lucky this summer. We didn't have some of the things happen that we had feared would happen with regard to brownouts, et cetera, although there were some problems in some cities. But the prospect for the future could be very dangerous.,This Saturday, I am calling a meeting in which Governor Love will report to top Administration officials with regard to the whole energy problem. But essential to our success in meeting the energy needs for this winter and particularly for the future is Congressional action.,There are seven major proposals--including the Alaska pipeline, which you have all written about, including, for example, research and development in the field of coal and other areas, including the deregulation of gas produced in the United States--there are seven of these proposals in the energy field which the Congress has not yet acted upon. If the Congress does not act upon these proposals, it means that we will have an energy crisis, not perhaps just this winter but perhaps, certainly, later on as well.,And if the Congress does not act upon these proposals which, in effect, have as their purpose increasing the domestic capacity of the United States to create its energy, it means that we will be at the mercy of the producers of oil in the Mideast.,All of you ladies and gentlemen very properly have been writing of your concern about the developments in the Mideast which might cut off, or at least reduce, the supply of oil that goes to Europe and to the United States. Under these circumstances, to meet the problem of energy it is essential that we move in these energy areas that I have mentioned.,DOMESTIC PROGRAMS,[5.] Finally, there is the area that I could perhaps generally describe in the words of Mr. Mel Laird as being the whole domestic group of programs: the better schools act, the better communities act, and a new housing proposal that I will be sending to the Congress within the next 2 weeks. These are only three of several. I mention them because I think they are of vital importance, and I am going to urge the Congress to act on these proposals so that the country, in this period of peacetime, can begin to move forward on what are these, really, achievements and dividends for peace.,I could mention a number of other areas, but the message will speak for itself. I am simply suggesting in conclusion, at this time, that we have had this year, as far as the Congress is concerned, a disappointing performance so far. I am not placing individual blame on that. I am simply saying we have 3 months left, and I know that the Congress is usually a last quarter team. In that last quarter, we have to score a lot of points.,The Executive, the White House, all the agencies of the Government will work with the leaders of the Congress to move forward on these initiatives for the people. But it is time for us to turn to these initiatives that are in the interests of all the people and turn to them on an urgent basis.,QUESTIONS\nVICE PRESIDENT AGNEW AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY,[6.] I think Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International] has the first question.,Q. Mr. President, you met with the Vice President for 2 hours on Saturday. One, can you tell us what you talked about? Two, will you have any part in any future legal moves against the Vice President? And three, did you call John Connally afterwards, as reported?,THE PRESIDENT. Let us start, Miss Thomas, with the third part of the question. It is easier to remember the end of the question than the first.,As far as the third question, no, I have not talked to Governor Connally as reported, and I have not talked to him for the past several weeks. Nothing should be made of that one way or another, because I enjoy talking to the Governor, and it is very possible I may be talking to him in the future about energy or about a trip that he is going to be making abroad to various parts of the world, including the Mideast and possibly to the Soviet Union.,Second. with regard to the Vice President, we did meet for 2 hours. It, of course. is not appropriate for me to discuss what the subject was. We went over a number of matters of mutual interest in which he has major responsibilities.,I will say, finally, that with regard to the Vice President and all other questions that may relate to him, when I last met with you ladies and gentlemen in the sun in California--as distinguished from the sun in the East Room--I recall very well that there were several questions about the Vice President, what would happen in the event that this happened or that, in the event that he were indicted, et cetera.,Let me say that I tried to respond to those questions then. I expressed my confidence in the Vice President's integrity during the period that he has served as Vice President and during which I have known him, but I declined to comment on those questions which were purely hypothetical and which would be a grave infringement upon the rights of the Vice President--to comment upon what would happen if certain things were to occur in the course of an investigation that is presently going on, I understand, in Baltimore in a grand jury.,I will simply say this: As far as such questions are concerned, you are welcome to ask them, but I will not dignify any such questions with regard to charges that have been made by innuendo and otherwise against the Vice President. I will not dignify them with an answer; it would be an infringement on his rights.,OIL AND THE MIDDLE EAST,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you alluded to this a moment ago, but what exactly are you doing to meet these threats from the Arab countries to use oil as a club to force a change in our Middle East policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], that has been a subject of major concern, and what we are doing, some can be talked about and some cannot. Obviously, we are having discussions with some of the companies involved. Obviously, as far as some of the nations involved--for example, Libya-our relations are not that close that we could have too much influence.,With regard to Saudi Arabia, perhaps the relations which the United States has with Saudi Arabia might lead to more influence there.,What I would suggest is this: In a broader context, the answer to the problem of oil that we presently depend upon in the Mideast--we depend on it not, of course, nearly as much as Europe, but we are all in the same bag when you really come down to it--the problem that we have here is that as far as the Arab countries are concerned, the ones that are involved here, is that it is tied up with the Arab-Israeli dispute. That is why, in talking to Dr. Kissinger both before I nominated him and since, that we have put at the highest priority moving toward making some progress toward the settlement of that dispute. That is one side of it.,The other problems, of course, are the radical elements that presently seem to be on the ascendancy in various countries in the Mideast, like Libya. Those elements, of course, we are not in a position 'to control, although we may be in a position to influence them, influence them for this reason: Oil without a market, as Mr. Mossadeq2 learned many, many years ago, does not do a country much good. We and Europe are the market, and I think that the responsible Arab leaders will see to it that if they continue to up the price, if they continue to expropriate, if they do expropriate without fair compensation, the inevitable result is that they will lose their markets, and other sources will be developed.,2Mohammad Mossadeq, Prime Minister of Iran (1951-52).,THE PRESIDENT'S PROPERTIES AND FINANCES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some conflicting reports about your real estate dealings in California, and I would like to ask about that. Several different versions have been released by the White House, both as to your own personal financial involvement and as to the Government's expenditures in San Clemente and at Key Biscayne, and your auditors, I understand from news reports, say that the entire audit has not been released on your financial dealings out there.,I would like to ask you why we have had so many conflicting reports to start with, and second, one of the questions that is raised by the only partial release of the audit is, have you paid the taxes on the gain realized in the sale of the land to Rebozo and Abplanalp at San Clemente?,THE PRESIDENT. Any other questions you want to go into?,Of course, whatever a President does in the field of his property is public knowledge, and questions of that sort I do not resent at all. I do resent, I might say, the implications, however, first, that whether at Key Biscayne or in San Clemente my private property was enriched because of what the Government did.,As a matter of fact, what the Government did at San Clemente reduced the value of the property. If you see three Secret Service gazebos and if you see some of the other fences that block out the rather beautiful view to the hills and the mountains that I like, you would realize that what I say is quite true; it reduces its value as far as a residential property is concerned.,The second point is this: At rather considerable expense, and a great deal of time on my part, I ordered an audit, an audit by a firm highly respected, Coopers & Lybrand of New York. That audit has been completed.3 It covered at my request not simply the last year, but it covered the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972.,3On August 27, 1973, the White House released an announcement of the Coopers & Lybrand audit of the transactions in connection with the President's properties in California and Florida. The announcement and the text of a letter to the President and Mrs. Nixon from Coopers & Lybrand detailing the results of the audit are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 9, P. 1036).,The audit has been completed, and the audit gave the lie to the reports that were carried, usually in eight-column heads in most of the papers of this country--and, incidentally, the retractions ended back up with the corset ads for the most part-but on the other hand, it gave the lie to the charge that there was $ I million worth. of campaign funds, that that is how I acquired the property in San Clemente.,It also gave the lie to any other charges that as far as my acquisitions in Florida are concerned, or in California, that there was any money there except my own.,Now, I would make two or three other points briefly about it that I think all laymen could understand. I borrowed the money to acquire the property, and I still owe it. I own no stocks and no bonds--I think I am the first President in this office since Harry Truman--I don't own a stock or a bond. I sold everything before I came into office.,All that I have are the two pieces of property in Florida which adjoin each other, the piece of property in San Clemente with which you are familiar, and a house on Whittier Boulevard in which my mother once lived. I have no other property, and I owe money on all of them.,Third, as far as the capital gain matter, which is a technical matter that you have mentioned, I should point out--and maybe this is good news for people who wonder if Presidents are exempt from what the IRS does--the IRS has had a full field review or audit of my income tax returns for 1971 and 1972 and included in its audit the transaction which you refer to, in which some argue there was a capital gain and some argue that there was not. It is a matter of difference between accountants.,The IRS, after its audit, did not order any change. If it had, I would have paid the tax. It did not order a change.,Now, with regard to the audit itself is concerned, the results of that audit insofar as the acquisition of the property have been put out. That is all that is going to be put out, because I think that is a full disclosure.,I would simply say, finally, that in this particular case I realize that naturally there is a suspicion that a President, because he has the great power of this office and because he has the benefit of Secret Service, GSA, and all the rest to protect him, that he some way or other is going to profit from all of that security that is provided for him.,As I pointed out in my press conference 2 weeks ago, I'd far less rather have the security than have my privacy, but that just can't be done.,INFLATION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, a couple of economic questions, please. You said in your opening statement that you hope eventually that inflation will be stopped. Can you define \"eventually\" more specifically? And furthermore, what, if anything, should be done now to free up mortgage money for home purposes?,THE PRESIDENT. I am afraid I cannot be any more perceptive than my economic advisers have been, and their guesses with regard to, as you know, the numbers, insofar as inflation this year, have not been very good. I do not blame them, however, because as you know, we had the problems of weather in the United States and abroad, an unprecedented demand abroad which was unforeseen as far as we were concerned, that gave the impetus to food prices, and there were other factors which led to the inflationary pressures which our economic advisers did not foresee.,I cannot set a date on it, no. I mean, if I were to try to, I would be misleading the public, the people, as to when they could expect that inflation would start to recede. I do say this, however: We are doing everything that we think should be done and that can be done, to stop the inflation without bringing on a recession, and that is the name of the game.,It is very easy to turn the crank so tight that you have a hard landing, and we don't want a hard landing. We have had too many experiences like that, as you know, since World War II. So, what we have then is a system of controls, as I have indicated earlier. We are tightening up on the Federal Reserve, we are--Arthur Burns, in his independent capacity, with the board members are, I should say-and in addition to that we are, of course, increasing supplies on the food front.,My economic advisers tell me that over the next few months, we should begin to see some of the benefits from this, and that is as far as I will go in terms of indicating what that situation would be.,THE TAX STRUCTURE,[10.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. In that connection, do you now feel that the tax structure should be altered in any way to help strengthen the economy and, if so, how?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis, a number of my advisers, including, incidentally, Arthur Burns, have strongly recommended that the answer to this whole problem of inflation is the tax structure, you know, or there is this .gimmick and that one. And by saying \"gimmick,\" I don't mean to say anything disrespectful to Arthur Burns, because he is very important to us at this moment, or to Wilbur Mills, who has talked about some of these things.,For example, there has been the suggestion, as you know, insofar as the investment credit is concerned, to have it in the power of the President to move it from 3 percent to 15 percent. I think that is an excellent idea, but there isn't a chance that Congress is ever going to give the President that power.,President Kennedy found that out-Wilbur Mills told me about the conversation in a very amusing dialog we had in the office a few weeks ago--when he asked for the power of the President, then, even when the Congress was, the Members, in control of his own party, to move taxes up and down, depending upon the needs of the economy.,So, what I would say, Mr. Theis, is this: I think a number of suggestions have been made on the tax front which might be helpful in the control of inflation, but there isn't a chance that a responsible tax bill would be passed by this Congress in time to deal with that problem.,PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS AND COURT RULINGS,[11.] Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News].,Q. Mr. President, in association with the legal dispute going on over possession of the Presidential tapes relating to Watergate conversations in your office, you and your attorneys have said you would abide only by a definitive ruling of the Supreme Court in this case. As it moves along, the definitive ruling--an interpretation of \"definitive ruling\" takes on great importance. Would you elaborate for us what you mean by a \"definitive ruling?\",THE PRESIDENT. NO, Mr. Jarriel, that would not be appropriate. I discussed this with White House Counsel, and as you know, the matter is now on appeal, and the appellate procedure will now go to the Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia and, if necessary,, further on. The matter of definitive ruling is one that will be discussed in the appeal procedure, and for me, in advance of the discussion, the briefs, the oral arguments, to discuss that would be inappropriate.,I think we should come to Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News] now.,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow on to my colleague Tom Jarriel's question, while I can understand--,THE PRESIDENT. It shows the two networks working together.,Q. No, not always, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank heaven you are competitors.,Q. This is a question that we find a lot of people ask us.,THE PRESIDENT. Surely.,Q. As you know, President Lincoln said, \"No man is above the law.\" Now, for most, if not every other American, any Supreme Court decision is final, whether the person, in terms of the decision, finds it definitive or not. Would you explain to us why you feel that you are in a different category,, why, as it applies to you, that you will abide only by what you call a definitive decision and that you won't even define \"definitive?\",THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Rather, with all due deference to your comment with regard to President Lincoln, he was a very strong President, and as you may recall, he indicated several times during his Presidency that he would move in the national interest in a way that many thought was perhaps in violation of the law--the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, for example, during the Civil War for 15,000 people, and other items, to mention only one.,As far as I am concerned, I am simply saying that the President of the United States, under our Constitution, has a responsibility to this office to maintain the separation of power and also maintain the ability of not only this President but future Presidents to conduct the office in the interests of the people.,Now, in order to do that, it is essential that the confidentiality of discussions that the President has--with his advisers, with Members of Congress, with visitors from abroad, with others who come in--that those discussions be uninhibited, that they be candid, they be freewheeling.,Now, in the event that Presidential papers, or in the event that Presidential conversations as recorded on 'tapes, in my opinion, were made available to a court, to a judge in camera, or to a committee of Congress, that principle would be so seriously jeopardized that it would probably destroy that principle--the confidentiality which is so essential and indispensable for the proper conduct of the Presidency.,That is why I have taken the hard line that I have taken with regard to complying with the lower court's order.,Now, when we come to the Supreme Court, the question there is what kind of an order is the Supreme Court going to issue, if any. And as I have said in answer to Mr. Jarriel, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on whether an order would be definitive or not. I will simply say that as far as I am concerned, we are going to fight the tape issue. We believe, my Counsel believe, that we will prevail in the appellate courts.,And so, consequently, I will not respond to your question util we go through the appellate procedure.,WATERGATE INVESTIGATION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, to follow up on that Watergate question, you have referred repeatedly to having ordered a new Watergate investigation on the 21st of March of this year. Now, several high officials of your Administration, Mr. Petersen, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kleindienst, have testified before the Senate committee that they didn't know anything about it, this investigation that you referred to. And I wonder if you could explain how it is that they apparently didn't know anything about this new investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because I had ordered the investigation from within the White House itself. The investigation, up to that time, had been conducted by Mr. Dean, and I thought by him working with, as he had been, in close communication with the Justice Department.,I turned the investigation--asked Mr. Dean to continue his investigation as I, as you remember, said last week, e weeks ago, in answer to a similar question. When he was unable to write a report, I turned to Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Ehrlichman did talk to the Attorney General, I should remind you, on the 27th of March--I think it was the 27th of March. The Attorney General was quite aware of that, and Mr. Ehrlichman, in addition, questioned all of the major figures involved and reported to me on the 14th of April and then, at my suggestion--direction, turned over his report to the Attorney General on the 15th of April. An investigation was conducted in the most thorough way.,PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you listed several areas of domestic concern--,THE PRESIDENT. Now we have the three networks.,Q. You listed several areas of domestic concern in the message you are going to send to Congress, but it has also been written that one of the major problems facing your Administration now is rebuilding confidence in your leadership. Do you share that view, and if so, how do you plan 'to cope with it?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Valeriani [Richard Valeriani, NBC News], that is a problem, it is true. It is rather difficult to have the President of the United States on prime time television--not prime time, although I would suppose the newscasters would say that the news programs are really the prime time--but for 4 months to have the President of the United States by innuendo, by leak, by, frankly, leers and sneers of commentators, which is their perfect right, attacked in every way without having some of that confidence being worn away.,Now, how is it restored? Well, it is restored by the President not allowing his own confidence to be destroyed; that is to begin. And second, it is restored by doing something. We have tried to do things. The country hasn't paid a great deal of attention to it, and I may say the media hasn't paid a great deal of attention to it because your attention, quite understandably, is in the more fascinating area of Watergate.,Perhaps that will now change. Perhaps as we move in the foreign policy initiatives now, having ended one war, to build a structure of peace, moving not only with the Soviet Union and with the PRC [People's Republic of China]--where Dr. Kissinger, incidentally, will go, after he is confirmed by the Senate, which I hope will be soon--but as we move in those areas and as we move on the domestic front, the people will be concerned about what the President does, and I think that that will restore the confidence. What the president says will not restore it, and what you ladies and gentlemen say will certainly not restore it.,CONTENT OF PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, to follow up on the tapes question, earlier you have told us that your reasons are based on principle--separation of powers, executive privilege, things of this sort. Can you assure us that the tapes do not reflect unfavorably on your Watergate position, that there is nothing in the tapes that would reflect unfavorably?,THE PRESIDENT. There is nothing whatever. As a matter of fact, the only time I listened to the tapes, to certain tapes--and I didn't listen to all of them, of course--was on June 4. There is nothing whatever in the tapes that is inconsistent with the statement that I made on May 22 or of the statement that I made to you ladies and gentlemen in answer to several questions--rather searching questions I might say, and very polite questions 2 weeks ago, for the most part--and finally, nothing that differs whatever from the statement that I made on the 15th of August. That is not my concern.,My concern is the one that I have expressed, and it just does not cover tapes, it covers the appearance of a President before a Congressional committee, which Mr. Truman very properly turned down in 1953, although some of us at that time thought he should have appeared. This was after he had left the Presidency, but it had to do with matters while he was President. It covers papers of the President written for him and communications with him, and it covers conversations with the President that are recorded on tape.,Confidentiality once destroyed cannot, in my opinion, be restored.,MINIMUM WAGE BILL,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you intend to veto a minimum wage bill, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes--with very great regret. My Secretary of Labor, Mr. Brennan, has urged me to sign it. As a teamplayer he, however, recognizes some of the arguments that I have made for not signing it. What it has to do is not my dedication to the minimum wage; I have always voted for it in the past, and I have signed several bills in this Administration, at least two. The difficulty is that the minimum wage bill which is presently before me on my desk would raise the minimum wage by 38 percent. It would deny employment opportunities to unskilled and younger workers who at present are in the highest numbers and the highest percentage of unemployment; it would increase unemployment. And it would give an enormous boost to inflation. Therefore, I am going to ask the Congress in my veto message to write a new bill, to send one down that will not be inflationary and that will not cost jobs for those who need jobs among the unskilled and the younger workers.,ARAB OIL,[16.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to check the Arab oil pressure, if I may, again. Is it possible that the threat of limiting the supply of oil would cause a moderation in U.S. support of Israel?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that that question is one that has been understandably speculated about a great deal in the press, but obviously for the President of the United States, in answer to such a question, to suggest that we are going to relate our policy toward Israel, which has to do with the independence of that country to which we are dedicated, to what happens on Arab oil, I think, would be highly inappropriate. I will say this, and I will put it in another context, however. Israel simply can't wait for the dust to settle and the Arabs can't wait for the dust to settle in the Mideast. Both sides are at fault. Both sides need to start negotiating. That is our position.,We are not pro-Israel, and we are not pro-Arab, and we are not any more pro-Arab because they have oil and Israel hasn't. We are pro-peace and it is the interest of the whole area for us to get those negotiations off dead center. And that is why we will use our influence with Israel, and we will use our influence, what influence we have, with the various Arab States, and a non-Arab State like Egypt, to get those negotiations off.,Now, one of the dividends of having a successful negotiation will be to reduce the oil pressure.,BIPARTISAN CONCERNS,[17.] Mr. terHorst [J. F. terHorst, Detroit News, North American Newspaper Alliance].,Q. Sir, you mentioned a while ago Representative O'Neill's proposal that the Democratic leadership of Congress and the President get together on some bipartisan areas. Can you suggest some bills or some measures of vital concern which a new bipartisanship in his format would work out?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would suggest, Mr. terHorst, the ones I mentioned in my opening statement would all fit in that category, with the possible exception of those that I said were in Mr. Laird's particular responsibility--better schools, better housing, and also the better communities act. Those do involve basic philosophic differences, and bipartisanship may not be possible, but on the other hand, holding the budget down so that we don't have inflation is a bipartisan concern.,Maintaining a national defense that is adequate so that the United States is not in a second position in dealing with the Soviet Union or any other country in the world is a bipartisan concern. Seeing to it that we have adequate energy supplies. In fact, some of the best conversations I have had and the best suggestions I have had in the field of energy have come from Democrats, Senator Jackson among them. I think that we should get a bipartisan policy going with regard to dealing with the problems of energy, and there could be others.,PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask you one more question about the tapes. If you win the case in the Supreme Court--,THE PRESIDENT. That's the fifth one.,Q and establish the right of confidentiality for Presidents, then would you be willing voluntarily to disclose the tapes to dispel the doubt about their content?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, again I would like to respond to that question in a categorical way, but I shall not, due to the fact that when the matter, as it is at the present time, is actually in the appeal process, White House Counsel advise that it would not be appropriate to comment in any way about what is going to happen during that process. You put that question to me a little later, I will be glad to respond to it.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-08-22","text":"SECRETARY OF STATE,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement before going to your questions.,It is with the deep sense of not only official regret but personal regret, that I announce the resignation of Secretary of State William Rogers, effective September 3. A letter, which will be released to the press after this conference, will indicate my appraisal of his work as Secretary of State.,I will simply say at this time that he wanted to leave at the conclusion of the first 4 years. He agreed to stay on, because we had some enormously important problems coming up, including the negotiations which resulted in the end of the war in Vietnam, the Soviet summit, the European Security Conference, as well as in other areas--Latin America and in Asia--where the Secretary of State, as you know, has been quite busy over these past 8 months.,As he returns to private life, we will not only miss him, in terms of his official service, but I shall particularly miss him because of his having been, through the years, a very close personal friend and adviser.,That personal friendship and advice, however, I hope still to have the benefit of, and I know that I will.,As his successor, I shall nominate and send to the Senate for confirmation the name of Dr. Henry Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger will become Secretary of State, assume the duties of the office after he is confirmed by the Senate. I trust the Senate will move expeditiously on the confirmation hearings, because there are a number of matters of very great importance that are coming up.,There are, for example, some matters that might even involve some foreign travel by Dr. Kissinger that will have to be delayed in the event that the Senate hearings are delayed.,Dr. Kissinger's qualifications for this post, I think, are well known by all of you ladies and gentlemen, as well as those looking to us and listening to us on television and radio.,He will retain the position, after he becomes Secretary of State, of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In other words, he will have somewhat a parallel relationship to the White House which George Shultz has. George Shultz, as you know, is Secretary of the Treasury, but is also an Assistant to the President in the field of economic affairs.,The purpose of this arrangement is to have a closer coordination between the White House and the departments, and in this case, between the White House, the national security affairs, the NSC, and the State Department, which carries a major load in this area.,And also, another purpose is to get the work out in the departments where it belongs, and I believe that this change in this respect, with Dr. Kissinger moving in as Secretary of State and still retaining the position as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, will serve the interest not only of coordination but also of the interests of an effective foreign policy.,I will simply say, finally, with regard to Secretary Rogers, that he can look back on what I think, and I suppose it is a self-serving statement but I will say it about him rather than about myself at the moment, one of the most successful eras of foreign policy in any administration in history--an era in which we ended a war, the longest war in America's history; an era, in addition, in which we began to build a structure of peace, particularly involving the two great powers, the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, where before there had been nothing but ugly and, at some times, very, very difficult confrontation.,We still have a long way to go. There are trouble spots in the area of the Mideast, others--Southeast Asia, which we could go into in detail.,But as Secretary Rogers looks back on his years--4 1/2 years of service as Secretary of State--he can be very proud that he was one of the major architects of what I think was a very successful foreign policy.,QUESTIONS,RECORDING OF PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS,[2.] And now, we will go to the questions. I think AP, Miss Lewine [Frances L. Lewine, Associated Press] has the first question.,Q. Mr. President, on Watergate, you have said that disclosure of the tapes could jeopardize and cripple the functions of the Presidency. Two questions: If disclosure carries such a risk, why did you make the tapes in the first place, and what is your reaction to surveys that show three out of four Americans believe you were wrong to make the tapes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, with regard to the questions as to why Americans feel we were wrong to make the tapes, that is not particularly surprising. I think that most Americans do not like the idea of the taping of conversations, and frankly, it is not something that particularly appeals to me.,As a matter of fact, that is why, when I arrived in the White House and saw this rather complex situation set up where there was a taping capacity, not only in the President's office, the room outside of his office, but also in the Cabinet Room and at Camp David and in other areas, that I had the entire system dismantled. It was put into place again in June of 1970 (1971 ), because my advisers felt it was important in terms particularly of national security affairs to have a record for future years that would be an accurate one, but a record which would only be disclosed at the discretion of the President or according to directives that he would set forth.,As you know, of course, this kind of capability not only existed during the Johnson Administration, it also existed in the Kennedy Administration, and I can see why both President Johnson and President Kennedy did have the capability because--not because they wanted to infringe upon the privacy of anybody, but because they felt that they had some obligation, particularly in the field of foreign policy and some domestic areas, to have a record that would be accurate.,As far as I am concerned, we now do not have that capability, and I am just as happy that we don't. As a matter of fact, I have a practice, whenever I am not too tired at night, of dictating my own recollections of the day. I think that, perhaps, will be the more accurate record of history in the end.,THE WATERGATE INVESTIGATION,[3.] I think we go to the UP now, and then we will come to the television.,Q. Mr. President, on July 6, 1972, you were warned by Patrick Gray that you were being mortally wounded by some of your top aides. Can you explain why you did not ask who they were, why, what was going on?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the telephone conversation that you refer to that has been, of course, quite widely reported in the press as well as on television, Mr. Gray said that he was concerned that as far as the investigation that he had responsibility for, that some of my top aides were not cooperating.,Whether the term was used as \"mortally wounded\" or not, I don't know. Some believe that it was, some believe that it was not, that is irrelevant. He could have said that.,The main point was, however, I asked him whether or not he had discussed this matter with General Walters,1 because I knew that there had been meetings between General Walters, representing the CIA, to be sure that the CIA did not become involved in the investigation, and between the Director of the FBI.,1Lt. Gen. Vernon A. Waiters, USA, Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency.,He said that he had. He told me that General Walters agreed that the investigation should be pursued, and I told him to go forward with a full press on the investigation to which he has so testified.,It seemed to me that with that kind of a directive to Mr. Gray, that that was adequate for the purpose of carrying out the responsibilities.,As far as the individuals were concerned, I assume that the individuals that he was referring to involved this operation with the CIA. That is why I asked him the Walters question. When he cleared that up, he went forward with the investigation, and he must have thought it was a very good investigation because when I sent his name down to the Senate for confirmation the next year, I asked him about his investigation. He said he was very proud of it. He said it was the most thorough investigation that had ever taken place since the assassination of President Kennedy, that he could defend it with enthusiasm, and that under the circumstances, therefore, he had carried out the directive that I had given him on July 6.,So, there was no question about Mr. Gray having direct orders from the President to carry out an investigation that was thorough.,ACCESS TO PRESIDENTIAL TAPE RECORDINGS,[4.] Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News],Q. Mr. President, Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen has testified that on April 15 of this year he met with you and warned you at that time there might be enough evidence to warrant indictments against three of your top aides, Messrs. Ehrlichman, Haldeman, and Dean. You accepted their resignations on April 30, calling Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman two of the finest public servants you had known. After that, you permitted Mr. Haldeman, after he had left the White House, to hear confidential tapes of conversations you had had in your office with Mr. Dean. My question is, why did you permit a man who you knew might be indicted to hear those tapes which you now will not permit the American public or the Federal prosecutors handling the case to listen to?,THE PRESIDENT. The only tape that has been referred to, that Mr. Haldeman has listened to, he listened to at my request, and he listened to that tape--that was the one on September 15, Mr. Jarriel--because he had been present and was there. I asked him to listen to it in order to be sure that as far as any allegations that had been made by Mr. Dean with regard to that conversation is concerned, I wanted to be sure that we were absolutely correct in our response. That is all he listened to. He did not listen to any tapes in which only Mr. Dean and I participated. lie listened only to the tape on September 15--this is after he left office-in which he had participated in the conversation throughout.,PRINCIPLE OF CONFIDENTIALITY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, one of the lingering doubts about your denial of any involvement is concerning your failure to make the tapes available either to the Senate committee or the Special Prosecutor. You have made it perfectly clear you don't intend to release those tapes.,THE PRESIDENT. Perfectly clear?,Q. Perfectly clear. But is there any way that you could have some group listen to tapes and give a report so that that might satisfy the public mind?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe, first, it would satisfy the public mind, and it should not. The second point is that as Mr. Wright,2 who argued the case, I understand very well, before Judge Sirica this morning, has indicated, to have the tapes listened to--he indicated this also in his brief 3--either by a prosecutor or by a judge or in camera or in any way, would violate the principle of confidentiality, and I believe he is correct. That is why we are standing firm on the proposition that we will not agree to the Senate committee's desire to have, for example, its chief investigator listen to the tapes, or the Special Prosecutor's desire to hear the tapes, and also why we will oppose, as Mr. Wright did in his argument this morning, any, compromise of the principle of confidentiality.,2Charles Alan Wright, consultant to the Counsel to the President.,3On August 7, and on August 17, briefs responding to the grand jury subpoena requiring production of Presidential tape recordings and documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by attorneys for the President. The texts of the briefs are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 9, PP. 961 and 999).,Let me explain very carefully that the principle of confidentiality either exists or it does not exist. Once it is compromised, once it is known that a conversation that is held with the President can be subject to a subpoena by a Senate committee, by a grand jury, by a prosecutor, and be listened to by anyone, the principle of confidentiality is thereby irreparably damaged. Incidentally, let me say that now that tapes are no longer being made, I suppose it could be argued that, what difference does it make now, now that these tapes are also in the past. What is involved here is not only the tapes; What is involved, as you ladies and gentlemen well know, is the request on the part of the Senate committee, and the Special Prosecutor as well, that we turn over Presidential papers--in other words, the records of conversations with the President made by his associates. Those papers, and the tapes as well, cannot be turned over without breaching the principle of confidentiality. It was President Truman that made that argument very effectively in his letter to a Senate committee-or his response to a Congressional committee, a House committee it was, in 1953--when they asked him to turn over his papers. So, whether it is a paper or whether it is a tape, what we have to bear in mind is that for a President to conduct the affairs of this office and conduct them effectively, he must be able to do so with the principle of confidentiality intact. Otherwise, the individuals who come to talk to him, whether it is his advisers, or whether it is a visitor in the domestic field, or whether it is someone in a foreign field, will always be speaking in a eunuch-like way, rather than laying it on the line, as it has to be laid on the line if you are going to have the creative kind of discussion that we have often had, and it bas been responsible for some of our successes in the foreign policy period, particularly in the past few years.,ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPANTS IN THE INVESTIGATION,[6.] Q. Nit. President, could you tell us who you personally talked to in directing that investigations be made both in June of '72, shortly after the Watergate incident, and last March 21, when you got new evidence and ordered a more intensive investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly. In June, I, of course, talked to Mr. MacGregor4 first of all, who was the new chairman of the committee. He told me that he would conduct a thorough investigation as far as his entire committee staff was concerned. Apparently that investigation was very effective except for Mr. Magruder,5 who stayed on. But Mr. MacGregor does not have to assume responsibility for that. I say not responsibility for it, because basically what happened there was that be believed Mr. Magruder, and many others have believed him, too. He proved, however, to be wrong.,4Clark MacGregor was campaign director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President from July to November 1972.,5Jeb Stuart Magruder was deputy director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President from May 1971 to November 1972.,In the White House, the investigation's responsibility was given to Mr. Ehrlichman at the highest level, and in turn, be delegated them to Mr. Dean, the White House Counsel, something of which I was aware and of which I approved.,Mr. Dean, as White House Counsel, therefore sat in on the FBI interrogations of the members of the White House Staff, because what I wanted to know was whether any member of the White House Staff was in any way involved. If he was involved, he would be fired. And when we met on September 15, and again throughout our discussions in the month of March, Mr. Dean insisted that there was not and I use his words---\"a scintilla of evidence\" indicating that anyone on the White House Staff was involved in the planning of the Watergate break-in.,Now, in terms of after March 21, Mr. Dean first was given the responsibility to write his own report, but I did not rest it there. I also had a contact made with the Attorney General himself, Attorney General Kleindienst, told him it was on the 27th of March--to report to me directly anything that he found in this particular area. And I gave the responsibility to Mr. Ehrlichman on the 29th of March to continue the investigation that Mr. Dean was unable to conclude, having spent a week at Camp David and unable to finish the report.,Mr. Ehrlichman questioned a number of people in that period at my direction, including Mr. Mitchell, and I should also point out that as far as my own activities were concerned, I was not leaving it just to them. I met at great length with Mr. Ehrlictman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Mitchell on the 22d. I discussed the whole matter with them. I kept pressing for the view that I had had throughout, that we must get this story out, get the truth out, whatever and whoever it is going to hurt, and it was there that Mr. Mitchell suggested that all the individuals involved in the White House appear in an executive session before the Ervin committee. We never got that far, but at least that is an indication of the extent of my own investigation.,TESTIMONY OF FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL,[7.] I think we will go to Mr. Lisagor now [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News],Q. Mr. President, you have said repeatedly that you tried to get all the facts, and just now you mentioned the March 22 meeting. Yet former Attorney General John Mitchell said that if you had ever asked him at any time about the Watergate matter, he would have told you the whole story, chapter and verse. Was Mr. Mitchell not speaking the truth when he said that before the committee?,THE PRESIDENT. Now, Mr. Lisagor, I am not going to question Mr. Mitchell's veracity, and I will only say that throughout I had confidence in Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell, in a telephone call that I had with him immediately after it occurred, expressed great chagrin that he had not run a tight enough shop and that some of the boys, as he called them, got involved in this kind of activity, which he knew to be very, very embarrassing, apart from its illegality, to the campaign. Throughout, I would have expected Mr. Mitchell to tell me in the event that he was involved or that anybody else was. He did not tell me. I don't blame him for not telling me. He has given his reasons for not telling me. I regret that he did not, because he is exactly right. Had he told me, I would have blown my stack, just as I did at Ziegler the other day. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder, sir, how much personal blame, to what degree of personal blame do you accept for the climate in the White House, and at the Re-Election Committee, for the abuses of Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. I accept it all.,THE ELLSBERG CASE; MEETINGS WITH JUDGE BYRNE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I want to state this question with due respect to your office, but also as directly as possible.,THE PRESIDENT. That would be unusual. [Laughter],Q. I would like to think not, sir. It concerns--,THE PRESIDENT. You are always respectful, Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News]. You know that.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President. It concerns the events surrounding Mr. Ehrlichman's contact and, on one occasion, your own contact with the judge in the Pentagon Papers case, .Judge Byrne.6,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,6William M. Byrne, Jr., United States District Judge for the Central District of California.,Q. As I understand your own explanation of events, and putting together your statement with Mr. Ehrlichman's testimony and what Judge Byrne has said, what happened here is that sometime late in March--March 17, I believe you said--you first found out about the break-in at the psychiatrist's office of Mr. Ellsberg, that you asked to have that looked into and that you later, I think in late April, instructed Attorney General Kleindienst to inform the judge.,Now, my question is this: that, while the Pentagon Papers trial was going on, Mr. Ehrlichman secretly met once with the judge in that case, you secretly met another time the judge with Mr. Ehrlichman. Now, you are a lawyer, and given the state of the situation and what you knew, could you give us some reason why the American people should not believe that that was at least a subtle attempt to bribe the judge in that case, and it gave at least the appearance of a lack of moral leadership?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say the only part of your statement that is perhaps accurate is that I am a lawyer. Now, beyond that, Mr. Rather, let me say that with regard to the \"secret\" meeting that we had with the judge, as he said, I met the judge briefly--after all, I had appointed him to the position--I met him for perhaps one minute outside my door here in full view of the whole White House Staff and everybody else who wanted to see. I asked him how he liked his job--we did not discuss the case-and he went on for his meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman.,Now, why did the meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman take place? Because we had determined that Mr. Gray could not be confirmed, as you will recall. We were on a search for a Director of the FBI. Mr. Kleindienst had been here, and I asked him what he would recommended with regard to a Director, and I laid down certain qualifications.,I said I wanted a man preferably with FBI experience, and preferably with prosecutor's experience, and preferably, if possible, a Democrat so that we would have no problem on confirmation. He said, \"The man for the job is Byrne.\" He said, \"He is the best man.\" I said, \"Would you recommend him?\" He said, \"Yes.\",Under those circumstances then, Mr. Ehrlichman called Mr. Byrne. He said: Under no circumstances will we talk to you--he, Ehrlichman, will talk to you-if lie felt that it would in any way compromise his handling of the Ellsberg case.,Judge Byrne made the decision that he would talk to Mr. Ehrlichman, and he did talk to him privately, here. And on that occasion, he talked to him privately, the case was not discussed at all--only the question of whether or not, at the conclusion of this case, Mr. Byrne would like to be considered as Director of the FBI.,I understand, incidentally, that he told Mr. Ehrlichman that he would be interested. Of course, the way the things broke eventually, we found another name with somewhat the same qualifications, although, in this case, not a judge--in this case, a chief of police with former FBI experience.,Now, with regard to the Ellsberg break-in, let me explain that in terms of that, I discussed that on the telephone with Mr. Henry Petersen on the I 8th of April. It was on the 18th of April that I learned that the grand jury was going away from some of its Watergate investigation and moving into national security areas.,I told Mr. Petersen at that time about my concern about the security areas, and particularly about the break-in as far as the Ellsberg case is concerned.,And then he asked me a very critical question which you, as a nonlawyer, will now understand, and lawyers probably will, too. He said, \"Was any evidence developed out of this break-in?\" And I said, \"No, it was a dry hole.\" He said, \"Good.\",Now, what he meant by that was that in view of the fact that no evidence was developed as a result of the break-in-which is, incidentally, illegal, unauthorized, as far as I was concerned, and completely deplorable--but since no evidence was developed, there was no requirement that it be presented to the jury that was hearing the case. That was why Mr. Petersen, a man of impeccable credentials in the law enforcement field, did not, at that time on the 18th, at a time that I told him what I had known about the Ellsberg break-in, say \"Let's present it then to the grand jury,\" because nothing had been accomplished, nothing had been obtained that would taint the case.,It was approximately 10 days later that Mr. Kleindienst came in and said that, after a review of the situation in the prosecutor's office in Washington, in which Mr. Petersen had also participated, that they believed that it was best that we bend over backwards in this case and send this record of the Ellsberg break-in, even though there was no evidence obtained from it that could have affected the jury one way or another, send it to the judge.,When they made that recommendation to me, I directed that it be done, instantly. It was done. Incidentally, the prosecutor argued this case just the way that I have argued it to you, and whether or not it had an effect on the eventual outcome, I do not know.,At least, as far as we know, Mr. Ellsberg went free, this being one of the factors. But that is the explanation of what happened and obviously, you, in your commentary tonight, can attach anything you want to it.,I hope you will be just as fair and objective as I try to be in giving you the answer. And I know you will be, sir.,VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW,[10.] Q. Mr. President, what is the state of your confidence in your Vice President at this point in time?,THE PRESIDENT. I have noted some press speculation to the effect that I have not expressed confidence in the Vice President, and therefore, I welcome this question because I want to set the record straight. I had confidence in the integrity of the Vice President when I selected him as Vice President when very few knew him, as you may recall hack in 1968--knew him nationally. My confidence in his integrity has not been shaken, and in fact, it has been strengthened by his courageous conduct and his ability-- even though he is controversial at times, as I am over the past 4 1/2 years. So I have confidence in the integrity of the Vice President and particularly in the performance of the duties that he has had as Vice President and as a candidate for Vice President.,Now obviously the question arises as to charges that have been made about activities that occurred before he became Vice President. He would consider it improper--I would consider it improper-for me to comment on those charges, and I shall not do so. But I will make a comment on another subject that I think needs to be commented upon, and that is the outrageous leak of information from either the grand jury, or the prosecutors, or the Department of Justice, or all three. And, incidentally, I am not going to put the responsibility on all three until I learn from the Attorney General, who, at my request, is making a full investigation of this at the present time. I am not going to put the responsibility--but the leak of information with regard to charges that have been made against the Vice President and leaking them all in the press.,Convicting an individual--not only trying him but convicting him--in the headlines and on television before he has had a chance to present his case in court is completely contrary to the American tradition. Even a Vice President has a right to some. shall I say, consideration in this respect, let alone the ordinary individual. And I will say this--and the Attorney General, I know, has taken note of this fact: Any individual in the Justice Department or in the Prosecutor's office who is in the employ of the United States who has leaked information in this case to the press or to anybody else will be summarily dismissed from Government service. That is how strongly I feel about it, and I feel that way, because I would make this ruling whether it was the Vice President or any individual.,We have to remember that a hearing before a grand jury--and that determination in the American process is one that is supposed to be in confidence is supposed to be in secret, because all kinds of charges are made which will not stand up in open court, and it is only when the case gets to open court that the press and the TV have a right to cover it well, they have a right to cover it, but, I mean. have a right, it seems to me, to give such broad coverage to the charges.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAPACITY TO GOVERN,[11.] Q. Mr. President, at any time during the Watergate crisis did you ever consider resigning, and would you consider resigning- if you felt that your capacity to govern had been seriously weakened? And in that connection, how much do you think your capacity to govern has been weakened?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to the first two questions is no; the answer to the third question is that it is true that as far as the capacity to govern is concerned, that to be under a constant barrage--12 to 15 minutes a night on each of the three major networks for 4 months--tends to raise some questions in the people's mind with regard to the President, and it may raise some questions with regard to the capacity to govern. But I also know this:,I was elected to do a job. Watergate is an episode that I deeply deplore, and had I been running the campaign rather than trying to run the country, and particularly the foreign policy of this country at this time, it would never have happened. But that is water under the bridge, it is gone now.,The point that I make now is that we are proceeding as best we know how to get all those guilty brought to justice in Watergate. But now we must move on from Watergate to the business of the people, and the business of the people is continuing with initiatives we began in the first Administration.,Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Just a moment.,We have had 30 minutes of this press conference. I have yet to have, for example, one question on the business of the people, which shows you how we are consumed with this. I am not criticizing the members of the press, because you naturally are very interested in this issue, but let me tell you, years from now people are going to perhaps be interested in what happened in terms of the efforts of the United States to build a structure of peace in the world. They are perhaps going to be interested in the efforts of this Administration to have a kind of prosperity that we have not had since 1955--that is, prosperity without war and without inflation--because throughout the Kennedy years and throughout the Johnson years, whatever prosperity we had was at the cost of either inflation or war or both. I don't say that critically of them, I am simply saying we have got to do better than that.,Now, our goal is to move forward then, to move forward to build a structure of peace. And when you say, do I consider resigning, the answer is no, I shall not resign. I have 3 1/2 years to go, or almost 3 1/2 years, and I am going to use every day of those 3 1/2 years trying to get the people of the United States to recognize that, whatever mistakes we have made, that in the long run this Administration, by making this world safer for their children, and this Administration, by making their lives better at home for themselves and their children, deserves high marks rather than low marks. Now, whether I succeed or not, we can judge then.,SURVEILLANCE IN NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS,[12.] We always have to have Mr. Deakin [James Deakin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch] for one.,Q. As long as we are on the subject of the American tradition, and following up Mr. Rather's question, what was authorized, even if the burglary of Dr. Fielding's office was not--what was authorized was the 1970 plan which by your own description permitted illegal acts, illegal breaking and entering, mail surveillance, and the like.,Now, under the Constitution you swore an oath to execute the laws of the United States faithfully. If you were serving in Congress, would you not be considering impeachment proceedings and discussing impeachment possibility against an elected public official who had violated his oath of office?,THE PRESIDENT. I would if I had violated the oath of office. I would also, however, refer you to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, or at least an opinion that even last year--which indicates inherent power in the Presidency to protect the national security in cases like this. I should also point out to you that in the 3 Kennedy years and the 3 Johnson years through 1966, when burglarizing of this type did take place, when it was authorized on a very large scale, there was no tank of impeachment, and it was quite well known.,I shall also point out that when you ladies and gentlemen indicate your great interest in wiretaps, and I understand that, that the height of the wiretaps was when Robert Kennedy was Attorney General in 1963. I don't criticize it, however. He had over 250 in 1963, and of course, the average in the Eisenhower Administration and the Nixon Administration is about 110. But if he had had 10 more and, as a result of wiretaps, had been able to discover the Oswald plan, it would have been worth it.\nSo, I will go to another question.,FORMER ASSISTANTS TO THE PRESIDENT HALDEMAN AND EHRLICHMAN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you still consider Haldeman and Ehrlichman two of the finest public servants you have ever known?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly do. I look upon public servants as men who have got to be judged by their entire record, not by simply parts of it. Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman, for 4 1/2 years, have served with great distinction, with great dedication, and like everybody in this deplorable Watergate business, at great personal sacrifice and with no personal gain.,We admit the scandalous conduct. Thank God there has been no personal gain involved. That would be going much too far, I suppose.,But the point that I make with regard to Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman is that I think, too, that as all the facts come out, that---and when they have an opportunity to have their case heard in court and not simply to be tried before a committee and tried in the press and tried in television--they will be exonerated.,FIENDS FOR THE WATERGATE DEFENDANTS,[14.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Star-News],Q. Mr. President, could you tell us your recollection of what you told John Dean on March 21 on the subject of raising funds for the Watergate defendants?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly. Mr. Haldeman has testified to that, and his statement is accurate. Basically, what Mr. Dean was concerned about on March 21 was not so much the raising of money for the defendants, but the raising of money for the defendants for the purpose of keeping them still--in other words, so-called hush money. The one would be legal--in other words, raising a defense fund for any group, any individual, as you know, is perfectly legal, and it is done all the time. But if you raise funds for the purpose of keeping an individual from talking, that is obstruction of justice.,Mr. Dean said also on March 21 that there was an attempt, as he put it, to blackmail the White House, to blackmail the White House by one of the defendants. Incidentally, that defendant has denied it, but at least this was what Mr. Dean had claimed, and that unless certain amounts of money were paid--I think it was $120,000 for attorneys fees and other support--that this particular defendant would make a statement, not with regard to Watergate, but with regard to some national security matters in which Mr. Ehrlichman had particular responsibility.,My reaction, very briefly, was this: I said, \"As you look at this,\" I said, \"isn't it quite obvious, first, that if it is going to have any chance to succeed, that these individuals aren't going to sit there in jail for 4 years? They are going to have clemency; isn't that correct?\",He said, \"Yes.\" I said, \"We can't give clemency.\" He agreed. Then, I went to another point. I said, \"The second point is that isn't it also quite obvious, as far as this is concerned, that while we could raise the money\"--and he indicated in answer to my question, it would probably take a million dollars over 4 years to take care of this defendant, and others, on this kind of basis--the problem was, how do you get the money to them, and also, how do you get around the problem of clemency, because they are not going to stay in jail simply because their families are being taken care of. And so, that was why I concluded, as Mr. Haldeman recalls perhaps and did testify very effectively, one, when I said, \"John, it is wrong, it won't work. We can't give clemency, and we have got to get this story out. And therefore, I direct you, and I direct Haldeman, and I direct Ehrlichman, and I direct Mitchell to get together tomorrow and then meet with me as to how we get this story out.\",And that is how the meeting on the 22nd took place.,PLANS FOR DEFENSE AGAINST CHARGES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, earlier in the news conference you said that you gave Mr. Haldeman the right to listen to one tape because you wanted to be sure that \"we are correct\"--I think I am quoting you correctly.,Now, you have indicated that you still feel that Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman are two of the finest public servants that you have ever known. You have met with their lawyer at least twice that we know of. Are you arid Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman coordinating their and your defense and, if so, why?,THE PRESIDENT..NO. No, as far as my defense is concerned, I make it myself. As far as their defense is concerned, their lawyer has demonstrated very well before the committee that he can handle it very well without any assistance from me.,THE VICE PRESIDENT,[16.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Mr. President, a follow-up question on the Agnew situation. You have said in the past that any White House official who was indicted would be suspended and that anyone convicted would be dismissed. Should Vice President Agnew be indicted, would you expect him to resign or somehow otherwise stand down temporarily until cleared?,THE PRESIDENT. Now, Mr. Theis, that is a perfectly natural question and one that any good newsman, as ,you are, would ask. But as you know, it is one that it would be most inappropriate for me to comment upon. The Vice President has not been indicted: charges have been thrown out by innuendo, and otherwise, which he has denied to me personally and which he has denied publicly. And to talk about indictment and to talk about resignation, even now--I am not questioning your right to ask the question, understand but for me to talk about it would be totally inappropriate, and I make no comment in answer to that question.,EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,[17.] I will take the big man.[laughter],Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. I know my troubles if I don't take him--or if I do. [Laughter],Q. Mr. President, looking to the future on executive privilege, there are a couple of questions that come to mind--,THE PRESIDENT. I thought we got past that, Clark [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune], that was a ,year ago.,Q. But we have it for the future--,THE PRESIDENT. All right, fine.,Q. Where is the check on authoritarianism by the executive if the President is to be the sole judge of what the executive branch makes available and suppresses? And will you obey a Supreme Court order if you are asked and directed to produce the tapes or other documents for the Senate committee or for the Special Prosecutor? And, if this is not enough-[laughter] is there any limitation on the President, short of impeachment, to compel the production of evidence of a criminal nature?,THE PRESIDENT. IS there anything else?,Q. No, I think that would be enough. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. No, I was not being facetious, but I realize it is a complicated question. The answer to the first question is that the limitation on the President in almost all fields like this is, of course, the limitation of public opinion and, of course, Congressional and other pressures that may arise. As far as executive privilege is concerned in the Watergate matter and, I must say, the ITT file and so forth, that this Administration has, I think, gone further in terms of waiving executive privilege than any Administration in my memory, certainly a lot further than Mr. Truman was willing to go when I was on the other side, as you recall, urging that he waive executive privilege.,Now, with regard to what the Supreme Court will do or say, the White House Press Secretary--assistant Press Secretary; Mr. Warren, has responded to that already. I won't go beyond that, and particularly, I won't make any statement oft that at this time while the matter is still being considered by Judge Sirica. I understand his decision will come down on Wednesday, and then we will make a determination. But as far as the statement that Mr. Warren has made with regard to the President's .position of complying with a definitive order of the Supreme Court is concerned, that statement stands.,MOTIVATIONS OF WATERGATE CRITICS,[18.] Q. Sir, last week in your speech you referred to those who would exploit Watergate to keep you from doing your job. Could you specifically detail who \"those\" are?,THE PRESIDENT. I would suggest that where the shoe fits, people should wear it. I would think that some political figures, some members of the press, perhaps, some members of the television, perhaps would exploit it. I don't impute, interestingly enough, motives, however, that are improper, because here is what is involved. There are a great number of people in this country that would prefer that I (to resign. There are a great number of people in this country that didn't accept the mandate of 1972. After all, I know that most of the members of the press corps were riot enthusiastic and I understand that--about either my election in '68 or '72. That is not unusual.,Frankly, if I had always followed what the press predicted or the polls predicted, I would have never been elected President. But what I am saying is this: People who did not accept the mandate of '72, who do not want the strong America that I want to build, who do not want the foreign policy leadership that I want to give, who do not want to cut down the size of this government bureaucracy that burdens us so greatly and to give more of our government back to the people, people who do not want these things, naturally, would exploit any issue--if it weren't Watergate, anything else--in order to keep the President from doing his job.,And so I say I impute no improper motives to them; I think they would prefer that I fail. On the other hand, I am not going to fail. I am here to do a job, and I am going to do the best I can, and I am sure the fair-minded members of this press corps--and that is most of ,you--will report when I do well, and I am sure you will report when I do badly.,WIRETAPS AND PROTECTION OF THE PRESIDENTS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you recently suggested today that if the late Robert Kennedy had initiated 10 more wiretaps he would have been able to discover the Oswald plan, as you described it, and thereby presumably prevent the assassination of President Kennedy.,THE PRESIDENT. ,Let me correct you, sir. I want to be sure that the assumption is correct. I said if 10 more wiretaps could have found the conspiracy, if it was a conspiracy, or the individual, then it would have been worth it. As far as I am concerned, I am no more of an expert on that assassination than anybody else, but my point is that wiretaps in the national security area were very high in the Kennedy Administration for a very good reason; because there were many threats on the President's life, because there were national security problems, and that is why that in that period of 1961 to '63, there were wiretaps on news organizations, on news people, on civil rights leaders, and on other people. And I think they were perfectly justified, and I am sure that President Kennedy and his brother, Robert Kennedy, would never have authorized them, as I would never have authorized them, unless he thought they were in the national interest.,Q. Do you think then that threats to assassinate the President merit more national security wiretaps particularly?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. No, as far as I am concerned, I was only suggesting that in terms of those times--of those times--to have the Oswald thing happen just seemed so unbelievable. With his record-with his record--that with everything that everybody had on him, that that fellow could have been where he was, in a position to shoot the President of the United States, seems to me to have been a terrible breakdown in our protective security areas.,I would like to say, however, that as far as protection generally is concerned, I don't like it, and my family does not like it. Both of my daughters would prefer to have no Secret Service. I discussed it with the Secret Service. They say they have too many threats, and so they have to have it. My wife does not want to have Secret Service, and I would prefer--and [ recommended this just 3 days ago--to cut my detail by one third, because I noticed there were criticisms of how much the Secret Service is spending.,Let me say that we always are going to have threats against the President, but I frankly think that one man probably is as good against a threat as a hundred. That is my view, but my view does not happen to be in a majority there, and it does not happen to agree with the Congress so I will still have a great number of Secret Service around me, more than I want, more than my family wants.,WATERGATE INVESTIGATION,[20.] Q. Mr. President, during March and April, you received from your staff on several occasions information about criminal wrongdoing and some indication that members of your staff might have been involved. My question, sir, is why didn't you turn this information over immediately to the prosecutors instead of having your own staff continue to make these investigations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, for the very obvious reason that in March, for example, the man that was in constant contact with the prosecutors was my Counsel, Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean was talking to Mr. Petersen. I assumed that anything he was telling me he was telling the prosecutors. And in April, after Mr. Dean left the investigation, Mr. Ehrlichman was in charge. I would assume--and incidentally, Mr. Ehrlichman did talk to Mr. Kleindienst that is why it was (tone that way. The President does not pick up the phone and call the Attorney General every time something comes up on a matter; he depends on his Counsel or whoever he has given the job to--or he has given that assignment to do the job. And that is what I expected in this instance.,U.S. BOMBING OF CAMBODIA,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in your Cambodian invasion speech of April 1970, you reported to the American people that the United States had been strictly observing the neutrality of Cambodia. I am wondering if you in light of what we now know, that there were 15 months of bombing of Cambodia previous to your statement, whether you owe an apology to the American people?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly not, and certainly not to the Cambodian people, because as far as this area is concerned, the area of approximately I O miles which was bombed during this period, no Cambodians had been in it for years. It was totally occupied by the North Vietnamese Communists. They were using this area for the purpose of attacking and killing American Marines and soldiers by the thousands. The bombing took place against those North Vietnamese forces in enemy-occupied territory, and as far as the American people are concerned, I think the American people are very thankful that the President ordered what was necessary to save the lives of their men and shorten this war which he found when he got here, and which he ended.,HELEN THOMAS (United Press International). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-03-15","text":"UNITED STATES LIAISON OFFICE IN PEKING,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement with regard to our Liaison Office in Peking.,The office will open approximately on May I, and Ambassador David Bruce will be the Chief of the Liaison Office. In the Office will be approximately a total complement of 20 (30), of whom 10 will be at what we call the expert level; the others, of course, for the support level.,The two top assistants, top deputies to Ambassador Bruce--however, we should note, I call him Ambassador, but his title will be Chief of the Liaison Office--will be Mr. [Alfred le S.] Jenkins from the State Department, who, as you know, is one of our top experts on Chinese-American relations in State; and Mr. [John H.] Holdridge from the NSC [National Security Council], who is the top man in the NSC advising in this area there.,We selected these two men because Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Holdridge not only are experts in Chinese--they are bilingual, incidentally, in both Chinese and American; they speak well. In fact, I remember both assisted in translations when I have been there. But in addition to that, they are men who have, from the beginning, been participating in the new initiative between the People's Republic and the United States. They have accompanied me on my trip, and they have accompanied Dr. Kissinger on his trips.,A word about why Ambassador Bruce was selected. We called him out of retirement because I thought it was very important to appoint a man of great stature to this position. The Chinese accepted that view themselves, and we expect soon to hear from them as to the appointment of the man they will have as his opposite number here in Washington. Another reason that I selected Ambassador Bruce was because of his great experience. All of you know that he has been Ambassador to Britain and Ambassador to Germany, Ambassador to France, and also headed our delegation in Paris in the Vietnam talks in 1971 and '72, in the early part of '72.,A third reason, perhaps, has even greater significance. Many of you in this room were on the trip to China, and sometimes I suppose the feeling must have developed, \"Well, this is a one-shot deal.\" I never considered it that, and all of you who reported on it did not consider it that. It was the beginning, we trust, of a longer journey, a journey in which we will have our differences, but one in which the most populous nation in the world and the United States of America can work together where their interests coincide for the cause of peace and better relations in the Pacific and in the world.,It is necessary that this be, therefore, a bipartisan enterprise in the highest sense of the word.,Mr. Bruce, as you know, while he has not been engaged in partisan politics as such, is a Democrat. He has served four Presidents with equal distinction, Democratic Presidents as well as Republicans. And we believe that appointing him as head of the delegation indicates our intention that this initiative will continue in the future, whether the Presidency is occupied by a Democrat or a Republican. Of course, I am not making any predictions as to what will happen when I leave.,But that is the end of my announcement. We will now go to your questions.,QUESTIONS\nTESTIMONY OF WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE,[2.] Mr. Risher [Eugene V. Risher, United Press International],Q. Mr. President, do you plan to stick by your decision not to allow Mr. Dean to testify before the Congress, even if it means the defeat of Mr. Gray's nomination? 1,1 L. Patrick Gray III was designated Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on May 3, 1972. He was nominated to be Director on February 21, 1973.,THE PRESIDENT. I have noted some speculation to the effect that the Senate might hold Mr. Gray as hostage to a decision on Mr. Dean. I cannot believe that such responsible Members of the United States Senate would do that, because as far as I am concerned, my decision has been made.,I answered that question rather abruptly, you recall, the last time it was asked by one of the ladies of the press here. I did not mean to be abrupt, I simply meant to be firm.,Mr. Dean is Counsel to the White House. He is also one who was counsel to a number of people on the White House Staff. He has, in effect, what I would call a double privilege, the lawyer-client relationship, as well as the Presidential privilege.,And in terms of privilege, I think we could put it another way. I consider it my constitutional responsibility to defend the principle of separation of powers. I recognize that many Members of the Congress disagree with my interpretation of that responsibility.,But while we are talking on that subject-and I will go on at some length here because it may anticipate some of your other questions--I am very proud of the fact that in this Administration we have been more forthcoming in terms of the relationship between the executive, the White House, and the Congress, than any administration in my memory. We have not drawn a curtain down and said that there could be no information furnished by members of the White House Staff because of their special relationship to the President.,All we have said is that it must be under certain circumstances, certain guidelines, that do not infringe upon or impair the separation of powers that are so essential to the survival of our system.,In that connection, I might say that I had mentioned previously that I was once on the other side of the fence, but what I am doing here in this case is cooperating with the Congress in a way that I asked the then President, Mr. Truman, to cooperate with a committee of the Congress 25 years ago and in which he refused.,I don't say that critically of him now-he had his reasons, I have mine. But what we asked for in the hearings on the Hiss case 2--and all of you who covered it, like Bill Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service] and others, will remember--what we asked for was not that the head of the FBI or anybody from the White House Staff testify. There was very widespread information that there was a report of an investigation that had been made in the Administration about the Hiss case. We asked for that report. We asked for the FBI information with regard to that report.,2 Alger Hiss, a former State Department official, was convicted of perjury in his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee during investigations into Communist activities by the committee.,And Mr. Truman, the day we started our investigation, issued an executive order in which he ordered everybody in the executive department to refuse to cooperate with the committee under any circumstances3 The FBI refused all information. We got no report from the Department of Justice. And we had to go forward and break the case ourselves.,3 See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1948,\" Item 170 [4].,We did. And, to the credit of the Administration, after we broke the case, they proceeded to conduct the prosecution and the FBI went into it.,I would like to say, incidentally, that I talked to Mr. Hoover at that time. It was with reluctance that he did not turn over that information--reluctance, because he felt that the information, the investigation they had conducted, was very pertinent to what the committee was doing.,Now, I thought that decision was wrong. And so when this Administration has come in, I have always insisted that we should cooperate with Members of the Congress and with the committees of the Congress. And that is why we have furnished information. But, however, I am not going to have the Counsel to the President of the United States testify in a formal session for the Congress. However, Mr. Dean will furnish information when any of it is requested, provided it is pertinent to the investigation.,Q. Mr. President, would you then be willing to have Mr. Dean sit down informally and let some of the Senators question him, as they have with Dr. Kissinger?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that is quite a different thing. In fact, Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Ehrlichman, as you know, not only informally meet with Members of the Congress on matters of substance, the same is true with members of the press. As you know, Dr. Kissinger meets with you ladies and gentlemen of the press and answers questions on matters of substance.,In this case, where we have the relationship that we have with Mr. Dean and the President of the United States--his Counsel--that would not be a proper way to handle it. He will, however--the important thing is, he will furnish all pertinent information. He will be completely forthcoming--something that other administrations have totally refused to do until we got here. And I am very proud of the fact that we are forthcoming, and I would respectfully suggest that Members of the Congress might look at that record as they decide to test it.,CEASE-FIRE VIOLATIONS IN VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you say, sir, how concerned you are about the reports of cease-fire violations in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am concerned about the cease-fire violations. As you ladies and gentlemen will recall, I have consistently pointed out in meeting with you; that we would expect violations because of the nature of the war, the guerrilla nature, and that even in Korea, in which we do not have a guerrilla war, we still have violations. They recede every year, but we still have them long--15, 20 years--after the war is over.,In the case of these violations, we are concerned about them on two scores. One, because they occur, but two, we are concerned because of another violation that could lead to, we think, rather serious consequences--we do not believe it will; we hope that it will not--and that is the reports that you ladies and gentlemen have been receiving from your colleagues in Vietnam with regard to infiltration.,You will note that there have been reports of infiltration by the North Vietnamese into South Vietnam of equipment exceeding the amounts that were agreed upon in the settlement.,Now, some equipment can come in. In other words, replacement equipment, but no new equipment, nothing which steps up the capacity of the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong to wage war in the South. No new equipment is allowed under the agreement.,Now, as far as that concern is concerned, particularly on the infiltration-that is the more important point, rather than the cease-fire violations which we think, over a period of time, will be reduced--but in terms of the infiltration, I am not going to say publicly what we have said.,I will only suggest this: that we have informed the North Vietnamese of our concern about this infiltration and of what we believe it to be, a violation of the cease-fire, the cease-fire and the peace agreement. Our concern has also been expressed to other interested parties. And I would only suggest that based on my actions over the past 4 years, that the North Vietnamese should not lightly disregard such expressions of concern when they are made with regard to a violation. That is all I will say about it.,Q. Mr. President, in connection with this matter, there is a report also that not just equipment but a new infusion of North Vietnamese combat personnel have been introduced into South Vietnam, which is apart from just equipment. Can you confirm this? Is this partly what you are talking about?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis, the reports that we get with regard to infiltration, as you know, are always either too little or too late or too much. And I am not going to confirm that one, except to say that we have noted the report having been made. We, however, are primarily concerned about the equipment, because as far as the personnel are concerned, they could be simply replacement personnel.,Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead, you are up in front.,Q. Sir, why have we not gone through the ICCS [International Commission of Control and Supervision] to complain about this infiltration?,THE PRESIDENT. The ICCS is being used. As you know, there are some problems there. The Canadians have expressed considerable concern about the fact that they don't want to be on a commission which is not being effectively used, and we will continue through the ICCS and any other body that we can effectively appeal to, to attempt to get action there. I can only answer in that way at this point.,CONFIDENTIALITY OF FBI INTERVIEWS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, are you concerned, sir, that any of the confidential FBI interviews that were conducted in their Watergate investigation were in any way compromised by Pat Gray's having given information to John Dean or talked with John Ehrlichman or others?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I am not concerned about that. I would say that there is no possibility whatever that any information from the FBI, that may have been provided in the line of their duties to a member of the White House Staff, would be bandied about in the press.,I would express concern on another point. In my longtime association with Mr. Hoover, he always was hard-line in dealing with the Members of the Congress and with Congressional committees in terms of what he called \"raw files,\" and when I first came into this office, he showed me a raw file. I had not seen any before. And when I saw the gossip, the hearsay, and unsubstantiated kind of slanderous statements--libelous, in this case, because they were in writing, having been made orally and then transmitted into writing--I was really shocked.,Mr. Hoover, after showing me the raw file, then gave me an appraisal by the FBI of what could be believed and what could not be believed. And in the case of this particular individual--the reason I saw the file, it involved a check of an individual that I was nominating for a position, and I needed to get the facts, and of course, I always have access to those files--what we found was that every charge that had been made against the individual was false.,Now, for the FBI, before a full committee of the Congress, to furnish raw files and then to have them leak out to the press, I think could do innocent people a great deal of damage. I understand why Mr. Gray did, because his hearing was involved. But I would say that should not be a precedent for the future.,The way Mr. Hoover handled it with Members of the Congress was that he would show the raw files, for example, to Mr. Eastland, the chairman of a committee, and the ranking minority member, where a judge was up for confirmation. But nothing ever leaked from those files. And the sanctity of those files must be maintained, and I believe that the practice of the FBI furnishing raw files to full committees must stop with this particular one.,STOCKPILES OF STRATEGIC MATERIALS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, have you decided to sell materials from the strategic stockpiles, and if so, what are the safeguards from a security standpoint?,THE PRESIDENT. WE have examined the stockpile question over the past 4 years. I have long felt that these stockpiles were really irrelevant to the kind of a world situation we presently confront. The stockpile numbers were set up at a time that we were thinking of a very different kind of conflict than we presently might be confronted with in the world.,Under the circumstances, after very full evaluation and discussion within the Administration, I have found that it will be safe for the United States to very substantially reduce our stockpiles. And we are going to go forward and do that.,Now, there are going to be some squeals, but while the complaints will be made on the basis of national security, let me just say I have made the decision on the basis of national security. The complaints will be, and I understand this, from those who produce and sell some of the materials in which we are going to sell the stockpiles. But we are going to do this, first, because the Government doesn't need this much for its national security and, second, because in this particular period, we need to take every action we possibly can to drive down prices, or at least to drive down those particular elements that force prices up. And selling the stockpiles in certain areas will help.,INVESTIGATIONS OF CONDUCT OF CAMPAIGN PERSONNEL,[6.] Q. Mr. President, one of the revelations made by Mr. Gray during the course of the hearings has been that Mr. [Herbert W.] Kalmbach was involved with Mr. [Dwight L.] Chapin in the hiring of Mr. [Donald H.] Segretti for amounts up to $40,000. Can you tell us, sir, did you know of that relationship, and did you know of that transaction, and if not, can you tell us your opinion of it now that it has been revealed by Mr Gray?,THE PRESIDENT. This gives me an opportunity to not only answer that question, but many others that I note you have been asking Mr. Ziegler.,First--and incidentally, I am not complaining about the fact you are asking the question of me or Mr. Ziegler; it is a very proper question--a Senate committee is conducting investigations. These investigations will go on, I understand, over a period of many months. I respect the right of the Senate to conduct those investigations. We will cooperate; we will cooperate fully with the Senate, just as we did with the grand jury, as we did with the FBI, and as we did with the courts when they were conducting their investigations previously in what was called the Watergate matter.,As far as these investigations are concerned, there are all kinds of information, charges, et cetera, et cetera, that have been made and will be made in the future. I could comment upon them. Mr. Ziegler could in the future. I will not. He will not. And the reason that we will not is that when the committee completes its investigation, we will then have comment, if we consider it appropriate to do so. But it is the right of the committee to conduct the investigation. All the facts can come out.,I have confidence in all of the White House people who have been named. I will express that confidence again. But I am not going to comment on any individual matter that the committee may go into.,Let me say, with regard to the committee, too, I do not intend to raise questions about its conduct. I have been very pleased to note that Senator Ervin--at least this is the way I read what he says-has indicated that the investigation will be bipartisan, that it will look into charges that have been made against both election campaigns, and that is as it should be. He has also indicated that he, as a great constitutional lawyer, will accept no hearsay, that he will not tolerate any ,guilt by innuendo, tie will not tolerate any guilt by association.,As long as the committee conducts its investigations with those very high guidelines--guidelines I tried to follow, incidentally, in the Hiss case; not perhaps as well as I might have, but I did what many thought was pretty well--but in any event, as long as it is conducted that way, I do not intend to make any statements with regard to matters before the committee. That is for the committee to look into.,PLANS FOR PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL ABROAD,[7.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us your travel plans outside of the United States during 1973?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have previously indicated that I had no immediate travel plans outside the United States. I have received recommendations from the State Department and from the NSC for what they consider to be urgent travel, one, to Europe, because of our interest in NATO; second, to Latin America, because I have not yet had the opportunity to go to Latin America; and third, to Africa, because I have not traveled there.,I do not mean to suggest by that that travel by the President to these places is absolutely indispensable to foreign policy, but I think this is the concern that many of our foreign policy experts in the State Department and the NSC, the concern they have. They feel that the enormous interest that has been created by going to Peking and going to Moscow indicates that we don't care about our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, we don't care about our friends in Africa, and we do not care about our friends in Europe as well. Incidentally, Japan is another that is on the list.,Now, how we will be able to work some of these trips in, I do not know. I would suggest that we are considering the possibility of a trip sometime during the summer or shortly before the summer begins, but we have not yet made a decision because there are so many other things on, and there will probably be a trip in the fall. But how we select among these, I have not yet determined.,MANDATORY PRISON TERMS FOR NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, less than 3 years ago you signed into law a bill that removed mandatory prison terms for Federal narcotics convictions, as recommended by an earlier President's crime commission, and since then 73 percent of those convicted in Federal cases have received prison terms. What evidence is there that causes you now to go the other way, to ask for a restoration of mandatory prison terms for narcotics traffic?,THE PRESIDENT. We have examined this situation very carefully. Here is what we have found with regard to this whole attitude in terms of the restoration of the death penalty, for example, and the mandatory prison terms in cases of narcotics offenders. Let me point out that the mandatory sentences, as you know, only apply to hard drugs, heroin. It does not apply to marijuana. It does not apply to soft drugs, et cetera, et cetera.,Criminologists have honest differences of opinion on this, as to whether it will be more effective or less effective. We have examined it. We have, as you have already indicated, accepted a recommendation, and we were moving in one direction at one time, and now we have looked at the record since then, and we have looked at the record over the past i o years. I will simply summarize it for this year.,During the sixties, the United States went far down the road of the permissive approach to those charged with crime, and we reaped a terrible harvest, the greatest increase in crime that this country has ever had, explosive to the point that law and order, so-called, became a great issue in '68. It was still a great issue in '72.,Now, under these circumstances, I believe that it is essential that we have not a permissive approach, but an approach where certain major crimes are concerned that the penalties will be ones that will deter those crimes. It is my belief that they will.,Let me suggest, also, that my discussions with criminologists bear that out. We will find some disagreement. I under-. stand there is a commission that will, in a couple of weeks, recommend that we move in the other direction. But I will take the responsibility.,As far as I am concerned, I oppose, as you know, the legalization of marijuana, although I have advocated a more equitable type of punishment which will fit the crime. I am for the mandatory criminal penalties with regard to hard drugs because I think we have to move vigorously in this area. And in terms of the capital punishment, I do not think the Secretary of State of the United States can make a statement to the effect that terrorists in the Sudan should be executed when, if somebody picks up some diplomat in the United States, we would give him perhaps 20 years, 30 years, and then have him out on parole in 5 years.,So under these circumstances, I am taking this line. I realize many honestly disagree. I respect the disagreement. But that is what I believe. If it doesn't work, we will try something else.,CONTROLS ON FOOD PRICES,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. President,THE PRESIDENT [to Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune]. I thought that was your voice.,MR. MOLLENHOFF. I think you recognized the voice. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. You had three questions last time. I have got to give the St. Louis Post-Dispatch one. You [James Deakin] are still with the Post-Dispatch?,MR. DEAKIN. Yes, the last time I looked.,There is a published report that the Administration, despite what has been publicly said, is considering at least the possibility of controls on meat prices, possibly on other raw agricultural products. We have housewives' strikes now against these tremendous increases in food prices. When are you going to be in a position to offer the American consumer some kind of assurance that this is going to be stopped, this price spiral in food?,THE PRESIDENT. The difficulty with offering rigid price controls on meat prices and food prices is that it would not stop-in the opinion of those whose judgment I value--would not stop the rise in prices. It might stop them momentarily, but as a result of discouraging increased production, we would reap the consequences of greater upward pressure on prices later.,You can be very sure that if I thought that price controls on farm products and on food prices would work, I would impose them instantly.,The point is that every bit of evidence that has been presented shows that it would discourage supply, it would lead to black markets, and we would eventually have to come to rigid price controls, wage controls, and rationing. And I don't think the American people want that. I think there is a better way.,The better way is, one, to open our imports to the greatest extent that we possibly can. For example, we have already taken some action in that on dairy products. We have already taken some action on beef products. I found, at a meeting with the Cost of Living Council, that we still have a 3 percent tariff on imported beef. I have asked the Department of Agriculture to give me a legal opinion as to whether the President can remove that tariff. If I can, I will act. If I can't, I am going to ask the Congress to do it, because there shouldn't be any tariff on an item that is in short supply in the United States. That is on the import side.,On the supply side, we are, of course, reducing our stockpiles, whatever stockpiles are left, and there are some in which we are able to act, provided we can get the transportation. That is the reason the Secretary of Transportation sat in the meeting with the Cost of Living Council, because we need flatcars and a number of other items in order to get it moved.,Finally, there is the production side. And on the production side, as you know, our new farm policy is designed to increase production. We are continuing to examine the situation. If any further action can be taken that will work, we will do it. But I can assure you that I consider it the highest priority to get the pressure on prices down.,Let me say one word about the housewives. I had a letter from one the other day saying, \"Should I boycott?\" I am not going to suggest to American housewives or to any group of Americans to join in boycotts and so forth. I generally do not feel that that is an effective use of what we call \"people power.\",On the other hand, I would suggest that the greatest and most powerful weapon against high prices in this country is the American housewife. Her decisions, as she buys, whether she buys something that is more expensive or less expensive, can have far greater effect on price control than anything we do here. And I would suggest that the fact that some of the pressure on prices may be lessening now, as a result of housewives buying more carefully, may have some good effect.,WHITE HOUSE AIDES AND THE ERVIN COMMITTEE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, does your offer to cooperate with the Ervin committee include the possibility that you would allow your aides to testify before his committee? And if it does not, would you be willing to comply with a court order, if Ervin went to court to get one, that required some testimony from White House aides?,THE PRESIDENT. In answer to your first part of the question, the statement that we made yesterday answered that completely-not yesterday, the 12th I think it was--my statement on executive privilege. Members of the White House Staff will not appear before a committee of Congress in any formal session.,We will furnish information under the proper circumstances. We will consider each matter on a case-by-case basis.,With regard to the second point, that is not before us. Let me say, however, that if the Senate feels at this time that this matter of separation of powers--where, as I said, this Administration has been more forthcoming than any Democratic administration I know of--if the Senate feels that they want a court test, we would welcome it. Perhaps this is the time to have the highest Court of this land make a definitive decision with regard to this matter.,I am not suggesting that we are asking for it. But I would suggest that if the Members of the Senate, in their wisdom, decide that they want to test this matter in the courts, we will, of course, present our side of the case. And we think that the Supreme Court will uphold, as it always usually has, the great constitutional principle of separation of powers rather than to uphold the Senate.,EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COMPARISON,[11.] Q. Mr. President, isn't there an essential difference really between your investigation of the Hiss case and the request of this subcommittee to Mr. Dean to appear? In the former, foreign affairs was involved and possibly security matters, where here they only wish to question Mr. Dean about the breaking into the Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would say the difference is very significant. As a matter of fact, when a committee of Congress was investigating espionage against the Government of this country, that committee should have had complete cooperation from at least the executive branch of the Government in the form that we asked. All that we asked was to get the report that we knew they had already made of their investigation.,Now, this investigation does not involve espionage against the United States. It is, as we know, espionage by one political organization against another. And I would say that as far as your question is concerned, that the argument would be that the Congress would have a far greater right and would be on much stronger ground to ask the Government to cooperate in a matter involving espionage against the Government than in a matter like this involving politics.,COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT,[12]. Q. Mr. President, you have talked about the responsibility within the White House and the responsibility between Congress and the White House. Where do you feel your responsibility for the Committee to Re-Elect the President begins and ends, Mr. Mitchell or any other people who were working for them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the responsibility there, of course, is one that will be replied to by Mr. Mitchell, Mr. $tans, and all of those in due course. None of them have the privilege, none of them, of course, will refuse to testify, none has when he is asked to. And I am sure they will give very good accounts of themselves, as they have in the court matters that they have been asked to.,AID TO INDIA AND PAKISTAN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask you about peace. You have concentrated on peace in your Administration. Don't you find an inconsistency there with continuing to give arms to India and Pakistan and perhaps a hundred other countries around the world?,THE PRESIDENT. First, we are not giving them, we are selling them.,Q. Isn't that worse? That is even worse.,THE PRESIDENT. I just wanted to be sure that we understood the difference because of all the concern about aid. But the point that is involved in the India-Pakistan thing has been a very difficult one for this Administration, because it involves commitments that were made before we got here. Those commitments were made during the Johnson Administration. I do not criticize the fact that they were made, but they were made.,As far as we were concerned, once the war between India and Pakistan began, we cut them off, as you recall. We stopped all economic assistance--not all, but some economic assistance to India, and we stopped all military assistance to Pakistan.,Let's look at the numbers: $83 million in economic assistance to India and $14 million in military assistance to Pakistan. We have maintained that embargo up to this point. The difficulty was that there were contracts that had been made, the materials had already been, in effect, sold, and under the circumstances, we felt that it was time to clean the slate.,So what we have done, the Indians are getting their $83 million in economic assistance; the Pakistanis are being allowed to go through with their purchases of the arms, nonlethal arms, and spare parts.,Now, as far as the whole, the major problem--and Miss McClendon [Sarah McClendon, Sarah McClendon News Service], you have put your finger on the major problem, and that is peace in the area--this in no way, in no way, jeopardizes the peace in the area.,After the war that broke Pakistan in half, India's superiority is so enormous that the possibility of Pakistan being a threat to India is absurd.,All we are trying to do is to seek good relations with both, and we trust in the future that our aid to both can be ones that will turn them towards peace rather than war.,I should also say that in India's case-while our aid there, our $83 million, is economic--India, as you know, purchases quite significant amounts of arms from the Soviet Union, and also has an arms capability itself. So there is no problem in terms of creating conditions which could lead to another outbreak of war by providing for simply keeping a commitment that the United States had made for the sale of spare parts and nonlethal arms to Pakistan.,FRANCES L. LEWINE (Associated Press). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-03-02","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT THIEU OF SOUTH VIETNAM THE PRESIDENT.,[I.] I have one announcement for those who are members of the traveling press.,We have now set the date for the San Clemente meeting with President Thieu, and it will be April 2 and 3. Those of you who desire to go should make your plans, if you could, to leave on the Friday before, because I am going to California to attend a dinner on that occasion for John Ford on Saturday night, the 31st, and then the meetings will start the following Tuesday and will be concluded that week.,I will take any other questions you have.,QUESTIONS\nCEASE-FIRES IN LAOS AND CAMBODIA,[2.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable speculation and interpretation after the Laos cease-fire pact to the effect that the Communists gained more out of this than they did out of the Geneva Accords, and also a situation in Cambodia that no one seems to be able to interpret. Originally you hinged your peace settlement on all of Indochina.,What is your expectation in these areas, and how much confidence do you have that stability will be maintained?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Sheldon [Courtney R. Sheldon, Christian Science Monitor], first, with regard to Laos, the agreement there was made by the Royal Laotian Government, and it is an agreement which we, of course, supported and we accept. I have noted that various elements within Laos have questioned the decision by Souvanna Phouma to make the agreement that he did. But the key to that agreement and what will make the cease-fire work is an unequivocal provision in the agreement that we made and that is for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Laos. We expect that to be adhered to, and when that is adhered to, we believe that the chances for peace in Laos will be very considerable, and considerably more than after the '54 accords.,As I have pointed out, and as Dr. Kissinger has also pointed out, the situation in Cambodia is much more complex because you don't have the governmental forces there that can negotiate with each other. However, there has been an attempt on the part of the Cambodian Government to have a unilateral cease-fire that has not been reciprocated on the part of the opposition forces in that area. Once a cease-fire is agreed to or adhered to, we will observe it. Until it is adhered to, we, of course, will provide support for the Cambodian Government.,I would not want to indicate that the prospects in Cambodia are as, shall we say, positive as those in Laos. But we do believe that there, too, the withdrawal of the North Vietnamese forces, which has been agreed to in our agreement with the North Vietnamese, from Cambodia is the key thing.,If those forces are out and if the Cambodians then can determine their own future, we believe the chances for a viable cease-fire in Cambodia will be very substantial.,ECONOMIC AID TO NORTH VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask you whether aid to North Vietnam was a condition of the cease-fire agreement? There seems to be some confusion about that.,THE PRESIDENT. No, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], it was not. The provision for assistance to North Vietnam on the economic side is one that we believe is in the interest of creating lasting peace and stability in the area.,That is a provision which we, of course, will have to have Congressional support for. We realize, as I pointed out previously in the meeting with you ladies and gentlemen of the press, there is considerable opposition to aid to North Vietnam. It is rather reminiscent to me of what I went through when I first came to Congress and when you, Mr. Lisagor, were covering in the Congress.,The opposition to aiding Germany and aiding Japan--Japan being the most militaristic and aggressive force in Asia and Germany being the most militaristic people in Europe at that time--the opposition was very substantial.,I remember at that time my own district--I polled it as that was the time when Congressmen were starting the business of polling their constituents. And it was 68 percent against any aid to our former enemies. I voted for it. I voted for it, even though it was submitted by a Democratic President, because I was convinced that the chances for having peace in Asia and the chance for having peace in Europe would be considerably increased if the Germans and the Japanese, the two strongest, most vigorous people in those two respective areas, were turned toward peaceful pursuits, rather than being left in a position of either hopelessness which would lead to frustration and another war, or confrontation.,I think that decision was right. I don't mean that the situation with regard to North Vietnam is on all fours with it, but I do say that if the North Vietnamese, after 25 years of war, continue to think that their future will only be meaningful if they engage in continuing war, then we are going to continue to have war in that part of the world, and it would not only threaten South Vietnam but Cambodia and Laos and Thailand, the Philippines, the whole area.,If, on the other hand, the people of North Vietnam have a stake in peace, then it can be altogether different. And so we believe that once the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, considers this matter--and we want them to consider it and give their judgment on it-that they will decide, as they did 25 years ago, based on that precedent and what happened then, that the interests of peace will be served by providing the aid.,The costs of peace are great, but the costs of war are much greater. And, incidentally, with regard to costs, I know that some of you have raised a question that I would like to address myself to as to whether whatever assistance we eventually do agree to and that we do present to the Congress, whether or not that assistance will require a cutting back on domestic programs.,The answer is no. As far as any assistance program is concerned, it will be covered by the existing levels for the budget which we have in for national security purposes. It will not come out of the domestic side of the budget.,Q. Mr. President--,THE PRESIDENT. By national security, I mean the whole area of defense and foreign assistance.,Q. Is this the area that the money for North Vietnam will come out of, the defense budget?,THE PRESIDENT. It will come out of the national security budget, which means the area of foreign assistance and defense both. As you know, the two are interlocked because the Defense Department has some foreign aid programs, and there are some outside the Defense Department. But the whole national security area will absorb all of the assistance programs which we may agree to in terms of that.,Q. Can you say how much it will be?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that is something to be negotiated.,BLACK AMERICANS,[4.] Mr. Alexander [Holmes Alexander, McNaught Syndicate] was on his feet a moment ago and then I will go to the rest of you.,Q. Mr. President, I apologize for this question before I ask it.,THE PRESIDENT. Nobody else does. [Laughter],Q. The only reason I do so is because I think you should have a chance to answer it. But I was in Richmond shortly after your reelection, at a public meeting, and a State senator, who was a Negro, got up and asked me, when is Mr. Nixon going to stop kicking the blacks around? And I thought you might like to respond to that.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I could not stop unless I started it, and I have not, I believe.,I think it is very important, Mr. Alexander, that the people who happen to be black Americans in this country understand that the President of this Nation is one who, first, would not, of course, ever say that he would ever admit, and I trust there would be nothing in the record to indicate that he had kicked any group in the population around and particularly one that deserved far better than that because of what they have been exposed to through the years.,The second point I would make is that there has been some speculation I know in some of the press and particularly in the black press to the effect that because I did not get a substantial number of black votes, although greater than in 1968, that, therefore, now we don't owe anything to them.,Let me say that is not the issue at all. The issue is doing what is right. This Nation owes something to all of its people, and it owes something particularly to those who have been disadvantaged.,We, I believe, have done a very effective job in that respect in terms of what we have done--maybe not, in terms of what we have said, so well--and we are going to continue to do well, and we hope, eventually, that our citizens will recognize that we have done so.,RELEASE OF POW'S AND TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your own delineation of what really entered into the recent agreement on the POW return and the resumption of troop withdrawal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service], I don't think that any useful purpose would be served by indicating what the content of the various messages were which went between the governments involved at that time.,Just let me say that Mr. Ziegler covered that, after a consultation with me, when he was first asked that question.1,1 Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler's remarks about the release of American prisoners of war are printed in the Weekly Gompilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 9, P. 193 ).,As far as the POW's are concerned, that provision and the withdrawal provision cannot be linked to anything else. The suggestion, for example, that what brought about the POW return was some action on the part of the United States or some assurance on the part of the United States that we would do something with regard to getting better compliance with the cease-fire, that suggestion is completely wrong. That provision stands on its own, too.,It is in our interests and we are doing everything that we can to get both parties, North and South, to comply with the cease-fire, but as far as the POW's are concerned, the agreement clearly provides that in return for withdrawal, the POW's will be returned. We expect that agreement to be complied with.,We made our position known publicly very clearly and privately very clearly. We accomplished our goal, and now to go into how we did it, I don't think would be helpful.,I want to say, too, that I have noted that in the morning press there was some concern expressed about the 30 POW's that are held by the PRG [Provisional Revolutionary Government]. I am not going to speculate about how that is to be accomplished, except to say that we had been assured that within 48 hours from yesterday that the POW's held by the North, this particular segment, and by the PRG, would be released.,Now, where they will be released and how is something else again, but we expect them to be released within the time frame, and I will not comment about what we will do if they are not, because we expect that they will comply.,AMNESTY,[6.] Yes, Mr. Deakin [James Deakin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch],Q. After your last press conference, Senator Scott suggested to some of us that we ask you again about the question of amnesty for draft evaders, as opposed to those who deserted military service after being inducted. Have you something further to tell us on your stand on amnesty?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think I have made my position abundantly clear. I realize that many people disagree with it.,I would suggest, incidentally, that if Merebers of the Senate and the House disagree with it, they should put it up for a vote in the Senate and House. I think that the Members of the Senate and the House would overwhelmingly approve my position.,Let me say it is not said with any sense of vengeance; it is not said with any lack of compassion--but I take this position because these men have broken the law. And if, at the end of the war, we broke every precedent that this country has had, this would be the first time in history that amnesty was provided for those who deserted or evaded the draft, broke the law rather than complied with it as conscientious objectors. If we did that, we could not have a viable force in the future.,I Would also say I can think of no greater insult to the memories of those who have fought and died, to the memories of those who have served, and also to our POW's, to say to them that we are now going to provide amnesty for those who deserted the country or refused to serve. We are not going to do so, and I do not intend to change my position.,JOHN CONNALLY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to send John Connally on a mission around the world?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he has been traveling around the world a great deal already, as you know. And I want you to know, Miss McClendon [Sarah McClendon, Sarah McClendon News Service], seriously, that as Secretary Connally has traveled around the world, he, of course, has been traveling in his private capacity as an attorney, but he has, at my request, undertaken some informal discussions with leaders in various parts of the world.,Secretary Connally, as you know, is very knowledgeable in the field of energy, and without getting involved in anything involving his client-attorney relationship, he is studying the situation with regard to energy from the private sector, and is making recommendations to me and to our energy group.,As far as any future trips are concerned, there are none officially planned, but if he travels privately, and if I can prevail upon him to undertake a mission that would be semipublic in purpose, I can think of no better man to undertake it.,WELFARE REFORM,[8.] Q. Mr. President.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Weinberger yesterday--I am sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. Either one. You start.,Q. Mr. Weinberger---,THE PRESIDENT. He will always get his; don't worry.,Q. said that the Administration was never comfortable about the family assistance plan, and he seemed to include you in that. I wonder if you could give us your views on that, and why you introduced it in the first place if you were not comfortable with it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Mr. Weinberger is expressing, I think, the views that we had after we ran into a situation in the Senate which clearly indicated that we were up against an impossible legislative problem.,First, with regard to family assistance, I thought at the time that I approved it-and this view has not changed--that it was the best solution to what I have termed, and many others have termed before me, the welfare mess. I believe that it is essential that we develop a new program and a new approach to welfare in which there is a bonus not for welfare but a bonus, if there is to be one, for work.,That may be over-simplifying, but basically, in our welfare system today, because of varying standards and because the amounts for food stamps and other fringes have gone up so much, we find that in area after area of this country it is more profitable to go on welfare than to go to work. That is wrong. It is unfair to the working poor. The family assistance program, I thought then and I think now, is the best answer.,Now, there are many who object to it, and because of those objections there is no chance--and we have checked this out; I have made my own judgment of the political situation, and I have talked to [Clark] MacGregor, and I have talked to [William E.] Timmons, and I have talked to Bryce Harlow about it--there is no chance we can get it through the Senate because of objections, on the one side, to any family assistance program at all, on principle, and to actions, on the other side, if we put up the program, to raise the price tag so high that we could not possibly afford it.,So we have to find a different way. I have told Secretary Weinberger, therefore, to go back to the drawing board and also to go to the Members of the Senate on both sides and to bring me back a program which will stop this unconscionable situation where people who go on welfare find it more profitable to go on welfare than to go to work. And I think we will find an answer. Family assistance may be part of that answer, but I know we are going to have to change it in order to get a vote--a proposition that will get the votes.,L. PATRICK GRAY III,[9.] Now Mr. Mollenhoff [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune].,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Gray has been up before the Senate Judiciary Committee,2 and he has been under attack for political speeches in 1972, and there is a controversy about whether those are or are not political speeches. I wonder if you have looked at those, whether you have a view on that? And it seemed to me the most vulnerable point was a memo from Patrick O'Donnell from the White House, that was distributed to all the surrogates for the President, that went to Pat Gray on the Cleveland situation, and it involved a setting out of how crucial Ohio was in the campaign in 1972. And I wonder if you felt that was a breach of your instructions relative to the politics of Pat Gray and whether you had investigated this?,2On February 21, 1973, the 'President nominated Mr. Gray to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Gray had been designated Acting Director on May 3, 1972.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Mollenhoff, that is a very proper question. I mean I would not suggest other questions are improper, but it is a very proper question, because when I appointed Mr. Gray, as you remember, I said I was not going to send his name last year because I felt that we should wait until we got past the political campaign so that the Senate could consider it in a nonpolitical and nonpartisan atmosphere, and the Senate is now doing that.,As far as Mr. Gray is concerned--and not the individual, but the Director of the FBI--he must be, as Mr. Hoover was before him, a nonpartisan figure. He should not be involved in making political statements, and that does not mean, if we look at Mr. Hoover's record, that he will not say some things that may sound political at times, but it means that he must not become involved in partisan politics, supporting a candidate, opposing a candidate, and Mr. Gray, on the basis of what I have seen, had no intention of doing so. If there was anything indicating that during the campaign that we were trying to enlist him in that, it certainly didn't have my support and would not have it now.,I would also say, too, that the current Senate investigation or hearing, I should say, of Mr. Gray, is altogether proper. They should ask him all these questions. I want the people of this country to have confidence in the Director of the FBI. I had confidence in him when I nominated him.,I believe that the Senate will find, based on his record since he was nominated, that he has been fair, he has been efficient, and that he will be a good, shall we say, lawman in the tradition of J. Edgar Hoover, and I am sure that the Senate will overwhelmingly approve him.,Q. Mr. President, do you think it is fair and efficient for Mr. Gray and the FBI not to question Mrs. Mitchell when they think there was cause to because her husband was a former Attorney General and campaign official of yours?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to other questions on Mr. Gray, it has always been my practice, as you ladies and gentlemen know, not to comment on a hearing while it is in process. This is a matter that was brought up in the hearing.,I am sure that if the Members of the Senate feel that that was an improper activity on his part, they will question him about it, and he will answer on it. But whether it is this hearing or any other hearing, I will not comment on a hearing while it is in progress.,My answer to Mr. Mollenhoff stated a principle. Your question goes to a matter that the committee has a right to look into, and the answer should come from the committee.,HOSTAGES IN THE SUDAN,[10.] Q. Mr. President, we have a crisis, of course, in the Sudan where a U.S. Ambassador is being held hostage,3 and one of the ransom demands is that Sirhan Sirban be released. I wonder if you have any comment on this, particularly on that demand?,THE PRESIDENT. Last night I was sitting by the wife of Mr. Rabin, and we were saying that the position of ambassador, once so greatly sought after, now, in many places, becomes quite dangerous.,3On March 1, 1973, Ambassador Cleo A. Noel, Jr., Deputy Chief of Mission George Curtis Moore, and Belgian Charge d'Affaires Guy Eld were seized at a reception at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, by members of the Arab terrorist organization, Black September.,As you know, we had a problem in Latin America last year; we have one here this year. I don't mean to suggest it is that hazardous everyplace, but it is a problem and it is a risk that an ambassador has to take.,As far as the United States as a government giving in to blackmail demands, we cannot do so and we will not do so.,Now, as to what can be done to get these people released, Mr. Macomber4 is on his way there for discussions. The Sudanese Government is working on the problem. We will do everything that we can to get them released, but we will not pay blackmail.,4 Deputy Under Secretary of State for Management William B. Macomber, Jr.,OBSERVANCE OF THE VIETNAM CEASE-FIRE,[II.] Q. Mr. President, are you disappointed or are you concerned that the cease-fire agreement in Vietnam has not been observed as scrupulously as you might have liked up to now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let's look at what has happened. A cease-fire agreement is always difficult. You may recall I have mentioned that on occasion, that it is particularly difficult in the case of a guerrilla war. I have often been, as some of you gentlemen and ladies have, at the demarcation line in Korea. Many people forget that 20 years after the Korean cease-fire, where you have a demarcation line, a clear line between the one side and the other, where they have no guerrilla war, there are still incidents, not many, but there are still incidents. They were running as high 3 years ago as 100 a year.,Now, in Vietnam, where you have a guerrilla war situation, where the lines are not so clearly drawn as to which side is held by the PRG and which side is held by the South Vietnamese, there will continue to be violations until the situation becomes settled between the two sides.,What is important, however, is to note that the number of violations, the intensity of the fighting, has been reduced. It is not zero yet. I doubt if it will become zero in any time in the foreseeable future because of the fact that a guerrilla war having been fought for 25 years, off and on, is not going to be ended by one agreement, not in I month, not in e months, but the main point is, it is going down. And we expect adherence to the agreement from both sides. We will use our influence on both sides to get adherence to the agreement.,WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES,[12.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask you about the 5.5 percent wage settlement? The leaders of labor seem to feel that that 5.5 percent ceiling is now more flexible in Phase III than it was in Phase II, but Secretary Shultz and the Director of the Cost of Living Council, Mr. Dunlop, the other day told us it is not more flexible, that. it is just as hard a ceiling as it was before. Could you straighten this out for us?,THE PRESIDENT. What we have here as most important is not the 5.5, but the bottom line, which is 2.5. Now on that there is unanimity. The leaders of labor, the leaders of management, this very prestigious and powerful committee representing strong elements in both areas, agreed to the goal toward which we would work in our wage-price discussions this year, to achieve an inflation level at the consumer level, retail level, of 2.5.,Now, in order to get to that level, it is going to be necessary that wage demands be within the ballpark which will reach that level. As far as the wage guidelines are concerned, and the price guidelines, the same guidelines are in effect now as were before January 11. However, what we have done is to recognize what we found in Phase II. In Phase II, actually the wage settlements in all of the various settlements, and I have examined them, a great number of them, you had very few that were 5.5. Some were as high as 7. Some were as low as 3. But what mattered was that in the end, the average worked out so that we almost achieved our goal of 3 percent. We got to 3.4.,Now, what we are concerned about is to see that in the negotiations in the year 1973, those negotiations are undertaken with enough flexibility--some will go a little higher, some will go a little lower--but with enough flexibility so that we don't have a wage-price push which would destroy the goal that everybody unanimously agrees we should try to achieve of 2.5 at the end of the year at the retail level. I am sure that confuses you.,THE AMERICAN DOLLAR,[13.] Q. Mr. President, what kind of trouble is the American dollar in in Europe, in your judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the American dollar, I think, is being attacked by international speculators. I know that when I use that term my sophisticates in the Treasury Department shudder because they believe these great forces are not determined by speculation and the rest. But as I look at the American economy, as I look at the American rate of inflation, I would say that the dollar is a good bet in the world markets today.,The United States has the lowest rate of inflation of any major industrial country. The United States has certainly the strongest economy of the major industrial countries. The United States also has a program, which we believe is going to work, for continuing to control inflation.,We have a very tight budget, or I should say a responsible budget. Let me point out, it is not a budget which is cut; it is a budget, however, which does not go up as much as some would want it to go, and therefore, one that will continue to cool the inflationary fires. And, of course, under these circumstances, we believe that the dollar is a sound currency and that this international attack upon it by people who make great sums of money by speculating-one time they make a run on the mark, and the next time it is on the yen, and now it is on the dollar--we will survive it.,Let me say there will not be another devaluation. I would say, second, we are going to continue our program of fiscal responsibility so that the dollar will be sound at home and, we trust as well, abroad. And we also are going to continue our efforts to get the other major countries to participate more with us in the goal that we believe we should all achieve, which we set out at the time of the Smithsonian and the other agreements, and that is of getting an international monetary system which is flexible enough to take care of these, what I believe are, temporary attacks on one currency or another.,Q. Can we do anything to bring these speculators under control?,THE PRESIDENT. We cannot because, I would say, for the most part they are operating in the international area, and all that we can do is to keep our dollar as sound as we can at home, to keep our economy as sound as we can, to be as responsible as we can so that the run on the dollar does not mean a weakness of the American economy or of the dollar, in fact, that we spend here at home.,RENT CONTROLS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, are you possibly giving any thought to reviving the Rent Control Board?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are not. Rent controls have an enormous public appeal, particularly when you see some of the gouging that goes on in individual cases. The difficulty with rent control, however--and any of you who have visited Paris or some of the other major cities which have had rent control almost since World War II and see what has happened to rents, particularly of new dwellings, know what I am talking about--the difficulty with rent control, if you put a rent control ceiling on that is not economically viable so that the builders and those who will rent apartments and so forth cannot and will not make their investment, all that happens is that you get a shortage of housing, the pressures go up, and also you find that the landlords don't keep up the places.,No, I do not think that rent controls is the right answer. I think the answer to the problem of rents is production of housing which will deal with it.,THE WATERGATE CASE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, now that the Watergate case is over, the trial is over, could you give us your view on the verdict 5 and what implications you see in the verdict on public confidence in the political system?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, it would not be proper for me to comment on the case when it not only is not over, but particularly when it is also on appeal.,5 On January 30, 1973, G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord, Jr., were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on charges of burglary, wiretapping, and conspiracy in connection with the illegal entry into the Democratic National Committee headquarters on June 17, 1972. Earlier in January, five other defendants had pleaded guilty to charges connected with the break-in before Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the court.,I will simply say with regard to the Watergate case what I have said previously, that the investigation conducted by Mr. Dean, the White House Counsel, in which, incidentally, he had access to the FBI records on this particular matter because I directed him to conduct this investigation, indicates that no one on the White House Staff, at the time he conducted the investigation--that was last July and August--was involved or had knowledge of the Watergate matter. And, as far as the balance of the case is concerned, it is now under investigation by a Congressional committee and that committee should go forward, conduct its investigation in an even-handed way, going into charges made against both candidates, both political parties. And if it does, as Senator Ervin has indicated it will, we will, of course, cooperate with the committee just as we cooperated with the grand jury.,CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,[16.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday at the Gray hearings, Senator Tunney suggested he might ask the committee to ask for John Dean to appear before that hearing to talk about the Watergate case and the FBI-White House relationship. Would you object to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course.,Q. Why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because it is executive privilege. I mean you can't--I, of course--no President could ever agree to allow the Counsel to the President to go down and testify before a committee.,On the other hand, as far as any committee of the Congress is concerned, where information is requested that a member of the White House Staff may have, we will make arrangements to provide that information, but members of the White House Staff, in that position at least, cannot be brought before a Congressional committee in a formal hearing for testimony. I stand on the same position there that every President has stood on.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,Q. Mr. President, on that particular point, if the Counsel was involved,THE PRESIDENT. He always gets two. [Laughter],Q. if the Counsel was involved in an illegal or improper act and the prima facie case came to light, then would you change the rules relative to the White House Counsel?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not expect that to happen, and if it should happen, I would have to answer that question at that point.,Let me say, too, that I know that, since you are on your feet, Clark [Mollenhoff], that you had asked about the executive privilege statement, and we will have that available toward the end of next week or the first of the following week, for sure, because obviously, the Ervin committee is interested in that statement, and that will answer, I think, some of the questions with regard to how information can be obtained from a member of the White House Staff, but consistent with executive privilege.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you again."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1973-01-31","text":"THE PRESIDENT. In view of the announcement that has already been made this morning,1 I know that you will have questions on that and other matters, so we will go right to the questions.,1Earlier in the morning, Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler announced: The United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam have agreed that Dr. Kissinger, Assistant to the President of the United States, will visit Hanoi from February 10 to 13, 1973, to discuss with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam the postwar relationship between the two countries and other matters of mutual concern.,QUESTIONS,MEETING WITH PRESIDENT THIEU,[1.] I think Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International] has the first question.,Q. Can you tell us whether you are going to meet with President Thieu sometime this spring and also give us a better feeling on Dr. Kissinger's trip, the purpose and so forth?,THE PRESIDENT. At some time this spring I do plan to meet with President Thieu. I have discussed the matter with him in correspondence and I also discussed it yesterday in my meeting with the Foreign Minister. It will be at a time mutually convenient.,The UPI story, incidentally, was on the mark except for the location. The location we have agreed on will be the Western White House this spring.,DR. KISSINGER'S TRIP TO HANOI,As far as Dr. Kissinger's trip is concerned, this is a matter that we feel is very important in terms of developing the postwar relationship with North Vietnam. When we look at this very intricate agreement, which Dr. Kissinger so brilliantly briefed for the members of the press, and if you have read it, you will see why I use the word \"intricate,\" we can see that, insofar as its terms are concerned, if the agreement is kept, there is no question about the fact that we will have peace in not only Vietnam but in Indochina for a very long period of time. But the question is whether both parties--in fact, all parties involved--have a will to peace, if they have incentives to peace, if they have desire to peace.,Now, on this particular point, it is necessary, of course, for us to talk to the South Vietnamese, as we are. It is also vitally important that we have a direct communication with the North Vietnamese. And Dr. Kissinger will be going to Hanoi to meet with the top leaders of the Government of the DRV. There he will discuss the postwar relationship. He will, of course, discuss the current status of compliance with the peace agreements which we have made, and he will also discuss, in terms of postwar relationships, the matter of the reconstruction program for all of Indochina.,As the leaders probably reported after my meeting with them the day after I announced the cease-fire agreement, I raised with the leaders the point that the United States would consider for both North Vietnam and South Vietnam and the other countries in the area a reconstruction program.,I, of course, recognized in raising this with the leaders that there would have to be Congressional consultation and Congressional support. In terms of this particular matter at this time, Dr. Kissinger will be having an initial conversation with the North Vietnamese with regard to this whole reconstruction program.,I should also say that I have noted that many Congressmen and Senators and many of the American people are not keen on helping any of the countries in that area, just as they are not keen on foreign aid generally. But as far as I am concerned, whether it is with the North or the South or the other countries in the area, I look upon this as a potential investment in peace. To the extent that the North Vietnamese, for example, participate with us and with other interested countries in reconstruction of North Vietnam, they will have a tendency to turn inward to the works of peace rather than turning outward to the works of war.,This, at least, is our motive, and we will know more about it after Dr. Kissinger completes his talks with them, which we think will be quite extensive and very, frank since he has already, obviously, paved the way for it.,WELCOMING OF PRISONERS OF WAR,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Kissinger is going to Vietnam and is due there in Hanoi on February 10. Is this related in any way with the first prisoners of war to come out of Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all.,Q. I mean, is the date a coincidence?,THE PRESIDENT. The date is a pure coincidence, and Dr. Kissinger will not be meeting with the prisoners of war. Incidentally, speaking of the POW question, [ have noted some speculation in the press, and it isn't--I should say--it's speculation that is justified, because I understand there was a Defense Department report to this effect, that I was going to go out to Travis Air Force Base to meet the first POW's when they came in.,I do not intend to do so. I have the greatest admiration for the prisoners of war, for their stamina and their courage and the rest, and also for their wives and their parents and their children who have been so strong during this long period ,of their vigil.,This is a time that we should not grandstand it; we should not exploit it. We should remember that it is not like astronauts coming back from the Moon after what is, of course, a very, shall we say, spectacular and dangerous journey, but these are men who have been away sometimes for years. They have a right to have privacy, they have a right to be home with their families just as quickly as they possibly can. And I am going to respect that right, of course, to the extent that any of them or their families desiring to visit the White House can be sure that they will be very high on the list.,DOMESTIC DIVISIONS AND AMNESTY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you have anything specifically in mind to help heal the wounds in this country, the divisions over the war, and specifically, anything down the road much farther in terms of amnesty?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it takes two to heal wounds, and I must say that when I see that the most vigorous criticism or, shall we say, the least pleasure out of the peace agreement comes from those that were the most outspoken advocates of peace at any price, it makes one realize whether some want the wounds healed. We do.,We think we have taken a big step toward ending a long and difficult war which was not begun while we were here, and I am not casting any aspersions on those Presidents who were in office who can no longer be here to speak for themselves, for the causes of the war. I am simply saying this: that as far as this Administration is concerned, we have done the very best that we can against very great obstacles, and we finally have achieved a peace with honor.,I know it gags some of you to write that phrase, but it is true, and most Americans realize it is true, because it would be peace with dishonor had we--what some bare used, the vernacular--\"bugged out\" and allowed what the North Vietnamese wanted: the imposition of a Communist government or a coalition Communist government in the South Vietnamese. That goal they have failed to achieve. Consequently, we can speak of peace with honor and with some pride that it has been achieved.,Now, I suppose, Mr. Sheldon [Courtney R. Sheldon, Christian Science Monitor], that your question with regard to amnesty may deal with the problems of healing the wounds. Certainly I have sympathy for any individual who has made a mistake. We have all made mistakes. But also, it is a rule of life, we all have to pay for our mistakes.,One of the most moving wires I received, of the many thousands that have come in to the White House since the peace announcement, was from a man who was in prison in Michigan, I believe it is, and he spoke about a group of his fellow inmates. They are in a work camp, so I suppose they are being rehabilitated to come out.,He wrote very emotionally about what we had done and he felt it was an achievement they were very proud of. I feel sorry for that man; on the other hand, it is not my right, and I should not exercise such a right, because he so wrote to me, to say \"Now you are forgiven for what you did.\",Now, as far as amnesty is concerned, I have stated my views, and those views remain exactly the same. The war is over. Many Americans paid a very high price to serve their country, some with their lives, some as prisoners of war for as long as 6 to 7 years, and of course, 2 1/2 million, 2 to 3 years out of their lives, serving in a country far away in a war that they realize had very little support among the so-called better people, in the media and the intellectual circles and the rest, which had very little support, certainly, among some elements of the Congress--particularly the United States Senate--but which fortunately did have support among a majority of the American people, who some way, despite the fact that they were hammered night after night and day after day with the fact that this was an immoral war, that America should not be there, that they should not serve their country, that morally what they should do was desert their country.,Certainly as we look at all of that, there might be a tendency to say now, to those few hundreds who went to Canada or Sweden or someplace else and chose to desert their country, that because they had a higher morality, we should now give them amnesty.,Now, amnesty means forgiveness. We cannot provide forgiveness for them. Those who served paid their price. Those who deserted must pay their price, and the price is not a junket in the Peace Corps, or something like that, as some have suggested. The price is a criminal penalty for disobeying the laws of the United States. If they want to return to the United States they must pay the penalty. If they don't want to return, they are certainly welcome to stay in any country that welcomes them.,POSTWAR RECONSTRUCTION IN INDOCHINA,[4.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Do you have any floor or ceiling dollar figure in mind for the rehabilitation of North Vietnam or the rest of Indochina?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis, that is a matter that the Members of the Congress raised with me, as you might imagine, and they raised it not only with regard to North Vietnam but with regard to South Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos in this period as we move into the cease-fire and, we hope, peacetime reconstruction.,I cannot give you that figure now, because it is a matter that has to be negotiated, and it must be all part of one pattern. The figure, of course, will come out. The figures will come out, but they must first be discussed with the bipartisan leadership because, with all of this talk about the powers of the Presidency, let me say I am keenly aware of the fact that even though I might believe that a program of reconstruction for North Vietnam, as well as South Vietnam, is an investment in peace, the Congress has to believe it. The Congress has to support it. And this is going to be one of the more difficult assignments I have had as President, but I think we can make it if the Congress sees what the stakes are.,INTEREST RATES ON AGRICULTURAL LOANS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, sir, Senator Hollings says on a recent trip to Southeast Asia, he discovered that we are letting some countries, including Japan, have 2 percent money, yet we have denied our own farmers in rural cooperatives 2 percent money. We are telling them they have to have their loans at 5 percent. Would you comment on this and how this might relate to your upcoming program of aid to Southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as far as the program of aid is concerned and the percentage of interest that is paid, we will, of course, have in mind the interest of the American people. We want to be fair, of course, to those who have been our allies and in the great tradition of America when it fights wars, to those who have been our enemies, like Germany and Japan who, with America's help, now have become our two greatest competitors in the free world.,Now, when you get down to whether the percentage will be 2 percent or 5 percent or 3 percent, that is a matter to be negotiated, but we will be fair and we will see that our farmers also are treated fairly.,Let me say, if I could, with regard to REA [Rural Electrification Administration]-and Miss McClendon [Sarah McClendon, Sarah McClendon News Service], because you are somewhat of an expert on this--I have always supported REA because I used to represent the old 12th District. When I lived there and represented it, it was primarily agricultural, orange groves; now it is primarily people, subdivided. But as one who came from that area, I naturally had a great interest in this matter of REA and the rest, and supported it.,But what I have found is that when I first voted for REA, 80 percent of the loans went for the purpose of rural development and getting electricity to farms. Now 80 percent of this 2 percent money goes for country clubs and dilettantes, for example, and others who can afford living in the country. I am not for 2 percent money for people who can afford 5 percent or 7.,RELATIONS WITH EUROPE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you and people in your Administration have been quoted as calling 1973 the year of Europe. Could you tell us exactly what that means to you, and specifically, will you be making a trip to Europe in the next month or so?,THE PRESIDENT. I will not be making any trips to Europe certainly in the first half of this year. Whether I can make any trips later on remains to be seen. As a matter of fact, so that all of you can plan not to take shots, I plan no trips whatever in the first half of this year outside the United States. The meeting with President Thieu, if it does work out, at a time mutually convenient, will take place sometime in the spring.,Now, the fact that I don't take a trip to Europe does not mean that this will not be a period when there will be great attention paid to Europe, because it just happens as we complete the long and difficult war in Vietnam, we now must turn to the problems of Europe. We have been to the People's Republic of China. We have been to the Soviet Union. We have been paying attention to the problems of Europe, but now those problems will be put on the front burner.,There is the problem of trade, for example. There is the problem of the European Security Conference which we must discuss. There is the problem of mutual balanced force reduction. All of this will require consultation with our European allies. And in that connection, that is one of the reasons that the Heath visit 2 is so enormously important. I am spending more time with Mr. Heath than I have with some other visitors. I mean by that not that time proves everything, but not only will we have the usual dinners and luncheons and so forth, but I am spending a full day with him at Camp David because I want to get his thoughts about what the position of the United States and our European friends should be with regard to the European Security Conference, with regard to the MBFR [mutual and balanced force reductions], and of course, what the position of the United States should be and the new, broader European Community should be in this period when we can either become competitors in a constructive way or where we can engage in economic confrontation that could lead to bitterness and which would hurt us both.,2See Item 25.,We want to avoid that, even though it has been predicted by some in this country who really fear the new Europe. I do not fear it if we talk to them and consult at this time.,GOVERNOR CONNALLY AND THE 1976 ELECTION,[7.] Mr. Deakin [James Deakin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch],Q. You are quoted as telling a recent visitor that you believe that Governor Connally will be the Republican nominee of 1976. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I had thought we had just completed an election.,Q. Just a little foresight there.,THE PRESIDENT. Having just completed one, let me give some advice, if I can, to all of those who may be thinking of becoming candidates in 1976.,I have a considerable amount of experience in getting nominations and winning elections and also losing them. So, consequently, I would suggest that as far as the Presidential candidate is concerned, he is out of his mind if he allows any activity in his behalf or participates in any activity in his behalf, running for the nomination before the elections of 1974 are concluded.,If I were advising people who are interested in becoming and running for President, for the nomination in either party, I would say the best way to get the nomination now is not to be out seeking it. The best way to get it is to work as hard as you can for the success of the candidates of your party, be they for the House or the Senate or Governor, and do it in a selfless way until after 1974 and immediately after 1974 take off and run as fast as you can. And I have always done that and with mixed results. [Laughter],But as far as Governor Connally is concerned, you all know my very high respect for him. I have stated my belief that he could handle any job that I can think of in this country or in the world for that matter, but I would be out of my mind if I were to be endorsing anybody for the Presidency at the present time when there are a number of people who have indicated--or whose friends have indicated that they might have an interest in the position and that is just fine.,If Governor Connally--and, of course, many have suggested that the Vice President would be interested--I assume that several Governors might be interested. In fact, one of these days, perhaps right after the '74 elections, I will give you my list, and it will be quite a long one because I am not going to make my choice until after they have been through a few primaries.,SHOOTING OF SENATOR STENNIS,[8.] Q. Can you give us your reaction to the shooting of Senator Stennis?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I called Mrs. Stennis last night, as I am sure many others of his friends did, and it is just one of those senseless things that happens, apparently. When she told me that all they got was his billfold, she said it didn't have much in it, and his Phi Beta Kappa key and also his watch, apparently. So, it's one of those things that happens in our cities today--fortunately not happening as much as it did previously.,The point that I would make with regard to Senator Stennis --and this is what I told her is that I just hope that the doctors did the most superb job they have ever done. I hope that his spirit would see him through this physically and in every other way, because of all the Senators in the United States Senate, Democrat or Republican, in terms of our being able to achieve the honorable peace we have achieved, John Stennis was the most indispensable.,GUN CONTROL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you, along those lines, you said it was such a senseless thing. The White House, this Administration, has not spoken out very strongly against gun controls, particularly handguns. I would like to know perhaps if maybe you are going to have second thoughts about that now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the problem with that is not so much the White House speaking out on handguns and Saturday night specials, which I think this may have been. I haven't seen the latest reports, but the doctor last night told me it was a .22 caliber cheap gun kind of a thing, and Mrs. Stennis said it sounded like firecrackers. Obviously if they had had a .45, he would be dead.,We have, and I have, as you know, advocated legislation to deal with what we call the Saturday night specials, which can be acquired by anybody, including juveniles, and apparently there are some suggestions that juveniles were those involved in this case. I am not charging that, incidentally. I am saying what I read in the papers, most of which, as you know, is true.,So, under the circumstances, I feel that Senator Hruska, who introduced the bill before and then it came a cropper in the Senate Judiciary Committee, will now work with the Judiciary Committee in attempting to find the formula which will get the support necessary to deal with this specific problem, without, at the same time, running afoul of the rights of those who believe that they need guns for hunting and all that sort of thing.,Let me say, personally, I have never hunted in my life. I have no interest in guns and so forth. I am not interested in the National Rifle Association or anything from a personal standpoint. But I do know that, in terms of the United States Congress, what we need is a precise definition which will keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals and not one that will impinge on the rights of others to have them for their own purposes in a legitimate way.,Incidentally, the legislation that we originally suggested or that we discussed with Senator Hruska, I thought precisely dealt with the problem, but it did not get through the Senate. My guess is that Senator Stennis--everything perhaps has a down side and an up side; I guess everything really does--but the very fact that Senator Stennis was the victim of one of these things--we thought this was the case when Governor Wallace was--but in this instance, it was apparently one of these small handguns that most people, most reasonable people, except for the all-out opponents of any kind of legislation in this field, most reasonable people believe it should be controlled. Perhaps we can get some action. I hope the Senate does act.,I have asked the Attorney General-had asked incidentally before this happened-as one of his projects for this year to give us a legislative formula, not one that would simply speak to the country, and not get through, but one that can get through the Congress. That is the problem.,EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,[10.] Mr. Mollenhoff [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune].,Q. Did you approve of the use of executive privilege by Air Force Secretary Searoans in refusing to disclose the White House role in the firing of air cost analyst Fitzgerald?,It came up yesterday in the Civil Service hearings. He used executive privilege. You had stated earlier that you would approve all of these uses of executive privilege, as I understood it, and I wondered whether your view still prevails in this area, or whether others are now entitled to use executive privilege on their own in this type of case?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Mollenhoff, your first assumption is correct. In my dealings with the Congress--I say mine, let me put it in a broader sense--in the dealings of the Executive with the Congress, I do not want to abuse the executive privilege proposition where the matter does not involve a direct conference with or discussion within the Administration, particularly where the President is involved. And where it is an extraneous matter as far as the White House is concerned, as was the case when we waived executive privilege for Mr. Flanigan last year, as you will recall, we are not going to assert it.,In this case, as I understand it--and I did not approve this directly, but it was approved at my direction by those who have the responsibility within the White House in this case it was a proper area in which the executive privilege should have been used.,On the other hand, I can assure you that all of these cases will be handled on a case-by-case basis, and we are not going to be in a position where an individual, when he gets under heat from a Congressional committee, can say, \"Look, I am going to assert executive privilege.\",He will call down here, and Mr. Dean, the White House Counsel, will then advise him as to whether or not we approve it.,Q. I want to follow one question on this.,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. This seems to be an expansion of what executive privilege was in the past, and you were quite critical of executive privilege in 1948 when you were in the Congress--,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly was.,Q. You seem to have expanded it from conversation with the President himself to conversation with anyone in the executive branch of the Government and I wonder, can you cite any law or decision of the courts that supports that view?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Mollenhoff, I don't want to leave the impression that I am expanding it beyond that. I perhaps have not been as precise as I should have been. And I think yours is a very legitimate question because you have been one who has not had a double standard on this. You have always felt that executive privilege, whether I was complaining about its use when I was an investigator or whether I am now defending its use when others are doing the investigating-I understand that position.,Let me suggest that I would like to have a precise statement prepared which I will personally approve so that you will know exactly what it is. I discussed this with the leaders and we have talked, for example-the Republicans, like Senator Javits and Senator Percy, are very interested in it, not just the Democrats, and I understand that. But I would rather, at this point, not like to have just my off-the-top-of-my-head press conference statement delineate what executive privilege will be.,I will simply say the general attitude I have is to be as liberal as possible in terms of making people available to testify before the Congress, and we are not going to use executive privilege as a shield for conversations that might be just embarrassing to us, but that really don't deserve executive privilege.,A. ERNEST FITZGERALD,[11.] Q. The specific situation with regard to Fitzgerald, I would like to explore that. That dealt with a conversation Seamans had with someone in the White House relative to the firing of Fitzgerald and justification or explanations. I wonder if you feel that that is covered, and did you have this explained to you in detail before you made the decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me explain. I was totally aware that Mr. Fitzgerald would be fired or discharged or asked to resign. I approved it and Mr. Seamans must have been talking to someone who had discussed the matter with me.,No, this was not a case of some person down the line deciding he should go. It was a decision that was submitted to me. I made it and I stick by it.3,3At his afternoon news briefing on February 1, 1973, Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler said that the President \"indicated to me that after reading the transcript of yesterday's press conference that he was mistaken in his reference to Mr. Fitzgerald, and the fact of the matter is that the President did not, as indicated in the press conference, have put before him the decision regarding Mr. Fitzgerald.,\"We can find no record--the President requested that a check be made of this--of the matter ever being brought to the President's attention for a decision.,\"So, the decision regarding the reorganization that took place in the Air Force, which dealt with Mr. Fitzgerald, was a matter dealt with solely by the Air Force.\",IMPOUNDMENT OF FUNDS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, how do you respond to criticism that your impoundment of funds abrogates power or authority that the Constitution gave to Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. The same way that Jefferson did, and Jackson did, and Truman did.,When I came in on this, Mr. Mollenhoff---he is one of the few old-timers around here who will remember it--you remember when Senator Symington, who has now turned the other way on this, but you remember when we were talking about the 70 group air force. You remember that on that case I voted as a Congressman to override President Truman's veto. I think it was 70 wing or 70 group air force, where we insisted on a 70 group air force and he said the budget would only provide for 48.,Despite the fact that the Congress spoke, not just as the leaders spoke to me the other day but by veto, overwhelming in both Houses, President Truman impounded the money. He did not spend it. And he had a right to. The constitutional right for the President of the United States to impound funds--and that is not to spend money, when the spending of money would mean either increasing prices or increasing taxes for all the people-that right is absolutely clear.,The problem we have here is basically that the Congress wants responsibility, they want to share responsibility. Believe me, it would be pleasant to have more sharing of responsibility by the Congress. But if you are going to have responsibility, you have to be responsible, and this Congress-and some of the more thoughtful Members of Congress and that includes most of the leadership, in the very good give-and-take we had the other day--this Congress has not been responsible on money.,We simply had this. There is a clear choice. We either cut spending or raise taxes and I made a little check before the leaders meeting. I checked on the campaigns of everybody who had run for office across this country, Democrat and Republican. I didn't find one Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, who had campaigned on the platform of raising taxes in order that we could spend more.,Now the point is, the Congress has to decide, does it want to raise taxes in order to spend more or does it want to cut, as the President is trying to cut? The difficulty, of course--and I have been a Member of Congress--is that the Congress represents special interests.,The Interior Committee wants to have more parks and the Agriculture Committee wants cheap REA loans and the HEW Committee or the Education and Labor Committee wants more for education and the rest, and each of these wants we all sympathize with. But there is only one place in this Government where somebody has got to speak not for the special interests which the Congress represents but for the general interest.,The general interest of this country, the general interest, whether it be rich or poor or old, is don't break the family budget by raising the taxes or raising prices, and I am going to stand for that general interest. Therefore, I will not spend money if the Congress overspends, and I will not be for programs that will raise the taxes and put a bigger burden on the already overburdened American taxpayer.,AMERICAN PRISONERS IN CHINA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there are two American fliers still being held prisoner in China, and they are sort of in limbo-well, three Americans but two fliers. I wonder if you could give us their status, and do you expect them to be returned with the other prisoners?,THE PRESIDENT. This matter we discussed when we were in the People's Republic of China, and we have every reason to believe that these fliers will be released on the initiative of the People's Republic of China as the POW situation is worked out in Vietnam.,I won't go beyond that because this is a matter that should be left to the People's Republic of China, but we have, we believe, every assurance that will happen.,Q. Downey, also?,THE PRESIDENT. Downey is a different case, as you know. Downey involves a CIA agent. His sentence of 30 years has been, I think, commuted to 5 years, and we have also discussed that with Premier Chou En-lai. I would have to be quite candid: We have no assurance that any change of action, other than the commutation of the sentence, will take place, but we have, of course, informed the People's Republic through our private channels that we feel that would be a very salutary action on his part.,But that is a matter where they must act on their own initiative, and it is not one where any public pressures or bellicose statements from here will be helpful in getting his release.4,REPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President.,4On March 9, 1973, the White House released an announcement by Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler of plans for the release of John Downey on March 12, and Lt. Comdr. Robert J. Flynn, USN, and Maj. Philip E. Smith, USAF, on March 15. The announcement is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 9, P. 245)."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-10-05","text":"QUESTIONS\nCHARGES OF CORRUPTION,[1.] Q. Mr. President, what are you planning to do to defend yourself against the charges of corruption in your Administration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have noted such charges. As a matter of fact, I have noted that this Administration has been charged with being the most corrupt in history, and I have been charged with being the most deceitful President in history.,The President of the United States has been compared in his policies with Adolf Hitler. The policies of the U.S. Government to prevent a Communist takeover by force in South Vietnam have been called the worst crime since the Nazi extermination of the Jews in Germany. And the President who went to China and to Moscow, and who has brought 500,000 home from Vietnam, has been called the number one war-maker in the world.,Needless to say, some of my more partisan advisers feel that I should respond in kind. I shall not do so--not now, not throughout this campaign. I am not going to dignify such comments.,In view of the fact that one of the very few Members of the Congress 1 who is publicly and actively supporting the opposition ticket in this campaign has very vigorously, yesterday, criticized this kind of tactics, it seems to me it makes it not necessary for me to respond.,1 Representative Jerome R. Waldie of California.,I think the responsible members of the Democratic Party will be turned off by this kind of campaigning, and I would suggest that responsible members of the press, following the single standard to which they are deeply devoted, will also be turned off by it.,SENATOR MC GOVERN'S CAMPAIGN,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel, as Vice President Agnew said the other day, that Senator McGovern is waging a smear campaign against you? Would you characterize it as that?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to characterize the Senator's campaign. As a matter of fact, I don't question his motives. I think he deeply believes in a number of actions that he believes that this Government should take that I think would be very disastrous for this Nation, as I pointed out in my acceptance speech. Consequently, as far as I am concerned, I will discuss those issues, but I am not going to raise any doubts about his motives. Incidentally, I have no complaint when he raises doubts about mine. That is his choice.,A VIETNAM SETTLEMENT,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in Vietnam, do you see any possibility of a negotiated settlement before the election?,THE PRESIDENT. The settlement will come just as soon as we can possibly get a settlement which is right--right for the South Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese, and for us--one that will have in mind our goals of preventing the imposition by force of a Communist government on South Vietnam and, of course, a goal that is particularly close to our hearts in a humanitarian sense, the return of our prisoners of war.,I should emphasize, however, that under no circumstances will the timing of a settlement, for example, the possible negotiation of a cease-fire, the possible negotiation of, or unilateral action with regard to, a bombing halt--under no circumstances will such action be affected by the fact that there is going to be an election November 7.,If we can make the right kind of a settlement before the election, we will make it. If we cannot, we are not going to make the wrong kind of a settlement before the election. We were around that track in 1968 when well-intentioned men made a very, very great mistake in stopping the bombing without adequate agreements from the other side.,I do not criticize them for that, of course, as far as their motives are concerned. I simply say, having seen what happened then, we are not going to make that mistake now.,The election, I repeat, will not in any way influence what we do at the negotiating table.,Second, because I know this subject has been discussed by a number of you, as it should be, in your commentary and in your reports, the negotiations at this time, as you know, have been, in the private channel, very extensive. We have agreed that neither side will discuss the content of those negotiations. I will not discuss them one way or another.,I will only say that the negotiations am in a sensitive stage. I cannot predict and will not predict that they will or will not succeed. I cannot and will not predict when they will succeed.,But I will say that any comment on my part with regard to how the negotiations are going could only have a detrimental effect on the goal that we are seeking, and that is, as early as possible a negotiated settlement of this long and difficult war.,Q. Mr. President, it has been said that Hanoi may be waiting until after the election to make a final settlement on the theory that if they got a Democrat elected they would get better terms for them. How do you answer that?,THE PRESIDENT. They could be motivated by that. There are those who believe that they were motivated to an extent in 1968 by political considerations in agreeing to a bombing halt before the election with the thought that defeating me was more in their interest than electing my opponent.,I do not claim that that was the case. I must say that both Senator Humphrey and I, I think, were quite responsible in that election campaign in refusing to comment on what were then only preliminary negotiations, recognizing that any comment by one who might be President might jeopardize the success of negotiations.,Now, as far as Hanoi's putting their eggs in that basket, that only indicates that the American political scene is one that no one can predict. Despite what the polls say and despite some indications on our side that we believe we have a good chance to win, there are many in this country and many abroad who think that there is a chance the other side might win.,Under those circumstances, they obviously could conclude, with some justification, that my insistence that we will never agree to a settlement which would impose a Communist government directly or indirectly on the people of South Vietnam, as compared with the statements of our opponents to the contrary on this particular point, might be influencing them.,On the other hand, we are talking. If we have the opportunity, we will continue to talk before this election and we will try to convince them that waiting until after the election is not good strategy.,THE BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there are those of your critics who say that the bombing is really serving no useful purpose and it is needless. What purpose is the bombing now serving in view of the fact that the negotiations have not resulted in a settlement and in view of the fact that there still seems to be a good deal of military activity in the South?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], you could really go further. There are those who say that the bombing and the mining have served no useful purpose and are serving no useful purpose. Those same critics, however, as I pointed out in San Clemente, and have since had an opportunity to review, on May 1, that weekend, all had reached the conclusion that South Vietnam was down the tube. Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the three television network commentators--I am not referring, of course, to you ladies and gentlemen who are reporters--all in varying degrees wrote and spoke of the specter of defeat and the hopelessness of the South Vietnamese cause.,On May 8, I acted to prevent that Communist takeover, which all of these same critics then predicted. After I took that action of mining and bombing, the same critics predicted that the summit was torpedoed. Some even went so far as to say we were risking World War III.,Those predictions proved to be wrong. Now these same critics say that the bombing and mining was not necessary, it has accomplished no purpose, and is not necessary for the future. Well, I would say, based on their track record, I would not give much credence to what the critics have said in this respect.,I will only say the bombing and mining was essential to turn around what was a potentially disastrous situation in South Vietnam. The back of the enemy offensive has been broken. They hold no provincial capitals now at all.,This could not have been accomplished without the mining and the bombing, and the mining and the bombing will continue, of course, until we get some agreements on the negotiating front.,GRAIN SALES TO SOVIET UNION 2,[5.] Q. Mr. President, what is your reply to critics who charge there is scandal involved in your Russian wheat agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. My reply is to have such allegations investigated incidentally, with the thorough agreement and complete agreement of Secretary Butz. Secretary Butz and the House Committee on Agriculture both looked into these charges that some of the big grain dealers, the so-called Big Six, got advance information and made a lot of money, and that particularly some of the wheat growers in the Southwestern part of the country who sell their wheat early, usually, in order to get a premium, were left holding the bag when, if they had the advance information that there was going to be a deal, they could have made some more money.,2On July 8, 1972, the White House released a fact sheet and the transcripts of two news briefings on the U.S.-Soviet grain purchase agreement. The first news briefing was held by Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the second by Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson and Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz. The transcript of Dr. Kissinger's news briefing is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 8, p. 1142).,Now, if there was any impropriety, if there was any illegality, we want to know it. The way to find out is to put the best investigative agency in the world to work in finding out. As soon as their investigation is completed--and we want it just as quickly as we can it will be made available to the Secretary, and he will take whatever action is needed if there is illegality or impropriety.,Let me turn, if I could, on the wheat deal, however, to another side of it that has also come to my attention. I have been rather amused by some of the comments to the effect that the wheat deal was really a bad one for the United States, that we got snookered by the Russians. When I used that term with Mr. Gromyko he asked for a translation, but in any event--and I said, \"Well, you acted like capitalists\"--but in any event--\"because you didn't tell us that your grain failure was as great as it was.\",Of course, his response was, \"Well, what would you have done?\" He said, \"We knew we had to buy a lot of wheat, and we didn't want to push the price up as fast.\",But in any event, let me take very briefly a moment of your time to point out what was in it for us and what was in it for them. First, the wheat deal cost us $120 million in, as you know, payments, farm payments. But this is what we got from it: The farmers got $I billion in more farm income. There were thousands of jobs created, including jobs in the American merchant marine as well as on the farm and in the processing areas, as a result of the wheat deal.,The taxpayers were saved $200 million in farm payments that otherwise would have had to be made if we had kept the wheat in storage and not sold it.,Now, in addition, the wheat deal, this one, the one we have made with the Chinese, the one we have made with the Japanese for grain, and so forth and so on, have had a very significant effect in improving our balance of trade and balance of payments position.,As far as the terms were concerned, when we went in--I negotiated this directly after a lot of preliminary work had been done, and very good preliminary work, by Secretary Peterson and, of course, Secretary Butz--they wanted 10 years at 2-percent credit, and they finally took 3 years at over 6 percent.,Now they got something they needed. They have a short wheat crop and they needed this wheat in order to feed their people, but it was also good for us. Despite that, however, we certainly want no one to have gotten any inside information to make a profit out of it which was illegal or improper. If that did happen, we are going to find out, and we will take action against it.,Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Secretary Butz that if he had known that one of his aides was going to join a grain dealer that he would not have taken him along in negotiating the Russian deal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have very great respect for Secretary Butz's judgment in this matter. The only addition I would make to it is that when we announced the grain deal on July 8 in San Clemente, as you recall, it was only then that we were sure--and incidentally many, of course, are now wondering what is going to happen to the trade agreement.,I can't tell you whether there will be one, or when. I think there will be one, but my point is that when we negotiate in this economic field, as is the case when we negotiate in the field of arms control, it is tough bargaining up and down the line, and until we get it nailed down we are not sure that we are going to get it. In this instance, while Mr. Butz's assistant did take a trip to the Soviet Union, he certainly, I think, would have been very unwise to rely on the possibility there was going to be a deal until one was made.,If he did rely on it, he probably, in this instance, came out well. He could have come out the other way.,PROPERTY TAX RELIEF,[6.] Q. Mr. President, on the question of property taxes, Mr. Ehrlichman has said that the Administration's long-term goal is to reduce property taxes by 50 per, cent, which would mean about $16 billion from the Federal Government presumably to States to make up for the property tax loss. How will you find that $16 billion without having to increase Federal taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. We can't do it all in one bite. We have to begin with that. As Mr. Ehrlichman has indicated, that is why we have set as a goal a 50-percent reduction.,Now, let me indicate to you the priorities that I see developing with regard to property tax relief. We have to start first with the elderly. When I met with Mr. Merriam,3 who, as you know, is the professional working with the advisory committee on intergovernmental relations, he gave me some statistics which to me were terribly depressing. There are one million retired people in this country who have incomes of less than $2,000 a year, and, who, on the average, pay a property tax of 33 1/3 percent of that income.4,3 Robert E. Merrlam, Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.,4 The 33 1/3-percent figure refers to low-income retired persons in the Northeast. Nationwide, the average is about 16 percent of retiree's income.,Now that is fiscally wrong, morally wrong, and certainly tax wrong. We must begin by lifting that burden from those people who have worked all their lives, are now retired on what is basically an inadequate amount, and are paying a third of their taxes [incomes] for property taxes to send, basically, children to school.,I have discussed this matter not only with Mr. Merriam, but Mr. Shultz and I have had, as you have noted, a number of meetings on this in the past few weeks. We hope to have a plan which we can present at an early date. I cannot indicate to you what that date will be, but I will say this: One, we are going to propose to the next Congress a plan that will relieve--that will start down the road of reducing the burden of property taxes.,The first priority will be to reduce the burden of property taxes on the elderly; and second, whatever step we take, one condition is, it must not require any increase in other taxes. We think we have found a formula to do that.,THE WATERGATE CASE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, don't you think that your Administration and the public would be served considerably and that the men under indictment would be treated better, if you people would come through and make a clean breast about what you were trying to get done at the Watergate?,THE PRESIDENT. One thing that has always puzzled me about it is why anybody would have tried to get anything out of the Watergate. But be that as it may, that decision having been made at lower levels, with which I had no knowledge, and, as I pointed out--,Q. But, surely you know now, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Just a minute. I certainly feel that under the circumstances that we have got to look at what has happened and to put the matter into perspective.,Now when we talk about a clean breast, let's look at what has happened. The FBI assigned 133 agents to this investigation. It followed out 1,800 leads. It conducted 1,500 interviews.,Incidentally, I conducted the investigation of the Hiss case. I know that is a very unpopular subject to raise in some quarters, but I conducted it. It was successful. The FBI did a magnificent job, but that investigation, involving the security of this country, was basically a Sunday school exercise compared to the amount of effort that was put into this.,I agreed with the amount of effort that was put into it. I wanted every lead carried out to the end because I wanted to be sure that no member of the White House Staff and no man or woman in a position of major responsibility in the Committee for the Re-Election had anything to do with this kind of reprehensible activity.,Now, the grand jury has handed down indictments. It has indicted incidentally two who were with the Committee for the Re-Election and one who refused to cooperate and another who was apprehended. Under these circumstances, the grand jury now having acted, it is now time to have the judicial process go forward and for the evidence to be presented.,I would say finally with regard to commenting on any of those who have been indicted, with regard to saying anything about the judicial process, I am going to follow the good advice, which I appreciate, of the members of the press corps, my constant, and I trust will always continue to be, very responsible critics.,I stepped into one on that when you recall I made, inadvertently, a comment in Denver about an individual who had been indicted in California, the Manson case. I was vigorously criticized for making any comment about the case, and so, of course, I know you would want me to follow the same single standard by not commenting on this case.,CAMPAIGN PLANS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, when are you going to begin intensive campaigning, and are you going to begin intensive campaigning?,THE PRESIDENT. I repeat, Mr. Warren [Lucien C. Warren, Buffalo Evening News], what I have said previously in San Clemente and at San Francisco. Until the Congress adjourns, my primary responsibility is to stay here, and particularly to stay here to fight the battle against bigger spending that would lead to bigger taxes.,I have made a commitment, and I make it here again today. There will be no tax increase in 1973. However, there is one problem with that commitment. There will be no Presidential tax increase. But, we need the cooperation of the Congress, and there could be a Congressional tax increase. If the Congress, for example, does not approve the $250 billion ceiling that we have requested, that is going to make the chances of avoiding a tax increase more difficult.,It does not make it impossible, however, because we have a second line of defense. If the Congress, as appears likely, continues to pass bills that substantially exceed the budget, which already is at the highest limits that our tax income will pay for, if the Congress continues to pass bills and send them to the President's desk that exceed that budget, the Congress will have voted for a tax increase. However, I still have one weapon left, that is the veto.,My own prediction is that after talking to our own leaders and after hearing from some responsible Democrats in the House and Senate, that even though the Congress will probably send to my desk in the next 2 or 3 weeks a number of bills that will substantially exceed the budget and that would result in a Congressional tax increase, I think my vetoes of those bills will be sustained and that that will make it possible for me to keep my commitment for no tax increase.,That shows one of the reasons why it is important for me to stay on the job here in Washington until the Congress adjourns and until that very great danger of a tax increase caused by Congressional overspending is met and defeated.,Now, once the Congress leaves, or once I see that danger passing, then I can make plans to go into various parts of the country. In the meantime, I am going to have to limit my travel, as I have indicated, to perhaps once a week, on a day that I see no significant problems that I need to attend to here, but I will not do more than that.,If I have to choose between engaging in all of the spectaculars of a campaign, which I have been doing virtually all my life every 2 years for 25 years--if I have to choose between that and staying on the job and doing something that would result in avoiding a tax increase for the American people, I am going to stay fight here on the job.,ELECTION PREDICTIONS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, to follow that up, if you can be a prognosticator--in 1968 you received 301 electoral votes-what do you see for yourself in 1972?,THE PRESIDENT. Three hundred and\none was enough, wasn't it?,Q. True.,THE PRESIDENT. Our goal is to get as many as we can, electoral votes, and as many popular votes as we can. I know that the political questions have been discussed very broadly. I would take a moment on that and might refer to your question, too, but then you follow up if I don't answer.,The problem with a candidate who is ahead in the polls--of course, I like this kind of a problem better than being behind--but the problem of a candidate that is ahead in the polls, and his organization, is a very significant one in this respect: It is the problem of getting his vote out. What we need above everything else is a big vote. In order to get a big vote, it means that people have to be stimulated to vote. That is one of the reasons that going to the country and participating will help get that big vote out, and when the time permits, I will go to the country in order to get the vote out, among other things.,With the candidate who is behind substantially in the polls, he doesn't have that problem. With all the pollsters--and the pollsters always remember when they predicted right, but never when they predicted wrong--this doesn't prove anything necessarily, because when the margins are up in the 60-40 range, on the fringes it is always quite soft either way.,But in 1964 I was interested to find that Gallup never had Goldwater as more than 32 percent as against Johnson. In fact, Gallup's poll, taken one week before the election, showed Goldwater at 32 percent. He got 39 percent. Why? The Goldwater people voted, and many of the Johnson people thought they had it made.,We, of course, have the same problem. Of course, Johnson still won. Maybe we will. What I am simply suggesting is that as far as predictions are concerned, I have told all of our people: \"Don't rely on the polls. Remember that the candidate who is behind will tend to get his vote out. Ours will tend not to get out. Get our vote out and try to win as big a popular vote as we can and as big an electoral vote as we can.\",The purpose: Not to make the other candidate look bad, but the purpose is to get what I have described as the new American majority in which Republicans, Democrats, and independents join together in supporting not a party, or not an individual, but supporting the record of the past 4 years, the positions which are very clear-cut that I have taken on the great issues, and thereby giving us the opportunity to continue in the next 4 years.,THE PRESIDENT'S AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, as election day comes closer, you have also been criticized for isolating yourself, not making yourself available for questioning.,THE PRESIDENT. Hiding [laughter]isolating is a great big word.,Q. Hiding. Apart from going out and hitting the hustings, do you plan to have more press conferences between now and election day?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would plan to try to find ways to be as available for purposes of presenting my position as I can. For example, on the matter of taxes, how we avoid a tax increase, I know that Mr. Ehrlichman has represented my views and Mr. Shultz has and a number of others. I have tried to cover it here briefly this morning.,But at Camp David yesterday, I completed a speech that I had made on the subject, and while I cannot get away this weekend, I am going to deliver it by nationwide radio--we'll buy the time, incidentally, nationwide radio--on Saturday night. So for the writing press, you will have it in time for the Sunday papers. That is only coincidental, of course.,Q. In light of the fact that because Congress has not adjourned, you cannot get out, why can't you accept us as a surrogate for the people you can't see and have more press conferences between now and November 7?,THE PRESIDENT. If you would like to be surrogates, we have plenty--,Q. We can ask the questions the public is asking.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun], the press conference, to me, is not basically a chore. When I say \"a chore,\" it is always a challenge, and it is one that requires hard work. I recall, incidentally, in that connection, speaking of the press conference, I think I have told you once when we were riding in the back of the plane--it was not as good as the one we have got now, but you remember those days, we had very few good planes, a DC-3. But I recall that we were talking about speechwriting and how I hated to write speeches and I talked to Foster Dulles about it after he returned from one of his many trips abroad and he always made a speech, and I said, \"Don't you hate to write speeches?\",He said, \"Yes, I used to. But,\" he said, \"now I do it. I consider it necessary to go through the torture, because the writing of the speech disciplines my mind, it makes me think through the issue.\",I must say the preparation for the press conference helps to discipline the mind to talk about the issues. To come precisely now to your question, I think that the format of questions and answers, for members of the press, can be useful. Certainly I will consider the possibility of using that format. Maybe not just here, maybe in other places as well. But we won't stack the questions.,WELFARE REFORM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, now that welfare reform appears to be dead, or at least going, on Capitol Hill, I am wondering, if after all this, whether you still support the principle implicit in H.R. I of minimum income assistance for poor families and whether you would push for that principle in a second term?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is yes to both questions. As far as welfare reform generally is concerned, the Senate yet has not completed its actions, its consideration. The problem with the Roth amendment,5 of the test, is that it lacks the trigger device and it means you would start all over again.,5Senator William V. Roth, Jr., of Delaware sponsored an amendment to H.R. I proposing a 2-year pilot test of the major proposals for welfare reform,The one point, however, that I want to emphasize with regard to welfare reform, the program that we have presented for welfare reform, with its strong work requirements and with its assistance to the working poor, with the purpose of providing a bridge for them to get, and an incentive to get, off of welfare and into work, from a fiscal standpoint, stretches the budget as far as it can be stretched. We can't add anything to it.,And, from the standpoint of the amount to be provided, it goes as far as it should go, and I would oppose any program that would add more people to the welfare rolls, millions more, as would all three of the programs advocated by our opponents, whichever one you want to pick. I would oppose any program that would add more to the welfare rolls than H.R.I.,What we need are programs that will move toward moving people off of welfare and not raising the ante so that people are encouraged to go on it.,So, I would take H.R.I. I would very greatly strengthen the work requirements in it. If the Senate and the House, as appears possible now, not certain, I hope not certain, fail to act, we will grapple with it in the new term and try to get the support for it.,SCHOOL BUSING,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there is an anti-busing bill on the Senate calendar that I believe you support. Its passage is problematical, as I understand it. If it is not passed, I wonder if you would support a constitutional amendment?,THE PRESIDENT. I have indicated that, first, I am against busing. This is, of course, one of those clear-cut issues in this campaign. When people wonder what they are: I am against amnesty. I am against busing. I am against massive increases in spending that would require a tax increase. I am against cutting our defenses by $30 billion, which would make us second to the Soviet Union.,I am for the domestic proposals that I set forth in such great detail in the '72 State of the Union, and that, incidentally, Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times], you recall, was in it. I endorsed all of those. Those are part of the program for the future health, government reorganization, welfare reform, and the rest--and we hope to have a Congress that will be more responsive in getting them through.,Now, the question of what to do about busing is now right in the Congress' lap. If the Congress fails to act in a way that provides some relief from these excessive busing orders that have caused racial strife, and primarily in Northern cities as distinguished from Southern cities, then I intend to find another way.,There are two ways we can go: With a new Congress, which might be very much more responsive on this issue after they have found out what people think on the hustings, with a new Congress we might get very quick action on the legislative front. That I would prefer.,If we cannot get Congress to act on the legislative front, then we would have to move on the constitutional amendment front.,I would point out that, however, the legislative front is preferable, and also easier and quicker, because it requires only a majority and not a two-thirds and also can move quickly on the issue.,So, if we don't get it now, we will go for it as a matter of the highest priority in the first session of the next Congress.,FRANK CORMIER (Associated Press).\nThank you, sir."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-08-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. We will go right ahead with your questions, because I know you want to cover perhaps some international as well as domestic matters, including, I understand, for the first time, political matters.,QUESTIONS\nHANDLING OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS,[1.] Q. Mr. President, are you personally investigating the mishandling of some of your campaign funds, and do you agree with former Secretary Connally that these charges are harmful to your reelection?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I commented upon this on other occasions, and I will repeat my position now.,With regard to the matter of the handling of campaign funds, we have a new law here in which technical violations have occurred and are occurring, apparently, on both sides. As far as we are concerned, we have in charge, in Secretary Stans, a man who is an honest man and one who is very meticulous--as I have learned from having him as my treasurer and finance chairman in two previous campaigns--in the handling of matters of this sort.,Whatever technical violations have occurred, certainly he will correct them and will thoroughly comply with the law. He is conducting any investigation on this matter, and conducting it very, very thoroughly, because he doesn't want any evidence at all to be outstanding, indicating that we have not complied with the law.,INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS\nAND WATERGATE CASE,[2.] Q. Mr. President, wouldn't it be a good idea for a special prosecutor, even from your standpoint, to be appointed to investigate the contribution situation and also the Watergate case?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to who is investigating it now, I think it would be well to notice that the FBI is conducting a full field investigation. The Department of Justice, of course, is in charge of the prosecution and presenting the matter to the grand jury. The Senate Banking and Currency Committee is conducting an investigation. The Government Accounting Office, an independent agency, is conducting an investigation of those aspects which involve the campaign spending law. Now, with all of these investigations that are being conducted, I don't believe that adding another special prosecutor would serve any useful purpose.,The other point that I should make is that these investigations, the investigation by the GAG, the investigation by the FBI, by the Department of Justice, have, at my direction, had the total cooperation of the--not only the White House--but also of all agencies of the Government. In addition to that, within our own staff, under my direction, Counsel to the President, Mr. Dean, has conducted a complete investigation of all leads which might involve any present members of the White House Staff or anybody in the Government. I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one in the White House Staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.,At the same time, the committee itself is conducting its own investigation, independent of the rest, because the committee desires to clear the air and to be sure that as far as any people who have responsibility for this campaign are concerned, that there is nothing that hangs over them. Before Mr. Mitchell left as campaign chairman he had employed a very good law firm with investigatory experience to look into the matter. Mr. MacGregor1 has continued that investigation and is continuing it now. I will say in that respect that anyone on the campaign committee, Mr. MacGregor has assured me, who does not cooperate with the investigation or anyone against whom charges are leveled where there is a prima facie case that those charges might indicate involvement will be discharged immediately. That, of course, will be true also of anybody in the Government. I think under these circumstances we are doing everything we can to take this incident and to investigate it and not to cover it up. What really hurts in matters of this sort is not the fact that they occur, because overzealous people in campaigns do things that are wrong. What really hurts is if you try to cover it up. I would say that here we are, with control of the agencies of the Government and presumably with control of the investigatory agencies of the Government, with the exception of the GAG which is independent. We have cooperated completely. We have indicated that we want all the facts brought out and that as far as any people who are guilty are concerned, they should be prosecuted.,1 Clark MacGregor was campaign director, Committee for the Re-Election of the President, from July to November 1972,This kind of activity, as I have often indicated, has no place whatever in our political process. We want the air cleared. We want it cleared as soon as possible.,VIETNAM SETTLEMENT PROSPECTS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in your last news conference, on July 27, you said the chances for a settlement have never been better. Mr. Rogers in late August forecast early settlement, and you were quoted by Stewart Alsop as having told him the war won't be hanging over us the second term.2 I want to know whether this is just politics or is there substance to it--any movement in negotiations or any other track toward peace?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun], as I also told Mr. Alsop, as you noted, in that interview, I did not indicate to him that any breakthrough had occurred in the negotiations that have been taking place between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Le Duc Tho at this point. Now, let me divide the answer into its component parts, if I may.,2Mr. Alsop interviewed the President aboard the Spirit of '76 en route to Miami, August 22, 1972. The interview appeared in the September 4 issue of Newsweek.,First, with regard to negotiations, I will not comment on past negotiations. I will not comment upon any negotiations that may take place in the future. By agreement of both sides, we are not going to comment, either the other side or we on our part, on the substance of negotiations or whether or when or what will happen in the future. All that we will do is to announce, after negotiations do take place, if they do--and I do not suggest that more will occur--we will announce the fact that they have taken place.,Second, with regard to what the prospects are, I think what we are all referring to is that this long and difficult war--long and difficult and costly for both sides-has reached a point where it should be brought to an end. We have made every reasonable negotiating proposal that we can. We are being very reasonable in the proposals that we have made in our various discussions with the other side. Also, with regard to the battlefront, it is significant to note that the South Vietnamese, by heroic efforts, have stopped the invasion from the North on the ground, and they have done that without our assistance on the ground.,It is also significant to note that the enemy at this point, while it is able to launch a spurt here and there, does not have the capability or has not demonstrated the capability to overrun South Vietnam.,Now, under these circumstances, we believe that this is the time for a negotiated settlement. If the enemy does not feel that way, then we are prepared to go on as we have indicated, to continue the training of the South Vietnamese--we have completed virtually the ground training because they are undertaking the ground fighting entirely by themselves-but to continue the training in the air and on the sea so that they, by themselves, can defend their country against the Communist invaders from the North.,VIETNAM TROOP LEVELS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, you announced today another reduction in the force levels in Vietnam,3 and it was unclear from the announcement whether this is your last announcement. Do you see this as the residual force in Vietnam necessary as bargaining leverage?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't imagine that Mr. Ziegler didn't make everything perfectly clear. [Laughter] But I shall try to, under those circumstances. The announcement of 27,500 [27,000] does not indicate that 27,500 [27,000] is the force that is going to remain in South Vietnam indefinitely. We are going to look at the situation again before the first of December, after the election, incidentally, because we are not going to play election politics with this next withdrawal--or this next announcement, I should say, because I am not suggesting that there will be another withdrawal.,3 A statement announcing the withdrawal of additional U.S. troops from Vietnam was read by Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler at a news briefing at the Western White House in San Clemente, Calif., on August 29, 1972. The statement is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 8, p. 1306).,We will look at the situation, and the three principles that I have always applied with regard to withdrawals will in this case control it: the status of our POW and MIA situation, the status with regard to negotiations, and the status of enemy activity. At that time we will determine what the American force level should be. It should be noted that the present force level of 39,000, and the level that we will reach of 27,500 [27,000] involves no ground combat personnel. It involves only advisory and training personnel and, of course, air support personnel. It is entirely a volunteer force.,I will add something that perhaps everyone here is quite aware of: that as far as any so-called residual force is concerned, our offer is for a total withdrawal. We want to withdraw all American forces, but that offer is conditioned on what I laid down on May 8, and one of those conditions is the situation with regard to our POW's and MIA's. As long as there is one POW in North Vietnam, or one missing in action, not accounted for, there will be an American volunteer force in South Vietnam.,1968 CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS IN VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, how do you reconcile your 1968 campaign promise to end the war with the massive bombing of North Vietnam that is now going on?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in terms of what I said in 1968, all you who were following me will remember that I said that we would seek an honorable end to the war. We have come a long way in reaching that. We have reduced our casualties by 98 percent; we have withdrawn over half a million men from the forces that we found that were there; we have completely finished the American ground combat role.,Only volunteers will be serving in Vietnam in the future. What is left now simply is to complete the long-term involvement of the United States in a way that does not destroy respect, trust, and, if I may use the term, honor for the United States around the world. I think that we have come--it seems to me made very significant progress in this respect, and we expect to make more.,On the negotiating front, we have gone very far, as far as any reasonable person, I think, would suggest, and under the circumstances I believe the record is good.,As far as what can happen in the future, I know that there are those who believe-I noted some report out of the Air Force to the effect that we probably would be bombing in North Vietnam 2 or 3 years from now. That, of course, is quite ridiculous. As far as the future is concerned, we believe that our training program for the South Vietnamese, not only on the ground but in the air, has gone forward so successfully that if the enemy still refuses to negotiate, as we have asked them to negotiate, then the South Vietnamese will be able to undertake the total defense of their country.,At the present time, let the record show that while we hear a lot about what the Americans are doing in terms of undertaking bombing activities, that now approximately 50 percent of all ground support air sorties are being made by the South Vietnamese air force, which is a good air force and which is growing in strength.,Q. Is there a possibility that you would call off the bombing or slacken it even if there is no all-inclusive agreement on Indochina?,THE PRESIDENT. Absolutely not. I have noted some press speculation to the effect that since 1968, the bombing halt seemed to have a rather dramatic effect on the election chances of Senator Humphrey-Vice President Humphrey, now a Senator-that people have suggested that as a gimmick, or more or less as an election-eve tactic, that we would call a bombing halt even though our prisoners of war are not accounted for. No progress has been made there, and even though the enemy continued its activities and was still stonewalling us in the negotiations, unless there is progress on the negotiating front which is substantial, there will be no reduction of the bombing of North Vietnam and there will be no lifting of the mining.,Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask about a 1968 statement you made and find out whether you still agree with it. It is: \"Those who have had a chance for 4 years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance.\",THE PRESIDENT. I think that the answer I gave to the other question is as responsive as I can make it. We always, of course, set our goals high. We do our very best to reach those goals. I think there are those who have faulted this Administration on its efforts to seek peace, but those who fault it, I would respectfully suggest, are ones that would have the United States seek peace at the cost of surrender, dishonor, and the destruction of the ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy in a responsible way.,That I did not pledge in 1968. I do not pledge it now. We will seek peace. We will seek better relations with our adversaries, but we are going to keep the United States strong. We are going to resist the efforts of those who would cut our defense budget to make us second to any power in the world, and second particularly to the Soviet Union, and in order to do that, it means that we have to continue the responsible policy that we have carried out.,Q. Mr. President, if it is, as you say, \"quite ridiculous\" that we will be bombing 2 or 3 years from now--by the way, I don't know if you mean North Vietnam or all of Vietnam--then how about a year from now? Is it likely that bombing would no longer be necessary in your present plan or thinking?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not comment on what the situation will be a year from now because, with the fact that we have had negotiation proposals made--I am not indicating progress, I am simply indicating they have been made--and with also the progress that is being made by the South Vietnamese, very outstanding progress in their ability to defend themselves and also to undertake the air effort as well as the ground effort, I am not going to put any limitation on when the U.S. activities in the air would stop.,Also, I am not going to indicate they are going to continue for any length of time. We are going to continue to watch the situation month by month. We will do what is necessary to protect our interests. We will do what is necessary to assure the return of our POW's and accounting for our missing in action. We will do what is necessary to prevent the imposition, against their will, of a Communist government on the people of South Vietnam.,All this we will do, but on the other hand, we are not there for the purpose of staying any moment that is longer than is necessary.,CAMPAIGN CONDUCT AND GOALS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the confidence expressed at the Republican Convention suggested that many Republicans, perhaps yourself included, consider the election a mere formality. Yet you have said, at your last press conference, that you expected this election to be a close one that goes right down to the wire. Do you still feel that way?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do. That has always been my theory. I recall the year that I ran for the first time for Congress in 1946. I was somewhat of a neophyte, never having run for public office before.,I talked to someone who had had great experience in running for office. He gave me very good advice that has been my guiding principle in campaigns since. He said, \"Pay no attention to the polls. Pay no attention to what your friends say about your chances, or your opponents.\" He said, \"Always run as if you are one million votes behind, and then you might win by one vote.\",In 1960 I learned what he meant, because elections can be very, very close in this country.,I am conducting this campaign, and I have urged on my colleagues in the campaign to conduct it, without regard to the polls. I am not going to comment on polls one way or the other, when they are good or when they are bad. We are running on the basis of the great issues before the country. We are presenting, we think, a very clear choice before the country. We are seeking in this election something that no President has had since 1956, with the exception of President Johnson in '64 after his landslide, and that is a majority, because there was not a majority even in 1960 and of course there was not in 1968 because of third-party candidates. I think what we need now is a clear majority, a clear majority of the American people. That means a clear mandate, a mandate for what I have described as change that works, for progress. Because, when I see what has happened to, for example, revenue sharing, government reorganization, our health plan, our welfare reform, and all of our programs--there are 12 different bills on the environment that are still stuck in the mud of Senate and House controversy--when I see that, I think that the country needs to speak out.,I would also suggest, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagot, Chicago Daily News], because I know that you, like myself, have sort of followed campaigns over the years, and we go back this far, at least I do-I believe that if we can get a clear majority, if we can get a new majority at the Presidential level in this campaign, which we are going to seek by crossing the country and crossing all the lines of various age groups and religious groups and ethnic groups, et cetera, that we could have a legislative record in the first 6 months of the next Congress which could equal in excitement, in reform, the 100 days of 1933. It will be very different from the 100 days but we have it all there, and my State of the Union Message summed it up early this year.,What we are seeking here is not only a majority for the President, but we are seeking a new majority, of course, in the House and the Senate which will support the President in terms of his domestic policies, and we trust continue to support us on national defense and foreign policy.,CAMPAIGN TRAVEL AND DEBATES,[7.] Q. Mr. President, how are you going to conduct the campaign personally in terms of your travel plans, and would you be willing to debate with Senator McGovern over national television?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Schecter [Jerrold L. Schecter, Time-Life], let me turn to the debate question first, because it is one which I know many of you have speculated about, and we might as well set the speculation to rest.\nMr. MacGregor, and before him Mr. Mitchell, both indicated it would be not in the national interest for the President to debate. I did not share that view in 1964. Quite candidly, you may remember that when Senator Goldwater was a candidate I said that having been a Vice President and having debated and knowing all of the information that the President debated, I saw no reason why the President shouldn't debate.,Frankly, I think I was wrong. I was wrong, in that President Johnson was right, Senator Mansfield was right, and even Senator Pastore, who supported the amendment to 315 4 but who said that even in supporting the 315 amendment, he said he had serious doubts about whether a President of the United States should debate.,4 The requirements of section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which provide equal broadcasting opportunity to any legally qualified candidate for public office, were suspended for the period of the 1960 campaign with respect to the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees (Public Law 86677, 74 Stat. 554).,In 1963 a bill (H.J. Res. 247) was introduced to suspend the requirements of section 315 for the period of the 1964 Presidential campaign, but it was never enacted into law.,Now just to say why. The reason does not have so much to do with confidential information that a President has, because such information can be made available to the other candidate, if he desires to obtain it. What really is involved is that when a President speaks, as distinguished from a Vice President even, he makes policy every time he opens his mouth. For example, just as I spoke a moment ago with regard to our plans in Vietnam, what is going to happen, that is policy.,Now, when we are involved--even though it is the concluding phases--but when we are involved in a war, for a President in the heat of partisan debate to make policy would not be in the national interest. So I have decided that there will be no debates between the President and the challenger in this year 1972.,Now, with regard to my own plans. You have often heard me describe that a President wears two hats. Well, he wears three actually, but we put the Commander in Chief off here. We have already discussed those questions. The other two hats he wears are that as President of the United States and as leader of his party, and as candidate after the nomination.,Now, I am a candidate in the one sense and the President in the other. What comes first? Putting priorities where they belong, I shall always have to put my responsibilities to conduct the Presidency first. I had hoped that the Congress would be out of here with a record, which they have not yet made. Incidentally, this Congress, in order to avoid being called a very inept Congress, one that never talked as much and did less, to avoid that, is going to have to do 4 months work in 4 weeks, and it will be a real issue in this campaign, the fact that the Congress has not acted on revenue sharing and on government reorganization and on health and on welfare.,But, since the Congress is going to be in, I understand, until October 10, or the 15th, or maybe the 1st, or whatever it is, as long as the Congress is there, my responsibilities as President will require that I stay in Washington except for perhaps an occasional trip to the country, but only for a day. I could perhaps over a weekend, I haven't figured it out yet, but we will, of course, inform you so that you can pack your bags. None of those will be overnight trips, you will be glad to know.,After the Congress adjourns, then I, of course, still have my responsibilities as President, and I cannot go out and spend 6 to 7 days a week. I realize that some Presidents have done that. Harry Truman did in 1948. But the problems that we had then, great as they were, are not as great as those we have now. It will be necessary for me to continue to spend a great deal of time in Washington, but I don't want to leave the impression that the one-day trips that I will make between now and the time Congress adjourns, and then the time I will be able to devote to campaigning in the last 3 weeks, means that it will be a leisurely, complacent, take-it-easy campaign.,As I have indicated in my answer to Mr. Lisagor, I consider this campaign enormously important. It provides the clearest choice that certainly I have seen in my political lifetime. I believe we have to hit hard on the issues; in other words, hit hard on the problems, and not on the personalities. And we are going to do that, and I would assume that the other side would do likewise. In order to do that, we are going to cover the whole country. We are not going to take any State for granted. We are not going to concede any State, and more than that, we are going to cover all groups.,One thing I should mention when I speak of the new majority, I reject the idea of a new coalition. A coalition is not a healthy thing in a free society. Coalition automatically adds up the young against the old, the black against the white, the Catholics against the Protestants, the city people against the country people, et cetera, et cetera.,What we are doing is to make our appeal across the board and try to build a new majority on the basis of people from all groups supporting us on the basis of what we believe.,Q. Mr. President, you have objected and given your reasons for not entering a debate with your opponent. Would you entertain the possibility of a debate on a lower level, between the Vice Presidential candidates?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be very confident as to the result on that, because I think Vice President Agnew's 4 years of experience, his coolness, his lawyer's background, would serve him in good stead in a debate. I do not believe, however, that a debate at the Vice Presidential level would serve any useful purpose, but I don't rule it out. I don't think it would serve any useful purpose.,MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER\nOF JAPAN,[8.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a question concerning your meeting with Mr. Tanaka?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. Mr. Tanaka has made his intention clear, that he would like to discuss further with you China and discuss less economic problems. But I am also told that the United States wants to discuss the economic problems as widely and deeply as the other issues, and it can be said that it is an open secret that the United States is asking Japan for another revaluation of the yen in the near future. Could you tell me to what extent are you going to discuss with Tanaka the economic issues?,THE PRESIDENT. Our meeting with Mr. Tanaka is, first, very important because it is the first chance that I will have to meet him as Prime Minister, although I did meet him here, you recall, when he came with Premier Sato, and I have known him for many years and have great respect for him as one of the new leaders of Japan. So it will first provide an opportunity for establishing a dialogue between these two countries, both of whom are economic super powers.,Second, we will naturally cover the whole range of problems of the Pacific. Both Japan and the United States are tremendously interested in peace in the Pacific. On the economic side, I think both sides will be prepared to discuss the fact that there is now an unfavorable balance of trade between Japan and the United States of $3.4 billion a year. Naturally, that is not healthy for the United States, but responsible Japanese leaders do not believe it is healthy for Japan because what will happen if that kind of an imbalance continues? It will inevitably feed the fire of those in this country who would want to set up quotas and other restrictions, and the interests of Japan and the United States will better be served by freer trade rather than more restrictive trade.,I believe that out of this meeting will come some progress in trying to reduce that unfavorable balance between Japan and the United States.,Now, with regard to the devaluation of the yen, and that sort of thing, I won't comment on that. I have no expectation that that kind of technical international monetary matter will be one that we will discuss. I say that for the reason that saying anything else is likely to have the stock markets in Tokyo and New York go up and down, so I will categorically say that revaluation of the yen is not on the agenda, but the other matters of how we can adjust this trade balance so that it is less favorable to the United States is, of course, in order.,One final thing that I would say from a symbolic standpoint: Since World War II, Presidents of the United States have welcomed Prime Ministers of Japan to Washington on several occasions. I welcomed, as you know, the Emperor in the United States, in Anchorage, and we have met here with Prime Minister Sato.,It seems to me that we could have no better proof of the fact that the war is over, not only the shooting but also the enmity, than the fact that we are having this meeting between the leader of Japan and the leader of the United States in Hawaii, where the war began. And I am very glad that the Prime Minister and I mutually agreed that we should have it in Hawaii because we talk about the initiatives towards the People's Republic of China and towards the Soviet Union and the rest. As I have often said, and I repeat again, Japan being an economic giant with great potentials for political and other leadership in the Pacific plays an indispensable role if we are going to have peace in the Pacific.,As I have said, Japanese-American friendship and cooperation is the linchpin of peace in the Pacific, and we are going to try to strengthen that linchpin in these meetings.,CAMPAIGN FINANCING,[9.] Q. Mr. President, back to the campaign financing. You said that there had been technical violations of the law on both sides. I was just wondering what Democratic violations you had in mind. THE PRESIDENT. I think that will come out in the balance of this week. I will let the political people talk about that, but I understand there have been on both sides.,VIEWS ON AMNESTY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you have touched on the question of amnesty before, but since it is obviously a campaign issue, I wonder if you could spell out what you perceive to be the differences between your thoughts on amnesty and those of your opponent.,THE. PRESIDENT. Mr. Semple [Robert 13. Semple, Jr., New York Times], the Vice President made a very responsible statement on that, and I read it before he made it. That statement totally reflects my views and I back it, in other words-the speech that he made just a few days ago. Insofar as my own views are concerned, without going into that statement, because as you know it involves legal matters and a lot of other things, it is my view, and I hold it very strongly, that those who chose to desert the United States or to break the law by dodging the draft have to pay the penalty for breaking the law and deserting the United States before they can obtain amnesty or pardon or whatever you want to call it.,Now, where we disagree, apparently, is that the other side does not share that view. I say: Pay a penalty; others paid with their lives.,THE NEW MAJORITY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the majority you talked about a minute ago, what kind of majority will it be, a Nixon majority or a Republican majority, and will it bring a Congress along with it?,THE PRESIDENT. First, with regard to the majority, the thrust of our campaign, I have tried to emphasize to our campaign people, should be to make it a positive majority rather than a negative majority. There has been a great deal of talk with regard to why people should be against the challenger in this respect, mainly because his views, as I pointed out in the acceptance speech, departed from the bipartisan policy of his predecessors and departed from their economic philosophy and some of their basic views.,Now, what we want, however, is a positive mandate, in other words, what we are for, not simply what we might be against or what the country is against. Now that means that this majority will be one that we would hope would send us in with a clear mandate to keep the United States strong and not to go along with a $30 billion defense cut which would make the United States second in the air, the second strongest Navy, the second strongest in missiles, as well as the second on the ground, which we already are with the Soviet Union, and would completely destroy the chance for arms limitation and completely, in my view, destroy the ability of the United States to be the peacemaker of the world as the major free world power.,At home--and here are the areas that we don't often get into in these conferences-that we could have at home the kind of a mandate where the country would say we want change, but we want change that works. It is not a question of whether it is radical or not. My trip to China was radical, it was bold, radical, different. What really matters is: Does it work? Has it been thought through, or is it a half-baked scheme where you have one today and one tomorrow and then you check the PM's to see whether or not there is a new one?,As far as this thing is concerned, what we are saying is that we need a mandate for revenue sharing, we need a mandate for welfare reform, we need a mandate for our programs in the environment, for our new health programs, a mandate to continue progress without raising taxes, a mandate to continue to help those who are poor without having an enormous increase in the welfare rolls.,Finally, we believe that we need support in this country--and this is something that is rather hard to put your finger on, it is an intangible attitude. There has been a subtle shift over the last 4 years. Some may not have seen it. I think I have. Four years ago the country was torn apart, torn apart physically and torn apart inside. It has changed very subtly, but very definitely. What we need in this country is a new sense of mission, a new sense of confidence, a new sense of purpose as to where we are going.,The fact that abroad this country does not follow Hitlerite policies, that the President of the United States is not the number one war-maker of the world, but that as a matter of fact, the United States, with its great power, is using it well, and that the world is fortunate to have the United States as the most powerful of the free world nations--and at home, that the United States is not a country where we are repressive to the poor and play always to the rich, pointing out the fact, for example, that when we look at our tax laws that we provided the biggest individual tax reduction in history in 1969 and at the same time increased the burden for corporations by $4 billion, that we moved against the auto companies, for example, to have them roll back a price increase, that we moved against other companies that have been polluting.,In other words, this is not a pro-business or pro-labor Administration. It is an Administration that calls it right down the middle. When labor is wrong we say so, as I did when I was in Miami with Mr. Meany. When business is wrong we say so.,Now, I have digressed a bit, but let me come back to the point. We need a mandate, therefore, in which the President receives a clear majority. We are going to work for a clear majority and as big a one as we can get. Although as I say, we don't assume that it is going to be big, but it will be clear because there is not a third party candidate of significance.,Second, we need a new Congress. Now, on the Congress, I am sophisticated enough, as all of you are, because I have read some of your columns here, to know that in both the House and the Senate it is tough for us to elect a Republican majority. Also, I am honest enough to say that there are several Democrats in the House and several Senators without whose support I could not have conducted the foreign policy of the United States over these past 4 years.,When I speak of a new Congress, I mean of a Congress I would hope that would be a Republican Congress because then we at least could have responsibility for leadership, but if it is not, I hope there is a new majority in Congress made up of Republicans and Democrats who sup. port what the President believes in. Then we can get action on some of these things rather than being stuck in the mud as we have been these past 3 years, particularly since we have offered our new initiatives.,FRANK CORMIER (Associated Press).\nThank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-07-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Now we will go forward with some questions if you like, please.,QUESTIONS\nBOMBING TARGETS IN NORTH VIETNAM,[1.] Q. Mr. President, you have said that it is against U.S. policy to bomb the dikes and dams in North Vietnam. Yesterday, the State Department acknowledged there had been incidental and inadvertent damage from the bombing nearby.,My question is this: Is it worth the risk of possible flooding or of having world opinion turn against us to bomb military targets near the dikes and dams?,THE PRESIDENT. I think your question perhaps could be better answered by my discussing the policy toward bombing of civilian installations in North Vietnam generally, and then coming down to the specifics of your question, in giving the general answer.,Some of you who were in Texas with me will recall that that question was raised at the Connally Ranch1 and it was raised, actually, by an advocate of bombing dikes as to why we did not bomb dikes. And I said it had not been U.S. policy even before the bombing halt of 1968 to bomb the dikes, that it was not our policy now, that it would not be in the future, because it is the policy of the United States in all of its activities against North Vietnam to direct its attacks against military targets only.,1 See Item 134 [4.].,That was the policy in the sixties, and it is now the policy since we have had to resume the bombing for the purposes that I mentioned in my speech of May 8.,Now with regard to the situation on the dikes, let us understand what we are confronted with here. This is approximately a 2,700-mile chain of installations, including perhaps a half-dozen major dams which are the heart of the system and then peripheral areas getting down to mounds, which have, of course, the purpose of controlling the floodwaters in that particular area.,If it were the policy of the United States to bomb the dikes, we could take them out, the significant part of them out, in a week. We don't do so for the reasons that I have mentioned, because we are trying to avoid civilian casualties, not cause them.,Now, with regard to the reports, reports that have come from Hanoi that there had been some damage to some parts of the dike system, I think it is important to note two things: One, there has been no report of any flooding; second, there has been no report of any strikes on the major dike areas.,What I am referring to is the big dams which are the heart of the system. There have been reports of incidental damage to some of the peripheral installations in this 2,700-mile system which covers the country of North Vietnam.,Now, under these circumstances, I think that it is well to keep in context, first, what our policy is, and second, what its effect has been. Our policy is not to bomb civilian installations, and second, our restraint, it seems to me, rather than being subject to criticisms should be subject to objective analysis and, it seems to me, a considerable amount of support.,As far as this matter is concerned, I think, too, it is time to strip away the double standard. I noted with interest that the Secretary General of the U.N., just like his predecessor, seized upon this enemy-inspired propaganda, which has taken in many well-intentioned and naive people, to attack what he called the American bombing of civilian installations and risking civilian lives, and yet not raising one word against deliberate bombing of civilian installations in South Vietnam.,Now just so the record will be kept straight--and it should be stated at this point--all of you ladies and gentlemen, of course, are aware of it, and you have printed it, and perhaps you will see fit to again in this context:,I just got a cable from Ambassador Bunker. I had asked him what had happened to civilians in the new offensive. You recall in my speech of May 8, I said that 20,000 civilian casualties, including women and children, had resulted because of the deliberate shelling of the cities and the slaughtering of refugees indiscriminately by the North Vietnamese.,The number is now 45,000, including women and children, of which 15,000 are dead.,I asked him for the number of refugees. It is higher than I had thought. There have been 860,000 made homeless by the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam, this newest invasion to date; 600, 000 of them are still in refugee camps, away from their homes.,Looking back over the period of this very difficult war, we find that since 1965 there have been 600,000 civilian casualties in South Vietnam as a result of deliberate policy of the North Vietnamese Communists, not accidental, but deliberate.,And in North Vietnam, in the period from 1954 to 1956, in their so-called land reform program, a minimum of 50,000 were murdered, assassinated, and--according to the Catholic Bishop of Danang, whom I talked to when I was there in 1956 in South Vietnam--in addition to the 800,000 refugees who came south, there were at least a half million who died in slave labor camps in North Vietnam.,Now, I do not relate this series of incidents for the purpose of saying, because they did something bad, we can do something bad.,What I am simply saying is, let's not have a hypocritical double standard. The United States has been restrained-greater restraint than any great power has ever shown--in handling this war. We will continue to be restrained. We have to do what is necessary against military targets in order to accomplish the objectives that I have described in my goal in my speech of May 8.,But on the other hand, as far as this particular matter is concerned, I can only say that if damage did occur that we are making every possible effort to see that it will not occur again, which gets to your question. Military commanders, aircraft commanders, and so forth, in terms of where military targets are, are instructed to avoid civilian damage where they can.,That is why some targets in the heart of Hanoi for example, major power installations, fuel installations, in the heart of Hanoi--have not been hit, because I have not wanted to have civilian casualties if we could possibly avoid it.,I will simply close by saying that this is a major propaganda campaign; it is one that does concern us. But let us keep the record straight. In the event that the United States followed the course of action recommended by some of those who have voted for the so-called End the War Resolution in the Senate of the United States, it would mean that there would be visited upon South Vietnam the same atrocities that were visited upon North Vietnam, with perhaps at least a million marked for assassination because they had fought against the North Vietnamese attempt to conquer South Vietnam.,I will add one other thing. As far as the negotiations are concerned, we are negotiating. We have negotiated in public. We have had one private conference a week ago, lasting approximately 6 hours. We hope to continue to negotiate.,We have made fair offers on withdrawal, on cease-fire, on political settlement. We have not made them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.,We made fair offers on exchange of prisoners of war and accounting for missing in action every place in Southeast Asia.,But having done this, there is one thing that we have not offered--and this is the one hang-up in the settlement today--and that is the demand of the enemy indirectly or directly to do what they cannot accomplish themselves: impose a Communist government in South Vietnam. That would be the height of immorality, to impose on the 17 million people of South Vietnam a Communist government with the bloodbath that would follow.,POLITICAL SETTLEMENT IN VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned a political settlement. What do you foresee as a possibility without necessarily elections--do you see the two factions in South Vietnam coming together in some kind of an agreement without an election as one possible solution in the Paris talks?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a very perceptive question, but it is one that I think any of you here would agree that I should not comment upon for the reason that negotiations are now underway. I have read these long negotiating sessions--the public ones, of course, and even more important, the private ones--in great detail. At a time that matters are being discussed, it is not well for me to state anything with regard to what is happening in the negotiations.,I will only say that we are negotiating with the desire of ending this war as soon as possible. The fastest way to end the war and the best way to end it is through negotiation. We would hope that public figures in their comments will not do anything to undercut the negotiations, that Congress, in its actions, will not in effect give a message to the enemy, \"Don't negotiate with the present Administration; wait for us; we will give you what you want--South Vietnam.\",SAM SITES ON DIKES AND DAMS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, to follow up the first question, if I may, there had been reports that SAM sites have been put on top of some of those dikes or dams. Does your policy rule out the bombing of that particular area where there are SAM sites?,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen those reports, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News]. As you know, the Secretary of Defense has made some indirect comment about it. The situation there is one that we would lean against the taking out of SAM sites on targets that would result in civilian casualties of a substantial amount.,However, I have not seen in recent days any reports indicating that any such SAM sites have been hit, and in view of the present debate, I think we are going to be very careful with regard to hitting them. We would do so only if we had to do so in order to protect American fliers who otherwise would be hit down by the SAM's.,CANDIDATES' HEALTH HISTORY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that anyone with a history of mental illness should run for high office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International], the question that you ask, of course, is related to some of the conjecture with regard to the ticket on the other side. Mr. Ziegler has correctly reported to all of you ladies and gentlemen of the press that I have given the strictest instructions that there are to be no comments directly, or, in the case of your question, indirectly, on this subject. This is a personal matter.,The question of the selection of a Vice Presidential candidate is one which is a matter for the Presidential candidate to decide, with, of course, the advice and consent of his convention. I am not going to interject myself in that problem except to say that since it is a personal matter, it does give me an opportunity to say that not now on this matter, nor in this campaign in the future, are we going to campaign on personalities or on party labels.,The issues that divide the opposite side and this Administration are so wide--in fact, it is the clearest choice in this century-that we must campaign on issues. There is an honest difference of opinion on foreign policy, an honest difference of opinion on domestic policy, and an honest difference of opinion on most major defense issues.,Under these circumstances, this is a campaign which I think should be waged--I would think all would, but this one particularly should be waged--on the issues so that the American people can make their choice between two: the present President and the challenger, who honestly so basically disagree on fundamental ends and goals for the American people.,CRITICS OF U.S. BOMBING POLICY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, are we to understand perhaps that now that \"Stop Bombing the Dikes\" has been made a political slogan this year, that perhaps those who have gotten behind it have not thoroughly checked the background of those accusations?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not use the word \"naive\" unintentionally. The North Vietnamese are very skillful at propaganda. They have, of course, brought those who have been invited into the country to the areas where they have found bomb damage. They have not gone to any great pains to fill those holes, which they would naturally want to do before the possibility of rain and flood again comes to the North.,In my view, this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the North Vietnamese to create an extraneous issue, to divert attention from one of the most barbaric invasions in history, compounded by a violation of all concepts of international law in handling the prisoners of war. For them, with their policy of deliberate murder and assassination and otherwise attacks on civilians for the purpose of killing civilians, for them to try to seize on this and divert attention from them, first, to me it is a patent propaganda effort, and it is one that I think needs to be answered.,We have to, of course, be responsible for what we do. But it is time that in this terribly difficult war some Americans, or that most of us, should perhaps realize that when we talk about morality, that it is never an easy question.,If I can digress for a moment, then I will come to your follow-up question on the other matter. I remember one of the first conversations I had with President Eisenhower about war. We were riding back from Quantico. You may remember it. Charlie Wilson 2 used to have those meetings in Quantico of the Defense Establishment people. He asked me to ride back with him. It was very early in the Administration, in the first year.,2 Charles E. Wilson was Secretary of Defense 1953-57.,He was talking a little about the decisions he had to make in World War II. One of the questions I raised with him was: Here, on our part, the deliberate bombing of German cities, the tragedy of Dresden, of Essen, of Hamburg, not to mention Berlin. General Eisenhower said that was a terribly difficult decision for us, the strategic bombing of civilians in Germany. But he said, \"On the moral question, we had to answer to ourselves this fundamental problem.\" He said, \"The height of immorality would be to allow Hitler to rule Europe.\",Now, in our case we have not gone that far. We are not going to bomb civilian targets in the North. We are not using the great power that could finish off North Vietnam in an afternoon, and we will not. But it would be the height of immorality for the United States at this point to leave Vietnam, and in leaving, to turn over to the North Vietnamese the fate of 17 million South Vietnamese who do not want a Communist government, to turn it over to them.,That is what this is about. That is the only issue that is left. Those who say \"End the war\" really should name their resolution \"Prolong the war.\" They should name it \"Prolong the war\" not because they deliberately want to. They want to end the war just as I do, but we have to face this fact: We have only one President at a time, as I said in 1968. At that time, as you may recall, I was pressed quite often by you ladies and gentlemen, \"What do you think we ought to do about negotiations?\" I didn't think there was much chance for successful negotiations then.,But I said, I thought quite correctly, we have only one President, and I didn't want to destroy any chance he might have to end this war. At this point, the chance for a negotiated settlement is better now than it has ever been. Oh, it is not sure, and I am not going to raise any false hopes, but the enemy is failing in its military offensive, although there is still some hard fighting to take place in the Quangtri-Hue area, but the enemy also is, of course, suffering the consequences of our mining action and in cutting the roads and the other systems that would bring in supplies to North Vietnam.,Under these circumstances, the enemy-because also we have made a very fair offer--has every incentive to negotiate. But when you put yourself in the position of the enemy, and then they hear that the Congress of the United States says, in effect, \"We will give you what you want regardless of what the President has offered,\" why not wait? This is the problem, and I would hope that as Senators and Congressmen consult their conscience, they would realize that we have just 3 months left before the election. In those 3 months we hope to do everything we can to bring this war to an end, and they should take no action which would jeopardize those negotiations. I can only say that the resolutions to this point cannot help. They can only confuse the enemy at best, and at the worst, they will prolong the war.,SELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES,[6.] Q. The Vice Presidential nominee often is chosen under great pressure. This means often that the Vice President eventually is under great pressure of time and circumstance. Sometimes this turns out all right and sometimes it doesn't. Do you think that that method could be improved?,THE PRESIDENT. I was a Vice President once, too. [Laughter],I will answer. I can only give my own experience, and I know that this was the experience of President Eisenhower. When an individual feels that he is quite--shall we say, has a better than even chance or an even chance to be President, he does a lot of thinking about who should be the Vice Presidential candidate, both because of his potentialities as a candidate and in terms of could he fill the office of Vice President and, in the case of an accident to the President, the President.,I can assure you that naturally I went through that process in making my own decision and I would think that any candidate would do that. I don't think it is quite as, shall we say, off the top of your head as you would indicate, because most of us, when we are seeking the Presidency, long before the convention, have a pretty good idea as to whether we have a good shot at it and we do a lot of thinking about the Vice Presidential nomination.,CANDIDATES' FINANCIAL AND MEDICAL\nRECORDS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, given the continuing demand for revealing the financial backgrounds of candidates and office holders, what is your reaction to the suggestion that medical records of candidates and officeholders be revealed and, as a corollary to that, which you will understand, have you ever felt yourself in more danger of being overconfident? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Is that something to do with medical records?,Q. There is a bridge, but it is not direct.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say that for me to answer that question is really so self-serving that I hesitate to do so. My medical records, of course, like my financial records, are now already on the books, open to the press.,You will recall in 1968, the question was raised about my medical history, and Mr. Ziegler, at that time, put out the medical history, including the examinations, some of the examinations, what the yearly examinations that we all have were, going back to the time that I came to Washington in 1946.,So, as far as my financial records are concerned, they also have been made public, and then every year my medical record is made public by Dr. Tkach 3 in briefings which seem to create some interest among the press. I don't know why.,3 Maj. Gen. Walter R. Tkach, USAF, Physician to the President.,I would also suggest that in my case, too, it was somewhat of a self-serving record, because Dr. Tkach was pointing out to me a few days ago that according to his computation, and I will not vouch for these figures, that probably I have set a record: I have been in this office now 3 1/2 years and have never missed an appointment because of health.,Considering what I have been through, I mean some fairly stern crises I would say and rather extensive travel, I don't think anybody would question the state of my health.,I think that in answer to your question, that that is a matter that will inevitably be a subject that will be raised and in which the candidates will have, each of them, to make his own determination. I made mine. I don't suggest that others should do likewise.,Now as far as overconfident--about what, my health?,ELECTION PREDICTIONS,[8.] Q. No, sir, in terms of the circumstances and the situation, given your position today as an incumbent President running for reelection, you are the favorite. Events in the past 2 or 3 weeks, let alone the last 2 or 3 days, have enhanced that. That is what I was talking about.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I recall historically an incident, and you were covering us at that time. We both go back 25 years I remember. I recall in 1952 when another Vice Presidential candidate was urged to get off the ticket, and there were many who thought that the fact that he was urged to get off it, whether he stayed on or got off, that it was going to sink the Presidential candidate. It did not.,So, I would say that that incident certainly would not enter into my predictions at this time. As far as making a prediction is concerned, I will give it more thought and will be glad to respond to it when I have what I call a political press conference, which I will have immediately after the Republican Convention, at the Western White House in San Clemente.,As far as what the situation is now, though, looking at the fact that the Democratic Party has a much higher registration than the Republican Party, looking at the volatile mix of the American voting public, it is my belief---and I have told all of my associates this--that regardless of what the polls show, whether we are ahead or behind, this will be a close, hard-fought election right down to the wire.,People who make predictions now could look very, very bad later. We are going to assume throughout this election that we have a very hard fight on our hands. We think that it is a good thing that it is going to be a fight on the issues, a good, hard, clean fight on the issues before the American people. We think it will be close, and we hope to win.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[9.] Q. What impact on American policy in the Middle East is the withdrawal of Soviet personnel from Egypt likely to have?,THE PRESIDENT. This question I noticed has been reflected on by some lower level officials in the Government, but not--because Secretary Rogers and I have talked about this matter, and Dr. Kissinger and I--not by us. For this reason: Our goal, as you know, is a just settlement in the Midde East. The situation there is still one that is not clear and any comment upon it, first, might possibly be erroneous, and second, could very well be harmful to our goal of a just settlement.,So I am not trying to dodge your question, but I just do not think it would be helpful to our goal of a just settlement in the Middle East. It might exacerbate the problem by trying to evaluate what happened between Sadat 4 and the Soviet leaders.,4 Anwar al Sadat was President of the Arab Republic of Egypt.,REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL\nCANDIDATE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of the Vice President, of your selection of Mr. Agnew,5 could you tell us if you considered anybody else for the job and who they were?,THE PRESIDENT. No. My thoughts with regard to Vice President Agnew were expressed at rather great length in this very room in an interview with one of the other networks.6 I think it was CBS.,5 On July 22, 1972, the President informed Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, Republican National Chairman Robert Dole, Campaign Director Clark MacGregor, Convention Floor Leader Hugh Scott, Permanent Chairman of the Convention Gerald R. Ford, and Campaign Chairman Frank Dale of his intention to recommend to the Republican National Convention the nomination of Vice President Agnew for a second term.,6 See Item 1 [4.].,On that occasion, I expressed my confidence in the Vice President. I won't go over those matters that I covered at considerable length then now, except to say that I reaffirm that confidence as expressed then.,Under the circumstances, I believe that the choice I made 4 years ago is one that should now be reaffirmed by asking him to run for the office again.,Now, there has been speculation, I would hasten to say, about other people for the Vice Presidency. That is inevitable. The Vice President could get sick or the Vice President might decide not to run, all of these things. I don't think he is going to get sick. He is also in excellent health, better than I. He plays tennis. But, in any event, there has been a lot of speculation. Secretary Connally's name comes to mind.,I should point out that a really great injustice was done to Secretary Connally in the suggestion, I think, on one of the news reports to the effect that I gave Secretary Connally the \"bad news\" that he was not going to be the Vice Presidential candidate when I saw him Friday night.,This was not bad news to him. As a matter of fact, it was not news at all. He and I had discussed this problem when he came to California after his world trip. At that time, I discussed the Vice Presidency. After all, not only from the standpoint of ability to hold the office of Vice President but from the standpoint of ability to win the election, Secretary Connally, whose political judgment I respect very much, strongly urged that Vice President Agnew be continued on the ticket.,THE MILITARY AND BOMBING VOLLEY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, on the bombing of the dikes and dams, would you say that you have been resisting pressure from the military to bomb such installations?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The pressure does not come from the military. I have talked this over with Admiral Moorer and naturally General Abrams. As a matter of fact, let me just say one thing about our military, because somebody ought to speak up for it now and then.,We get the idea they are a bunch of savage fly-boys, and they love to get down and machine-gun innocent little civilians and all the rest.,We can be very proud of our military', not only the men that are flying, they are brave and courageous, but the men on the ground. We can be very proud of the Marines, all of them have gone now, for what they have done--the Marines, the Army, the ground soldiers--for the civilians and refugees there. It is a story of generosity in a country that has never been equaled by American fighting men or anybody else.,As far as our military commanders are concerned, while they do give me their judgment as to what will affect the military outcome in Vietnam, they have never recommended, for example, bombing Hanoi. You have seen some of those signs \"Bomb Hanoi,\" in fact, they were around in '68 even, a few, as well as '64.,Our military don't want to do that. They believe it would be counterproductive, and second, they believe it is not necessary. It might shorten the war, but it would leave a legacy of hatred throughout that part of the world from which we might never recover. So our military have not advocated bombing the dikes; they have not advocated bombing civilian centers. They are doing their best to carry out the policy we want of hitting military targets only.,When, as a result of what will often happen, a bomb is dropped, if it is in an area of injury to civilians, it is not by intent, and there is a very great difference.,THE VICE PRESIDENT AND POLICY\nDECISIONS,[12.] Q. Sir, a similar question was asked another President in your experience.7 Would you please tell us what policy decisions Vice President Agnew has contributed to in your Administration?,7 The reporter was referring to a question asked in a news conference held by President Eisenhower on August 24, 1960. See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960-61,\" Item 268.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I only need a couple of minutes. [Laughter],Miss McClendon [Sarah McClendon, Sarah McClendon News Service], as a matter of fact, one of the considerations that motivates a President when he selects a Vice President for running again is: How does he handle himself with the tough decisions? Now, the Vice President does not make decisions. I learned that, and Vice President Agnew knows that. Decisions with regard to his schedule, yes, advice, et cetera, but not decisions. The President only makes them.,But in the Cabinet Room, and sometimes in this office, we have had some pretty hard ones--the May 8 decision was a very tough decision; the Cambodian decision was not easy; the November 3 decision, the speech that I made on that occasion; the decision with regard to the SALT agreements, which involved a fight between the hawks and doves, was not an easy one.,I don't mean to indicate that Vice President Agnew just sat there as a \"yes man.\" He is very outspoken--very quiet but very outspoken--and articulate. But what has impressed me about him in those meetings is that he is a man of poise, calm, and judgment. When it gets down to the final tough decision, he, from my evaluation, is always cool and poised and is one who therefore could be expected to make decisions in the future in a calm, cool, judicial way.,Now, that does not mean that all of his decisions will be good because calm, cool, judicial men make bad decisions just as emotional men sometimes make good decisions. But my point is that in his case, in all of the mini-crises and major crises we have had in the Administration, he has been strong, courageous, and loyal. Those are attributes that are interesting to come by.,Let me say one other thing since you are talking about the Vice Presidency. I think we who have been Vice Presidents ought to form a little club. It is the most maligned office, you know. The reason is that we tend not to look at the records of Vice Presidents who have become President. Now that did not happen to me so this is not a self-serving statement in this case. I mean, became President as a result of being Vice President.,But look at this century: two striking examples. Around the turn of the century, Theodore Roosevelt--and some of you remember Mark Hanna, a great McKinley man. McKinley was in marvelous health and he was shot. Theodore Roosevelt came into the Presidency, and Mark Hanna, who did not care much for Theodore Roosevelt, said, \"Now we have this fanatic in the White House,\" and yet Theodore Roosevelt became a great President.,Perhaps that is not the best analogy because Theodore Roosevelt added, they thought, a great deal to the ticket.,Let's look at Harry Truman a moment-and I must say I was in the group at that time, being in the other party-but here is Harry Truman succeeding the towering figure of his time, Franklin Roosevelt. I remember the editorials: \"Harry Truman, the man from Independence\"--the very question somebody asked here a few moments ago, \"Shouldn't we have a better method of selecting Vice Presidents?\" They said, \"How in the world? Now we have this little man from Missouri in the Presidency.\" Well let me say, you all know that Harry Truman and I have had our differences. You will also remember that on public occasions I have praised him for three very tough decisions he made.,I was reading Winston Churchill the other night, his first meeting with Truman at Potsdam when Truman took him over in a corner and told him about the bomb, the use of the bomb. This was a terribly difficult decision. But he thought, probably correctly--and President Eisenhower agreed with this--that it would save a million American lives, as probably it did, and that is why he used the bomb in ending the war with Japan.,The second decision, which I had the opportunity to support, was the Greek-Turkish aid program. That was a tough one. It split his party. It split it into the Henry Wallace wing and his wing. Byrnes and Wallace, remember, had their fight. But it was a good decision, and I supported it in the Congress of the United States.,Incidentally, I still support aid to Greece and Turkey. It is just as necessary today as it was then, for most of the same reasons, now particularly added because of the fact that without aid to Greece and aid to Turkey you have no viable policy to save Israel.,Finally, there, of course, were decisions that Mr. Truman made on the Korean war. I criticized the conduct of the war as did many of us who were out. But his decision to go into Korea was right, it was necessary, it was tough.,Just before Dean Acheson died he was in this office. We talked about how Truman had made that decision. I have talked too long on that; what I am simply saying is this: Here was the little man from Missouri. He was the Vice President. People said, \"Gee, why didn't Roosevelt pick so many others of the towering figures from his Cabinet or the Senate or the rest, rather than the little man from Missouri?\",But the little man from Missouri had that indefinable quality, as did the big man from New York, Theodore Roosevelt, a character, that made him a man capable of making tough decisions, and that is the most important thing a Vice President needs.\nMISS THOMAS. Thank you."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-06-29","text":"QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press] has the first question tonight.,Q. Mr. President, I don't want to ask a soft or flabby question because, as you know, your associate John Ehrlichman has suggested that news conferences really are not all that important because we tend to ask that type of question too often.,So I want to submit one for the Ehrlichman Award this evening.,THE PRESIDENT. As long as it is not soft and flabby.,ENDING THE WAR IN VIETNAM,Q. Mindful that ending the war was one of your major campaign themes in 1968, mindful that our bombings in Indochina now are at a 5-year high, according to the Pentagon, mindful that troops are still coming out but even more are going into Thailand and the 7th Fleet, I wonder if you can say with any confidence that you can end the war by January 20 of next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier, we have made great progress in ending the war and particularly in ending American involvement in the war.,Since you have recounted the record to an extent, let me recount it also from the positive side.,When we came into office, there were 540,000 Americans in Vietnam. Our casualties were running as high as 300 a week, the cost was $22 billion a year. We have taken out 500,000 men since that time.1 Our casualties have been reduced 95 percent, down to 2, that is too many, but from 300 to 2. As far as the cost is concerned, instead of $22 billion a year, it is down to $7 billion a year.,1 On June 28, 1972, Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler announced the President's decision to withdraw additional United States troops from Vietnam. Mr. Ziegler's statement is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 8, p. 1110).,As far as the situation on the negotiating front is concerned, instead of being in a position where we did not have a positive offer on the table, we have made what Mr. Brinkley of NBC characterized last night as being a very constructive offer, one in which in return for an all-Indochina cease-fire and the return of POW's and an accounting for all of our missing in action, that we would stop all military activities in Indochina and we would withdraw all Americans, all those that remain, within 4 months.,Now, having reached this position at this time, we believe that that is an excellent record. The only thing that we have not done is to do what the Communists have asked and that is to impose a Communist government on the people of South Vietnam against their will. This we will not do because that would reward aggression, it would encourage that kind of aggression and reduce the chances of peace all over the world in the years to come, and it would dishonor the United States of America.,RESUMPTION OF PARIS TALKS,[2.] On the negotiating front, we 'have informed the North Vietnamese, after consultation with the Government of Vietnam, that we will return to the negotiating table in Paris on April [July] 13, Thursday; we have been informed by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, that they, too, will return on that date. We have returned to the negotiating table, or will return to it on the assumption that the North Vietnamese are prepared to negotiate in a constructive and serious way. We will be prepared to negotiate in that way. If those negotiations go forward in a constructive and serious way, this war can be ended, and it can be ended well before January 20. If they do not go forward on that basis, the United States will continue to meet its commitments. Our bombing, as far as that is concerned, our mining, is for the purpose only of preventing Communist aggression from succeeding, to protect the remaining Americans, 40,000 or so, that are still in Vietnam, and to have some bargaining position in getting our POW's back.,One last point with regard to the POW's: I know that every American is concerned about these men. I have been somewhat concerned about them. I will only say that I have had some experience, and a great deal of experience as a matter of fact in this past year, in dealing with Communist leaders. I find that making a bargain with them is not easy, and you get something from them only when you have something they want to get from you. The only way we are going to get our POW's back is to be doing something to them, and that means hitting military targets in North Vietnam, retaining a residual force in South Vietnam, and continuing the mining of the harbors of North Vietnam.,Only by having that kind of activity go forward will they have any incentive to return our POW's rather than not to account for them as was the case when the French got out of Vietnam in 1954 and 15,000 French were never accounted for after that.2,I shall never have that happen to the brave men who are POW's.,2 The number referred to by the President is an estimate of French Union forces unaccounted for in Indochina after the cessation of hostilities in 1954. The French Union forces included French Metropolitan, French Foreign Legion, French colonial, and Vietnamese troops. All French Metropolitan prisoners of war were accounted for.,GENERAL LAVELLE'S ACTIVITIES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, before you ordered a resumption of the bombing of North Vietnam, General Lavelle authorized or initiated some unauthorized strikes there. In your view, did this affect any diplomatic negotiations going on at that time, and are you concerned that you apparently didn't know about it for several months?,THE PRESIDENT. It did not affect the diplomatic negotiations. As a matter of fact, a meeting took place, a private meeting, between Dr. Kissinger and the negotiators in Paris on May 2, during the period that General Lavelle's activities were being undertaken,3 and you can be very sure that had the North Vietnamese wanted any pretext to complain about, they would have complained about that particular matter.,3 The bombing raids carried out by forces under the command of Gen. John D. Lavelie were ended March 8, 1972.,The White House later stated that the President was referring to the private arrangements leading up to the May 2 meeting rather than events of that particular day.,As far as this is concerned, as Admiral Moorer testified today, it wasn't authorized. It was directed against only those military targets which were the areas that were being used for firing on American planes, but since it did exceed authorization, it was proper for him to be relieved and retired. And I think that it was the proper action to take. And I believe that will assure that that kind of activity may not occur in the future.,EFFECT OF MINING AND BOMBING,[4.] Q. Mr. President, on May 8, at the time of the mining of the harbors in North Vietnam, your assistant, Dr. Kissinger, predicted the mining would result in the drying up of supplies and the major offensive should be over around July 1. Is that estimate still valid, and if so, do you have a timetable for the withdrawal of the support troops who have gone into the naval and into the air bases around Vietnam to support the South Vietnamese during this offensive?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News], to date the effect of the mining and also the bombing of the military targets in North Vietnam--particularly the railroads and the oil supplies--the situation in Vietnam has been completely turned around. I was looking at some news magazines that came out the week before the mining was ordered, and I noted that each one of them has as its heading, \"The specter of defeat in Vietnam.\" That was the situation when we started it.,It has been turned around. The South Vietnamese are now on the offensive. It is not over. We expect, perhaps, some more North Vietnamese offensive, but I believe that now the ability of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves on the ground, with the support that we give them in the air, has been demonstrated. Their ability to defend themselves in Anloc and Kontum, and now in the area of Hue, is an indication that Vietnamization, as far as their ground activity is concerned, has proved to be a successful action. Now, as far as the future is concerned, I have already indicated that we will be returning to negotiations in July. That is the important area to watch at this time, as well as the battlefield. And as far as any future announcements are concerned, that will depend upon progress at the negotiating table and on the battle front.,DIKES AND DAMS AS TARGETS,[5.] Q. Mr. President,THE. PRESIDENT. Mr. Rather ['Dan Rather, CBS News]. I remember your name. [Laughter],Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I remember yours, too. [Laughter],The background of this question is your own statements made down in Texas, among other places, saying that you had not sanctioned and would not sanction the bombing of the dikes and dams in North Vietnam, because you considered it an inhumane act because of what it would do to civilians.,Within the past week there have been reports of eyewitnesses--one of these reports came from the French Press Agency, and another, I think, was the Swedish Ambassador in Hanoi--eyewitnesses claiming to have seen American planes hit dikes and dams.,The question is, has such bombing occurred? If so, what steps are you taking to see that it doesn't happen again?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Rather, we have checked those reports. They have proved to be inaccurate. The bombing of dikes is something, as you will recall from the gentleman who asked the question in Texas,4 was something that some people have advocated. The United States has used great restraint in its bombing policy and, I think, properly so. We have tried to hit only military targets and we have been hitting military targets. We have had orders out not to hit dikes because the result in terms of civilian casualties would be extraordinary.,4 See Item 134 [4.].,As far as any future activities are concerned, those orders still are in force. I do not intend to allow any orders to go out which would involve civilian casualties if they can be avoided. Military targets only will be allowed.,SOUTH VIETNAMESE EFFECTIVENESS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, last year, or at least early this year, General Abrams relayed to you his belief that the South Vietnamese could now hack it on the battlefield. The invasion from the North occurred, and we responded with bombing.,When do you realistically think the South Vietnamese can do it alone without massive firepower from us?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times], I think that is being determined and also demonstrated at this time.,First, as far as the ground activities are concerned, they are being entirely undertaken by the South Vietnamese. American ground combat action has totally been finished in Vietnam. As far as Americans in Vietnam are concerned, this war is over in the future for any future draftees. No more draftees will be sent to Vietnam.,As far as air action is concerned, as General Abrams or any military man will tell you, as they have told me, air action alone, without adequate fighting on the ground, cannot stop a determined enemy.,What happened in this case was that the North Vietnamese launched a massive offensive with huge tanks, bigger than those against which they were arrayed, with new and modern weapons. In order to provide an equalizer, and it was needed, we provided air support.,But I should also point this out, something that has been little noticed, 40 percent of all the tactical air sorties being flown over the battlefields of South Vietnam are now being flown not by Americans, but by South Vietnamese.,So we see the South Vietnamese not only doing all the ground fighting, but increasing their ability to do the fighting in the air.,Finally, the success of our airstrikes on the North and on the battlefield, the success in turning this battle around hastens the day when the South Vietnamese will be able to undertake the total activity themselves.,I am not going to put a date on it. I can only say the outcome of the present battle, how badly the North Vietnamese are hurt, will determine it, but I am very optimistic on this point.,VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW,[7.] Q. To change the subject and not to be flabby, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. You would never be flabby.,Q. Thank you, sir.,Isn't it time you told us, will Agnew be on the ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. I know that that is a question that is very much on the minds of the delegates who will be coming to Miami in August. I will announce a decision on that, my views on it, well before the convention so that the delegates will know my views.,As far as the Vice President is concerned, my views with regard to his performance are the same that I reflected rather generously in my interview with Mr. Rather in January of this year.5 I think he has done a fine job as Vice President. I have very high confidence in him.,5 See Item 1 [4.].,But the decision with regard to the Vice Presidency will not be announced until before the Republican Convention, in good time for them to make their own decision.,JOHN CONNALLY'S ROLE,[8.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, what role do you foresee in the future months after he returns from his present trip and after the election, for John Connally?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Horner, first the reports that we have had on Mr. Connally's trip have been excellent. I think that his trip to Latin America--and incidentally also the trip that Dr. Arthur Burns has made to Latin America--came at a good time and allowed the Latin American heads of state to express their views just as vigorously as did Mr. Echeverria 6 when he was here in this country. That is what we want, candid, vigorous talk between the heads of state in the American hemisphere.,6 President Luis Echeverria Alvarez of Mexico paid a state visit to the United States on June 15 and 16, 1972- See Items 200, 201, and 203.,Also, the discussions he is presently having in Australia, in New Zealand, in Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, and so forth, and later in Iran, I know will be helpful. When he returns he will not undertake a permanent Government assignment, but he has agreed to undertake special Government assignments at that time. I have one in mind, a very important one, but I cannot announce it at this time. I will announce it when he returns and when he reports to me in San Clemente.,PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,[9.] Ms. Cornell. [Laughter],HELEN THOMAS (Mrs. Douglas B. Cornell, United Press International). Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. I said Ms.,Q. Thank you.,Can you tell us what took you back to the Paris peace table and would you support a coalition government, formation of a coalition government, or would you discuss it in Paris?,THE PRESIDENT. It would not be useful to indicate the discussions that took place in various places with regard to returning to the Paris peace table.,Let it suffice to say that both sides considered it in their interests to return to the Paris peace table. We would not have returned unless we thought there was a chance for more serious discussions and more constructive discussions than we have had in the past, although I must be quite candid and say that we have been disappointed in the past with regard to these discussions. We have had 149 plenary sessions and no significant results. I do not believe it would be particularly helpful, in a news conference, to negotiate with regard to what we are going to talk about at the conference. That is a matter that we will negotiate with the enemy.,As far as a coalition government is concerned, no. We will not negotiate with the enemy for accomplishing what they cannot accomplish themselves and that is to impose against their will on the people of South Vietnam a coalition government with the Communists.,However, we will be constructive, we will be forthcoming. An internationally supervised cease-fire, a total withdrawal of all Americans within 4 months, a total cessation of all bombing--these, we think, are very reasonable offers, and we believe the enemy should seriously consider them.,ARMS CONTROL AND WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, hardly had you signed the arms control agreements in Moscow than your Administration asked for new money for new strategic weapons. Some of your critics are saying that this is almost a deception giving the Pentagon what it wants, namely concentration on developing quality weapons. Will you try to dispel this contradiction?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Morgan [Edward P. Morgan, ABC News], the problem with regard to arms control is that we do not deal with it in a vacuum. We have to deal with the problem as it affects the security of the United States. Now, first, let me say that if we had not had an arms control agreement, a limitation of ABM's and a temporary limitation for 5 years on certain classifications of offensive weapons, I would--and I am saying this conservatively-have had to ask the Congress of the United States to approve an increase in the defense budget for nuclear strategic weapons of at least $15 billion a year on a crash program. Reason: Had there been no arms control agreement, the Soviet Union's plans called for an increase of their ABM's to 1,000 over the next 5 years. The arms control agreement limits them to 200 as it does us. Had there been no arms control agreement, the Soviet Union had a program underway in the field of submarines which would have brought them up to over 90. The agreement limits them to 62.,Had there been no arms control agreement-and this is the most important point in the terms of offensive strategic weapons, the Soviet Union that has now passed us in offensive strategic weapons-they have 1,600, we have roughly 1,000-they would have built 1,000 more over the next 5 years. Now, under those circumstances, any President of the United States could see that in 5 years the United States would be hopelessly behind; our security would be threatened, our allies would be terrified, particularly in those areas--and our friends like the Mideast-where the possibility of Soviet adventurism is considered to be rather great.,Therefore, the arms control agreement at least put a brake on new weapons. Now, with regard to the new weapons that you refer to, however, let me point out they are not for the next 5-year period. We are really talking about the period after that. And they are absolutely essential for the security of the United States for another reason: Because looking at this not in a vacuum but in terms of what the other side is doing, Mr. Brezhnev made it very clear that he intended to go forward in those categories that were not limited.,Now, in fairness to him, he also said, and made it very clear he made it perfectly clear, I should say--he said that he expected that we would go forward. Now, under these circumstances, then, for the United States not to go forward in those areas that were not controlled would mean that at the end of the seventies we would be in an inferior position, and no President of the United States can take the responsibility of allowing the United States to be the second most powerful nation in the world, not because of any jingoistic idea, but because if we are in that position, our foreign policy, our commitments around the world would be very, very seriously jeopardized.,Now the most important point I have saved for the last and that is this: I think these agreements are in the interest of the United States. I think that they are very much in the interest of arms control and therefore in the interest of world peace. But, they are only a beginning; they are only the foundation. Now, what we have to do is to really go forward with the second step. That is why the phase two of the arms control limitation, which we hope will begin in October provided the Congress approves the ones that we have before them at the present time--phase two, which will be a permanent arms control agreement on all offensive nuclear weapons--this is the one that we think can have far greater significance even than phase one.,Phase one is the break-through, and phase two is the culmination. And phase two, if we can reach agreement with the Soviets--and it will take long and hard bargaining--but if we can reach it, it will mean, then, that we not only hold our arms budgets where they are, but that in these new programs instead of going forward with them on the basis presently projected we will be able to cut them back.,That is our goal, and I think we can achieve it provided we approve phase one and provided we continue a credible arms program because, believe me, the Soviets are not going to agree to limit their future programs unless they have something to get from us.,B--1 BOMBER,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in consideration of your argument on our need for offensive weapons, why then do you insist on development of the costly B-1 bomber when in fact the Soviet Union has shown little interest in the bomber force in recent years and as far as we know has no new bomber force on the drawing boards at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. Each power, the Soviet Union and the United States, must have those forces that are needed for its own security. We basically are not only a land power but a land and sea power. The Soviet Union is primarily a land power with certain definite requirements. Having that in mind, we believe that the B-1 bomber is, for our security interest, necessary.,As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, the fact that they are not developing bombers does not mean that they do not respect ours. And I would say, too, that had we not had our present advantage in bombers we could not then stand by and allow the Soviets to have a 1,600 to 1,000 advantage in terms of missiles that are land based. So, our bomber is an offset for that.,SOCIAL SECURITY,[12.] Q. It was made perfectly clear to us this week that you would be less than overjoyed if the Senate should attach a 20-percent social security increase to the debt ceiling extension bill which expires tomorrow night. It looks like that might happen tomorrow. I wonder what you see as the consequences, and what you could do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there should be an increase in social security. There has been an increase in the cost of living, and I have favored an increase in the social security. The problem with the 20-percent increase which the Senate will consider is what it does to the Social Security System, and also what it does to the cost of living and to future taxes in this country.,We must realize that if a 20-percent social security [increase] is passed by the Senate and by the Congress, that the increased payroll tax to pay for it will completely wipe out the tax reduction that was given to middle-income and lower-middle-income wage earners in 1969. That is a question that the Congress has got to address itself to.,If, on the other hand, the Congress passes the 20-percent increase in social security and does not finance it adequately, it will seriously jeopardize the integrity of the social security trust fund, and it could be highly inflationary which, of course, will hurt most the social security people, the retired people.,So these are considerations that have motivated me in expressing concern. It is not that we do not want an increase in social security. It isn't that we do not want as high an increase as possible. But the increase must be a responsible one. It should be funded. And the Congress, if it does not fund it, would be doing something that would not be in the interest of retired people, who would be faced with an increase in the cost of living.,THE VICE PRESIDENT,[13.] Q. Sir, I know you have said that\nyou don't care to discuss politics until after the Republican Convention, which has to make you kind of an unusual man in Washington, but in your answer a while ago regarding Vice President Agnew, I gained the impression that he may be a one-term Vice President. Am I correct in that?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly not, no. As I said to Mr. Rather--I cannot reconstruct it exactly, he probably can--but in any event, as I said to him in that program, Mr. Agnew had conducted himself, I thought, with great dignity, with great courage, some controversy--which is inevitable when you have courage--and that under these circumstances, since he was a member of a winning team, I did not believe breaking up a winning team was a good idea.,That was my view then, that is my view now. However, the final decision, as I indicated in my answer a few moments ago, will be deferred until before the Republican Convention, and I will make it in time for the delegates to know what my views are.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[14.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Mr. President, with all the shifts in the economy, unemployment seems to be stalled at just under 6 percent. What plans do you have to do something about that?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been making great strides on the employment side, as you know, Mr. Theis: 2,300,000 new jobs since the new economic policy was announced on August 15. We expect that the rapid expansion of the economy, which most economists agree is taking place, is going to reflect itself in reducing unemployment rolls, not as fast as we would like, but in reducing them, through the fall and winter months.,As far as additional actions are concerned, we do not contemplate any at this time, except that we are going to continue those policies that have resulted in the economy growing at a rate of 5 1/2 percent in real growth, and that have resulted-- and this is perhaps the most important number to those who are employed, the 80 million or so--have resulted in the wage earners of this country getting off the treadmill.,For 5 years before we arrived here in 1969, wages had gone up but the wage increases had been almost entirely eaten up by price increases. The most significant thing that has happened since the new economic policy is that we have cut the rate of inflation down so that it is half of what it was in 1970, from 6 to 3 percent. Wages have continued to go up, even though at a lower rate, but real, spendable earnings of 80 million wage earners have gone up 5 percent. That is as compared with going up at the rate of only one percent a year in the sixties. It is this kind of progress that is good.,On the other hand, I am not a bit satisfied with the fact that unemployment is at 5.9 percent, and we are continuing to explore other means of trying to bring it down faster.,BOMBING AND THE PARIS PEACE TALKS,[15.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, a clarifying question on the bombing, please. You have said that the sole purpose of your bombing and your mining, in your May 8 speech, was to protect the 60,000 American troops there. Did I understand you to say, in answer to an earlier question, that that bombing is now contingent upon the release of the prisoners? And I would like to ask an additional question that is slightly related: Were there any conditions attached by each side to the return to the Paris peace talks?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there are no conditions attached to either side. We are going back to the talks prepared to negotiate without conditions, which we think is the most constructive way to obtain results. For example, the condition--I assume this is the implication of your question-there was no condition that if we would go back to the talks we would stop the bombing. We do not intend to. We will stop the bombing when the conditions are met that I laid out in my May 8 speech.,In my May 8 speech, Mr. Lisagor, as you recall, I laid down three conditions. I said that we were bombing military targets in the North, that we were mining the harbor, and that we were doing so for three purposes: to prevent the imposition of a Communist government in South Vietnam, to protect our remaining forces in South Vietnam, which were then 60,000, and, in addition, for the purpose of obtaining the release of our POW's.,Those are the three conditions that we have as far as the bombing is concerned.,But we are prepared to negotiate on those points with the enemy. We have no desire to continue the bombing for one moment longer than necessary to accomplish what we consider to be these very minimal objectives.,CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DECISION,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you regard capital punishment as cruel and unusual, and do you think steps should be taken to reinstate it?,THE PRESIDENT. I was expecting that question tonight, but as you know, the Court just handed down its decision,7 and I immediately got hold of Mr. Dean, Counsel to the President, and I said, \"Send it over to me.\" He said, \"There are nine opinions.\",7 William Henry Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238).,Now I try to read fast, but I couldn't get through all nine opinions. But I did get through the Chief Justice's.,As I understand it, the holding of the Court must not be taken at this time to rule out capital punishment in all kinds of crimes. This has dealt apparently with crimes at the State level and will apply to 35 States in which we do have the situation where capital punishment does apply.,It is my view that as far as cruel and inhuman punishment is concerned, any punishment is cruel and inhuman which takes the life of a man, or woman, for that matter.,On the other hand, the point that I wish to emphasize is this: In the case of kidnaping and in the case of hijacking, Federal crimes, what we are trying to do is to prevent the loss of life.,I recall the situation at the time of the Lindbergh kidnaping. I recall that kidnapings were sort of par for the course then. Any wealthy family was a possible subject for kidnaping.,Kidnaping has been substantially reduced. Now some experts will say that the deterrent of the Lindbergh law was not what did it. Something had to have that effect. Therefore, I have said in the past and I do not retreat from that now, I believe that capital punishment is a necessary deterrent for capital crimes of that type as far as the Federal jurisdiction is concerned--kidnaping and hijacking.,As far as the Court's decision is concerned, except for three of the judges who based their decision on the Eighth Amendment, which rules out cruel and inhumane punishment and as far as the Court's decision is concerned, I do not understand it necessarily to apply to these Federal crimes. I would hope that it would not.,I have expressed my views and I will also say, of course, that we will carry out whatever the Court finally determines to be the law of the land. But I would hope that the Court's decision does not go so far as to rule out capital punishment for kidnaping and hijacking.,GUN CONTROL,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in light of the attempted assassination of Governor Wallace, have you changed your thinking at all on the need for Federal laws controlling the sale of handguns?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my thinking has not changed. I have always felt there should be a Federal law for the control of handguns. As you will note, Mr. Kleindienst testified to that effect earlier today and he did testify to that effect after checking my own position on it.,The problem there is to write the law, the legislation, in such a way that it is precise and deals with that kind of handgun which ought to be controlled. And I am referring now to the Saturday night specials. These are ones where you would have Federal jurisdiction because many of them come in from abroad and, being imported from abroad, it would be particularly a matter for Federal control.,I believe, however, that the legislation, if it is therefore precisely written--and we have been cooperating with the Senate committee, particularly with Senator Hruska, in attempting to work out the proper language--that the Congress should pass such a law, and I will sign it, ruling out Saturday night specials, which I think is the major source of this kind of crime you speak about.,THE SUPREME COURT,[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you consider the Supreme Court now to be in balance or do you think it needs another dose of strict constructionism if that occasion should arise?,THE PRESIDENT. I have expressed myself with regard to the Court on previous occasions, but I feel at the present time, that the Court is as balanced as I have had an opportunity to make it. [Laughter],I have been interested to note that there have been several five-to-four decisions, but let me also say--and the Chief Justice was in to see me the other day and we talked about a number of things-let me also say that of the people I have appointed to that Court, and each one of them will bear this out, I have never talked to them directly or indirectly about a matter before the Court.,I had a pretty good idea before they went on how I thought they might think, but sometimes they have ruled differently, because lawyers never agree.,FUTURE GOALS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, sir, since you have taken care of many of the problems with Peking and Moscow and had some agreements and now you seem to have made great progress with the war, I wonder what areas of the world you would like to work on next?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't want to go to the Moon. [Laughter],EVALUATION OF BOMBING,[20.] Q. Mr. President, the history of American bombing of North Vietnam indicates that it has served to hinder negotiations rather than stimulate negotiations. Why do you think it is going to work now in view of that history?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure that my evaluation of the history is the same as yours. My own view is that we have tried every device possible over the past 3 years to get negotiations going. We have withdrawn forces, we have made very forthcoming offers, we have wound down combat activities on our part, and the result has been simply an ever increasing intransigence on the part of the enemy.,Believe me, it was only as a last resort that I made the very difficult decision of May 8, knowing how much rode on that decision, but having made that decision, I think it was the right decision. And I think the fact that our summit meetings went ahead despite that decision, the fact that we are going back to the negotiating table despite that decision, indicates that it may be that those who feel that a strong hand at the negotiating table is one that results in no negotiation may be wrong.,It has always been my theory that in dealing with these very pragmatic men-and we must respect them for their strength and their pragmatism who lead the Communist nations, that they respect strength, not belligerence but strength, and at least that is the way I am always going to approach it, and I think it is going to be successful in the end.,THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in the middle of May, Vice President Agnew told a number of reporters that he thought it was totally unrealistic for anyone to imagine a Republican convention nominating a Democrat like John Connally.,Can you tell us if you discussed that statement with him and if you knew he was going to make it?,Finally, if the answer to that question is no, can you give us your reaction to it?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not discuss it with Vice President Agnew. I almost said \"Vice President Connally.\" But I did not discuss it with the Vice President. I would say in terms of political evaluation, he, of course, is correct. A Republican convention or a Democratic convention tends to nominate members of their own party to their high offices.,Now, as far as Secretary Connally is concerned, however, I think we can only say that he is a man who has served his country extremely well in national office, as Governor of his State, and then as Secretary of the Treasury. I certainly hope that in the future he will serve this country in some capacity.,I am not going to go further, though, on the Vice Presidency. I have expressed my views with regard to Vice President Agnew and I will at the proper time inform the delegates of my views.,PRESIDENTIAL PRESS CONFERENCES,[22.] Q. Mr. President, this is kind of an in-house question, but I think it is of interest.,THE PRESIDENT. You would not ask an \"out-house\" question, would you? [Laughter],Q. I am not sure what an out-house question is.,THE PRESIDENT. I know.,Q. Nevertheless, I think this is of interest to our viewers and listeners and readers, and that is that you seem to have done very well tonight, you are certainly in command of this situation, and yet this is the first time in a year that you have been willing to meet with us in this kind of forum.,What is your feeling about these types of press conferences?,THE PRESIDENT. It is not that I am afraid to do it. I have to determine the best way of communication and also, and this will sound self-serving and is intended to be, I have to use the press conference--I don't mean use the reporters, but use the press conference--when I believe that is the best way to communicate or inform the people.,Now, for example, I had to make a decision-it may have been wrong--but I concluded that in the very sensitive period leading up to the Peking trip and the period thereafter and in the even more sensitive period, as it turned out to be, leading up to the Moscow trip and the period immediately thereafter, that the press conference, even \"no-commenting\" questions, was not a useful thing for the President of the United States to engage in.,I felt I was, of course, on television enough in that period anyway, if that was the problem. As you know, I have met the press, not perhaps as often as some members of the press would like, or maybe as often as I would like, but I have met them in other formats than the televised conference.,The other point that I should make is this: I know that many members of the press have been discussing the press conference and they feel that perhaps the President, this President, is tempted to downgrade the press or downgrade the press conference. I am not trying to do that. It is useful, it is important. It requires hard work in preparing for it, I can assure you. But I think I can best put it this way: Every President has to make a decision when he enters the office about his relations with the press and about his job. I mean, I am as human as anybody else, I like to get a good press. But on the other hand I had to determine, and I did determine, as I am sure most Presidents do, that what was most important at this time was for me to do a good job because the stakes were so high, particularly in foreign policy, and also in some areas of domestic policy.,Now, if I do a good job, the fact I get bad press isn't going to matter; if I do a bad job, a good press isn't going to help. When November comes, the people will decide whether I have done a good job or not and whether I have had so many press conferences is probably not going to make a lot of difference.,I trust I can do both because it is essential for a President to communicate with the people, to inform the press who, of course, do talk to the people, either on television, radio, or through what they write.,I hope perhaps in the future we can avoid the feeling on the part of the press that the President is antagonistic to them. I can't say whether the President thinks the press is antagonistic to him, but that is another matter.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-06-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen:,Next week before the Congress recesses, I am planning to have a general news conference. Prior to that time, in talking to Mr. Ziegler, I found that a number of members of the press, looking back at previous news conferences, have indicated that there is a tendency for foreign policy and defense policy questions to dominate the conferences so much that questions on domestic policy do not adequately get covered.,As a matter of fact, I have noted several of you in your commentaries, after some news conferences, have indicated that we have not given enough attention to the domestic issues.,So, subsequently, after discussing the matter with Mr. Ziegler, I thought it would be useful this week, on this occasion, to have you here in the office for the purpose of covering domestic issues only. The session next week will be open to both foreign policy-defense policy and domestic issues.,So, today we will take all questions on domestic issues, and next week you can cover all three areas to the extent you wish to.,QUESTIONS\nBUGGING OF DEMOCRATIC HEADQUARTERS,[1.] Q. Mr. O'Brien1 has said that the people who bugged his headquarters2 had a direct link to the White House. Have you had any sort of investigation made to determine whether this is true?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Ziegler and also Mr. Mitchell,3 speaking for the campaign committee, have responded to questions on this in great detail. They have stated my position and have also stated the facts accurately.,1 Lawrence F. O'Brien was chairman of the Democratic National Committee.,2 On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested for illegally entering the Democratic National Committee headquarters in an office building at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. On September 15, they were indicted by a Federal grand jury on charges which included conspiracy to use illegal means to obtain information from the Democratic headquarters, intent to steal property of another, and intent to intercept willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully oral and wire communications.,3 Former Attorney General John N. Mitchell was campaign director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.,This kind of activity, as Mr. Ziegler has indicated, has no place whatever in our electoral process, or in our governmental process. And, as Mr. Ziegler has stated, the White House has had no involvement whatever in this particular incident.,As far as the matter now is concerned, it is under investigation, as it should be, by the proper legal authorities, by the District of Columbia police, and by the FBI. I will not comment on those matters, particularly since possible criminal charges are involved.,FOOD PRICES,[2.] Q. Mr. President, wholesale food prices have led to increases in the cost of living in the last few weeks. Are you considering any kind of controls over the price of food?,THE PRESIDENT. In the whole area of inflation we have had a period of pretty good news generally. As you know, in 1969 and early 1970 the rate of inflation, the CPI, peaked out at 6 percent. Since that time it has been moving down and particularly since the August 15 new policy with the control system was announced, it has now been cut approximately in half, running at around the rate of 3 percent. The most troublesome area however is the one you have referred to--food prices.,We cannot take too much comfort from the figures that came out yesterday because, as you know, they actually reflected a slight drop in food prices. I met yesterday, however, with the Quadriad, and Mr. Stein reported that the weekly reports that we get, which, of course, were not reflected in yesterday's numbers, indicate that meat prices particularly are beginning to rise again and rising very fast. For that reason, I have directed that the Cost of Living Council, which will be meeting this afternoon, look into this matter to see what further action can be taken to deal specifically with food prices, but particularly with meat prices.,Now with regard to meat prices, to give you an indication of the direction of my thinking, you can move on the control side. But as we all remember in that period immediately after World War II, when we had controls but too much demand and too little supply and all the black markets, controls alone will not work unless you also move on the supply side.,At the present time, we have apparently a world shortage of meat, and particularly a shortage of meat in the United States, where the demand is constantly going up as the income of our people goes up.,We have to get, therefore, at the problem of supply. Consequently, one of the areas that I am exploring is the quota system. I have directed our staff to check into the advisability of a temporary lifting of quotas on imported meat which will move on the supply side. It will not affect the problem immediately, but at least it would affect it over the next few months.,That does not rule out, also, the possibility of moving on the control side, and the control side is a matter where the Cost of Living Council is presently, or will be at 4 o'clock this afternoon, considering a number of options which I will consider as the matter develops.,DEFENSE BUDGET AND SALT AGREEMENTS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, this may be a borderline question in the domestic field, but I believe it may fall there since the issues are before Congress. Could you tell us your view of the relationship between the development of offensive weapons, as proposed in your defense budget, and the SALT agreements?,THE PRESIDENT. I have noted the progress of the debate in the committee, and particularly the controversy, or alleged controversy and contradiction which seems in some quarters to have been developed between the views of the Secretary of Defense and the views that I have expressed and the views that have been expressed by Dr. Kissinger and Secretary Rogers.,I think that I can put the thing in context best by first pointing out the Secretary of Defense's position, and then relating that position to the overall position of the United States in attempting to develop policy that will adequately protect the security of the United States and also move forward on the arms limitation front.,The Secretary of Defense has a responsibility, as I have a responsibility, to recommend to the Congress action that will adequately protect the security of the United States. Moving on that responsibility, he has indicated that if the SALT agreement is approved and then if the Congress rejects the programs for offensive weapons not controlled by the SALT agreement, that this would seriously jeopardize the security of the United States. On that point he is correct.,What I would suggest to the Congress and would recommend to individual Congressmen and Senators, who will have the responsibility of voting on this matter, is the following course: First, the arms limitation agreements should be approved on their merits. I would not have signed those agreements unless I had believed that, standing alone, they were in the interest of the United States. As a matter of fact, the offensive limitation is one that is particularly in our interest because it covers arms where the Soviet Union has ongoing programs which will be limited in this 5-year period, and in which we have no ongoing programs.,So, consequently, I would recommend and strongly urge that the Congress approve the ABM treaty, and also the limited, temporary, offensive limitations curb. However, after the Congress moves in that field, all Congressmen and Senators-and this would, of course, include them all who are concerned about the security of the United States should then vote for those programs that will provide adequate offensive weapons in the areas that have been recommended by the Secretary of Defense and by the Administration.,Now the reason for that is twofold: First, because if we have a SALT agreement and then do not go forward with these programs, the Soviet Union will, within a matter of a very limited time, be substantially ahead of the United States overall, particularly in the latter part of the seventies.,If the United States falls into what is a definitely second position, inferior position to the Soviet Union overall in its defense programs, this will be an open invitation for more instability in the world and an open invitation, in my opinion, for more potential aggression in the world, particularly in such potentially explosive areas as the Mideast.,Therefore, it is important from the standpoint of the United States being able to play its role of maintaining peace and security in the world--a role that the United States, of all the non-Communist nations, is the only one capable of playing it is essential that the United States not fall into an inferior position.,Therefore, the offensive weapons programs--which incidentally were not conceived after the SALT agreements, they were recommended prior to the SALT agreements--stand on their own because the Soviet Union has programs in which they are moving forward. As I pointed out to the leaders, and you ladies and gentlemen were present there, or some of you were and the rest of you, of course, covered it through the broadcasting system, the Soviet Union is moving forward.,Mr. Brezhnev made it absolutely clear to me that in those areas that were not controlled by our offensive agreement that they were going ahead with their programs. For us not to would seriously jeopardize the security of the United States and jeopardize the cause of world peace, in my opinion.,Now, the second reason why those who vote for the arms limitation agreement should vote for an ongoing program in those areas not covered by it, is that this arms control agreement, while very important, is only the first step and not the biggest step.,The biggest step remains. The biggest step is a permanent limitation on offensive weapons, covering other categories of weapons and, we trust, eventually all categories of weapons. This would be as dramatic as the one step that we have already taken--this would be an even more dramatic step in limiting arms overall between the two super powers.,In the event that the United States does not have ongoing programs, however, there will be no chance that the Soviet Union will negotiate phase two of an arms limitation agreement. I can say to the members of the press here that had we not had an ABM program in being there would be no SALT agreement today, because there would have been no incentive for the Soviet Union to stop us from doing something that we were doing and, thereby, agree to stop something they were doing.,Now in the event that we do not therefore have any new offensive systems underway or planned, the Soviet Union has no incentive to limit theirs. And so consequently-and I have studied this very, very carefully, I can assure you that there is nothing I would like better than to be able to limit these expenses--I am convinced that to achieve our goal, which is the goal, I think, of all Americans, to achieve our goal of an offensive limitations curb, covering all types of nuclear weapons, that it is essential for the United States to have an ongoing, offensive program. For that reason, I think that the position of the Secretary of Defense, speaking for the security of the United States, is a sound one.,I would hope that Members of the House and Senate, on reflection, would recognize that the SALT agreement, important as it is by itself, does not deal with the total defense posture of the United States. By itself it is in the interest of the United States and it stands on its own, but by itself, without a continuing offensive program, we can be sure that the security interests of the United States would be very seriously jeopardized and the chances for a permanent offensive agreement would, in my opinion, be totally destroyed.,NEWS CONFERENCE QUESTIONS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, is Mr. Ehrlichman correct when he says that you sometimes get irritated with us for our dumb and flabby questions so-called?,THE PRESIDENT. You are not dumb and flabby. [Laughter] No, I noted that comment and expected a question on it. I am afraid if I begin to characterize the questions, you will begin to characterize my answers, but you probably will anyway. In any event, as far as questions are concerned, I think what Mr. Ehrlichman was referring to was the tendency in the big East Room conferences for questions to come in from all over the place and no follow-up, as there can be in a conference like this.,Sometimes the questions may appear somewhat less relevant. I have found, for example--although we do not rule out the big conference where everybody gets to come--I have found that these smaller sessions do provide an opportunity for members of the regular White House press, who study these issues day by day and who know what is relevant and what is not relevant and who can follow up, I think that the possibility of dumb and flabby questions is much less and I don't, frankly, complain about it.,The other point that I should make is this: In looking over the transcripts of various press conferences, I have not seen many softballs, and I don't want any because it is only the hardball that you can hit or strike out on.,WELFARE BILL,[5.] Q. Mr. President, how badly do you want a welfare bill to pass Congress and how much are you willing to compromise either on the principles or the price tag of H.R. 1?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, I have been having a number of meetings on this matter over the past week and I will expect to have more during the next week and after the Congress returns from its vacation in Miami.,But, whatever the case may be, looking at the welfare program, I believe that the position that we have taken, a position that has been overwhelmingly approved by the House, is the right position.,It provides for welfare for those who need it. It provides also for those incentives that will move people from welfare rolls to jobs, and it does so at a cost we can afford. And all of those matters, I think, have to be taken into consideration in any program that we recommend.,Now, the tactical situation is that Mr. Ribicoff [Senator Abraham Ribicoff] and several Republicans have indicated that unless the Administration moves toward their position, that we have no chance to get a bill.,First, I question their analysis on that point.,Second, I believe that, on the merits, moving in that direction is the wrong step because it would substantially increase the cost of welfare and move in the direction that I think the country does not want, and that, I believe, would not be in the interest of the welfare recipients themselves.,On the other side of the coin, when it was known that I had had, as I did have, long conversations with those who were advocating the movement toward the Ribicoff positions, the members of the Senate Finance Committee have requested equal time. I intend to give them equal time, of course, to hear their arguments, after the bill is written in its final form. As you know, it has not yet been finalized.,My own present intention, however, is to stay by our middle position. I think it is the right position and I believe that it is a position that can get through this Congress.,Now on that score, I would just point out that we can all go back and look at speeches that have been made and maybe a few columns that have been written, indicating that the Administration's failing to move from the position that we had taken on revenue sharing meant that we would never get revenue sharing.,Well, we got it today in the House because our position was sound and I think we are going to follow the same tactics, the same position now. I will watch it, of course, day by day, because I want welfare reform, the country wants welfare reform. But we cannot have welfare reform that moves in the direction of enormously increasing the cost and, frankly, putting more people on welfare rather than getting people off of it.,ALIENS AND UNEMPLOYMENT,[6.] Q. Sir, I have seen a letter from a high official in the immigration department of the State Department saying that we had 4,800,000 people in this country on temporary visas who were employed. I wonder, in view of the large number who come in illegally, if you don't think these two groups together have a great impact on our high rate of unemployment?,THE PRESIDENT. The President of Mexico spoke to me about that problem, the problem of illegal aliens, and, of course you know, it is a problem in which many of our labor organizations are very vitally interested. It does certainly contribute to the unemployment problem. It is one which administration after administration has wrestled with without too much success.,It is one, however, after my consultation with the President of Mexico, that I have asked the Department of Labor to examine to see what steps could be taken to see that illegal aliens and particularly those--the Mexican problem is the biggest one, as you know--those from our friends and neighbors to the south, where that could come under better control.,COURT DECISIONS ON WIRETAPPING AND\nORGANIZED BASEBALL,[7.] Q. Mr. President, two questions about recent Supreme Court decisions, if I may ask them as two questions, because I am asking in both cases if you have any plans for meeting the situation.,In the first case, the Supreme Court ruled your wiretapping program unconstitutional, saying that in cases of domestic security, wires could not be tapped without a court order. So my first question is whether you have any plans to ask Congress for legislation to restore that authority in the form of an amendment to the Safe Streets Act or other legislation?,In the second case, the Supreme Court left it up to Congress whether organized baseball came under the antitrust laws. This being a matter of some national interest, I think, I wonder if you have any plans to ask for legislation to clarify the status of organized baseball?,THE PRESIDENT. On the first question, I think it is appropriate to point out that the wiretapping in cases of civilian activity, domestic civilian activity, is not, as you have described it, just this Administration's policy. As you know, this type of activity of surveillance has been undertaken, to my knowledge, going back to World War II. It reached its high point in 1963 when there were over 100 cases, as Mr. Hoover testified, in which there were taps used in cases involving domestic security.,Since that time the number of taps has gone down. It went down during the Johnson Administration, and it has sharply been decreased during the 3 1/2 years that this Administration has been in office.,Now, as far as the Supreme Court's decision is concerned, I see no need to ask for legislation to obtain the authority, because the Supreme Court's decision allows the Government, in a case that it believes necessary, to go to a court and get a court order for wiretapping. It simply prohibits wiretapping unless there is a court order. So we will abide by that.,I should also point out that the Supreme Court's decision does not rule out wiretapping in the United States in domestic matters where there is a clear connection between the activity that is under surveillance and a foreign government. That, of course, allows us to move in the internal security area where there is a clear connection between the two. So we will, of course, abide by the Supreme Court's decision in this instance, and I see no need to ask for additional authority from the Congress.,On the baseball matter, I must say I cannot even tell you who is in first place at the present time because I have not had a chance to check it lately.,Yes, I can. I called the mayor of Houston and congratulated him on the fact that he had just been elected to be head of the Conference of Mayors, Mr. Louie Welch. He thought I was calling to congratulate him on the Astros being in first place. So they must be in first place. [Laughter],In any event, as an old baseball fan, and the rest, I have no present thoughts on that. I would like, perhaps, to talk to Bowie Kuhn [Commissioner of Baseball], who is a good lawyer and also interested in baseball.,CAMPAIGN DEBATES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us some of your reasons, sir, for deciding against debating your Democratic opponent this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. He asked if I had any good reasons for deciding against debating my Democratic opponent this fall. As you ladies and gentlemen have often heard me say, and I will continue to hold to this position, questions that deal with the campaign, questions that deal with matters that involve candidacy, are ones that I will respectfully not comment upon until after the Republican Convention. At that time I will be glad to take that question and I will give an answer then.,I have not made a decision on it yet. That is my point.,EDUCATION BILL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what your plans are for the higher education bill? Do you intend to sign it?,THE PRESIDENT. I have to make the decision tomorrow. I will be very candid with you to tell you that it is one of the closest calls that I have had since being in this office. Some of the members of my staff and Members of the Congress are enthusiastic for signing it, and others are just as enthusiastic for vetoing it.,I have mixed emotions about it. First, as far as many of the education provisions, strictly education provisions, they are recommendations of this Administration. I think they are very much in the public interest. If they could be separated from the rest of the bill, and stand on their own, there would not be any question about signing the bill. On the other hand, the Congress, as you know, did add a provision, section 803, with regard to busing. It was certainly a well-intentioned position, but from a legal standpoint it is so vague and so ambiguous that it totally fails to deal with this highly volatile issue.,What brought that home to me was when I asked the Attorney General for an opinion as to whether or not it could deal with the problem of the busing order that has been handed down in Detroit. The answer is that it is highly doubtful that section 803 of the higher education act, in the event that it is signed into law, will deal with that problem, because of its vagueness, because of its ambiguity.,The Detroit case is perhaps the most flagrant example that we have of all of the busing decisions, moving against all the principles that I, at least, believe should be applied in this area. It completely rejects the neighborhood school concept. It requires massive busing among\n53 different school districts, including the busing of kindergarten children, up to an hour and a half a day, and it puts the objective of some kind of racial balance or attempting to achieve some kind of racial balance above that of superior education, of quality education for all.,I believe that the fact that this section 803 would not deal with the Detroit case means that we are going to have other cases of that type, possibly in other cities before school begins this fall, and the responsibility, if we have them, and if we are unable to stop those orders from going into effect, falls squarely on the Congress because a very simple moratorium bill that I have presented to the Congress and asked for enactment would stop this. And then the Congress moving forward and I am glad to see that there has been some movement in committee at least with the equal educational opportunities act, this action on the part of the Congress would deal with problems like the one in Detroit.,My own view is that in this whole area we face very serious problems this fall unless the Congress moves on the moratorium legislation, clear-cut and soon and before the school year begins.,I have digressed a bit from the bill. It is a close call. I will maize the decision tonight and will announce it tomorrow. But that gives you an idea of some of the things that have been going through my mind.,Q. just to follow that up, if you were to veto it, sir, what are the prospects do you think of getting a separate busing bill and a higher education bill without the busing?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, that is one of the matters that I have been discussing with the Congressional leaders for example, Senator Griffin, who is, as you know, somewhat interested in this issue because he comes from Michigan-and the prospects of getting the higher education bill here on the President's desk as it should be, in the proper form, and then getting an adequate, straight-out moratorium on new school busing orders, the prospects are, frankly, somewhat doubtful.,That is the reason why, in determining whether I sign this bill or veto it, it is a very close call, but I think my statement tomorrow will address that question.,I have an idea which way I am going to go but I promised to talk to one more Senator before I make the final step and I will not tell you today until I talk to him.,Q. Will that be the Senator from Tennessee?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, Miss McClendon [Sarah McClendon, Sarah McClendon News Service], you have touched upon a rather raw nerve there, because Nashville is a case which 803 might cover. I say \"might.\" We can't even be sure it would.,So consequently, the Senators from Tennessee strongly advocate signing this, even though it won't handle Detroit, because they say, \"We are interested in Detroit, but we are a lot more interested in Tennessee.\" But I have to be interested in the whole country.,CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS,[10.] Miss Angelo [Bonnie Angelo, Time-Life],Q. Mr. Mitchell has declined to make public the source of about $10 million of contributions to your reelection fund. I know that this is in the letter of the law, but I wonder in the spirit of the law, of more openness, what you think about that and might you make them public?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Ziegler has, I think, responded to that, and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Stans.4 I think it is Mr. Stans who has declined to do that. I support the position that Mr. Stans has taken.,4 Maurice H. Stans was chairman of the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President.,When we talk about the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, my evaluation is that it is the responsibility of all individuals, a high moral responsibility to obey the law and to obey it totally.,Now, if the Congress wanted this law to apply to contributions before the date in April that it said the law should take effect, it could have made it apply. The Congress did not apply it before that date and under the circumstances Mr. Stans has said we will comply with the law as the Congress has written it, and I support his decision.,FEDERAL TROOPS AT MIAMI CONVENTIONS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, it has been\ndecided that Federal troops will be deployed to the Miami Beach area for both Presidential conventions. First, were you a part of that decision, and secondly, what is your reaction to this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I was not a part of the decision, actually. I think that was probably done consistent with our policy of accepting, when requests are made, the advice of the local officials as to the need for Federal troops. I would hope they would not be needed, but apparently the city of Miami Beach, the State officials in Florida, felt that they might not have adequate personnel to handle what might be conduct that would be quite explosive.,I will just make a guess at this point. I don't think that--at least speaking as to what goes on outside the convention halls is concerned--I don't think that we are going to have those great demonstrations and the violence and so forth that everybody has been predicting. I don't believe we are going to have another Chicago situation such as we had in 1968.,I believe that many of the younger people who have engaged in such activities in the past are rather turned off by it now. I think they will try their best to, of course, affect the outcome of the conventions, both inside the hall and outside, but I think when it comes to violence, the kind of thing that we saw in Chicago, I think that fortunately, while we are not through with it as we saw in the tragic incident involving Governor Wallace, I think that we are not going to have that great a problem. But the Federal troops will be there if they are requested, but only if necessary.,SCHOOL FINANCING AND TAX REFORM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us what progress you are making toward keeping your promise about finding a way to relieve property taxes and provide fair and adequate financing for public schools and save the private schools?,THE PRESIDENT. First, with regard to the general problem of tax reform, I would like to commend Chairman Mills for the position that he has taken. I had breakfast with him and Congressman Byrnes and with Secretary Connally before I went off to the Soviet Union.,We discussed the problem of tax reform. He is very interested in tax reform. I am interested in tax reform and, of course, I have noticed several candidates that have expressed themselves on this point.,The problem is that tax reform, or tax legislation, in an election year, as Mr. Mills, as one of the most experienced men in this field, and Mr. Byrnes both agree, is simply not a wise course of action. It is hard enough to get a responsible tax law in a nonelection year. In an election year it will be totally impossible.\nConsequently, I think Chairman Mills' announcement that he will begin hearings on tax reform legislation early in the next session of the Congress shows high statesmanship. Now we will be ready for those hearings.,Secretary Connally instituted, at my request, an intensive study within the Treasury Department of how we could reform the tax system to make it more equitable and to make it more simple and also to deal with problems like property tax which fall upon 65 million people and therefore are, in my view, unfair.,These studies have gone forward. Considerable progress has been made. Secretary Shultz is continuing these studies, and I will make a decision on it prior to submitting the budget and will present recommendations to the next Congress dealing with these issues.,I will not at this time prejudge the various proposals that have been presented before me. Certainly included in that decision will be relief for nonpublic schools. I am committed to that, and the approach of tax credits in this area will be included in that proposal.,Just so that somebody won't say I was trying to duck a hard one here, I know the question of value-added [tax] will come up. There has been a lot of speculation about that. Value-added--I have instructed or directed the Secretary of the Treasury, along with my Council of Economic Advisers--can be considered as a possible approach but only if we can find a nonretrogressive formula.,Tax reform should not be used as a cover for a tax increase. Value-added has to be evaluated then under those circumstances.,One final point I will make is that as we move in this area we have to realize that we have had considerable tax reform over the past 3 years. Nine million poor people have been totally removed from the Federal tax rolls. The lower-income taxpayers have had reductions of 83 percent in their taxes since 1969 and middle income taxpayers have had reductions of 13 percent.,But there are still inequities. One point I particularly emphasize: At a time that we have made some necessary reforms, some of which I have referred to, we have moved in the wrong direction in another way. The tax system, particularly the Federal income tax system, is hopelessly complex. I majored in law school in tax law. As a lawyer I used to do quite a bit of tax work. I naturally don't take the time to make up my own income tax returns now. But when Manolo5 came in recently and asked me to help him figure out the forms, I had to send him to a lawyer, and when that is the case with a man who is in basically not a high income bracket, then it is time to do something to make the system not only more equitable but make it more simple. It will put some lawyers and accountants out of business, but there are other things they can do.,5 Manolo Sanchez, the President's valet.,Q. Are you saying all these proposals won't come until after the first of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. We will make the proposals before the first of the year, but they will not be considered by the Congress until after the first of the year.,It would not be fair to the American people, it would not be fair to those, for example, interested in the nonpublic school relief, to suggest that the Congress, in this sort of sputtering, start-and-stop period--I mean, they are stopping next week and they come back for 6 weeks and maybe come back after the Republican Convention and the rest--that it could enact tax reform. It is not going to happen, and I am aware of that.,ANTI-BUSING AMENDMENT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, back on the subject of busing, are you moving at all toward the position of favoring an antibusing constitutional amendment?,THE PRESIDENT. A constitutional amendment is a step that should be taken only if the legislative route proves to be inadequate or impossible--impossible due to the fact that the Congress will not enact it. As far as I am concerned, we do need action here. I prefer the legislative route. I think it is the most responsible route, but if the Congress does not act, then the only recourse left is for a constitutional amendment, and I will move in that direction. We must deal with the problem.,GENERAL LAVELLE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that there should be a court-martial in the case of General Lavelle6 to bring out all the facts there, and what is your opinion about that?,THE PRESIDENT. First, that does deal with the foreign policy-defense area, Vietnam and so forth. But since it does involve a current case, I will comment upon it.,6Gen. John D. Lavelle had been accused of carrying out unauthorized air strikes against North Vietnam between November 1971 and March 1972. In April 1972, after an investigation by the Air Force, he was demoted and retired from active service.,The Secretary of Defense has stated his view on that, has made a decision on it. I think it was an appropriate decision. I will not go beyond that.,FRANK CORMIER (Associated Press).\nThank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-03-24","text":"QUESTIONS,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[1.]THE PRESIDENT. Miss Lewine [Frances L. Lewine, Associated Press], we will take your question first.,Q. Mr. President, in view of the suspension of the Paris peace talks, can you tell us if the hopes are dimming for a negotiated peace settlement and what you assess the situation as?,THE PRESIDENT. What we are really trying to do there, Miss Lewine, and this has been done under my direction, is to break a filibuster. There has been about a 3 1/2-year filibuster at the peace talks on the part of the North Vietnamese. They have refused to negotiate seriously. They have used the talks for the purpose of propaganda while we have been trying to seek peace. Whenever the enemy is ready to negotiate seriously, we are ready to negotiate. And I would emphasize we are ready to negotiate in public channels or in private channels.,As far as the hopes for a negotiated peace are concerned, I would say that the way the talks were going, there was no hope whatever. I am not saying that this move is going to bring a negotiation. I do say, however, that it was necessary to do something to get the talks off dead center and to see whether the enemy continued to want to use the talks only for propaganda or whether they wanted to negotiate.,When they are ready, we are ready, but we are not going to continue to allow them to use this forum for the purpose of bully. ragging the United States in a propaganda forum rather than in seriously negotiating peace, as we tried to do as exemplified by not only our private contacts in the 12 meetings that I discussed on January 25, but also in my speech of January 25, in which I made a very forthcoming offer.,MR. KLEINDIENST'S NOMINATION,[2.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, was there any link between the ITT antitrust settlement and the contribution to San Diego as a convention city and do you think that Mr. Kleindienst will be confirmed as the Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have noted that you ladies and gentlemen of the press have been pressing on this matter, as you should, because it is a matter of very great interest in the Senate and in the Nation.,I will simply limit my remarks to these observations: First, Mr. Kleindienst is being considered for, as you have indicated, confirmation as Attorney General of the United States.1 That is the purpose of the hearings. I had confidence when I appointed him that he was qualified for this position. I still have that confidence. I believe that he should be confirmed and I believe that he will be confirmed.,1On February 15, 1972, White House Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler announced the President's intention to nominate Richard G. Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States. On the same day, the White House also released a biography of Mr. Kleindienst, which is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 8, p. 440).,Now, as far as the hearings are concerned, there is nothing that has happened in the hearings to date that has in one way shaken my confidence in Mr. Kleindienst as an able, honest man, fully qualified to be Attorney General of the United States.,However, I am not going to comment on any aspects of the hearing, any aspects of the case, while the Senate is still conducting them and while the Senate is still trying to determine the authenticity of some of the evidence that is before it. That is a matter for the Senate committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Eastland to continue to consider. But I would point out that Mr. Kleindienst asked for these hearings. We want the whole record brought out because as far as he is concerned, he wants to go in as Attorney General with no cloud over him. He will not have any, in my opinion, once the hearings are concluded, and what we are talking about will be proof, rather than simply charges which as yet have been unsubstantiated.,ROLE OF WHITE HOUSE AIDES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on another aspect which I think is not directly related to the ITT case, I wondered if you could give us your view on the proper role of White House Staff members in contacts with executive departments and regulatory agencies concerning matters that are before those departments or agencies.,My specific reference, of course, is to the involvement of Mr. Flanigan2 in some of these matters, but I wondered if you could give us, on a more general basis, what you consider the proper role and the limits of that role for a Presidential aide in dealing with regulatory and law enforcement matters.,2 Peter M. Flanigan, Assistant to the President.,THE PRESIDENT. A Presidential aide must listen to all of those who come to the White House, as they do in great numbers on all sides of all cases with regard to complaints that they have or causes that they wish to work for, just as they go to the Members of the House and the Senate and others in that connection.,What is improper is for a Presidential aide to use influence for personal gain, and to use influence in any way that would not be in the public interest. As far as Mr. Flanigan is concerned, Mr. Ziegler has responded to that charge at considerable length with my total authority and his views represent mine. I have nothing further to say.,WAR ON INFLATION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, how do you expect the war on inflation to succeed without the cooperation of George Meany and his friends?3,3 See Items 101 and 102.,THE PRESIDENT. The war on inflation will succeed with their cooperation, if possible, but without it, if necessary. I think the best indication of the fact that it is succeeding is that as far as that part of the Consumer Price Index which is made up of those items that are under control, as Mr. Stein pointed out in his briefings yesterday, the wage-price controls have been effective.,The only part of the Consumer Price Index or the major part of the Consumer Price Index which resulted in what we thought was a disappointing increase in prices, at least a one-month increase, was the food index.,The food index, as we know, is not controlled. Now, insofar as that food index is concerned, we discussed that at considerable length at the Cost of Living Council yesterday. What we found is that it is a mistake and totally unfair to make the farmer the scapegoat for the high meat prices and the high food prices.,Approximately a third of what the prices are that the consumer pays in the grocery store or the supermarket for food, approximately only a third of that amount is a result of what the farmer receives as farm income. The other two-thirds goes to middlemen, to retailers, and others. And our preliminary investigation of this situation shows that the spread between what the farmer receives and what the consumer pays in the grocery store and the supermarket has widened. It is too great.,That is the reason why the Price Commission is, on April I e, as you know--I think it was announced this morning--is going to conduct a hearing on this matter to determine whether or not the profit margins in this period have gone beyond the guidelines that have been laid down.,I will simply say that as far as we are concerned, we can say that on the one hand we are glad to see that, looking at a 6-month period, the rate of inflation has decelerated. On the other hand, we are disappointed at even a one-month figure in which the rate of inflation is at the level it was this time.,We are particularly disappointed that the food component was as high as it was. That is why we welcome the action of the Price Commission looking into that component as to why it is, and then in the event that those food prices do not start to move down, then other action will have to be taken. I am prepared to have such other action taken. I have directed those who have responsibility in this field to see what action can be taken. I would simply conclude by pointing out that to feel that the action that will be effective is to control or move on the one-third, that which the farmer receives as income for what he sells, is not the most effective way to do it.,One little example that I can use which I think is quite graphic--and Secretary Connally was discussing this matter in the Cost of Living Council yesterday. He said that he had been in Texas and had talked to a rancher who raised chickens. He asked him how much he got a dozen for eggs. He got 30 cents a dozen. A couple of days later he got breakfast at the Hotel Pierre in New York and he ordered a couple of eggs for breakfast. It was $5 for two. That is at the rate of $30 a dozen. Now, of course, the eggs have to be transported, processed, cooked, and served, but 30 cents a dozen to the farmer and $30 a dozen to whoever buys those eggs in a restaurant, that is just too much, and we are going to get at that middleman one way or another.,POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, will you give us your views on the general proposition of large political contributions either by corporations or individuals in terms of possibly getting something back for it?,THE PRESIDENT. Nobody gets anything back as far as the general contributions are concerned in this Administration. As a matter of fact, I think some of our major complaints have been that many of our business people have not received the consideration that perhaps they thought that an Administration that was supposed to be business-oriented would provide for it.,As far as such contributions are concerned, they should always, of course, comply with the law.,Second, as far as those who receive them are concerned, they must be accepted with no understandings, expressed or implied, that anything is to be done as a result of those contributions that would not be done in the ordinary course of events.,Let me just say on that point that looking at ITT, which, as I understand, has been a contributor to a number of political causes over the years, it is significant to note--and I would hope that the members of the press would report this; I have not seen this in many stories--it is significant to note that ITT became the great conglomerate that it was, in the two previous administrations primarily, in the Kennedy Administration and in the Johnson Administration. It grew and it grew and it grew, and nothing was done to stop it.,In this Administration we moved on ITT. We are proud of that record. We moved on it effectively. We required the greatest divestiture in the history of the antitrust law. And second, we also, as a result of the consent decree, required that ITT not have additional acquisitions, so that it became larger.,Now, as Dean Griswold4 pointed out, that not only was a good settlement, it was a very good settlement. I think under the circumstances that gives the lie to the suggestion that this Administration, in the handling of the ITT case, just using one example, was doing a favor for ITT. If we wanted to do a favor for ITT, we could just continue to do what the two previous administrations had done, and that is nothing, let ITT continue to grow. But we moved on it and moved effectively.,4 Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Department of Justice.,Mr. McLaren5 is justifiably very proud of that record, and Dean Griswold is very proud of that record, and they should be.,5Richard W. McLaren was Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, from January 1969 to February 1972.,BUSING AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, could we discuss your speech the other night and your moves on the problems of the schools, particularly with the blacks in our society? There are those who feel that in the combination of the constitutional issue that has been raised, in which you have asked that the courts have a moratorium, and at the same time by putting more money into black schools, what you are doing, in effect, is going back to the old doctrine of separate but equal facilities for blacks. Could you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I see that that charge has been made and I can see how that understanding, or misunderstanding, could develop. But let me explain what we were trying to do and what I believe our proposals, if they are enacted by the Congress, will accomplish.,In the first place, we have to analyze what the constitutional problem is. The Constitution under the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection of the law. The Constitution does not provide, as a remedy, busing or any other device. The Constitution in the 14th Amendment expressly grants power to the Congress to set up the remedies to accomplish the right of equal protection of the law.,We turn now to busing. Let me relate this to Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown v. the Board of Education, as its name indicates, was about, primarily, education. Brown v. the Board of Education held, in effect, that legally segregated education was inherently inferior education. I agree with that.,On the other hand, how do we desegregate and thereby get better education? Here is where busing compounds the evil. Busing for the purpose of achieving racial balance not only does not produce superior education, it results in even more inferior education.,So what I was trying to do was to tackle the issue by saying we can and should have desegregation, but we should not compound the evil of a dual school system, of legal segregation, by using a remedy which makes it even worse.,That is why I have concluded that, first, a moratorium on busing for a year was the right move to make. I believe, incidentally, that the moratorium is constitutional. I believe it will be so held by the Supreme Court due to the fact that it deals with a remedy and not a right. That is the fundamental difference. Lawyers will disagree on that, but the Court will decide. I think the Court will decide that the moratorium is constitutional.,That is why, also, I moved in another field. When we talk about education, we must remember that if we had busing at the maximum degree suggested by the most extreme proponents of busing, it would still leave the vast majority of black schoolchildren living in central cities, going to what are basically inferior schools, a lost generation, as I described it.,I decided that we could not allow that situation to continue without trying to move on it. How have we tried to move? We have tried to move through a program which has not yet been fully tested---I am not sure that it will work, but we have got to do something--and that is in the field of compensatory education, a program in which we, rather than doing it with a shotgun approach which has proved ineffective, that we use the \"critical mass\" approach, $300 as has been described per pupil, for the purpose of improving education in those schools where no plan for desegregation that anybody has suggested will ever affect. We cannot leave those people, those students, there without having some action and some attention paid to them.,One other thought with regard to this whole matter of compensatory education. I noted on one of the networks, not yours, but NBC's, a very thoughtful series to the effect that compensatory education is a failure. We looked into that. As a matter of fact, on the basis in which it has been used up to this point of a shotgun approach where you have $100, $150, $200 a student, it has not worked.,You have an example in the District of Columbia where over $300 has not helped. But on the other hand, in California and in four other States which came to our attention, we have found that there is substantial evidence to indicate that if we can get $300 a student or more into those schools, it will raise the level of education in those areas. That is why we are going down this road.,Another point I should cover, incidentally, since this subject has been raised, is the matter of new money. Let me say there is certainly a great deal of new money in this program. First, you must remember that the Congress has not yet passed and has not yet sent to my desk a request for a billion dollars in emergency school aid funds that I have asked for; that billion dollars will go into this program.,Second, we have asked not only that that billion dollars come here, but that the program be 4 years, rather than simply one year, because our proposal, as you know, was simply a one-shot proposal for a billion and a half. So that means that you have $2 1/2 billion in new money.,I would say in conclusion, I would like to be able to assure everybody here that this program of compensatory education, concentrating money in some of these areas on students who will never be helped by any program of busing at all, no matter how extreme, I would like to say that it will succeed. I am not sure, but I do know that we cannot go on with the present situation where we leave them there growing up in inferior schools with no chance for hope.,I know Mr. Shultz believes--and others, experts that I have talked to--this \"critical mass\" approach will get at the problem. I just want to say, however, that as far as desegregation is concerned, this Administration has made great progress in desegregation. There are more black students that go to majority white schools in the South than in the North at the present time. The dual school system has been virtually eliminated.,What we were trying to get at is the problem of busing, busing which is a bad means because it compounds the evil which Brown v. the Board of Education was trying to get at. Also it poisons relations between the races, its creates racism, and it was time for somebody to move on it in what I thought was a responsible way.,MR. FLANIGAN,[7.] Q. To go back to the ITT case for a moment, since you have said that you see nothing improper in Mr. Flanigan's activities in the various cases that you mentioned, will you permit him to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee if he is invited to do so?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Ziegler answered that question, I will not respond further.,PRE-CONVENTION POLITICAL ACTIVITY,[8.] Q. Would you care to comment on the primaries and do you expect Congressman Ashbrook to go right down to the wire to the convention and go for the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. I realize that a lot of you have political questions. You may remember, as, I think, the first president of the Press Club that I ever introduced at one of your meetings many, many years ago, that I stated several months ago that in Presidential press conferences I would not answer questions on partisan political matters until after the Republican Convention. That includes the Republicans. That includes the Democrats. That includes those who may leave the Republicans or leave the Democrats.,Q. And it is still your intention, Mr. President, not to campaign until after convention time?,THE PRESIDENT. It is. As a matter of fact, I will not be making any political speeches--well, you may call them political-but I will not be appearing, Mr. Warren [Lucian C. Warren, Buffalo Evening News], before any partisan political groups, making partisan political speeches, and I am not going to answer any partisan political questions one way or another in any Presidential conference or in any other forum of this kind.,Between now and the Republican Convention, I shall continue to meet the responsibility of President of the United States and I will answer all questions in that area. I will not answer political questions. I will have plenty of time to answer them after the Republican Convention.,MILITARY SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,[9.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess the military situation in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, and will you be able to follow your schedule for withdrawal of troops and perhaps tell us something more of it?,THE PRESIDENT. I will not tell you more about the withdrawal at this time because, as you know, we make these announcements at the time that they are scheduled and on the basis of the situation as it exists then. Another announcement will be made before the 1st of May.,Second, with regard to our program for withdrawal, it has gone well, as you know. The casualties again were low this week-still not zero, which is our goal, but, too, it is better than 200 or 300, which is what it was when we came in. As far as the military situation is concerned, an ominous enemy buildup continues. The press has very well reported the threats to the Laotian base of Long Tieng. There have been some sporadic mortar attacks in Cambodia and there has been a considerable amount of action in South Vietnam. On the other hand, I have gotten a report from General Abrams just a few days ago. He says that they still expect-he doesn't guarantee it but he says they are still prepared for some attacks in this dry season. They have not come yet. He says if they do come he is confident that the South Vietnamese will be able to contain them. He is also confident that while the South Vietnamese lines, in the event the attacks are heavy, may bend, that they will not break. If this proves to be the case it will be the final proof that Vietnamization has succeeded.,SAN DIEGO INVESTIGATION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, have you satisfied yourself, sir, that the Justice Department acted properly in quashing an investigation of campaign contributions to San Diego last year?,THE PRESIDENT. I have covered that question already.,INTEGRATION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke in terms of busing a minute ago and that the patterns of living are the root cause of it. Have you then thought of some kind of new programs to try to break up the patterns that keep the blacks in the inner city, to try to get at integration in that way?,THE PRESIDENT. It is very difficult to find any new programs because so many have been suggested and I imagine there are not any that could be classified as new. The breaking up of these patterns is something that probably is going to occur over a period of time as economic considerations and educational considerations come more into play. I am confident of this: That we cannot put--as I said, not in my statement on busing a few days ago but in my original statement on the whole educational process of last year--we cannot put the primary burden for breaking up these patterns on the educational system.,The purpose of education is to educate. Whenever a device is used to desegregate which results in inferior education, we are doing a grave disservice to the blacks who are supposed to be helped.,WORLD POWERS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, is it a pragmatic observation that the world now is divided into three parts: the United States, China, and the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. Some would perhaps describe the world that way, but I think the world is much bigger and much more complicated. I don't think that you can rule out by such a simplistic observation the future of Latin America, the potential in Africa, the potential in South Asia and the rimland of Asia, the future of Japan, which is an economic giant even though it is a mini-military power.,At the present time, it could be said that the United States and the Soviet Union are the two major super powers from a military standpoint, that the People's Republic of China is the most populous nation in the world with the potential of becoming a super power, and therefore anyone who is interested in trying to build a structure of peace must deal with the relationships between these three great power centers now.,I think that is the key to the future. But we must also, at the same time, have policies that look to the future of Japan, the future of Western Europe, because it will play a major role, and, of course, the future of Latin America and Africa.,FIDEL CASTRO,[13.] Q. Mr. President, sir, you have sort of a pattern of making peace with enemies around the world. Are you next going to see Fidel Castro?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have not been invited.,MARIHUANA REPORT,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you have a comment, sir, on the recommendation of your commission on drugs that the use of marihuana in the home be no longer considered a crime?,THE PRESIDENT. I met with Mr. Sharer. I have read the report.6 It is a report which deserves consideration and it will receive it. However, as to one aspect of the report, I am in disagreement. I was before I read it, and reading it did not change my mind. I oppose the legalization of marihuana and that includes its sale, its possession, and its use. I do not believe that you can have effective criminal justice based on a philosophy that something is half legal and half illegal. That is my position, despite what the Commission has recommended.,6 On March 21, 1972, former Governor Raymond P. Sharer, Chairman, Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, met with the President at the White House to present the Commission's first report.,AGENDA FOR CANADIAN VISIT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, on your trip to Canada, do you intend to try to do something about getting us in a better trade position and, also, do you intend to take up the matter of cleaning up the Great Lakes?,THE PRESIDENT. We are working out the agenda for our Canadian trip at the present time. I would have to say quite candidly that we have had very little success to date in our negotiations with our Canadian friends, which shows, incidentally, that sometimes you have more problems negotiating with your friends than with your adversaries. But that is as it should be. They have a right to their position; we have a right to ours. But we will discuss certainly trade, and we will discuss the Great Lakes and the environment. I am sure we will also discuss the world situation in which Prime Minister Trudeau has some, based on my previous visits with him, some very constructive ideas to suggest.,In addition, on my trip to Canada, I will, of course, brief Prime Minister Trudeau personally on the results of my visit to China and also brief him, prior to my going to the Soviet Union, on my visit to the Soviet Union.,I think it is a very helpful thing that at this point we are meeting with our friends from Canada, although we will find that we have some very basic disagreements, probably, after the meeting as well as before.,THE CHINA TRIP AND VIETNAM,[16.] Q. Mr. President, when you went to China there were a lot of people in this country who sincerely hoped that your trip would be helpful in terms of settling the Vietnam war in some fashion or another. Did you find that trip helpful in that respect and, if so, can you tell us how?,THE PRESIDENT. At the time that we went to China, I indicated that the purpose of that trip was to discuss relations between the two countries, and that its purpose was not to discuss the situation with regard to other nations.,As far as the discussions that did take place, the agenda did include the whole range of problems in the world in which the People's Republic of China is interested, as we are interested.,As far as Vietnam is concerned, I don't think it would be helpful to indicate what was discussed, what was not discussed. Only time will tell what is going to happen there.,AMBASSADOR ARTHUR K. WATSON,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some question raised about Ambassador Watson's qualifications to negotiate with the Chinese in Paris.7 Do you still have confidence in his ability to negotiate exchange agreements with the Chinese?,7 On March 21, 1972, former Governor Raymond P. Sharer, Chairman, Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, met with the President at the White House to present the Commission's first report.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagot [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], the best test of that--and I should know--is how the negotiations are going. They are going very well. Mr. Watson is conducting them with great competence and, I understand, total sobriety.,I realize that there are those who raise questions about the personal conduct of an Ambassador when he travels to his post. I see that some Members of the House and Senate are raising such questions about that. I would say that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. [Laughter],GEORGE MEANY,[18.] Q. Do you plan to have any more breakfasts with George Meany, or do you consider that a political question?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at $30 a dozen for eggs.,Seriously, Paul Healy [New York Daily News], I do want to say that I respect Mr. Meany not only as a powerful labor union leader but as a patriotic American who, at a time that many of his weak-spined business colleagues were ready to throw in the sponge with regard to the security of the United States and what was best for this country in dealing with its adversaries abroad, stood firm.,On the other hand, in this particular area, I think Mr. Meany, I respectfully say, has overstepped. In the latter part of the 19th century this country determined that no business leader could take the attitude of \"The public be damned.\" And in the latter part of the 20th century that applies to both business leaders and labor leaders.,Mr. Meany, in his case, I am sure, thinks he is acting in the best interest of his members, but I would respectfully suggest that I believe that a great number of his members, possibly a majority, realize that the wage increases that are eaten up by price increases are no wage increases at all. They will also remember, as they look at their income, that in the past 6 months since Phase 2 began we have had an increase in real wages, something that we have not had for 5 years before that time in any significant degree, and while we have had this one month of bad figures-and believe me, I am not satisfied with bad figures; I want these food prices down--nevertheless, our wage-price controls are working. We are going to reach our goal, in my opinion, or are going to come very close to it, cutting the rate of inflation in half.,Even though Mr. Meany is not with us, I think what we do will be in the best interest of his members, and I hope in the end that maybe he will invite me to breakfast.,VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW,[19.] Q. With respect to Mr. Agnew, do you still not feel like breaking up the winning combination?,THE PRESIDENT. I covered that question in a rather lengthy discussion with Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News], sitting right in this room, a few months ago.8 My views are the same now as they were then.,8 See Item 1.,THE MOSCOW TRIP AND SALT,[20.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask one question on the forthcoming Moscow trip, even though it is down the road. Are you still hopeful of having a strategic arms limitation agreement not only to discuss, but hopefully to sign?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times], I realize that there are many of you here, I hope, who will be able to go on that trip, who went to the P.R.C., and many who did not go to the P.R.C. can also go.,The Moscow trip, at the present time, will be very different from the P.R.C. trip in the sense that it will be primarily devoted to a number of substantive issues of very great importance. One of them may be SALT, if SALT is not completed before Moscow. It does not appear now likely that they can complete SALT before Moscow, because in my conversations with Ambassador [Gerard C.] Smith before he left, I find that while we are agreed in principle on the limitation of offensive and defensive weapons, that we are still very far apart on some fundamental issues--well, for example, whether or not SLBM's [submarine launched ballistic missiles] should be included, matters of that sort.,Mr. Smith went back to the meetings, this time in Helsinki, with very full instructions from me, both written and oral, to do everything that he could to attempt to narrow those differences. I believe there is a good chance at this point, particularly in view of Mr. Brezhnev's quite constructive remarks in his speech the other day, that we may reach an agreement on SALT in Moscow on defensive and offensive limitations, and also agreements in a number of other areas.,This is our goal, and I would say that at this time the prospects for the success of this summit trip are very good.,NORMAN KEMPSTER (United Press International). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1972-02-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO CHINA,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, before going to your other questions, I would like to make an announcement with regard to the details of the trip to Mainland China. This will not cover all the details, but it will at least cover those that we can announce at this time.,The official party will be announced from Florida, Key Biscayne, on Saturday the 12th. of course, as you know, we have already announced that Dr. Kissinger, the Secretary of State, Mrs. Nixon, and I will be going, and the other members of the official party at that time will be announced from Washington.,On Monday [February 14], I have an event that I think has already been announced, a meeting with Andre Malraux, and I am giving a dinner that night for him to which several Congressional leaders will be invited, as well as members of the official party, the Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger.,In mentioning Andre Malraux, I do not want to reflect on many of the other experts-and there are many experts in this field of China--whose books have been brought to my attention. I do not want to indicate I have read them all but I have been exposed to a great number. I asked him to come because there was an interesting coincidence.,In 1969, when I met with President de Gaulle in Paris, Mr. Malraux at that time was the Minister of Culture in the de Gaulle Cabinet. We had a discussion prior to the dinner on the subject of China generally, and I was particularly impressed with his analysis of the leaders. His book, at least the one I have read---he's written many--but his book, the one I particularly refer to was his \"Anti-Memoirs.\" I would commend it to you not only for what it tells about China and its leaders, but also about France, its problems, and the whole World War II and post-World War II era.,I give you this only to indicate the breadth of the kind of briefings that all of us who are going to participate in the talks are trying to undertake. It is very different from the other meetings that we have had at the highest level with other governments. I have visited virtually all of the other countries, just as I, of course, have visited the Soviet Union.,But here it is essential to do an enormous amount of homework just to come up to the starting line. I don't want to say that after having read as much as I have, and as much as I will be reading between now and the time we arrive, that I will be an expert, but at least I will be familiar with the men that we will be meeting and the problems that may be discussed.,Tuesday and Wednesday will be used primarily to finish up on many of the domestic matters that are, of course, the subject of matters that I will be discussing with Secretary Connally and Mr. Ehrlichman over this weekend, and also for further briefings from members of the NSC staff and the State Department on the China trip.,The time of departure has now been set. It will be 10 o'clock, Thursday morning the 17th, from Andrews. We will fly directly to Hawaii. We will spend Thursday night and all day Friday in Hawaii.,The following morning, Saturday morning, on the 19th, the press plane will go directly to Mainland China, stopping at Shanghai first, and arriving in Peking. The Chinese Government is arranging this so that the members of the press can be on the ground prior to the time that I will be arriving.,On that same day, Saturday, the 19th, the Presidential plane, the Spirit of '76, will fly to Guam, and we will overnight in Guam and then take off the next day, Sunday, for Shanghai and Peking, arriving in Peking Sunday morning at approximately 10 or 10:30, eastern time, U.S.1 The date, of course, is the 21st there and the 20th here. As you know, we cross the International Date Line on the way.,1 The arrival in Peking was scheduled for 11:30 a.m., Monday, Peking time, which is 10:30 p.m., Sunday, e.s.t.,A couple of other points that I know have been raised in briefings and that I can only cover generally:,With regard to agenda, both governments have decided that we will not make any announcements on agenda items prior to the meetings. The agenda will be covered by a joint communiqué that will be issued at the conclusion of our talks and consequently, questions on agenda, what will be discussed and so forth, on the part of both sides, will not be answered either before we get there or during the course of the meetings, unless the two sides decide, while we are meeting, that an agenda item can properly be discussed or disclosed.,With regard to this itinerary itself, the itinerary, generally as you know, has been announced for three cities. With regard to what we do in each city, it is being kept flexible and no final decisions have been made and none will be announced at this time.,Mrs. Nixon's itinerary will be much more public than mine. And she will have an opportunity, which I hope many of you also will have, those of you who are going, to visit a number of institutions, places of interest in Peking, Hangchow, and Shanghai. She, having, as you know, traveled to perhaps more countries than any First Lady, is looking forward to this with a great deal of interest and, I think, as she demonstrated on her trip to Africa, her events, I think, will be worth covering.,One side note is that, and I am sure all of you who have been studying, as I have, will have noted this, is that one development in 20th century China that is very significant, is the enormous elevation in the status of women. Total equality is now recognized and looking back over Chinese history, that is, of course, a very significant change.,Consequently, I think Mrs. Nixon's activities will be significant for them. It will be, of course, very significant for us in the United States to see their schools and the other institutions and how they compare with ours and the other countries that we will visit.,As far as my agenda is concerned, there will not be a great deal of what I would call public--well, to put it perhaps rather plainly--sightseeing. There will be some. I mean actually I would hope to see some of the points of interest and the Chinese Government is arranging for some. But we have both agreed that this visit is one, taking place as it does at this time, in which first priority must be given to our talks, and sightseeing and protocol must come second. And consequently, we have agreed that we will not get frozen in to any extended travel within the cities which we will be visiting, in the event that that might interfere with an extended conversation that might be taking place.,I do not want to suggest here what the length of the talks will be but, necessarily, because we are in truth at a beginning, they will be much longer, both with Mr. Chou En-lai and with Mr. Mao Tse-tung than with the leaders of other governments that we have visited. Because there we are not starting at the beginning--we had the opportunity to come immediately to matters of substance.,Finally, in order to perhaps put the trip in context, you have heard me discuss it in various speeches that I have made generally. I haven't really much to add, because as I pointed out, the agenda items wall be decided at the beginning of the meetings, but they will be published at the end of our meetings and by communiqué.,But I think we could say this: This trip should not be one which would create very great optimism or very great pessimism. It is one in which we must recognize that 20 years of hostility and virtually no communication will not be swept away by one week of discussion.,However, it will mark a watershed in the relations between the two governments; the postwar era with respect to the People's Republic of China and the United States, that chapter now comes to an end from the time that I set foot on the soil of Mainland China, and a new chapter begins.,Now, how the new chapter is written will be influenced, perhaps influenced substantially, by the talks that will take place. On our side and, we believe, also on their side, we hope that the new chapter will be one of more communication and that it will be a chapter that will be marked by negotiation rather than confrontation and one that will be marked by the absence of armed conflict. These are our hopes.,We, of course, will now see to what extent those hopes can be realized in this first meeting.\nI will go to any other questions.,QUESTIONS,MEETINGS WITH CHINESE LEADERS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Malraux has been quoted as having said that he is sure that the first question that Mao will ask you is, \"Will you provide aid for China?\" and that the rest of the trip, the success of the talks, will be determined by your answer. Can you give us any indication that if that is true what you will say?,THE PRESIDENT. That gets into the area that I will decline to comment upon, because it involves the agenda items. I cannot really predict with as much confidence as Mr. Malraux perhaps can, as to what Mr. Mao Tse-tung's questions will be.,So, consequently, I don't believe it would be proper to comment now on a question that has not yet been asked by him. If it is asked, I will have an answer.,Q. Mr. President, do you look upon these talks--do you look upon your meeting with Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-tung as dialogue or negotiation?,THE PRESIDENT. They will be primarily dialogue. Here a very subtle but definite distinction is made between the talks that will take place in Peking and the talks that will take place in Moscow.,In the talks in Moscow there are certain subjects that we have been negotiating about and those subjects, therefore, will be negotiated, although, of course, there will be dialogue as well. Dialogue is an essential part of negotiation.,In the case of Peking, there will necessarily have to be a substantial amount of dialogue before we can come to the point of negotiating on substantive matters. I should emphasize, too, that it has already been pointed out by Dr. Kissinger when he returned, that when we speak of these matters that they will be primarily bilateral matters. Beyond that, however, I will not go.,CRITICISM OF POLICIES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Haldeman2 has had very strong words for critics of your peace proposal, saying that they are consciously aiding and abetting the enemy. Your statement was somewhat softer. The Democrats do not seem to still think it is enough. Do you think that Mr, Haldeman's statement, since he is so close to you and a lot of people interpret his thinking as very close to yours, should be left to lie as it is or is there something further that you should say?,2 H. R. Haldeman, Assistant to the President.,THE PRESIDENT. There is nothing further that I should say. I think Mr. Ziegler covered the situation with regard to Mr. Haldeman and you ladies and gentlemen pressed him very hard on that on Monday.,I stated my position very clearly yesterday in my summary of the state of the world speech. We have here a situation where there is a difference of opinion among various candidates for the Presidency as to how they should conduct themselves at this time.,As I pointed out, I considered it a matter of judgment. I do not question the patriotism, I do not question the sincerity of people who disagree with me, because a lot of people do disagree with me on this and other issues as well.,Perhaps to put it in a clearer context, I was a very vigorous critic of the policies that got us into Vietnam. I was a critic, for example, of the settlement which resulted in the partition of Laos, which opened the Ho Chi Minh Trail and paved the way for the invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese troops.,I was a critic of the policies and the actions which, I think most observers would agree, contributed to the assassination of Diem3 and the succession of coups which then brought on further armed conflict. I was a strong critic of the conduct of the war before I was a candidate and after I was a candidate. But once I became a candidate and once President Johnson announced he would no longer be a candidate, and the peace talks began, I said then that as far as I was concerned, as a man seeking the Presidency, I would say nothing that would, in any way, jeopardize those peace talks.,3 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of the Republic of Vietnam, 1955-63.,So there is in my view--and I do not ask others to hold it, I ask them to consider it--there is, in my view, a very great difference between criticizing policies that got us into war and criticizing the conduct of war and criticisms by a Presidential candidate of a policy to end the war and to bring peace.,What we have here is a situation, as Secretary Rogers has pointed out, a situation where within one week after a very forthcoming peace proposal has been made, various Presidential candidates sought to propose another settlement which went beyond that.,My own candid judgment is that that kind of action has the effect, as I implied in my remarks yesterday, it has the effect .of having the government in Hanoi consider at least that they might be well advised to wait until after the election rather than negotiate.,So my view is that as far as I was concerned that is why I did not criticize when I was a candidate for President, after President Johnson started the negotiation. I thought it was good judgment then.,As far as others are concerned, they have to consult their own conscience. They apparently have determined that they wish to take another course of action. I disagree with the course of action. I would strongly urge at this point that all candidates for President, Republican and Democrat, review their public statements and really consider whether they believe they are going to help the cause of peace or hurt it, whether they are going to encourage the enemy to negotiate or encourage him to continue the war.,I have stated my position very categorically. It is different from others. I respect the other opinions. You will have to let the people judge as to which is right,PRESIDENT THIEU AND THE PEACE\nPROPOSALS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, is there real flexibility in this country, on the question of when President Thieu should resign and inflexibility in Saigon? Is there a real difference and are you going to do anything about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I noticed the flap that has occurred from President Thieu's statement today, and based on his interpretation of what Secretary. Rogers had said. I think the misunderstanding can be cleared up by what I now say.,Every proposal we have made in Paris has been a joint proposal by the Government of South Vietnam and the Government of the United States. Every proposal that we have made has been after consultation with and after receiving suggestions from the Government of South Vietnam, as well as the Government of the United States.,The best example of that is the proposal that I announced on January 25 and which we had presented on October 11. The offer on the part of President Thieu to resign a month before the election was his idea. And we included it in the proposal. It was a very, in my opinion, a very statesmanlike thing for him to do and showed his devotion to the proposition of trying to find a way to break the political deadlock which has deadlocked these talks all along.,Now, at this point, I can say that any future proposals we make will be joint proposals of the Government of South Vietnam and the Government of the United States. As far as we are concerned, we have made an offer. It is forthcoming. Many have said it is as far as we should go. We are ready to negotiate on that offer, we and the Government of South Vietnam, but under no circumstances are we going to make any further proposals without the consultation with and the agreement of the Government of South Vietnam, particularly on political issues, because the political issues are primarily theirs to decide rather than ours.,And I would say also, that under no circumstances are we going to negotiate with our enemy in a way that undercuts our ally.,We are not going to negotiate over the heads of our ally with our enemies to overthrow our ally. As I said in my speech on January 25, we are ready to negotiate a settlement, but we are not going to negotiate a surrender either for the United States, nor are we going to negotiate the surrender of 15 million people of South Vietnam to the Communists.,So, as far as President Thieu and his Government is concerned, and our Government is concerned, the proposal that we have made is a joint proposal. If there are to be any changes in that proposal-and we don't intend to make any unless and until there is some indication that the enemy intends to negotiate in good faith-it will be a joint proposal.,The next step is up to the enemy. Our proposal is on the table and it is going to stand there until we get a reply from them.,VIETNAM AS AN ISSUE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you have said in the past that if the Democrats hope to make an issue of Vietnam, that the rug would be pulled out from under them. I think that is a fairly accurate quote. Do you feel that that issue now remains a live issue, and are you disappointed that it does still remain a part of the public dialogue in so intense a way?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very disappointed that the enemy has refused to negotiate and I, as you know, have always pointed out that we have a two-track approach to ending the American involvement. Our favorite track is negotiation. That could have ended it in '69, '70, '71. We made various proposals we think were the basis for negotiation.,The longer track is Vietnamization. That will end the American involvement in a predictable time, as I think most of us can see.,As far as pulling the rug out from under those who criticize--and it is not a partisan issue; there are Republicans as well as Democrats who have disagreements on this; I respect those disagreements-as far as pulling the rug out is concerned, I would say that I think any American would be delighted to have the rug pulled out from under him on this issue if it brings peace and an end to the killing. That is what we are trying to do.,I would hope that Presidential candidates, particularly, would consult their conscience before they make proposals which might be misread--might be--they would not intend it, I am sure--but might be misread by the enemy and thereby encourage them to wait until after the election before even discussing a very forthcoming proposal.,PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCES,[6.] Q. Mr. President, why are you not sir, holding news conferences with very much regularity or frequency? And what, in particular, do you have against televised news conferences? I believe it has been more than 8 months since you have held one of those.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will hold news conferences whenever I believe that they will serve the public interest.,As far as televised news conferences are concerned, I find that the ladies and gentlemen in the press corps have a very vigorous difference of opinion as to which is the more valuable forum.,I remember the last time, or a few months ago, that I was in this office, the first time I had an in-office conference. Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star], the former head of the White House Correspondents, said, \"This is the best kind of press conference.\" I am sure Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News] thinks the best kind of press conference is one with him alone. [Laughter],So I will have Q&A with one commentator. I have had questions and answers with some members of the press, as you know, alone. I will have in-office press conferences. Sometimes I have walked out into the room there, as I did when I announced the Soviet summit, and have a press conference in the press room, so that whoever wants to may film it, and on other occasions we may have a televised press conference.,I would only say, finally, with regard to the televised press conference, it is no more work than one like this, and I would suggest that I do follow the columns and the commentators pretty well, and I noted that there was considerable--I wouldn't call it criticism--but eyebrow-raising with regard to \"Why has the President been on television so much? He had 'A Day in the Life of the President,' and that took an hour of prime time. He had a half-hour the night before Christmas, CBS. Then he had an hour with Rather, another CBS. Then he had a State of the Union Message, and he took prime time for the purpose of making announcements on Vietnam in addition to all the rest.\",Let me say, I think television has probably had as much of the President as it wants at this point, and that is why you are getting this kind of a conference today.,PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT HALDEMAN,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you had some public advice today and yesterday about how critics of the war should conduct themselves. Do you have any public advice for Mr. Haldeman?,THE PRESIDENT. I have answered the question. Anything further?,CONSULTATION WITH PRESIDENT THIEU,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have left open the question of your flexibility on President Thieu. He is upset. We have had these running stories from Saigon. In effect, you have said the policy is flexible. But do you plan to consult with him at some early point to soothe his feelings?,THE PRESIDENT. We already have. We are in constant consultation. I have discussed the matter with Ambassador Bunker. President Thieu knows, first, as he said in his own statement--because if you will read it carefully, he pointed out that he felt that we had consulted him-he knows, first, that we have never made a proposal except when it was a joint proposal. He knows now there will be no new proposals made unless it is a joint proposal and I trust that this press conference that I am having now with you ladies and gentlemen will reassure not only him, but the people of South Vietnam as well on that point.,As far as flexibility is concerned, what Secretary Rogers was referring to was what we have always said, that we have put a proposal on the table; we are ready to negotiate on it.,Now, that does not mean, however, that after having made such a proposal that 2 weeks later we are going to go a step further and say that we will go further than we have in that proposal. At this point, I emphasize here today we have made a proposal. We think it is reasonable. The enemy has not responded to it. Until the enemy does respond to it, there will be no further proposals and no further concessions on our part.,RECOGNITION OF BANGLADESH,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke in your foreign policy report about sympathy for the aspirations of the East Bengali people. Could you give us some idea of the factors and perhaps the timing of your decision on the recognition of Bangladesh?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to the problem of the Bengali people, first, let me say that on the humanitarian side, as you know, both before the war, during the war, and after the war, the United States has been the most generous of all of the nations. We will continue to be. That is separate from the political side.,With regard to the political side, we have under study our whole relationship with the subcontinent and as part of that relationship, of course, the 70 million people in Bangladesh are involved. We have not yet made a decision with regard to recognition and you should not expect a decision prior to the time that I return from China.,CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ON\nBUSING,[10.] Q. Mr. President, what are your views on the constitutional amendments on busing now before the House and the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. Which one?,Q. Well, the amendments have to do with--,THE PRESIDENT. There are several. Let me get at it this way. My views on busing are well known. I favor the neighborhood school. I favor local control of local schools. I oppose busing for the purpose of racial balance. Those are my views which have been stated on many occasions.,The problem we have now is that some courts have handed down decisions which seem to differ from those views. And so the question arises as to whether legislation or a constitutional amendment is necessary if we are to see that those views that I have just enunciated can properly be held and implemented.,Because if the courts, acting under the Constitution, decide that the views that I have held are unconstitutional, I, of course, will have to follow the courts.,Under these circumstances, therefore, I have ordered a study of the legislative route and of the constitutional amendments. And, as part of that study, I have asked that Senator Brock and Senator Baker in the Senate and Congressman Steed and Congressman Lent in the House, come to the White House on Monday for the purpose of discussing their amendments. The purpose of this discussion is to see whether the constitutional amendment approach is the best approach to this problem.,After I have met Monday, I will be glad to have Mr. Ziegler brief you on what the next step will be. I have not made a decision on it but the matter is under consideration.,NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, what is your position on civil suits filed in the names of indigents by Neighborhood Legal Services lawyers against local and State governments? Is that a legitimate function of Neighborhood Legal Services offices?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to get into that at this point.,TAX REFORM PROPOSALS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, on another Congressional matter, you have been receiving strong suggestions from Congressional Democrats on the proposed tax reform program. How do you intend to respond?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't hear the first part of the question.,Q. The proposal for tax reforms, the suggestion that you submit a program for tax reform, has been broached by the Democrats. How do you intend to respond?,THE. PRESIDENT. First, there will be no increase in taxes this year. It is obvious that even if the Administration were to recommend tax reform this year, it would be impossible for the Congress, particularly the Ways and Means Committee, as much as it has on its plate, and the Finance Committee, with welfare reform, revenue sharing, and the rest, ever to get to it.\nSo there will be no tax increase this year.,Second, I pointed out in the State of the Union Message that we are studying the problem of the property tax. We are studying it, first, because it is the most regressive of all taxes and, second, because in those States, and that is most of the States, where the property tax is the primary source for financing public education, recent court decisions indicate it may be unconstitutional.,Under these circumstances, that is why I have asked the McElroy Commission4 and the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to study this problem as to how general tax reform might be undertaken which would meet the objections to the property tax and perhaps mitigate the inequities and find another source of revenue to replace it.,4 Neil H. McElroy was Chairman of the President's Commission on School Finance.,Now we come to the value-added tax. The value-added tax should be put in perspective. We have not recommended a value-added tax and at the present time it is one of a number of proposals being considered by the Treasury Department, by the Domestic Council, and the others with responsibility, as part of a general tax reform.,But one point that should be made is this: The property tax is regressive. In the event that we finally decide, after hearing from these two Commissions, that tax reform is necessary for the future, and it will have to be next year and not this, we are certainly not going to replace one regressive tax with another regressive tax.,That is why when you discuss value-added--and Secretary Connally and I have had a long discussion about this just 2 days ago and we are going to discuss it again in Florida tomorrow, along with other problems of that type--when you discuss value-added, it can't even be considered unless the formula can be found to remove its regressive features, if you had it across the board. I don't know whether such a formula can be found.,But to sum up, we have made no decision with regard to a value-added tax. At the present time, we have not yet found a way, frankly, that we could recommend it to replace the property tax. But, with the obligation to face up to the need to reduce or reform property taxes, the Treasury Department necessarily is considering other methods of taxation.,And I emphasize again, there will be no new taxes this year and, second, whenever any tax reform is recommended by this Administration, it will not be one which will replace one form of regression with another form of regression. It will not be one that increases the tax burden for Americans. It will be one that simply reforms it and makes it more equitable.,FRANK CORMIER (Associated Press). Thank you, Mr. President.,Q. Mr. President, we haven't had a press conference with you for 3 months. I wonder if we could have one or two more questions.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, sure. Go ahead.,U.S. POSITION ON INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR,[13.] Q. I would like to ask you, Mr. President, about the statements that were made by the Administration officials during the India-Pakistan war. Mr. Kissinger told us, during that war, that this Administration had no bias toward India. Subsequently, papers came to light quoting Mr. Kissinger saying that he was getting hell from you every half hour because the Government wasn't--\nTHE PRESIDENT Every hour. [Laughter],Q. --because the Government wasn't tilting enough toward Pakistan.,THE PRESIDENT. Keep your good humor, otherwise you lose your colleagues.,Q. I am wondering from a credibility standpoint, how do you reconcile these two things?,THE PRESIDENT. I remember being in this office on what I think was one of the saddest days of President Eisenhower's Presidency. At the time we had come out against the British, the French, and the Israelis in the Suez crisis. We did so because we were against the war, not because we were anti-British, anti-French, or anti Israeli. As a matter of fact we were pro-British and pro-French and pro-Israeli, but we were against war more.,As far as India is concerned, for 25 years--and those of you who have followed me in the House will know this, as a Member of the House, a Member of the Senate, as Vice President, when I was out of office, and now as President--I have supported every Indian aid program. I believe it is very important for the world's largest non-Communist country to have a chance to make a success of its experiment in democracy, in comparison with its great neighbor to the north, which is the world's largest Communist country. That and, of course, other reasons, of course, are involved.,But as far as being anti-Indian is concerned, I can only say I was antiwar. We did everything that we could to avoid the war, as I pointed out. At this point, we are going to do everything that we can to develop a new relationship with the countries on the subcontinent that will be pro-Indian, pro-Bengalees, pro-Pakistan, but mostly pro-peace.,That is what that part of the world needs. A million were killed in the war of partition. That is probably a modest figure. And then they went through the terrible agony again in 1965, and now they have gone through it again.,It was Prime Minister Nehru who told me that more than anything else what the subcontinent needed was a generation of peace. That is where I got the phrase.,Now as far as we were concerned, I believed that our policies---certainly, we may have made mistakes--but our policies had the purpose of avoiding the war, of stopping it once it began, and now of doing everything we can to heal up the wounds.,ANDERSON PAPERS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, has the Administration discovered, sir, who was the source of the papers that were leaked to Mr. Anderson,5 and are you planning any action against that person if you know who it is?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, we have a lot of circumstantial evidence. Second, as a lawyer, I can say that we do not have evidence that I consider adequate or that the Attorney General considers adequate to take to court. You can be sure that the investigation is continuing. If the investigation gets a break which provides the kind of evidence which will stand up in court, we will present it, but we cannot go to court on circumstantial evidence.,5 Jack N. Anderson, columnist, Bell-McClure Syndicate, published four columns on January 9-12, 1972, disclosing information from confidential meetings of the Washington Special Actions Group about Administration policy on the India-Pakistan war.,EXPRESSION OF VIEWS BY CANDIDATES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, a few moments ago you discussed your stand in 1968 in regard to the peace negotiations. We know now that there was really very little possibility--,THE PRESIDENT. AS a matter of fact, you know it now, but I said it then, over and over again, to those who had to listen to my speech--I only had one in 1968, as you recall. [Laughter] That is what you wrote anyway.,But I pointed out that I thought there was very little chance, but I said as long-and this was my phrase, I just read it this morning--as long as there was any chance whatever--and I could not be sure, because I wasn't being consulted--for a breakthrough at the peace table, I was going to say nothing that might destroy that chance. That was my view. It may have been wrong.,Q. Could I take sort of a different tack?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure, any way you want.,Q. As a consequence of your position in 1968, you were promising to end the war, but because of the negotiations that were going on, you felt yourself unable to tell the American people how you proposed to do it once elected President.,Now, it is almost 4 years since these negotiations, in a way, began with President Johnson's announcement of March 31, 1968. Do you think that under these circumstances it is fair to the American people and to your rivals and to this Nation for those who seek the highest office and who have views on the war not to say how they would proceed if they were to become the next President?,THE PRESIDENT. All the candidates for the Presidency have a right to say what they want. They must determine whether they believe it is right to say it. I concluded in 1968 that, as one who was a potential President, and that was particularly true after I received the nomination, that while I had a right to criticize, it was not right to do so.,Now, each of these candidates may feel that the peace proposal that we have made is one that they don't think goes far enough. They may feel that we should make one that would overthrow the Government of South Vietnam, or some other proposal that will satisfy the enemy. They have a right to say that. The American people then will have to judge.,But I am suggesting now that we have made a proposal that is fair, it is forthcoming, it should be negotiated on, and the responsibility for the enemy's failing to negotiate may have to be borne by those who encourage the enemy to wait until after the election.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you again, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-11-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Won't you be seated, ladies and gentlemen.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS FROM VIETNAM,[1.] Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement of a substantially increased troop withdrawal from Vietnam.,When I entered office on January 20, 1969, there were 540,000 Americans in Vietnam, and our casualties were running as high as 300 a week. Over the past 3 years, we have made progress on both fronts. Our casualties, for example, for the past 5 weeks have been less than 10, instead of 300, a week, and with regard to withdrawals, 80 percent of those who were there have come home--365,000.,I have now had an opportunity to appraise the situation as it is today. I have consulted with my senior advisers, and I have had an up-to-date report from Secretary Laird.,Based on those consultations and consultations with the Government of South Vietnam, I am now able to make this announcement. Over the next 2 months we will withdraw 45,000 Americans. I will make another announcement before the first of February. As far as that second announcement is concerned, before the first of February, the number to be withdrawn--the rate, that is--as well as the duration of the announcement, will be determined by three factors:,First, by the level of enemy activity and particularly by the infiltration route and its rate, because if the level of enemy activity and infiltration substantially increased, it could be very dangerous to our sharply decreased forces in South Vietnam.,Second, the progress of our training program, our Vietnamization program in South Vietnam.,And third, any progress that may have been made with regard to two major objectives that we have--obtaining the release of all of our POW's wherever they are in Southeast Asia and obtaining a cease-fire for all of Southeast Asia.,Those three criteria will determine the next announcement, both its duration and its rate.,Now, I will be glad to take questions on this announcement or any other subject, domestic or foreign, that you would like to cover.,QUESTIONS,CEASE-FIRE IN LAOS AND CAMBODIA,[2.] Q. Mr. President, to be clear on the cease-fire, would that include Laos and Cambodia as well as South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. That is our goal, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], yes. As you know, we have offered that in my talk of last year in October. We have been continuing to offer it. We would, of course, believe that attaining that goal would bring peace to the whole area, which is what we want, and, of course, would greatly reduce the need for a very heavy American aid program that presently we have for, particularly, Cambodia.,PRISONERS OF WAR,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any reason for encouragement on the release of prisoners of war from any source?,THE PRESIDENT. No reason for encouragement that I can talk about publicly. I can say, however, that we are pursuing this subject, as I have indicated on several occasions, in a number of channels, and we have not given up. We will never give up with regard to our prisoners of war. That is one of the reasons why this announcement is being made for a shorter period rather than a longer period, because the moment that we make an announcement that is too long, it means that whatever negotiating stroke we might have is substantially reduced.,ENEMY INFILTRATION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what has been the most recent trend toward the infiltration by the enemy, and do you have figures for that? And also, what rate would have to be maintained for you to carry out your optimum plan?,THE PRESIDENT. We would have to examine that situation at the time. The infiltration rate has come up some as it always does at this time of year. However, it is not as high now, just as the casualties are not as high now, and the level of enemy activity, as it was last year. We want to see, however, what the situation is in December and January, which, as you all know, are the key months when infiltration comes along, because that will determine what the activity will be in April, May, June, and July on the battlefield.,TROOP CEILING,[5.] Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star!.,Q. To be clear, what is your new February 1 troop ceiling, or are you doing it the way you have done it before by setting a new troop ceiling for the end of the withdrawal period?,THE PRESIDENT. It will be a new troop ceiling for the end of the withdrawal period. I think we would have to cover that later. The 45,000 should be taken off of the present ceiling. We are reducing the ceiling by 45,000.,Now, incidentally, I should say, too, that in terms of the withdrawal--I think it would be proper to inform the press on this matter--we are going to withdraw 25,000 in December and 20,000 in January. Obviously we would like to get a few more out before Christmas, and we were able to do this after Secretary Laird made his report.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS AND THE U.S. COMBAT ROLE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in this present situation you are announcing a 2 or 3 months--,THE PRESIDENT. Two months.,Q. Two months withdrawal, whereas the last time it was 7 or 8 months, I believe. How does this situation, in terms of the negotiating need that you spoke of, differ from the other one, and can you tell us if you now, as a result of this 2 month withdrawal, foresee an end to the United States combat role in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, the situation is very different because, as we get down in numbers, each withdrawal has a much more dramatic effect on the percentage that we have there: 45,000 as against, for example, 184,000, which is the present troop ceiling, is a lot different from 25,000 as against 539,000 or 540,000, which was our first withdrawal program.,So, consequently, it is essential as we get closer to the end, if we are going to maintain any negotiating leverage, that the withdrawal periods, in my opinion, be somewhat shorter.,With regard to other questions that we have on this--does that cover that point?,Q. Yes, sir. About the combat role, though?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the combat role, let us understand, based on the casualties, as far as an offensive situation is concerned is already concluded. American troops are now in a defensive position. They, however, will defend themselves, and what casualties we have taken--they are very small will be taken in that defensive role.,You will find as you analyze the battlefield reports, as I do from time to time, that the offensive activities of search and destroy, and all the other activities that we used to undertake, are now being undertaken entirely by the South Vietnamese.,SOUTH VIETNAMESE ROLE,[7.] Q. Mr. President---,THE PRESIDENT. We will take you first--the far left. [Laughter],Q. Mr. President, have you sent or are you sending orders to the forces in South Vietnam regarding the offensive and defensive role? Could you outline that for us?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter which is worked out by General Abrams in the field, and it is one that has gradually just come about. No orders need to be given for that purpose. And, incidentally, that is possible due to the fact that the South Vietnamese have gained the capability to handle the situation themselves.,Also, there is another reason. As we get down to 184,000, and now at the end of this period 45,000 less than that, what offensive capabilities we have are very, very seriously limited.,PROGRESS IN POW NEGOTIATIONS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you said there was no movement on the prisoner-of-war issue. Is there anything at all to report on negotiations, either through Paris or through some other means?,THE PRESIDENT. I would respond to that only by saying that we have not given up on the negotiating front. This announcement is somewhat of an indication that we have not given up on the negotiating front. I, however, would not like to leave the impression that we see the possibility of some striking breakthrough in negotiations in the near future.,But we are pursuing negotiations in Paris and through whatever other channels we think are appropriate.,Q. One might infer from what you said previously that there has been some progress on the prisoner question privately. Would that be a correct inference to draw?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it would not be a correct inference to draw. I wish that it were, because this issue should, of course, as we all, I think, believe, be separated from the issue of the combat role of Americans and our withdrawal program. It is a humanitarian issue. But we as yet have not had any progress in our talks with the North Vietnamese in getting them to separate the issue from the rest.,On the other hand, we have not given up on the negotiating track, and we are going to continue to press on that track because that is the track on which we eventually are going to have success in getting our prisoners back.,Q. So there has been no progress, either publicly or privately, on the question of getting the release of our prisoners?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not want to give any false encouragement to those who are the next of kin or who are close relatives of our prisoners. I can only say, however, that we, on our part, have taken initiatives on a number of fronts here. So the possibility of progress in the future is there. As far as the enemy's position is concerned, it is still intransigent.,USE OF AMERICAN AIR POWER,[9.] Q. Mr. President, with the conditions that you know now in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, can you foresee in the near future a substantial diminution of American air power use in support of the Vietnamese?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, air power, of course, as far as our use of it is concerned, will continue to be used longer than our ground forces, due to the fact that training Vietnamese to handle the aircraft takes the longest lead time, as we know. And we will continue to use it in support of the South Vietnamese until there is a negotiated settlement or, looking further down the road, until the South Vietnamese have developed the capability to handle the situation themselves.,As far as our air power is concerned, let me also say this: As we reduce the number of our forces, it is particularly important for us to continue our airstrikes on the infiltration routes. If we see any substantial step-up in infiltration in the passes, for example, which lead from North Vietnam into Laos and, of course, the Laotian trail which comes down through Cambodia into South Vietnam-if we see that, we will have to not only continue our airstrikes; we will have to step them up.,That is why I have been quite categorical with regard to that situation, because as the number of our forces goes down, their danger increases, and we are not going to allow the enemy to pounce on them by reason of our failure to use air power against increased infiltration, if it occurs.,DISCUSSIONS OF INDOCHINA IN PEKING AND MOSCOW VISITS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to discuss methods, possibly, to help alleviate the situation in Indochina in your visits to Peking and to Moscow?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think it would be helpful to indicate at this time what we will discuss with regard to Indochina when our visits to Peking and Moscow take place. We are hopeful and continue to be hopeful that we can make progress on handling this problem ourselves, and that it may not have to be a problem that will have to be discussed in those areas.,Incidentally, I think it would not be well to speculate as to what, if anything, either Peking or Moscow can or will do on this matter. All that I can say is that we are charting our own course, and we will find our own way to bring it to a halt.,We will, of course, welcome any assistance, but we are not counting on it from either source.,CAUSES OF NORTH VIETNAMESE WEAKNESS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, is it not true that at this particular point the North Vietnamese are probably at their weakest that they have been since the war? Is this because of floods and lack of resources?,THE PRESIDENT. The major reason they are the weakest they have been since the war is because of Cambodia and Laos, and the floods, of course, have hurt them, too.,CAMPAIGN PLEDGE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your answer on negotiations, is what you are saying that perhaps you might not be able to keep your 1968 promise to end the war, which as I believe was your campaign pledge, rather than just ending America's role in the war?,THE PRESIDENT. I would suggest that I be judged at the time of the campaign, rather than now, on that. I would also suggest that every promise that I have made I have kept to this date, and that is usually a pretty good example of what you might do with regard to future promises.,POSSIBILITY OF RESIDUAL FORCE,[13.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, we read much speculation that you plan to keep a residual force, 40,000 or 50,000 men, in Vietnam until the prisoner-of-war issue is settled completely and all prisoners are out. Is that still valid?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, Mrs. Cornell [laughter]--it had to come! 1Q. Touche. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. First, if the situation is such that we have a negotiated settlement, naturally that means a total withdrawal of all American forces. It also not only means a total withdrawal of American forces in South Vietnam, it means a discontinuation of our airstrikes and also withdrawal of forces stationed in other places in Southeast Asia or in the Asian theater that are directly related to the support of our forces in Vietnam. That is, in other words, what is involved if we can get a negotiated settlement.,1 Helen Thomas was married in October to Douglas Cornell, newly retired as White House correspondent for the Associated Press.,If we do not get a negotiated settlement, then it is necessary to maintain a residual force for not only the reason-and this is, of course, a very primary reason---of having something to negotiate with, with regard to our prisoners, but it is also essential to do so in order to continue our role of leaving South Vietnam in a position where it will be able to defend itself from a Communist takeover.,Both objectives can be fulfilled, we believe, through a negotiated settlement. We would prefer that. If they are not fulfilled through a negotiated settlement, then we will have to go the other route, and we are prepared to do so.,AMNESTY TO DRAFT EVADERS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you foresee granting amnesty to any of the young men who have fled the United States to avoid fighting in a war that they consider to be immoral?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,SALT PROSPECTS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you met this afternoon with our SALT negotiating team which is returning to Vienna. Earlier this year you expressed the hope that some kind of agreement could be made. Do you foresee some kind of SALT agreement before the end of the year, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made significant progress in the arms limitation talks. The progress, for example, with regard to the hot line and the progress with regard to accidental war is quite significant. Also, we have made significant progress in the discussions on the limitations on defensive weapons, and we are beginning to now move into the discussions on offensive weapons.,Whether we are able to reach an agreement by the end of the year, I think, is highly improbable at this point. I say highly improbable---not impossible. It depends on what happens.,Our goal is--and I discussed this at great length with Mr. Gromyko when he was here--our goal is, enforced at the highest level, to urge our negotiators to try to find a common basis for agreement. But it must be a joint agreement. We cannot limit defensive weapons first and then limit offensive weapons. Both must go together. It will happen.,I would say this: I believe we are going to reach an agreement. I believe we will make considerable progress toward reaching that agreement before the end of the year. I think reaching the agreement before the end of the year is probably not likely at this time, but great progress will be made, and I think by the end of the year we will be able to see then that our goal can be achieved.,WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC SUPPORT,[16.] Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with the guidelines laid down by the Pay Commission and the Price Board, and are you concerned about the effect of a likely bulge of increases in wages and prices after the freeze on public confidence in Phase 2?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the possibility of some bulge, of course, has always been there, as you know, and also when I announced the freeze it was widely speculated that once the freeze was off and once we then moved to guidelines, that there would be, therefore, some increase in wage rates, some increase also in prices. The freeze could not be kept on indefinitely.,However, I think the decisions of both the Pay Board and the Price Board have been very sound. They did not, in some instances, perhaps, reach the goals that some would have liked. I think some businessmen thought that the wage increases should have been in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 percent. That would have been a very good thing from their standpoint perhaps. It would have been totally unrealistic. It would have broken the Board wide open.,I think the 5-5 percent is an achievable goal, and that will be a very substantial reduction insofar as the wage-price push for 1971, as compared with 1970, 1969, and 1968.,As far as prices are concerned, the guidelines that have been laid down would cut the rate of inflation approximately in half. That is real progress.,One other point I should make. I noticed that many of you very properly have written about the uncertainty with regard to Phase 2. That is inevitable. It is inevitable in any free economy. We can have total certainty only with total control of the economy. But with a totalitarian economy we have no freedom as far as our economy is concerned, and we would destroy the major advantage the United States has in its competitive position in the world---in other words, the free enterprise system.,I believe that this answer of the Pay Board and the Price Commission is a very realistic one. I believe it will succeed, and one of the major reasons I believe it will succeed is the enormous public support that we had not only during the 90-day period but that we continue to have for the period after the freeze. That public support will make this work.,TROOP CEILING,[17.] Q. Mr. President, could I be quite clear on the withdrawal?,THE PRESIDENT. You mean perfectly clear, right? [Laughter],Q. Is the 45,000 to be taken from the 184,000, sir? Does it come from the December 1 target figure?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is right. Take your ceiling of December 1 and take 45,000 from that and you get where we will be on February 1. Let me point out, incidentally, that we are always slightly below that ceiling, as you know, with regard to actual withdrawals. But we have set as the ceiling for February I the 45,000 from 184,000, but we will probably be below that at that time by a few hundred or maybe even a few thousand.,CHINA TRIP,[18.] Q. Mr. President, have you set a date to go to China yet?,THE PRESIDENT. I have nothing to announce on that at this time.,PRESIDENT THIEU'S REACTION TO TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, if we can assume that President Thieu was informed of these withdrawals, can you tell us what his reaction was?,THE PRESIDENT. Complete approval. President Thieu, along with General Abrams and General Vien,2 the others who work together in the combined Joint Chiefs over there, have been, just as Secretary Laird has reported, enormously impressed with the speed of the training program and the ability of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves.,2 Gen. Cao Van Vien, Chairman of the Joint General Staff, Republic of Vietnam.,It has gone faster than we had thought, and also, as was pointed out by one of the earlier questioners here, the level of enemy activity has not been as great as it was, due to the fact that the enemy doesn't have the punch that it had. Cambodia took a great deal out of the enemy's punch. Laos took a great deal out of its punch. And in addition to that, these torrential floods have made it difficult for the enemy to be as effective in its attacks as it was previously.,That does not mean, however, looking to the future, that we must not be on guard. That is why I say we are going to watch this infiltration route and rate very, very carefully in the critical months of December and January before making another withdrawal announcement.,AID TO CAMBODIA,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in your most recent foreign aid bill, you requested a total of $341 million in military and economic aid for Cambodia. The head of the Government of Cambodia has just renounced democracy as a viable form of government, which some people think has an analogy to earlier developments in Vietnam. What assurance can you give the American people that we are not sliding into another Vietnam in Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. We didn't slide into Vietnam. That is the difference. In Vietnam, conscious decisions were made to send Americans ;there, to become involved in combat. I am not criticizing those decisions; I am simply reflecting what the situation was.,It was not a question of sliding in, but was a question of decisions being made, first, to send American combat troops in. Those were first made, you know, by President Kennedy, the first troops that went in; and then the decisions to bomb in the North, those were made by President Johnson, and the increases in forces.,Now let's look at Cambodia. We have made a conscious decision not to send American troops in. There are no American combat troops in Cambodia. There are no American combat advisers in Cambodia. There will be no American combat troops or advisers in Cambodia.,We will aid Cambodia. Cambodia is the Nixon Doctrine in its purest form; Vietnam was in violation of the Nixon Doctrine. Because in Cambodia what we are doing is helping the Cambodians to help themselves, and we are doing that rather than to go in and do the fighting ourselves, as we did in Korea and as we did in Vietnam. We hope not to make that mistake again if we can avoid it.,THE STOCK MARKET,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in May of 1970, when stocks hit their biggest low of the year, you gave counsel to buy. Now we have reached the biggest low in 1971, what is your counsel today to the American investor?,THE PRESIDENT. Don't sell. [Laughter] I would like to comment on that particular matter, because if my advice had been taken, you would have done reasonably well then, as you know. As I said in Detroit, whether it is an investment in stocks or bonds or, for that matter, in real property, which is my only source of investment, if I may paraphrase what one of the television commercials I have heard often enough--I am bullish on America. However, I would strongly advise anybody who invests to invest on the long term, not the short term.,On the long term, 1972 is going to be a good year. When we see, for example, inflation cut in half, which is our goal, when we see employment beginning to rise--it rose over a million during the period of the freeze--and when we see something else, when we see our economy now being built on the basis of peace rather than war, this is a time when people looking to the future, planning to hang on, could, it seems to me, well invest in America with the hope that their investments will prove well.,Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, for example, was a very bad time to buy, and yet it appeared to be like the best of times. Stocks were high. Unemployment was low. Everybody thought that we had high prosperity. But prosperity was based on 300 American casualties a week, 500,000 Americans in Vietnam, $25 to $30 billion being spent on a war in Vietnam and on a burgeoning rate of inflation.,At that time, therefore, I would not have advised, and I trust many brokers did not advise their clients to buy, because when prosperity is based on war and inflation, you are eventually going to have a setback.,The new prosperity that we are working toward--and we have some rocky times; we have had some, we may have some more--but looking toward the year 1972, as I appraise the situation, the new prosperity, based on jobs in peacetime, on peace production primarily, and based on a checked rate of inflation, will be a much sounder prosperity and, therefore, a better time to invest in America.,FRANK CORONER (Associated Press). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-10-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S MEETING WITH SOVIET LEADERS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Be seated, please.,Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement which is embargoed till 12 noon Washington time and 7 o'clock Moscow time. In order for you to have the chance to file before the 12 o'clock deadline, I have asked Mr. Kempster [Norman Kempster, United Press International], who has the right to end the conference, to break it off at 5 minutes till 12. Between that time and the time that I read this announcement, of course, I will take questions on this announcement or any other subject that you would like to have covered.\nThe announcement is as follows:\n\"The leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, in their exchanges during the past year, have agreed that a meeting between them would be desirable once sufficient progress had been made in negotiations at lower levels.,\"In light of the recent advances in bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving the two countries, it has been agreed that such a meeting will take place in Moscow in the latter part of May 1972.,\"President Nixon and the Soviet leaders will review all major issues, with a view towards further improving their bilateral relations and enhancing the prospects of world peace.\"\nWe will go to your questions.,QUESTIONS,THE TRIPS TO CHINA AND THE SOVIET UNION,[2.] Q. Mr. President, what relationship does this have to your visit to China?,THE PRESIDENT. The two are independent trips. We are going to Peking for the purpose of discussing matters of bilateral concern there, and I will be going to the Soviet Union for the purpose of discussing matters that involve the United States and the Soviet Union. Neither trip is being taken for the purpose of exploiting what differences may exist between the two nations; neither is being taken at the expense of any other nation.,The trips are being taken for the purpose of better relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and better relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. And any speculation to the effect that one has been planned for the purpose of affecting the other would be entirely inaccurate.,Q. Mr. President, why announce a trip of this nature so far in advance?,THE PRESIDENT. It is vitally important, both in the case of 'this trip and the trip to the People's Republic of China--which, as you know, we announced far in advance, the date yet to be selected. Mr. Kissinger will work out that date on his trip, which will take place within the next 2 or 3 weeks.1,1 The announcements of Dr. Henry A. Kissinger's second visit to Peking and the itinerary for the visit were read by Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler during his regular news briefings at the White House on October 5, 1971, and October 14. The announcements are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, pp. 1374 and 1407).,But it is vitally important that the meeting accomplish something. It is, therefore, important that the preparation for the meeting be adequate in every respect. And in the discussion that I had with Mr. Gromyko when he was here, and at discussions prior to that time that were had at other levels with regard to the setting up of this trip, it was felt that May of 1972 would be the time when progress on a number of fronts in which we are presently involved with the Soviet Union would have reached the point that a meeting at the highest level could be effective.,POSSIBILITY OF SALT AGREEMENT,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to be able to sign an agreement on strategic arms when you go to Moscow next May?,THE PRESIDENT. As you will recall, we at the highest level, in May, indicated that our goal would be to try to achieve an agreement on strategic arms this year. We are making progress toward that goal. We will continue to move toward achieving that goal, either at the end of this year or as soon thereafter as we possibly can.,If the goal can be achieved before May of 1972, we will achieve it, and that, incidentally, is also the view of the Soviet Union.,I will not speculate as to failing to achieve that goal. If it is not achieved, certainly that would be one of the subjects that would come up.,AGENDA FOR SOVIET VISIT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what would you expect other items on the agenda to be in addition to anything that is concluded at the SALT talks?,THE PRESIDENT. I have already indicated that we will review all major issues. Now, to indicate what the issues will be is quite premature. For example, the question that has just been raised with regard to the SALT talks is one that may be behind us at that point.,Both governments are working toward that end. And then the question would be: What do we do in arms control going beyond simply the limitation of strategic weapons at this point? And the same would be true of the Mideast, which is a possible subject. The same is true in a number of other areas where presently the Soviet Union and the United States are having negotiations.,The fact that we are going to have a meeting in May does not mean that the negotiating tracks that we are engaged on with the Soviet Union, in a number of areas, are now closed or that we are going to slow down.,We are going to go forward in all the other areas so that in May we can deal with unfinished business.,Q. Mr. President, would this include Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. The questions as to whether peripheral areas--and I mean by \"peripheral areas,\" areas that do not directly involve the Soviet Union and the United States--would be involved would depend upon the situation at that time.,For example, Cuba is one possibility. The question of Southeast Asia is another. As far as Southeast Asia is concerned, I would emphasize there, again, however, that completely without regard to this meeting and completely without regard to the meeting that will take place with the Chinese leaders at an earlier date, we are proceeding both on the negotiating track and on the Vietnamization track to end American involvement in Vietnam. We trust that we will have accomplished that goal, or at least have made significant progress toward accomplishing that goal, by the time this meeting takes place.,BACKGROUND FOR SOVIET SUMMIT,[5.] Q. Can you tell us the mechanics, sir? How did the meeting come about? Did their Ambassador come here? Was it hotlined? And can you tell us, sir, when the ball started rolling toward this meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. The ball started rolling toward this meeting, I think, in my first press conference when, you recall, the inevitable question came up, \"Are we going to have a summit with the Soviet Union?\",I pointed out then that I did not believe a summit would serve a useful purpose unless something was to come out of it. I do not believe in having summit meetings simply for the purpose of having a meeting. I think that tends to create euphoria. It raises high hopes that are then dashed, as was the case with Glassboro. We are not making that mistake. Both in our meeting with the Chinese which is being very carefully planned, as evidenced by Dr. Kissinger's visit to help prepare the agenda and the final arrangements, and in our meeting with the Soviet Union, we have agreed to summit meetings only on the basis that we would have an agenda in which there was a possibility of making significant progress, and also on which items would be on the agenda on which progress could best be made, and in some instances might only be made, by decisions at the highest level.,Now, I stated that, or at least made that point, in several press conferences, including my first one. In the spring of last year there was some discussion with the Soviet Union at lower levels with regard to the possibility of a summit. There was further discussion of the possibility of a summit when I met with Mr. Gromyko in the fall of last year when he was here to the United Nations.,Those discussions have continued on and off, not at my level, but at other levels, until Mr. Gromkyo arrived for his visit with me on this occasion. On this occasion he brought a formal invitation.,Let me say on the Soviet side that they agreed basically with my principle, which is also theirs, that a summit meeting should be held only when both sides are prepared to discuss matters of substance. And it is because both of us have been waiting for the time that we felt there were matters on which major progress could be made that the summit meeting is being held at this time, rather than at an earlier time.,I should also point out the very significant areas in which we have made progress in Soviet-American relations, both on our part and on their part. We have felt unless we were able to make progress in this era of negotiation rather than confrontation and other areas, that a meeting at the summit might mean simply an impasse; but when we look back over the record of the last 2 years, 2 1/2 years, significant progress has been made.,We have had a treaty with regard to the seabeds. We have had one with regard to biological weapons. We have had an agreement coming out of the SALT talks with regard to the hot line and accidental war and, of course, most important of all--and I think this is the item that, for both us and for them, led us to conclude that now was the time for a summit meeting-we have had an agreement on Berlin. The Berlin negotiations, of course, are not completely wrapped up; but on the part of the Soviet Union and the United States and, of course, the other two powers involved, this agreement had historic significance.,In view of the progress that we have made, Mr. Gromyko, speaking for his Government, I, speaking for ours, agreed on the occasion of his visit that this was the time for a summit meeting.,DATES OF SUMMIT MEETINGS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, this then was the reason you announced you would go to Peking before May? You had this May date in mind at that time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service], when we announced that we would be going to Peking, we did not have an understanding with the Soviet Union that we were going to have a visit to the Soviet Union. However, I should point out that as far as the announcement with regard to the Soviet summit is concerned, that the Government of the People's Republic of China was informed that this announcement would be made today and is aware of the date of the Soviet visit that I have mentioned, the latter part of May.,I should also point out that the Government in Peking is aware of the fact that we will be working toward agreement on a date with them, which will be prior to the meeting with the Soviet leaders.,TALKS SOVIET SOVIET LEADERS,[7.] Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, with which Soviet leader do you expect to have your most significant talks, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Podgorny, or with all three of them or any two of them?,THE PRESIDENT. Generally speaking, in the Soviet system, the talks that take place will, of course, cover all three, but the Chairman, in this case Mr. Brezhnev, is the man with whom I would expect to have very significant talks. I would expect certainly to have significant talks, also, with Kosygin and perhaps Mr. Podgorny.,But in the Soviet system, as I pointed out--the same is also true of the People's Republic system--in any Communist system, the Chairman of the Communist Party is the man who is the major center of power.,DOMESTIC POLITICS AND THE SOVIET TRIP,[8.] Q. Mr. President, at the time that the Red China trip was announced, sir, I believe we were told that it was going to be before May I because you didn't want to get it involved in domestic political politics. I wonder how this differs, since this is after May I, as far as domestic political politics is concerned?,THE PRESIDENT. We have this just as close to May I as we possibly could. This was the best date that the Soviet Union and we could agree upon, and it will come, as I said, in the latter part of May.,We both deliberately agreed that it should not come--which would generally have been their first choice, because June or July is a better time to go to Moscow than May, I understand--we agreed for the reasons that we have mentioned that it should be in May.,AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN SOUTH VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you said that it is your goal to end the American involvement in South Vietnam or at least make significant progress towards that by the time you meet in Moscow. Is it your goal that you can end at least the American ground combat involvement by that time?,THE PRESIDENT. I will have another announcement on Vietnam in November. That announcement will speak to that question, and other announcements after that will also speak to that question.,I will not speculate further on that. The American presence in Vietnam, both in terms of our residual forces, the ground combat forces to which you refer, and the use of our air power, will be maintained to meet the objectives that I have oftentimes spelled out, including among others, the return of our POW's and the ability of the South Vietnamese to take over the responsibility themselves. But I would strongly urge the members of the press not to speculate as to what I am going to say in November.,LABOR AND THE PAY BOARD,[10.] Q. Mr. President, a question on Phase 2, sir. Are you prepared to give the tripartite Pay Board complete autonomy in order to gain labor's cooperation?,THE PRESIDENT. A meeting is taking place at this moment, and perhaps may be nearing conclusion, in which the AFLCIO Council is discussing their participation in the tripartite Board and the question as to the extent of their cooperation with our efforts to control inflation.,I believe, first, that Secretary Connally answered your question--and that is our position--in his press conference. As far as any further discussion with regard to the role that labor will play, and the relationship of the Board to the Cost of Living Council, I think it would be well to wait until their meeting has been concluded.,If they make a statement today, I will issue a statement from here commenting upon that specific matter, if it is raised.,CONSULTATIONS WITH ALLIES ON THE TRIPS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what consultations were made with the NATO allies or Japan on these two visits?,THE PRESIDENT. All were informed.,THE SUPREME COURT,[12.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us when you may make a nomination or nominations to the Supreme Court and is Senator Byrd of West Virginia on the list of those you are considering?,THE PRESIDENT. He is definitely on the list, and I will make the nominations next week, bath.,Q. Both?,THE PRESIDENT. Both.,Q. Sir, you are going to have a woman on there, aren't you? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I would simply add that I don't rule out Senator Byrd, and I certainly don't rule out a woman for consideration.,Incidentally, the speculation with regard to the Court, I know, is naturally a subject of very great interest, but I can assure you that the dope stories that a man is certain to get it and then a dope story this morning, he is out of the running-both are wrong.,Senator Byrd, as a result of several of his colleagues recommending him, is one that is being considered. And I will also say in answer to Mrs. McClendon's [Sarah McClendon, Sarah McClendon News Service] question that at least two women are under consideration at this time.,EXPECTATIONS FOR THE VISITS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, to clarify your expectations on the Moscow visit, it would be equally your expectation to have significant talks with Chairman Mao in Peking rather than meetings with Chou En-lai or ceremonial meetings with the Chairman?,THE PRESIDENT. The question as to what kind of meetings will take place in Peking will be worked out by Dr. Kissinger when he is there. There will, of course, be meetings with Chou En-lai. I would assume that there would be meetings with the Chairman. However, in each system, the Soviet system and the Chinese system, the question as to which individual should cover which subject varies, and, of course, I will be prepared to meet with whatever leader in the Soviet Union or whatever leader in the People's Republic of China has the responsibility for the particular subjects that we have in mind.,For example, take the Soviet. It may well be that Chairman Brezhnev may have the responsibility in certain political or foreign policy areas. It might be that Prime Minister Kosygin would have responsibility in trade areas. I am not trying to say what they have decided, but we are prepared, and both governments know that we are prepared, for me to meet with the head of government or the Chairman of the party, or any other that they designate who has responsibility.,I should also point out that the Secretary of State will accompany me to both Moscow and Peking; Dr. Kissinger will accompany me, and it will be a small working group. And meetings will take place not only between the President and various leaders on their side but between the Secretary of State and their people designated by them on their side.,We expect to have a very busy, working visit, not a ceremonial visit. Ceremony, I should indicate, will be at an absolute minimum in both the Soviet Union and in the People's Republic.,I emphasize again, the purpose of both visits is not simply cosmetics. We are not taking a trip for the sake of taking a trip. The purpose of these visits is, at the very highest level, to attempt to make progress in negotiating in areas where there are very significant differences--differences between us and the People's Republic, differences between us and the Soviet Union.,I should emphasize, too, that in pointing out the progress we have made with the Soviet Union, that Mr. Gromyko and I agreed that we still have very great differences. We do not expect all those differences to be resolved, but there is one thing in which we agree at this point and that is that the interests of neither country would be served by war.,If there is another world war, if there is a war between the super powers, there will be no winners. There will be only losers.,Also, I think we can both agree that neither major power can get a decisive advantage over the other, an advantage which would enable it to launch a preceptive strike or an advantage because it was able to launch a preemptive strike which might enable it to engage in international blackmail.,It is because we have reached the point that the competition in terms of escalating arms race cannot gain an advantage--and both of us emphasized this in our meeting-it is for that reason that now the time has come to negotiate our differences, negotiate with regard to our differences, recognizing that they are still very deep, recognizing that, however, there is no alternative to negotiation at this point.,TEXTILE NEGOTIATIONS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, are we going to have textile agreements this week in advance of the October 15th deadline which, reportedly, the Administration has set down for mandatory quotas?,THE PRESIDENT. At the present time very intensive talks are going on with the Japanese on the textile question. We are hopeful that those talks will produce a mutual agreement. In the event that there is not a mutual agreement, and in the event by October 15th there is either not an agreement or a process underway which points to the negotiating of an agreement, then the United States will move unilaterally.2,2 The transcript of a news briefing by Peter G. Peterson, Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, on textile agreements between the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, and the Republic of Korea was released by the White House on October 15, 1971, and is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, P. 1408). On the same day, the White House released a fact sheet on the U.S. textile and apparel industry.,EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE,[15.] Q. In connection with the agenda for the Moscow talks, what is the position of the United States at present on the question of a European Security Conference and, specifically, is it the U.S. position that we will not agree to a European Security Conference until there is a final agreement on Berlin and a first-stage agreement on SALT?,THE PRESIDENT. The European Security Conference is a matter that has been very widely discussed between our two governments. As a matter of fact, it was one of the subjects for discussion, I think it is proper to reveal, when I met with Mr. Gromyko. I have noted that the press has so speculated, and the press, in this case, is correct.,With regard to the European Security Conference, you are correct in saying that, until the Berlin matter is wrapped up, the discussions with regard to the possibility of a European Security Conference would not serve a useful purpose. After it is wrapped up, then we shall go forward with preliminary discussions to see whether or not a European Security Conference could serve a useful purpose.,Both governments agree, with regard to a European Security Conference, that it, like a summit conference, should not be held unless there are areas where there can be substantial chances for agreement. The Secretary of State will have the primary responsibility, after the Berlin settlement is totally wrapped up, to explore with our allies, as the Soviet Union will be exploring with theirs, whether or not the European Security Conference should be held, and if it should be held, when it should be held.,I should also point out, because it does raise the other question I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, that our allies had been informed and that Japan had been informed. Prior to the visit to the Soviet Union, there will, of course, be extensive consultations with our allies on matters which may affect them. For example, mutual balanced force reductions, European Security Conference, and matters of this sort, if they are to come up at a summit conference, will, of course, be discussed with our allies, just as we expect the Soviet Union to discuss those matters with their allies.,SOUTH VIETNAMESE ELECTIONS,[16.] Q. Now that the South Vietnamese election returns are official, will you be sending your congratulations to the winner, and do you have any comments on those elections?,THE PRESIDENT. On September 16, I indicated my view about the elections, and I stand by that view. I believe, that as the Secretary of State pointed out in his television appearance Sunday, that we have to keep this matter in perspective. We would have preferred, just as we would prefer in all countries of the world, a contested election somewhat along the lines that would meet our standard.,On the other hand, the situation in South Vietnam has been that they have made great progress toward representative government there. They have a very lively opposition in both the National Assembly and in the Senate.,As far as President Thieu is concerned, he is aware of my statement of September 16, and I will be sending a representative, of course, to his inauguration. Let me say in that respect that if the United States followed the practice of not sending representatives to inaugurations unless the president or the prime minister was there as a result of a contested election, we would only have one-third as many delegations to send, and we wouldn't want to do that.,MR. KEMPSTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-09-16","text":"THE PRESIDENT. We will go right to your questions.,QUESTIONS,SENATE ACTION ON THE DRAFT EXTENSION BILL,[I.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate is now in the process of deciding whether to extend the draft bill or not. Mr. Ziegler this morning reflected some of your thoughts on the subject, but I wonder if you could tell us if the draft bill is defeated, where that will place you in negotiations with the Soviets on mutual troop withdrawal from Europe, the SALT talks, and any other negotiations that may be going on?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't like to speculate as to what would happen if the draft bill is defeated, because I think this would be one of the most irresponsible acts on the part of the United States Senate that I could possibly think of.,When we consider where the United States is in the world today in terms of world leadership and in terms of our peace initiatives, what we have to recognize is that if the draft fails to pass the Congress, and if the United States then must build its defenses without the draft, that our peace initiatives around the world would be jeopardized: our peace initiative in the Mideast, our peace initiatives in Europe with regard to mutual balanced force reductions which you have mentioned, our peace initiatives with the Soviet Union which are in other areas, and also our talks which will take place later in Asia.,Now, I say this for the reason that all of the talks that we have planned are based on mutuality, and putting yourself into the position of those on the other side of the table, if they can get what they want--in other words, a reduction of America's ability to maintain its own defenses--without negotiation, they are not going to give anything.,So I would summarize by saying that a vote against the draft, in my opinion, would be a vote that seriously jeopardizes peace initiatives of the United States around the world, and without question it is a vote that will make the United States the second strongest nation in the world, with all the implications that has insofar as the ability of the United States to keep the peace and to negotiate for peace in this critical period.,CHINA AND THE UNITED NATIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of the United Nations debate over China, some critics of your new policy on the U.N., and I refer specifically to Dr. Walter Judd 1 who made a statement yesterday, are saying that the expulsion of the Nationalist Government would not be legal under the Charter without a vote of the Security Council making such a recommendation to the General Assembly.,1 Dr. Walter H. Judd, chairman of the Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations.,Now, recognizing that we hope they will not be expelled, can you address yourself to the legalities of the question, what the Administration's position is on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star], we spent many months looking into the legality of the situation, and in fairness to Dr. Judd, I should say that there are different legal opinions that you can get with regard to what action is needed for purposes of expulsion and whether Security Council action is required as well as the other.,We, however, have reached the conclusion that the position we presently take, which has been stated by the Secretary of State and by Ambassador Bush, is the legally sustainable one.,To put, also, our policy in clear perspective, we favor the admission and will vote for the admission of the People's Republic to the United Nations and that will mean, of course, obtaining a Security Council seat.,We will vote against the expulsion of the Republic of China, and we will work as effectively as we can to accomplish that goal.,Beyond that, I would have no further comment at this point.,Q. May I follow up just with one point on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. When you say you favor the obtaining of a Security Council seat by the People's Republic, that implies that the Republic of China would be removed from the Security Council.,THE PRESIDENT. Our analysis indicates that this is really a moot question. In the event that the People's Republic is admitted to the United Nations, the seat in the Security Council would go to the People's Republic and that, of course, would mean the removal of the Republic of China from the Security Council seat.,The statement that was made yesterday simply reflected the realities of the situation in the United Nations.,ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,[3.] Q. Mr. President, now that you have a new economic policy, I am wondering if you would care to make a prediction as to what kind of a year this will be and what kind of a year next year will be.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I stick to my previous prediction that 1971 will be a good year from the standpoint of the economy and that 1972 will be a very good year. As a result of the new policy, I believe that the last quarter of 1971 will be better than I had originally thought it might be; rather than being good, it will be considerably better than good. And I think 1972 will be a very strong year.,I base these predictions, however, on the assumption that we will get the cooperation of the Congress on the tax front. It is essential for continued economic expansion that the Congress support the tax initiatives that we have placed before the Congress. And I hope that when the Ways and Means Committee finally votes out a bill that it will pass the House and then go to the Senate and will get here for signature within as short as possible time as is needed for reasonable debate.,TAX PROPOSALS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in that same area would you accept a 7 percent investment tax credit rather than a 10 percent and 5 percent, and also would you accept an increase of $200 or $250 in the minimum standard deduction?,THE PRESIDENT. The problem of what the President accepts, of course, is somewhat controlled by what he can get. Now, in this instance I have read Secretary Connally's testimony very carefully, before the Ways and Means Committee. As you know, he faced these realities in answering questions.,We believe that the 10 percent-5 percent approach is much the better one because it will give the charge to the economy in the year that we need it, which is now. On the other hand, 7 percent would be better than nothing.,When we look also at the situation with regard to raising the standard deduction or the minimum exemption, there are a number of proposals, as you know, in this area that have been suggested in both the House and the Senate. We believe that our package is a balanced one. It is the right one, and we are going to fight for it.,On the other hand, if the Congress, after due deliberation, moves in another direction which is essentially aimed at our goal, then I will have to consider the measure when it comes here, and I would tend to consider it affirmatively unless it completely blew the top off of our budget.,The main problem on the second thing that you mentioned is the degree that we go in terms of providing additional relief for individuals. If that degree is too high without a corresponding cut in spending, the budget implications are enormous and that would mean an additional fire under the boiler as far as inflation is concerned.,NUCLEAR TESTS IN ALASKA,[5.] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision on the advisability of the nuclear tests in Alaska?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Kilpatrick [Carroll Kilpatrick, Washington Post], we are considering all of the factors involved, including the environmental factors. And I will be reaching a decision, I would say, within the near future. But that is a matter which has been discussed in this office on several occasions.,I am waiting for all of the evidence to come in and then I will make the decision. We will announce it, of course, at an appropriate time.,SOUTH VIETNAMESE ELECTIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, might the changed political picture in South Vietnam, specifically a one-man race for the Presidency there, have any effect on your future plans as far as the level of United States troops and United States activity in that region?,THE PRESIDENT. As far as our plans for ending the American involvement in Vietnam are concerned, we have to keep in mind our major goal, which is to bring the American involvement to an end in a way that will leave South Vietnam in a position to defend itself from a Communist takeover.,Now as far as President Thieu's political situation is concerned, I think it is well to put that subject in perspective. We would have preferred to have had a contested election in South Vietnam. We, however, cannot get people to run when they do not want to run.,It should be pointed out, however, that in fairness to the democratic process and how it is working in South Vietnam, the Congressional elections, the elections for the National Assembly should not be overlooked. Eighty percent of the people of South Vietnam voted as compared with, incidentally, 60 percent who voted in our Congressional elections in 1970, and one-third of those who were elected opposed President Thieu, and some of those who were elected to the National Assembly were those that charged that they could not be elected before the election because the election would be rigged.,Now President Thieu has made the election in October for the Presidency a vote of confidence. There are criticisms to the effect that this vote of confidence will not be an accurate one, but he has invited foreign observers in to see it and to observe it.,My view is that the United States should continue to keep its eye on the main objective and that is to end the American involvement just as soon as that is consistent with our overall goals, which is a South Vietnam able to defend itself against a Communist takeover and which, of course, includes, from our standpoint, our primary interest in maintaining the release of our POW's.,I note one thing, incidentally, on your question, Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News], that is presently apparently before the Senate or a Senate committee, and that is the recommendation or a resolution to the effect that the United States should cut off aid to South Vietnam unless President Thieu does have a contested election.,Now let's just look at what that means in terms of worldwide policy. We presently provide military and/or economic aid to 91 countries in the world. I checked these various countries as far as their heads of government are concerned, and in only 30 of those countries do they have leaders who are there as a result of a contested election by any standards that we would consider fair. In fact, we would have to cut off aid to two-thirds of the nations in the world--in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia--to whom we are presently giving aid if we applied those standards that some suggest we apply to South Vietnam.,I again say that we would prefer, as far as South Vietnam is concerned, that its democratic processes would grow faster. We believe that considerable headway has been made. We believe that the situation from that standpoint is infinitely better in South Vietnam where they at least have some elections than in North Vietnam where they have none, and we are going to continue to work toward that goal.,Q. Mr. President, may I follow that up, please?,Senator Jackson said that the United States need not feel helpless in this circumstance because it has leverage which could redeem the situation even now. Your answer just now suggested that we don't plan to do anything about it. What would you say to Senator Jackson's statement about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], when we speak of leverage, of course we have leverage because we do provide military and economic assistance to South Vietnam.,Second, Ambassador Bunker, working diligently, I can assure you, has attempted to, in every way possible, to get people into the race so that there would be a contested election.,Third, he has, of course, worked toward the end of---once it appeared that others would not run--of getting the election to be one that would at least provide a chance to have a vote of confidence in the President. If what the Senator is suggesting is that the United States should use its leverage now to overthrow Thieu, I would remind all concerned that the way we got into Vietnam was through overthrowing Diem 2 and the complicity in the murder of Diem; and the way to get out of Vietnam, in my opinion, is not to overthrow Thieu with the inevitable consequence or the greatly increased danger, in my opinion, of that being followed by coup after coup and the dreary road to a Communist takeover.,Q. Mr. President, on the South Vietnamese election, once it is completed will you feel then that the American objective of achieving a democratic process in Vietnam, the objective that you stated, and before you President Johnson so many times, do you think that with this election that objective will have been met?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As a matter of fact, that objective will not be met perhaps for several generations. But at least we will be on the road. I think sometimes we forget, as I tried to point out a moment ago in my answer to the question with regard to military and economic assistance to countries around the world, how difficult the process of democracy is.,It took the British 500 years to get to the place where they had what we could really describe as a democratic system under the parliamentary setup, and it didn't spring up full grown in the United States.,I was reading a very interesting account of the battle in 1800 between Jefferson and Adams, and I was curious to note how many people were eligible to vote in that great battle of 1800 which changed the whole future of the United States, that brought in the Jeffersonian era. At that time when the United States had 4 1/4,2 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of the Republic of Vietnam 1955-63. million people there were only 150,000 people eligible to vote. And so as we look at our own history, we find that it took us time to come where we are.,You cannot expect that American-style democracy, meeting our standards, will apply in other parts of the world. We cannot expect that it will come in a country like South Vietnam which has no tradition whatever, without great difficulty. But we have made progress.,ATTICA PRISON,[7.] Q. Mr. President, on the Attica prison deaths 3--in November of 1969, you made a statement saying that most American prisons and correctional facilities presented a convincing picture of failure.,3 From September 9 to 13, 1971, a group of prisoners in the Attica State Correctional Facility staged a rebellion, holding 38 prison guards hostage.,On September 13, New York State troopers and police stormed the facility, an action which resulted in the deaths of more than 40 inmates and prison guards.,What happened at Attica--has that made you reconsider plans that you offered to Attorney General Mitchell to call a conference to speed up the proposal, and what do you think the Attica incident will do to penal reform?,THE PRESIDENT. Like all tragic events, it has its affirmative aspects. And in this case it is, I think, very helpful to note that Governor Rockefeller has already moved in that direction of prison reform, prison reform with regard to the problems of prisoners and their proper treatment, and prison reform which will deal with the problem of guards in prisons and their protection.,As far as I am concerned, I still believe that the problem of prisons in the United States which, incidentally, is primarily not a Federal problem so much as it is a State and local problem, but the problem of prisons in the United States is one that very much needs attention.,I have been particularly impressed in that respect, incidentally, by articles that have been written by Al Otten of the Wall Street Journal. And as a result of having read his articles, I talked to the Attorney General, and we are working on this project. Perhaps this will give it additional impetus.,With regard to Governor Rockefeller's action, I know some of you ladies and gentlemen of the press were surprised that I would, with all of the problems I have, step in to support him on a problem that was not mine. That just happens to be the way I react.,You may recall that when Prime Minister Trudeau had a somewhat similar situation with hostages, I called him and said that I backed what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.,I can imagine that this is the most painful, excruciating experience that Governor Rockefeller, a very good man and a very progressive man, has had in his term of public service. I knew that he would never have gone this far when he called that morning, when I was in the Cabinet, unless he had felt that it was the only thing that he could possibly do to try to save some of the guards that were held hostage.,Now when a man in a hard place makes a hard decision and steps up to it, I back him up, and I don't try to second-guess him the next day when some of the other returns come in. I still back him.\nI believe that people in public positions, whether they are governors, or for that matter prime ministers, or maybe even presidents, cannot give in to demands for ransom, as was the demand made in this instance.,PHASE 2 OF THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, we are told that you have not made any decisions on Phase 2, but on the basis of the consultations you have had so far, have you been able to accumulate any impressions or any insight that you could share with us that would sort of indicate what might happen after the freeze dies?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], I do not want to give advance notice at this point as to what thinking we may be doing in this field--well, thinking is all right, but the direction of that thinking--for the reason that we still have consultations to take place.,I am meeting right after this conference with the representatives of Governors, State legislatures, cities, and counties.4 We will meet tomorrow with Congressional leaders, and there are other meetings that are scheduled before September 30, when I have asked that all the evidence be brought in.,4 On September 16, 1971, the White House released the transcript of a news briefing on the meeting about Phase 2 by Gov. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia.,I can, however, give you an indication, generally, of how we are going to come out. First, let me say that the statement that was made by Secretary Stans represented-as Mr. Ziegler pointed out this morning, or at least implied this morning-represented what is a strongly felt view primarily in the business community. It does not represent that we have foreclosed the matter as far as our own thinking is concerned.,On the other side of the spectrum, on the labor side of the spectrum, there is a desire for voluntary restraints only, a tripartite board, so to speak, and in between you have various suggestions that have been made.,These are my tentative conclusions with regard to the direction: First, there will be a strong, effective follow-on program. The American people overwhelmingly support the wage-price freeze. The American people overwhelmingly want it followed. They don't want to have a freeze followed by a thaw in which we get stuck in the mud, and we are not going to have that kind of thing.,Phase 2 will be strong. It will be effective. Now, it will deal with the problem of wages and prices and will restrain wages and prices in major industries.,Second, it will require the cooperation of labor and management.,But third, and this is vitally important to mention, it will have teeth in it. You cannot have jawboning that is effective without teeth.,Now, this is the direction that I have given to those working on the programs, and we are pulling together the evidence. I will make the announcement in mid-October, 30 days before, at least 30 days or more, before this freeze expires, so that people can plan for it.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO CHINA,[9.] Q. A two-part question.,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. Have you decided in your own mind when you are going to China; if not, why not? [Laughter] That's only the first half Do you want to take that first?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no. I want to see what comes later.,Q. The second half is: Can you tell us your plans?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I am going to China.,Second, as far as the date of the trip is concerned, and the agenda, the arrangements, are concerned, all of those will be announced at an appropriate time.,Beyond that, however, I do not think it would be helpful at this point to discuss the date that may be under consideration, the agenda that may be under consideration, and the rest. All I can say is that the plans for the trip are going forward on schedule, and you gentlemen will be the first to know.,Q. Mr. President, have you decided in your own mind when you are going?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a mutual decision, and we are working it out in a satisfactory way. In a case like this, where two governments are involved, one doesn't pick a date and another pick a date. It is not that kind of operation. It is going very well.,Q. Mr. President, on this China trip, Premier Chou En-lai has done quite a bit of talking since you announced your visit was going to take place, particularly in his interview with Mr. Reston of the New York Times. He was quite hard-line and quite firm on a lot of agenda issues or obvious issues that we all assume are going to come up.,I would like to ask you (a) to comment on the fact that he took a hard stand on a number of things, like two Chinas, like entrance into the U.N., like the U.S. commitment in Southeast Asia, your reaction to that hard line; and secondly, did he tell Mr. Reston anything that was a surprise or news to you?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there was nothing in the Reston piece that he had not already told Dr. Kissinger in much greater detail.,Second, for that reason we were not surprised at all at the Reston piece. I think one of the reasons that these talks may be productive is that Premier Chou Enlai, both publicly and privately, doesn't take the usual naive, sentimental idea, and neither do I, that, well, if we just get to know each other all of our differences are going to evaporate.,He recognizes and I recognize that there are very great differences between the People's Republic and the United States of America. He recognizes and I recognize that at this point it might serve our mutual interest to discuss those differences.,I reiterate, however, as he has reiterated to us, both privately and then repeated in his interview with Mr. Reston in less detail, that while there are differences that we must recognize, that we have agreed to discuss the differences. That is all that has been agreed. There are no other conditions.,Now that, in my view, is the proper way to begin a conference between two countries that have not had any diplomatic relations.,TIMING OF TAX ACTION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate the Ways and Means Committee will approve the tax package before you unveil Phase 2?,THE PRESIDENT. Did you say do I think the Ways and Means Committee will approve it?,Q. Yes, before you unveil Phase 2-there is a timing factor here.,THE PRESIDENT. I think they are moving along fairly well. It may be pretty close to a dead heat but I would hope that they would move in that way. Let me say one thing on that point: We are working very closely with the Ways and Means Committee, and when Secretary Connally returns he will begin consultations also with the Senate Finance Committee, with Senator Long and Senator Bennett and their counterparts, because we do not want to have as extended discussion in the Senate of our tax proposals as we have had of the draft.,INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF ECONOMIC PROGRAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the international aspects of your economic program seem to have shaken up our friends more than our enemies. I am thinking of Europe particularly, and Japan. What is your feeling about that? Isn't this going to be a worry for us; aren't we hurting some very good and important friends in the process?,THE PRESIDENT. It is inevitable that those policies would shake up our friends rather than our potential enemies--I should say, rather than our opponents-because it is our friends with whom we primarily have trade and monetary dealings. And, of course, our international policies dealt with trade and monetary policy. On the other hand, what we have to realize is that the structure of international monetary affairs that had been built 25 years ago and then patched up from time to time over the years had simply become obsolete. It was essential that the United States move as it did to protect its interests and also to get a solution to that problem.,Now, one question that I know is often asked by our friends, by the Japanese, for example, in Asia, and by the Europeans in Europe, is: How long is \"temporary\"-the temporary surcharge? My answer to that is that if all we were seeking was a temporary solution, \"temporary\" would be very brief, but we are not seeking a temporary solution. A temporary solution is one that I would say would be going back to the old system and patching it up a bit.,What we are seeking is a permanent solution and that is why the length of the temporary surcharge will be somewhat longer, because we need to address ourselves not only to the matter of monetary policy and exchange rates, we have to address ourselves to burden-sharing, we have to address ourselves also to trade restraints, including nontariff barriers.,This is a time for our friends around the world--and we are all competitors-to build a new system with which we can live so that we don't have another crisis in a year. With regard to the Japanese, incidentally, I think I can best summarize our dilemma in this way: After the Japanese were here I found that, both from the information they gave and the information we had ourselves, that Japan is our biggest customer in the world and we are their biggest customer in the world.,Also I found that Japan at the present time produces more than all of the rest of East Asia combined, including the People's Republic of China. Now that shows you the problem.,It means that the United States and Japan inevitably are going to be competitors because we are both strong economies. On the other hand, it means that friendship and alliance between the United States and Japan is indispensable. So what we are trying to do--and this was why these discussions were helpful-what we are trying to do is to work out a new system that will recognize the realities so that we can reduce these tensions that have developed, the number of crises that have come up over and over again in the international monetary field in the future.,The other point that I would make with regard to the United States: I know that some have raised the question as to whether in my message to the Congress I was really announcing to the world that we were--by looking to our own interests-going to now be isolationists. On the contrary, a weak America will inevitably be isolationist. An America that is unable to maintain its military strength-and, incidentally, in the whole free world the United States pays two-thirds of the military bill today--a weak America that is unable to have its economic policies abroad, our economic, our foreign aid programs, the rest, inevitably will withdraw into itself.,We have to have a strong America, strong economically and strong in the sense of its competitive spirit if the United States is to continue to play a vigorous, activist role in the world. That is why I addressed myself to that problem and that is why we moved as drastically, as we had to do, at home and abroad to deal with the basic problems that hurt America today economically.,PREJUDICE AND VOTING,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Muskie had some comments about the political climate for a black vice presidential candidate. What is your thinking on that subject?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you gentlemen know, I have stated and I will state again that I will not use presidential press conferences in 1971 to discuss '72 politics, and I will follow that rule today and in the future with regard to similar questions that come up.,With regard to the general proposition of prejudice in the United States as it affects politics, I will be glad to reiterate my own position that I stated quite often in 1960, as some of you who had to follow me remember, and again in 1968: I believe that it is frankly a libel on the American people to suggest that the American people--who do have prejudices just like all people, and we must agree to that-but that the American people would vote against a man because of his religion or his race or his color.,Now, having stated that general proposition, there are occasions when that happens, I am sure. But the American people are very fair-minded people, and they tend to bend over backwards when they are confronted with this problem.,Before the '60 elections it was said that America could not elect a Catholic as President, based on the Al Smith case in 1928. Nineteen hundred and sixty dispelled that, as I well know and as the country knows.,I think the example of Ed Brooke in Massachusetts is eloquent demonstration of the fact that the American people, when confronted with a superior man, will not vote against him because of his race.,Only 2 percent of the people of Massachusetts are of the same race as Ed Brooke, yet he won overwhelmingly for attorney general, and he won overwhelmingly for the United States Senate, and he is going to win a landslide victory again this year. Now, what would happen on the national scene is a matter of judgment, and I am not going to get into that from a political standpoint.,I do say, however, that I think it is very important for those of us in positions of leadership not to tell a large number of young people in America, whoever they are, that because of the accident of their birth they don't have a chance to go to the top.,FRANK CORMIER (Associated Press). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-08-04","text":"PAKISTANI REFUGEES,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, I would begin this with a brief resume of the conversation I have just had with the Secretary of State, because I know the subject will probably come up in any event.,This is with regard to the Pakistan refugee situation. To recap what we have done: As far as the refugees who are in India are concerned, we have provided $70 million in aid to date, being administered through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. And we are prepared to provide more. That, incidentally, is more than all the rest of the nations of the world put together, so it is a substantial amount.,As far as those in East Pakistan themselves are concerned, whereas you know there are prospects of famine in the event that the crop reports are as bad as they seem to be, at this point we have 360,000 tons of grain ready for shipment there. We have also allotted $3 million for the purpose of chartering ships for the purpose of getting the grain into the overcrowded ports.,As a further step, the Secretary of State has worked out with my very strong approval a plan to go to the United Nations next week to talk to the responsible and appropriate members of the United Nations, including the U.N. High Commissioner in that office, to see what additional steps can be taken on both fronts to help the refugees in India from East Pakistan and also to help those who are in East Pakistan and are presently confronting famine situations.,With regard to a problem that was addressed by the House yesterday, we do not favor the idea that the United States should cut off economic assistance to Pakistan. To do so would simply aggravate the refugee problem because it would mean that the ability of the Government of Pakistan to work with the U.N., as it presently has indicated it is willing to do so, in distributing the food supplies, its ability to create some stability, would be seriously jeopardized.,We believe that the most constructive role we can play is to continue our economic assistance to West Pakistan [Government of Pakistan] and thereby to be able to influence the course of events in a way that will deal with the problem of hunger in East Pakistan, which would reduce the refugee flow into India and which will, we trust, in the future look toward a viable political settlement.1,1The flow of refugees and the growth of an insurgency movement in East Pakistan seeking secession from Pakistan increased existing tensions in the border area of India and East Pakistan, and led finally, in late November 1971, to open warfare between the Pakistani Army and the Indian Army which had crossed into East Pakistan in aid of the insurgents.,On December 7, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling on India and Pakistan to institute an immediate cease-fire and to withdraw their troops from each other's territory. A statement by Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler on the resolution was released December 12 and is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, p. 1656).,We are not going to engage in public pressure on the Government of West Pakistan [Government of Pakistan]. That would be totally counterproductive. These are matters that we will discuss only in private channels.,QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO CHINA,[2.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us any more about your forthcoming trip to China, when it is likely to occur, and can you give us your assessment of what effect you think this will have on ending the war in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. As far as the timing is concerned, I cannot add to what I said in the original announcement. It will be before May 1. The time will be worked out sometime within the next 2 to 3 months, I would assume, and a considerable amount of preparatory activity must take place, setting up the agenda, setting up the number in the official party. These are matters, of course, that must be discussed and worked out before the time of the visit is finally announced.,Second, and I know a number of you are interested in who is going, that is a matter still to be decided. It was raised by Dr. Kissinger and by Premier Chou Enlai in their conversations and will be worked out by mutual agreement.,As far as our party is concerned, it will be a small working party. The only ones that presently are definitely going are, of course, the Secretary of State and Dr. Kissinger and myself. Beyond that, whatever others will be added will be determined by mutual agreement between the parties concerned.,Now, as to the effect the visit will have, and the conversations will have, on Vietnam, I will not speculate on that subject. I will only say that as the joint announcement indicated, this will be a wide-ranging discussion of issues concerning both governments. It is not a discussion that is going to lead to instant detente.,What it really is, is moving--as we have moved, I believe, in the situation with regard to the Soviet Union from an era of confrontation without communication to an era of negotiation with discussion. It does not mean that we go into these meetings on either side with any illusions about the wide differences that we have. Our interests are very different, and both sides recognized this, in the talks that Dr. Kissinger had, the very extended talks he had with Premier Chou En-lai. We do not expect that these talks will settle all of those differences.,What is important is that we will have opened communication to see where our differences are irreconcilable, to see that they can be settled peacefully, and to find those areas where the United States, which today is the most powerful nation in the world, can find areas of agreement with the most populous nation in the world which potentially in the future could become the most powerful nation in the world.,As we look at peace in the world for the balance of this century, and for that matter even in the next century, we must recognize that there cannot be world peace on which all the peoples in the world can rely, on which they have such a great stake, unless there is communication between and some negotiation between these two great super powers, the People's Republic and the United States.,I have put this in general terms because that is the understanding of the People's Republic, Premier Chou En-lai, and it is our understanding our agenda will be worked out at a later point; before the trip it will be very carefully worked out so that the discussions will deal with the hard problems as well as the easy ones.,We expect to make some progress, but to speculate about what progress will be made on any particular issue, to speculate, for example, as to what effect this might have on Vietnam, would not serve the interests of constructive talks.,ALL-ASIAN CONFERENCE ON VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a related policy question on Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. There have been some suggestions, including some indirect hints from China, that a negotiating forum involving a conference, an Asian conference to be held in Asia, primarily with Asian participants but with the United States as well, might be a better forum for negotiating a settlement in Vietnam. Can you speak to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star], the question of whether there should be an all-Asian conference, with the Government of the People's Republic participating, as you know, has risen several times over the past few months, and was raised before our announcement was made.,As far as we are concerned, we will consider any proposal that might contribute to a more peaceful situation in the Pacific and in the world. However, at this point there is no understanding between the United States and the People's Republic as to whether or not out of this meeting should come that kind of proposal.,Let me say on that score, there were no conditions asked for on either side, and none accepted. There were no deals made on either side or accepted, none offered and none accepted. This is a discussion which will take place with both sides knowing in advance that there are problems, but with both sides well prepared. This is the secret of any successful summitry.,As you know, parenthetically, I have always taken somewhat of a dim view of summitry when it comes in an unprepared form. But both sides will be well prepared, well in advance, on all points of major difference, and we will discuss any points of difference that could affect the peace of the world.,THE SOVIET UNION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, is there any diplomatic reason why you might not visit the Soviet Union before going to Peking? It has been suggested and speculated upon.,THE PRESIDENT. In view of the announcement that we have made on Peking, the visit to Peking will be the first visit that I will make. Obviously, it takes a great deal of time to prepare a visit, and to attempt now to--and the Soviet Union, I am sure, feels exactly the same way-to attempt to rush around and have a summit meeting in Moscow before we go to Peking would not be in the interest of either country.,I would add this point, too: When Foreign Minister Gromyko was here, we discussed the possibility of a possible summit meeting, and we had a very candid discussion. He agreed and said that his government leaders agreed with my position, which was that a meeting at the highest level should take place and would be useful only when there was something substantive to discuss that could not be handled in other channels.,With regard to the Soviets, I should also point out that we are making very significant progress on Berlin. We are making good progress on SALT. Discussions are still continuing on the Mideast, although there I will not speculate about what the prospects for success are in view of the fact that Mr. Sisco2 is presently in the area exploring with the governments concerned what the possibilities of some interim settlement looking toward a final settlement may be.,2 Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.,Having mentioned these three areas in which we are negotiating with the Soviet Union, I will add that if the time comes, as it may come, and both sides realize this, then the final breakthrough in any of these areas can take place only at the highest level, and then there will be a meeting. But as far as the timing of the meeting before the visit to Peking, that would not be an appropriate thing to do.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS,[5.] Q. I was thinking of such a thing as a settlement on the SALT talks.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service], when I said there was good progress being made on SALT, it is still a very technical and sticky problem for both sides because it involves our vital interests. Let me emphasize that in SALT, both sides are asked to make an agreement which limits them. This is not unilateral. We, on our part, will be having very severe limitations with regard to our defensive capability, with ABM. They, on their part, will have limitations on their offensive capability, their buildup of offensive missiles.,Neither side can make those decisions lightly, without very, very basic discussions, but the fact that we have at the highest level committed ourselves to working toward an agreement simultaneously this year on both those issues, and the fact that since the talks at Helsinki began that we have made progress, gives hope that we are going to make an arrangement.,But to speculate that maybe we are going to get that done before we go to Peking, I think, would be ill-advised.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, why have you not accepted the Vietcong proposals after all these weeks of probing, or given some formal reply?,THE PRESIDENT. I have noted some criticism in the press about the fact that Ambassador Bruce had to leave August 1. Incidentally, I am most grateful that he stayed an extra month, because his doctor got hold of me and said he should have left July 1. But, in any event, his having left August I, and Mr. Porter not being able to arrive of the latter part of August, there has been some speculation, in fact there is--and I understand this--criticism in the press and the Senate and the House that the Administration is not interested in negotiating a settlement, that we are not considering the various proposals that have been made by the VC and the North Vietnamese.,Now, just so the members of the press will not get out on a limb with regard to predicting what we are. or are not doing, let me make one statement, and then I will go no further.,We are very actively pursuing negotiations on Vietnam in established channels. The record, when it finally comes out, will answer all the critics as far as the activity of this Government' in pursuing negotiations in established channels. It would not be useful to negotiate in the newspapers if we want to have those negotiations succeed.,I am not predicting that the negotiations will succeed. I am saying, however, that as far as the United States is concerned, we have gone and are going the extra mile on negotiations in established channels. You can interpret that any way you want, but do not interpret it in a way that indicates that the United States is missing this opportunity, that opportunity, or another one, to negotiate.,SOUTH VIETNAM ELECTION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, one of the points being mentioned in the comments on the negotiations is the election in South Vietnam this fall. Is that a factor that does have some bearing on the pace of the negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. It has certainly in terms of the North Vietnamese. As you know, the stumbling block for them in negotiations really is the political settlement. As they look at the election this fall, they feel that unless that election comes out in a way that a candidate they can support--or at least that they are not as much against as they are President Thieu--but unless it comes out that way, it will be very difficult for them to have a negotiated settlement.,With regard to the elections, let me emphasize our position. Our position is one of complete neutrality in ,these elections. We have, under Ambassador Bunker's skillful direction, made it clear to all parties concerned that we are not supporting any candidate, that we will accept the verdict of the people of South Vietnam.,I have noted, for example, that President Thieu has invited observers to come from other nations to witness the election. I hope observers do go. I think they will find, I hope they will find, as they did when they observed previous elections in Vietnam, that by most standards they were fair.,As far as observers from this country are concerned, we have, of course, several Members of the Senate and others that have indicated a desire to go. We, of course, have no objection to that. We want a fair election, and we, of course, have some observers on the scene in the person of the Ambassador and his staff who will watch that election.,THE STOCK MARKET AND THE ECONOMY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the last time you gave some stock market advice to us, it turned out pretty well. What would you do now, buy or sell?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to the stock market, I suppose my advice should not be given much weight .because I am not in the market. It is so easy to make predictions where your own assets are not involved.,I will say this: I would not sell the United States economy short at this point. And long term, I would not be selling my investments in the American economy, whether it is in stocks or real estate or what have you, selling them in a panicky way.,The stock market has come up, even at its present level of 850, 230 points since I made that prediction. I can only say that my long-range prediction for this economy is still what I said at the first of this year.,At the first of this year, when the very same people had written--and I have read the news magazines and business magazines, and not, of course, any of the columns you have written this week--but I have read all the rest this week, and the gloomy predictions about the economy: its going down, nothing good about it. I read them also for November of last year, exactly the same gloominess, the same words, and so forth.,I said then, and all of you were present then, I thought 1971 would be a good year for the economy, and 1972 would be a very good year. I stand by that. When we look at, for example, the first half of this year, it is not what people say about the economy, it is what they do about it that counts.,GNP is up a record $52 billion. Retail sales now, in June--and the first indications as far as July are concerned, it will stay at this level--are at record highs. Consumer spending is at a record high. Construction, particularly in housing, is near record highs. Inventories--and this is another indication of what will happen to the future for those who may be thinking of investing their money in businesses--inventories are abnormally low in view of the high level of retail sales.,Now what this tells me is that there is a lot of steam in the boiler in this economy, and you cannot continue to have high retail sales and low inventories without eventually starting to rebuild. Therefore, my projection for the balance of this year is that the economy will continue to move up as it has moved up in the first half.,That doesn't mean that there will not be aberrations in the monthly figures. It does mean, however, that the economy has a great deal of strength in it. This is a period when it is absorbing almost 2 million people who have been let out of defense plants and the Armed Forces and is absorbing that with a lower rate of unemployment than was the case in 1961, 1962, 1963, which were the last 3 peacetime years before Vietnam when the unemployment rate, as you recall, averaged 6 percent.,ECONOMIC POLICY,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in that connection, to continue that, does that mean that you are still resolutely opposed to any incomes policy or, specifically, wage-price controls?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, Peter [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], it is well to identify incomes policies and wage price controls for what they are and what they are not, because, as a matter of fact-and this gives me an opportunity to set the record straight with regard to some greatly blown up differences that I am supposed to have with my very good friend Arthur Burns, and perhaps you were too polite to ask that direct question--,Q. Well, I will ask it. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I thought that would be the follow-up, so I anticipated it. Let me get at it this way:,Arthur Burns, in terms of monetary policy and in terms of fiscal policy, has followed a course that I think is the most responsible and statesmanlike of any Chairman of the Federal Reserve in my memory. In other words, you have seen an expansionary monetary policy, and that is one of the reasons we have had an expansionary economy in the first 6 months of this year.,He has also stood firmly with this Administration in its responsible fiscal policy, resisting, for example, spending above what the economy would produce at full capacity. He has strongly supported me in those efforts.,That brings me to an area where he has taken a very unfair shot. Within this Administration, the Office of Budget and Management, on a reorganization plan 2 months ago, recommended that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, because he basically is our central banker, should be raised to the same status as the central bankers abroad. I enthusiastically approved the idea. However, when the matter was raised with Dr. Burns by my associates, he indicated that neither he nor any other individual in a high position in Government should take a salary increase at a time that the President was going to have to take some strong measures, as I am going to take, to limit salary increases in other areas of Government, including, for example, blue-collar workers.,So, consequently, while there is not any question but that the Federal Reserve position will eventually be raised to the Level I position that was recommended, Arthur Burns--and, incidentally, George Shultz, who is also on this list as a recommendation of the Ash Council-Arthur Burns and George Shultz, being the responsible men that they were, asked that there not be an example set by them of a pay increase which would make it very difficult for us to deal effectively and responsibly with pay increases in other sectors of the Government. So we find that Burns agrees--that I agree with Burns, let's put it that way. I agree with Burns very strongly on his monetary policy, on his fiscal policy, the question that he has raised with regard to an incomes policy.,But when we talk about an incomes policy, let's see what he is not for. He is unalterably opposed, as I am, to the Galbraith3 scheme, which is supported by many of our Democratic Senators I understand, of permanent wage and price controls. Permanent wage and price controls in America would stifle the American economy, its dynamism, its productivity, and would be, I think, a mortal blow to the United States as a first-class economic power.,On the other hand, it is essential that Government use its power where it can be effective to stop the escalation or at least temper the escalation in the wage price spiral. That is why we moved on construction, and we have been somewhat successful, from 16 down to 9 percent. That is why we moved to roll back on oil price recently.,3 John Kenneth Galbraith, prominent economist, author, and professor at Harvard University.,As far as the two recent settlements, the one in the railroads and the one in steel , on the plus side, the fact that they were settled was positive; the fact, too, that in the case of railroads, they spoke to the problem of productivity by modification of work rules, and the fact that the steel settlement also spoke to the problem of productivity by setting up productivity councils, that was constructive.,On the other hand, I would be less than candid if I were not to say, and I know that the leaders of the rail industry and the leaders of the steel industry know this, that this kind of settlement where a wage increase leads to price increase, and particularly in steel where the industry is already noncompetitive with foreign imports, is not in the interest of America; it is not in the interest of labor; it is not in the interest of industry.,Dr. Burns, without being completely specific, has only suggested the idea should be considered. That is why Secretary Connally said we welcome the move by several Republican Senators to hold hearings with regard to the setting of wage-price supports. That is why Dr. Burns has said that we should move to attempt to temper these increases.,The problem here is, how can we move without putting the American economy in a straightjacket? In other words, as Secretary Connally raised in his statement this morning, \"Are we to have criminal penalties?\" Are, for example, the wage-price guidelines to affect all the industries down to the corner filling station or the grocery store or the meat market, as the case might be, or will they affect only major industries?,As far as this Administration is concerned, I can say this: I have asked the Secretary of Labor to bring to my attention every major wage-price negotiation which may be coming up in the future, and I will use the power of this office to the extent it can be effective to see that those negotiations are as responsible as possible.,On September 21, we will have a meeting of our Productivity Commission, and subject A in that meeting will be this same problem. Because as we look at America's trade balances, which have deteriorated over the past 10 years--but as we look at America's competitive position, it is essential that American industry and American labor sit down together and determine whether, at a time when we are in a race, we no longer can be number one simply because we were that big and that strong after World War II, whether we determine we are going to get out of the race or whether we are going to tighten our belts and be responsible in wage-price decisions so that we can continue to be competitive in the world.,That speaks to the problem of an incomes policy, this meeting that we will have. The only question of difference between Arthur Burns--and some Senators have raised this question-- is: What is the degree to which, in tackling this individual wage settlements, we have compulsion, we have criminal penalties. I don't think they want compulsion or criminal penalties.,Then the question is: How far will persuasion go? Our record shows that in most countries abroad that have tried it, except for very small countries that are tightly controlled, persuasion alone will work for only 3 or 4 months.,So as far as we are concerned, I am glad to consider recommendations for tackling the problem. I will tackle them, and I am serving notice now that we are going to take up the problem with the Productivity Commission. We are going to look at each individual settlement in major industries where there is going to be wage-price negotiations and use the influence we can to keep them in line, and, in addition to that, we will consider a recommendation on wage-price boards. But I will reject it if I find--and I have yet to find any recommendation that did not have this ingredient in it--if I find that it would impose a new bureaucracy with enormous criminal powers, to fasten itself on the American economy. That, I think, would do far more harm than good.,THE STEEL INDUSTRY,[10.] Q. In the same line, to follow up that question, if the settlement in the steel industry and particularly the raise in prices which was recently announced is not good for the country and not good for labor and management, why do you not call in the leaders of the steel industry and use your influence to get them to change the increase in prices and then, if necessary, other parts of the settlement which are so inimicable to the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Calling in the steel industry and getting them to change would not be effective. As you may recall, in one instance earlier this year, we were able to get a steel rollback. That had a temporary beneficial effect. But at a time that the steel industry has negotiated a settlement of this nature, at a time when its profits at 2 1/2 percent are the lowest of any major industry, to tell the steel industry that after they have negotiated a settlement they must roll back their price and run at a loss is simply unrealistic. They are not going to do it.,The longer term answer here is for the steel industry--and this is what we have addressed ourselves to--and the labor to recognize that now that they have had their settlement, now that labor has gotten a good increase, an increase consistent with aluminum and cans and others, now that steel found it necessary to raise prices, that this may be good temporarily for both but in the long run it will simply mean less steel sold and less jobs. And that is why we are zeroing in on the productivity side because increases in productivity can be the only answer where a wage increase of this magnitude takes place.,WAGES FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, a minute ago you mentioned something about doing something about wages for Government employees.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. One of the problems, difficult problems that I confronted last year and that I will confront again this year, is a recommendation to increase the wages for blue-collar workers within the Government. I have examined that situation, and I have determined that an increase in the blue-collar wage scale would not be in the interests of our fighting the inflation battle.,Speaking to the same point, we have a situation with regard to the Congress and some of its appropriations bills. We are trying to keep our budget within the full employment limits for 1972.,The Congress already has exceeded our budget by $5.4 billion. That includes mandatory spending, which they have imposed upon us, and additions to the appropriations bills. Before they get through with the appropriations process I hope that comes down.,But that will be highly inflationary unless the Congress speaks to that problem more effectively. What I was indicating, in other words, Herb [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], was that I am indicating in advance the decision that I do not intend to approve the wage increase relative to the blue-collar workers in the Government. Under those circumstances, I could not, of course, approve an increase in salaries for people as underpaid basically as Dr. Burns is, considering what he could get on the outside, or Dr. Shultz is, considering what he could get on the outside.,Q. How many people are there in the blue-collar area?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have that but it is a significant number. Incidentally, I think it is an equitable decision because they have had some substantial increases in the past. It is a question of whether we just continue for a short time.,WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES,[12.] Q. Sir, you also mentioned guidelines in a manner that suggested that you might accept the concept of numerical guidelines. Did you mean to suggest that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. What I meant to say was that my study of the situation indicates that guidelines in this country have always failed; they have never worked. Guidelines in other industrial countries, including Canada, for example, and Britain, have worked only for a short time and then have fallen because guidelines basically connote voluntary compliance and voluntary compliance goes on only for a brief time.,Now, as far as what I am saying, it is that our approach at this time is a selective one to take those particular industries that are coming up for bargaining and to use our influence as effectively as we can to see that those settlements are responsible.,Secondly, that as far as a wage-price board is concerned, that it would be considered favorably only if the hearings that are going to be taken in this field, only if the hearings can convince me that enforcing an incomes policy could be accomplished without stifling the economy.,It is the problem, in other words, of enforcement, because I come back to this fundamental proposition: I have yet to find except for the extremists on the left-and I don't say this in a condemning way; it is only an observation--the extremists on the left of the economic spectrum have always favored a totally Government controlled economy.,They believe that. I don't believe it. They believe that we should have permanent wage and price controls and that Government should determine what wages should be and what prices should be. I do not believe that. Dr. Bums does not believe that, if you have read his speeches over the years. He is a strong opponent of that.,The question is: How can we address ourselves to the problem of wages and prices without having those mandatory criminal penalty features which would lead us to something we all are trying to avoid. This is why this is a matter for discussion. It is not one yet for decision, but I will continue to work on individual settlements as I have said.,Q. Mr. President, would it be fair to say, then, that in view of what you said there and what you said earlier that you will consider recommendations of the wage and price board, that you are giving renewed and perhaps more favorable consideration to some form of wage-price board, assuming that they don't have penalties?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I am saying that I shall continue the policy of moving aggressively on individual settlements on a case-by-case basis. Second, I will address this particular problem in a meeting with the major leaders of American industry and American labor at the Productivity Commission meeting on September 21. Third, with regard to wage-price boards, I have still not been convinced that we can move in that direction and be effective. However, Secretary Connally, in his statement this morning, raised all the questions that should be raised on that. As far as we are concerned, we have an open mind in terms of examining the various proposals to see if there is a new approach which we may not have thought of.\nI have serious doubts that they will find such a new approach, but I do want to indicate that we will examine it because we all agree that the wage-price spiral is a significant danger to this expanding economy. The question is, what do we do about it, without going all the way to a totally controlled economy.,PROGRESS AGAINST INFLATION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Burns, before the Joint Economic Committee, said he didn't think we were making much progress against inflation. Do you think we are?,THE PRESIDENT. I read Dr. Burns' statement quite carefully. What he was saying is what I would say. I would say this with regard to inflation; I would say it with regard to unemployment: I am never satisfied and never will be satisfied, and anybody in the free economy is never satisfied and should never be satisfied, with anything except perfection. That doesn't mean that we are going to reach perfection.,Now with regard to inflation, I will just point to the numbers. Inflation, which, of course, was boiling along when we came into office in January of 1969, reached its peak in 1970, 6 percent. Then the CPI [Consumer Price Index] dropped to 4 percent in the first 6 months of 1971. Now 4 percent is still too high, but that is progress.,The GNP deflator--which of course goes far beyond the Consumer Price Index, as you know; the GNP deflator covers all, the whole spectrum of the economy-in the first 6 months of 1971, was the lowest in 3 years. That is progress-not enough, but it is progress.,In the last month the CPI was higher than the average it has been for the first 5 months. But we all know these month-to-month variations are not what count. My view is that we are making progress against inflation, but it is going to require continued strong policies on the part of the Administration with the cooperation of the Congress in limiting our budget expenditures to full capacity or full employment revenues. That is the battle we will continue to wage, and it will also need cooperation from labor and management in limiting the wage-price spiral.,On the unemployment front, we have a somewhat similar problem, as I pointed out a minute ago. The last 3 peacetime years before the Vietnam war expenditures began to hypo the economy were 1961, '62, and '63. Unemployment in those years averaged 6 percent. We, at this point, have brought unemployment below 6 percent, not as much as we would like. It reached its peak in January. It was 6.2. What the figures will be for this month you will know on Friday. I don't know what they are myself. I will read them as you do and that is the way it should be with the BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] figures.,But in any event, the unemployment curve is down; 6.2 was the high; we are now below 6 percent. I believe that it will continue, with monthly aberrations, on a downward course through the balance of the year.,I believe that as we go into 1972, I still stick with my prediction that we shall see unemployment continue to move downward and that 1972, for that year, will be a very good year.,I would point out one final thing on the unemployment facts, as I have often pointed out: As of this morning--I looked at the numbers--over 2 million Americans have been let out of the armed services and out of defense plants since we started to wind down the war in Vietnam.,If they were in the services or in the defense plants at the present time, unemployment would be 4.3. But the other side of that coin is that casualties when we came in were 300 a week. This week, last week, they were 12.,I just think the price is too high to pay. We believe that our goal of a new prosperity, of low unemployment, but with peace and not at the cost of war, is one that Americans are willing to work toward.,We are going to achieve that goal. Getting back to our stock market question, I will simply say this: Everybody else has been prophetic about the future. I think the prophets who presently say that the American economy is on the skids, that we have made no progress on inflation, that the economy is not moving up, who ignore the $52 billion increase in GNP, who ignore the increase in retail sales, who ignore the strong, positive elements in the economy, I think by the end of this year that they are going to look bad so I will go out on the limb to that effect, but by the end of this year I might look bad.,Let's just hope that they do rather than myself, because all of us are involved.,CASUALTIES IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. On the casualties, Mr. President, do you think that the figures of 12 per week and so forth in that category, are they an aberration or does your policy envision them to continue to decline during this year?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they are not an aberration. They are the result, frankly, of first an American withdrawal. American forces in Vietnam today, as you can tell from reading the reports, are in defensive positions. We are frankly just defending the areas in which we have responsibility, and there are less of them. Consequently, our casualties go down for that reason.,Second, however, they are down for another reason. The enemy doesn't have the punch that it had because the other point to look at is that South Vietnamese casualties are also substantially down from what they were. What has happened is that the two operations, Cambodia and Laos, so very severely disrupted the enemy's ability to wage offensive actions that for both Americans and South Vietnamese the level of fighting is down.,There again will be aberrations up and down, I would assume. Nobody can predict that. But the war is being wound down and, as far as Americans are concerned, we trust it will continue to go down.,HELEN THOMAS (United Press International). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-06-01","text":"QUESTIONS,TROOP WITHDRAWALS FROM EUROPE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Mr. Risher [Eugene V. Risher, United Press International] has the first question tonight.,Q. Mr. President, Chairman Brezhnev1 recently indicated a willingness to negotiate troop withdrawals from Europe. Do you plan to take him up on this?,THE PRESIDENT. We have completed within our own Government our study of the question of balanced, mutual force reductions. Secretary Laird has had some consultations last week on this matter with the NATO defense chiefs, and Secretary Rogers is conducting consultations at the present time with the Foreign Ministers of the various NATO countries. When those consultations have been completed, then the United States and our allies will move forward to discuss, negotiate, with the Soviet Union and other countries involved, with regard to mutual, balanced force reductions.,1Leonid I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.,POSSIBILITY OF EUROPEAN MEETINGS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, we not only have the prospect--maybe distant in the future--of the mutual reduction of force, but we have the Berlin question, the SALT talks, the dollar problem in Europe. Do you foresee meeting with the leaders of Europe on their own soil within the foreseeable future?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], I plan no trip to Europe and no meetings with European leaders in the near future. If such plans do develop, of course, I will announce them. And if it becomes necessary, as a result of developments in the question of mutual force reductions or arms limitation, that such meetings occur, I will, of course, go any place that I think would serve the interests of our goal of reducing the dangers to peace in the world and, of course, reducing the burden of armaments.,DRUG ADDICTION PROBLEMS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, what are you going to do about the tens of thousands of American soldiers who are coming back from Vietnam with an addiction to heroin?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is well for us first to put the problem of drug addiction in Vietnam in perspective. It is not simply a problem of Vietnam veterans; it is a national problem. It is a national problem that primarily focuses on young people. When Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld came back from Europe,2 they pointed out that it was an affliction not only of young people who were in the armed services but of young people who were tourists in Europe.,2Robert H. Finch and Donald Rumsfeld, Counsellors to the President, made a 23-day trip to Europe and North Africa to discuss drug abuse prevention and control with foreign officials. On May 21, 1971, the White House released the transcript of a news briefing on the trip by Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld.,Consequently, what we need is a national offensive on this problem and one which, of course, will particularly take into account the immediate problem in Vietnam. The problem in Vietnam is aggravated by the fact that heroin can be purchased there at a much lower price than it can in the United States, and, therefore, when men are exposed to it, or they are able to obtain it, the habit is one that they can afford to have.,What we are going to do, therefore, is to step up our national program on four fronts: First, the front of getting at the sources. This means working with foreign governments where the drugs come from, including the Government of South Vietnam, where they have, of course, a special responsibility.,It means, also, prosecuting those who are the pushers. It means, in addition to that, a program of treating the addicts, and that, incidentally, insofar as veterans are concerned, means treating them where they are addicted to heroin or hard drugs before releasing them, giving them the opportunity. And, finally, it requires a massive program of information for the American people with regard to how the drug habit begins and how we eventually end up with so many being addicted to heroin, the hard drug, which virtually is a point of no return for many.,In that respect, that is one of the reasons I have taken such a strong position with regard to the question of marihuana. I realize this is controversial. But I can see no social or moral justification whatever for legalizing marihuana. I think it would be exactly the wrong step. It would simply encourage more and more of our young people to start down that long, dismal road that leads to hard drugs and eventually self-destruction.,I am going to be meeting, incidentally, Thursday of this week, with the Secretary of Defense, the three Service Secretaries, the three heads of the armed services, and get a direct report from them on the programs they have initiated at my suggestion and at the suggestion and request of the Secretary of Defense in the drug field.,We consider it a problem of the highest priority, and we are going to give it the highest priority attention at all levels, not just with regard to veterans, where it is a special problem, but nationally, where it is one that concerns us all.,MORALITY OF THE VIETNAM WAR,[4.] Q. Mr. President, much of the debate about Vietnam seems to have shifted from the question of practicality of policy to questions about morality of the U.S. involvement. Some of the people who have been demonstrating against the war have contended that your Administration is responsible for war crimes, not only speaking of certain face-to-face encounters between U.S. soldiers and civilians but speaking of the policy of massive bombing of large areas of Southeast Asia.,How do you respond to the suggestions that the bombing constitutes immoral, criminal conduct?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my views with regard to war are well known. I grew up in a tradition where we consider all wars immoral. My mother, my grandmother on my mother's side were Quakers, as I have often pointed out to this press corps, and very strongly disapproved of my entering World War II. As far as Vietnam is concerned, like all wars it involves activities that certainly would be subject to criticism if we were considering it solely in a vacuum.,But when we consider the consequences of not acting, I think we can see why we have done what we have. To allow a takeover of South Vietnam by the Communist aggressors would not only result in the loss of freedom for 17 million people in South Vietnam, it would greatly increase the danger of that kind of aggression and also the danger of a larger war in the Pacific and in the world. That I believe. That is why I have strongly supported ending this war, ending our involvement as we are, withdrawing Americans, but ending in a way that we do not turn the country over to the Communists, ending it in a way that we give the South Vietnamese a reasonable chance to defend themselves against Communist aggression. And that is why I believe that kind of ending will contribute to the peace that we all want.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, if there should be agreements on both defensive and offensive weapons with the Soviet Union, do you plan to submit both of those agreements to the Senate in a treaty form, or only the agreement on defensive weapons, leaving the other to an understanding?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], this is a matter which you have raised, along with other reporters that cover the White House, in some of the background briefings, and I am sure that all of you know that it is not possible for me, and it would not be appropriate for me, to discuss this matter in any way that would jeopardize the agreement itself.,We cannot tell at this time what form the agreement will take. With regard to defensive weapons, the ABM, it is a simpler matter, because we are talking about only one weapons system. Therefore, it might be subject to a treaty.,With regard to the offensive limitations that we are talking about, it is not as simple a matter, because here we have several weapons systems. We have missiles. We have bombers. We have nuclear submarines. And the understanding, the commitment that has been made at the highest level, deals with only some of those systems. Consequently, what would come out with regard to offensive weapons may or may not be at the treaty level. It might be at an understanding level at this point, and be at a treaty level at a later point.,I would like to be more precise than that, but that is an accurate statement of what we expect.,WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT JOBS,[6.] Miss Means [Marianne Means, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Mr. President, women make up more than 50 percent of the population, but it seems that men have a lock on the top Government jobs. Out of the top 10,000 Federal supervisory posts, only 150 are filled by women, and in 2½ years you have appointed only 200 women to Federal jobs, 62 of them to one single arts commission.,What are your goals for bringing more qualified women into Government and promoting them, and how do you personally feel about women's liberation?,THE PRESIDENT. After that question, I am not going to comment upon women's liberation! But I will comment about the problem about women in Government jobs.,This Administration is proud of its record insofar as putting women in top positions of responsibility. We have women, as you know, as not just members of commissions, but one is the Chairman of the Maritime Commission, and I have just appointed a woman as Chairman of the Tariff Commission. These are breakthroughs. There will be more. They were appointed to these positions not because they were women, but because they were the best qualified people for those jobs.,There are many women who are the best qualified people for jobs in Government, and wherever we can get women to take those jobs, they will be appointed.,I have asked my staff--and particularly in this case we have Mrs. Franklin working on this--to give me any recommendations that they possibly can that will bring qualified women into Government, because finding qualified people is very difficult and we don't want to rule out such a great source of qualified people as the women might provide.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[7.] Q. Mr. President, what effect will the Soviet-Egyptian treaty have on your efforts to get a peaceful settlement in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet-Egyptian treaty will have effect only in terms of how it might affect the arms balance. In the event that this will be followed by an introduction of more weapons into the Middle Eastern area, it can only mean a new arms race and could greatly jeopardize the chances for peace. We trust that that is not the case.,It is too early to appraise the treaty in terms of what it could mean, in terms of introducing arms into the area.,As far as we are concerned, we continue to support the truce which is now in its tenth month. We continue to work for an agreement, either an interim agreement if necessary; of course, a comprehensive one if possible.,And we are not going to allow this treaty to discourage us insofar as seeking that agreement is concerned. We seek normal relations with all the countries in the area, including the U.A.R. And we believe that the chances for an agreement are still there. Whether the Soviet follows up with large-scale arms shipments into the area will determine whether or not it increases the chances for peace or sharply increases the chances for war.,CONGRESSMAN MG CLOSKEY,[8.] Q. Mr. President, a Republican Congressman who is a Marine Corps veteran from your own State, Paul McCloskey, has been going around the country talking against your Vietnam policies and has plans to run against you in the primaries next year. Do you welcome this as a challenge, or does it make you the least bit nervous?,THE PRESIDENT. I realize that there are probably many political questions in the minds of reporters and, of course, many of our listening audience. I, however, have decided as a matter of policy that the Presidential press conference is not a proper forum to comment on any partisan political matters or political questions.,Consequently, I will not comment on that, and I will not comment on any other political questions.,PRISONERS OF WAR,[9.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, what does a refusal of all but a handful of the sick and disabled prisoners that South Vietnam had planned to return to the North do to the chances for exchange of such prisoners?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Horner, you will remember that we went through somewhat the same thing in Korea many years ago when the Korean prisoners, many of them, refused to go back. As far as this is concerned, there are a few, less than 20, who have agreed to go back, and, of course, they will be returned.,We hope that the refusal of the others to go back will not deter the North Vietnamese at least to consider some kind of action on their part with regard to sick and disabled prisoners.\nMr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News].,Q. Mr. President, thank you. And I especially appreciate it because it gives me an opportunity to follow up on Mr. Horner's question. Some of the wives-by no means all--but some of the wives of prisoners of war held by North Vietnam are critical of you and your policies concerning their husbands, saying specifically, among other things, that you should set a date for withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Vietnam contingent upon release of all the prisoners; that, if North Vietnam doesn't respond, then you lose nothing by that.,The question is, first, generally, would you respond to that criticism, and then specifically, what is ,there to lose by setting a date contingent upon release of all prisoners?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Rather, I discussed this matter with Ambassador Bruce when he was here. And I asked him what success he had had in raising this question with the North Vietnamese, because, as you note, they have even put out stories to the effect that if we would set a date certain, way in the future, they would be willing to move on the prisoner issue. It always comes back to the same thing. If we end our involvement in Vietnam and set a date, they will agree to discuss prisoners, not release them.,Now, we have been around this track before. I should point out that when President Johnson agreed to the bombing halt in October of 1968, he did so with the understanding that there was going to be progress in the negotiations, that there was going to be discussions, and for 2½ years we have had discussions in Paris and no progress.,Now, as far as we are concerned, we at this time are not going to make any kind of agreement with regard to prisoners that is not going to be followed by action or concurrent with action; from the standpoint of the North Vietnamese, we have yet no indication whatever that they would be willing to release prisoners in the event that we took certain steps.,POLICE ACTION DURING DEMONSTRATIONS,[10.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News],Q. Mr. President, it has been about a month now since the Mayday demonstrations, and in that period, several people have raised the question as to whether the police handled it properly. And also the charges against, I think, more than 2,000 people arrested on that Monday have been dropped.,I wonder with that perspective now of a month, whether you think the police handled it properly; and the broader constitutional question involved of protecting individual rights in a difficult situation of control.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Kaplow, yes, I believe the police in Washington did handle the question properly with the right combination of firmness and restraint in a very difficult situation.,Let us separate the question into what we are really dealing with.,First, there are demonstrators. The right to demonstrate is recognized and protected and, incidentally, has been recognized and protected by the Washington police. Thousands of demonstrators have come down here peacefully and have not been, of course, bothered. They have been protected in that right.,But when people come in and slice tires, when they block traffic, when they make a trash bin out of Georgetown and other areas of the city, and when they terrorize innocent bystanders, they are not demonstrators, they are vandals and hoodlums and lawbreakers, and they should be treated as lawbreakers.,Now, as far as the police were concerned, they gave those who were in this particular area, and who were engaging in these activities, approximately 15,000 in all, an opportunity to disperse. They did not. They said they were there to stop the Government from operating.,I have pledged to keep this Government going. I approve the action of the police in what they did. I supported it after they did it. And in the event that others come in not to demonstrate for peace, but to break the peace, the police will be supported by the President and by the Attorney General in stopping that kind of activity.,This Government is going to go forward, and that kind of activity which is not demonstration, but vandalism, lawbreaking, is not going to be tolerated in this Capital.,POSSIBILITY OF VISIT TO SOUTHEAST ASIA,[11.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Mr. President, there has been persistent speculation that you might also visit Southeast Asia this year. If you can tell us anything about that, it would be welcome, but specifically, are you ruling out a visit to South Vietnam in advance of the presidential elections there this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis, I have no plans to visit South Vietnam before the presidential elections. As far as any other travel to Southeast Asia is concerned, I have no present plans. Naturally, I will give all of you advance notice because I know you have to have shots before you go to Southeast Asia.,CIVIL RIGHTS,[12.] Mr. Morgan [Edward P. Morgan, ABC News],Q. Mr. President, last week in Birmingham you praised Southern progress in civil rights. And you held in contempt those northerners who you said used a double standard on civil rights. However, the Civil Rights Commission has in effect accused your Administration of the same thing. In its May 10th report for instance, it says that the Department of HUD appears to be withdrawing from the battle for fair and desegregated housing.\nDo you have a response to that report?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Morgan, I have read the report of the Civil Rights Commission, and I respectfully disagree with it in two areas: One, where they say that this Nation, the American people do not have a commitment to the cause of civil rights. I believe that is an unfair charge. I do not question the sincerity of the members of the Commission. I do not think they should question the sincerity of the great majority of the American people on this issue, particularly in view of the great progress that has been made.,With regard to the housing question, I should point out that the Supreme Court has spoken out on that issue in two recent cases, the Lackawanna case and the California case.3 As a result of those two cases, it is now possible for us to issue a comprehensive statement on housing which will be in compliance with the Supreme Court cases.,3Kennedy Park Homes Association v. City of Lackawanna, N.Y. (401 U.S. 1010) and James v. Valtierra (402 U.S. 137).,The Attorney General and the Secretary of HUD are completing their memoranda. They will be submitted to me later this week. The statement will be issued the first of next week. It will set forth this Administration's position on the housing question, which will be in complete compliance with the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON POLICE ACTION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, regarding the mass arrests, I wonder--you seem to have thought that closing down the Government keeping it running, in other words, was so important that some methods such as suspending constitutional rights was justified.,Was it that important? Do you think it was?,THE PRESIDENT. I think when you talk about suspending constitutional rights that this is really an exaggeration of what was done. What we were talking about here basically was a situation where masses of individuals did attempt to block traffic, did attempt to stop the Government. They said in advance that is what they were going to do. They tried it, and they had to be stopped. They were stopped without injuries of any significance. They were stopped, I think, with a minimum amount of force and with a great deal of patience.,And I must say that I think the police showed a great deal more concern for their rights than they showed for the rights of the people of Washington.,Q. Mr. President, as pretty much expected, if I may follow up, if that is true, then why are the courts releasing so many of the cases and so many of the people that have been arrested? If they were lawfully and properly arrested, why are the courts letting them out?,THE PRESIDENT. Because, of course, Mr. terHorst [J. F. terHorst, Detroit News, North American Newspaper Alliance], as you know, that arrest does not mean that an individual is guilty. The whole constitutional system is one that provides that after arrest an individual has an opportunity for a trial. And in the event that the evidence is not presented which will convict him, he is released. I think that proves the very point that we have made.,Q. Mr. President, but they are not being released on the grounds that guilt hasn't been proved. They are being released on the grounds that they weren't properly arrested.,THE PRESIDENT. It seems to me that when we look at this whole situation that we have to look at it in terms of what the police were confronted with when those who contended they were demonstrators, but actually were lawbreakers, came into Washington.,They were confronted with what could have been a very difficult crisis. They dealt with it. They dealt with it, it seems to me, with very great restraint and with necessary firmness.,I approve of what they did, and in the event that we have similar situations in the future, I hope that we can handle those situations as well as this was handled. And I hope they can be handled that well in other cities so that we do not have to resort to violence.,SUPPLY OF GOODS IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I wonder what you are going to do about the oversupply of goods in Vietnam. I understand we have enough telephone poles over there for 125 years and acres of trucks and other communications equipment.,Will that be brought back, and where will it be put?,THE PRESIDENT. At the present time, my main concern is to bring back the men from Vietnam. After that we will think about the goods.,CHINA POLICY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, since April you have been considering policy studies on the China question, easing trade with China, and representation at the United Nations. Can you say where these stand now, please?,THE PRESIDENT. With regard to the United Nations question, a significant change has taken place among the members of the United Nations on the issue of admission of Mainland China. We are now analyzing that situation in consultations with the Republic of China on Taiwan and with third countries.,After we have completed our analysis, which I would imagine would take approximately 6 weeks, we will then decide what position we, the Government of the United States, should take at the next session of the United Nations this fall, and we will have an announcement to make at that time with regard to that particular problem.,A number of various options are open to us.\nWith regard to trade, the various agencies have now completed their review of the situation and have submitted their recommendations to me. And on June 10, I will make an announcement releasing a wide variety of items which previously had been banned. These are all nonstrategic items in which trade can be conducted with Mainland China.,Let me put all of this in context by saying that there are only two areas where we have moved. They are significant, however, in themselves. In the area of opening the door to travel and opening the door to more trade, we have made significant movement. I think what, however, we should realize is that we still have a long way to go.,As I recall, there is a Chinese proverb to the effect that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We have taken two steps, but the important thing is that we have started the journey toward a more normal relationship with Mainland China; and eventually--and this is vitally important--ending its isolation and the isolation of 700 million people from the rest of the people of the world. This we think is a goal well worth pursuing.,DRAFTEES AND VIETNAM,[16.] Q. Mr. President, when do you plan to stop sending draftees to Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. The question of whether we could stop sending draftees has been considered, and I find that we are unable to do so at this point. I think, however, the question is going to be a moot one in due time, since as you know, as we stand here at this time, over half of those who were in Vietnam when I came into office have now come home.,By December 1, two-thirds of those who were there when I came into office will have come home. November 15 I will make another announcement with regard to a further withdrawal.,Under those circumstances, it would seem that the number of draftees that will be called into service for Vietnam would be very, very small if not minimal.,PUBLIC OPINION AND THE WAR,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the fact that you are continually reducing the number of troops in Vietnam, bringing more American troops home all the time, how do you account for the fact that two major public opinion polls now show that about two-thirds of the American public don't believe they are being told the truth about what is happening in the war?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not surprised by the polls. I think of the people--and the war has been going on a long time--they are tired of the war. We are an impatient people. We like to get results.,On the other hand, if all the problems that I have in this Government could be as easily solved as this one, I would be very happy. Because the answer to whether or not the American people believe that I am ending the American involvement in war is in the fact we have already brought home half. We will have brought home two-thirds, and we are going to bring all home, and bring them home--and this is what is vitally important-in a way that will not be inconsistent with two other objectives: in a way that will secure the release of our prisoners of war; and, also, in a way that will give the South Vietnamese a chance to avoid a Communist takeover, and thereby contribute to a more lasting peace.,That fact, the very fact that we accomplish that goal, will end the credibility gap on that issue once and for all.,INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION,[18.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a question on another subject? As you know, there is a considerable uncertainty about the position of the American Government with respect to its affiliation with the International Labor Organization, the ILO. Now, to remove this uncertainty, could you tell us whether the United States seriously intends to continue its membership in the ILO; and second, if it does, will the Administration leadership apply its energies on Capitol Hill to get the appropriations necessary to pay our dues to the ILO?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Meany talked to me about the ILO, and as you may know, he has very strong feelings and reservations about our membership in the ILO. However, we have decided to continue our membership. We will attempt to get the dues in arrears paid by the Congress. We will have to have considerable support in order to accomplish that.,But also, we are going to see to it that American labor, and free labor throughout the world, gets a better voice in the ILO than it has had previously.,The reason that Mr. Meany, a top free world trade union leader, opposes the ILO is because free trade unions have received a very bad deal in ILO meetings, and we are going to have to have better treatment in that way or American support for the ILO is going to go right down the drain.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-05-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,I thought this morning that it would be well to give those who particularly are members of the White House press corps, and others, of course, who are here, who have joined us in California, an opportunity to follow up on the press conference we had Thursday.,After that conference I noted that there were only one or two questions out of all the questions that were asked, of the 18 or 19, that were in the field of domestic policy. So consequently, so that you can have a chance to follow up in the domestic field, we will limit this conference to domestic policy questions, any area that you would like to explore in that particular case.,I note that you are all standing. I understand that for the purposes of this conference, that to get recognition if you will simply hold your hand up, or speak up, either one, and I will recognize you.,QUESTIONS,THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,[1.] I think Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press] has the first question.,Q. Mr. President, on the basis of the first quarter GNP figures which were up sharply, Director Shultz saw the basis for a broad expansion; some others in your Administration said, \"Well, it is too early.\" \"One swallow doesn't make a spring,\" and what have you.\nWhat is your view on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Cormier, I think it is well to put all of these economic indicators into some perspective. I don't do it as an expert in economics, but I have heard a lot of experts and this is the way I would evaluate it at this time: First, it is true that the first quarter figures are up. I think we can say that at this time we are in the midst of a strong economic upturn. Housing starts are up; retail sales are up; productivity is up; and, just as important, inflation is down.,Now, having said that, however, as we look to the future, I think it is well to bear in mind that every month is not going to reflect the same trends. We will have zigs and zags in a free economy. That is the only thing certain about a free economy, that it does not move on a certain path. All that I am sure of is what I stated at a press conference perhaps 2 or 3 months ago when I said that I believed that this would be a good year economically, 1971, and 1972 would be a very good year.,We have projected high goals for the economy, and we are adopting policies for the purpose of achieving those goals. We have two dangers, I should point out. One, inflation. While inflation was down, the rate of inflation, it is still a danger, and we must fight it on particularly two fronts: the wage-price front, where we must have decisions made that are responsible and do not create inflationary pressures, and second, on the governmental front, where it is very important that we not exceed the full employment revenues. And that will make it necessary for me on occasion, perhaps, to veto those irresponsible spending proposals by the Congress where they go beyond the full employment revenues which are, as you know, a very, very high number, and which provide for an expansionary budget.,The other area in which we still have problems ahead is unemployment. Unemployment always hangs high in any kind of recovery or upturn. It is the last number--unemployment is the last number in a downturn to be reflected in going up, and it is the last number in an upturn to be reflected in going down.,We, however, believe that the long-term effect of our policies will be to bring unemployment down. I would particularly refer, while we are in California, to the fact that unemployment is at this time highly regional in its impact. California is considerably above the national average; so is the State of Washington. One of the major reasons for that is that California and the State of Washington, and Oregon to an extent also, the whole west coast, has been highly dependent upon defense contracts and also on aerospace industry.,Since we have approximately now 2 million men, since this Administration has come into office, who have been let out of the armed services and also have left defense jobs, this has had its greatest impact in California. That is why decisions that I will make in the future, and decisions of this Administration insofar as future government contracts, as they deal with our turn from a wartime to a peacetime economy, California and the Pacific Northwest will get special consideration.,That is the way, of course, that the law is properly adjusted. It doesn't mean that we regionally are favoring one part of the country over another, but this part of the country has suffered the most from the turn from a wartime to a peacetime economy, and now it is necessary, as we move in certain areas, to look at California and the Pacific Northwest, as well as other pockets where they have suffered primarily from the change in defense spending.,ANTIWAR DEMONSTRATORS,[2.] Mr. Risher [Eugene V. Risher, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, you said that you will not be intimidated by the antiwar demonstrators in Washington, but can you tell us if you consider that these demonstrators serve a useful purpose or a legitimate purpose, or whether you will meet with any of them when you return to Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to meet with any of them, Mr. Risher. I am quite aware of their position. They have, along with many others--some of those who represent their views in the Senate-have strongly expressed their position to me. I respect their views. I respect their right to disagree with my position.,But I believe my position is right, and I think in the long run they are going to reach that conclusion, too, because they don't want just what is so easy for a man in terms of leadership, that quick political movement that would say \"Peace now\" without regard to peace in the future. And it is peace--not just in our time, but peace in their time, these young people-that I am constantly emphasizing.,Now, with regard to the demonstrators, when I say that I will not be intimidated, and that the Congress will not be intimidated, I am simply stating the American principle that while everybody has a right to protest peacefully, that policy in this country is not made by protests. Those who make policy must, of course, listen, and then they must weigh all the other facts and then do what they think is right.,And also, when I say that we will not be intimidated, I should point out that while the demonstrations a week ago were peaceful demonstrations for the most part, this week we have had some incidents at several departments where it was necessary to arrest those who were breaking the law. If this kind of illegal conduct continues next week, as some say it will, we are prepared to deal with it. We will arrest those who break the law.,The right peacefully to demonstrate, or let me put it another way, the right to demonstrate for peace abroad, does not carry with it the right to break the peace at home. And we are going to see to it that anybody who comes to Washington to demonstrate peacefully is protected in that right, and that it is recognized.,But, on the other hand, we are going to see to it that the thousands of Government workers who have a right to go to work peacefully are not interfered with by those militants, those few militants, who in the name of demonstrating for peace abroad presume that they have the right to break the peace at home.1,1 A statement on the operation of the Government during the demonstrations was read by White House Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler during his regular news briefing at the White House on May 4, 1971, and is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, P. 725).,TAX DEPRECIATION AUTHORITY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Muskie of Maine has sent to the newspapers copies of a memorandum to the White House of last December by the Treasury Department which raises strong doubt that you have the authority to order some of the changes in tax depreciation which were announced when we were out here in January.,Senator Muskie says the memorandum by Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Nolan shows that the Administration was knowingly violating the law. As you know, this whole matter of this $3 billion tax depreciation change has become rather controversial. I wonder if you would tell us your thinking in ordering this change, and whether, specifically, you ever saw the Nolan memorandum or took any notice of it in your consideration.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, so, that we may understand that in all these conferences-and I have said this to other members of the White House press corps, but I want the members of the California press corps to know the position that I follow-I, of course, will never comment on any political comments that are made in a conference that I hold as President of the United States. So a release that a presidential candidate or a Senator sends to the paper, I will not comment on that.,But I will comment on your question, which goes to, as I understand, the whole proposition of the order that I did issue with regard to the depreciation. The answer is that within the Government and among lawyers there is and was a difference of opinion as to what authority the President had to provide for depreciation allowances.,The Nolan memorandum and, as a matter of fact, memoranda from others were also brought to my attention, indicating what that authority was.,I, as President--and as I may say, too, formerly one who practiced a good deal of tax law--I consider that I had the responsibility then to decide what the law is. And my view is that while they had expressed a different view, that the correct legal view and the right view from the standpoint of the country was to order the depreciation allowances.,Now, the reason that we ordered it is this: The reason is that at this time it is vitally important to move this economy from a wartime to a peacetime basis. In order to move it from a wartime to a peacetime basis, we must provide incentives for business to write off faster on a depreciation basis those kinds of expenses that appropriately can be written off, and that means more jobs.,Now, any Senator or any critic who wants to oppose a program that is going to mean more jobs for Americans, peacetime jobs rather than wartime jobs, has a right to take that position.\nI don't agree with him.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[4.] Q. On the matter of jobs, House Speaker Carl Albert has urged that\nyou call a national conference on unemployment.\nAre you considering doing that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I believe that many of the critics of our economic policy should listen to their top economist, Mr. Paul Samuelson. You may recall Mr. Samuelson, who is a very fine economist and one who has been rather pessimistic about the economy up to this point, made a statement recently to the effect that he thought those who were criticizing the Administration on the economy might find that they might not have an issue next year.,Now, I am not making any predictions about what is going to happen each month, but I do believe that we are on the right track as far as the economy is concerned.,I do believe that what we are doing has now checked the rise in unemployment. There may be zigs and zags, up and down, but the long-range goal of the Administration is one that is achievable. I will also point out that this is an activist Administration, as my answer to Mr. Oberdorfer's [Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post] question a little while ago indicated. Where I think that action can be taken to stimulate the economy, we are going to take it. And if I find, as we look at the April figures and then the May figures and the June figures, that this economy is not moving as fast as it should move to deal with the unemployment problem, then we will act. We will act on the tax front and other fronts.,I do not see anything to be gained by calling a conference on the problem. We are quite aware of it, and I can only say that we are doing something and achieving something that was not achieved in the 8 years while we were not in Washington. And that is that we are achieving an economy that is strong, and we trust one in which we will have a strong economy and a prosperous economy, but without having it at the cost of war.,We want to remember we did not have low unemployment except at the cost of war in the 8 years between 1961 to 1969. It is that that this Administration is working on.,SUBPOENAS OF NEWSMEN'S NOTES AND FILMS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in the background of this question is the effort of a Congressional subcommittee to subpoena film which was made for, but never used in a news documentary.,THE PRESIDENT. By CBS.,Q. By CBS. Also NBC. Also in the background of the question, of course, are various pressures and counterpressures which some of us believe we see from your own Administration.,In December 1969, the Republican U.S. Senate Policy Committee issued the following statement as a matter of their policy. The question is whether you agree or disagree with this, and also I would like to get your comments on this general area of subpoenaing newsmen's notes and unused film. The Policy Committee statement was, \"Whether news is fair or unfair, objective or biased, accurate or careless, is left to the conscience of the commentators, producers and network officials themselves. Government does not and cannot play any role in its presentation.\",THE PRESIDENT. Let me address myself first to the quotation. I think the quotation states a principle that most Americans would support. However, I do not believe that that means that network commentators or newspaper reporters, as distinguished from editorial writers who, of course, have a right to every bias and should express such bias, are above criticism, and they shouldn't be sensitive about it.,Now, when you go, however, to the question of subpoenaing the notes of reporters, when you go to the question of government action which requires the revealing of sources, then I take a very jaundiced view of that kind of action unless it is strictly--and this would be a very narrow area--strictly in the area where there was a major crime that had been committed and where the subpoenaing of the notes had to do with information dealing directly with that crime. As you know, that is provided for in many States at the present time.,But as far as the subpoenaing of notes is concerned, of reporters, as far as bringing any pressure on the networks, as the Government is concerned, I do not support that.,I believe, however, that each of us, as a public figure, has a right to indicate when we think the news coverage has been fair or unfair. Generally speaking, I also feel that I do not have to say much about that because, regardless of what I say, you are going to say anything you want about me, and it usually may not be very good.,WIRETAPS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, regarding the use of wiretaps in domestic security matters--,THE PRESIDENT. The kind that you don't have with subpoenas, in other words?,Q. Right, without court orders. The Attorney General has stated the policy on that, and he has been criticized by Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York, who says that this could lead to a police state. Would you comment on the threat of a police state in the use of this type of activity?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have great respect for Congressman Celler as a lawyer and as, of course, the dean--as you know, he is the dean of all the Congressmen in the House, a very distinguished Congressman. However, in this respect I would only say: Where was he in 1961? Where was he in 1962? Where was he in 1963?,Today, right today, at this moment, there are one-half as many taps as there were in 1961, '62, and '63, and 10 times as many news stories about them. Now, there wasn't a police state in 1961 and '62 and '63, in my opinion, because even then there were less than 100 taps; and them are less than 50 today; and there is none now, at the present time.,All of this hysteria--and it is hysteria, and much of it, of course, is political demagoguery to the effect that \"the FBI is tapping my telephone,\" and the rest-simply doesn't serve the public purpose. In my view, the taps, which are always approved by the Attorney General, in a very limited area, dealing with those who would use violence or other means to overthrow the Government, and limited, as they are at the present time, to less than 50 at any one time, I think they are justified. And I think that the 200 million people in this country do not need to be concerned that the FBI, which has been-with all the criticism of it--which has a fine record of being nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and which is recognized throughout the world as probably the best police force in the world. The people of this country should be thankful that we have an FBI that is so greatly restricted in this respect.,This is not a police state. I have been to police states; I know what they are. I think that the best thing that could happen to some of the Congressmen and Senators and others who talk about police states is to take a trip--I mean a trip abroad, of course [laughter]--and when they go abroad, try a few police states.,This isn't a police state and isn't going to become one.,I should also point this out: Where were some of the critics in 1968 when there was Army surveillance of the Democratic National Committee--at the convention, I mean? We have stopped that.,This Administration is against any kind of repression, any kind of action that infringes on the right of privacy. However, we are for, and I will always be for, that kind of action that is necessary to protect this country from those who would imperil the peace that all people are entitled to enjoy.,CONSIDERATION OF A TAX CUT,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Director Shultz of the Office of Management and Budget said a couple of weeks ago that the performance of the economy in the first quarter did not come up to your high goals.,If the performance continues in this way for the next few months, are you considering a cut in taxes, or some other action?,THE PRESIDENT. First, with regard to the goals that we set, while the performance in the first quarter did not reach that goal, it was, nevertheless, a very strong first quarter, and I am not going to venture a guess as to what the second quarter will be.,I will say this: that this Administration is prepared to act in the event that we feel that the economy is not moving as well as it should. But at the present time, particularly based on the March figures--because when you break out the first quarter, when you break March out from February and January--you find that it was a very strong March.,If the economy continues at its present level, at its present rate, the rate that we had in March and as it seems to be moving in April, or has moved in April--we won't get the figures for April for about another week--then I see no need for the kind of action you suggest. If on the other hand, the economy does not move strongly, we will act.,LOAN GUARANTEES FOR LOCKHEED,[8.] Q. Mr. President, getting to the question of the depressed defense industry in California, are you prepared to go to Congress and ask for loan guarantees for Lockheed, for the Tri-Star airbus?,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen, incidentally, some speculation after my meeting with former Prime Minister Wilson, on that point. I was delighted to learn in my conversation with Mr. Wilson that he had had dinner with Senator Humphrey the night before, and that Senator Humphrey, who had opposed the SST, had indicated that he now would support the Administration in the event that we did go to the Congress for the necessary guarantee for Lockheed.,We are going to make the decision on that either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Secretary Connally is in charge, and he will make his recommendations to me. I will only say this: that Lockheed is one of the Nation's great companies. It provides an enormous employment lift to this part of the country, and I am going to be heavily influenced by the need to see to it that southern California--after taking the disappointment of not getting the SST, which would, of course, have brought many, many jobs to this part of the country--that California does not have the additional jolt of losing Lockheed. That gives you an indication of where I am leaning.,On the other hand, if the Secretary of the Treasury comes in and gives me strong arguments to the contrary, I will look in the other direction.,STEEL NEGOTIATIONS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I assume you think that the upcoming negotiations in steel could have a significant impact on the economy. What, if anything, are you doing to see, first, whether a strike can be averted, and secondly, whether a settlement can be reached that you would consider to be noninflationary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], to indicate that the Government is going to move in now to impose a steel settlement would mean there would be no negotiation; the parties would just quit negotiating. At this time, the companies, the steel companies, and the unions are negotiating. The Government stands ready to be of assistance at any time in the negotiating process in order to avoid a strike, if that can be done.,I will only say this with regard to the stakes involved in this settlement: Let's look at the U.S. steel industry. Twenty years ago, when I first was a Senator from California, the United States produced 50 percent of all steel in the world. Today we produce 20 percent. Last year, for example, steel's profits were 2 1/2 percent; that is the lowest of any major industry, looking at it from a competitive standpoint.,Japan 20 years ago produced 5 million tons of steel, last year produced 100 million tons of steel, and by 1974 will produce more steel than the United States of America.,What does this all mean to us? It means that this settlement, a wage-price settlement, must reflect the competitive realities in the world, or we are going to find U.S. steel--and I am speaking of all the companies-we are going to find that the United States steel industry which has been the backbone of our economy, and is the backbone of any strong industrial economy, is going to be noncompetitive in the world.,This gives an indication of how we feel about it. But right at this time we must wait to see what industry and labor will eventually agree upon.,MARIHUANA LAWS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, many of us are rather concerned that a large percentage of our young people are breaking the law constantly by smoking marihuana. As you know, your own White House Conference on Youth voted to legalize marihuana. I know you have thought about this problem, and I wonder if you would give us some of your thoughts on it.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Pierpoint [Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News], as you know, there is a commission 2 that is supposed to make recommendations to me about this subject. In this instance, however, I have such strong views that I will express them. I am against legalizing marihuana. Even if the Commission does recommend that it be legalized, I will not follow that recommendation.,2 Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. A White House announcement of the Commission's membership was released on January 30, 1971, and is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, p. 150).,Now, with regard to the penalties on marihuana, that is a matter which I do think is open to a national recommendation with regard to more uniform standards. In some States they are extremely strict, and in other States they are quite lax. I believe that a penalty in some instance can have a detrimental effect in achieving our goal. But I do not believe that legalizing marihuana is in the best interests of our young people, and I do not think it is in the best interests of this country.,LOCKHEED MANAGEMENT,[11.] Q. Mr. President, let me follow up on this possible action for Lockheed. It seems a lot of its problems are from mismanagement in the military sector, and now these management problems in the commercial 1011 sector.,Mr. Packard,3 at the Pentagon, has indicated they could continue operating these defense programs even if they were in bankruptcy.,3David Packard, Deputy Secretary of Defense.,Where are you going to draw the line about helping these multibillion dollar corporations that end up in shaky financial condition because of mismanagement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is rather easy to belabor a company as big as Lockheed--as you know, it is the biggest airframe producer in the world--belabor it for its mismanagement.,There has been a lot of mismanagement in military contracts, as you know. In my view, however, looking at this precise case, the airbus problem did not come as a result of Lockheed's mismanagement. It was because of the failure of Rolls Royce in Britain.,Under those circumstances, it seems to me that this particular contract is one that should be looked at separately. And I will certainly--when I make this decision next Wednesday, Tuesday or Wednesday, whatever day we finally get together on it--I will have in mind all these considerations.,But we are not going to damn the whole company for some areas of mismanagement, for some mistakes. We need a strong airframe producer like Lockheed in southern California, and if we can save the company and, frankly, help it toward better management, we will do so.,THE CALLEY CASE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, to go to the Calley case for a minute, you said Thursday night that you felt that the military system of justice in this country was a fair system. But don't you admit the possibility that your repeated expressions of sympathy for Lieutenant Galley, and your decision to review the case, will inevitably have the consequence of influencing the judges, the military judges, who are going to be reviewing this case up the line? And don't you admit that there is a possibility, at least, that this would actually thwart the system of military justice?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I should point out that what is important is that I am the final reviewing officer. As far as I am concerned, I am going to review the case. I am going to review it fairly, having in mind what the trial court has found, and also what the other reviewing authorities say.,I am not trying to influence the reviewing authorities. I am simply indicating, as they all know, and the law so provides, that as Commander in Chief, I will exercise my right to review.,CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, many black Americans seem to think that your Administration is anti-equal-rights. My question is, what are you doing to counter that impression, and what do you consider to be your most important actions in advancing the cause of civil rights?,THE PRESIDENT. When we consider the many things that we have done in this area, we could refer, for example, to the food stamp program, which, of course, benefits, as you know, many disadvantaged Americans and many black Americans. For example, the increment that we have asked for this year is twice as much as the program, the whole program, was when we came into office.,In other words, we are dealing with the problem of hunger in America which affects black Americans and many other disadvantaged Americans.,Second, we are making very great strides, significant strides, in the field of minority enterprise. They have not been well advertised, but they are known among those who have businesses, who didn't have them before and didn't have that chance.,Third, we are providing opportunities in government that have not been provided before.\nFourth, and this is an area that I think needs to be emphasized, let's look at the matter of the dual school system.,When we consider today that even before the Supreme Court decision that was handed down last week, 38 percent of all black children in the South now go to majority white schools as compared to 98 percent of all black children in the North going to majority white schools, we can see that a very quiet but significant revolution has taken place in this country; and it is to the great credit of the far-seeing, law-abiding black and white leaders of the South that this has taken place.,They now have another difficult problem, complying with the Supreme Court decision, and I believe compliance will take place because we are going to follow our same tactic of cooperation rather than coercion.,As far as the entire problem is concerned, I have met with black leaders, with the black Congressmen, and with various representatives of the black community, and will continue to do so, and with representatives of other parts of our society, because we have got to move forward not only with black Americans; we have very significant problems--we in California know it--in the Mexican-American community.,I found, for example, looking at some statistics recently, that with regard to poverty, for example, that the problem of Mexican-Americans in the Los Angeles area is even worse than that of black Americans. So we have got to zero in on that problem as well.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-04-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Would you be seated, please.,QUESTIONS,EFFECT OF DISSENT ON INDOCHINA POLICY,[1.] I think Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International] has the first question tonight.,Q. Mr. President, have the antiwar demonstrations or the growing Congressional demand for a withdrawal deadline from Vietnam or Madame Binh's1 latest statements in Paris influenced in any way your Indochina policy?,1Nguyen Thi Binh, head of the National Liberation Front delegation to the Paris peace talks on Vietnam.,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, I stated the Indochina policy at considerable length on April 7, as you will recall, and I have considered all of the demonstrations. I have considered also the arguments that have been made by others after that statement, and I believe that the position that I took then is the correct one.,I would not want to leave the impression that those who came to demonstrate were not listened to. It is rather hard not to hear them, as a matter of fact. I would say, however, that demonstrators have come to Washington previously about the war. They came now. I was glad to note that in this case most of the demonstrators were peaceful. They indicated they wanted the war to end now, that they wanted peace. That, of course, is what I want. It is what everybody in this room wants. It is what everybody in this Nation wants.,I realize, as a matter of fact, that in this room there are many reporters who disagree with my policy to bring the war to an end in the way that I believe it should be ended, and who probably agree with the views of the demonstrators. I respect you and them and others who disagree with my policies. But as I looked at those demonstrators on television--and I saw so many who were teenagers--this is the thought that passed through my mind: My responsibility is to bring peace, but not just peace in our time, but peace in their time. I want peace not just for us, but peace for our children, their children.,I am convinced that if we were to do what they were advocating, a precipitate withdrawal before the South Vietnamese had a chance to prevent a Communist takeover, that that would lead to a very dangerous situation in the Pacific and would increase the dangers of war in the future.,On the other hand, I believe that if we continue on the path that I have set forth, one in which we are withdrawing our forces, in which we will be down to 184,000 by December 1--and I will make another announcement on October [November] 15--I believe that on that path we will end the war, we will bring a peace in Vietnam which will contribute to peace not just in our time but in their time.,I think they will judge me very harshly for the position that I take now. But I think what is important is how they judge the consequences of the decisions that I make now, which I think are in their best interests and in the best interests of our children.,CHINA POLICY,[2.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,Q. Mr. President, the commission on the United Nations that you appointed, headed by your 1960 vice presidential running mate,2 has come out rather strongly for a two-China policy. The last time we saw you, you weren't prepared to talk about that. I wonder if tonight you could say how you feel about those proposals?,2 The President's Commission for the Observance of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, chaired by Henry Cabot Lodge.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Cormier, that recommendation by that very distinguished committee, of course, is being given consideration in the high councils of this Government, and I am, of course, considering it along with recommendations which move in the other direction.,I think, however, that your question requires that I put, perhaps, in perspective much of this discussion about our new China policy. I think that some of the speculation that has occurred in recent weeks since the visit of the table tennis team to Peking has not been useful.,I want to set forth exactly what it is and what it is not.,First, as I stated at, I think, one of my first press conferences in this room, the long-range goal of this Administration is a normalization of our relationships with Mainland China, the People's Republic of China, and the ending of its isolation from the other nations of the world. That is a long-range goal.,Second, we have made some progress toward that goal. We have moved in the field of travel; we have moved in the field of trade. There will be more progress made. For example, at the present time I am circulating among the departments the items which may be released as possible trade items in the future, and I will be making an announcement on that in a very few weeks.,But now when we move from the field of travel and trade to the field of recognition of the Government, to its admission to the United Nations, I am not going to discuss those matters, because it is premature to speculate about that.,We are considering all those problems. When I have an announcement to make, when a decision is made--and I have not made it yet--I will make it.,But up until that time we will consider all of the proposals that are being made. We will proceed on the path that we have been proceeding on. And that is the way to make progress. Progress is not helped in this very sensitive area by speculation that goes beyond what the progress might achieve.,I would just summarize it this way: What we have done has broken the ice; now we have to test the water to see how deep it is.,I would finally suggest that--I know this question may come up if I don't answer it now--I hope, and, as a matter of fact, I expect to visit Mainland China sometime in some capacity--I don't know what capacity. But that indicates what I hope for the long term. And I hope to contribute to a policy in which we can have a new relationship with Mainland China.,THE VICE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON POLICY,[3.] Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, following up on that, your Vice President recently held an off-the-record, midnight session with selected newsmen in which he reportedly differed with your policy on China.,Now, you have said in the past that there are always those who are trying to drive a wedge between the President and the Vice President. So do you think in this. case he qualifies as a wedge driver?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very hard for the Vice President to be off the record. And as far as this particular conference was concerned, the Vice President, in his usual very candid way, expressed some. views with regard to our policy that he had expressed previously in meetings that we had in which he participates, the National Security Council and other forums.,However, now that the decision has. been made with regard to what our policy is, the Vice President supports that decision. He has so stated since he was quoted on his off-the-record conference, and I think you will find the Vice President in all areas where he may disagree--as he should disagree when he has strong convictions-with policies, once a decision is. made will publicly support those policies.\nI expect him to and he always has.,RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VIETNAM WAR,[4.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I wonder,. since you have always said that you inherited this war, I wonder what you would think about naming a court of' inquiry to look in to see just exactly who got us into this war.,THE PRESIDENT. When I say I inherited this war, I want to point out that I am actually quoting what others say. I am not going to cast the blame for the war in Vietnam on either of my predecessors.,The first 16,000 combat men, we know, went there in 1963.3 The murder of Diem, the opening of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, as a result of the settlement of Laos that occurred in 1962. President Johnson was President when more men went in later. But both President Johnson and President Kennedy, I am sure, were making decisions that they thought were necessary for the security of the United States.,3 In 1963 there were some 16,000 American advisers and helicopter support units in. Vietnam.,All that I am saying now is this: We are in this war, and the way the United States ends this war is going to determine to a great extent whether we are going to avoid this kind of involvement in the future.,If we end it in a way that encourages those who engage in aggression to try it again, we will have more wars like this. But, if we end it in a way that I have laid out, one that will end it in a way that the South Vietnamese will have a chance to defend themselves and to choose the kind of government they want in a free election, then we will have a chance to have peace in their time that I referred to a moment ago.,PRISONERS OF WAR AND TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the United States position has been that North Vietnam has not genuinely offered the release of American prisoners, but rather only to discuss the release of American prisoners.,My question is: Does your rejection of setting a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops include the possibility that North Vietnam might in the future offer the actual release of American prisoners rather than simply the discussion of that question?,THE PRESIDENT. You very well have put the problem that we always are confronted with. You may recall very well that when President Johnson ordered the bombing halt it was with the assumption that the North Vietnamese would negotiate seriously on ending the war.,They didn't do it. So a promise to discuss means nothing from the North Vietnamese. What we need is far more than that. We need action on their part and a commitment on their part with regard to the prisoners.,Consequently, as far as any action on our part of ending American involvement completely--and that means a total withdrawal concerned, that will have to be delayed until we get not just the promise to discuss the release of our prisoners but a commitment to release our prisoners, because a discussion promise means nothing where the North Vietnamese are concerned.,Q. Your rejection is not a categorical rejection of setting a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops?,THE PRESIDENT. We have set forth, both in my speech of October 7 and then on April 7, a complete American proposal for negotiation. I am not going in a press conference to depart from those proposals.,Those proposals include a cease-fire; they include an exchange of prisoners; they included, as you know, a mutual withdrawal of forces and an Indochina peace conference.,Today in Paris, as you may note, we, along with the South Vietnamese, offered to repatriate--as a matter of fact, we are going unilaterally to repatriate, without regard to what the North Vietnamese do, 540 [570] North Vietnamese sick and wounded.,And, in addition to that, we offered to send to a neutral country 1,600 [1,200] North Vietnamese prisoners who have been prisoners for 4 years or longer. We trust that the North Vietnamese will respond.,We also offered, as you know, to have inspection of our camps, not just by the International Red Cross but by a third country or any other international organization.,Ambassador Bruce puts the prisoner question by my direct orders at the highest priority. He is directed to discuss it separately, to discuss it with other issues, or discuss it as part of an overall settlement. We are ready to settle it whenever they are ready to talk about it. And I will say finally, that under no circumstances will our withdrawal programs abandon our POW's. We will be there as long as they have any prisoners in North Vietnam.,THE CALLEY CASE,[6.] Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News].,Q. Mr. President, you have said that you intervened in the Calley case in the national interest. I wonder if you could define for us in greater detail how you feel the court-martial verdict endangered the national interest and how you feel it was served by your intervention in the case?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Jarriel, to comment upon the Calley case, on its merits, at a time when it is up for appeal would not be a proper thing for me to do, because, as you also know, I have indicated that I would review the case at an appropriate time in my capacity as the final reviewing officer.,In my view, my intervention in the Calley case was proper for two reasons: One, because I felt that Captain [Lieutenant] Calley should not be sent to Leavenworth Prison while waiting for the months and maybe a year or so that appeal would take. I thought that he should be confined to quarters. I think that was proper to do in view of the fact that under civil cases where we have criminal cases, we grant the right of bail to people that are charged with crimes.,Second, I felt that it was proper for me to indicate that I would review the case, because there was great concern expressed throughout the country as to whether or not this was a case involving, as it did, so many complex factors, in which Captain [Lieutenant] Calley was going to get a fair trial.,I believe that the system of military justice is a fair system. But as part of that system is the right of the President to review, I am exercising that right. And I think that reassured the country and that is one of the reasons that the country has cooled down on this case. I will review it.,COURT DECISION ON BUSING,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you have often said that in the area of civil rights that the law should be applied equally in the North and in the South. Ten days ago the Supreme Court approved the mandatory use of busing to overcome racial segregation. Do you endorse that decision, and do you believe that busing should be used as a technique to overcome racial segregation based on housing patterns in the North?,THE PRESIDENT. This problem involves some very technical legal distinctions. I will not go into them in detail.,I will, however, say this: I expressed views with regard to my opposition to busing for the purpose of achieving racial balance and in support of the neighborhood school in my statement of March of last year. I stated those views at that time with the preface that this was an area that the Supreme Court had not yet spoken on and that it was my responsibility, therefore, to speak on it and to give guidance to our executive agencies.,Now that the Supreme Court has spoken on that issue, whatever I have said that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision is now moot and irrelevant, because everybody in this country, including the President of the United States, is under the law; or, putting it another way, nobody, including the President of the United States, is above the law as it is finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.,Now, what is the law in this instance? The law is that where we have segregation in schools as a result of governmental action--in other words, de jure--that then busing can be used under certain circumstances to deal with that problem. And so we will comply with that situation, and we will work with the Southern school districts, not in a spirit of coercion, but one of cooperation as we have during the past year in which so much progress has been made in getting rid of that kind of a system that we have had previously.,Second, however, the Court explicitly by dictums did not deal with the problem of de facto segregation as it exists in the North and perhaps as it may eventually exist in the South. That matter the Court still has not decided on explicitly. It will probably have that opportunity, because I noted a California case a couple of days ago from San Francisco which said that busing would be required to deal with segregation which was a result, not of what a governmental body did, but as a result of housing patterns coming from individual decisions.,Now, until the Court does move in that field, I still will hold to my original positions of March: That I do not believe that busing to achieve racial balance is in the interests of better education. Where it is de jure, we comply with the Court; where it is de facto, until the Court speaks, that still remains my view.,FURTHER INVOLVEMENT OF U.S. FORCES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in terms of scope, is it possible that U.S. forces might again be involved in Laotian- or Cambodian-type operations and, if so, under what conditions?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is quite obvious, and you put your finger on it with the assumption of your question that with the number of forces that we now have in Vietnam, the possibility of any further actions like Cambodia of last year, or even actions like Laos in this year, is quite remote. When we get down to 184,000 by the end of the year, it will be completely remote, I would say.,At this time, we see no need for any further actions. I should point out as one indication of some effectiveness of previous actions, that the casualties which our television viewers heard on their television programs tonight, and they will see in their morning newspapers, were half of what they were this same week last year, a fourth of what they were this same week 2 years ago, and a seventh of what they were in this same week of 1968. So, progress is being made.,As a result of Laos, as a result of Cambodia, the war is winding down. The Americans are coming home and we will achieve our goal of a total withdrawal. But that goal will be achieved only when we also get our prisoners of war back, and when the South Vietnamese develop the capability to have a chance to defend themselves against a Communist takeover.,TROOP WITHDRAWAL DATE,[9.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Against that background, Mr. President, would you consider setting a troop withdrawal date so far in advance that it might be considered safe from our standpoint, such as the end of 1972?,THE PRESIDENT. I see no gain from our standpoint to set a troop withdrawal date by the end of 1972 or the end of 1973 or the middle of 1972, when we get nothing for it.,Once you set a date--in other words, when we say in effect to the enemy, \"We quit, regardless of what you do,\" then we destroy any incentive the enemy might have to negotiate. And there is still some incentive. It gets less as months go on, and as our presence becomes less. And we destroy, of course, also our bargaining position with regard to POW's.,Even more important, once we set a date we give the enemy the information that the enemy needs to launch attacks on our rapidly diminishing forces at their greatest point of vulnerability.,Therefore, the setting of a date is not something that is in our interest. It is only in the enemy's interest.,What I will do is simply to say what I have said previously--and I have kept my word throughout on this--we are withdrawing from Vietnam. Our goal is a total withdrawal. We do not plan to have a permanent residual force such as we have practically in Korea at the present time. But I am not going to set a date, because I believe that setting a date is not in our interests.,CONDITIONS FOR A RESIDUAL FORCE,[10.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, may I ask a follow question on the conditions for the residual force? You have stated that it will be there until we get our prisoners released. You have also stated that it will be there until the South Vietnamese have at least a reasonable chance to defend themselves. Are both of these conditions for the residual force, one of them or the other? Could you clarify that for us?,THE PRESIDENT. The residual force, I think, first, Mr. Lisagor, with regard to the POW's, will be indefinite. In other words, if the North Vietnamese are so barbaric that they continue to hold our POW's, regardless of what we do with regard to withdrawal, then we are going to keep a residual force no matter how long it takes.,Second, however, with regard to the ability of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves is concerned, we have a very good idea when that will occur. And as soon as that eventuality occurs, we will be able to move on that.,So, I think I am answering your question by saying, in effect, that the two are separable. One will occur before the other, unless the North Vietnamese do move on the POW's.,WAR POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the demonstrators last week focused on Capitol Hill, on Congress, rather than the White House. Congress is, or probably will be, considering either cutting off funds for fighting in Vietnam, or war powers of the President, limiting the war powers. If you were in the Senate now, how would you vote on those two things?,THE PRESIDENT. I guess it would depend on who was President. [Laughter] Seriously, I understand the concern of the Senate on this, and I have talked, for example, with Senator Mansfield, for whom I have enormous respect and who disagrees with me on our plans in Vietnam-not in all respects, but believes we should move more quickly. But I believe that limiting the President's war powers, whoever is President of the United States, would be a very great mistake.,We live in times when situations can change so fast internationally that to wait until the Senate acts before a President can act might be that we acted too late.,As far as the Senate is concerned, however, I would like also to correct another impression. I think some of the people on television may have gotten the impression, when they saw some of the demonstrations down at the Senate--and Barry Goldwater's door had red paint on it, I understand, and his office door was locked--that Washington is somewhat in a state of siege.,Well, let me just make one thing very clear: The Congress is not intimidated; the President is not intimidated. This Government is going to go forward.,It doesn't mean that we are not going to listen to those who come peacefully, but those who come and break the law will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.,In the meantime, however, I, as President, have my obligation to consider what they say and all of the other things that I know, and then to make the decision that I think will be in their best interests, as well as the best interests of other people in this country.,LT. JONATHAN ROSE,[12.] Q. Sir, according to published reports, Army Lieutenant Jonathan Rose, who is the son of a former high Eisenhower Administration official, and a Republican Party campaign contributor, is serving on duty here in the White House at your request and has served for 2 years, rather than being assigned to active duty. Now the Pentagon will not tell us why, but I wondered whether you could tell us, sir, what his expertise is that makes him so valuable to the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. First, he is a very competent lawyer, but we have other competent lawyers--excluding, of course, the President [laughter]--in the White House. But the other reason, I think, in fairness to Mr. Rose--and I am sorry that such a personal thing has to be brought up, but I know he would want the record clarified--he has a physical disability, an injury to his shoulder, which disqualifies him from active combat duty.,Consequently, it was felt that the best service he could perform in a civilian capacity was in the White House. That is why he is there. And I am very glad that a man with that kind of disability--there is nothing wrong with his brain--is available in the White House as one of our best young lawyers.,LIEUTENANT GALLEY,[13.] Q. If I may follow up on a question on Lieutenant Galley. I am not a lawyer, but I inferred from what you said that in this country men who are convicted of multiple murders get out on bail. Is that actually the case, and, if so, would you recommend that someone like Manson be out on bail as you seem to imply that Lieutenant Calley should be?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I am not going to go into the specific laws of each State, and they do vary, of course--and you, even not being a lawyer, would know that they vary according to every State. And some States are much more strict than others. Where capital crimes are concerned, there are many States that do not allow any bail at all if they feel that the individual is one who is a danger to society.,What I am simply saying is this: that the real test for granting a bail in any case is whether or not the individual concerned is considered by the judge to be one who will be a danger to society.,Now, Captain [Lieutenant] Calley, let me point out--he is not getting out on bail in the usual sense. He is confined to quarters on the base. He is, therefore, not free in the sense somebody getting out on bail is.,I am simply saying that I feel that a man who has a long process of appeal ahead of him, and who is going to be confined to quarters in any event, that this was the right thing to do under these circumstances.,CHINA NEGOTIATIONS AND THE SOVIET,UNION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the State Department has said that the legal question of the future of Taiwan and Formosa is an unsettled question. Would you favor direct negotiations between the Nationalist and the Communist governments to settle their dispute?,THE PRESIDENT. I noted speculation to the effect from various departments and various sources that the way for these two entities to settle their differences was to negotiate directly. I think that is a nice legalistic way to approach it, but I think it is completely unrealistic. I am only saying at this point that the United States is seeking to, in a very measured way, while maintaining our treaty commitments to Taiwan--we are seeking a more normal relationship with the People's Republic of China.,There is one other point I think it is very important to make.,There has been speculation to the effect that the purpose of our--or one purpose of our normalizing our relations or attempting to normalize our relations with Mainland China is to some way irritate the Soviet Union. Nothing could be further from the truth.,We are seeking good relations with the Soviet Union, and I am not discouraged by the SALT talk progress. I can only say that we believe that the interests of both countries would be served by an agreement there. We seek good relations with the Soviet Union; we are seeking good relations with Communist China. And the interests of world peace require good relations between the Soviet Union and Communist China. It would make no sense for the United States, in the interest of world peace, to try to get the two to get at each other's throats, because we would be embroiled in the controversy ourselves.,VISIT TO MAINLAND CHINA,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke of your intention to travel to Mainland China. Is that at the invitation of Chairman Mao?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not referring to any invitation. I am referring only to a hope and an expectation that at some time in my life and in some capacity, which, of course, does not put any deadline on when I would do it, that I would hope to go to Mainland China.,JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTION ON\nVETERAN'S ENCAMPMENT,[16.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, would you describe for us, sir, the extent of your participation in the Justice Department's change of mind last week about banning the Vietnam veterans from camping on the Mall?,THE PRESIDENT. First, the Justice Department, Mr. Horner, brought the action in order to establish the principle that camping on the Mall was not something that was considered to be legal.,Having established that principle, there was only 36 hours left in which to remove them and thereby, of course, to engage in a confrontation which could have been, we thought, rather nasty.,Under the circumstances, it seemed to me that since in the negotiations with their lawyer, Mr. Ramsey Clark, it had been clearly indicated that they would leave on Friday night, that the decision having been made and the principle having been established, I saw no reason to go in and to arrest the veterans and to put them into jail at that time.,CHINA POLICY ALTERNATIVES,[17.] Yes, Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star].,Q. Sir, in your first answer on China, you said that you were considering suggestions for a two-China policy, along with suggestions that move in the other direction. Could you expound a little bit on what you mean by that?\nWhat is the range of alternatives?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey, what I meant to convey was that both within the Administration and from sources outside the Administration, there are those who favor a two-China policy; there are those who favor universality in the United Nations; there are those who favor a one-China policy, either Mainland China or Taiwan China.,All of these are positions that are taken. I am not suggesting that they are lively options as far as I am concerned. What I am saying is that this is a very complex problem. I will make the decision after advising with the Secretary of State and my other chief advisers in this field, and when I make it, I will announce it. But I am not going to speculate on it now because I emphasize this is a very sensitive area, and too much speculation about it might destroy or seriously imperil what I think is the significant progress we have made, at least in the travel area, and possibly in the trade area, looking to the future.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-03-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Won't you be seated, please.,QUESTIONS,RATE OF U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[I.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,Q. Are any of the difficulties that the South Vietnamese Army have encountered in Laos in recent weeks going to cause you to slow down the rate of American troop withdrawals?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As a matter of fact what has already been accomplished in Laos at this time has insured even more the plan for withdrawal of American troops. I will make another announcement in April, as I have previously indicated. And the disruption of the supply lines of the enemy through Laos, which has now occurred for 3 weeks, has very seriously damaged the enemy's ability to wage effective action against our remaining forces in Vietnam and assures even more the success of our troop withdrawal program.,One other point that has been assured. I just had a report from General Abrams today with regard to the performance of the South Vietnamese. You ladies and gentlemen will recall that at the time of Cambodia I pointed out that the South Vietnamese Army had come of age. But then they were fighting side by side with American ground forces. Now in southern Laos and also in Cambodia, the South Vietnamese on the ground by themselves are taking on the very best units that the North Vietnamese can put in the field.,General Abrams tells me that in both Laos and in Cambodia his evaluation after 3 weeks of fighting is that--to use his terms--the South Vietnamese by themselves can hack it, and they can give a better account of themselves even than the North Vietnamese units. This means that our withdrawal program, our Vietnamization program is a success and can continue on schedule, and we trust even ahead of schedule, assuming that there is more progress in Laos.,POLICY CONCERNING ACTION IN NORTH VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, this is a question that you addressed yourself to, at your last news conference, but I would like to ask it again in view of the fact that President Thieu has publicly said several times--has publicly raised the possibility of South Vietnamese forces invading North Vietnam. Would the United States support such an invasion of North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Risher [Eugene V. Risher, United Press International], I think it is important to restate the answer that I gave at the last news conference, because you will recall that was in the office where only you ladies and gentlemen who regularly cover the White House were present, and the television audience did not hear the answer.,To restate it completely, let me break it down into its component parts. First, the question is: What will President Thieu in South Vietnam do? The second question is: What will the United States do? And third: What might we do together?,Now, on the first question, President Thieu has stated that he would consider the necessity of invading North Vietnam. Let's look at his position. There are no South Vietnamese in North Vietnam. There are 100,000 North Vietnamese in South Vietnam, and they have already killed over 200,000 South Vietnamese. Therefore, President Thieu has to take the position that unless the North Vietnamese leave South Vietnam alone, he has to consider the possibility of going against the North. That is his position, and I am not going to speculate on what position he might take in the future in order to defend himself, the right of self-defense, in view of the fact that he is being attacked, he is not attacking North Vietnam.,The second part of the question deals with what we will do. And there, as you will recall, I stated that American policy is that we will have no ground forces in North Vietnam, in Cambodia, or in Laos, except, of course, for rescue teams which go in for American fliers or for prisoners of war where we think there is an opportunity in that case.,On the other hand, I have stated on 10 different occasions, usually before press conferences in which you ladies and gentlemen have participated, that in two respects we would use air power against the North. One, that we would attack those missile sites that fired at our planes, and we have been doing that. We will continue to do that.,Second, that if I determined that increased infiltration from North Vietnam endangered our remaining forces in South Vietnam at a time we were withdrawing, I would order attacks on the supply routes, on the infiltration routes, on the military complexes, and I have done that in the past. And I shall do so again if I determine that such activities by North Vietnam may endanger our remaining forces in South Vietnam, particularly as we are withdrawing.,Now, the third question is this one: whether or not the United States, through its air power, might support a South Vietnamese operation against North Vietnam. And the answer to that is that no such plan is under consideration in this Government.,NORTH VIETNAMESE ANTIAIRCRAFT MISSILES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of enemy missiles, the North Vietnamese seem to be using more and perhaps a different type of missile shooting at American planes supporting the Laos operation.,I am wondering if this is of unusual alarm to you and if you have any special retaliation other than bombing that you intend to take?,THE PRESIDENT. We are following that very closely, and it is not unusually alarming. We expect the enemy to improve its capabilities just as we improve ours. And we are prepared to take the protective reaction measures which will deal very effectively with it. But I can say it will not be tit for tat.,THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS,[4.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. In view of recent remarks by Senators Symington and Fulbright, can you define for us the roles and the relative influence in the formulation of foreign policy of Secretary of State Rogers and of Dr. Kissinger?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Horner, you have been around Washington even a little longer than I have, and, as I am sure you will agree, this game of trying to divide the President from his Secretary of State or to create a conflict between the Secretary of State and whoever happens to be the President's Adviser for National Security Affairs has been going on for as long as I can remember, and I understand it has been going on long before I got here.,I think that Senator Symington's attack upon the Secretary frankly was a cheap shot. I say that not in condemnation of him for making the statement, but I say it only because he knows the relationship between Secretary Rogers and me. He knows that Secretary Rogers is my oldest and closest friend in the Cabinet. I have known him for 24 years.,I not only respect his ability and take his advice in the field of foreign policy; I also ask his advice and often take it in many domestic concerns as well. He is the foreign policy adviser for the President. He is the chief foreign policy spokesman for the President. He participates in every decision that is made by the President of the United States. He will continue to participate in those decisions.,Now, the role of Dr. Kissinger is a different one. He is the White House Adviser to the President. He covers not only foreign policy but national security policy, the coordination of those policies. He also gives me advice, just as Secretary Laird gives me advice, in matters of defense. I would say that I respect his advice as well.,As to whether either Secretary Rogers or Dr. Kissinger is the top adviser, as to who is on first, the answer to that, of course, is very simply that the Secretary of State is always the chief foreign policy adviser and the chief foreign policy spokesman of the Administration.,At the same time, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs does advise the President, and I value his advice very much.,U.S. TROOPS IN SOUTH VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there is some feeling in this city and perhaps around the country that you are trying to prepare the American people for the possibility that between 50,000 and 100,000 American troops will still have to be in South Vietnam by election time next year. Is that true?,THE PRESIDENT. I really can't tell you what the feeling is in this city. I can tell you what my own plans are.,We are for a total withdrawal of all American forces on a mutual basis. As far as those forces are concerned, I have stated in this press conference that Gene Risher referred to a moment ago, I have stated, however, that as long as there are American POW's--and there are 1,600 Americans1 in North Vietnam jails under very difficult circumstances at the present time--as long as there are American POW's in North Vietnam we will have to maintain a residual force in South Vietnam. That is the least that we can negotiate for.,1 White House Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler later stated that the figure cited by the President referred to the total number of those who are either prisoners of war or missing in action in Southeast Asia.,As far as our goal is concerned, our goal is to get all Americans out of Vietnam as soon as we can, by negotiation, if possible, and through our withdrawal program and Vietnamization program, if necessary.,Now, as to when we will have them out, I will make the announcements in due time. I have another one coming in April, and I will be making other announcements. And I think the record will be a pretty good one when we have concluded.,U.S. AIR SUPPORT FOR SOUTH VIETNAMESE FORCES,[6.] Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star].,Q. Sir, in speaking of the potentialities of action against North Vietnam, you were talking on the third point about the possibility of American air support for a South Vietnamese attack. You said that no such plan is under consideration in this Government. Can you go any further than that, or is that all you wish to say about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey, I can say further that no such plan has ever been suggested by President Thieu to us. None has been considered, and none is under consideration.,I am not going to go further than that, except to state what I did state in that press conference where you also were present again, that the test as to what the United States will do in North Vietnam, in any event, will always be not what happens to forces of South Vietnam, but it will be whether or not the President as Commander in Chief considers that North Vietnamese activities are endangering or may endanger the American forces as we continue to withdraw.,It is then and only then that I will use air power against military complexes on the borders of North Vietnam.,TROOP WITHDRAWAL PROPOSAL,[7.] Q, Sir, if all of the North Vietnamese troops were to be withdrawn from South Vietnam, would we still insist that American troops could not be withdrawn until North Vietnamese troops also left Cambodia and Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. The proposal we have made, Mr. terHorst [J. F. terHorst, Detroit News, North American Newspaper Alliance], is, of course, for a Southeast Asia settlement, one in which the North Vietnamese troops--there are 40,000, approximately, as you know, in Cambodia, there are now approximately, by latest estimate, 90,000 to 100,000 in Laos and, of course, there are 100,000 or so in South Vietnam. It is a one-package situation.,As far as we are concerned, that is the proposal and that is the one that we will stick by in Paris.,CHINA POLICY,[8.] Q. In your foreign policy report, you invited better relations with Communist China, which is being interpreted in Taiwan, I believe, with a little bit of apprehension. Are you actually moving toward a two-China policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I understand the apprehension in Taiwan, but I believe that that apprehension, insofar as Taiwan's continued existence and as its continued membership in the United Nations, is not justified. You will also have noted that in my foreign policy report I said that we stood by our defense commitments to Taiwan; that Taiwan, which has a larger population than two-thirds of all of the United Nations, could not and would not be expelled from the United Nations as long as we had anything to say about it; and that as far as our attitude toward Communist China was concerned that that would be governed by Communist China's attitude toward us.,In other words, we would like to normalize relations with all nations in the world. There has, however, been no receptivity on the part of Communist China. But under no circumstances will we proceed with a policy of normalizing relations with Communist China if the cost of that policy is to expel Taiwan from the family of nations.,TROOP WITHDRAWAL GOALS,[9.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. You said also in your foreign policy report that even if the North Vietnamese negotiate seriously in Paris, there will be serious problems left in Laos and Cambodia, and that on the battlefield there would be some hard options to be made about deploying allied troops. Could you clarify those statements, because it suggests that we are going to be there a much longer time than your earlier answer did?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor, our goal is a complete American withdrawal from Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam. As you know, that is the proposal I made on October 7 [1970]. I made it, however, on a mutual basis, that we would withdraw, but that the North Vietnamese would withdraw at the same time.,Now, as to what happens after we withdraw, we cannot guarantee that North and South Vietnam will not continue to be enemies. We cannot guarantee that there will not continue to be some kind of guerrilla activities in Laos or even in Cambodia. As far as our own goal is concerned, our proposal is clear, and we ask the enemy to consider it: a mutual withdrawal of forces, our forces and theirs. If that happens, we will be glad to withdraw, and then these other nations will have to see whether or not they can handle their own affairs.,EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,[10.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers and Hearst Headline Service].,Q. Do you see any limit on the exercise of executive privilege?,THE PRESIDENT. The matter of executive privilege is one that--it always depends on which side you are on. I well recall--and, Mr. Theis, you were covering me at the time when I was a Member of the House--that I raised serious questions as a member of an investigating committee about the executive privilege that was at that time, looking back in retrospect, properly insisted upon by President Truman. And, as President, I believe that executive privilege is essential for the orderly processes of government.,Now, let me just point out, however, what it does not cover. I was very surprised to note the suggestion the Secretary of State was not available enough for testimony. I checked it out. Over the past 2 years, State Department officials have testified 499 times before the House and the Senate. The Secretary of State himself has testified personally 14 times in 1969 and 15 times in 1970. He has had 167 private meetings in addition to all that with individual Senators or in groups of Senators at the State Department or at his home. As a matter of fact, I don't know how he has had time to talk to me with all the time he is talking to the Congress.,U.S. ACTION AND THE OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you said earlier that there will have to be a residual force staying in South Vietnam as long as the North Vietnamese continue to hold prisoners.,You have also said on previous occasions that you will not hesitate to take any strong action in order to protect whatever troops remain in South Vietnam, whatever of our troops remain in South Vietnam.,Does this, in effect, mean that despite your Vietnamization plan that you will have to have, in a sense, an indefinite commitment to South Vietnam with troops there indefinitely, determined only by Hanoi and their actions?,THE PRESIDENT. I would suggest that you ladies and gentlemen all have always pretty much underestimated what I am capable of doing in terms of withdrawing forces and so forth.,Let me just put it all in perspective, as I can. We have had a great deal of discussion about Laos at the last press conference, and I can see that it is still an interest here, and the question of Cambodia still troubles many of you.,I recall at the time that we went into Cambodia--and all of you out there looking on television will remember what I said--I said the purpose of our going into Cambodia was to cut American casualties and to ensure the success of our withdrawal program.,Many of the members of the press disagreed with me. They thought that was not an accurate description of what would happen. They were entitled to that view. Night after night, after I announced the decision to go into Cambodia, on television it was indicated that that decision would have the opposite effect: that it would increase American casualties and that it would mean that it would prolong the war.,Now we can look at it in retrospect. Casualties are one-half of what they were before Cambodia, and our withdrawal program has continued, and actually we were able to step it up some during the last of 1970.,In Laos, the purpose of the Laotian operation was the same as that of the Cambodian operation. This time no American ground forces, only American air power.,I said then, and I repeat now, the purpose is not to expand the war into Laos; the purpose is to save American lives, to guarantee the continued withdrawal of our own forces, and to increase the ability of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves without our help, which means, of course, their ability to help our Vietnamization program and our own withdrawal program.,I realize that night after night for the past 3 weeks on television there is a drum. beat of suggestion, not from all but from some commentators. And I can understand why they disagree, from the same ones who said that Cambodia wouldn't work, that this isn't going to work.,Well, I had analyzed the thing very carefully when I made the decision. I have had reports all day today from General Abrams and, speaking today, I can say there is some hard fighting ahead, but the decision to go into Laos, I think, was the right decision. It will reduce American casualties. The 200,000 rounds of ammunition, the 5,000 heavy and light guns that have already been captured and destroyed, the 67 tanks that have been destroyed are not going to be killing Americans.,And, most significant, I checked the flow of supplies down the trails from the area in which the North Vietnamese and and the South Vietnamese are engaged. And General Abrams reports that there has been a 55 percent decrease in truck traffic south into South Vietnam, which means that those trucks that do not go south will not carry the arms and the men that will be killing Americans.,We can all, of course, here in a press conference--we can debate as to whether or not my view of it is right or the rest. I hope for the good of the country mine is, and if it is right, what you say now doesn't make any difference.,I am only suggesting while the jury is still out, remember the purpose of this, like the purpose of Cambodia, is to reduce American forces, to reduce our casualties. And I should point out that that is exactly what this Administration has done. We have kept every promise that we have made. We have reduced our forces. We have reduced our casualties. We are going to continue to reduce our forces, and we are getting out of Vietnam in a way that Vietnam will be able to defend itself.,KIDNAPED U.S. AIRMEN IN TURKEY,[12.] Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News],Q. Mr. President, terrorists in Turkey have kidnaped four of our fliers and are holding them for $400,000 ransom. Do you think the Turkish Government should negotiate with the terrorists and is there anything that you think we can or should do in a situation like this?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Healy, we have had that situation with several other governments. And I would not suggest that the Turkish Government negotiate on this matter because I believe that is a decision that that Government must make, having in mind its own internal situation.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[13.] Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times],Q. Mr. President, if I may turn to the Middle East just for a minute. The Arabs have reportedly agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for certain withdrawals by Israel from territory occupied in 1967. Is it not now time for the Israelis to make some concessions of their own, and will you be asking them publicly or privately to do so?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Semple, as you well know, because you are sophisticated in this area, the question there is whether or not the United States will impose a settlement in the Mideast, and the answer is no. We will do everything that we can to urge the parties to talk. And, incidentally, when we talk about the problems in the Mideast, let it not go unnoted that we have made some progress. There was 4 years of fighting up until August of last year, and for 7 months no guns have fired in the Mideast. That is progress of a kind.,We hope that the cease-fire either by agreement or de facto will be extended. We hope that the Israelis and the Egyptians and, for that matter, the Jordanians will continue some kind of discussion. As far as imposing a settlement, however, we can only say that we can make suggestions, but we are going to have to depend upon the parties concerned to reach an agreement.,We, of course, will be there to see that the balance of power is maintained in the Mideast--which we will continue to do-because if that balance changes that could bring on war. And also we are prepared, as I have indicated, to join other major powers including the Soviet Union in guaranteeing any settlement that is made, which would give Israel the security of its borders that it might not get through geographical acquisition.,COMMUNIST CHINA AND THE U.N.,[14.] Q. May I ask you, sir, when you said earlier about Communist China--at least you were not perfectly clear about your position on Communist China, about seating in the United Nations. Somebody asked you if you would favor a two-China policy, but you were not completely clear about that. Could you say, sir, if Taiwan maintained its position on the Security Council, if it maintained its position in the United Nations, if you would favor seating Communist China?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a moot question at this time, because Communist China or the People's Republic of China, which I understand stirred up people in Taiwan--because that is the official name of the country--but Communist China refuses even to discuss the matter. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to suggest what we might agree to when Communist China takes the position that they will have no discussion whatever until Taiwan gets out. And we will not start with that kind of a proposition.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS,[15.] Mr. Warren [Lucian C. Warren, Buffalo Evening News],Q. Mr. President, a few months back, you were quite optimistic about the successful conclusion of SALT talks. Are you less optimistic now?,THE PRESIDENT. I am just as optimistic now as I was then about the eventual success. As you will note from our world policy report, the two great super powers now have nuclear parity. Neither can gain an advantage over the other if the other desires to see to it that that does not occur. Now, under these circumstances, therefore, it is in the interest of both powers to negotiate some kind of limitation, limitation on offensive and defensive weapons. We will be stating a position on that on March 15 when the new talks begin in Vienna. As far as when an agreement is reached, I will not indicate optimism or pessimism. As far as the eventuality of an agreement, my belief is that the seriousness of the talks, the fact that there are great forces, the danger of war, the escalating costs, and the fact that neither power can gain an advantage over the others, I think that this means that there will be an agreement eventually between the United States and the Soviet Union. Yes, sir.,Q. On both offensive and defensive weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. I should add that I know that the suggestion has been made that we might negotiate a separate agreement on defensive weapons alone. We reject that proposal. We will negotiate an agreement that is not comprehensive, but it must include offensive as well as defensive weapons, some mix.,TROOP WITHDRAWAL SCHEDULE,[16.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News],Q. Mr. President, I would like to go back for a moment to your first answer in which you said that what has happened in Laos has already assured more troop withdrawals.,Were you saying that on the basis of what you obviously consider a success in the Laotian operation will allow you to withdraw American troops at at least the present rate, twelve and a half thousand men a month for 12 months?,THE PRESIDENT. What I am saying, Mr. Kaplow, is that our troop withdrawal schedule will go forward at least at the present rate. It will go forward for at least the present rate.,And when I make the announcement in April, that, of course, will cover several months in advance. More important, however, is the troop withdrawal schedule for next year because, as you will note in my foreign policy report, at least the oral report I made, I pointed out that the Laotian operation this year would save American lives, save American lives by destroying or capturing equipment that otherwise might move into I Corps where a number of Americans are located. And that next year it would serve to guarantee the continued success of our withdrawal program.,The more that the disruption of the complex of trails leading from North Vietnam to South Vietnam occurs in the operation now being conducted on the ground by the South Vietnamese in southern Laos--the more that that occurs, the more successful that it is, the greater the possibility that the United States may be able to increase the rate of its troop withdrawal.,I am not prepared to make that decision yet, but we can say at this time the troop withdrawal will continue at its present level. I can say, incidentally, that even since the Laotian operation began, with all the news, 10,000 Americans have come home in this period.,Mr. Cormier. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1971-02-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. We will make this on the record today.,The mike is for the purpose of a transcription which will be available, I think, rather soon after we complete the conference because it will be run simultaneously by the stenographers.\nAny questions which you want to ask?,QUESTIONS,U.S. POLICY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,[1.] Q. Mr. President, the next logical step in Southeast Asia would seem to be South Vietnamese forces moving into the southern part of North Vietnam for the same reasons that they moved into the Laotian panhandle.,Would our policy rule out support for this type of move, air support for it?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't speculate on what South Vietnam may decide to do with regard to a possible incursion into North Vietnam in order to defend their national security. However, I will restate our policy. I stated that policy on November 3 [1969] and have restated it at least nine different times publicly since that time.,I stated then that at a time we are withdrawing our forces, that if I found that the enemy was stepping up its activity through infiltration in a way that would threaten our remaining forces that I would take strong action to deal with the new situation.,On December 10 [1970], as you recall, I reiterated that statement and said that this action would include the use of air power against the infiltration routes, military complex supply .depots.,That is our policy, the policy of the President taking action if he finds that the North Vietnamese are undertaking actions which threaten our remaining forces in South Vietnam.,Q. Mr. President, under that guide, is there any limit to what we might do to protect our forces in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We have indicated several limits. For example, we are not going to use ground forces in Laos. We are not going to use advisers in Laos with the South Vietnamese forces. We are not going to use ground forces in Cambodia or advisers in Cambodia as we have previously indicated, and we have no intention, of course, of using ground forces in North Vietnam. Those are limitations.,Q. I had reference to our use of air power.,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to place any limitation upon the use of air power except, of course, to rule out a rather ridiculous suggestion that is made from time to time--I think the latest by Hans Morgenthau 1--that our air power might include the use of tactical nuclear weapons.,1 Hans J. Morgenthau, educator and author in the field of political science.,As you know, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], this has been speculated on for a period of 5 years, and I have said for a period of 5 years that this is not an area where the use of nuclear weapons, in any form, is either needed or would be wise.,As far as our air power is concerned, it will be directed against--and I ought to be as precise as I was on December 10--against those military activities which I determine are directed against, and thereby threaten, our remaining forces in South Vietnam.,INCURSION INTO LAOS,[2.] Q. Can you tell us, sir--the idea of an incursion into Laos has been under consideration in Saigon on the military level for some years. Why did you decide that now is the time to do it? And second, can you give us some kind of a status report on how it is going and what the prognosis is in terms of the possible enemy resistance, what is it the intelligence suggests?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. In looking at this situation, I recall, as probably some of you who were there, in 1965, that some of our military people, and civilians for that matter, were then saying that the way to stop the North Vietnamese infiltration into South Vietnam was to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.,It was not undertaken during the previous Administration, as I understand, and--I can speak for this Administration-was not undertaken until now for a reason that the South Vietnamese and, for that matter, the United States had enough on our plate in South Vietnam.,Laos would not have been possible had it not been for Cambodia. Cambodia cutting off one vital supply line and thereby practically bringing enemy activity in the southern half of South Vietnam to an end released the South Vietnamese forces--who, by this time, had not only gained confidence in Cambodia but also had additional strength--released them for undertaking what they could not have undertaken even 8 months ago: an incursion on their own into Laos with only U.S. air support.,The decision to do it now or, I think, perhaps, put it this way, the decision not to do it before, is that, one, neither the United States nor the South Vietnamese felt that they apparently had the capability' to do it; the second, the decision to do it now was that based on the fact that the South Vietnamese, because of the confidence, the training they gained as a result of their actions in Cambodia, the South Vietnamese felt that they were able to undertake it. Our commanders agreed and, therefore, it was undertaken.,INVOLVEMENT OF MAINLAND CHINA,[3.] Q. Mr. President, could you discuss with us your evaluation of the possibility of Communist China entering this situation now that it is expanded into Laos, or if the South Vietnamese go into North Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me refer to the situation as it presently exists rather than the hypothesis of whether the South Vietnamese might go into North Vietnam.,As far as the actions in southern Laos are concerned, they present no threat to Communist China and should not be interpreted by the Communist Chinese as being a threat against them.,As you know, the Communist Chinese have been operating in northern Laos for some time. But this action is not directed against Communist China. It is directed against the North Vietnamese who are pointed toward South Vietnam and toward Cambodia.,Consequently, I do not believe that the Communist Chinese have any reason to interpret this as a threat against them or any reason therefore to react to it.,EVALUATION OF LAOTIAN OPERATION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up, could you give us your evaluation of how the Laotian operation is really going militarily and otherwise?,THE PRESIDENT. And incidentally, don't hesitate in this smaller forum to ask for follow-up. To the extent I can cover all the questions, I will be glad to take them. As far as the Laotian operation is concerned, the reports that have come from the field I think generally give an accurate picture, except, of course, for the day-today tendency to hypo this or that incident into a crisis.,The operation--and I read a complete report from General Abrams this morning-the operation has gone according to plan. The South Vietnamese have already cut three major roads--and we call them \"roads,\" let's say trails--which lead from Tchepone down into Cambodia and, of course, into South Vietnam.,The South Vietnamese have run into very heavy resistance on the road going into Tchepone. We expected that resistance.,Putting it in the context of the earlier reply, the Cambodian action in May and June cut one lifeline, the lifeline from Sihanoukville into the southern half of South Vietnam.,This action would either cut or seriously disrupt the other pipeline or lifeline, the lifeline coming from---down through Laos, the Ho Chi Minh Trail, into the northern half of South Vietnam.,Therefore, we expected the North Vietnamese to fight here. They have to fight here or give up the struggle to conquer South Vietnam, Cambodia, and their influence extending through other parts of Southeast Asia.,Finally, I think it is quite important to note General Abrams' evaluation, which I specifically asked him to give me by cable just a few days ago, his evaluation of how the South Vietnamese are conducting themselves. They are fighting, he said, in a superior way. I use the word that he used. They are proceeding in a way that he believes is in accordance with the plan and holding their own against enemy attack.,And he also pointed up another fact that, of course, has been overridden by the Laotian activity: that the operation in the Chup Plantation led by General Tri is going along in a fashion much better than was expected, with a great number of enemy casualties and, as General Abrams put it, excellent performance on the part of those groups.,Q. Mr. President, it is reported in both the South Vietnamese and, I think, in our statement the operation will be limited in time and scope. Can you define those terms?,THE PRESIDENT. By time, the operation will be limited to the time that is necessary to accomplish the objective. The objective is not to occupy any part of Laos. The South Vietnamese are not there to stay. They are there to disrupt the enemy's lines of communication, their supply lines, their infiltration routes, and then to get out.,Once that is accomplished, if it is accomplished early, they will get out. If it takes a longer time, they will stay in.,There is also another limitation in terms of time. And that is the weather. In the latter part of April or the early part of May, the rains come. And they would have to get out then because then the North Vietnamese also would pose no threat.,In terms of area, space, it is limited to the specific area that you see on the maps here, in terms of cutting across the trails-and it is more than one trail, there are three or four trails--the trails that are the supply lines on which the North Vietnamese operate.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[5.] Q. Would you have any further word on troop withdrawals for us at this time or when can you tell us about further troop withdrawals?,THE PRESIDENT. I will make a further announcement on troop withdrawals, as I have indicated, before the May 1st period when the last troop withdrawal period will have expired.,By that time, as you know, 265,000 Americans will have been withdrawn, and the further withdrawal announcement will be made then.,I can say today that as a result partially of our success in Cambodia, and based on also the present success of the Laotian operation, that the troop withdrawal program will go forward on schedule.,I should also point out, however, that as far as this year is concerned, even if the Laotian operation had not been undertaken by the South Vietnamese with our air support, the troop withdrawal program could have gone ahead on schedule.,What this relates to, insofar as American troop withdrawals are concerned, is not this year but next year. Next year will be a year when the Vietnamization program's very success creates the point of greatest danger, because then the number of ground combat troops that we will have in South Vietnam will be lower.,Q. If this is a great success, it could go next year much faster--is that a right inference?,THE PRESIDENT. When I made the announcement about moving into Cambodia, I said that its purpose was to insure our troop withdrawal, to reduce our casualties, and, we hope, to shorten the war. It has had those effects. Our casualties, even in this past week in which we have moved in with air support in support of the South Vietnamese and have suffered some air losses, were only half of what they were in the same week before Cambodia.,So casualties are down and I should point out that casualties in the first month that we came into office were five times as great as they were in the month of January,. One is too many. But that, at least, is progress, in terms of casualties.,In terms of troop withdrawals, the Cambodian incursion insured it and allowed us, as a matter of fact, to set our sights somewhat higher.,The success of this operation guarantees the continued program and gives the prospect of a greater troop withdrawal during the months ahead.,I am not going to speculate, however, as to what the troop withdrawal announcement will be on April 15. That will deal with the situation at that time and, at that time, we will not yet see the end of the Laotian operation.,Q. Mr. President, if I could follow that up, is it possible to say now, without talking about numbers of troops to be withdrawn, when the United States might be able to forgo a ground combat role in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. There will be an announcement on that score at some point. I am not going to indicate it now.,At this time, when the negotiations are going on at Paris still when I say negotiations, with no progress--we are not going to remove any incentive for a possible negotiation by announcing what our plans are further down the road.,Q. Mr. President, my question does follow his somewhat. How far can you go in withdrawing U.S. troops without a resolution of the prisoner-of-war issue?,THE PRESIDENT. As I have indicated, and as everyone I am sure would agree, as long as the North Vietnamese have any Americans as prisoners of war, there will be Americans in South Vietnam and enough Americans to give them an incentive to release the prisoners.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow that up. Would you be willing to join with Congress, as Senator Javits has suggested, in a resolution saying that it is our intention to withdraw all troops from South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Not needed, because you see, in my October [7, 1970] speech, as you will recall, I called for a cease-fire, I called for a political settlement, and I also called for a total withdrawal of all forces if it was mutual. So, the policy of this Government is for a total withdrawal, provided there is a withdrawal by the other side.,MEETING WITH BLACK CONGRESSMEN,[6.] Q. Would you explain, Mr. President, why you have not found time to see these 12 black Congressmen who have been asking to see you for about a year?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked to Senator Brooke about that just a few days ago and asked him to speak to some of those who had made this request.,As you know, I have seen a great number of Congressmen. And, of course, not only these 12 but all the Members of Congress, by the time I finish the breakfast tomorrow, will have been invited to the White House since the new Congress came here. Some have not accepted.,But Senator Brooke now has been talking with, I understand, Congressman Diggs, whom I know--and I know several of them, several of the older ones at least, from previously serving with them--and I think that a meeting is going to be worked out. I hope it is, because I will be glad to talk to them, of course.,THE SUPREME COURT,[7.] Q. Mr. President, are you happier with the performance of the Supreme Court this year than you were in '68 while you were campaigning and do you anticipate any appointments this term?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the second part of the question, of course, would be presumptuous for me to comment upon, because there are no--,Q. There are no resignations on your desk obviously.,THE PRESIDENT. No. No, I think I would know about it if there were. But I have no indication of any intention to resign.,With regard to the Supreme Court's decisions, I don't believe that I should comment upon the wisdom of their decisions. I have great confidence in those that I have appointed to the Court and I have great respect for others who are on the Court, with whom I happen to disagree. But I won't comment on that.,SOVIET SUBMARINE IN CUBAN WATERS,[8.] Q. How concerned are you about the presence of a Soviet nuclear submarine in Cuban waters?,THE PRESIDENT. On December 10,2 you may recall, I said that if a nuclear submarine were serviced from Cuba or in Cuba, that this would be a violation of our understanding with regard to the Soviet Union's activities in putting offensive weapons or a base in Cuba.,2 The President was referring to remarks he made during a television interview on January 4, 1971. See Item 6 [16.].,Now, as far as this submarine is concerned, the question is a rather technical one, whether it is there for a port call or whether it is there for servicing. We are watching it very closely. The Soviet Union is aware of the fact that we consider that there is an understanding and we will, of course, bring the matter to their attention if we find that the understanding is violated.,SUBURBAN INTEGRATION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask you about racial integration in suburban housing, a subject that you have treated twice this year and you have expressed your opposition to forced integration and you have said you will do what the law requires.,In the meantime, the Third Circuit has handed down a decision which would seem to put an increased burden on HUD to move public housing into the suburbs and a major case has been instituted in Black Jack, Missouri.,The Federal Government has yet to announce its intention in regard to either of those cases. Will you appeal, will you enter the Black Jack case, and what do you see as the overall role of the national Administration in this area?,THE PRESIDENT. To try to answer all of the questions, let me come first to the attitude of the Administration with regard to the Black Jack case.,The Attorney General and HUD jointly are considering the Black Jack case, and I understand within approximately 30 days will have a recommendation to me as to what action should be taken with regard to compliance with that case.,I will not indicate anything further than that. I will have something more to say when I get the recommendations from the Attorney General and from HUD.,With regard to what you call, and what I have called--I think you did not say this--but what I have called forced integration, let me just spend a moment indicating what I believe is the law in this country and where I think the law's limits are.,First, this Administration will enforce the law of the land which provides for open housing. Open cities, open suburbs, open neighborhoods are now a right for every American.,Second, however, this Administration will not go beyond the law or in violation of the law by going beyond it by using Federal power, Federal coercion, or Federal money to force economic integration of neighborhoods.,Now what we will do, however, and what we are doing, is to try to give every American, and particularly Americans in minority groups, black Americans for example, a greater opportunity to exercise a right. A right, for example, to live in any neighborhood means nothing unless you have got a job or a position which pays you enough to afford the house.\nThat is the position that we have.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON SOUTHEAST ASIA,[10.] Q. Mr. President, if the Army of South Vietnam sought to cross the DMZ in force, would you be of a mind to restrain such action?,THE PRESIDENT. If the--excuse me, the Army of South or North Vietnam?,Q. South Vietnam.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, South Vietnam.,Q. If the ARVN sought to cross the DMZ in violation--,THE PRESIDENT. I will not speculate on what South Vietnam may do in defense of its national security. South Vietnam now, as we withdraw, has an ever increasing responsibility to defend itself.,South Vietnam will have to make decisions with regard to its ability to defend itself. I will only speak with regard to what the American action will be.,The American action will be, according to the guideline I laid down a moment ago, the use of air power where I believe that North Vietnam's action may threaten our forces.,Q. Mr. President, if the Leos operation goes according to your expectations and is as much a success as you hope, is it likely to be followed by any new diplomatic initiative in an effort to get the Paris talks going?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun], the matter of diplomatic initiatives is something that we have been discussing constantly within the Administration. As a matter of fact, I have been talking to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Kissinger, and others, both informally and in formal meetings.,I have nothing to report today, but I do want to say this: that we will continue to pursue the diplomacy for a primary reason, the primary reason being to negotiate some settlement of the POW issue.,We have to realize that as far as a negotiation affecting a political settlement for South Vietnam is concerned, time is running out for the North Vietnamese if they expect to negotiate with the United States. Because as our forces come out of South Vietnam, it means that the responsibility for the negotiation, increasingly, then becomes that of South Vietnam.,But I can only say that looking to the future, we constantly are reexamining the possibility of any diplomatic initiatives. However, I believe that what I stated in October is a very far-reaching, it is very comprehensive, it is a very fair proposal, and we stand on that at this time.,I do not want to suggest that there are any more concessions coming from our side to North Vietnam. We are not going to make any more concessions. The time is for them to negotiate on the principles that we have laid down.,CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I have a question on the economy. Sir, the construction unions and the industry apparently are not going to be able to come up with a voluntary plan to hold down wage and price increases. What actions will you take?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Hodgson is going to report to me Monday when he returns from Miami, where, as you know, he has been meeting with the leaders of the construction industry.,I will not indicate now what action we will take until I get his report. But there will be action. The reason there has to be action in this field, in addition to the reasons that all of you have---in your various columns and reports have indicated, I would put it very simply as this: The construction industry is a sick industry. It is a sick industry not because of the quality of construction in the United States-- it is the highest quality construction in the world--but because it has had too rich a diet.,When you find that wage increases-wage increases have been high in a number of industries--but when they are on an average of 16 percent, what has happened is that that has not helped the workers in the construction industry except those that are employed.,We find that unemployment in the construction industry is double the national average and we also find that the Federal Government has a major stake in this, because, looking at this budget, I have found that $14 billion of our budget in the next fiscal year will go into construction.,Now, with that kind of financial interest in construction, it is essential that the Federal Government use its power to the extent that it can to bring about more reasonable settlements within that industry, wage and price stability.,Having stated that goal, you are all aware of some of the actions that have been discussed. I will consider them all and then make a decision, and we will announce it when it is made.,NORTH VIETNAM AND THE DEMILITARIZED ZONE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a question, if I could get back to Vietnam for just one moment? There has been quite a bit of speculation about the possibility of the North Vietnamese coming down through the DMZ.,Would this scrap any obligations that you may have under the bombing ban in the North and would you be in a position then of having to retaliate for any crossing of the DMZ?,THE PRESIDENT. My action in case that happened---and I do not believe it will happen--but my action will be guided by the same principles that I have laid down before. I would use the power of the United States, and particularly its power in the air, to the extent that I consider it necessary to protect our remaining forces in South Vietnam.,We have a considerable number of forces, as you know, on the DMZ. The blocking forces along Route 9, before you get to the border of Laos, are primarily American. I will not allow those forces to be endangered by a massive North Vietnamese incursion, if one should be undertaken. I think the very fact that the North Vietnamese know that I intend to take strong action to deal with that incursion means that they are not going to take it. If they do, I can assure you that-I don't want to assure you, I simply want to have the record clear that I would not be bound, of course, by any so-called understandings, which they have already violated, at the time of the bombing halt.,INTEGRATION POLICY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, a few minutes ago in response to Mr. O'Rourke's [Lawrence M. O'Rourke, Philadelphia Bulletin] question, you referred to your views on forced integration, a word which you said you have used before.,I am a little puzzled by the distinction between forced integration and enforcement of the laws which are on the books which you, as you properly said, were pledged to enforce, those laws against discrimination.,Where does this line come between those two concepts in your mind?,THE PRESIDENT. In the one case, the laws on the books deal, as they properly should, with human rights, the rights of an individual to buy a house or an apartment, or rent a house or an apartment and not be barred because of his racial or religious or other background.,In the other case, what we are talking about is an economic consideration having to do primarily with the zoning.,Now, where this is involved, it seems to me a clear distinction. The law does not require, and if it does not require, in my opinion, does not allow the Federal Government to use its monetary and other power, coercive power, for the purpose of changing the economic pattern of a neighborhood.,I think what the law does require is that there be open neighborhoods. The law does not require that the Federal Government step in and provide in a neighborhood the type of housing that an individual could afford to move into. That is the difference, as I see it.,CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DISCUSSIONS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, when Secretary Hodgson went back down to Florida, did he carry any message from you, harsh, gentle, or otherwise?,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary Hodgson had a long discussion with me and with other leaders in the Administration prior to his going down. We developed a plan and we also gave him several options which he could discuss with the leaders of the labor unions. He is a very persuasive man.,I am not going to concede that he struck out until he tells me so himself. But if he has, then we will be up to bat.,REVENUE SHARING,[15.] Q. Mr. President, have you been disappointed with the reaction in Congress to your revenue sharing plan, and what do you feel about the prospects of that right now?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not disappointed. All reforms have rough sledding. When we consider reforms, we must remember that they are always opposed by the establishment. And by the establishment, I don't refer to what we used to talk about in 1964, some used to talk about-the eastern establishment--I am referring to the establishment of Congress, the establishment of the Federal bureaucracy, and also great organizations, labor organizations, farm organizations, business organizations have all gotten used to dealing with government as it is and they are always afraid of change.,As far as the Congress is concerned and the bureaucracy is concerned, as I pointed out in the State of the Union, they are very, very reluctant to give up power. We expected a difficult time in getting revenue sharing through.,But let me put it, if I can, in other terms. We have been talking about foreign policy. We in Washington, in Government, live at the very summit of government. And here we do find opposition, dug-in establishmentarians fighting for the status quo or for just a little change or for putting more money into existing programs rather than really reforming them.,That is the case here. But that is what is happening at the summit. Down in the valleys, where the people live, you will find there that the people in the front lines, the leaders in the front lines, the Governors, the mayors, the county officials, an overwhelming majority of them, are for revenue sharing--both general revenue sharing and the other--an overwhelming majority, and also an overwhelming majority of the people of this country are for revenue sharing.,Eventually, then, it will be approved. I am not suggesting exactly in the form we have submitted it, but it will be approved because those of us who are in Washington have to reflect eventually what the majority of the people of this country feel.,And as I look at the situation now, I would say I expected that we would have this kind of opposition. However, I must say that the favorable reaction that we have had at the grass roots and among Governors and mayors and county officials has been greater than I expected, and that will be the decisive factor in getting it through.,Q. What do you visualize with regard to accounting procedures on this--what the GAO role would be for the States and the county and city governments?,THE PRESIDENT. First, let's distinguish the procedures with regard to civil rights guarantees. Those procedures, of course, will be set up in our revenue sharing programs, and the civil rights laws and requirements will be enforced.,We cannot have programs that are paid for by the tax money of all the people and benefit only some of the people.,Second, however, with regard to accounting procedures, I can assure you that despite some speculation on this score we don't intend to set up a huge network of bureaucrats to go down and examine the cities and the counties and the States with regard to whether or not they are properly expending funds.\nWhat we are going to do there is to try to handle each case on an individual basis; naturally, take action where there is a failure to use the funds properly, but not to set up simply more government guidelines.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[16.] Q. Could you take a couple of seconds on the Middle East, because it has not been brought up and I think it should be?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure.,Q. Israel seems to be balking on the Jarring proposal. If they continue to balk, would you use your powers of persuasion to get them to accept something along that line?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it would be helpful, Mr. Warren [Lucian C. Warren, Buffalo Evening News], to speculate here that we would use powers of persuasion with Israel or, for that matter, with Egypt or Jordan, on the Middle East.,Let me say this: that I have been encouraged--I am not overly optimistic and not Pollyannaish because this is a terribly difficult area of the world, as I have pointed out in previous press conferences, with hatreds that go back over centuries and they are not going to be removed very easily, the hatreds, maybe never. But a live-and-let-live relationship may develop. But I have been encouraged by the developments that have occurred so far.,Egypt has been more forthcoming than we had expected, and I believe that Israel has been somewhat more forthcoming. I have hopes that when the present cease-fire expires that it will be extended.,I will say that neither side will gain anything by starting the fighting again. It is a war in which either side will be a loser.,So as far as the Mideast is concerned-and I answered it in more detail simply to give you the tone of it--as far as the Mideast is concerned it is a difficult area. There are going to be day-to-day blasts by one side or the other or concessions by one side or the other before an eventual settlement is reached.,But for the United States publicly to move in and indicate what we think ought to be done while these delicate negotiations go on would not help.,DECISIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,[17.] Q. Could I clear up what I think is an important point on Laos? You suggested that the Saigon regime is making the decisions as to what it will do in its own interest, particularly in reference to crossing the DMZ.,Most Americans believe that the decision to go into Laos was made in Washington, and decisions like crossing the DMZ would have, necessarily, to be made here as well because of the use of American air power.,Could you straighten out for us where the line is between the decisions that the Saigon regime will make and that this Government will make?,THE PRESIDENT. Any decision, Mr. Lisagor, that called for American participation would have to be approved in Washington. The decision with regard to Laos was one that was approved in Washington.,I approved the operation and I approved the decision to use American air power. The operation itself was jointly developed, primarily by the South Vietnamese, but with, of course, very close cooperation and consultation with General Abrams and his staff.,But wherever American participation to any extent is required, you can be sure that that decision will be made here.,When you put it in terms of what would happen in the event the South Vietnamese went into North Vietnam, I am not going to speculate on what they will or will not do. I will only say that any American participation has to be approved here.,If South Vietnam's decision with regard to what they do would depend upon American cooperation, then, of course, it could not be undertaken without our approval.,HELEN THOMAS (United Press International). Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1970-12-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Won't you be seated, please.,QUESTIONS\nU.S. POLICY ON VIETNAM,[1.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International] has the first question tonight.,Q. Mr. President, a question about Vietnam. Our recent air strikes have raised speculation that our policy of not bombing North Vietnam may be undergoing a subtle change.,What is our policy? Also, despite the rejection by the Saigon Government and the Vietcong, do you plan to propose a unilateral cease-fire from Christmas through Tet in a bid for peace?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer the second part of the question first. We are prepared to have cease-fires on a limited basis over the holiday seasons. As you know, the North Vietnamese have turned down any extended cease-fire over the holiday season out of hand. We, of course, could not have any extended cease-fir% unilaterally, because that would be very dangerous for our forces.,If it's a brief cease-fire, we will do it; if it's extended, we will not.,With regard to the second part of your question, the bombing of North Vietnam, you may recall that a few weeks ago there was bombing of installations in North Vietnam after the North Vietnamese had fired on some of our unarmed reconnaissance planes.,Now, there's been, I note, some speculation in the press, and also some charges from North Vietnam, that there is no understanding that reconnaissance planes are to fly over North Vietnam since the bombing halt was announced.,I want to be very sure that that understanding is clear. First, President Johnson said there was such an understanding at the time of the bombing halt; Secretary Clifford did, and Ambassador Vance1 did.,1 Clark M. Clifford, Secretary of Defense, 1968 to 1969, and Cyrus R. Vance, deputy head of the U.S. delegation to the Paris peace talks on Vietnam, 1968 to 1969.,But if there is any misunderstanding, I want to indicate the understanding of this President with regard to the flying of reconnaissance planes over North Vietnam: I must insist that there be continued reconnaissance over North Vietnam because, as we are withdrawing our forces, I have to see whether or not there is any chance of a strike against those forces that remain, and we have to watch for the buildup.,If our planes are fired upon, I will not only order that they return the fire, but I will order that the missile site be destroyed and that the military complex around that site which supports it also be destroyed by bombing. That is my understanding.,Beyond that, there is another understanding with regard to the bombing of North Vietnam which at a number of these press conferences and in my speech on November 3d [1969] and in four televised speeches to the Nation last year, I have stated. I restate it again tonight. At a time when we are withdrawing from South Vietnam, it is vitally important that the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, take the action that is necessary to protect our remaining forces, because the number of our ground combat forces is going down very, very steadily.,Now if, as a result of my conclusion that the North Vietnamese, by their infiltration, threaten our remaining forces, if they thereby develop a capacity and proceed possibly to use that capacity to increase the level of fighting in South Vietnam, then I will order the bombing of military sites in North Vietnam, the passes that lead from North Vietnam into South Vietnam, the military complexes, the military supply lines. That will be the reaction that I shall take.,I trust that that is not necessary. But let there be no misunderstanding with regard to this President's understanding about either reconnaissance flights or about a step-up of the activities.,CHANGES IN THE CABINET AND\nADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS,[2.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,Q. Are you contemplating any further changes in your Cabinet? And if so, why change the lineup at half time or, depending on what happens in '72, at the end of the first quarter?,THE PRESIDENT. It seems we are in the football season pretty genuinely tonight.,First, with regard to changes in the Cabinet, one has already been made for reasons that I have already indicated.,As far as other changes, I have none to announce tonight. I will announce tonight, however, two, I think, important additions to the administration. First, Mr. Rumsfeld is coming into the White House as a Counsellor to the President on a full-time basis, and Mr. Frank Carlucci 2 will take over as the Director of GEO. He is his deputy and has done an outstanding job in that particular position, and I believe in promoting a man who has done such a job to the top spot.,2 On December 11, 1970, the White House released two announcements, one on the appointment of Mr. Rumsfeld and the other on the nomination of Mr. Carlucci.,Mr. George Bush, the Congressman who was defeated in his bid for the United States Senate, I talked to yesterday, and I am very happy to report that, he has agreed to take a top position in the administration. That will be announced tomorrow at Mr. Ziegler's 11 o'clock conference. Mr. Bush will be here.,I don't mean that we didn't want to give you the break, Mr. Cormier, but all of the arrangements haven't quite been finished.,ACTIONS OF FBI DIRECTOR HOOVER,[3.] Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News].,Q. Mr. President, as a lawyer, and as his immediate superior, do you approve of the following actions of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover: One, accusations which were made public accusing two men of conspiring to kidnap a Government official and/or blow up Government buildings as an antiwar action before any formal charges have been made and a trial could be arranged for those gentlemen, and continuing to call the late Martin Luther King a liar?\nDo you approve of those actions?,THE PRESIDENT. I have often been asked about my opinion of Mr. Hoover. I believe that he has rendered very great service to this country. I generally approve of the actions that he has taken. I am not going to go into any of the specific actions that you may be asking about tonight with regard to the testimony, for example, that you referred to.,The Justice Department is looking into that testimony that Mr. Hoover has given and will take appropriate action if the facts justify it.,FORMER INTERIOR SECRETARY HICKEL,[4.] Mr. Jarriel [Tom Jarriel, ABC News].,Q. Mr. President, considering the rather broad national interest in some of former Secretary Hickel's views, I wonder if you would elaborate for us exactly what he did to lose your confidence and what you expect the new Interior Secretary to do that Mr. Hickel failed to do?,THE PRESIDENT. The problem of confidence where you have a Cabinet team or a board of directors is something that can't really be described that precisely. There are numbers of things that occur that determine whether or not that confidence is going to continue to exist.,In this instance, I thought that when I appointed Mr. Hickel that we would have that mutual confidence that is essential between a President and a Cabinet officer.,There were some certain things that happened during the course of his stewardship in which I think I lost confidence in him, and perhaps he lost confidence in me.,Under the circumstances, I thought a change was right. I have great admiration for him. I think he rendered sincere service. I wish him the very best.,Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News].\nOh, you weren't ready?,Q. Not yet.,PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP AND\nDIVISIONS IN THE COUNTRY,[5.] THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Semple[Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times].,I just didn't want to discriminate against the other network.,Q. Mr. President, another question about confidence, if I may, involving you: There seems to be a feeling in some quarters, not just among blacks and students but also among some of your natural Republican allies, some voters, and certainly, as you may have noticed, some columnists, that you have yet to convey a sufficiently sharp and clear sense of direction, vision, and leadership on many matters to end the divisions in this country as you said you hoped to do o years ago and as your own Scranton Commission on Campus Unrest has urged you to do.,Do you recognize this as a problem for yourself and for the country, and if so, what can you do about it and what will you do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Semple, it is, of course, a problem. But I should emphasize that divisions in this country are never going to end. There's always going to be a generation gap and there are always going to be differences between the races and between the religions.,The problem is trying to mute those differences, to mitigate them to the greatest extent possible, and to develop a dialogue. I think we have made some progress in that respect, not as much as I would like.,I am concerned about our relations with youth. I do believe that as we make progress in bringing the war in Vietnam to a close as we are making it--I was glad to note, for example, that the casualties this week were down to 27, which was a fourth of what they were a year ago and an eighth of what they were 2 years ago. One is too many, but that's an improvement. As we end the war, I think that will help some with youth, as the Scranton committee did indicate.,In the other areas, I trust we can give that sense of direction that you refer to, and I particularly hope I can give it to the columnists. I want them to have a sense of direction, too.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[6.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, does what you said a while ago about the bombing of North Vietnam and the indications we have had from other officials of probably more raids to try to free American prisoners--does all that mean that you have abandoned hope for the Paris peace talks reaching a negotiated settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. We are continuing those talks. As you note today Ambassador Bruce made an offer which refined the offer we had made earlier of a complete exchange of all prisoners of war.,He offered to exchange on the part of both the United States and South Vietnam 8,200 North Vietnamese that we have prisoner for approximately 800 Americans and other allied prisoners that they have. That is a 10 to 1 ratio, but we are willing to do that.,Their failure to accept that offer will pinpoint something that is pretty generally getting known around the world, and that is that this nation is an international outlaw, that it does not adhere to the rules of international conduct.,But we are going to continue the negotiations as long as they are willing to negotiate and as long as there is some hope to make progress on the prisoner issue or on a cease-fire and an earlier end to the war than the Vietnamization process will inevitably bring.,SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you have had at least two reports on the supersonic transport prepared at your direction. Both of those reports have been kept secret. Now a group of conservationists and others are in court asking that one of these reports be made public, and the Attorney General is arguing against this, trying to keep this document kept secret.,I am wondering if you could tell us why the public should not know what is in that report in view of the fact that you support the continuing expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.,THE PRESIDENT. I have no objection to the substance of reports being made public. The problem here is that when reports are prepared for the President, they are supposed to be held in confidence and some of those who participate in the making of those reports have that assurance.,Now, with regard to the SST, I have satisfied myself, after long deliberation and considering both of these reports, that the arguments with regard to the environment could be met, that this prototype should be built.,What is involved here is not just 150,000 jobs which will be lost if we don't build it, not just the fact that billions of dollars in foreign exchange will be lost if we do not build it; but what is lost here is the fact that the United States of America, which has been first in the world in commercial aviation from the time of the Wright brothers, decides not just to be second but not even to show.,Now not out of any sense of jingoism but because this plane is going to be built, because it's going to bring, for example, Asia, not only Japan but China, in the last third of this century 3 hours from the West Coast to Asia--I think the United States should build it, and I believe that we can answer the arguments of the conservationists.,PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCES,[8.] Mr. Kaplow.,Q. Mr. President, a year or so ago you told us you thought you ought to have a news conference when there was a public interest, not just in your interest or in the press'.,Do you or do you not feel that sufficient public interest developed to justify a news conference before the 4 months between the last one and this one tonight?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Kaplow, I have noted with interest that several members of the press corps have indicated a desire for more news conferences. And let me be quite candid as to what I feel about this.,Incidentally, I was prepared for this question.,First, I believe that I have a responsibility to the members of the press. I go by that press building of yours about 11: 30 at night from the EOB [Executive Office Building], and I see most of you still working there. I, as President, have a responsibility to help you do your job. But I, as President, also have a primary responsibility to do my job.,My job is, among other things, to inform the American people. One of the ways to inform them is through a press conference like this. Another way is through making reports to the Nation, as I did on several occasions about the war in Southeast Asia. Another is an interview, an hour's interview with the three anchormen of the three networks, which mainly dealt, as you may recall, on Southeast Asia.,I feel that all of these are useful ways to inform the American people. I think the American people are entitled to see the . President and to hear his views directly and not to see him only through the press. And I think any member of the press would agree with that.,However, I would certainly be open to suggestions from members of the press as to how we could make better use of the news conferences without dominating the television too much, because I would recall to you that one network early this summer decided that it would be necessary to give opposition to the President's policy--opponents to the President's policy-equal time because he was on television too much.,So, consequently, the televised press conference perhaps should be limited. Perhaps we need more conferences in the office; perhaps more one-on-one; perhaps more--some have suggested a television conference in which instead of the anchormen we have three of the top columnists. But you make the vote. I won't select them.,U.S. FORCES IN CAMBODIA,[9.] Mr. Scali [John A. Scali, ABC News].,Q. Mr. President, Secretary Rogers assured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today that there is no present intention of ever using American ground forces in Cambodia. Can you foresee any circumstances whatever under which we would use ground troops in Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. None whatever.,ECONOMIC POLICIES,[10.] Mrs. Dickerson [Nancy H. Dickerson, NBC News].,Q. With unemployment and inflation rising, do you think it's fair to say that your economic policies have not worked, and do you plan any quick changes?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe our economic policies are working. First, we have cooled off the inflation. It is beginning to recede, the rate of inflation.,Second, we are now moving into the second half of our plan of expanding our fiscal policy and that, together with an expanded monetary supply, we believe will move the economy up.,I should point out, too, that when we speak of the problem we have to keep it in context. It is interesting to note that the unemployment for this year will come out at 4.9 percent. When we look at that figure, a rate of 4.9 percent, we see that that is lower than any peacetime year in the sixties. In 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, unemployment was always over 5 percent.,Now, in answering the question that way, I want to say I am not satisfied that that is as good as we can do. I believe that we can have a lower rate of unemployment than 5 percent without war, which is--the only time we had a lower rate of unemployment in the sixties was at a time that we had it with war.\nThat is our goal. I think we can achieve it.,RACIAL INTEGRATION IN SUBURBAN HOUSING,[11.] Q. Mr. President, concerning Governor Romney's plan, to what extent should the Federal Government use its leverage to promote racial integration in suburban housing?,THE PRESIDENT. Only to the extent that the law requires--in two cases, as a result of acts passed by the Congress that the Federal Government not provide aid to housing or to urban renewal where a community has a policy of discrimination and has taken no steps to remove it.,On the other hand, I can assure you that it is not the policy of this Government to use the power of the Federal Government or Federal funds in any other way, in ways not required by the law for forced integration of the suburbs.,I believe that forced integration of the suburbs is not in the national interest.,PRESIDENTIAL COMMENTS AND PUBLICITY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, at a previous news conference you said that what happened at Mylai was a massacre. On another occasion, you said that Charles Manson is guilty. On another occasion, you mentioned Angela Davis by name and then said that those responsible for such acts of terror will be brought to justice.,My question concerns the problem of pretrial publicity and the fact that it could jeopardize a defendant's rights at a trial. How do you reconcile your comments with your status as a lawyer?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that's a legitimate criticism. I think sometimes we lawyers, even like doctors who try to prescribe for themselves, may make mistakes. And I think that kind of comment probably is unjustified.,Let's go to the left now [turning to reporters on his left].,THE 1970 AND 1972 ELECTIONS,[13.] Mr. Warren [Lucian C. Warren, Buffalo Evening News].,Q. Mr. President, in retrospect, do you think that the Republican emphasis on the law and order issue paid dividends? And in the future, looking to '72, what do you think will be the big issue then?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Warren, I really expected a lot more questions on the 1970 elections than we have had tonight.,But let me answer that one by saying, first, that I feel that it is my responsibility as President to do everything that I can to work for the election of men who will help support me in keeping the pledges that I made to the American people when I ran for President. I did everything that I could in 1970 to the best of my ability to meet that responsibility.,And after the election I commented upon the election and gave my views on it, views which differed from some of those here in this room.,Having done that, however, it is now my responsibility, now that the people have spoken, to work with those men and those women elected by the people in 1970.\nAnd I can only hope that in the year 1971 Democrats and Republicans will work with the President in a policy to bring an end to the war, in bringing our economy ahead, in holding down inflation, in moving on such great programs as the health program, which will be one of the highest priority programs I will submit. Yes, sir.,Q. Mr. President, to follow up on the 1970 campaign, in light of what has generally been considered the purge of Senator Goodell of New York, is it likely that you and the administration will support third-party candidates in other States against Republican nominees who may disagree with some major points of your policies?,THE PRESIDENT. Under no circumstances.,CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS ON THE\nSONTAY RAID,[14.] Q. Mr. President, on a related matter involving the Congress, sir, you have been charged repeatedly that you do not consult enough with Members of Congress, and the most recent example was the raid on Sontay.,I wonder if you might specifically answer the charge to why you did not consult with Members of Congress as the raid was occurring or immediately thereafter when all the men were safe.,THE PRESIDENT. The reason that we did not consult with the Members of Congress as the raid was occurring, or before, was, of course, because of the high risk involved of the men who were participating.,As far as the information was concerned afterwards, there was a period of time in which it was felt that the full information should be given to the country at a later time.,I believe that when we look at the record here, all of the information with regard to the raid has been completely put out; there has been no attempt to withhold anything. It was a very brave attempt. I am very proud of the men who participated in it. I regret that it did not succeed. But I think that it gave hope to the men who were there. And I think it also gave a great deal of hope to their wives who are here.,PRESIDENTIAL INFLUENCE ON WAGES AND\nPRICES,[15.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, back to the economy for a moment. At your first news conference, you ruled out exhorting, to use your words, labor and management to follow certain guidelines, saying that they would follow their organizations' desires in any case. Now, since then you have taken some small steps toward bringing Presidential influence to bear on wages and prices through the Inflation Alert and the steps you took the other night in your NAM speech.,In the light of that, do you consider your initial remarks about wage-price guidelines a mistake in controlling inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor, I consider that at the time I made the first statement it would not have been proper for me as President of the United States to urge labor and management to restrain their price increases and their wage demands at a time that Government was the major culprit in contributing to inflation.,But now that Government has done its part in holding down the budget, in a restrictive monetary policy, now it is time for labor and management to quit betting on inflation and to start help fighting inflation. I think it is a question of timeliness.,SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE CARIBBEAN,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that United States security is threatened: at all by Soviet military activity in the Caribbean, including the submarine base in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not.,MIDDLE EAST POLICY,[17.] Q. Mr. President, sir, does it remain United States policy in the Middle East that Israel must withdraw from all occupied Arab territories excepting what Secretary Rogers called insubstantial alterations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the policy is based basically on the '67 U.N. resolution. Now that's a matter for negotiation, and to be more precise than that I do not think would be helpful at this time. I would only say that the cease-fire should continue; that I trust that we get the legislation through for the supplemental, not only there but for Southeast Asia, so that we can keep the balance of power in that part of the world, so that the parties involved on both sides will be willing to negotiate, and that eventually they start talking.,AID TO CAMBODIA,[18.] Q. Mr. President, how do you plan to keep your quarter billion dollar aid program for Cambodia from escalating into a guarantee of the survival of the Cambodian Government?,THE PRESIDENT. The quarter billion dollar aid program for Cambodia is, in my opinion, probably the best investment in foreign assistance that the United States has made in my political lifetime.,The Cambodians, a people, 7 million only, neutralists previously, untrained, are tying down 40,000 trained North Vietnamese regulars. If those North Vietnamese weren't in Cambodia, they'd be over killing Americans. That investment of $250 million in small arms of aid to Cambodia so that they can defend themselves against a foreign aggressor--this is no civil war, it has no aspect of a civil war--the dollars we send to Cambodia saves American lives and enables us to bring Americans home. And I only hope the Congress approves it.,THE TRADE BILL,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you said in July that you would veto any trade bill that came to you that went beyond what you yourself had asked for in the way of quotas, import quotas, and you had asked only for textile import quotas.\nIs that still your position now?,THE PRESIDENT. I stated my position on the trade bill, as you may recall, in a letter to the Senate leadership. I believe that the kind of a bill that we should have is one that is limited to textile quotas.,I believe that the addition of shoes, for example, or a basket clause which might require the addition of other items, would lose us more jobs than it would save, while the textile quotas will save jobs and, insofar as any actions we have with the Japanese, will not lose some. That's the reason for my position.,SCRANTON COMMISSION REPORT ON\nCAMPUS UNREST,[20.] Q. Mr. President, the Scranton Commission on Campus Unrest was mentioned earlier. And that report was turned in quite some long time ago, and we haven't had your description of it, although I think Vice President Agnew has called it \"pablum for permissiveness.\" How do you describe it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have read it, and it is certainly not pablum. Of course, they didn't have pablum when I was a baby. So, I wouldn't know what it tasted like. But I can only say that I have read the Scranton committee report. I have written to Governor Scranton. In fact, the letter went off last night or early this morning.,And it will be released as soon as he informs Mr. Ziegler that he has received it, and that states my views in detail on the report.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,[21.] (Q. Are you concerned, Mr. President, that there may be any serious deterioration in U.S.-Soviet relations as reflected in the progress of the SALT talks, and the Big Four Berlin talks?,THE PRESIDENT. I have noted the speculation to the effect that U.S.-Soviet relations--sometimes they're warmer and sometimes they're cooler. I would only suggest that U.S.-Soviet relations are going to continue to be difficult, but the significant thing is that we are negotiating and not confronting. We are talking at SALT. We are very far apart because our vital interests are involved, but we are talking, and our vital interests, the interests of both the Soviet Union and the United States, require that we have some limitation on arms, both because of the cost and because of the danger of a nuclear confrontation.,And so it is with Berlin, so it is with the Mideast. I am not suggesting that we are going to find easy agreement, because we are two great powers that are going to continue to be competitive for our lifetime. But I believe that we must continue on the path of negotiation, and in my long talk with Mr. Gromyko,3 I think there are some other areas where we can negotiate.,3 The President met with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko on October 22, 1970, at the White House.,THE 1972 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,[22.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on the emergence of some Democratic aspirants to the Presidency in '72 and the speculation that you might be a one-term President?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I will let them speculate about the one-term Presidency.,U.S. POLICY ON MAINLAND CHINA,[23.] Q. Mr. President, since the United Nations vote on China, have you found it expedient for the United States to review our policy towards Mainland China?,THE PRESIDENT. No, our policy wouldn't be based on expediency. It would be based on principle. We have no plans to change our policy with regard to the admission of Red China to the United Nations at this time. However, we are going to continue the initiative that I have begun, an initiative of relaxing trade restrictions and travel restrictions and attempting to open channels of communication with Communist China, having in mind the fact that looking long toward the future we must have some communication and eventually relations with Communist China.,THE LITHUANIAN DEFECTOR,[24.] Q. Could you tell us your personal view on the defector problem, this Lithuanian who was beaten on the Coast Guard cutter?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I have already indicated, I was, as an American, outraged and shocked that this could happen. I regret that the procedures of the Coast Guard informing the State Department and the State Department informing the White House were not adequate to bring the matter to my attention. I can assure you it will never happen again. The United States of America for 190 years has had a proud tradition of providing opportunities for refugees and guaranteeing their safety, and we are going to meet that tradition.,THE VIETNAM WAR,[25.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned several times tonight when we bring the war to a close. Is the war going to be over by 1972, for example? How many Americans are going to be in Vietnam by '72?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to indicate the rate of withdrawal of Americans as long as we are still negotiating in Paris. Indicating the rate of withdrawal, indicating when the Vietnamization program will be concluded, would completely destroy any reason to continue the Paris negotiations. The Paris negotiations have not produced results. We do not have great hopes for them at this time. But we are going to continue to try in that line, and as long as we are negotiating there I am not going to indicate a withdrawal schedule.,DISSENT AND PARTY UNITY,[26.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the firing of Secretary Hickel and the Goodell case, could you tell us how much dissent you will tolerate in your administration and in the Republican Party?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always felt that it was very important for a party that was basically a minority party to be as united as it possibly could be, particularly as we go into a national election.,And I can only say, as I implied rather strongly in answer to an earlier question, that I personally expect to support all of those Republicans who may be running for the United States Senate in 1972 if they want my support, and some of them are, as you know, members of what is called the liberal wing of the party. But they are Republicans. We welcome them. We want them. We need both.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE TRADE BILL AND TEXTILE TALKS WITH\nTHE JAPANESE,[27.] Q. On the trade bill again, sir, do you feel that you could approve--,THE PRESIDENT. He was up first.,Q. Thank you, sir. Do you feel you could approve it in the form that's been approved by the Senate Finance Committee? And also, on a related issue, sir, do you feel there's any progress being made in the textile talks with the Japanese?,THE PRESIDENT. Some progress is being made. It is not as hopeless today as it was yesterday, for example. But I am not satisfied with the progress.,As far as the form is concerned, I do not want to say what I will do about the bill as long as it is still before the Senate. I have indicated clearly the kind of bill I want. It should be limited to the textile quotas. It should be limited also in terms of the basket clause and the other items because--I emphasize this point: The key question is jobs, and it is all well and good to apply a quota that is going to save jobs in America, but it doesn't make sense if it is going to cost us more jobs in America because of cutting down the exports that we make abroad.,I guess Mr. Cormier says that is all we have.,CHRISTMAS PARTY FOR THE PRESS,[28.] I want to say in conclusion that Mrs. Nixon told me I had to make the last statement tonight. I understand I am to invite all the members of the White House press corps and your families to the annual Christmas party on the 23d of December. And she says there are some new lights that all the children will like to see.\nThank you.,Frank Cormier, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1970-07-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, we are having trouble with the audio in the room. I hope that all of you, when you ask your questions, will ask them quite loudly. I understand, however, that our television audience has no problem because a shotgun mike will pick them up. For the benefit of your colleagues, ask your questions a little more loudly.,This press conference is one that is being held for the first time, while I have been President, outside of Washington. We want to welcome all of the members of the California press who are here. We will follow the usual format of the White House press conference, with the first two questions going to the wire services, and then we will try to cover as many others as we can.,QUESTIONS\nTHE MIDEAST,[1.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,Q. Mr. President, could you give us an update on the very fast moving developments in the Middle East; particularly, have we heard from Israel in response to your peace initiatives?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not yet heard from Israel on our peace initiatives. As you know, we have heard from the Jordanians and the U.A.R., and the Israelis have been considering the matter in Cabinet sessions. We are hopeful that Israel will join the U.A.R. and Jordan on the peace initiative.,Some concern has been expressed by Israeli Government officials that if they agree to a cease-fire, that they run the risk of having a military buildup occur during the cease-fire. We and others have attempted to assure them that that would not be the case. If there's a cease-fire, a natural proposition connected with that, a condition with that, is that there will be a military standstill during that period.,As far as Israel's position is concerned, I indicated on July I in a television broadcast with network commentators from Los Angeles, the position of this Government insofar as Israel's security is concerned, and our commitment to maintaining the balance of power in the Mideast. Seventy-one Senators have endorsed that proposition in a letter to me which I received today.,In view of that position, which was stated then and which I will not go into now, I believe that Israel can agree to the cease-fire and can agree to negotiations without fear that by her negotiations her position may be compromised or jeopardized in that period.,PRICE TRENDS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the wholesale price index registered in July its greatest gain in 6 months.1 Can you tell us when you expect prices to go down?,THE PRESIDENT. What I am more interested in is, of course, not just what happens in 1 month, but what happens over the 6-month period. And what we are encouraged by is the fact that the trend in the 6-month period for wholesale prices was downward. The rise in the rate of increase is downward rather than upward. This three-tenths of a percent increase to which you refer has to be balanced against a zero increase in the month of May.,1On July 29, 1970, the White House released the transcript of a news briefing on the wholesale price index by George P. Shultz, Director, Office of Management and Budget.,The zero increase in the month of May did not mean that the rise in wholesale prices had stopped, just as this does not mean that a rise in wholesale prices will escalate.,We believe, based on not only wholesale prices but other economic indicators, that the inflation is being cooled, that it will continue to be cooled if we can continue to have responsibility in the conduct of our budget problems in Washington, D.C., and that we are on the way, insofar as the other side of the coin is concerned, toward an economy moving upward in the last half of 1970.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Ambassador Bruce takes over on Saturday in Paris. Do you feel that conditions for a negotiated peace have improved or worsened since we invaded Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that the prospects for a negotiated peace should be better now than they were before the Cambodian operation. I do not say this because of any intelligence with regard to enemy activities or enemy attitudes. But I say it because, as a result of our Cambodian operation, the enemy position is weaker than it was before we went into Cambodia.,Their timetable has been set back. Time is no longer on their side. Now, whether they will be convinced by this that their best interest would be served by negotiations rather than by attempting to win a military victory on the battlefield, that remains to be seen.,But we have sent a senior negotiator, Mr. Bruce, to Paris with wide latitude in negotiation, and we hope that they will reciprocate by negotiating in good faith and try to bring the war to an early conclusion, as it could be by negotiation rather than letting it draw to a conclusion through the longer path of Vietnamization which we are prepared to do also.,Q. Does President Thieu of South Vietnam hold any positions that would take away some of Ambassador Bruce's flexibility?,THE PRESIDENT. No, he does not. President Thieu's position with regard to negotiation is on all fours with ours. We have consulted with him and he with us before any negotiating positions have been presented. And also, you will note that Ambassador Bruce went to South Vietnam and met with President Thieu and with Ambassador Bunker to be sure that there was no disagreement on our negotiating position.,SCHOOL DESEGREGATION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you concur with Attorney General Mitchell's recent prediction that by the fall school term most of the schools in the South will be desegregated; and also do you have an approximation of how many Federal representatives would have to be sent to achieve such a goal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Attorney General has primary responsibility in this field and I think a prediction made by him must be given great weight. Whether that prediction turns out, of course, depends in great part on whether there is cooperation in the key Southern districts where the desegregation program is still behind schedule.,Now as far as the number of Federal officials that should be sent to the South, let me emphasize that that will be based on whether those Southern districts or States that have this problem of desegregation ask for the help of either Justice Department or HEW experts. We are not going to have a forced policy in this area. Our policy is one of cooperation, rather than coercion. And we believe that is the best way to handle this very difficult problem in the Southern States.,ARMS LIMITATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, last Sunday the Russian naval commander engaged in a bit of saber rattling directed at us. And I recall that Admiral Hyman Rickover and General Thomas Power of SAC [Strategic Air Command] in the last year warned that we are falling behind in the armaments race and they warned of nuclear blackmail if the Russians get ahead. Now with that in mind, do you think we can afford to disarm at this point or what is your feeling in that regard?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have certainly no intention of disarming. What we are talking about in the SALT negotiations is not disarmament but a limitation of arms where we limit what we do and they limit what they do. And the very thing that you refer to makes it very important for us to pursue those negotiation, because the Soviet Union, since 1967, for example, when we stopped any deployment of land-based missiles, since that time, has deployed 724 ICBM's, either SS-9's or SS-13's.,Since that time when we launched our last nuclear submarine with missile-carrying capabilities, the Soviet Union has deployed 13 more. And by 1975, assuming they continue their present building pace, they will catch up with us in nuclear submarines.,We can either continue this race in which they continue their offensive missiles and we go forward with our defensive missiles, or we can reach an agreement. That is why at this point we have hopes of attempting to find, either on a comprehensive basis, and lacking a comprehensive basis, a selective basis, the first steps toward which the superpowers will limit the development of, and particularly the deployment of more instruments of destruction when both have enough to destroy each other many times over.,GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH VIETNAM,[6.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, you said that we are in accord with President Thieu on peace initiatives. Does that mean that we agree with him that no candidate who would support a coalition government and no Communist could run in elections that would try to settle the war?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss Thomas, the position of President Thieu there with regard to a Communist not being on the ballot is purely a matter of semantics. Under the South Vietnamese Constitution, a Communist cannot run for office.,On the other hand, President Thieu has specifically agreed that those who are members of the NLF [National Liberation Front], who, of course, represent the Communists in South Vietnam, could run as members of the NLF on the ballot.,Now, as far as President Thieu's attitude on coalition government is concerned, it is the same as ours. A coalition government should not be imposed upon the people of South Vietnam without their consent. If the people of South Vietnam, by election, elect people who then choose to form a coalition government, that is a matter, of course, that we will accept.,MILITARY PREPAREDNESS,[7.] Q. To pursue the question of our military preparedness a bit further, twice within the past week statements have been made by high ranking naval officers, Admiral Rickover and Admiral U. S. Grant Sharp, to the effect that our military preparedness is suspect. And they went further. Each gentleman said that in his opinion it is doubtful that we could win a war with the Soviet Union. Given the eminence of these gentlemen, as Commander in Chief, how do you regard the validity of those statements?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would first react by saying that if there is a war between the Soviet Union and the United States, there will be no winners, there will be only losers. The Soviet Union knows this and we know that.,That is the reason why it is vitally important that in areas like the Mideast that we attempt to avoid to the greatest extent possible being dragged into a confrontation by smaller powers, even though our interests in the area are very, very great. That is why it is very much in our interests in the SALT talks to work out an arrangement if we can, one which will provide for the interests of both and yet not be in derogation of the necessity of our having sufficiency and their having sufficiency.,One other point I would make briefly is this: What the Soviet Union needs in terms of military preparedness is different from what we need. They are a land power primarily, with a great potential enemy on the east. We are primarily, of course, a sea power and our needs, therefore, are different. But what is important now is to find a way to stop this escalation of arms on both sides, and that is why we have hopes in the SALT talks which, I emphasize again, do not involve disarmament for the United States or the Soviet Union, but do involve a limitation and then eventually a mutual reduction.,ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any magical powers that you may invoke to help the people on the east coast breathe a little easier, or do you consider that Mayor Lindsay's problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mayor Lindsay has enough problems without wishing that one on him. The problem on the east coast, of course, reminds all of us who are southern Californians that with all of the kidding we have been taking about our smog, it isn't limited to us.,I also would remind the people on the east coast and in California that it isn't limited to the United States. It's a problem in Tokyo, it's a problem in Rome, it's a problem in all of the great industrial areas of the world now.,There isn't any short-range answer. We can't get the kind of automobile engine which will be pollution-free in a year or 2 years or 3 years. But there are certain things that can be done now.,The Congress can pass the legislation which I submitted 6 months ago in the environmental message, which will provide for some action in this area. And, second, that we are going to pursue the problem of seeing that the automobile industries follow very strict standards that we have laid down with regard to automobile emissions. Third, of course, we are going to do everything we can with regard to Federal facilities to see that they adopt pollution-free policies. And we, of course, are urging all kinds of industrial activities to use the kind of fuels that would reduce the problem.,I would only say this, that it was perhaps fortunate in a way that the east coast saw this problem in such a massive manner. Now we realize that we don't have much time left and it is time for the Congress to get the environmental message and all of the recommendations that I have made in February--a very strong message and very strong measures--to get them on the front burner and act on them now, because this is an area where we cannot wait.,UNEMPLOYMENT,[9.] Q. Mr. President, with relation to your anti-inflation policy and unemployment, especially among blacks, some statistics last June: The unemployment rate was 4.7, and among blacks it was 8.7. Locally here in the Los Angeles area, there are no specifics since no agency will speak out, but a limited concentrated survey by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics last year in south, central, and east Los Angeles brought in 16.2 for blacks. Representative Augustus Hawkins just viewed the area and said that conditions there are worse than in 1965 prior to the Watts riots and that a rebellion was possible but it would be economic and not racial.,My question now: Paul McCracken, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, about 2 weeks ago said the economy was bottoming out and there was an upturn coming, but that unemployment would continue with an anti-inflationary policy. The question is, will you continue your present anti-inflationary policy despite such warnings of rising unemployment rebellion?,THE PRESIDENT. Our present anti-inflationary policies, of course, have resulted in some cooling of the inflationary forces. And of course, one of the costs is that the economy slows down. There is another reason, however, for the slowdown in the economy which particularly affects this area, and that is the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy as a result of our bringing down the war in Vietnam, the activities there, and also of our change of priorities where for the first time in 20 years that we are spending more for domestic purposes, 41 percent of our national budget, than for military purposes which are now only 31 percent of our budget.,As a result of that, 800,000 people over the past year have left either Defense plants or the armed services and, of course, have added to the unemployment problem. That, however, we believe is a price worth paying because we believe that we should work toward prosperity without war, and we believe that we can have it.,Now, there is a difficult transition. The problem that you mentioned of blacks, the problem of all unemployed, does concern us. That is one of the reasons why we have urged the Congress to act more swiftly on our extension of unemployment insurance and the other measures which will cushion this transition period. Long-term, however, this economy is going to move up and the unemployment slack will be taken up.,PROBLEMS OF THE CAMPUS COMMUNITY,[10.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News].,Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to the Heard report's2 contention that you had not been paying enough attention to the problems of minorities and students?,THE PRESIDENT. Dr. Heard made a number of recommendations, of course, and also gave some conclusions in his report. I have read them and, of course, will consider them.,2Dr. Heard's report as Special Adviser on the Academic Community and the Young and a report by the Federal Interagency Committee on Education entitled \"Federal Agencies and Black Colleges,\" June 1970 (Government Printing Office, 45 pp.) were discussed in a news briefing on July 23, 1970, by Robert H. Finch, Counsellor to the President, and Robert J. Brown, Special Assistant to the President. A transcript of the news briefing is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 6, p. 978).,The problem of communicating with students and other groups is a perennial one. It existed in previous administrations; it exists in this one.,However, I would only say that in order to maintain balance we have to recognize that for university presidents and professors and other leaders to put the blame for the problems of the universities on the Government, primarily, I think is very shortsighted.,We are ending the war. We will bring it to an end. We will bring the draft to an end and have a volunteer armed service. We are going to deal with the problems of the environment, we are going to clean up the air and the water. All of these things can be and will be done by Government.,We are reforming Government to make it more responsive to the people, more power to the people rather than more power in Washington, D.C.,But once all those things are done, still the emptiness and the shallowness, the superficiality that many college students find in college curriculums will still be there. And still when that is done, the problem that we have of dissent on campus not remaining a peaceful challenge, which is perfectly appropriate and defensible, but dissent becoming sometimes violent, sometimes illegal, sometimes shouting obscenities when visiting speakers come to campus, this is a problem that is not a problem for Government-we cannot solve it--it is a problem which college administrators and college faculties must face up to.,We share our part of the blame. I assume that responsibility. We'll try to do better, but they have to do better, also.,I would urge in that respect, incidentally, that a very interesting commentary on this by a young man who will probably be sitting in one of your chairs in a few years ahead, Mr. Douglas Hallett, who is the editorial chairman of the Yale Daily News, had a piece in one of the papers yesterday in which he said that the problem of conduct on the campus could not be brushed aside and simply blamed on what the Government was or was not doing, that faculty administrators and faculty presidents and faculty members had also to assume some responsibility. I think it is necessary to keep balance.,AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the open ties in Korea ended 17 years ago week. And a week ago Senator Murphy said that he believed there are still American prisoners of war held from that conflict. Lt. Everett Alvarez will have been a prisoner 6 years next Wednesday. Did Ambassador Bruce get any special briefing about the hundreds of men held in North Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. The problem of those who are held prisoner in North Vietnam is one of enormous concern to us. It was discussed not only when Ambassador Bruce was in Vietnam, but also when he met with us in Washington, with Secretary Rogers, Dr. Kissinger, and others, and got his new instructions.,I can assure you that it will be very high on his agenda when he goes to Paris. I cannot promise and I would not want to hold out any false hope to those who are the dependents and those who are the wives and children of those who are prisoners, but we certainly are going to keep this very much high on the agenda and work toward a solution of it in any peace settlement, if we can get one.,FEARS OF REPRESSION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, your commission on campus unrest, colleague Mr. Kaplow referred to earlier also spoke about the reality of fears of repression among students, but especially among minority groups. Now, taking into consideration your signing into law this week a new law which allows under some circumstances entrance into homes without knocking and so-called preventive detention, considering some of the things your Vice President has said, and considering some of the things that allegedly have happened to Black Panthers, what argument can you give to those, specifically now minority groups, that they should not fear Government repression?,THE PRESIDENT. They shouldn't fear Government repression because we intend no repression. We do not believe in repression. It is not a Government policy. You mentioned, for example, the D.C. crime bill. The people that are really repressed in Washington are the black citizens of Washington, D.C., who suffer from the highest crime rate year after year usually of any city in America or in the world. Those citizens need some protection.,The provisions of that crime bill, it is true, were unprecedented, but we were dealing with an unprecedented matter.,I want to take the necessary strong methods, and I agree that they are strong, to deal with those who are criminal elements so that the hundreds of thousands of people who are not violating the law can have freedom from fear.,As far as repression generally is concerned, I, of course, do not accept the proposition that the Vice President represses people. It seems to me that people are very free in speaking up about the Vice President. Many of them do to me.,THE PRESS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any improvement in the objectivity and fairness of the Nation's press in light of the statement by the Vice President about the press?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my reaction is that I recall once having comments about the press in California when I was here and that didn't seem to get me very far. All I can say now is I just wish I had as good a press as my wife has, and I would be satisfied.,MEXICAN-AMERICANS,[14.] Q. A few days ago some organizations, Mexican-American organizations, called on you for 55,000 jobs in the Federal Government. Have you anything to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have provided more opportunities for Mexican-Americans than any administration in history. It is of high priority for this administration. As you know, Mr. [Martin] Castillo from Los Angeles has been working with us in the White House on this proposition.,Second, we would welcome Mexican-Americans who are qualified, who are interested in Government positions.3 We could welcome them in Government positions. We are looking for them. We are just trying to see that they are qualified and we hope they will have the qualifications.,3A White House release dated November 5, 1970, initiating a program of assistance to Spanish-speaking people who wish Federal employment, is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 6, p. 1544).,CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING,[15.] Q. In your efforts to get Congress to hold down on spending, will you veto the education appropriations bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will be faced next week, I understand, with perhaps two or three hard decisions--the education bill and the HUD bill which was $600 million over my recommendation. The two total $I billion over the recommendations that I have made.,I am not going to announce now the decision that I will make because I want to consult with the congressional leaders once again before making the decision and announcing it.,But I will say this: that it is necessary for the President to represent all of the people and to stand up against those very well intentioned Congressmen and Senators who vote for this appropriation or that one, appropriations and spending that would benefit some of the people but that would cost all of the people in higher taxes and higher prices.,I have to represent all of the people and that is why I am going to make some hard decisions, vetoing some popular measures if I believe that those measures would result in increasing prices or require an increase in taxes.,On that last front, we can avoid an increase in taxes and we can avoid an inflationary budget in 1972, but only if we get the cooperation of the Congress in these next 2 or 3 months. This is the critical time. If the Congress does not cooperate in holding down spending, it will be necessary then to look hard about where we are going to find the money and that means more taxes. But if the Congress cooperates we can avoid it.,VIETNAM POLICY,[16.] Q. How do you reconcile the position of the United States that we are not bent on a military victory in Indochina with the statement that was made yesterday by President Nguyen Van Thieu that he is looking for a military victory within the next 3 years, and also he says that he is against a coalition government in Vietnam whether that is imposed or negotiated. In other words, to what extent are we the independent authors of American foreign policy and to what extent are we subservient to President Thieu?,THE PRESIDENT. We are opposed to a coalition government negotiated or imposed. We are for a government which is consented to by the people of South Vietnam. And if that government happens to be one that has Communists in it, and it is their choice, we do not have objection and neither does President Thieu, as I understand it.,Now, as far as President Thieu is concerned, when he speaks of victory for government and the people of South Vietnam, he is referring, of course, to what will happen in Vietnam over the long haul, assuming there is not a negotiated settlement.,As far as we are concerned, we have a program of Vietnamization. We are withdrawing our forces. Just as soon as the South Vietnamese are able to defend the country without our assistance, we will be ' gone.,But then if at that time the South Vietnamese still have not worked out a negotiated settlement with their enemy, then it is certainly up to the South Vietnamese to determine whether they are going to negotiate with the enemy or seek a victory, that would be President Thieu's decision.,BRINGING THE GOVERNMENT TO THE\nPEOPLE,[17.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, this press conference in Los Angeles is sort of a climax to a series of activities that you have described as bringing the Government to the people, such as your recent meetings in Louisville, Fargo, Salt Lake City, and your work at the Western White House at San Clemente.,What benefits do you see to you and to the country from such activities?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hope there is benefit to the country. I believe there is benefit in bringing the White House to San Clemente or to Fargo or to Louisville.,I note, for example, some comments to the effect that I leave the White House too often. I think that all of my predecessors would agree with this statement: A President never leaves the White House. The White House always goes with him wherever he is. It must go with him, and it is with him wherever he is.,I think it is very important for the people of California, for example, to know the White House, to participate, for example, like this in a Presidential press conference.,I think that also the other side of the coin is vitally important to those of us in Government. Every one of the members of the Cabinet who have participated in one of these regional meetings come away making this very significant statement, and it is that when they meet with people in the country, those individuals, whether they are Governors or mayors or representatives of citizens' groups, talk much more freely than they do when they are in .the Cabinet Room or in the President's office in Washington, D.C., or even in their offices in the various departments.,I think this whole program of bringing Government to the people can be served by having the White House go to the country from time to time and, of course, we can handle Federal business from here with rapid communications just as effectively as we do in Washington.,Earl Charles (Squire) Behrens, political editor, San Francisco Chronicle: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1970-07-20","text":"THE PRESIDENT. While they are taking their pictures, I will say this will be on the record for direct quotation. A transcript will be furnished immediately after the conference so you will have it for your stories, if you desire it.,Because we will not have pictures during the course of the conference, and no recording will be made, no requests of equal time will be honored.,MEETINGS AT THE WESTERN WHITE HOUSE,[1.] In respect to the California schedule, we plan on this trip to have a major meeting on national defense policy in terms of our national defense budget in which Dr. Kissinger, Secretary Laird, and Secretary Packard will participate on Monday. In the balance of the week, we are having meetings of the Domestic policy Council with particular relationship to the problems we will confront in the 1972 budget.,These will be the first meetings on the '72 budget and will be mainly planning meetings in which we will take a long view with regard to what the budget may be.\nWe look forward to your questions.,QUESTIONS\nTHE BUDGET,[2.] Q. Do you expect to balance the budget, Mr. President? Do you expect to have a balanced budget or do you think you will be working with a--,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, our budget for the year 1970 will not be in balance; and our budget for the year 1971 will not be in balance. We announced that in February. That would have been the case even without the additional problem we confront of the Congress not enacting the tax legislation that we have requested and the Congress adding to appropriations requests above the amounts that we recommended.,As far as 1972 is concerned, whether that budget can be balanced will depend upon two factors: one, the restraint that the Congress shows now in this session with regard to spending, because what happens now will have a great delayed impact on the 1972 spending programs; and second, the economic situation. We expect the economy to be moving upward for the last half of this year and to continue to move upward during fiscal 1972. But those are the two major items that will determine whether the budget in 1972 will be balanced.,Our goal in a period when the economy will be working at full employment, which is a goal we think we can achieve during fiscal year 1972, is, of course, to operate with a balanced budget.,SECRETARY ROGERS' PARTICIPATION IN THE\nCALIFORNIA MEETINGS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, won't Secretary of State Rogers take part in the Monday meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The Secretary of State is going to be at the Bohemian Grove1 over the weekend and will not be there for that meeting. That meeting is solely with regard to the Defense budget and its implications. It does not have to do with Defense policy insofar as it would affect foreign policy.,1 A redwood grove owned by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco. Secretary Rogers was a speaker during the Club's annual encampment.,The Secretary of State, however, will participate in other meetings later in the week over the weekend. I think he is coming to California on Thursday or Friday, later in the week.,THE DEFENSE BUDGET,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate being able to cut the Defense budget some more in fiscal '72?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be very difficult. I know that it is fashionable to suggest that as we face these increased spending programs in the domestic field, that Congress seems intent upon enacting, that we can just take it out of Defense. Well, there is very little left to take out of Defense.,I do not mean that some efficiencies may not be brought about. But I do suggest that when we look at the Defense budget we find that our national priorities have already changed.,I was looking at the percentages just this morning and found that in 1962, during the Kennedy administration, 48 percent of the budget went for Defense and 29 percent for non-Defense programs. By 1968, it was still 44 percent for Defense and 34 percent for non-Defense programs. Now it is 41 percent for non-Defense programs in our '71 budget and 37 percent for Defense purposes.,As these priorities have been reordered, it has meant that the Defense budget has been cut. It was $1.7 billion less in 1970 than in the previous year. And our budget for 1971 is, as you know, $ 5 1/2 billion less than for last year.,We will still try to cut in Defense as well as in other areas. But to suggest that the money for big, new domestic spending programs can come out of substantial cuts in Defense, I think is not realistic.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in your television conversation a couple of weeks back, you said that Ambassador Bruce would be receiving new instructions for the negotiations in Paris.,Does that mean that our negotiating positions in Paris are going to change, and if so, could you tell us what the new instructions will be?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I, of course, wouldn't tell you what the new instructions were because Ambassador Bruce, as the negotiator, must reflect those instructions at a time and in a way that he thinks would be helpful to negotiations.,I will only say at this time that we are giving Ambassador Bruce great latitude to discuss all of the proposals that we have made both in public and in private sessions to the North Vietnamese and the VC, in addition, to discuss the proposals they have made and also to recommend to us any new approaches that he believes might be helpful in pursuing the negotiations.,With regard to the specific matters that Ambassador Bruce will discuss, these are subjects we are planning to take up in our meeting with him and Ambassador Bunker tomorrow, but we would not, in advance of the negotiation---of course, it would not be helpful to his negotiating position to indicate what he was going to do.,TAX REDUCTION POSSIBILITIES,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Weinberger said last week that he would like to see some part of any savings, any surplus, go into a tax reduction. Is that realistic in the foreseeable future?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Weinberger was speaking of the long run, I think, Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, United Press International], rather than the short run. I had a long talk with him and, of course, with Mr. Shultz, who have their new responsibilities in the budget area, and when we speak of the possibilities of tax reduction, I think it would not be fair to the American people to suggest that we can have a tax reduction in 1971 and in 1972.,Looking beyond that time, the international situation might change, our economic growth might exceed the present estimates, and under those circumstances we, of course, might consider tax reduction. But it is not realistic to suggest that there would be one in '71 or '72.,THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, is there a significant difference between this Government's view of the political future of the Saigon regime and President Thieu's view of it as he expressed it in his interview yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is not. I understand, I think, why President Thieu indicated concern about the use of the word \"coalition.\" Coalition is a code word in international settlements, and wherever there have been coalition governments that include Communists it usually means that the Communists have, of course, prevailed and eventually expelled, if I may use that term too, expelled the non-Communists from the government.,Now, I stated the position with regard to coalition government at considerable length in San Clemente on July 1. That is this Government's position; that is the Secretary of State's position. In the negotiations there will not be an imposed coalition government on South Vietnam. The government of South Vietnam must be one that is chosen by the people of South Vietnam. It will be one and should be one that reflects the political forces in South Vietnam. How those forces would be represented in Parliament, for example, or in other respects is something to be worked out by the people of South Vietnam and by the elected representatives and elected leaders of South Vietnam. But under no circumstances does this Government stand for the proposition that we would attempt to negotiate an imposed coalition government on South Vietnam.,Q. Could I follow that up for a moment? When you used the expression \"free decision,\" did you mean to imply this could be reached through something other than elections, because President Thieu seems to suggest that the only way the political outcome in South Vietnam will be determined is through elections?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was referring to the fact that free decision did reflect elections.,Q. It was equivalent?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. There should be free elections. But as President Thieu has indicated, the Communists can participate in those elections, they can participate in the election supervisory bodies, and he has also indicated that he would accept the result of the plebiscite, whatever that result might be.,Once the election has been held, then what government comes out of that election is something to be worked out by the elected officials. But it should not be determined in advance of the people indicating what kind of government they want.,Q. Mr. President, if I could get clear on this, do you mean by that that a political settlement which would be negotiated by the various Vietnamese parties, including the present government, would not be acceptable?,THE PRESIDENT. No. That is another matter. When you were suggesting that the present Vietnamese parties, as they are represented in the legislative body of South Vietnam which has been elected by the people---if those parties should negotiate a settlement with other political parties, that is certainly something that is a decision by the people of South Vietnam.,Q. I was referring, sir, to the Government of South Vietnam as it is represented in Paris and the other parties that are represented in Paris--settlement in that forum.,THE PRESIDENT. A settlement in that forum would seem to be highly improbable. And I think perhaps it serves no interest to speculate as to whether that would happen.,President Thieu has indicated that he in that forum would not agree to a coalition government.,TRADE LEGISLATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, how do you view the trade bill that seems to be developing in the House Ways and Means Committee, and if it contains the provisions that apparently will be voted on, would you veto it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I would certainly veto it, if it contains the provisions which I did not recommend. Speaking in general terms, first, quota legislation, mandatory quota legislation, is not in the interest of the United States. We're an exporting nation rather than importing nation. It would mean in the end, while it would save some jobs, it would cost us more jobs in the exports that would be denied us, the export markets that would be denied us. And, second, even more important, it is highly inflationary, as anybody who has studied tariffs and quotas through the years is well aware.,Consequently, I have always opposed quota legislation as a general proposition.,In the case of textiles, for 16 months we have been attempting to negotiate a voluntary quota agreement with Japan without success, and also with other nations. In view of that lack of success, and in view of the enormous importance of the textile industry to this country, the fact that one out of eight workers in manufacturing is in textiles, we feel that for the Congress to pass a limited bill dealing with textiles only and providing that mandatory quotas will come into effect and will remain in effect only if voluntary quotas are not negotiated, we believe that that approach is acceptable.,But if the bill goes beyond that, if it provides, for example--includes other items, I would not be able to sign the bill because that would set off a trade war which would have all the repercussions that I have tried to describe earlier.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, are we in the situation--getting back to the Vietnam situation--where the South Vietnamese Government has in effect vetoed certain advances that we would like to make, new initiatives in the Paris talks?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not at all. The South Vietnamese Government has been very cooperative. They have agreed to free elections. They have agreed to accept the mandate of free elections, something which the Government of North Vietnam, of course, has never agreed to in North Vietnam. They have agreed to discuss and negotiate cease-fires on a national basis. And as far as this talk about coalition government is concerned, I want to be quite categorical. I have always said that in South Vietnam we will negotiate without conditions except with regard to one condition: and that is the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their future.,Imposing a coalition government upon them, one which they had not chosen themselves, would be in violation of that principle. That we will not accept. But this is not a case of South Vietnam vetoing our initiatives.,Q. Mr. President, in following that up, does Mr. Thieu's statement that Communist candidates would not be allowed in the election, does that fit in with your belief that there should be a free election in South Vietnam to determine its future?,THE PRESIDENT. I have read his statements in context of the general proposals that he and his government have made, along with the proposals we have made in the Paris talks. And those proposals have indicated that all political parties in South Vietnam could participate in the political process. And I do not understand that President Thieu has departed from that proposition.,THE MIDEAST,[10.] Q. Mr. President, could we move to the Mideast for a moment?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure. I don't want to go. [Laughter],Q. Can you at all, sir, clarify for us how your various approaches to the problem, both to the area itself and Soviet interests in the area, are proceeding?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to discuss it. I don't, however, count this as a clarification. I think my position is quite clear.,First, I have always said, as I said on July I, that our interest is peace in the area and the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of every state in the area.,Second, I pointed out that to maintain peace in the area we felt that it was important to maintain a military balance of power so that no state in the area would be encouraged to launch an offensive against another state or be driven to launching a preemptive strike because of fear of an offensive or of a buildup.,Third, I have indicated that the Soviet movement not just of weapons but of men to Vietnam [sic] to man the weapons causes us concern because if that continues that could upset the balance of power. It has not yet been upset, as the Secretary, of State has said, but we are watching it closely because if the balance of power is upset then that would have the effect of leading nations on both sides possibly to take action which would lead to another\nwar.,I further pointed out that as far as the Soviet Union was concerned and the United States is concerned that we both wanted to avoid a confrontation, we want to avoid a confrontation every place in the world. We want to avoid it in Europe, we want to avoid it in Southeast Asia, and we want to avoid it in the Mideast. And that an arms escalation, and particularly the insertion of troops, men, into the Mideast increases the risks of a confrontation, a confrontation that neither side wants. That is why we are putting such emphasis on our peace initiative. That is why we have not announced any sale of planes or delivery of planes to Israel at this time, because we want to give that peace initiative every chance to succeed.,Now, one other point that I think is worth, shall we say--I will accept the word \"clarifying\" in this respect--I know that there was some concern expressed about the use of the word \"expelled\" in one of the backgrounders that was given. I read the backgrounder and I support exactly what was said because what we meant to say there was simply this: that in any peace settlement, once a peace settlement is made then there will be no need for the forces of other nations to be in these countries. The use of the word \"expelled\" was not with the idea of using armed force for that purpose but to negotiate any peaceful settlement, the removal of these forces which if they remain there we believe might increase the chance of a confrontation.,I suppose that needs to be clarified again.,SCHOOL DESEGREGATION POLICY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, are you concerned about southern reaction to the administration's school desegregation policy, particularly Senator Thurmond's speech the other day?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not surprised at the reaction, but I believe that as thoughtful people of the South consider not only what we have done in the past but what we do in the future they will recognize that we finally have in this country what the South has wanted and what the South deserves, a one-nation policy--not a southern strategy and not a northern strategy, but a one-nation strategy.,As far as the South is concerned, we are--the statement that Senator Thurmond made partially objected to an action we have not taken and have no intention of taking, and that is of sending vigilante squads, in effect, of the Justice Department lawyers in to coerce the southern school districts to integrate. We have not done that; we are not going to do that.,Our approach is one of recognizing this terribly difficult problem of cooperating with the educational leaders and other leaders in the South in bringing them into compliance with the law of the land as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Our policy, in other words, is cooperation rather than coercion.,Now I would say finally that I know that some people in the South would prefer a policy that was perhaps not as even. handed as this, but I believe this is the right policy insofar as carrying out the constitutional mandates are concerned. I think it also is the fair policy. I think in the long run, too, it is in the interest of the South, because when we look at this difficult school problem there cannot be instant integration, but segregation: must be ended. That is the law of the land and it is necessary for us to go forward and to end it with a transition period which will be as least difficult as possible.,That is what we are trying to work out. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to, as you know, obtain $1 1/2 billion out of the budget for this year and year to cushion that transition period from segregated to nonsegregated education.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH MAINLAND CHINA,[12.] Q. Mr. President, is there movement in our relations with Mainland China?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As you there was slight movement before in the meetings we had in Warsaw. We are still hopeful that those meetings will be resumed.,But I have nothing to report on any movement toward resuming them at this point, although we think there is a chance they may be moving.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you said that the Cambodian operation has smoothed the way or helped the course of the Vietnamization. Do you think you will be able to increase the increment of 50,000 troop withdrawal that you have announced between now and October 15?,THE PRESIDENT. I have nothing to say on that at this time. We are going to examine this situation as time goes on based on--I know you get tired of hearing this-the three criteria of progress in Paris, if any, and the level of enemy activity, and the progress in the training of South Vietnamese.,At the present time, however, our plans are to go forward with our 150,000 withdrawal to be completed during the spring of next year. In the event that there is progress on any of these three fronts which will justify our moving faster, you can be sure that we will move faster.,Incidentally, one factor that is encouraging in this general area was the fact that I was looking at this morning: In the 3 weeks since the Cambodian action was completed on July 1, American casualties were the lowest of any 3-week period in the last 4 years.,That still is too many. One is too many. But the fact that we have come that far is some accomplishment.,\"ISOLATION\" OF THE PRESIDENT,[14.] Q. Do you have any concern, Mr. President, that your staff might have you isolated, as has been charged in some news columns?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I isolate them. No; as a matter of fact, I not only see my staff, but I see a great number of people who come in representing all points of view.,As a matter of fact, we have been checking on that since the suggestion was made that I was isolated. And some members of my staff believe that perhaps I have been having too heavy a schedule in that respect. However, I intend to continue as heavy a schedule as I can, talking to all people representing various points of view.,I am generally, incidentally, a very good listener, except in a press conference.,CAMPUS UNREST,[15.] Q. Mr. President, last Friday, I believe, you had a report from Dr. Heard on the problems of campus unrest and your Commission, headed by Governor Scranton, has been studying this problem. There have been some indications that they think that the administration itself ought to do something to still the problems on the campuses.,What is your feeling about what you may be able to do before the schools open in the fall to help alleviate this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather wait until Dr. Heard has an opportunity to make his conclusions public, which I asked him to do after we met--and I understand he will make those conclusions public sometime this week--and until after the Scranton Commission makes some recommendations.,I noted that the Scranton Commission hearings had been interpreted by some as indicating that the evidence was mounting to a conclusion that one way to bring peace on campus was to end the war in Vietnam.,Well, that of course would not be news. I am not sure if it would bring peace to the campus. But I would have to respond to that in this way: I want peace on the campus, but my major obligation is to adopt policies that I consider will bring peace to the world.,And for that reason I have to reject the easy and sometimes tempting road of a quick and easy solution of ending the war in Vietnam, because I want to end it in a way that we can have a better chance for a lasting peace and not in a way that will encourage the forces of aggression in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world.,LAOS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there has been speculation recently that American forces or South Vietnamese forces are planning a Cambodian-type operation into Laos. I know that you can't talk about future operations in this sort of thing, but can you tell us if our policy precludes American troops launching a Cambodian-style operation into Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I answered that question when I issued my rather long Laotian statement, you will recall, earlier this spring.,Our actions in Laos will be directed toward interdicting the flow of enemy supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. That is the occupied part of southern Laos. We will use air power for that purpose.,We have no intention of using ground forces for the purpose of interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Trail.,FAMILY ASSISTANCE PLAN,[17.] Q. Mr. President, how do you now assess the prospects of your family assistance plan getting through the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. I would probably know more about that after I see what happened at a meeting with some of the Senators today. I put the chances as fair. I expect to meet with our legislative leaders in the morning and may have more to report on that later.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRAVEL PLANS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any travel plans for this year? A year ago at this time you were greeting the Apollo astronauts in the mid-Pacific. I wondered if you had any plans to do any traveling between now and January i.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't figured out anything that would top that.,EMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you earlier that you expect full be reached during fiscal '72.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I'm not saying it won't be reached before 1972.,Q. How high do you think unemployment may rise in the interim and in general how strong do you think the recovery of the economy may be this year?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't and should not speculate on that point. We are at really the watershed of economic policy now. That is why I issued the rather strong statement to Congress with regard to appropriations and spending.,I am a political man. I know how popular it is to be for big spending programs in an election year. But I also know that big spenders are only popular as long as they are picking up the check--when somebody else picks up the check they become very unpopular--and when the American people learn that the big spenders in Congress are primarily responsible for higher prices, and eventually even higher taxes, I think that the American people will turn on the big spenders politically.,Let me put that into context with the question of employment. We are at a situation now where we finally see as we look at the wholesale price index and at the deflator figures that came out, which of course were the broader price index figures a few days ago, that the inflation has cooled.,I believe, and all of the economic experts tell me that I can predict this, that that leveling of the rise in wholesale prices will be reflected as the year goes on in a downturn of the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index. However, at the same time as we do that, we find that the economy as it has cooled has inevitably had some upturn in unemployment and also this upturn has been greater than would usually be the case in moving from an inflation to an economy with price stability or relative price stability.,This situation has been aggravated by the fact that we have been moving from a wartime to a peacetime economy. As I have pointed out, 700,000 men out of the armed services and defense plants had added to the unemployment roles.,We think this is a cost worth paying, however. We want, however, to cushion that transition as much as we can.,Looking on through the summer, I think I could probably better, with more precision, speak of the last half of the year. The economic experts, with whom I have been meeting quite regularly here, indicate that the last half of the year will definitely see the economy turning up. And as all of you have noted, there have been some indications both in the indicators, not all of the indicators, but a majority of those that people watch, and also among the economic analysts, that the downturn has bottomed out and that the last half of the year will see an increase in productivity and an upturn in the economy.,EDUCATION APPROPRIATION BILL,[20.] Q. Mr. President, will you veto the education appropriation bill if it comes to you in its present form?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a terribly tough decision because the amount was so large, as you know. This one, however, while the amount is lower, the amount over the budget still is a matter of great concern. This bill, as it will come to me, will be over $400 million in excess of the budget recommendation that I made and I have not yet determined whether I can veto it or not, but I do know this: that that $400 million in excess of the budget request is an unacceptable amount and that we have to find that $400 million someplace else if I don't veto the bill, and I am trying to presently examine that possibility.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1970-05-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Would you be seated.,QUESTIONS,PROTESTS AND THE DECISION ON CAMBODIA,[1.] Mr. Risher [Eugene V. Risher, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, have you been surprised by the intensity of the protest against your decision to send troops into Cambodia, and will these protests affect your policy in any way?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not been surprised by the intensity of the protests. I realize that those who are protesting believe that this decision will expand the war, increase American casualties, and increase American involvement. Those who protest want peace. They want to reduce American casualties and they want our boys brought home.,I made the decision, however, for the very reasons that they are protesting. As far as affecting my decision is concerned-their protests I am concerned about. I am concerned because I know how deeply they feel. But I know that what I have done will accomplish the goals that they want. It will shorten this war. It will reduce American casualties. It will allow us to go forward with our withdrawal program. The 150,000 Americans that I announced for withdrawal in the next year will come home on schedule. It will, in my opinion, serve the cause of a just peace in Vietnam.,COMMUNICATION WITH THE COLLEGE\nCOMMUNITIES,[2.] Q. Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,Q. Do you believe that you can open up meaningful communications with this college-age generation, and how?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to try as best I can to do that. It is not easy. Sometimes they, as you know, talk so loudly that it is difficult to be heard, as we have learned during the campaigns, and also during the appearances many of the Cabinet officers have made on university campuses. However, on an individual basis, I believe that it is possible to do what I have been doing, to bring representatives of the college and university communities to my office, to talk with them, to have a dialogue. I am very glad that Chancellor Heard, the chancellor of Vanderbilt, has agreed to take 2 months off from his very important responsibilities in that position to work with us in the administration to see if we cannot develop better lines of communication both to school administrators, but also to school students.,THE STUDENTS' MESSAGE,[3.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News].,Q. Mr. President, what do you think the students are trying to say in this demonstration?,THE PRESIDENT. They are trying to say that they want peace. They are trying to say that they want to stop the killing. They are trying to say that they want to end the draft. They are trying to say that we ought to get out of Vietnam. I agree with everything that they are trying to accomplish.,I believe, however, that the decisions that I have made, and particularly this last terribly difficult decision of going into the Cambodian sanctuaries which were completely occupied by the enemy--I believe that that decision will serve that purpose, because you can be sure that everything that I stand for is what they want.,I would add this: I think I understand what they want. I would hope they would understand somewhat what I want. When I came to the Presidency--I did not send these men to Vietnam--there were 525,000 men there. And since I have been here, I have been working 18 or 20 hours a day, mostly on Vietnam, trying to bring these men home.,We brought home 115,000. Our casualties were the lowest in the first quarter of this year in 5 years. We are going to bring home another 150,000. And, as a result of the greater accomplishments than we expected in even the first week of the Cambodian campaign, I believe that we will have accomplished our goal of reducing American casualties and, also, of hastening the day that we can have a just peace. But above everything else, to continue the withdrawal program that they are for and that I am for.,PROGRESS OF VIETNAMIZATION,[4.] Yes, sir?,Q. On April 20th, you said Vietnamization was going so well that you could pull 150,000 American troops out of Vietnam. Then you turned around only I o days later and said that Vietnamization was so badly threatened you were sending troops into Cambodia.,Would you explain this apparent contradiction for us?,THE PRESIDENT. I explained it in my speech of April 20th, as you will recall, because then I said that Vietnamization was going so well that we could bring 150,000 out by the spring of next year, regardless of the progress in the Paris peace talks and the other criteria that I mentioned.,But I also warned at that time that increased enemy action in Laos, in Cambodia, as well as in Vietnam, was something that we had noted, and that if I had indicated, and if I found, that that increased enemy action would jeopardize the remaining forces who would be in Vietnam after we had withdrawn 150,000, I would take strong action to deal with it. I found that the action that the enemy had taken in Cambodia would leave the 240,000 Americans who would be there a Year from now without many combat troops to help defend them, would leave them in an untenable position. That is why I had to act.,THE POSSIBILITY OF REVOLUTION AND\nREPRESSION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, some Americans believe this country is heading for revolution, and others believe that crime and dissent and violent demonstrations are leading us to an era of repression. I wonder if you would give us your view of the state of the American society and where it is heading.,THE PRESIDENT. That would require a rather extended answer. Briefly, this country is not headed for revolution. The very fact that we do have the safety valves of the right to dissent, the very fact that the President of the United States asked the District Commissioners to waive their rule for 30 days' notice for a demonstration, and also asked that that demonstration occur not just around the Washington Monument but on the Ellipse where I could hear it--and you can hear it pretty well from there, I can assure you--that fact is an indication that when you have that kind of safety valve you are not going to have revolution which comes from repression.,The second point, with regard to repression: That is nonsense, in my opinion. I do not see that the critics of my policies, our policies, are repressed. I note from reading the press and from listening to television that criticism is very vigorous and sometimes quite personal. It has every right to be. I have no complaints about it.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[6.] Yes, sir?,Q. One of the consequences of the Cambodian action was the fact that the other side boycotted this week's peace talks in Paris. There is some question as to whether our side will attend next week. Have you made a decision on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Our side will attend next week. We expect the talks to go forward. And at the time that we are cleaning out the enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia, we will pursue the path of peace at the negotiating table there and in a number of other forums that we are presently working on.,RESPONSE TO NORTH VIETNAMESE\nACTION,[7.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. Mr. President, Secretary of Defense Laird said last week that if the North Vietnamese troops should move across the DMZ in force, he would recommend resumption of the bombing. What would be your reaction to such a recommendation in those circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to speculate as to what the North Vietnamese may do. I will only say that if the North Vietnamese did what some have suggested they might do--move a massive force of 250, 000 to 300,000 across the DMZ against our Marine Corps people who are there--I would certainly not allow those men to be massacred without using more force and more effective force against North Vietnam.,I think we have warned the leaders of North Vietnam on this point several times, and because we have warned them I do not believe they will move across the DMZ.,THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH,[8.] Mrs. Dickerson [Nancy H. Dickerson, NBC News.,Q. After you met with these eight university presidents yesterday, they indicated that you had agreed to tone down the criticism within your administration of those who disagree with you. Then tonight Vice President Agnew is quoted all over the news programs as making a speech which includes these words, \"That every debate has a cadre of Jeremiahs, normally a gloomy coalition of choleric young intellectuals and tired, embittered elders.\" Why?,THE PRESIDENT. Mrs. Dickerson, I have studied the history of this country over the past 190 years. And, of course, the classic and the most interesting game is to try to drive a wedge between the President and the Vice President. Believe me, I had 8 years of that, and I am experienced on that point.,Now, as far as the Vice President is concerned, he will answer for anything that he has said. As far as my attempting to tone him down or my attempting to censor the Secretary of the Interior because he happens to take a different point of view, I shall not do that. I would hope that all the members of this administration would have in mind the fact, a rule that I have always had, and it is a very simple one: When the action is hot, keep the rhetoric cool.,SCHEDULE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM\nCAMBODIA,[9.] Q. Mr. President, on April 30 you announced that you, as Commander in Chief, were sending in U.S. units and South Vietnamese units into Cambodia. Do the South Vietnamese abide by the same pull-out deadline as you have laid down for the American forces?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they do not. I would expect that the South Vietnamese would come out approximately at the same time that we do because when we come out our logistical support and air support will also come out with them.,I would like also to say that with response to that deadline I can give the members of the press some news with regard to the developments that have occurred. The action actually is going faster than we had anticipated. The middle of next week the first units, American units, will come out. The end of next week the second group of American units will come out. The great majority of all American units will be out by the second week of June, and all Americans of all kinds, including advisers, will be out of Cambodia by the end of June.,STUDENT DISSENTERS,[10.] I will take you next, Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun]. The writing press gets a break.,Q. Mr. President, do you believe that the use of the word \"bums\" 1 to categorize some of those who are engaged in dissent--and I know that you meant it to apply to those who are destructive, but it has been used in a broader context--do you believe that is in keeping with your suggestion that the rhetoric should be kept cool?,1On a visit to the Pentagon on May 1, 1970, the President, during an informal conversation with one of a group of employees who had gathered in a corridor to greet him, made the following remarks which were taped by a reporter who accompanied the President to the Pentagon:,You think of those kids out there. I say \"kids.\" I have seen them. They are the greatest.,You see these bums, you know, blowing up the campuses. Listen, the boys that are on the college campuses today are the luckiest people in the world, going to the greatest universities, and here they are burning up the books, I mean storming around about this issue--I mean you name it--get rid of the war; there will be another one.,Out there we've got kids who are just doing their duty. I have seen them. They stand tall, and they are proud. I am sure they are scared. I was when I was there. But when it really comes down to it, they stand up and, boy, you have to talk up to those men. And they are going to do fine; we've got to stand back of them.,THE PRESIDENT. I would certainly regret that my use of the word \"bums\" was interpreted to apply to those who dissent. All the members of this press corps know that I have for years defended the right of dissent. I have always opposed the use of violence. On university campuses the rule of reason is supposed to prevail over the rule of force. And when students on university campuses burn buildings, when they engage in violence, when they break up furniture, when they terrorize their fellow students and terrorize the faculty, then I think \"bums\" is perhaps too kind a word to apply to that kind of person. Those are the kind I was referring to.,ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN CAMBODIA,[11.] Mr. Rather [Dan Rather, CBS News]. I will get you next, Mr. Bailey.,Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that you expected the Americans to be out of Cambodia by some time in June. President Thieu was quoted as saying in an interview that he felt the North Vietnamese could reestablish their sanctuaries in Cambodia within 6 months and possibly, he was quoted as saying, within 2 or 3 months.,If that is the case, what have we accomplished in Cambodia? Was it worth the risks, and what do we do when they reestablish those sanctuaries?,THE PRESIDENT. I am planning to give a report to the Nation when our own actions are completed, toward the latter part of June. At that time, I will answer that question in full.,At the present time, I will say that it is my belief, based on what we have accomplished to date, that we have bought at least 6 months and probably 8 months of time for the training of the ARVN, the Army of South Vietnam. We have also saved, I think, hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, as Frank Reynolds reported tonight on ABC. Rockets by the thousands and small arms ammunition by the millions have already been captured and those rockets and small arms will not be killing Americans in these next few months. And what we have also accomplished is that by buying time, it means that if the enemy does come back into those sanctuaries next time, the South Vietnamese will be strong enough and well trained enough to handle it alone.,I should point out, too, that they are handling a majority of the assignment now in terms of manpower.,SECRETARY HICKEL'S LETTER TO THE\nPRESIDENT,[12.] Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune].,Q. Sir, without asking you to censor the Secretary of the Interior, could you comment on the substantive points that he made in his letter?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Secretary of the Interior is a man who has very strong views. He is outspoken. He is courageous. That is one of the reasons I selected him for the Cabinet, and one of the reasons that I defended him very vigorously before this press corps when he was under attack.,As far as his views are concerned, I will, of course, be interested in his advice. I might say, too, that I hope he gives some advice to the Postmaster General. That was the fastest mail delivery I have had since I have been in the White House. [Laughter],REASONS FOR THE CAMBODIAN ACTION,[13.] Mr. Scali [John A. Scali, ABC News].,Q. Mr. President, how do you answer the criticism that the justification that you give for going into the Cambodian sanctuaries is hauntingly similar to the reasons that President Lyndon Johnson gave as he moved step by step up the ladder of escalation? He wanted peace, too, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Scali, President Johnson did want peace, and, if I may use the vernacular, he has taken a bad rap from those who say that he wanted war.,However, the difference is that he did move step by step. This action is a decisive move, and this action also puts the enemy on warning that if it escalates while we are trying to deescalate, we will move decisively and not step by step.,WILL THE WAR PROVE WORTHWHILE?,[14.] Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, this war was well underway before you came in, as you just said. Now, considering the toll in lives and in everything else that is happening now, do you think this war has proved to be worthwhile?,THE PRESIDENT. It is rather a moot question, Mr. Healy, as to whether it will prove to have been worthwhile. As Commander in Chief, I have found for 525,000 Americans it has been my responsibility to do everything I could to protect their lives and to get them home as quickly as I can. And we have succeeded pretty well. We brought 115,000 home. We are going to bring another 150,000, and this action will assure the continued success of that program.,However, looking at the whole of Southeast Asia, looking at the fact that we have lost lives there, I would say that only history will record whether it was worthwhile.,I do know this: Now that America is there, if we do what many of our very sincere critics think we should do, if we withdraw from Vietnam and allow the enemy to come into Vietnam and massacre the civilians there by the millions, as they would--if we do that, let me say that America is finished insofar as the peacekeeper in the Asian world is concerned.,POLICE AND NATIONAL GUARD CONDUCT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the Kent State University incident, could you tell us what, in your judgment, is the proper action and conduct for a police force or a National Guard force when ordered to clear the campus area and faced with a crowd throwing rocks?,THE PRESIDENT. We think we have done a rather good job here in Washington in that respect. As you note, we handled the two demonstrations, October 15 and November 15 of last year, without any significant casualties, and that took a lot of doing because there were some pretty rough people involved--a few were rough; most of them were very peaceful.,I would hope that the experience that we have had in that respect could be shared by the National Guards, which, of course, are not under Federal control but under State control.,Now, what I say is not to be interpreted as a criticism in advance of my getting the facts of the National Guard at Kent State. I want to know what the facts are. I have asked for the facts. When I get them, I will have something to say about it. But I do know when you do have a situation of a crowd throwing rocks and the National Guard is called in, that there is always the chance that it will escalate into the kind of a tragedy that happened at Kent State.,If there is one thing I am personally committed to, it is this: I saw the pictures of those four youngsters in the Evening Star the day after that tragedy, and I vowed then that we were going to find methods that would be more effective to deal with these problems of violence, methods that would deal with those who would use force and violence and endanger others, but, at the same time, would not take the lives of innocent people.,CAMBODIA'S FUTURE,[16.] Q. After the American troops are removed from Cambodia, there may still be a question as to the future of Cambodia's ability to exist as a neutralist country.,What is your policy toward Cambodia's future?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States is, of course, interested in the future of Cambodia, and the future of Laos, both of which, of course, as you know, are neutral countries. However, the United States, as I indicated in what is called the Guam or Nixon Doctrine, cannot take the responsibility and should not take the responsibility in the future to send American men in to defend .the neutrality of countries that are unable to defend themselves.,In this area, what we have to do is to go down the diplomatic trail, and that is why we are exploring with the Soviet Union--with not too much success to date, but we are going to continue to explore it--with Great Britain, with the Asian countries that are meeting in Djakarta,2 and through every possible channel, methods through which the neutrality of countries like Cambodia and Laos, who cannot possibly defend them. selves--to see that that neutrality is guaranteed without having the intervention of foreign forces.,2The Djakarta Conference of Foreign Ministers, representing 11 countries, met on May 16 and 17, 1970.,PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in your Inaugural Address, you said that one of your goals was to bring us together in America. You said that you wanted to move us in international terms from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation. You said you wanted to bring peace to Vietnam. During the past 2 weeks, it seems that we are farther than ever from those goals. How do you account for this apparent failure?,THE PRESIDENT. Don't judge us too quickly. When it comes to negotiation, I would suggest that you recognize the fact that some very important talks are going forward on arms limitation with the Soviet Union. We are still far apart. But I will predict now that there will be an agreement. When that agreement comes, it will have great significance. I say that having in mind the fact that we are far apart from the Soviet Union in our policy toward Southeast Asia, in our policy toward the Mideast; but I say that where the problems of arms is concerned, here is where our interests are together. The Soviet Union has just as great an interest as we have in seeing that there is some limitation on nuclear arms.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[18.] Q. Mr. President, have you made any judgement yet on the sale of jets to Israel? And how do you view the situation in the Middle East at the moment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the situation has become ominous due to the fact that reports have been received with regard to Soviet pilots being interjected into the U.A.R. Air Force, not in a combat but in some other role. We are watching these reports very closely. If those reports prove to be true, and if that continues to escalate, this will dramatically shift the balance of power, and it would make it necessary for the United States to reevaluate its decision with regard to the sale of jets to Israel.,We have made it very clear--and this is in the interest of peace in that area--that the balance of power must not be changed and we will keep that commitment.,PARIS TALKS AND CONSIDERATION OF A\nCOALITION GOVERNMENT,[19.] Q. Mr. President, is the United States prepared to pursue with equal fervor in Paris negotiations to find a political settlement of this war, including the possibility of discussing with the other side a coalition government?,THE PRESIDENT. We are prepared to seek not only in Paris but in any other forum a political settlement of this war. We are not prepared, however, to seek any settlement in which we or anyone else imposes upon the people of South Vietnam a government that they do not choose. If the people of South Vietnam choose a coalition government, if they choose to change the leaders they presently have, that is a decision we will accept. President Thieu has indicated he will accept it. But we do not intend to impose at the conference table on the people of South Vietnam a government they do not choose.,ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,[20.] Q. Mr. President, on a domestic subject, the economy, sir, unemployment is up, the stock market is down, things look generally discouraging. Do you have any views on that, and do you have any plans?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Unemployment reached the point of 4.8, I noticed, this last month. In order to keep it in perspective, it should be noted that in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965 the average unemployment was 5.7; 5.7 is too high; 4.8, I think, is also too high. But the unemployment we presently have is the result of the cooling of the economy and our fight against inflation.,We believe, however, that, as we look to the balance of the year, that we will begin to see a moving up in our gross national product in the last of the second quarter and throughout the third and fourth quarters. I believe that by the end of the year we will have passed the trillion dollar mark in terms of GNP. I believe that the year 1970 will be a good year economically, a year in which unemployment, we hope, can be kept below the average that we had in the early sixties, which was much too high.,THE CAMBODIAN DECISION,[21.] Q. Mr. President, did Secretary of State Rogers oppose your decision to go into Cambodia or did Dr. Kissinger oppose it?,THE PRESIDENT. Every one of my advisers, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Kissinger, Director Helms, raised questions about the decision, and, believe me, I raised the most questions, because I knew the stakes that were involved, I knew the division that would be caused in this country. I knew also the problems internationally. I knew the military risks. And then after hearing all of their advice, I made the decision. Decisions, of course, are not made by vote in the National Security Council or in the Cabinet. They are made by the President with the advice of those, and I made this decision. I take the responsibility for it. I believe it was the right decision. I believe it will work out. If it doesn't, then I am to blame. They are not,ADMINISTRATION DISCOURSE WITH\nDISSENTERS,[22.] Mr. Morgan [Edward P. Morgan, ABC News].,Q. Volumes have been written about the loneliness of the Presidency. You, yourself, have said that you were not going to get trapped into an isolation as President. Have you, particularly in recent days, felt isolated? And if you have not, could you explain to us why it was not until yesterday that you, whose voice means more than anybody else's in the administration, whether it be Mr. Agnew or Mr. Hickel, waited until yesterday to tell the educators that the administration was lowering--was modifying its discourse with the dissenters?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first let us understand what I told the educators. The educators came in to discuss their problems, and since they are all presidents I felt a community of interest with them.,I indicated to them that I didn't want to make their job any harder for them and I would appreciate it if they wouldn't make my job any harder for me in their own activities.\nThey raised questions about the Vice President, and about other people in the administration, about the rhetoric, and I know, of course, questions have been raised about my rhetoric.,Let me say that in terms, however, of the Vice President, in terms of what I told the educators, I did not indicate to them that I was going to muzzle the Vice President, that I was going to censor him.,I believe that the Vice President, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of HEW, everybody in this administration, should have the right, after considering all the factors, to speak out and express his views. This is an open administration. It will continue to be.,I also think that people should have the right to speak out as they do in the House, in the Senate, in the media, and in the universities. The only difference is that, of all these people--and I refer particularly to some of my lively critics in the House and Senate--they have the luxury of criticism.,I was once a Senator and a House Member; I thought back to this when I called Harry Truman today and wished him well on his 86th birthday, to some of the rather rugged criticisms that I directed in his direction.,They have the luxury of criticism because they can criticize and if it doesn't work out then they can gloat over it, or if it does work out, the criticism will be forgotten.,I don't have that luxury. As Commander in Chief, I, alone, am responsible for the lives of 425,000 or 430,000 Americans in Vietnam. That is what I have been thinking about. And the decision that I made on Cambodia will save those lives. It will bring the peace that we all want, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong, I am responsible and nobody else.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS FROM VIETNAM,[23.] Q. Mr. President, early in the news conference, in saying that the troop withdrawals would continue, you said that a year from now there would be 240,000 American soldiers in Vietnam.,THE PRESIDENT. Don't told me to the exact figure. I haven't--,Q. That is 185,000 less. Are you announcing a larger withdrawal tonight?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wasn't. What I was indicating was a range. But don't get the impression that we might not get that low also, because you understand we are going to go forward on the negotiating track at this time, and I am not among those who have given up on that track. I still think there is a possibility of progress there.,POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH\nDEMONSTRATORS,[24.] Q. Mr. President, will you see my of the demonstrators tomorrow in the White House? Will you talk with them?,THE PRESIDENT. If arrangements are made by my staff so that they can come in to see me, I will be glad to. I talk to great numbers of people. I will be here all day long. As a matter of fact, I will be here tonight and tomorrow as well. But sometimes it is quite difficult to arrange which groups should come in. I know members of my staff will go out to see them. I have asked all the younger members of my staff to talk to the demonstrators and try to get their views, as we did on November 15 and October 15. I will be glad to see them if some of them are available.,Frank Cormier, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President.,MEMORIAL TRIBUTE TO MERRIMAN SMITH,\nUNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL,[25.] THE PRESIDENT. Could I ask the members of the press to wait one moment.,For 26 years a member of this press corps did just what Frank Cormier did then. He was known as the man who said \"Thank you, Mr. President.\",Three weeks ago he met a tragic death and, as we close this conference, I would like to suggest that we all stand for a moment in memory of Merriman Smith. [Moment of silence],THE PRESIDENT. Thank you."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1970-03-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I am sorry to delay you, ladies and gentlemen, but we had to revise the statement on the postal workers a bit, because of late developments. It is a very brief statement.,Prior to going to any questions that you may have this morning, I thought that in talking about this particular issue, I could also elaborate on three other announcements that will be made next week.,POSTAL STRIKE,With regard to the postal strike, in addition to the statement,1 I would simply add that I recognize and appreciate the fact that postal workers in many areas have legitimate grievances. We are prepared to negotiate those issues, to discuss those issues, but under no circumstances will any grievances be discussed with any Government employees when they are out on an illegal strike. Any strike involving essential services by Federal employees is illegal.,1See Item 88.,We have made some progress due to the leadership of the Secretary of Labor and the Postmaster General yesterday in working with the leaders of the postal unions.,The great majority of the postal workers in the country are still at work and we believe will meet their commitment to stay at work and then have their grievances negotiated in an orderly way, which we have agreed to do with the leaders. However, as indicated, as you know, by the postal union in New York, at least in that case, and there may be in other cases, local unions which may reach other decisions.,On Monday I will meet my Constitutional obligation to see to it that the mails will go through. Now, further than that, I will make no statement on the postal strike today because these are very sensitive negotiations. We want to give the responsible leadership of the unions an opportunity to work with the Secretary of Labor and the Postmaster General for an orderly procedure. And I believe that there is still a chance that they may be able to work out a settlement.,MIDEAST POLICY,[2.] On Monday the Secretary of State, as you have already been informed, will make a statement on the administration's Mideast policy, with particular reference to two requests by the Israeli Government, one for economic assistance, and the other for military assistance. The Secretary of State will have a press conference at that time in which he will answer any of the questions you may have on the specifics of that decision.,I would like to, at this preliminary point, indicate the basic factor that led to that decision, and also the factors that will guide us as we make decisions in this area in the future. As far as the military portion of the decision is concerned, I would describe it as essentially an interim decision. Our goal in the Mideast, or goals, I should say, in broad terms, are four.,First, to have a cease-fire; second, to reduce the flow of arms into the area; third, to achieve a political settlement; and fourth, to accomplish to the greatest extent possible, a balance between the forces in that area which will contribute to peace from a military standpoint and not to disturb that balance.,The decision that the Secretary will announce on Monday is one based on our present appraisal of the balance of power in the Mideast.,In recent days there have been disturbing reports that the Soviet Union, by deliveries of new [surface-to-air] missiles, SA-3's, to the U.A.R. and through the insertion of military personnel, may be taking actions which could change that balance. It is too early to say whether that is the case. We are watching the situation closely.,If the U.S.S.R., by its military assistance programs to Israel's neighbors, does essentially change the balance, then the United States would take action to deal with that situation. The Secretary of State will cover this matter in greater detail in his statement.,It is our hope that in our negotiations with the Soviet Union, bilaterally, and in the Four-Power talks, that we can convince all the major powers to stop escalating the arms race in the Mideast, to work together for a cease-fire, and to achieve, of course, a political settlement.,Apart from the recent reports, there have been some developments in the Mideast in our bilateral discussions with the Soviet Union that have been, I would say, modestly encouraging, and we trust that that trend, rather than this latest trend, will be the one that will prevail.,But the Secretary of State's statement on both the economic and military assistance program, as I have indicated, is based on the decision which was made on our analysis of the present balance in the Mideast, one that we believe should be maintained in the interest of peace and of a settlement.,SCHOOL DESEGREGATION STATEMENT,[3.] On Tuesday I will make the statement on school desegregation which we have been in the process of preparing over the past several weeks.,It will be a very lengthy statement. I say lengthy in terms of the number of words, and it will be a statement made for distribution to the press throughout the country rather than a statement which can be delivered on radio or television, because of its length.,The reason for the length is that I determined that it was time to have a comprehensive study and discussion of all of the relevant legal decisions in this field, not only the decisions of the Supreme Court, but the decisions of the circuit courts and the district courts which apply to the very difficult problems that we have in both the North and the South. I am in the process of completing my final editing of the statement and will do so over this weekend.,I would say, based on its present progress, that I consider this the most comprehensive analysis of the legal situation and also of the problems of segregation and education that has been made since the historic case of Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954. I am hopeful that it will contribute to a better understanding of, first, what the law is; and, second, that it will provide the direction to all of the agencies of the administration, of the Government, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to others who may be interested, the direction that they need to carry out the law of the land. Beyond that I will have no statement on that subject today.,BOMBING LEGISLATION STATEMENT,[4.] And then on Wednesday, the statement that was referred to after the leadership meeting on Tuesday will be made in which I will ask the Congress to provide additional legislation where the Federal Government can assist local authorities to deal with the increasing use of terrorism through indiscriminate bombing attacks.,This is an area where it is, from a legal standpoint, necessary to find a Federal interest. The Federal Government, of course, has no right or responsibility unless a Federal interest is involved. But I find that, based on my discussions with the Attorney General, there are several areas where we can strengthen existing laws, and that statement will be made on Wednesday.,I regret that this opening statement has taken so long, but I felt that it did cover some points that you would be interested in. Now we will go to questions.,QUESTIONS,JUDGE G. HARROLD CARSWELL,[5.] Q. Mr. President, if I could raise one more question. As you know it has been discovered that several hundred letters or postcards have been sent to Senators opposing your nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Carswell, most of them charging him with being a racist or a bigot. Some of these have been sent from California in bulk, mailed to States throughout the Union and then to be transmitted to the Senators in order to deceive the Senators into thinking that these letters came from their own constituents. I wonder what you thought of this type of procedure and whether you think this will prevent the confirmation of Carswell?,THE PRESIDENT. I always used to tell young Congressmen and Senators when they first came to Washington that in making a decision, they should do it not by weighing the mail but by weighing the evidence.,Now, I am convinced that the Members of the Senate who are considering this very important nomination to the Supreme Court will not be affected by such tactics. These tactics, as you know, have been used over the years in other matters, as well as in the Carswell case. I think the Members of the Senate will not be affected by it.,DELIVERY OF THE MAIL,[6.] Q. You have said you might use the Army Monday in the postal strike. Is this the only step you could take or could you outline some of the steps you could take to get the mails through?,THE PRESIDENT. I will answer that question only by saying that we have the means to deliver the mail. We will use those means. But I do not want to indicate what they would be because I think that might put a disturbing element into the very delicate situation of negotiation going on in local unions throughout the country.,I am not threatening. I am simply stating as a matter of fact that the President of the United States, among Iris many responsibilities, has a responsibility to see that the mail is delivered, And I shall meet that responsibility and meet it effectively beginning Monday in the event that the postal workers in any area decide that they are not going to meet their constitutional responsibilities to deliver mail.,DEVELOPMENTS IN CAMBODIA,[7.] Q. Mr. President, will you entertain a question on Southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure, any question. I am not limiting this to the four subjects.,Q. I am wondering how you feel about the recent developments in Cambodia, and how it relates to our whole effort in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. These developments in Cambodia are quite difficult to appraise. As you know from having been out there yourself on occasion, the Cambodian political situation, to put it conservatively, is quite unpredictable and quite fluid.,However, we have, as you note, established relations on a temporary basis with the government which has been selected by the Parliament and will continue to deal with that government as long as it appears to be the government of the nation. I think any speculation with regard to which way this government is going to turn, what will happen to Prince Sihanouk 2 when he returns, would both be premature and not helpful.,2 Prince Norodom Sihanouk was deposed as Chief of State of Cambodia on March 18, 1970.,I will simply say that we respect Cambodia's neutrality. We would hope that North Vietnam would take that same position in respecting its neutrality. And we hope that whatever government eventually prevails there, that it would recognize that the United States interest is the protection of its neutrality.,THAI INTEREST IN LAOS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, could I follow that up with another question about Southeast Asia?,The Thais have apparently introduced troops into Laos, either with or without the help of the United States. I, first, wondered whether you could tell us whether we actually helped them by flying them in in our aircraft; and, secondly, what you think about the Thais fighting in Laos? Does that complicate our problem out there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Thai interest in Laos and the Thai participation in attempting to sustain the neutralist Government of Laos, I think, has been known for years; and their interest is, if anything, perhaps even more acute than ours. They have a 1,000-mile border with Laos. There are 8 million ethnic Laotians, as you know, who live in northeast Thailand. And if Laos were to come under the domination of a Communist North Vietnamese Government, it would be an enormous threat to Thailand.,Thailand also is a signatory of the Geneva accords of 1962 and under those circumstances would be expected to respond to requests by the Government of Laos, set up under those accords and agreed to by all of the parties including the North Vietnamese and the Communist Chinese, and would be expected to provide some assistance.,Beyond that, I would say that any questions in this area should be directed to the Government in Thailand or Laos. It is a matter between these two Governments.,ASSEMBLYMAN TRAN NGOC CHAU OF\nSOUTH VIETNAM,[9.] Q. There have been numerous reports in the newspapers that the South Vietnamese Assemblyman, Chau, who has recently been sentenced to 90 years in prison, on many occasions cooperated with the United States Government in Saigon and gave them information; and specifically that in August of 1967 he informed Ambassador Bunker and others of the oncoming Tet attacks. Can you tell us if there is anything to those reports?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't comment on those reports. I will only say that this is a matter which Ambassador Bunker has discussed with President Thieu, that those discussions, of course, were on a private basis, and I think any speculation about what the discussions were would not be appropriate.,FRANCE'S SALE OF PLANES TO LIBYA,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you expressed the hope that all major powers would stop the escalation of the arms race in the Middle East. Do you have any indication that France would be cooperative in their sale of planes to that area?,THE PRESIDENT. First, as has been indicated, there is a long lead time on the delivery of French planes to Libya. Secondly, while, of course, I would not presume to speak for the Government of France--that question should be directed to them--the Government of France is not taking a position that its delivery. of planes to Libya is for the purpose of transshipment basically to the U.A.R. France is a participant in the Four-Power talks.,I discussed this matter in considerable detail with President Pompidou when he was here. I will not reveal what those discussions were, as I do not reveal the discussions, as he does not either, between chiefs of state. But I do believe that France recognizes, as we recognize, that any shipment of arms to the Middle East which imperils the balance of power increases the danger of war. And I think that France in its shipments to Libya will be--in its shipments over the next few years, will be guided by that principle, as we are guided by that principle in making our determinations of what arms we ship.,POSSIBILITY OF A TRIP TO EUROPE,[11.] Q. You made a very successful trip to Paris when [President] de Gaulle was there, and I see by the Gallup poll that the visit here of Mr. Pompidou was a success. Would you consider going back to Europe at any moment?,THE PRESIDENT. I would certainly consider it. Seriously, I would enjoy the opportunity to return to Europe. And I think that the chance to have face-to-face discussions with European leaders would be quite constructive in our development of a common foreign policy where our interests were common.,However, I do not have any present plans to go to Europe, none over the next few months. But I would hope to plan a trip to Europe sometime before the end of my term of office.,And incidentally, President Pompidou invited me to return again while he was President, and I told him I would come sometime. After all, he will be in for 7 years and I will have plenty of time.,SCHOOL DESEGREGATION STATEMENT,[12.] Q. Why is your civil rights message, from what you say, going to be emphasizing the legal aspects of the problem? What is there that you want to clear up?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the message will speak for itself. It goes into great detail, because the law at all levels is confused. The various circuit courts have come down on both sides of various questions that have come before it. The Supreme Court has left several gray areas. And wherever the Supreme Court has not spoken, it is the responsibility of the administration, then, to interpret the law and carry it out in a way that it believes is appropriate.,So what I am doing is to map out those areas where the law is clear, and then indicate how I interpret the law; and also indicate how I believe the administration should move in those areas where the Court has not spoken.,To give you one example--and I don't want, of course, to indicate in advance what I am saying in the statement--is that the Supreme Court, while it has spoken out very clearly on de jure segregation, has not spoken out on de facto segregation. Now the question is, what should the policy, under those circumstances, of the Federal Government be in cases of de facto segregation in northern States? I will address myself directly to that question and try to indicate what the best position should be, not only from a legal standpoint, but here primarily from the standpoint of education and the goal of desegregated education that we want to achieve. This is an area that I think probably answers your question.,EFFECT OF EVENTS IN LAOS ON TROOP WITHDRAWALS FROM SOUTH VIETNAM,[13.] Q. Mr. President, as I understand it, you are to make another decision in the near future on further troop withdrawals from South Vietnam. Can you tell us if the events in Laos have had any effect on your judgment that will affect your decisions?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they have not. They have had no effect up to this point, and I do not expect the events in Laos to affect that decision.,The Vietnamization program is going on as scheduled, and when our decision is made, it will take into account, of course, the factors at that time.,But what has happened in Laos to date has not changed the situation as far as the decision is concerned.,ECONOMIC AND MILITARY REQUESTS BY\nISRAEL,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in what you had to say about the Middle East and the decisions to be announced by the Secretary of State Monday, there seemed to be the clear implication that the decision is against sending the additional arms to Israel. Could you go so far as to say whether or not that interpretation is on the right track?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star], I am not going to preempt what the Secretary of State is going to say. But let me also indicate that the Secretary of State's statement will cover the whole area of a major economic proposal--request-that was made by the Government of Israel, and also the area of military requests that are made by the Government of Israel.,I would think that it would be unwise to anticipate or speculate in advance what the Secretary of State is going to say on these various things.,What I am simply saying is this: that insofar as the military portion of the decision is concerned, that portion is based on the fact situation as we see it at this time, and that will be constantly reappraised as the fact situation changes.,That is why I refer to it as essentially an interim decision rather than one that looks forward over a period of say 2 years, 3 years, or 4 years, because the fact situation does change.,CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, as a California voter, how do you feel about the disclosure that Senator Murphy remains on the Technicolor payroll and the entry of Mr. Simon into the race there?3,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a California voter, I intend to vote for Senator Murphy if he wins the nomination, and I expect him to win the nomination.,3Senator George Murphy and industrialist Norton Simon were both candidates for the Republican United States Senate nomination in California.,CONTROL OF INFLATION,[16.] Q. On a domestic question, sir, one of the key issues in the country seems to be still inflation and in light of the last report on the cost of living rise, and some of the indications that the Government policy is being eased on the money supply, et cetera, do you still hold the optimism that you voiced earlier about the control of inflation in the very near future, or what is your analysis of it now?,THE PRESIDENT. The problem of inflation, when you refer to monetary policy, of course, indicates the irony which only the sophisticated economists seem to understand.,As Dr. [Arthur F.] Burns indicated in his testimony--or let me be perhaps a bit more precise in that, as some who interpreted his testimony indicated, there has been some casing of monetary policy, and the question therefore naturally arises, as you have put it, why do you ease monetary policy when the rate of inflation is still at a high level?,Of course the answer is that because of the long lead time, the lag, in the effect of monetary policy on the economy, it is necessary to change your monetary policy before prices start to come down. I don't mean that; I should say not before prices start to come down, because that is not going to happen--before the rate of increase of prices starts to come down.,The reason that decision must be made in that rather complex way is that if in monetary policy you wait until you see the Consumer Price Index moving on a downward curve, if you wait that long, then the danger is that you will have waited so long that you trigger recession, and what we are trying to do here is have a policy in which we avoid both recession, on the one side, and still control inflation, stop the rate of increase, on the other side.,Incidentally, in this kind of a conference my answers, I think, should be a little bit more extended, because it is a question that requires a longer answer. When we speak of the question of recession, I have noted some statements to the effect, \"Well, aren't we in a recession now?\" Well, the answer to that question is, of course, that if one man is out of work, he is in a recession. That is a recession for him.,The rate of unemployment at the present time is 4.2 percent. I have noted that some of our critics have suggested that this, therefore, is a recession.,Well, I was looking over the figures this morning and if 4.2 percent rate of unemployment is a recessions and as far as I am concerned, I don't like to see any man out of work--but if 4.2 percent is a recession, then the 6.7 percent unemployment that we had in 1961 was a recession; the 5.5 percent in 1962, we were in a recession; 5.7 percent unemployment in 1963 was a recession; and 5.2 percent unemployment in 1964 was a recession.,I think, however, that any fair-minded appraiser of the economic trends of that time would have not said that that period from 1961 to 1965 was a period of recession for the United States, even though the unemployment rate was over 5 percent.,I am not suggesting that this administration expects an unemployment rate of over 5 percent, and that we are not going to take action to keep the rate below that. I am only suggesting simply these conclusions:,One, this country is not in a recession at the present time.,Second, this is an activist administration. We are going to take action to avoid a recession at the same time that we are taking action to cool the fires of inflation.,And third, 1970 is going to be a good year from an economic standpoint. From a political standpoint, I really cannot judge.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday voted out unanimously and sent to the floor a \"sense of the Senate\" resolution concerning the U.S. position at SALT [strategic arms limitation talks]. Could you make a remark about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Senate resolution, I understand, simply says that the United States and Soviet Union should try to negotiate a freeze on offensive and defensive missiles.,Of course, that is what SALT is all about, so I think the resolution really is irrelevant to what we are going to do. That is our goal. It takes two, however, to make the deal.,If the Soviet Union will come along with that, as we hope they will, then perhaps we can make some arrangements. I can certainly say in this respect, though, that it is somewhat more intricate than the resolution would imply.,We found in our preliminary discussions that the Soviet Union did not come in with generalized language, which had been previously their tactic in arms negotiations, but they came in with very precise weapon systems by weapon systems analysis.,Now whether we eventually have a comprehensive agreement or a system-by-system agreement, remains to be seen. We are prepared for either.,But our goal certainly is to limit both offensive and defensive missiles, and if the Soviet Union has the same goal, we will make a bargain.,BALANCE OF POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST,[18.] Q. Mr. President, a clarifying on the Mideast: You said earlier, I think, that Secretary Rogers' decision on the military side would be based in large part on our best present assessment of the balance of power in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. That is right.,Q. Have you included in that calculation the recent reports of additional weapons and personnel from the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times], those reports came in during this last week, after we had made our decisions. We, however, have evaluated those reports--and they are, as you know, somewhat fragmentary at this time; they are intelligence reports--we evaluated those reports. Those reports, as of the present time, and considering our present evaluation, do not indicate a significant shift in the balance.,What I am saying here, basically, is that the United States intends to continue to watch the Mideast situation to see whether further shipments of arms or personnel to the Mideast does tip the balance in a way that it would be necessary for us to provide some assistance, additional assistance to Israel, so that they would not be in an inferior position.,Because what we must understand here is that once that balance shifts perceptibly to one side or the other, then the danger of war greatly increases, until you have a political settlement. We have to realize that we have in the Mideast peoples whose enmities go back over centuries. We have to realize that when one gets an enormous advantage over another, or a significant advantage, the danger of war coming escalates.,That is why our policy has been to try to maintain a balance, so that neither is encouraged to embark on an aggressive course.,BUSINESS-LABOR BARGAINING AND ECONOMIC POLICY,[19.] Q. Mr. President, one more question on economic policy, sir: Is your administration no longer concerned about the inflationary expectations on the part of business or union leaders at the bargaining table?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes, we are concerned. I think your question really relates to inflationary psychology, as I understand it.,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. We are concerned about that. For example, that is why our budget policy is not changing. While we have, as you know, made one change in the construction area, because construction, as you know, is the area where monetary policy is strict--it is hit first, and hit hardest--and that is why we have eased up on our construction freeze where Federal and State projects are concerned.,But except for that particular area, our budgetary policy remains one of restraint, and that, of course, will tend to cool off any inflationary psychology.,We also believe that business and labor leaders cannot help but be impressed by the fact that over the past 4 months the economy has been, in terms of its growth, on a flat projection rather than on an upward projection. And we are going to continue to do everything that we can to see that the inflationary psychology doesn't get another jolt just at the time that we had it cooled, which we think had occurred in January and February and early March.,But I want to be quite candid. I wish that our economic friends could, with great precision, tell us that, well, if you do this, that, or the other thing, at a certain month in the future your unemployment rate will be this, and your interest rate will be this, and the inflation will have been checked to this extent. But no honest economist will tell you that. We aren't that sure.,But I will say this: I am confident that the policies that we are following, first, have taken the fire out of the inflation. I am confident that the Consumer Price Index will begin to reflect that as we go on through the balance of the year.,I am also confident that this economy is not going to be plunged into a recession, because I believe that the steps that are being taken now in the monetary field and in other areas will keep the economy from being depressed and will keep it on a moderately upward trend. That is what we are trying to accomplish.,Reporter: Thank you very much, Mr President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1970-01-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Will you be seated, please.,QUESTIONS,ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,[1.] Mr. Cornell [Douglas B. Cornell, Associated Press].,Q. Mr. President, for several days I have been collecting some headlines that sort of point up the question I would like to put to you. I would like to run over some of these headlines with you: \"Balance of trade makes slight progress in 1969,\" \"Circus rings up record 1969 profits\"--Ringling Brothers, \"Big firms, 1969 profits down,\" \"Dow average hits new low for 3 years,\" \"GNP rise halted,\" \"Ford joins GM, Chrysler in work cutbacks,\" \"Wholesale prices show sharp rise,\" \"U.S. Steel will raise sheet prices February 1.\",The question is, how, sir, do you assess the possibility that we may be in for perhaps the worst possible sort of economic conditions inflation and a recession?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Cornell, the major purpose of our economic policy since we came into office a year ago has been to stop the inflation which had been going on for 5 years without doing it so quickly that it brought on a recession. Now, as a result, we are now in a position, the critical position, in which the decisions made in the next month or two will determine whether we win this battle.,In my view, the budget that we will announce on Monday, that I understand has received some attention already--but that budget will be a major blow in stopping the inflation psychology. Now, whether we can anticipate now whether we are going to have a recession, as some of those figures that you gave would imply, I would simply say that I do not expect a recession to occur.,Our policies have been planned to avoid a recession. I do expect that the present rate of inflation, which was less in the second half of 1969 than in the first half, will continue to decline and that we will be able to control inflation without recession.,THE SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[2.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International],Q. Mr. President, how do you view the possibility and size of a new Tet offensive in Vietnam and a hot war in the Middle East in view of the rising violence there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, with regard to Vietnam, we are watching that situation closely, particularly in view of new inflation figures. The inflation--I mean, we were talking about inflation--I meant infiltration.,The infiltration in Vietnam, and, of course, that means inflation as far as the number of forces of the enemy in South Vietnam is concerned, has gone up in January. However, the number of infiltrators is still not of a size to provide what we believe is the capability the enemy would need to mount and sustain a prolonged offensive beyond that which we are able to contain.,We are continuing to watch the situation, and we will be prepared to deal with it. I would remind everybody concerned, and particularly remind the enemy, however, of what I said on November 3d, and repeated on December 15th. If, at a time that we are attempting to deescalate the fighting in Vietnam, we find that they take advantage of our troop withdrawals to jeopardize the remainder of our forces by escalating the fighting, then we have the means--and I will be prepared to use those means-strongly to deal with that situation, more strongly than we have dealt with it in the past.,SALE OF ARMS TO THE MIDDLE EAST,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, you recently said we will not hesitate to supply arms to friendly states as the need arises.,Has the sale of 100 jets to Libya by the French caused an imbalance in the Mideast arms situation, enough so that the United States should now expedite the sale of additional jets to Israel?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Jarriel [Thomas Jarriel, ABC News], the problem of the sale of arms to Libya has been one that does concern us. As you know, that involves our relations also with the French Government. Now, one encouraging thing that has happened since we came into office is some improvement in our relations with the French.,One of the reasons that those relations have improved--and that improvement began when I visited President de Gaulle last February--is that we have had better consultation and discussion with regard to our differences, and those differences exist primarily in two areas, our policies toward the Mideast and our policies toward NATO.,President Pompidou will be here next month, and I will be discussing a number of problems with him. I would not want to speculate now as to what I will be discussing with him, except to say that all of those differences, naturally, will be on the table.,As far as our own policy toward the Mideast is concerned--a question which was the latter part, incidentally, of Miss Thomas' question--as far as our own policy toward the Mideast is concerned, let me put one thing in context: I have noted several recent stories indicating that the United States one day is pro-Arab and the next day is pro-Israel. We are neither pro-Arab nor pro-Israel. We are pro-peace. We are for security for all the nations in that area. As we look at this situation, we will consider the Israeli arms request based on the threats to them from states in the area and we will honor those requests to the extent that we see--we determine that they need additional arms in order to meet that threat. That decision will be made within the next 30 days.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS IN VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in June, I believe it was, you told us that you hoped to be able to beat former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford's projected timetable for the withdrawal of all ground combat troops, and I want to get this exactly correct, by the end of this year. Your present rate of withdrawal does not seem to be beating that timetable. Could you tell us if you still hope to be able to do that, and, if not, why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Pierpoint [Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News], that is our goal. Our goal, of course, is to end the war in Vietnam, preferably by negotiation, as quickly as possible. If not by negotiation, through Vietnamization, in which the South Vietnamese will assume the primary responsibility for their own defense.,We are moving on schedule on Vietnamization. More announcements will be made. I do not want to speculate now as to whether we will beat the requirement that--or at least the proposal that Clark Clifford put out. I do say, however, that that is our goal, and we hope to achieve it.,\"JAWBONING\" IN THE FIGHT AGAINST\nINFLATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, on Mr. Cornell's question of inflation and recession, a former Johnson administration official feels he has figures to prove that jawboning was effective in holding down prices, and he also claims that the rate of inflation was greatest during 1969, your first year, than in any other single year in the decade.,I am wondering if the decisions you say you will be making in the next month or two might include considering jawboning?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the official statement to which you refer, of course, is correct. The rate of inflation in 1969 was greater than in any other year in the decade. But what happens in any particular year is not a result of the policy of that year. It is caused by what was done prior to that time, and for 5 years prior to 1969 this Nation, by going into debt to the tune of $57 billion, planted the inflationary seeds which grew into almost an uncontrollable situation in 1969.,Now starting in 1969, and again in 1970, and again in 1971, we have balanced budgets. That kind of policy we believe will turn it around. It is the best way to turn it around, and the only effective way.,Now, with regard to jawboning, we think that the policy of so-called jawboning failed and was no longer used in 1966 and 1967. It is effective, certainly, when the President of the United States calls in a big steel company or a big automobile company and says, \"Lower prices. If you don't, we will do this or that with regard to Government contracts.\",But that is effective with regard to that company. It is not effective with regard to the whole problem, and it is basically unfair. We are going to continue on our present course. We believe it is the right course.,VIETNAMIZATION POLICY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Rogers and Vice President Agnew have said, with somewhat different that the course of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam is irreversible. You have just issued a warning about the level of enemy activity.,Do you mean, sir, that, if there is a rise in the level of enemy activity, that it could cause a halt in the withdrawal program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what Secretary Rogers and the Vice President very properly referred to was my speech on November 3d in which I said we had implemented a plan in which the United States would withdraw all of its combat forces as Vietnamese forces were trained and able to take over the fighting. That policy of Vietnamization is irreversible.,Now, as far as the timing of the plan is concerned, how many, and at what time they come out, that, of course, will depend on the criteria that I also set forth in that speech--the criteria of the level of enemy activity, the progress in the Pads peace talks, and, of course, the other matters, the problems particularly with regard to the rate of training of the Vietnamese forces.,As far as what I answered in Miss Thomas' question was concerned, I am simply repeating again what I said on November 3d when I announced this policy of withdrawal of our forces.,If the enemy, when we are withdrawing, does then jeopardize our remaining forces by stepping up the fighting, we will react accordingly and we have the means to do so which I will not hesitate to use.,NOMINATION OF JUDGE G. HARROLD\nCARSWELL,[7.] Q. Mr. President, if you had known about the speech in which he advocated white supremacy, would you have nominated Judge Carswell to the Supreme Court?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would. I am not concerned about what Judge Carswell said 22 years ago when he was a candidate for a State legislature. I am very much concerned about his record of 18 years-as you know, he had 6 years as a U.S. Attorney and 12 years as a Federal District Judge--a record which is impeccable and without a taint of any racism, a record, yes, of strict constructionism as far as the interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the Court, which I think the Court needs, the kind of balance that it needs. Those are the reasons that I nominated Judge Carswell.,I should also point out that, looking at a man's record over the past, any individual may find instances where he has made statements in which his position has changed. I was reading for example, referring to the press corps here, a very interesting biography of Ralph McGill 1 the other day. In 1940 he wrote a column in which he came out unalterably against integration of education of Southern schools.,1 Editor and publisher of the Atlanta Constitution, who died on February 4, 1969.,He changed his mind later. As you know, he was a very great advocate of integration. That doesn't mean that you question his integrity in his late years because in his early years in the South he took the position that other Southerners were taking.,I believe that Judge Carswell will be approved by the Senate overwhelmingly. I think he will make a fine judge. And I think that he will certainly, in this whole field of civil rights, interpret the Constitution and follow the law of the land in a fair and equitable way.,BLACK PEOPLE AND THE ADMINISTRATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel you stand, now that you have been in office a year, in terms of having the confidence and trust of the black people in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been concerned, Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], about polls and statements by some black leaders, and some white leaders who purport to speak for black people, to the effect that while the administration seems to be doing rather well among most of the American people, that we do not have the confidence that we should have among black people.,Let me, however, respond to what I intend to do about that in this way: I think the problem we confronted when we came in was a performance gap with regard to black people in America--big promises and little action and, as a result, immense frustration which flared into violence.,Now I know all the words. I know all the gimmicks and the phrases that would win the applause of black audiences and professional civil rights leaders. I am not going to use them. I am interested in deeds. I am interested in closing the performance gap. And if we can get our welfare reform, if we can stop the rise of crime which terrorizes those who live in our central cities, if we can move on the programs that I mentioned with regard to rural America where 59 percent of the black people live, if we can provide the job opportunity and the opportunity for business enterprise for black people and other minority groups that this administration stands for, then when I finish office I would rather be measured by my deeds than all the fancy speeches I may have made. And X think then that black people may approve what we did. I don't think I am going to win them with the words.,JUDGE CARSWELL,[9.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, United Press International],Q. Could you tell us, going back to the Carswell matter, whether or not the two controversial issues raised in the hearings were brought to your attention before you submitted the nomination, during the screening process?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they were not. The two controversial issues--I assume you meant the speech that Judge Carswell made when he was a candidate for office and the fact that he had belonged to a restricted golf club--yes. I can only say with regard to the restricted golf club that--I did not know, of course, about the speech--as far as the restricted golf club is concerned, if everybody in Washington in Government service who has belonged or does belong to a restricted golf club were to leave Government service, this would have the highest rate of unemployment of any city in the country.,And as far as Judge Carswell is concerned, I think that he has testified very openly about his membership in the club, and the members of the Senate committee overwhelmingly have considered those matters and have decided that he is not a racist and that he will be a fair and, it seems to me, a very competent judge of the Supreme Court.,EXPANSION OF THE ABM SYSTEM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I wanted to know if you have decided whether you are going to recommend an expansion of the ABM system?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it was approximately a year ago, not quite a year in a press conference in this room, that I announced we were going to go forward with an ABM system with two purposes in mind:,First, a purpose of defending our Minutemen sites against any major nuclear power, and, second, an area defense cover the possibility of attack by any minor nuclear power.,As far as that decision was made I said then that I would reexamine it annually. I have reexamined it in a meeting of the National Security Council last week. I have decided to go forward with both the first phase and the second phase of the ABM system, and Secretary Laird will announce the details of the program in about 30 days.,RELIEF EFFORTS IN NIGERIA,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with Biafran relief, some people seem to think that the United States should put more pressure on the Nigerian central government in order to speed up the relief operations.,Are you satisfied with the efforts the United States has made and with the pace of the relief effort?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Homer, Washington Evening Star], we have done everything that we think it is proper to do to bring to the attention of the Nigerians Government the concerns that we have and the reports that we have received that they may not have received with regard to starvation in Biafra. We all have to understand, of course, that no relief can get into Biafra unless we do it through the Nigerians Government. And that is why we have brought these matters to the attention of the Nigerian Government.,I would add one further thing, that there are two questions here that sometimes become confused on Biafra. There is first the question of politics and second the question of people. The question of politics involves who is to blame for the starvation. Is it the defunct government of Biafra who is to blame or is the Nigerian Government to blame?,We're not interested in the politics. We are interested in the people. If there are starving people, and there have been reports that there are numbers of starving people, perhaps hundreds of thousands, then it is our desire to get food to them. We have made considerable progress in getting the Nigerian Government to accept our offer of trucks, hospitals, food, and we are going to continue to press in the interest of helping hungry people and not involving ourselves in the politics of who was responsible for the starvation where it exists.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Le Duc Tho, one of Hanoi's chief negotiators, has arrived in Paris. I wondered, sir, if you plan to take advantage of his stay there either to make new proposals yourself or to try in more detail to get North Vietnam's position?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, Le Duc Tho, at least according to press reports, has arrived in Paris to attend a Communist Party meeting that is being held there. Now, whether he will now participate in the negotiations again or whether we could have an opportunity to have discussions with him remains to be seen. I can only say that we have a very competent Ambassador there in Mr. Habib. He has instructions to explore every possible avenue for a breakthrough in the negotiations, and if an opportunity is presented, he will do so.,THE ABM AND AREA DEFENSE,[13.] Q. Sir, in connection with the ABM, there have been suggestions that expanding the ABM from a protective system for Minutemen into an area defense of cities might raise problems in connection with the negotiations on arms control.,Without going into too much detail, can you tell us whether your decision to proceed with the second phase involves area defense or simply an additional defense of Minutemen like the first phase?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Star and Tribune], our decision involves area defense. The Minuteman defense is only effective insofar as an attack by a major power, taking out our retaliatory capacity.,The area defense, on the other hand, is absolutely essential as against any minor power, a power, for example, like Communist China. I don't anticipate an attack by Communist China, but if such a power had some capability with ICBM's to reach the United States, an area defense, according to the information we have received, is virtually infallible against that kind of potential attack, and, therefore, gives the United States a credible foreign policy in the Pacific area which it otherwise would not have.,FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us what you had in mind a few moments ago when you said that the decisions to be made in the next month or two would determine whether we have inflation or how we go on the road toward greater economic stability?,THE PRESIDENT. I think first we must put this in the context of the action of the Congress just a couple of days ago on the HEW veto.,I think the significance of that action-and I am not here to gloat over it because what we have to do now is to work together toward getting the fight kind of bill that will be noninflationary--but the significance of that action, and it is a signal to the country, is that we are not going to have a runaway Congress and, therefore, not going to have a runaway budget and a runaway inflation.,Now, with this administration submitting a hard budget, not a bargain basement budget--I could have, by a little gimmickry, gotten this down to $199.8 rather than having it $200.7. But $200.8, which is the figure that we finally agreed upon, is a hard figure. It is an honest budget, we can keep it, and we have a surplus which is a real surplus.,Having made those decisions, this means that the Federal Reserve can now consider the fact that we do have fiscal restraint in determining whether or not this is the time to loosen up on monetary policy.,Now, let me be quite precise in this respect. The Federal Reserve is independent and the new Chairman, who will be sworn in here tomorrow, is one of the most independent men that I know.,As President of the United States, I am not saying what the Federal Reserve ought to do; I do know, though, that if monetary policy remains too restricted too long, we have a recession, and monetary policy will remain restricted unless the Federal Reserve and those who are in charge of monetary policy are convinced that fiscal policy is responsible. Fiscal policy is responsible, and as a result of that I think the time is coming when monetary policy can be relaxed and that would lead to what I mentioned a moment ago.,PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,[15.] Q. In a news conference early in your administration, you noted that the North Vietnamese would not negotiate in earnest unless the country supported and was behind your Vietnam position.,Now that there has been a virtual moratorium on criticism, do you feel that the chances are improved for a settlement in Paris or for a breakthrough, and do you feel this is having any effect on the North Vietnamese?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had no evidence of any effect yet on the North Vietnamese. They are just as recalcitrant in their position as they have been and just as stubborn. On the other hand, we haven't given up hope. We continue to meet with them each week. We continue to be as forthcoming as we can.,I would say that the fact that we have had more support, and I should say perhaps more understanding of our policy and, therefore, more support for it than previously, should be an incentive for the North Vietnamese to negotiate, because that is a message to them that they aren't going to win--they have nothing to gain by delay. They are not going to win their ends by a division in the United States.,U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN LAOS,[16.] Q. Senator Mansfield has asked for details of the military involvement of the United States in Laos. So far the administration has said nothing beyond your recent statement that we have no combat troops there.,Just how deep is this country's involvement in Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. I answered that same question in my press conference approximately a month ago in this room and I will not go beyond that answer at this point, except to say that the North Vietnamese have 50,000 troops in Laos and thereby threaten the survival of Laos.,Our activities there are solely for the purpose of seeing that the Laotian Government--which was set up by the Laotian accords, and at their request--for the purpose of seeing that they are not overwhelmed by the North Vietnamese and other Communist forces.,AMERICAN FORCES IN VIETNAM,[17.] Mr. Roberts [Chalmers M. Roberrs, Washington Post],Q. Mr. President, to go back to Viet-Nam a moment, assuming the best on the military front and that you can continue to take troops out, the text of the remarks of the Air Force Secretary the other day about turning over gradually the air jobs to the Vietnamese made it sound as though at least air units and presumably combat units which are tactical are going to have to remain in Vietnam for many, many years.,Could you give us your feeling about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Roberts, first, how long any units remain in Viet-Nam will depend upon whether we have a breakthrough in negotiations.,Assuming--and I assume this is the basis for your question--there is no breakthrough in negotiations, then we still stand on what I announced on November 3d, that our plan envisages the complete withdrawal of all American combat forces. But it does also envisage support for the South Vietnamese logistically and, until they are ready to take over, support in the sea and support in the air, where you have highly sophisticated training programs involved, will stay there for a longer time than support in terms of ground forces. I think I will just stand on that statement.,ARM SYSTEM AND PACIFIC DEFENSE,[18.] Q. Mr. President, you said a minute ago that your expansion of the ABM system will provide a credible defense in the Pacific. Do you mean in part by that that it will expand your options in the war in Vietnam and the war in Laos in the event of unanticipated difficulties?,THE PRESIDENT. No, what I was referring to was the time span of perhaps 10 years from now, and we must do now those things that we may be confronted with 10 years from now, to deal with those things.,Ten years from now the Communist Chinese, for example, among others, may have a significant nuclear capability. They will not be a major nuclear power, but they will have a significant nuclear capability. By that time the war in Vietnam will be over. By that time, I would trust, also, the Laotian war may be resolved.,But, on the other hand, with a significant nuclear capability, assuming that we have not made a breakthrough--and we are going to try to make the breakthrough in some nonrealization of our relationships with Communist China--then it will be very important for the United States to have some kind of defense so that nuclear blackmail could not be used against the United States or against those nations like the Philippines with which the United States is allied in the Pacific, not to mention Japan.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-12-08","text":"QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Won't you be seated.,THE OUTLOOK IN VIETNAM,Mr. Smith [Merriman Smith, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, do you see any signs of the Vietnam war cooling off?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, looking over the long period, yes--as far as recent weeks are concerned, since my speech of November 3, no significant change. When we compare the situation with regard to infiltration and casualties this year with last year, there is a great difference.,Looking to the future, if that situation continues, I believe that we can see that the Vietnam war will come to a conclusion regardless of what happens at the bargaining table. It will come to a conclusion as a result of the plan that we have instituted on which we are embarked for replacing American troops with Vietnamese forces.,MYLAI,[2.] Mr. Cornell [Douglas B. Cornell, Associated Press],Q. In your opinion, was what happened at Mylai 1 a massacre, an alleged massacre, or what was it? And what do you think can be done to prevent things like this?,1Allegations against a U.S. Infantry unit concerning an incident which occurred on March 16, 1968, first appeared in the press on November 17, 1969.,If it was a massacre, do you think it was justifiable on military or other grounds?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, trying to answer all of those questions and sorting it out, I would start first with this statement: What appears was certainly a massacre, and under no circumstances was it justified.,One of the goals we are fighting for in Vietnam is to keep the people from South Vietnam from having imposed upon them a government which has atrocity against civilians as one of its policies.,We cannot ever condone or use atrocities against civilians in order to accomplish that goal.,Now when you use the word \"alleged\" that is only proper in terms of the individuals involved. Under our system a man is not guilty until proved to be so. There are several individuals involved here who will be tried by military courts. Consequently, we should say \"alleged\" as far as they are concerned until they are proved guilty.,As far as this kind of activity is concerned, I believe that it is an isolated incident. Certainly within this administration we are doing everything possible to find out whether it was isolated and so far our investigation indicates that it was.,As far as the future is concerned, I would only add this one point: Looking at the other side of the coin, we have 1,200,000 Americans who have been in Vietnam. Forty thousand of them have given their lives. Virtually all of them have helped the people of Vietnam in one way or another. They built roads and schools. They built churches and pagodas. The Marines alone this year have built over 250,000 2 churches, pagodas, and temples for the people of Vietnam.,2The White House Press Office later explained that the President had inadvertently used an incorrect figure. The Marines had built 251 schools and 117 churches, pagodas, and temples.,Our soldiers in Vietnam and sailors and airmen this year alone contributed three-quarter of a million dollars to help the people of South Vietnam.,Now this record of generosity, of decency, must not be allowed to be smeared and slurred because of this kind of an incident. That is why I am going to do everything I possibly can to see that all of the facts in this incident are brought to light and that those who are charged, if they are found guilty, are punished. Because if it is isolated, it is against our policy and we shall see to it that what these men did, if they did it, does not smear the decent men that have gone to Vietnam in a very, in my opinion, important cause.,VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW'S SPEECHES ON THE NEWS MEDIA,[3.] Q. Vice President Agnew, in recent weeks, has made two speeches in which he has criticized the news media, broadcasting in particular--,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I know.,Q. What, if anything, in those speeches is there with which you disagree?,THE PRESIDENT. Before this audience? The Vice President does not clear his speeches with me, just as I did not clear my speeches with President Eisenhower. However, I believe that the Vice President rendered a public service in talking in a very dignified and courageous way about a problem that many Americans are concerned about, that is, the coverage by news media, and particularly television news media, of public figures.,Now, let me be quite precise. He did not advocate censorship. On the contrary, he advocated that there should be free expression. He did not oppose bias. On the contrary, he recognized, as I do, that there should be opinion.,Let me say on that score that I don't want a bunch of intellectual eunuchs, either writing the news or talking about the news. I like excitement in the news, whether it is on television or whether it is in the columns.,He did say, and perhaps this point should be well taken, that television stations might well follow the practice of newspapers, of separating news from opinion. When opinion is expressed, label it so, but don't mix the opinion in with the reporting of the news.,It seems to me these were useful suggestions. Perhaps the networks disagreed with the criticisms. But I would suggest that they should be just as dignified and just as reasonable in answering the criticisms as he was in making them.,THE TAX REFORM BILL,[4.] Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Star and Tribune].,Q. Sir, if the final version of the tax reform bill now pending in Congress includes the Senate-adopted $800 exemption provision and the 15 percent social security increase, can you sign it?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,A CIVILIAN COMMISSION ON MYLAI,[5.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers],Q. May I go back to Mr. Cornell's question to ask, in the light of the Mylai incident, would you prefer a civilian commission, something other than a military inquiry in this case?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Theis, I do not believe that a civilian commission at this time would be useful. I believe that the matter now is in the judicial process, and that a civilian commission might be, and very properly could be, used by the defendants' attorneys as having prejudiced their rights.,Now, if it should happen that the judicial process, as set up by the military under the new law passed by Congress,3 does not prove to be adequate in bringing this incident completely before the public, as it should be brought before the public, then I would consider a commission, but not at this time.,3The Military Justice Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-632, 82 Stat. 1335) which took effect August 1, 1969, provided for increased participation of military judges and counsel on courts-martial.,On June 19, 1969, the President issued Executive Order 11476, effective August 1, 1969, prescribing the use of a revised edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States Army.,TROOP CUTBACKS IN VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, today Secretary of Defense Laird is reported to have said that you would be expected to announce a further troop cutback from Vietnam later this month, probably 40,000 men. Also, today, Senator George Aiken is reported as having said that you have already withdrawn or ordered withrawn another 9,000 that were not announced.,Could you give us your thinking on the prospects and the substance of both of those reports?,THE PRESIDENT. As I indicated in my speech on television on November 3, the reports from Vietnam with regard to infiltration, with regard to casualties, and with regard to the training of the South Vietnamese, indicate more progress on all fronts than we had anticipated when we started our troop scheduled withdrawal in June.,There will be a troop cut with a replacement by South Vietnamese later this month, I would say within the next 2 to 3 weeks. As far as the number is concerned, the number is still under consideration. It will depend upon the events and our analysis of the events between now and the time I make the announcement.,PENTAGON PERSONNEL,[7.] Q. Sir, there are two flagrant instances of intimidation and harassment and threats against Pentagon personnel who may have divulged information to Congress and to the public about cost overruns and mismanagements and irregular industrial alliances.,These two instances are related because some of the same people are involved. I refer, one, to the Gestapo-like interrogation of Pentagon personnel to see who leaked information to Sarah McClendon [representing several newspapers and news services] for news stories. This involves Barry J. Shillito and Edward [J.] Sheridan. 4,4Assistant Secretary Installations and Logistics (and Deputy Assistant Secretary Installations and Housing), Department of Defense.,I also refer to the firing of A. Ernest Fitzgerald,5 whose divulgement of cost overruns saved the American people $2 billion. His greatest critics were Dr. Robert [C.] Moot 6 and Barry J. Shillito.,5Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management Systems, Department of the Air Force.,6Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).,Will you do something about this, please, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss McClendon, perhaps I'd better, after the way you put that question.,WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON FOOD, NUTRITION, AND HEALTH,[8.] Q. Mr. President, last week the White House conference on food and nutrition strongly recommended approval of a bill which has passed the Senate to reform the food stamp program that is blocked in the House and another bill which would reform the school lunch program which has passed the House, but is blocked in the Senate.,Your administration is reported to be lobbying against both bills. Will you follow the recommendations of your White House Conference, and what course of action will you take?,THE PRESIDENT. I favor the approach that our administration has put before the Congress as being the more responsible approach on both scores. I will, of course, consider the recommendations of the White House Conference, which will be made to me at my request within approximately 30 days.,There is another recommendation by the White House Conference which I, unfortunately, cannot give really sympathetic consideration to, and that is the one recommending a $5,400 minimum for a family of four in America. That would cost approximately $70 billion to $80 billion in taxes, or $70 billion to $80 billion in increased prices. Now, I do not say that to discredit the Conference.,I simply say that all of us in this country want to end hunger in the United States. All of us want the poor to have a minimum floor, and that minimum to be as high as possible.,All of us, for example, want social security to be higher. But when I consider all of these matters, I have to think also of this fact: the fact that I, as President, am the one who has the primary responsibility for the cost of living in this country.,Referring a moment ago to the tax question, it would be very easy for me to sign a bill which reduces taxes. But if I sign the kind of a bill which the Senate is about to pass, I would be reducing taxes for some of the American people and raising the prices for all the American people.,I will not do that.,NEWS MEDIA REPORTING ON THE ADMINISTRATION,[9.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News],Q. How fair do you think the news media has been in reporting on you and on Vice President Agnew and on your administration generally?,THE PRESIDENT. Generally, I think the news media has been fair. I have no complaints about, certainly, the extent of the coverage that I have received.,I also will have no complaints just so long as the news media allows, as it does tonight, an opportunity for me to be heard directly by the people and then the television commentators to follow me. I will take my chances.,STATEMENTS BY THE WIFE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,[10.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Do you think that the wife [Mrs. Martha Mitchell] of the Attorney General, like the Vice President, has rendered a public service by her statements on the protest movement and on her political activities?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, Miss Thomas, I decided when this administration came to Washington that I would take the responsibility for answering for my own personal family and for my Cabinet family, but that each Cabinet member would answer for his family. So I will leave that question to the Attorney General.,PUBLIC OPINION AND PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES,[11.] Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times],Q. To broaden that a little bit, on November 3 you called for support for your policies in Vietnam. You since received a response that some of your aides feel is gratifying.,My question is, however, have you not, with the help of Vice President Agnew, and I am referring to some of his recent speeches, purchased this support at the cost of alienating a sizable segment of the American public and risking polarization of the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Semple, one of the problems of leadership is to take a position. I like to be liked. I don't like to say things that everybody doesn't agree with.,When peace marchers come to Washington it would be very easy to say that I agree with them and I will do what they want. But a President has to do what he considers to be right, right for the people, right, for example, in pursuing a just peace--not just peace for our time, for a little time.,I believe that I pursued that path. I do not believe that that is a disservice to the public interest, because I believe that sometimes it is necessary to draw the line clearly, not to have enmity against those who disagree, but to make it clear that there can be no compromise where such great issues as self-determination and freedom and a just peace are involved.,SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS,[12.] Q. will you assess for us how you see now the prospects of a special session of Congress during the Christmas holidays?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have had some conversations with some of the Members of the House and Senate since I indicated to the Republican leaders that I might call that session.,I would say the jury is still out. The House is moving much more speedily; the Senate has begun to move more speedily. If the present progress continues at this rate, it may be that we can all have some vacation after Christmas. But if they do not pass the appropriations bills as I indicated, I will have to call a special session as much as I would not want to do so.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS,[13.] Q. The United States today asked for a postponement in the SALT talks, the strategic arms [limitation] talks. Can you tell us why and assess the talks for us, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the postponement does not have any long-range significance. It is only for the purpose of developing positions in a proper way. As far as the progress is concerned, I would say it is encouraging. I say that somewhat cautiously, because I would not want to leave out the hope that we would have an agreement within a matter of weeks or even months.,But it is encouraging because both sides are presenting positions in a very serious way and are not trying to make propaganda out of their positions. Both sides, I believe, therefore, want a limitation on strategic arms. As long as this is the case, there is a chance for an agreement.,Now, it is going to take some time, because what is involved here, as distinguished from the test ban, as distinguished from the nonproliferation treaty, both of which were important, but which were basically peripheral issues, here you have the basic security of the United States of America and the Soviet Union involved. Therefore, both must bargain hard. But I believe that the progress to date has been good. The prospects are better than I anticipated they would be when the talks began.,TROOP WITHDRAWALS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, as the Vietnamization process moves along, are there any circumstances, such as, perhaps, a series of defeats by the South Vietnamese Army, that might lead you to want to reverse the process of troop withdrawals and increase our troops in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not anticipate that at this time. I want to make it, of course, clear, that we do not anticipate that there will not be troubles. The enemy still has the capability of launching some offensive actions. Not, certainly, the capability that it had a year ago. It is much less because their infiltration has been less. But the present prognosis that I think I can make is this: that we can go forward with our troop withdrawal program and that any action that the enemy takes, either against us or the South Vietnamese, can be contained within that program.,THAI COOPERATION IN VIETNAM,[15.] Mr. Horner [Garnett D. Hornet, Washington Evening Star],Q. Mr. President, is there any truth in the reports that have been rather persistent for the last couple of weeks that we paid Thailand something like a billion dollars for their cooperation in Vietnam?,In that connection, where do our allies, like Thailand, South Korea, and their troops fit into our withdrawal program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, with regard to the second part of the question, both Thailand and South Korea have no intention, at least none that has been indicated to us, of withdrawing forces at the time that we are withdrawing ours, because we have a much greater commitment there than they have.,Second, with regard to the billion dollars that allegedly has been paid to Thailand, the amount is, of course, far less than that. But quite candidly, yes, the United States is subsidizing the Thai troops. We also are subsidizing the South Korean troops. We are doing exactly what we did in Western Europe immediately after World War II when we subsidized virtually all of Western Europe due to the fact that they could not maintain forces themselves for their own defense.,These are newly developing countries.,They are unable to maintain their forces for their own defense. Therefore, we think that subsidy is correct. I can only say this, it seems to me it makes a great deal of sense. The Thais are in Vietnam as volunteers, and if they are willing to go there as volunteers, I would much rather pay out some money to have them there than to have American men fighting there in their place.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[16.] Q. Since Ambassador Lodge resigned, you have not named a successor as chief negotiator. Is this in effect downgrading the Paris talks, because they have been nonproductive?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Mr. [Philip C.] Habib is a very competent career diplomat, and he will be able to discuss anything that is brought up seriously by the other side. We are simply waiting for a serious proposal.,Q. Considering how things have gone in Paris, how do you now rate the chances of a negotiated settlement of the war?,THE PRESIDENT. Not good. Quite candid]y, I would like to say that they were good, but looking at the present situation, the enemy's line continues to be hard, their proposals quite frivolous, as the ones by the VC today, and I do not anticipate any progress on the negotiating front at this time.,But I put in this one condition: As our program for Vietnamization continues to work, and as it becomes apparent, as I believe it increasingly will, that it will succeed, I think the pressures for the enemy then to negotiate a settlement will greatly increase, because once we are out and the South Vietnamese are there, they will have a much harder individual to negotiate with than they had when we were there.,SCHOOL INTEGRATION,[17.] Q. Before the Supreme Court ordered immediate school integration7 you said you preferred a middle road policy, that is between segregation forever and instant integration. What is your policy now?,THE PRESIDENT. To carry out what the Supreme Court has laid down. I believe in carrying out the law even though I may have disagreed as I did in this instance with the decree that the Supreme Court eventually came down with. But we will carry out the law.,7Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education (396 U.S. 19).,TAX PHILOSOPHY,[18.] Q. A question on your broad philosophy on the tax problem that we are all struggling with. You have often pointed out that this is a very rich country and there are some people who argue that the American people can tax themselves whenever they want to and when they are prepared to make the sacrifice in order to provide the very substantial sums that are necessary for the very big problems at home, the cities, getting their housing program rolling and so forth, and that we might very well do it now and get on with the job because the end of the Vietnam war apparently is not going to release very substantial amounts of fresh funds.,Could you comment on this rather hair shirted approach to the tax problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is, of course, a very complicated but a very fundamental question. I would put it briefly and answer in this way: Approximately 35 to 37 percent of the total income in the United States goes to taxes, that is in Federal, State, and local taxes. I believe that amount is high enough.,I believe that when a nation takes a substantially larger portion of the national income than that for taxes, that then that nation loses its character as a free, private enterprise economy and turns over and becomes primarily a state-controlled and oriented economy.,Therefore, while I believe that the United States can afford what it needs to do in many fields, including the environment and others that I will be touching upon in the State of the Union, I do not want to see a substantial increase in the tax burden as a percentage of our gross national income.,CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION,[19.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, getting back to the Congress for a moment, House Democratic Leader Carl Albert today said that administration spokesmen have issued misleading statements about the Congress in an effort to undermine public confidence in it. He went on to say, and I quote him as saying it is the fault of the administration for delays, obfuscations, and confusion and lack of leadership on the part of the administration.,Would you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that sounds like a pretty good political statement by Mr. Albert. I can understand why he is the majority leader and might find it necessary to make that statement. However, I think he knows, as all of you know, that for 6 months we have had a major crime control package before the Congress with no action. For months we have had other programs in a number of fields there without action.,This Congress has the worst record in terms of appropriations bills of any Congress in history.,Now let me say I am a defender of the Congress and, having said all of this, I am also a defender of Carl Albert. I like him and I want to continue to work with him. I don't want to answer that question any further at this point.,All right.,PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCES,[20.] Q. I have two related questions, sir. Why have you only had three full-dress news conferences in 6 months? And what is your reaction to the general philosophy among some of us in the press that the press is not doing its job, if it doesn't hold an administration, any administration, to account without, shall we say, coziness?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think I have had any problem with regard to the press holding me to account in my political lifetime. I think, if I could paraphrase Winston Churchill's statement made in 1914, I have always derived a great deal of benefit from criticism and I have never known when I was short of it.,Now as far as the press conferences are concerned, I try to have press conferences when I think there is a public interest--not just a press interest or my interest, but the public interest in having them--and also to use various devices. As you know, I have had conferences in my office. I had a conference in Guam. I have also made three major television addresses in prime time.,If I considered that the press and the public needs more information than I am giving through press conferences, I will have more. I welcome the opportunity to have them. I am not afraid of them--just as the press is not afraid of me.,VIETNAM INVOLVEMENT,[21.] Q. Mr. President, will our Vietnam involvement be reduced in your administration to the point where it will command no more public attention than, say, Korea does now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is certainly our goal and I think we are well on the way to achievement of that goal. We have a plan for the reduction of American forces in Vietnam, for removing all combat forces from Vietnam, regardless of what happens in the negotiations.,That plan is going forward. As I will report to the Nation, when I announce the troop withdrawal 2 or 3 weeks from now, I believe that developments since my November 3 speech have been on schedule.,THE UNITED STATES AND LAOS,[22.] Q. Mr. President, what limits do you put on what the people of the United States ought to know about the war that is going on in Laos, and the American involvement in it?,THE PRESIDENT. The public interest. As far as I am concerned, the people of the United States are entitled to know everything that they possibly can with regard to any involvement of the United States abroad.,As you know, in answer to a question I think Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun] asked at the last press conference, I pointed out what were the facts. There are no American combat troops in Laos. Our involvement in Laos is solely due to the request of Souvanna Phouma, the neutralist Prime Minister, who was set up there in Laos as a result of the Laos negotiation and accords that were arranged by Governor Harriman during the Kennedy administration. 8,8 W. Averell Harriman, former Governor of New York, who served as Ambassador-at-Large and Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs 1961-1963.,We are attempting to uphold those accords and we are doing that despite the fact that North Vietnam has 50,000 troops in Laos. We are also, as I have publicly indicated and as you know, interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Trail as it runs through Laos. Beyond that, I don't think the public interest would be served by any further discussion.,All right.,BUDGET ESTIMATES AND THE SURTAX,[25.] Q. Mr. President, Budget Director [Robert P.] Mayo said recently that uncontrolled Federal spending is likely to push the fiscal '71 budget beyond the $200 billion mark and that the eventual elimination of the surtax could produce a deficit that year. I have two questions: Do you foresee the possibility of a deficit in '71, and, if that is the prospect, will you recommend continuing the surtax beyond June 30?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to the second question is that I do not intend to recommend the continuation of the surtax beyond June 30.,With regard to the first part of the question, only by use of the Presidential veto and by impounding funds are we going to be able to avoid the kind of a situation that Director Mayo has described. But I can assure you that I intend to use all the powers of the Presidency to stop the rise in the cost of living, including the veto.,ENEMY INFILTRATION IN VIETNAM,[24.] Q. Mr. President, the enemy's infiltration has been up recently in Vietnam. Could you give us your assessment of this, specifically whether you think he is replacing losses, or building up for an offensive, and what significance could this fact have in terms of your own plans for troop reduction?,THE PRESIDENT. It has great significance because, as I have pointed out, enemy infiltration, the fact that it was down, is one of the reasons that we have been able to go forward with our own troop withdrawal programs.,However, I have been analyzing these reports week by week. The figures that we got 2 weeks ago seem to have been inflated. The infiltration rate is not as great as we thought then. It is higher than it was a few months ago. It is still lower than it was a year ago.,We do not consider the infiltration significant enough to change our troop withdrawal plans. Now, something may occur in the next 2 to 3 weeks that may give me a different view on that, but at this time that would be my observation.,THE ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAM,[25.] Q. Mr. President, a move is underway in the House, and it is supported by the Republican leadership, to change the structure of the antipoverty program, to give the Governors a veto over programs in their States. What is your position on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I support the Director of OEO [Donald Rumsfeld]. He has asked for a 2-year extension. He has pledged to reform the OEO, and I think he should be given the chance to reform it.,I hope he is able to work out with the leadership in the House, most of whom are Republicans in this instance, who want the changes, and some Democrats--will be able to work out some kind of accommodation with them. But, of course, I support my Director that I have appointed.,YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE ADMINISTRATION,[26.] Mrs. Dickerson [Nancy H. Dickerson, NBC News].,Q. Getting back to the polarization question, Mr. President, your administration has been charged with the failure to reach the young people, both those who protest and march and those who don't.,Have you any specific plans for reaching the young people of this country?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you reach the young people more by talking to them as adults than talking to them as young people. I like to treat them as adults. I like to talk to them.,I was rather encouraged by the number of letters and calls I received with regard to my Vietnam speech from young people. They didn't all agree. But at least they had listened, they had paid attention. I know a way not to reach them, and that is to try to pick number one as far as the football teams are concerned.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-09-26","text":"QUESTIONS,UNITED STATES PRESENCE IN VIETNAM,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,Q. How do you feel about the various proposals to propose an arbitrary cutoff time on our military presence in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I have considered a number of those proposals within the administration and, of course, have noted some of the references that have been made recently in the Senate in that regard. I know they are made with the best of intentions. However, it is my conclusion that if the administration were to impose an arbitrary cutoff time, say the end of 1970, or the middle of 1971, for the complete withdrawal of American forces in Vietnam, that inevitably leads to perpetuating and continuing the war until that time and destroys any chance to reach the objective that I am trying to achieve, of ending the war before the end of 1970 or before the middle of 1971.,I think this is a defeatist attitude, defeatist in terms of what it would accomplish. I do not think it is in the interest of the United States.,I also believe that even though these proposals, I know, are made with the best of intentions, they inevitably undercut and destroy the negotiating position that we have in Paris. We have not made significant progress in those negotiations. But any incentive for the enemy to negotiate is destroyed if he is told in advance that if he just waits for 18 months we will be out anyway. Therefore, I oppose that kind of arbitrary action.,JUDGE CLEMENT HAYNSWORTH'S\nNOMINATION,[2.] Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Hensley [M. Stewart Hensley, United Press International].,Q. At the time or shortly after your appointment of Mr. Burger [Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger] to the Supreme Court, it was said that you hoped, insofar as possible, to avoid appointments which would become controversial. The nomination of Judge Haynsworth [Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr.] has become controversial to a certain extent.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I understand.,Q. Has this become controversial enough to lead you to withdraw the nomination of Judge Haynsworth?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not intend to withdraw the nomination of Judge Haynsworth. I studied his record as it was submitted to me by the Attorney General before I sent the nomination to the Senate.,I have also noted the various items that have been brought up during the course of his hearings in the Senate. I still have confidence in Judge Haynsworth's qualifications, in his integrity. I believe that the Senate should approve him. I believe it will. I believe that he will be a great credit to the Supreme Court when he becomes a member of that Court, I hope in the fall term.,STUDENT ANTIWAR DEMONSTRATIONS,[3.] Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Hornet [Garnett D. Horner, Washington Evening Star].,Q. What is your view, sir, concerning the student moratorium and other campus demonstrations being planned for this fall against the Vietnam war?,THE PRESIDENT. I have often said that there is really very little that we in Washington can do with regard to running the university and college campuses of this country. We have enough problems running the Nation, the national problems.,Now, I understand that there has been and continues to be opposition to the war in Vietnam on the campuses, and also in the Nation. As far as this kind of activity is concerned, we expect it. However, under no circumstances will I be affected whatever by it.,THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, does the \"heartland\" theory, which is outlined in the book, \"The Emerging Republican Majority,\"1 by an assistant of John Mitchell coincide with your own approach toward strengthening the party?,THE PRESIDENT. I regret to say, and I hope this does not discourage sales of the book, which I understand are quite good, that I have not read the book. My own views with regard to the Republican Party have been often stated in backgrounders and also in public sessions.,1By Kevin P. Phillips, published by Arlington House, New Rochelle, N.Y., 1969 (482 pp.).,I believe the Republican Party should be a national party. I don't believe in writing off any section of the country. I have attempted to make our appeal nationally, to the South, to the North, the East, the West, and to all groups within the country.,To the extent that the book advocates theories that are inconsistent with that principle, of course, I would disagree with it.,SCHOOL DESEGREGATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, sir, many civil rights groups are saying that your policy on school desegregation amounts to a retreat from the Supreme Court decision of 15 years ago.2 Some even say that this amounts to an effort to build a party base for the Republicans in the South.,2Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans. (347 U.S. 483), May 17, 1954.,Where do you stand on school desegregation and how much more time do you think districts that haven't complied ought to have?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on this very difficult problem, I would say first that we have had a lot of criticism from the South insofar as our integration and desegregation policies are concerned, as well as from the groups to which you refer.,It seems to me that there are two extreme groups. There are those who want instant integration and those who want segregation forever. I believe that we need to have a middle course between those two extremes. That is the course in which we are embarked. I think it is correct.,As I evaluate the situation this year, I found that there are twice as many schools that are desegregated at the opening of this term as was the case at the opening of the term a year ago. I think that is progress.,Now one other point that should be made. I do not consider that it is a victory for integration when the Federal Government cuts off funds for a school and thereby, for both black and white students in that school, denies them the education they should have. That is not a victory for anybody. It is a defeat for education.,I believe, therefore, that that particular device should be used as we currently are using it: only when it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of achieving our objective of desegregated education. We are for it, but we are going to avoid both extremes.,OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE,[6.] Q. You told an audience in Houston last fall 3 that you opposed reduction of the oilmen's depletion allowance. Do you still oppose it?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, I not only told the audience in Houston that, but that has been my position since I entered politics in California 22 years ago. It is still my position.,3At a campaign rally in Miller Memorial Amphitheater on September 6, 1968.,I believe that the depletion allowance is in the national interest because I believe it is essential to develop our resources when, as we look at the Mideast and other sections of the world, many of our oil supplies could be cut off in the event of a world conflict.,On the other hand, I am a political realist. I noted the action of the House of Representatives in reducing the depletion allowance. Also, my primary concern is to get tax reform--the tax reform which we submitted in April, which goes further than any tax reform in 25 years. We need that tax reform above everything else.,Some of the items that I recommended, the House did not follow my recommendations, and the same will be in the Senate. When the bill comes to my desk, I intend to sign that bill, even though it does not follow all of my recommendations-provided that it does not require a revenue shortfall. That is more than I believe the Nation can stand.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us the reasons behind Russia's prolonged failure to respond to your proposal for prompt negotiations on strategic arms limitations?,THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to explore those reasons. Mr. Rogers [William P. Rogers, Secretary of State] met with Mr. Gromyko [Andrei A. Gromyko Soviet Foreign Minister] on Monday. He will meet with him again on next Monday. He has no answer except a suggestion-and I don't think I am divulging any confidences in this respect--that we may expect an answer in the near future and that it is likely to be a positive answer.,Now, why the answer has been delayed is a question really that would have to be asked of those who have control of policy in the Kremlin.,GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL CHANGES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you please tell us when you are going to make some real, honest-to-goodness changes in Personnel in these bureaucrats who have been in power through many generations, who are still wasting the taxpayers' money, and making errors on the war and policy and promoting their friends, who are unqualified, to high jobs? I refer particularly to the office in the Pentagon of Assistant Secretary of Defense [for Installations and Logistics] Barry J. Shillito.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know the gentleman, but after that question, I am going to find out who he is very soon.,SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us some insight into your thinking, sir, as to the difference between the situation that required Supreme Court Justice [Abe] Fortas to resign and the recent disclosures concerning Judge Haynsworth?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, since the matter is still before the Senate committee, I am not going to comment on the specifics that are being considered by that committee.,I will simply stand on my statement that I was aware generally of Judge Haynsworth's background, of his financial status, before he was appointed. I had confidence then in his integrity. I think the Senate committee will overwhelmingly agree with that opinion.,SOCIAL SECURITY PROPOSAL,[10.] Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News],Q. Mr. President, Congress has always taken a very dim view of the idea of automatically adjusting the social security benefits to the cost of living, as you proposed yesterday. As a political realist, do you think you can change their mind on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I am going to try. As far as that particular proposal is concerned, there are some who reach a different conclusion for a reason that all of us will understand. They believe that it is an automatic escalator as far as inflation is concerned, and discourages those fiscal policies that would control inflation by assuming that we are going to have to raise social security because we have to accept the idea we are always going to have inflation.,My view is different. I have found in examining this situation that where the Congress must always act to see to it that those on social security keep up with the rise in the cost of living, that the Congress tends to act either too late or with perhaps even overreaction to the situation.,I believe this is the sensible, sound way to do it and I think that it will be deflationary rather than inflationary in the long run.,VIETNAM PEACE EFFORTS,[11.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News],Q. How are you doing, Mr. President, in your efforts to end the Vietnam warp,THE PRESIDENT. Not as well as I would hope. I will not be doing as well as I would hope until the war is ended. I would point, however, to some progress.,We point first to the fact that we have announced that 60,000 Americans will be returned from Vietnam.,We point, second, to the fact that as a result of that and other actions, that 50,000 Americans who otherwise might have been drafted before the end of the year will not be drafted.,In addition to that, we find that infiltration, which tells us a lot about the enemy's future capabilities, looking at the first 9 months of this year, is two-thirds less than it was in the corresponding period last year.,We find that American casualties are down one-third from what they were over the same 9-month period last year.,We find also that on the negotiating front, that the United States has made far-reaching and comprehensive peace offer, a peace offer which offers not mutual withdrawal of forces, internationally guaranteed cease-fires, internationally supervised elections in which we will accept the result of those elections and the South Vietnamese will as well, even is a Communist government, and by making that offer we have reversed the whole tide of world public opinion.,I noted when I was at the U.N., found no significant criticism of the U.S policy. Now is the time for Hanoi to the next move. We certainly have it.,There is one thing, however, which I should emphasize that is not negotiable. We will talk about anything else. What is not negotiable is the right of the people of South Vietnam to choose their own leaders without outside imposition, either by us or by anybody else. We believe that that limited goal must be one that we must insist on. We believe it can be achieved, and we believe that if we stay in this course and if we can have some more support in the Nation--we have a lot of support, but even more support in the Nation--for this steady course, the enemy then will have the incentive to negotiate, recognizing that it isn't going to gain time; that it isn't going to wait us out.,Once the enemy recognizes that it is not going to win its objective by waiting us out, then the enemy will negotiate and we will end this war before the end of 1970. That is the objective we have.,SENATOR GOODELL'S VIETNAM PROPOSALS,[12.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers],Q. Going back to Mr. Cormier's question about the Vietnam cutoff, Senator Goodell, who will be a candidate next year, is providing the vehicle for a new round of Senate hearings on this subject. Will this either embarrass you as a Republican President, or other Republican candidates next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Theis, I, of course, can't control the course of Senate hearings, particularly in the Foreign Relations Committee. On the other hand, as far as those hearings are concerned, I believe that a discussion in the Senate of this matter, an open discussion, in which all the consequences of this very well-intentioned statement by Senator Goodell, all the consequences of it, the fact that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that the United States is going to be stuck in Vietnam until the end of 1970, that there is no hope of ending the war before then, that when that comes home, I think the Senate will overwhelmingly reject the Goodell proposition 4,4Senator Charles E. Goodell of New York on June 25, 1969, proposed legislation requiring withdrawal of all U.S troops from Vietnam by the end of 1970.,THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT,[13.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].,Q. Mr. President, does the insistence upon self-determination in Vietnam as an indispensable condition mean that you will support the present Thieu regime there until there is a negotiated settlement or until there are elections to change that regime?,THE PRESIDENT. It means, Mr. Lisagot, that the Thieu regime is there because of the result of an election, and until the people of South Vietnam have another opportunity to vote, I think that the United States should not reverse that election mandate. That is the answer that I think is only appropriate under the circumstances.,SCHOOL DESEGREGATION,[14.] Mr. Loory [Stuart Loory, Los Angeles Times],Q. Going back to your response to the school desegregation question, it is now 15 years since the Supreme Court made its decision. How much longer do you think school segregation should be allowed to exist anywhere in the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Only as long as is absolutely necessary to achieve two goals-to achieve the goal of desegregated schools without, at the same time, irreparably damaging the goal of education now for the hundreds of thousands of black and white students who otherwise would be harmed if the move toward desegregation closes their schools.,Q. Mr. President, in connection with the school desegregation, one of the most controversial cases has been the action that the Government took in Mississippi in deciding to ask for a further postponement of some of the school integration there.,There have been published reports that Senator John Stennis of Mississippi informed the administration that if the school integration went through there, he might not be able to handle the administration's defense bill, and that you, yourself, made the decision.,Would you tell us whether these reports are true, whether Senator Stennis did so inform the administration, and your connection, if any, with this Mississippi case?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Stennis did speak to me, along with several other representatives from Mississippi, with regard to his concern on this problem. But anybody who knows Senator Stennis and anybody who knows me would know that he would be the last person to say: \"Look, if you don't do what I want in Mississippi, I am not going to do what is best for this country?',He did not say that, and under no circumstances, of course, would I have acceded to it.,With regard to the action in Mississippi, that action was taken by this administration because it was felt that better than cutting off the funds with the disastrous effect on the black and white students affected by that, the better course was the one that we did take--the one which gave more time to achieve desegregation without impairing education.,THE UNITED STATES AND LAOS,[15.] Q. There has been growing concern, sir, about deepening U.S. involvement in the combat in Laos. If you could confirm that, would you also say whether this runs counter to your new Asian policy?,THE PRESIDENT. There are no American combat forces in Laos. At the present time, we are concerned by the North Vietnamese move into Laos. There are 50,000 North Vietnamese there at the present time, and more perhaps are coming.,As you know, the American participation in Laos is at the request of the neutralist government, which was set up in accordance with the 1969 Accords, which were agreed to, incidentally, by Hanoi, Peking, and the Soviet Union. That was during the administration of President Kennedy, negotiated by Mr. Harriman [Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs].,We have been providing logistical support and some training for the neutralist government in order to avoid Laos falling under Communist domination. As far as American manpower in Laos is concerned, there are none there at the present time on a combat basis.,Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun].,Q. You say there are no combat forces in Laos. How do you regard the airmen who bomb the Ho Chi Minh Trail from bases in Thailand and Vietnam? Would,Q. You say there are no combat forces,THE PRESIDENT. When we consider the situation in Laos, I think President Kennedy in his first major television speech, which we all remember, in 1961, put it very well. He pointed out that Laos was potentially the key to what would happen in Thailand as well as in Vietnam and the balance of Southeast Asia.,Now, Laos relates very much to Vietnam, because the Ho Chi Minh Trail runs through Laos. It is necessary, under those circumstances, that the United States take cognizance of that, and we do have aerial reconnaissance; we do have perhaps some other activities. I won't discuss those other activities at this time.,BLACK MEMBERSHIP IN CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION UNIONS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday in Chicago, your Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mr. Fletcher [Arthur A. Fletcher, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Wage and Labor Standards], tried to hold some hearings about getting more blacks into the construction unions, and he was prevented from doing so.,I wonder if you could tell us, first of all, your reaction to that specific situation in Chicago, and, secondly, your general feeling about getting more blacks into the trade unions?,THE PRESIDENT. Relating first to the second part of the question, it is essential that black Americans, all Americans, have an equal opportunity to get into the construction unions. There is a shortage in construction workers.,The interest of the Nation requires this, apart from the matters of simple justice which are involved.,Second, in this respect, we have, as you know, the Philadelphia Plan. We have had our problems in Pittsburgh which are presently being discussed through our mediation, at least discussed, although it is still a very volatile situation. And now, of course, we have the problem in Chicago.,We intend to continue through the Department of Labor to attempt to make progress in this field, because in the long-run, we cannot have construction unions which deny the right of all Americans to have those positions.,America needs more construction workers, and, of course, all Americans are entitled to an equal right to be a member of a union.,CONTROL OF INFLATION,[17.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of inflation, a number of economists have said that they do not believe the administration can take the steam out of the economy without exerting pressure on specific price increases, such as the auto increase, the steel price increase, and the others.,Are you considering taking such steps, or do you feel that the corner has already been turned in the battle on inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I would take those steps if history told me they would work. I would point out, however, that the previous administration tried, through jawboning, as it is called, to put the blame on business for price increases; the blame on labor for wage increases.,In 1966, the guidelines died. They died because when Government, which is the primary agent for increasing prices, fails to do its job, Government asking labor and management to do theirs simply won't work. It is hypocritical, it is dishonest, but most important, it is ineffective, because since 1966, as you will note, in 1966, 1967, 1968, despite all of the calling of the people to the White House, telling them to hold prices down, hold wages down, prices continued to escalate.,Now, we have attacked the source of the problem. We have cut the budget by $7 billion. We have monetary restraints. We have asked for an extension of the surtax rather than its complete elimination. And these basic policies, which go to the core of the problem, are beginning to work, as Mr. McCracken pointed out in his speech in Detroit on Monday 5,5Chairman Paul W. McCracken of the Council of Economic Advisers spoke before the Economic Club of Detroit on September 22, 1969.,Now that the Government has set the example, I believe that labor and management would be well advised to follow the example. I am not jawboning and telling them to reform themselves, when we refuse to reform ourselves. But I do say this: that labor and management, labor that asks for exorbitant wage increases, management that raises prices too high, will be pricing themselves out of the market.,Anybody who bets on a continuing inflation will lose that bet, because our Government policies are beginning to work and we are going to stick to those policies until we cut the rise in the cost of living.,REDUCTION IN DRAFT CALLS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, my question concerns the draft, sir. The National Council to Repeal the Draft contends that your draft cut is a fraud, because the summer draft calls were inflated to allow for a preplanned cut. Would you comment, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't consider that charge as one of merit. I know of no inflation in the summer draft calls. I would also point out the fact that when you look at the statistics with regard to the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam, with regard to the reduction of our forces around the world, it is quite obvious that we don't need as many through the draft. That is why we did it, and not for the reason that is suggested here.,EFFECT OF THE CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP IN HANOI,[19.] Q. Mr. President, does the change of leadership in Hanoi, brought about by the death of Ho Chi Minh,6 show any sign at all to you, sir, of any change of intent either in combat or in Paris, on the part of the enemy?,THE PRESIDENT. Not yet, and we would expect nothing yet. Each of our systems of government has a problem. The major problem in a Communist system of government is the problem of succession and the North Vietnamese are going through that.,6President Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam died in Hanoi on September 3, 1969,Immediately after a change of leadership, there is a tendency for uncertainty and rigidity as the contest for power goes on. We think that is going on within North Vietnam at the present time. However, looking to the future, as new leaders emerge, as they look at the consequences of past policy and the prospects for future policy, and as long as the United States holds to its course, I think the prospects for a possible change are there.,I am not predicting it. I am not trying to raise false hopes. I am only suggesting that since there is new leadership, we can expect perhaps some reevaluation of policy.,GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER'S REPORT ON LATIN AMERICA,[20.] Q. Mr. President, when do you plan to make Governor [Nelson A. Rockefeller's report on Latin America public, and what is the main thrust of his recommendations to you?,THE PRESIDENT. During the time that I have been in Washington, and a few of you--not many--have been in Washington longer than I, in and out, I have found that we have had at least eight reports on Latin America.,And in talking to my Latin American friends in the diplomatic corps, they have begged me, \"Please don't study us,\" because they have said, \"All you do is study us and make headlines with the words and then have no actions.\",Now, when I set up the Rockefeller task force, I made one commitment to him, to which he completely agreed: that he would make the report to me, and what we would try to do is to make our actions make the news rather than the words make the news.,I have already met with Governor Rockefeller. There are some very exciting recommendations in his report which we are going to adopt. I am going to meet with him for an extended visit tomorrow at Camp David, along with the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, Mr. [Charles A.] Meyer.,Then later in this month--I mean later in October--we will be making a major new pronouncement on Latin American policy, and a number of the Rockefeller recommendations will be in that announcement.,MEETING WITH VIETNAM ADVISERS,[21.] Q. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today you had a major meeting with your top advisers and people directly involved in the Vietnam effort. I don't think we have had a report, as such, on that meeting. I wonder if there was a focus such as the death of Ho Chi Minh, or just what was it all about?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, naturally much of what was discussed in that meeting could not be appropriately discussed in a public forum like this. We looked over the military situation, the political situation in South Vietnam. And naturally we speculated privately, and I would never speculate publicly, as to what might happen with the change of leadership.,We did determine, however, that there were some good signs on the horizon: the failure of the enemy to be able to launch a summer offensive which everybody had predicted; the fact that the infiltration rate was down by two-thirds, which means that the possibility of an offensive this fall has receded, we took note of that; the fact that this Vietnamization program, despite some problems, was moving forward; and that political and economic stability in the South, despite some significant problems, was going forward.,All of these matters were taken into consideration. Generally, I would not like to leave the impression that this was an overly optimistic report, because I believe in looking at Vietnam and all of our problems in a very realistic, down-to-earth manner.,But I would say this: I think we are on the right course in Vietnam. We are on a course that is going to end this war. It will end much sooner if we can have to an extent, to the extent possible in this free country, a united front behind very reasonable proposals. If we have that united front, the enemy then will begin to talk, because the only missing ingredient to escalating the time when we will end the war is the refusal of the enemy in Paris to even discuss our proposals. The moment that they start discussing those proposals, then that means that we can bring the war to a conclusion sooner than if we just continue on our present course.,M. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-06-19","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Won't you be seated, please?,QUESTIONS,ACTION AGAINST THE RISING COST OF LIVING,[1.] Mr. Smith [Merriman Smith, United Press International],Q. Mr. President, I ask this question against the background of a continually heating economy. Now with your tax package seemingly on its way through Congress, are you giving any concern to doing something else--some new moves against rising prices and the rising cost of living as they are reflected monthly in the Federal indices?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith, it is true that we have rising prices, a rising cost of living, and also rising interest rates at 8 1/2 percent at the last report. However, in looking at an economy, we find that them is usually a lead time of about 6 months from the time decisions are made on the economy from a fiscal standpoint within Government and the effect of those decisions on it.,Now, this administration has made some decisions--decisions in cutting the budget, decisions in asking for an extension of the surtax, and we expect it to be extended, and other decisions with regard to tightening of credit. We believe that the decisions that we have made will begin to have effect within a matter of 2 to 3 months. If our projection proves to be wrong, then we will have to look to other courses of action, because we cannot allow prices to continue to go up, interest to go up, and the other factors which you have described to continue:,NEW YORK CITY ELECTIONS,[2.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press],Q. Could you tell us whom you favor for Mayor of New York at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the people of New York have had some difficulty in that respect lately.,I will follow the practice as President of the United States and as leader of the Republican Party of endorsing all Republican nominees. Therefore, I will endorse Senator Marchi1 and the other Republican nominees on the city ticket in New York.,1New York State Senator John J. March: defeated New York City Mayor John V. Lindsay on June 17, 1969, in the mayoral primary election for the Republican nomination,However, I will also follow the practice that has been my practice during my entire political career of campaigning and participating in only national and State elections. I will not participate in, and I will not comment upon, city or local elections, including the election in New York.,THE PARIS PEACE TALKS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on the Midway trip, we were told by an official of your administration that he felt the time had come for substantive negotiations to begin at Paris. Do you agree with this assessment, and, if so, what evidence is there to point it up?,THE PRESIDENT. I agree with the conclusion that the time has come for some substantive negotiations in Paris. As far as evidence that such negotiations have begun, there is no substantial evidence, publicly, to report.,However, I am not pessimistic about the outcome. As you may recall when these questions were first raised, when the talks in Paris were beginning, I pointed out that it would be a long, hard road after we got over the procedural points.,When this administration came in, all that had been decided was the shape of the table. Now we are down to substance. The two sides are far apart. But we believe that the time has come for a discussion of substance and we hope within the next 2 to 3 months to see some progress in substantive discussions.,MR. CLIFFORD'S ARTICLE ON VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford has suggested that 100,000 American troops ought to be out by the end of this year and we ought to say that all ground troops will be out by the end of 1970. I wonder if you think that is a realistic timetable?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I noted Mr. Clifford's comments in the magazine Foreign Affairs,2 and, naturally, I respect his judgment as a former Secretary of Defense.,I would point out, however, that for 5 years in the administration in which he was Secretary of Defense in the last part, we had a continued escalation of the war, we had 500,000 Americans in Vietnam; we had 35,000 killed; we had over 200,000 injured.,2Issue of July 1969, pp. 601-622.,And, in addition to that, we found that in the year, the full year, in which he was Secretary of Defense, our casualties were the highest of the whole 5-year period and, as far as negotiations were concerned, all that had been accomplished, as I indicated earlier, was that we had agreed on the shape of the table.,This is not to say that Mr. Clifford's present judgment is not to be considered because of the past record. It does indicate, however, that he did have a chance in this particular respect, and did not move on it then.,I believe that we have changed that policy. We have started to withdraw forces. We will withdraw more. Another decision will be made in August. I will not indicate the number, because the number will depend upon the extent of the training of the South Vietnamese, as well as developments in Paris, and the other factors that I have mentioned previously.,As far as how many will be withdrawn by the end of this year, or the end of next year, I would hope that we could beat Mr. Clifford's timetable, just as I think we have done a little better than he did when he was in charge of our national defense.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Clifford goes on to urge that you order our military commanders to cease the policy of applying maximum military pressure against the enemy and switch, instead, to a policy of reducing the level of combat operations. Do you intend to issue any such instructions?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Scali [John A. Scali, ABC News], I have checked the situation with regard to our operations as compared with the enemy's since this administration took over. I find that our casualties are in direct ratio to the level of enemy attacks.,We have not escalated our attacks. We have only responded to what the enemy has done.,As far as Mr. Clifford's suggestion is concerned, it implies that the United States is at the present time responsible for the level of fighting. It takes two in order to reduce the level of fighting, and I would only suggest that if the enemy now will withdraw forces, one-tenth of its forces, as we have withdrawn one-tenth of our combat forces, that would tend to reduce the level of fighting.,As far as the orders to General Abrams are concerned, they are very simply this: He is to conduct this war with a minimum of American casualties. I believe he is carrying out that order with great effectiveness in the field.,NORTH VIETNAMESE REACTION TO U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWAL,[5.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any response from the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong either in Paris or on the battlefield to the withdrawal of the first 25,000 American troops?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have not.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[6.] Q. When and where do you expect to begin arms talks with the Soviet Union, and do you favor suspension of the testing of multiple warheads in the meantime?,THE PRESIDENT. We are just completing our own strategic review, and as a matter of fact, the National Security Council meeting dealing with our position on the SALT talks, as they are described--the first was held this last Friday, and the second will be held on Wednesday. Consultation with our allies will then proceed through the balance of June and through July.,We have set July 31st as a target date for the beginning of talks, and Secretary [of State] Rogers has so informed the Soviet Ambassador. We have not had a reply from them.,Assuming that our consultations are completed, and that the Soviets find this date is acceptable to them, I would say that sometime between July 31st and the 15th of August there would be a meeting. As far as the place of the meeting is concerned, it could be Vienna; it could be Geneva. We are open on that question.,VIETCONG ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR SOUTH VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the Vietcong and/or Hanoi recently announced the creation of a new provisional government for South Vietnam. There have been many interpretive reports of what that may mean for the political stability or instability of South Vietnam and its portent on the international scene for progress toward peace. Could you give us an assessment of the new government?,THE PRESIDENT. The new government is simply a new name for the same activity that was there previously, the NLF or National Liberation Front, as it was called. There is no new blood in it. It has no capital. As a matter of fact, I do not know where ambassadors would present their diplomatic credentials because it has no major city or town which it controls in South Vietnam.,As far as the changed situation is concerned, however, I would make this suggestion: President Thieu has offered to have internationally supervised elections to let the people of South Vietnam determine whether they want his government or some other government.,It would seem that if the provisional government which also claims to represent the people of South Vietnam really means that, that they would accede to this request and agree to internationally supervised elections.,As far as the United States is concerned, we will accept any decision that is made by the people of South Vietnam, but we think that the provisional government should join with the Government of South Vietnam, and any other political parties in South Vietnam, in participating in supervised elections.,CONSIDERATION OF MORATORIUM ON MIRV TESTS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, referring to an earlier question by Mr. Valeriani [Richard Valeriani, NBC News], do you regard further testing of MIRV's [multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles] as an obstacle to reaching an arms control agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sorry, Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times], I forgot the last half of his question. I am glad you brought it back.,As far as the further testing is concerned, this suggestion was made to me by Senator Brooke [Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts] and by others in the Senate. I know that it is certainly a very constructive proposal insofar as they, themselves, are thinking about it. We are considering the possibility of a moratorium on tests as part of any arms control agreement.,However, as far as any unilateral stopping of tests on our part, I do not think that would be in our interest. Only in the event that the Soviet Union and we could agree that a moratorium on tests could be mutually beneficial to us, would we be able to agree to do so.,VIEWS ON CEASE-FIRE IN VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, several prominent Americans have urged you to propose a cease-fire in Vietnam as a means of reducing American casualties. Why does that idea not commend itself to you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the idea of a cease-fire, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], does commend itself to me. But I do not want us to cease and have the other side continue to fire, because, basically, as I have pointed out in a previous press conference, where we have a conventional war, cease-fire is very relevant; then we know that the guns have stopped firing.,In the case of a guerrilla war, unless you have an international force or some outside force to guarantee it, a cease-fire is a grave disadvantage to those forces that are in place.,I should point out, however, that in my May 14th speech, I advocated supervised cease-fires. That is the position of this administration. It is the position also of Mr. Thieu.,We want cease-fires, but we want them supervised. We don't want us to cease fire and the other side to continue to kill our men.,THE FBI AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, against the background of a controversy involving Mr. Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover [Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation], a controversy which revolves around electronic surveillance and in which one newspaper, at least, has called for his resignation, may I ask you two questions: One, does Mr. Hoover continue to enjoy your complete confidence; and, two, has there been any decision concerning his tenure?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Hoover does enjoy my complete confidence, and there has been no discussion with regard to his tenure as far as the future is concerned.,I should add, further, that with regard to the controversy on electronic surveillance, that I checked personally into the matter as to whether or not that surveillance which had been discussed had been conducted by him and the FBI, by themselves, or whether it had been, as is supposed to be the case, always approved by the Attorney General.,I found that it had always been approved by the Attorney General, as Mr. Hoover testified in 1964 and 1965. As far as this administration is concerned, our attitude toward electronic surveillance is that it should be used very sparingly, very carefully, having in mind the Fights of those who might be involved, but very effectively to protect the internal and external security of the United States.,A NEW RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, sir, the small business people of this country are suffering and much more so now because of the high interest rates. I wonder if you have given any thought to organizing a Reconstruction Finance Corporation again?,THE PRESIDENT. I know that the high interest rates have caused great concern, particularly to the small business people.,I do not believe, however, that a new RFC would necessarily be the approach that would be effective to deal with it. I think the way to get at high interest rates is to get at the cause, as I answered the earlier question put by Mr. Smith.,CONGRESSIONAL REPORT ON CAMPUS UNREST,[12.] Q. What is your answer, sir, to the report presented to you yesterday by the group of Republican Senators on campus unrest? 3,THE PRESIDENT. It Was a very thoughtful report by men who do not have the problem of the generation gap. They are young men, vitally interested in these problems, and they gave me a lot of information that is essential for this administration to have in mind as it develops a program to deal with campus unrest.,3The text of the report entitled \"Report of the Brock Campus Tour\" is printed in the Congressional Record (June 25, 1969, E 5237).,With regard to what our position is, I would like to point out, however, that I cannot support the legislative proposals in the House of Representatives which would simply cut off funds from any college or university in which there was a demonstration. This would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and it would be just what the demonstrators wanted, because we do not want the Federal Government interfering in and responsible for discipline in every college and university in this country.,The responsibility for discipline in colleges and universities should be on the college administrators. That is why I have asked the Attorney General to develop, if he can, new legal remedies that might be available to college administrators to use where violence or lawlessness does occur on the campus. The responsibility should be theirs. The Government's role should be to help them meet that responsibility.,ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEW,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Finch very much wants Dr. John Knowles to be Assistant Secretary of Health. Evidently Senator Dirksen very much doesn't want him to be. Are you going to support your Secretary against your Senate leader?,THE PRESIDENT. I have heard of this controversy from some people. As you well know, the President of the United States, under the Constitution, makes nominations with the advice and consent of the Senate. I have found in my short term of office that it is very easy to get advice and very hard to get consent.,But with regard to this particular matter, Secretary Finch has the responsibility for selecting those who will be his Assistant Secretaries. When he makes a recommendation, after he has made every effort to clear it with the Senators involved, I will support that recommendation.4,4A White House announcement on June 28, 1969, of the President's intention to nominate Dr. Roger O. Egeberg as Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for Health and Scientific Affairs is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 5, p. 926).,PRESIDENT THIEU OF SOUTH VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, you expressed the hope earlier for substantive talks on Vietnam, perhaps in the next 3 months. I wonder, sir, in this process, and before elections are held in Vietnam, are we wedded, to whatever degree, to the government of President Thieu?,THE PRESIDENT. When you use the term \"wedded to the government of President Thieu,\" I would not say that the United States, insofar as any government in the world is concerned, is wedded to it in the sense that we cannot take any course of action that that government does not approve.,On the other hand, I do not want to leave any doubt on this score: President Thieu is the elected President of Vietnam. He is cooperating with the United States in attempting to bring this war to a conclusion. He has made a very forthright offer and has supported our position that we have made, and I know will be making an offer of his own with regard to a political settlement. Under those circumstances, there is no question about our standing with President Thieu.,I would also say further that insofar as our offers are concerned, we are not going to accede to the demands of the enemy that we have to dispose of President Thieu before they will talk. That would mean a surrender on our part, a defeat on our part, and turning over South Vietnam to the tender mercies of those who have done a great deal of damage, to those in North Vietnam.,FURTHER COMMENT ON MR. CLIFFORD'S ARTICLE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, although not all of his recommendations were accepted, Mr. Clifford did reverse himself while in office, a rather rare thing for a public official to do. My question to you is perhaps somewhat philosophical: How do you keep from being locked in on a decision involving something as pressurized as Vietnam? How do you determine once a policy is adopted that it continues to be right?,THE PRESIDENT. This is one of my major concerns, and it is one of the reasons why I perhaps allow more controversy and, frankly, even open dissent, as I note from reading all the newspapers, within our administration than any in recent years.,I believe that a President must constantly reexamine the policies, and I am reexamining our policy on Vietnam every day. I am examining the military policy. I am examining the political policy, our diplomatic options, and I will not be frozen in.,With regard to my comment on Mr. Clifford, I do not mean to suggest that because he, in a very difficult position, was unable to do anything about it, that his words should not now be given some weight. They should be given some weight, and a man should be given credit for changing his mind if the facts have changed-,But I am only suggesting that, as I make up my own mind at this time, I have to look at the facts as they are presented to me today, and as they are presented to me today I think we are on the right road in Vietnam.,We have started toward the withdrawal that Mr. Clifford has advocated and, I hope, as I said earlier, that we will be able to beat his timetable and that we will not be in Vietnam as long as he suggests we will have to be there.,CONSULTATION WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON,[16.] Q. Mr. President, your predecessor in office used to quite often solicit the advice of one of his predecessors, General Eisenhower, particularly with respect to foreign policy. Have you solicited Mr. Johnson's advice, and have you got any that is comparable to Clifford's, and does he back your policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I have talked to Mr. Johnson on the telephone, Mr. Potter [Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun], on two occasions, and he has been regularly briefed by members of the National Security Council, by Dr. Kissinger, and also by our Economic Advisers, and those briefings, of course, have provided an occasion for him to give his ideas to us. He has been very helpful in terms of advice and I think he will be more helpful in the future.,ELECTIONS IN LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK, AND MINNEAPOLIS,[17.] Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News].,Q. Mr. President, what do you make of the recent election results in the mayors' races in Los Angeles, New York, and Minneapolis? What do you think the voters are saying?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the snap reaction to the election in Los Angeles, which was understandable, may have been wrong. The snap reaction to that election, because it was a white man against a black man, was that it was simply a white-black vote.,And yet when you see Minneapolis, where there is only a 4 percent black constituency, coming up with a 62 percent vote for a candidate against the Republican candidate for mayor, and then in New York City where you see conservative candidates, that is the label that has apparently been given to both of them, in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, winning over the liberal candidates, it seems to me we have to take a different view.,What I feel is this: I do not believe the great majority of the American people in our cities are anti-Negro. I do not believe they are anti-poor, or anti-welfare, or reactionary, or members of hate groups.,I do believe, however, this, and this is the message that comes through rather loud and clear from these elections: The American people in our cities, in our small towns, and in this country are fed up to here with violence and lawlessness and they want candidates who will take a strong stand against it. I think that is the message for the candidates in the future.,HEW APPOINTMENTS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the Surgeon General [William H. Stewart] said today that your administration faces what he called a crippling lack of leadership in its top health offices. You earlier indicated that you are staying out of the Dirksen-Finch controversy for now. Will there come a time when you feel that you must intervene as the nominating officer for those jobs?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that I can go even further than that. I will not have to intervene, because Mr. Finch will make a decision on that next week.,PRESIDENTIAL POWERS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the Fulbright [Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] proposal that would limit the Presidential power to act militarily in an emergency?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I understand the sentiment behind the proposal. When I was a Member of the Senate and a Member of the House, I will have to admit that I felt that there should be more consultation with the Senate, and that Presidents should not have unlimited power to commit this Nation, militarily as well as politically.,On the other hand, as I now assume the responsibilities of power, I, of course, see it from a different vantage point. And for a President of the United States to have his hands tied in a crisis in the fast-moving world in which we live would not be in the best interests of the United States.,As President, I intend to consult with the Senate, with Senator Fulbright and with his colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee before taking any action whenever I can.,But look, for example, at President Eisenhower in 1958. He had to move very fast in order to save the situation in Lebanon.5 There was no time to consult, and also it would have tipped off the enemy.,5See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1958,\" Items 172, 173, and 176.,Look at President Johnson when he sent in airplanes to save the missionaries in the Congo in 1964.6 He had to move fast. He had no time to consult.,6See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64,\" Book II, Item 780 [2, 10, 16].,I don't think a President of the United States should be tied down by a commitment which will not allow him to take the action that needs to be taken to defend American interests and to defend American lives where there is no time to consult.,THE MIDDLE EAST,[20.] Q. Mr. President, 5 months ago at your first news conference you described the Middle East as a dangerously explosive situation in need of defusing. In the 5 months since that time, do you think there has been any defusing that you can measure, or do you think the situation has become acutely worse?,THE PRESIDENT. I would have to admit that I see very little defusing. The situation is better only from the standpoint that we do have some four-power talks going, and we would trust that from those talks we might get some basis of communication between the two sides, and particularly that we might get all parties involved, including the Soviet Union, to use their influence to defuse a crisis. The talks will serve that interest if they serve no other interest.,Also in that connection, I would like to say that I, as you know, have met already with the King [Hussein] of Jordan, and I am hoping to meet sometime within the next month with the Prime Minister [Golds Meir] of Israel.,We intend to have bilateral talks, multilateral talks--anything that we can do-to attempt to defuse the situation.,EXTENSION OF THE SURTAX,[21.] Q. Mr. President, you said earlier that you feel that the income surtax will be extended by the Congress. However, it expires in just 11 days. If the Congress does not act or does not act in time, what economic situation will you be faced with, and what realistic policy options will you be considering?,THE PRESIDENT. Despite the fact that the surtax will expire, and that has happened before, the Congress will pass a resolution which will allow the forms to go out and the collections to proceed. What is important is not that the Congress pass the tax before it expires, but that the general public and the world knows that the tax will eventually be passed. That has a psychological effect.,In my belief, due to the bipartisan support--and it has been really statesmanlike support that we received from the Democratic leadership as well as the Republican leadership--due to that support, it will pass the House and I then think will pass the Senate.,GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER'S VISITS TO LATIN AMERICA,[22.] Q. Mr. President, due to Governor Rockefeller's difficulties on his Latin American jaunt, do you see any usefulness. coming out of the trips, and could you tell us what it might be?,THE PRESIDENT. A great deal of usefulness. For example, in my conversations with President Lleras, the talking paper that President--Governor Rockefeller; a Freudian slip--the talking paper that Governor Rockefeller gave me was extremely helpful, extremely helpful because it gave me the background of his conversation with President Lleras.,I would say further that the very fact: that there are these rather explosive demonstrations indicates that such a trip was necessary. The United States can't be penned up within our borders simply because of the fear of demonstrations.,I remember very well when I planned' my trip to Europe there were several editorials to the effect that I shouldn't take the trip because of the possibility of demonstrations. As those of you who were with me will remember, there were demonstrations in every major city which I visited. Yet the trip was worthwhile.,As far as I am concerned, I am very happy that Governor Rockefeller has made this trip. He is getting valuable information which we needed to get.,I would add one further thought: We must not interpret these demonstrations as reflecting the will of the people of Latin America. The few demonstrators, violent as they are, in Latin America, no more represent the 200 million people of Latin America than the Black Panthers represent the 11 million law-abiding Negro citizens of this country. That is what we have to get across.,THE SAFEGUARD SYSTEM,[23.] Q. Mr. President, when you proposed the Safeguard antiballistic system, you said it was vital to the interests of the United States. Nevertheless, reports persist that it is in trouble, the program is in trouble in the Senate, and there is now talk of a possible compromise in our program. What is your position on Safeguard, and what do you intend to do to win passage for the program?,THE PRESIDENT. On March 8th, before I announced my decision on Safeguard, a story appeared in the Washington Post indicating that the count at that time was 20 Senators for it, 46 against it, with the rest undecided.,The latest count I have seen indicates that there are 50 or 51 for it, 46 against it, and the rest undecided. We will win the fight on Safeguard. It will not be necessary to compromise.,I don't mean by that that every section of the bill as presented to the Armed Services Committee has to be kept as it is. That is up to the Committee and to the Chairman [Senator John Stennis of Mississippi] to work out.,But in recommending Safeguard, I did so based on intelligence information at that time. Since that time new intelligence information with regard to the Soviet success in testing multiple reentry vehicles--that kind of information, has convinced me that Safeguard is even more important. Because however we may argue about that intelligence, as to whether it has an independent guidance system as ours will have, there isn't any question but that it is a multiple weapon and its footprints indicate that it just happens to fall in somewhat the precise area in which our Minutemen silos are located.,This would mean that by the year 1973, in the event the Soviet Union goes forward with that program, that 80 percent of our Minutemen would be in danger. ABM is needed particularly in order to meet that eventuality.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-04-18","text":"QUESTIONS,NORTH KOREA'S ATTACK ON U.S. RECONNAISSANCE FLIGHT,[I.] Q. Mr. President, the question on all of our minds is where do we go from here with the incident of the shooting down of the plane? 1 What further action might you contemplate diplomatically and militarily?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], first, I think a word with regard to the facts in this case: As was pointed out in the protest that was filed at Pandemonium yesterday and also in the Defense Department statement, the plane involved was an unarmed Constellation, propeller-driven.,1On April 15, 1969, in the Sea of Japan, some 100 miles off the Korean coast.,The mission was a reconnaissance mission which at no time took the plane closer to the shores of North Korea than 40 miles. At the time the plane was shot down, all of the evidence that we have indicates that it was shot down approximately 90 miles from the shores of North Korea while it was moving outward, aborting the mission on orders that had been received. We knew this, based on our radar.,What is also even more important, the North Koreans knew it, based on their radar. Therefore, this attack was unprovoked. It was deliberate. It was without warning. The protest has been filed. The North Koreans have not responded. Now a word with regard to why we have such missions in the Sea of Japan. As you ladies and gentlemen are aware, there are 56,000 American troops stationed in South Korea. Those 56,000 men are the responsibility of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief.,In recent weeks and months, in fact going back over the last 2 or 3 years, but particularly in recent weeks and months, North Korea has threatened military action against South Korea and against our forces in South Korea. The number of incidents has increased.,It is the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to protect the security of those men. That is why, going back over 20 years and throughout the period of this administration being continued, we have had a policy of reconnaissance flights in the Sea of Japan similar to this flight. This year we have had already 190 of these flights without incident, without threat, without warning at all.,Now the question is: What do we do about these flights in the future? They were discontinued immediately after this incident occurred.,I have today ordered that these flights be continued. They will be protected. This is not a threat; it is simply a statement of fact.,As the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces I cannot and will not ask our men to serve in Korea, and I cannot and will not ask our men to take flights like this in unarmed planes without providing protection. That will be the case.,Looking to the future, as far as what we do will depend upon the circumstances. It; will depend upon what is done as far as North Korea is concerned, its reaction to the protest, and also any other developments that occur as we continue these flights.,OUTLOOK FOR PEACE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,[2.] Mr. Smith [Merriman Smith, United Press International],Q. Mr. President, now that you have had about 3 months in a position of Presidential responsibility, do the chances of peace in Southeast Asia seem to come any closer at all, or has the situation, the outlook for peace, improved or deteriorated since your inauguration?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith, the chances for peace in Southeast Asia have significantly improved since this administration came into office. I do not claim that that has happened simply because of what we have done, although I think we have done some things that have improved those chances; and I am not trying to raise false hopes that peace is just around the corner, this summer or this fall.,But a number of developments clearly beyond the Paris peace talks have convinced me that the chances for bringing this war to a peaceful conclusion have significantly improved.,One factor that should be mentioned, that I note has not been covered perhaps as much as others, is the fact that South Korea has significantly improved its own capabilities. The way we can tell this has happened is that the South Korean President has taken an attitude with regard to the make-up of a government after peace comes that he wouldn't have even considered 6 months ago, and he has done this because South Korean--I am sorry, South Vietnamese forces; it is natural that you transplant these two words, I find, in discussing these two subjects--South Vietnamese forces are far better able to handle themselves militarily, and that program is going forward on a much more intensive basis than it was when this administration came into office.,Second, political stability in South Vietnam has increased significantly since this administration came into office. The trend had begun before, but it has continued and escalated since that time.,As a result of these two factors, it means that South Vietnam is able to make a peace which I think will give a better opportunity for negotiating room for their negotiators and ours at the Paris conference. That is one of the reasons for my feeling somewhat optimistic, although we still have some hard ground to plow.,CONSIDERATION OF TROOP WITHDRAWALS,Yes, sir.,[3.] Q. To follow that up, then, are you considering now the unilateral withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not. If we are to have a negotiating position at the Paris peace talks, it must be a position in which we can negotiate from strength, and discussion about unilateral withdrawal does not help that position. I will not engage in it, although I realize it might be rather popular to do so.,It is the aim of this administration to bring men home just as soon as our security will allow us to do so. As I have indicated previously, there are three factors that we are going to take into consideration: the training of the South Vietnamese, their ability to handle their own defense; the level of fighting in South Vietnam, whether or not the offensive action of the enemy recedes; and progress in the Paris peace talks.,Looking to the future, I would have to say that I think there are good prospects that American forces can be reduced, but as far as this time is concerned, we have no plans to reduce our forces until there is more progress on one or all of the three fronts that I have mentioned.,LEVEL OF COMBAT ACTIVITY IN SOUTH VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], yes.,Q. Could I ask you whether you have ordered that the level of American combat activity in South Vietnam be reduced in order to reduce the casualties?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Mr. Lisagor, the casualties have been reduced, as you have noted in your question, but the reason that American casualties are down is because the level of offensive action on the part of the enemy has receded.,An analysis--and I have studied this quite carefully because I have noted the great interest in this country on this subject as to whether or not our casualties are the result of our action or theirs. What we find is that the level of casualties substantially increased during the spring offensive. That spring offensive at this time either has run its course or is in a substantial lull. Because that offensive is in that status at this time, our level of casualties is down.,I have not ordered and do not intend to order any reduction of our own activities. We will do what is necessary to defend our position and to maintain the strength of our bargaining position in the Paris peace talks.,THE TAX SURCHARGE AND TAX REFORM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you foresee the possibility or the likelihood that after the Vietnam war ends, the 10 percent income tax surcharge will be continued indefinitely to help pay for what you call this country's compelling domestic needs?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I do not foresee that likelihood and that will not be the objective of this administration. I indicated during the campaign that I thought that taxes were too high. I still believe that. And I believe that the surcharge, the so-called \"war tax,\" which some describe it, that that tax should be reduced and removed just as soon as we are able to do so, either because of Vietnam or for other reasons.,I will also indicate that at this time the administration's interim tax reform package will be submitted to the Congress early next week, either Monday or Tuesday. The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Treasury Department, is testifying on Tuesday. I have already approved the message. It will have some information on this and other matters that will be of interest to all of you.,THE ABM SYSTEM,[6.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, Hearst Newspapers],Q. Mr. President, it has been suggested that you may go directly to the country on the ABM issue to further clarify and support your case. Can you tell us of any plans you have in that direction, perhaps today?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no plans at this time to go to the country, as you have suggested. As a matter of fact, I consider a press conference as going to the country. I find that these conferences are rather well covered by the country, both by television, as they are today, and also by the members of the press.,With regard to the ABM decision, however, I wish to emphasize again the point that I made when I announced that decision in this room a few weeks ago.,I made that decision after I considered all the options that were before me with regard to what was necessary to maintain America's defenses, and particularly the credibility of our national security and our diplomacy throughout the world.,I analyzed the nature of the threat. I found, for example, that even since the decision to deploy the ABM system called Sentinel in 1967, the intelligence estimates indicated that the Soviet capability with regard to their SS-9's, their nuclear missiles, was 60 percent higher than we thought then; that their plans for nuclear submarines were 60 percent greater than we had thought then.,Under these circumstances, I had to make basically a command decision as to what the United States should do if we were to avoid falling into a second-class or inferior position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.,I had a number of options. We could have increased our offensive forces in various directions. I determined that this limited defensive action, limited insofar as the Soviet Union is concerned, to defend our Minuteman missile sites, was the best action that could be taken.,I still believe that to be the case. I believe it is essential for the national security, and it is essential to avoid putting an American President, either this President or the next President, in the position where the United States would be second rather than first, or at least equal to any potential enemy.,The other reason, and I emphasize this strongly, is that the Chinese Communists, according to our intelligence, have not moved as fast recently as they had over the past 3 to 4 years, but that, nevertheless, by 1973 or 1974 they would have a significant nuclear capability which would make our diplomacy not credible in the Pacific unless we could protect our country against a Chinese attack aimed at our cities.,The ABM system will do that, and the ABM Safeguard system, therefore, has been adopted for that reason.,CONSULTATION ON PROTECTION OF RECONNAISSANCE FLIGHTS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, has there been any consultation with our allies or with Japan on sending armed planes along to guard the reconnaissance craft? Is it necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. There has been no consultation up to this point. I can only say in answer to that question that when I refer to protecting these flights, I am not going to go beyond that at this time. I am simply indicating that they will be protected.,If we think that consultation is necessary, we will have consultation.,PARTISANSHIP AND THE ABM ISSUE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, on the ABM issue, as you know, there are a number of Republican Senators who oppose your views on the ABM.,Do you think that they should support you because you are a Republican President even though they oppose the principle?,THE PRESIDENT. I certainly do not. I want to make it crystal clear that my decision on ABM was not made on the basis of Republican versus Democrat. It was made on the basis of what I thought was best for the country.,I talked, for example, just yesterday, with Senator Cooper [Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky]. He is one of those who opposes me as a Republican. He honestly and sincerely believes that this is not the best step to take.,I respect that belief, and I respect others who disagree with me on this. I also respect the beliefs of Senator Jackson, Speaker McCormack, Senator Stennis, and Senator Russell, and a number of Democrats, who believe that this is the right step to take.,This issue will be fought out, as it should be fought out, on the basis of what is best for the Nation. It will not be fought out on partisan lines.,I am going to fight as hard as I can for it because I believe it is absolutely essential to the security of the country. But it is going to be fought on the basis of asking each Senator and Congressman to make his own decision, and I am confident, incidentally, that that decision will be in favor of the system when they know all the facts.,INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT,[9.] Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.,Q. Democrats in the House have voted to repeal the 7 percent investment tax credit. What is your position on this, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. The position of the administration on this will be announced in the tax reform measure that will be submitted on Monday or Tuesday of next week. I will not discuss it further at this time.,MISSILE CAPABILITY OF THE SOVIET UNION,[10.] Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Scali [John A. Scali, ABC News].,Q. Secretary [of State William P.] Rogers said at a recent news conference that if and when we begin talks with the Soviets on missiles, one of the first questions to be asked them is why they find it necessary to build a big missile with a 25 megaton warhead.,Since the Russian decision to proceed to build such an enormous missile is one of the major factors in your going ahead with the ABM, the question is: Why are we waiting to ask that question for the beginning of negotiations? Why don't we ask it now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Scali, in a sense I think Secretary Rogers probably asked the question by stating it as he did in a press conference. As you know, because you have covered these diplomatic matters for many years, in dealing with the Soviet Union or any other nation, this type of question is not always asked simply on a formal basis in a diplomatic conference.,Sometimes the best way to handle it is to state the position publicly. As far as Secretary Rogers' statement is concerned, I share his puzzlement as to why the Soviet Union is moving so heavily in this direction. As far as the Soviet Union's intentions are concerned, and I want to clarify one point that is made, the question as to their intentions is not something that I am going to comment upon. I don't know what their intentions are.,But we have to base our policy on their capabilities and when we project their SS-9 plans to 1972 or 1973, if we allow those plans to go forward without taking any action on our part, either offensively or defensively, to counteract them, they will be substantially ahead of the United States in overall nuclear capability. We cannot allow that to happen.,I would remind the members of this press corps--I am here at a time when the United States faces a threat, not of the magnitude that President Kennedy faced at the time of the Cuban missile crisis-but I would remind the members of this press corps that at that time all of the professional experts agreed that the U.S. superiority was at least 4 to 1 and maybe $ to I, over the Soviet Union in terms of overall nuclear capability.,Now we don't have that today. That gap has been closed. We shall never have it again because it will not be necessary for us. Sufficiency, as I have indicated, is all that is necessary. But I do say this: I do not want to see an American President in the future, in the event of any crisis, have his diplomatic credibility be so impaired because the United States was in a second-class or inferior position. We saw what it meant to the Soviets when they were second. I don't want that position to be the United States in the event of a future diplomatic crisis.,SOVIET ROLE IN THE PLANE INCIDENT,[11.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what the Soviet role has been in the plane incident, and could you go beyond that and tell us what were some of the other elements that figured in your deliberations on how to properly respond to the downing of the plane?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet role in the plane incident, first, is one of being of assistance to the United States in recovering the debris and looking for survivors. We are most grateful to the Soviet Union for helping us in this respect.,Our intelligence and, of course, no one can be sure here, indicates that the Soviet Union was not aware that this attack was to be made. North Korea is not a nation that is predictable in terms of its actions. It is perhaps more than any other nation in the Communist bloc completely out of the control of either the Soviet Union or, for that matter, Communist China. That, at least, is our intelligence estimate at this time.,Now, as far as other matters that entered into this interim decision, and I emphasize it as an interim decision, I have concluded that the United States must face up to the fact that intelligence gathering-intelligence gathering that does not involve overflights, that does not involve interdiction of another nation's air space, or moving into its waters--here where intelligence people are involved, we recognize that they are necessarily subject to whatever action can or should be taken by another nation to defend itself.,But when planes of the United States, or ships of the United States, in intelligence gathering, are in international water or in international air space, they are not fair game. They will not be in the future. I state that as a matter of fact, and that was the basis for this interim decision.,DR. LONG'S POSITION ON THE ABM SYSTEM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, on the question of dissent on the ABM, can you tell us, sir, did you or did you not block the appointment of Dr. Long [Dr. Franklin A. Long, vice president, Cornell University] as head of the NSF [National Science Foundation] because he disapproved of your position on the ABM?,THE PRESIDENT. Dr. Long's potential appointment was not discussed with me until after he had had a conversation with Dr. DuBridge on this matter.,The determination was made by members of the White House Staff that his appointment, in view of his very sincere beliefs opposing the ABM, would not be in the best interests of the overall administration position.,I wish to make it clear that we have vigorous dissent and discussion within our National Security Council on this and other matters. But to have at this time made an appointment of a man who quite honestly and quite sincerely--a man of eminent credentials, incidentally--disagreed with the administration's position on a major matter of this sort, we thought this would be misunderstood. My staff thought that and, under the circumstances, I approved of their decision not to submit the recommendation to me. 2,2On April 28 the President met with representatives from the National Science Board and the Council of the National Academy of Sciences. At his news briefing following the meeting, Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler announced that the President had asked the National Science Board to submit new nominations for the position of National Science Foundation Director.,On June 19 the White House announced the President's intention to nominate as Director, Dr. William D. McElroy, chairman of the Department of Biology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (5 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 877). Dr. McElroy was confirmed on July 11 and took office on July 14.,THE PLANE INCIDENT AND THE \"PUEBLO\" ATTACK,[13.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess the motives of the North Koreans in this attack and do you see any parallel or pattern in this attack and also the one on the Pueblo?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Pueblo incident was quite different in two respects. One, there was some uncertainty for some time as to where the Pueblo was. Present indications are that the Pueblo was in international waters. But there was a more uncertain factor.,There was no uncertainty whatever as to where this plane was, because we know what their radar showed. We, incidentally, know what the Russian radar showed. And all three radars showed exactly the same thing.,Let me also say that there is no question of what they claim as their air space. Some of you, of course, know the confusion and, as a matter of fact, the confrontation we are having with Peru about the 200-mile limit.3 North Korea claims only 12 miles as its limit, so we were at least 28 miles away at the very closest point.,3On February 14 and again on March 19, 1969, Peruvian naval units seized or damaged a total of four American-owned fishing vessels. Fines totaling $27,000 were assessed against them for illegal fishing.,Also, with regard to the Pueblo, in the case of the Pueblo the North Koreans had warned and threatened the Pueblo for a period of several weeks before they seized it. In the case of these flights, they have been going on, as I have indicated, for years, and during this administration, without incident, 190 of them have occurred this year.,Under these circumstances, it was a completely surprise attack in every sense of the word and, therefore, did not give us the opportunity for protective action that I would have taken had it been threatened.,ELECTORAL REFORM,[14.] Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Star and Tribune],Q. Mr. President, it appears that the House Judiciary Committee is going to report out an electoral reform bill providing for direct popular election of the President, perhaps with a provision delaying the effectiveness of this until past the next election. Will you support this?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey, if the House and the Senate approve a direct election proposal for amending the Constitution, it will have my support. It is my judgment that that kind of proposal will have far less chance to get the requisite number of States to approve it than the proposal that I favor, the proportional system. But my view is that, first, the present system must be modified. As far as I am concerned, the proportional system, the congressional district system, or the direct election system would be preferable to the present system. That is my conviction as far as my judgment.,As to what the House and-the Senate ought to do, I have expressed my view as to the practical political realities. If the Members of the House and Senate conclude that they can get the three-fourths of the States for the direct election system, and if they pass and can agree in conference that that is what they will approve, then that modification, that amendment, will have my enthusiastic support; however with some doubts as to whether it will succeed.,CIVIL RIGHTS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, on Wednesday, characterized the civil rights record of your administration thus far as mixed, citing the textile mills case in the Department of Defense and also the resignation of Clifford Alexander.4,4Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., resigned as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 9, 1969, but continued as a Commissioner. He was succeeded in the chairmanship by William H. Brown III on May 6, 1969.,How would you characterize your administration's civil rights record?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the intent of our administration is to enforce the laws of this land and to develop a coordinated program in which there will be standards that everybody will understand so that we will not be subject to this criticism of our record being mixed.,Now, the reason for Roy Wilkins' criticism, and he has expressed this to me personally, too, the reason for it is well-founded as far as the implementation is concerned.,As all of you know, the number of agencies involved in civil rights compliance means that in these gray areas in which close cases come up, you will get different men coming up with different conclusions.,You mentioned the textile cases. The three South Carolina cases involved the Defense Department and Defense contracts and the Compliance Section interpreting how compliance could be obtained for that contractual provision.,The North Carolina case, which was brought by the Department of Justice, did not involve compliance with a Defense contractor but it involved a mill with no Government contracts and since compliance could not be negotiated, suit had to be brought.,That can be called \"mixed\" but nevertheless, I think you can see how that kind of result could be attained.,PROBLEMS IN RESPONDING TO AGGRESSION,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you have addressed yourself many times in the past, sir, to the danger and the consequences of aggression against our country by a minor military power.,It seems to me what we have seen developed here is a kind of new rules of warfare which we certainly have not agreed to and obviously the Soviet Union hasn't.,In your present circumstances, sir, can you tell us of some of the problems that you have faced in making a proper response?,THE PRESIDENT. The problems with regard to a proper response are quite obvious: the question as to what reaction we could expect not only from the party against whom we respond but other parties that might be involved, and also putting it in the larger context, how responding in one area might affect a major interest of the United States in another area, an area like Vietnam, Vietnam being the top priority area for us.,Now, in answering the question in that way, I do not want to leave the implication that the announcement of the renewal of and the continuation of reconnaissance flights is the final action that can or will be taken here.,Our action in this matter will be determined by what happens in the future.,THE SOVIET UNION AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA,[17.] Looking at the Soviet Union, it seems to me that had it not been for this incident the major story that I would have been asked about today was what happened in Czechoslovakia. I suppose that my reaction to that would be to condemn the Soviet Union for what it did.,The Soviet Union is aware of our disapproval of that action. All Americans, in fact all people in the free world, see this as perhaps the final chapter in the great tragedy of the Czechoslovak people under Communist rule. 5,5 On April 17, 1969, Alexander Dubcek, first secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and leader of Czechoslovakia's liberalizing movement was ousted due to Soviet pressure. The central committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party named the more conservative Gustav Husak to succeed Dubcek.,We hope it is not the final chapter. We hope that some vestiges of freedom will remain. Yet, the Soviet Union has acted there and acted quite decisively. They have to consider now, in terms of any future action, how that might affect their relations with the United States and with the Western world.,What I am trying to do in answering your question is to pose the problem that great powers confront when they take actions involving powers that are not in that league.,We must always measure our actions by that base.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-03-14","text":"DEPLOYMENT OF THE ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Ladies and gentlemen, today I am announcing a decision which I believe is vital for the security and defense of the United States, and also in the interest of peace throughout the world.,Last year a program, the Sentinel antiballistic missile program, was adopted. That program, as all listeners on television and radio and readers of newspapers know, has been the subject of very strong debate and controversy over the past few months.,After long study of all of the options available, I have concluded that the Sentinel program previously adopted should be substantially modified. The new program that I have recommended this morning to the leaders, and that I announce today, is one that perhaps best can be described as a Safeguard program.,It is a safeguard against any attack by the Chinese Communists that we can foresee over the next 10 years.,It is a safeguard of our deterrent system, which is increasingly vulnerable due to the advances that have been made by the Soviet Union since the year 1967 when the Sentinel program was first laid out.,It is a safeguard also against any irrational or accidental attack that might occur of less than massive magnitude which might be launched from the Soviet Union.,The program also does not do some things which should be clearly understood. It does not provide defense for our cities, and for that reason the sites have been moved away from our major cities. I have made the decision with regard to this particular point because I found that there is no way, even if we were to expand the limited Sentinel system, which was planned for some of our cities, to a so-called heavy or thick system--there is no way that we can adequately defend our cities without an unacceptable loss of life.,The only way that I have concluded that we can save lives, which is the primary purpose of our defense system, is to prevent war; and that is why the emphasis of this system is on protecting our deterrent, which is the best preventive for war.,The system differs from the previous Sentinel system in another major respect. The Sentinel system called for a fixed deployment schedule. I believe that because of a number of reasons, we should have a phase system. That is why, on an annual basis, the new Safeguard system will be reviewed, and the review may bring about changes in the system based on our evaluation of three major points:,First, what our intelligence shows us with regard to the magnitude of the threat, whether from the Soviet Union or from the Chinese; and, second, in terms of what our evaluation is of any talks that we are having by that time, or may be having, with regard to arms control; and finally, because we believe that since this is a new system, we should constantly examine what progress has been made in the development of the technique to see if changes in the system should be made.,I should admit at this point that this decision has not been an easy one. None of the great decisions made by a President are easy. But it is one that I have made after considering all of the options, and I would indicate, before going to your questions, two major options that I have overruled.,One is moving to a massive city defense. I have already indicated why I do not believe that is, first, feasible, and there is another reason: Moving to a massive city defense system, even starting with a thin system and then going to a heavy system, tends to be more provocative in terms of making credible a first-strike capability against the Soviet Union. I want no provocation which might deter arms talks.,The other alternative, at the other extreme, was to do nothing; or to delay for 6 months or 12 months, which would be the equivalent, really, of doing nothing; or, for example, going the road only of research and development.,I have examined those options. I have ruled them out because I have concluded that the first deployment of this system, which will not occur until 1973--that first deployment is essential by that date if we are to meet the threat that our present intelligence indicates will exist by 1973.,In other words, we must begin now. If we delay a year, for example, it means that that first deployment will be delayed until 1975. That might be too late.,It is the responsibility of the President of the United States, above all other responsibilities, to think first of the security of the United States. I believe that this system is the best step that we can take to provide for that security.,There are, of course, other possibilities that have been strongly urged by some of the leaders this morning: for example, that we could increase our offensive capability, our submarine force, or even our Minuteman force or our bomber force. That I would consider to be, however, the wrong road because it would be provocative to the Soviet Union and might escalate an arms race.,This system is truly a safeguard system, a defensive system only. It safeguards our deterrent and under those circumstances can, in no way, in my opinion, delay the progress which I hope will continue to be made toward arms talks, which will limit arms, not only this kind of system, but particularly offensive systems.,We will now go to your questions.,QUESTIONS,THE WAR IN VIETNAM,[2.] Mr. Smith [Merriman Smith, United Press International],Q. Mr. President, the war in Vietnam has been intensifying recently, and if there has been any notable progress in Paris it has not been detectable publicly. Is your patience growing a little thin with these continued attacks, particularly such as came out of the DMZ [demilitarized zone] today?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith, you may recall that on March 4, when I received a similar question, at an earlier stage in the attacks, I issued what was interpreted widely as a warning. It will be my policy as President to issue a warning only once, and I will not repeat it now. Anything in the future that is done will be done. There will be no additional warning.,As far as the Paris talks are concerned, I have noted the speculation in the press with regard to whether we will have, or should have, or are, for example, approving private talks going forward. I will not discuss that subject. I trust there will be private talks.,I think that is where this war will be settled--in private rather than in public. And this is in the best interests of both sides, but public discussion of what I think is significant progress which is being made along the lines of private talks, I will not indulge in.,THE PRESIDENT'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM,[3.] Yes, Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press],Q. Mr. President, will you make your own State of the Union Address, and what will your legislative program encompass?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not plan a State of the Union Address in the traditional manner. I will, within approximately a month, however, state a general domestic program. By that time the program will be at the point that I think it should be completely summarized and set forth, not only for the Nation, as to what we have done, but particularly to the Congress as to what we expect for the balance. I would not like to anticipate now what will be in that program.,CONGRESSIONAL REACTION TO ABM DECISION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of criticism in Congress against deployment of any type of antimissile defense system. What kind of reception do you think that your proposal this morning will receive there?,THE PRESIDENT. It will be a very spirited debate, and it will be a very close vote. Debates in the field of national defense are often spirited, and the votes are often close. Many of my friends in Congress who were there before I was there remarked that the vote on extending the draft in 1941 won by only one vote.,This might be that close. I think, however, that after the Members of the House and the Senate consider this program, which is a minimum program, and which particularly provides options to change in other directions if we find the threat is changed, or that the art has changed, or evaluation of the technique has changed, I think that we have a good chance of getting approval. We will, of course, express our views, and we hope that we will get support from the country.,EFFECTIVENESS OF ABM DEPLOYMENT,[5.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that your first construction or deployment of antimissile systems would be around two Minuteman retaliatory operations. Do you think that deploying around these two provides enough deterrent that would be effective?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me explain the difference between deploying around two Minuteman bases and deploying around, say, 10 cities.,Where you are looking toward a city defense, it needs to be a perfect or near perfect system to be credible because, as I examined the possibility of even a thick defense of cities, I found that even the most optimistic projections, considering the highest development of the art, would mean that we would still lose 30 to 40 million lives. That would be less--half of what we would otherwise lose. But we would still lose 30 to 40 million.,When you are talking about protecting your deterrent, it need not be perfect. It is necessary only to protect enough of the deterrent that the retaliatory second strike will be of such magnitude that the enemy would think twice before launching a first strike.,And it has been my conclusion that by protecting two Minuteman sites, we will preserve that deterrent as a credible deterrent, and that will be decisive and could be decisive insofar as the enemy considering the possibility of a first strike.,RESPONSE TO NORTH VIETNAMESE OFFENSIVE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there have been charges from Capitol Hill that you have stepped up the war in Vietnam. Have you?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not stepped up the war in Vietnam. I actually have examined not only the charges, but also examined the record. And I discussed it at great length yesterday with Secretary Laird.,What has happened is this: For the past 6 months, the forces on the other side have been planning for an offensive, and for the past 6 months they not only have planned for an offensive, but they have been able, as a result of that planning, to have mounted a rather substantial offensive.,Under those circumstances, we had no other choice but to try to blunt the offensive. Had General Abrams not responded in this way, we would have suffered far more casualties than we have suffered, and we have suffered more than, of course, any of us would have liked to have seen.,The answer is that any escalation of the war in Vietnam has been the responsibility of the enemy. If the enemy deescalates its attacks, ours will go down. We are not trying to step it up. We are trying to do everything that we can in the conduct of our war in Vietnam to see that we can go forward toward peace in Paris.,That is why my response has been measured, deliberate, and, some think, too cautious. But it will continue to be that way, because I am thinking of those peace talks every time I think of a military option in Vietnam.,THE ABM SYSTEM AND THE SURCHARGE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, your safeguard ABM system, I understand, would cost about $1 billion less in the coming fiscal year than the plan which President Johnson sent up. Will this give you the opportunity to reduce the surcharge or will the continued high level of taxation be needed for the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. That question will be answered when we see the entire budget. Secretary Laird will testify on the defense budget on Wednesday.,And incidentally, my understanding at this time, and I have seen the preliminary figures, is that the defense budget that Secretary Laird will present will be approximately $2 1/2 billion less than that submitted by the previous administration.,Now whether after considering the defense budget and all the other budgets that have been submitted, we then can move in the direction of either reducing the surcharge or move in the direction of some of our very difficult problems with regard to our cities, the problem of hunger and others--these are the options that I will have to consider at a later time.,U.S. RESPONSE TO INCREASED CASUALTIES IN VIETNAM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, last week you said that in the matter of Vietnam you would not tolerate heavier casualties and a continuation of the violation of the understanding without making an appropriate response.,Is what we are doing in Vietnam now, in a military way, that response of which you were speaking?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a very close decision on our part, one that I not only discussed with Secretary Laird yesterday, but that we will discuss more fully in the Security Council tomorrow.,I took no comfort out of the stories that I saw in the papers this morning to the effect that our casualties for the immediate past week went from 400 down to 300. That is still much too high. What our response should be must be measured in terms of the effect on the negotiations in Paris. I will only respond as I did earlier to Mr. Smith's question. We have issued a warning. I will not warn again. And if we conclude that the level of casualties is higher than we should tolerate, action will take place.,RUSSIAN REACTION TO THE ABM DECISION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you have reason to believe that the Russians will interpret your ABM decision today as not being an escalating move in the arms race?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], I have reason to believe, based on the past record, that they would interpret it just the other way around.,First, when they deployed their own ABM system, and, as you know, they have 67 missile ABM sites deployed around Moscow, they rejected the idea that it escalated the arms race on the ground that it was defensive solely in characters; and, second, when the United States last year went forward on the Sentinel system, 4 days later the Soviet Union initiated the opportunity to have arms limitation talks.,I think the Soviet Union recognizes very clearly the difference between a defensive posture and an offensive posture.,I would also point this out, an interesting thing about Soviet military and diplomatic history: They have always thought in defensive terms, and if you read not only their political leaders, but their military leaders, the emphasis is on defense.,I think that since this system now, as a result of moving the city defense out of it, and the possibility of that city defense growing into a thick defense, I think this makes it so clearly defensive in character that the Soviet Union cannot interpret this as escalating the arms race.,ON A FUTURE SUMMIT MEETING,[10.] Q. Mr. President, last week at your press conference you mentioned negotiations with the Russians at the highest level being in the wings. Could you tell us if since then we have moved any closer to such a summit meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I should distinguish between negotiations at what you would call the highest level, and what I said was the highest level, and talks. Talks with the Soviet Union are going on at a number of levels at this time, on a number of subjects.,However, those talks have not yet reached the point where I have concluded, or where I believe they have concluded, that a discussion at the summit level would be useful. Whenever those talks, preliminary talks, do reach that point, I anticipate that a summit meeting would take place.,I do not think one will take place in the near future, but I think encouraging progress is being made toward the time when a summit talk may take place.,HOLDOVER APPOINTEES PROM PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, sir, there have been several reports from your staff members that Kennedy and Johnson holdover people who made policy have sewn themselves into civil service status and this may mean some problem for you people in personnel. I wonder if this means that you are going to transfer a lot of these people or abolish jobs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have heard a lot from some of my Republican friends on Capitol Hill on this point, as well as from, of course, Republican leaders in the Nation. It seems that this is a rather common practice, when one administration goes out and the other comes in. We will do what we think will best serve the interest of effective government, and if the individual who has been frozen in can do the job, we are going to keep him.,However, we are moving some out, but we won't do it through subterfuge. We will try to do it quite directly.,EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATO,[12.] Q. Mr. President, on your recent European trip, did you find any willingness on the part of our allies to increase their military and financial contribution to the Alliance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that matter was discussed with all of our allies, and particularly will be a subject for discussion when we have the 20th anniversary meeting of NATO here in April.,I think it might be potentially embarrassing to allies to suggest that we are urging them, any one specifically, to do one thing or another in this field. I think it is best for me to leave it in these terms:,Our allies do recognize the necessity to maintain NATO's conventional forces. They do recognize that they must carry their share or that the United States, and particularly our Congress, representing our people, will have much less incentive to carry our share. I believe they will do their share, but I think we are going to do it best through quiet conversation rather than public declaration.,CONSIDERATION OF THE ABM IN TALKS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[13.] Yes, sir?,Q. In any talks with the Soviet Union, would you be willing to consider abandoning the ABM program altogether if the Soviets showed a similar willingness or, indeed, if they showed a readiness to place limitations on offensive weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Scali [John Scali, ABC News], I am prepared, in the event that we go into arms talks, to consider both offensive and defensive weapons. As you know, the arms talks, that at least preliminarily have been discussed, do not involve limitation or reduction. They involve only freezing where we are.,Now, your question goes to abandoning. And on that particular point, I think it would take two, naturally, to make the agreement. Let's look at the Soviet Union's position with its defensive deployment of ABM's. Previously, that deployment was aimed only toward the United States. Today their radar's, from our intelligence, are also directed toward Communist China.,I would imagine that the Soviet Union would he just as reluctant as we would be to leave their country naked against a potential Chinese Communist threat. So the abandoning of the entire system, particularly as long as the Chinese threat is there, I think neither country would look upon with much favor.,THE ABM AND THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that deployment of the ABM system by both the Soviet Union and the United States is compatible with the NPT, the Nonproliferation Treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. I considered that problem, and I believe that they are compatible with the NPT. We discussed that in the leaders' meeting this morning, and I pointed out that as we consider this kind of defensive system, which enables the United States of America to make its deterrent capability credible, that that will of the Presidents have an enormous effect in reducing the pressure on other countries who might want to acquire nuclear weapons.,That is the key point. If a country doesn't feel that the major country that has a nuclear capability has a credible deterrent, then they would move in that direction.,One other point--I wish to make an announcement with regard to the NPT: that I was delighted to see the Senate's confirmation or consent to the Treaty, and this announcement--I hope President Johnson is looking. I haven't talked to him on the phone. I am going to invite President Johnson, if his schedule permits, to attend the ceremony when we will have the ratification of the Treaty, because he started it in his administration, and I think he should participate when we ratify it.,CAMPUS DISORDERS AND FEDERAL AID,[15.] Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News],Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could turn you to the campus disorders and unrest. They are continuing and we haven't had an opportunity to ask you your views of them. But particularly, would you favor the cuffing off of Federal loans to the offenders?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Lisagor, I have asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to examine this problem, particularly in view of a congressional report that 122 of 540 who had been arrested at San Francisco State were direct recipients of Federal funds.,I will have a statement on that that I will be making either Monday or Tuesday, in detail. I would prefer not to go into it now.,EFFECT ON HANOI OF U.S. RESPONSE IN VIETNAM,[16.] Mr. Semple [Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times],Q. Mr. President, to follow up Mr. Day's [Anthony Day, Philadelphia Bulletin] question on Vietnam earlier, is there any evidence that your measured response to the enemy attacks in South Vietnam has produced or yielded any results in Paris or in the attitudes of the North Vietnamese leaders in Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. Our measured response has not had the effect of discouraging the progress, and it is very limited progress, toward talks in Paris. That is the negative side in answering your question.,As to whether or not a different response would either discourage those talks or might have the effect of even encouraging. them is the decision that we now have to make.,PROSPECT OF TROOP WITHDRAWALS IN VIETNAM,[17.] Q. Mr. President, sir, again on Vietnam, in connection with Secretary Laird's visit, we have heard for some time predictions that American troop levels could be cut as the South Vietnamese capabilities improve, and again last week, while he was in Vietnam, we were getting similar reports from Saigon despite the high level of the fighting that is going on now'. Do you see any prospect for withdrawing American troops in any numbers soon?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Star and Tribune], in view of the current offensive on the part of the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, there is no prospect for a reduction of American forces in the foreseeable future.,When we are able to reduce forces as a result of a combination of circumstances-the ability of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves in areas where we now are defending them, the progress of the talks in Paris, or the level of enemy activity-when that occurs, I will make an announcement. But at this time there is no foreseeable prospect in that field.,EFFECT OF ABM PROGRAM ON SHELTER PROGRAM,[18.] Mr. Theis [J. William Theis, United Press International],Q. What effect, if any, will your safeguard program have on the shelter program? Can you tell us anything about your long-range plans in this direction?,THE PRESIDENT. Congressman Holifield1 in the meeting this morning strongly urged that the administration look over the shelter program and he made the point that he thought it had fallen somewhat into disarray due to lack of attention over the past few years.,1Representative Chet Holifield of California, Chairman of the Military Subcommittee, Government Operations Committee.,I have directed that General Lincoln, the head of the Office of Emergency Preparedness--I had directed him previously to conduct such a survey. We are going to look at the shelter program to see what we can do there in order to minimize American casualties.,U.S. POSITION ON THE MIDDLE EAST,[19.] Q. Mr. President, if I recall correctly, at the last press conference when you were discussing the meeting with General de Gaulle, and the Middle East situation, you said you were .encouraged by what he told you, because he was moving closer to our position.,I wonder if you could tell us what our position is in the Middle East, and if it has changed significantly in the last year?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had bilateral talks not only with the French, but also with the Soviet Union, and with the British, preparatory to the possibility of four-power talks. I would not like to leave the impression that we are completely together at this point.,We are closer together than we were, but we still have a lot of yardage to cover. And until we make further progress in developing a common position, I would prefer not to lay out what our position is.,I don't think that would be helpful in bringing them to the position that we think is the right position.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-03-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO EUROPE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the purpose of this unusually long press conference is to report to the American people on my trip to Europe.,Because I realize that there will probably be a number of questions, some of which may require some rather lengthy answers, I am going to make my opening statement quite brief.,A word about the purpose and also the limitations of a trip like this: I believe all of us in this room have no illusions about the limits of personal diplomacy in settling great differences between nations. A smile or a handshake or an exchange of toasts or gifts or visits will not by themselves have effect where vital interests are concerned and where there are great differences.,On the other hand, I have learned that there is an intangible factor which does affect the relations between nations. I think it was perhaps best described by two of our visitors, those with whom I was talking. One was in the case of Prime Minister Wilson. He used the term mutual trust when he welcomed me. The other, President de Gaulle, when he came to the American Embassy, used the term confiance--trust.,When there is trust between men who are leaders of nations, there is a better chance to settle differences than when there is not trust. I think than one of the accomplishments of this trip is that we have established between the United States of America and the major nations of Europe--and, I trust, other nations of Europe as well---a new relationship of trust and confidence that did not exist before.,For example, as we look at the relations with France, they are different today than they were a week ago. Now, how different they are only time will tell. But that they are different and improved, I think, would be a fair assessment of that situation.,We can also say that, as a result of this trip, the United States has indicated its continuing support of the Alliance--the Atlantic Alliance--and that we have also indicated our support of the concept and ideal of European unity.,In addition, we have indicated that we recognize our limitations insofar as European unity is concerned. Americans cannot unify Europe. Europeans must do so. And we should not become involved in differences among Europeans in which our vital interests are not involved.,Finally, a word that I think all of the American people will be gratified to hear. Sometimes we become rather disillusioned with our aid programs around the world, and we look back on our relations with Europe, particularly, and wonder if it was really worth all that we did immediately after World War II, in terms of the Marshall Plan and other programs.,Anyone who saw Europe as I did in that period of devastation after World War II--when I visited all the countries, except Belgium at that time, that I visited on this trip--and then saw it today would realize that it was worth doing, because today a strong, prosperous, free Europe stands there, partly a result of our aid.,It could not have happened without our aid. It also, of course, could not have happened without their great efforts on their own behalf. And so, with that recognition, we now realize that this Alliance deserves our attention, should be the center of our concern, should not be taken for granted. It will not be. That will be a major objective of this administration.,Now, as we go to your questions, I will take questions not only on the European trip but any area of foreign policy, because on the trip I discussed with the leaders of Europe all areas of foreign policy, which was their desire and mine as well.,There will be only one ground rule. I know there will be great interest in what each of the leaders said to me and what I said to them. I will not divulge the content of these personal conversations because, if we are going to build confidence, we can't build confidence by breaking confidences.,We will go to the questions.,QUESTIONS,AN EAST-WEST SUMMIT MEETING,[2.] Q. Mr. President, we got the impression traveling with you that there was some relationship between your tour and a possible East-West summit at some future time. Could you relate the two?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press], this tour was a condition precedent to an East-West summit at a later time. I have always indicated that before we had talks with those who have opposed us in the world, it was essential that we had clear understanding with our allies and friends.,I think at times in the past we have not had that kind of consultation. It was essential to have it on this trip. In every visit that I had I discussed East-West relations with the leaders involved--discussed not only what our plans were and what our policies might be but got their views and their advice as to what programs they thought we should handle in any bilateral discussions we had with the Soviet Union.,RELATIONS WITH RED CHINA AND THE SOVIET UNION,[3.] Q. Mr. President, during the trip, and as recently as the conclusion of the trip Sunday night, you spoke of hoping that with greater unity with our allies, you would be able to develop new understanding with those who have opposed us on the other side of the world. To follow up on Mr. Cormier's question, of whom are you speaking, sir? We assume the Russians. Are you thinking, for instance, you may be able to reach a better understanding with Red China?,THE PRESIDENT. Looking further down the road, we could think in terms of a better understanding with Red China. But being very realistic, in view of Red China's breaking off the rather limited Warsaw talks that were planned, I do not think that we should hold out any great optimism for any breakthroughs in that direction at this time.,Certainly you are correct in assuming that in referring to those who have opposed us in the world, I was referring primarily to the Soviet Union and to the talks that the United States would be having with the Soviet Union in a number of areas.,Europeans, I found, were greatly concerned by what they called the possibility of a U.S.-Soviet condominium, in which, at the highest levels, the two superpowers would make decisions affecting their future without consulting them.,In fact, one statesman used the term \"Yalta.\" He said: \"We don't want another Yalta on the part of the United States and the Soviet Union.\" Now, whether his assessment was correct about Yalta or not is immaterial.,The point is that Europeans are highly sensitive about the United States and the Soviet Union making decisions that affect their future without their consultation. And that will not happen as a result of this trip.,THE SITUATION IN WEST BERLIN,[4.] Q. Mr. President, would you assess for us, sir, the situation in West Berlin on the eve of the election, how you see it? Do you think it has reached a crisis point?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the situation in West Berlin at the moment seems to have leveled off. I haven't seen the latest reports. I will have to look at the morning papers to see whether my projection at this point is correct, because it has changed from hour to hour.,I believe that we have made our position quite clear to all the parties involved, as we should. We have made it clear to the West German Government, that if they went ahead with the election, we would support them in that decision, or if they decided that they could gain concessions that they considered significant which would lead them to changing the place for the elections, we would support them in that move.,It is their decision and we are not trying to affect it one way or another. They have a right to have the elections there if they want. Also, we have indicated to the Soviets--to the Soviet Ambassador, Mr. [Anatoly F.] Dobrynin--both Mr. Rogers and I have pointed out that any harassment in West Berlin could jeopardize the progress that we see possible in other areas.,I have reported previously in a press conference that I felt that the Soviet Union did not want to see the West Berlin situation become a cause or even a pretext for any move which would be in retrogression insofar as our bilateral relations are concerned.,At this moment, based on the conversations that I have had myself with various European leaders and also the conversation that I and others have had with the representatives of the Soviet Union, I believe that the Soviet Union does not want to have the situation in West Berlin heated up to the point that it would jeopardize some--what they consider to be--more important negotiations at the highest level with the United States. And because those negotiations, in effect, are in the wings, I think I could predict that the Soviet Union will use its influence to cool off the West Berlin situation, rather than to heat it up.,THE VATICAN,[5.] Q. Do you think, sir, that, from your talks with Pope Paul at the Vatican, there is any possibility that the United States might send an envoy to the Vatican as a permanent representative?,THE PRESIDENT. That possibility has been considered by the State Department and by me, because we have been concerned that we should have the very closest consultation and discussion with the Vatican. I found, for example, my conversation with Pope Paul extremely helpful. It was far ranging, and I received information and also counsel that I considered to be very important. I want that line of communication kept open. Whether we can have it kept open based on the present facilities that are available, I have not yet determined. The matter is still under study. But what is important is that the United States have with the Vatican close consultation on foreign policy matters in which the Vatican has a very great interest and very great influence.,THE COMMUNIST OFFENSIVE IN VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the Communist offensive in Vietnam has aroused speculation that your administration is being tested, particularly as to the understanding that was reached last November I, which led to the bombing halt. Would you give us your opinion of this, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in speaking of the Communist offensive, I think it is important first to analyze what it is and what its purposes are, compare it with the offensive last year, and then see what that offensive means in terms of the violation of the understanding last October 31 or prior to October 31 at the time of the bombing halt.,When we look at the offensive, we find that in terms of the frequency of attacks it is approximately the same as the offensive of last year. In terms of intensity of attacks, it is less than that of last year. As far as the targets are concerned, it is primarily directed toward military targets, but there are also some very significant civilian targets. Now, as far as the purposes are concerned, we can only guess; but three have been suggested: that it might be directed against the Government of South Vietnam to break its morale and its back; that it might be directed against public opinion in the United States to put more pressure on the administration to move more in the direction of North Vietnam's position at the Paris peace talks; or that it might be directed toward a military victory of sorts, if a military victory of sorts could be accomplished in South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese against our forces there.,Now, this offensive has failed in all three of these areas. It has failed to achieve any significant military breakthrough. It has failed to break the back of the Government of South Vietnam. Far from that, as a matter of fact, in terms of the pacification program, 700,000 were displaced by the Tet offensive last year, and only 25,000 have been displaced by this one. As far as this offensive affecting the United States and its negotiating position in Paris, it could have exactly the opposite effect.,I think that, therefore, we must now analyze the offensive in terms of the understanding of October 31. Now, that understanding was to the effect that continued shelling of, or attacks on, the cities, the major cities of South Vietnam, would be inconsistent with talks toward peace which would be productive in Paris.,Now, we are examining this particular offensive, examining it very carefully, to see whether its magnitude is in violation of that understanding. Technically, it could be said that it is in violation. Whether we reach the conclusion that the violation is so significant that it requires action on our part is a decision we will be reaching very soon if those attacks continue at their present magnitude.,As you know, Secretary Laird is going to South Vietnam tomorrow, and I have asked him to look into the situation and to give me a report after he has been there.,One other factor should be mentioned: I do not want to discount by this analysis the seriousness of these attacks, because the American casualty rate, I note, has doubled during the period of these attacks. Therefore, it is necessary for the American President, in analyzing the attacks, to think not only of the understanding with regard to the attacks on the cities, but also of his obligation to defend American fighting men in Vietnam.,We have not moved in a precipitate fashion, but the fact that we have shown patience and forbearance should not be considered as a sign of weakness. We will not tolerate a continuation of a violation of an understanding. But more than that, we will not tolerate attacks which result in heavier casualties to our men at a time that we are honestly trying to seek peace at the conference table in Paris. An appropriate response to these attacks will be made if they continue.,THE ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell me if you, after your consultations overseas, have any reservations or have found any reservations on whether we should deploy an ABM [antiballistic missile] system and whether you share any of the scientific reservations that have been expressed in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. The ABM system was not discussed in any detail in my conversations abroad. As far as the decision is concerned, there will be a meeting of the National Security Council tomorrow, which will be entirely devoted to an assessment of that system.,Then, during the balance of the week, I shall make some additional studies on my own involving the Defense Department and other experts whose opinions I value. I will make a decision and announce a decision on ABM at the first of next week.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRAVEL PLANS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there have already been reports that you are already considering another trip abroad, maybe to Latin America or Israel. Would you tell us what your plans are?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans for any foreign travel at this time. I have noted that several other travelers have committed me to various trips abroad. I would like very much at an appropriate time to travel to Latin America again. I was there on a well-publicized trip with some of you in 1958. I was back there again on a less publicized one, but with a much more friendly welcome in 1967.,Such a trip, I think, would be valuable at a later time. But, as you know, Governor Rockefeller is going to Latin America to make an intensive study of our Alliance for Progress programs, a study which is vital because I think we need some changes in our Latin American policy.,THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us whether or not, as a result of your talks with President de Gaulle and other government leaders in Europe, you are now encouraged about prospects for maintaining peaceful conditions in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. One of the tangible results that came out of this trip was substantial progress on the Middle East. Now, what that progress will be and whether it reaches an eventual settlement--that is too early to predict.,But I know that when I met with you ladies and gentlemen of the press at an earlier time, the question was raised as to the four-power talks, and there were some who thought that I--this administration was dragging its feet on going into four-power talks.,Frankly, I do not believe the United States should go into any talks where the deck might be stacked against us. Now, as a result of the consultations that we had on this trip, the positions of our European friends--the British and the French--are now closer to ours than was the case before. We have a better understanding of their position; they have a better understanding of ours.,And also, we have had encouraging talks with the Soviet Ambassador. The Secretary of State and I have both talked with the Soviet Ambassador with regard to the Mideast. We will continue these bilateral consultations; and if they continue at their present rate of progress, it seems likely that there will be four-power discussions in the United Nations on the Mideast.,Now, I should indicate also the limitations of such discussions and what can come out of them. The four powers--the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, and France--cannot dictate a settlement in the Middle East. The time has passed in which great nations can dictate to small nations their future where their vital interests are involved. This kind of settlement that we are talking about, and the contribution that can be made to it, is limited in this respect.,The four powers can indicate those areas where they believe the parties directly involved in the Mideast could have profitable discussions. At the present time they are having no discussions at all.,Second--and this is even the more important part of it--from the four-power conference can come an absolute essential to any kind of peaceful settlement in the Mideast, and that is a major-power guarantee of the settlement, because we cannot expect the Nation of Israel or the other nations in the area who think their major interests might be involved--we cannot expect them to agree to a settlement unless they think there is a better chance that it will be guaranteed in the future than has been the case in the past.,On this score, then, we think we have made considerable progress during the past week. We are cautiously hopeful that we can make more progress and move to the four-power talks very soon.,U.S. RESPONSE TO ATTACKS IN VIETNAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, have you considered an appropriate response if the attacks continue in South Vietnam? Would an appropriate response include resumption of the bombing in the North?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Wilson [Richard L. Wilson, Des Moines Register and Tribune], that question is one that I have given thought to but it is one which I think should not be answered in this forum.,I believe that it is far more effective in international policy to use deeds, rather than words threatening deeds, in order to accomplish objectives.,I will only say in answer to that question that the United States has a number of options that we could exercise to respond. We have several contingency plans that can be put into effect.,I am considering all of those plans. We shall use whatever plan we consider is appropriate to the action on the other side. I will not indicate in advance, and I am not going to indicate publicly, and I am not going to threaten--I don't think that would be helpful-that we are going to start bombing the North or anything else.,I will only indicate that we will not tolerate a continuation of this kind of attack without some response that will be appropriate.,CONVERSATIONS WITH PRESIDENT DE GAULLE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, mindful of your ground rule against revealing contents of your conversations with leaders, I ask you this question: Did the atmosphere of mutual trust generated in your long conversations with General de Gaulle give you any fresh indication, any fresh hope that France could be helpful in the future of NATO, and/or France could be helpful in settling the war in Vietnam, either directly or indirectly?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on the first point, General de Gaulle said publicly, as you will note, what he has said in the past, that he supported the Alliance. He has withdrawn France's forces from the military side of the Alliance but he supports the Alliance, and he in his conversations backed that up very vigorously.,With regard to whether or not there is a possibility that France could move back into NATO in its military complex, I would not hold out at this time any hope that that might happen.,I would hold out, however, some hope that as our conversations continue, we can find a number of areas for mutual cooperation and consultation on the military side as well as in other respects. I think that beyond that, it would not be appropriate to indicate what General de Gaulle's position is.,As far as Vietnam is concerned, we did discuss it and whether it was Vietnam, or whether it was the Mideast, or whether it was U.S. relations with other countries where the French might be helpful, I received from General de Gaulle very encouraging indications that they would like to be helpful where we thought they could be helpful.,I wouldn't go beyond that, but I was very encouraged with the General's attitude. It was one of helpfulness in every respect on all of the major issues.,THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in your conversations with Chancellor Kiesinger, do you believe that you convinced him that his government's reservations against joining in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty were not valid, and that joining in the Treaty would be in West Germany's best interests?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be appropriate to say that the German Government has considerable difficulties with regard to ratification of the Treaty--difficulties which we need to understand even though we may not agree with their position.,Their attitude as far as we are concerned is quite well known. They know that I have sent the Treaty to the Senate, that the Senate will probably give its advice and consent and that we will ratify.,They know, too, my position: that it is not only in the interests of the United States but that I believe it is in the interests of all governments, including the West German Government, to ratify.,I did not put pressure on them, publicly or privately, and I will not put pressure on them, publicly or privately. But I believe, that since it is in their interests to ratify the Treaty, that after consideration without pressure the West German Government will at an appropriate time ratify the Treaty.,THE SOVIET UNION AND VIETNAM,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you said in the recent past that you thought the United States might put some pressure, or use the Soviet Union, or seek to enlist the Soviet Union's help in Vietnam. And I wonder whether, since you have become President, you have moved in that respect, trying to get them to alleviate the situation or help solve it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], as you know, the Soviet Union is in a very delicate and sensitive position as far as Vietnam is concerned. I do not divulge any confidences from the Soviet Ambassador in indicating that that is the case. You ladies and gentlemen have written it and you are correct, because here you have Communist China aiding North Vietnam; you also have the Soviet Union aiding Noah Vietnam--each vying for power in the Communist world. And, therefore, what the Soviet Union does in the Vietnamese conflict is a very difficult decision for them as related to that objective-the objective of leadership of the Communist world.,On the other hand, it is well known that the Soviet Union was helpful in terms of getting the Paris peace talks started, that the Soviet Union was helpful in working out the arrangement for the shape of the table; and I think I could say that based on the conversations that the Secretary of State and I have had with the Soviet Ambassador, I believe at this time that the Soviet Union shares the concern of many other nations in the world about the extension of the war in Vietnam, its continuing. They recognize that if it continues over a long period of time, the possibility of escalation increases. And I believe the Soviet Union would like to use what influence it could appropriately to help bring the war to a conclusion. What it can do, however, is something that only the Soviet Union would be able to answer to, and it would probably have to answer privately, not publicly.,INTERNATIONAL TRADE,[14.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what international trade issues came up in your meetings in Europe. Also, specifically, sir, could you tell us whether you discussed the problems of textile and steel imports into this country?,THE PRESIDENT. All international trade issues came up, and I discussed the problem of textile and steel imports in all the countries involved. The Europeans are concerned about some of what they think are our restrictions in the trade area. For example, they talk about the \"American selling price,\" and they talk about the \"buy American\" programs. I pointed out that many of our congressional people, as well as American businessmen, were concerned about border taxes and other devices which we thought presented a problem.,I also pointed out in our conversations that there were 93 bills in the last session of the Senate alone which were introduced that would have called for quotas in the various products that you mentioned, and others as well, and that unless some voluntary restrictions or restraints were worked out, on textiles particularly, the pressure for legislative quotas would be immense.,I also indicated that I favored freer trade rather than restrictions on trade, but that it would be very difficult to resist that kind of pressure in the event that some action were not taken to deal with the problem.,A final note in this respect: As we look at the whole trade pattern, I think we have to realize that we cannot anticipate in the near future another big round of reductions of tariff barriers. We are going to do well if we can digest what we have on the plate. This is my view, and I found that was the view of our major European friends. I believe that we can make considerable progress in that area. Secretary Stans is going to Europe next month for the specific purpose of discussing trade problems with all of our European friends, with the hope that we can work out some of these differences.,SOVIET AID TO NORTH VIETNAM,[15.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I wonder if you think that the Soviets are anxious to bring the war to an end, or at least not prolong it? I wonder if you have asked them if they will cut off their supplies to Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have had discussions, as I have already indicated, with the Soviet Ambassador. I do not think it would be appropriate, however, to disclose our discussions with him any more than it is appropriate to disclose our discussions with others that we have dealt with that are supposed to be confidential in nature. I am sure that the Soviet Union is keenly aware of the fact that we would be greatly gratified by anything that they could do that could pull some of the support away from the Government of North Vietnam. You could probably just guess as to what our conversations were, but I will not indicate what they were.,NEW APPROACHES TO VIETNAM CONFLICT,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Vice President Ky after meeting with you in Paris said you told him that you had new approaches to the war in Vietnam. Is that correct? And, if so, do you think it inappropriate to tell the American people about it at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. What I think Vice President Ky was referring to was new approaches not so much in the military field, but in terms of the diplomatic initiative. In our discussions with him, and also in our discussions with the American negotiating team, we discussed the approaches that might be made that would break the deadlock.,Now, with regard to the Paris negotiations, I think we can now say that we have neared the end of phase one, in which both parties have set out their positions in public forums. Those positions having been set out, we now come to phase two, in which we will have hard bargaining on the major points of difference. Our negotiating team has been given some instructions and will be given more with regard to a variety of approaches, approaches which, in some instances, will also be taken by the Government of South Vietnam.,One point, incidentally, that I was very encouraged by was that Vice President Ky, speaking for his delegation, was most cooperative in indicating his desire to attempt to find and explore new approaches at the conference table, rather than simply resign ourselves to a military decision.,AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND VIETNAM,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned earlier that the offensive against Saigon might have as its objective an adverse effect upon American public opinion. In light of the experiences of your predecessor, do you feel that you could keep American public opinion in line if this war were to go on for months and even years?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I trust that I am not confronted with that problem, when you speak of years. Our objective is to get this war over as soon as we can on a basis that will not leave the seeds of another war there to plague us in the future. We have made, we think, some progress. We think that we are going to make some more.,As far as American public opinion is concerned, I think that the American people will support a President if they are told by the President why we are there, what our objectives are, what the costs will be, and what the consequences would be if we took another course of action. It will not be easy. The American people, I can say from having campaigned the country, are terribly frustrated about this war. They would welcome any initiative that they thought could appropriately bring it to an end on some responsible basis.,On the other hand, it is the responsibility of a President to examine all of the options that we have, and then if he finds that the course he has to take is one that is not popular, he has to explain it to the American people and gain their support.,I think I can perhaps be somewhat effective in explaining why we are there and also in keeping the American people informed as negotiations go on. I intend to do so.,WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, President Thieu of South Vietnam has spoken publicly, sir, of the possibility of his expectation of withdrawing up to about 50,000 American troops from South Vietnam this year.,Do you see this possibility of a stage-by-stage withdrawal as a practicality?,THE PRESIDENT. The possibility of withdrawing troops is something that we have, as you know, been considering for some time. There are no plans to withdraw any troops at this time or in the near future.,On the other hand, I have asked for a reexamination of our whole troop level in South Vietnam, and particularly a reexamination of the South Vietnamese effort and the training program of South Vietnamese forces. To the extent that South Vietnamese forces are able to take over a greater burden of the fighting and to the extent, too, that the level of the fighting may decrease, it may be possible to withdraw.,I do not, however, want to indicate at this time that we are going to withdraw 50,000 troops in the near future. I prefer to create the conditions, if we can, where withdrawal can take place and then announce it, rather than to hold up the promise and let people down when it doesn't happen.,ISRAELI-ARAB NEGOTIATIONS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, on the basis of your conversations, can you foresee a condition under which the Israelis and the Arabs could sit at a negotiating table?,THE PRESIDENT. Not at this time, no. I think we have to recognize that we are far away from the time when the Arabs and the Israelis can sit at a negotiating table. But I believe that by the time we very carefully go down this road of bilateral consultations first, four-power consultations-and incidentally, we are going to consult with the Israelis when they come here--Mr. Eban is going to be here--there will be, I am sure, consultations on the other side as well---I think when we complete our course of action and come up, if we can, with a four-power recommendation for proceeding, that then it might be possible to bring both sides to a conference table. That is our hope.,DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[20.] Mr. Scali [John Scali, ABC News],Q. Mr. President, we were told during the trip that at the appropriate moment you were prepared to begin negotiations with the Soviet Union on a broad front and that these negotiations would include not only disarmament but other, possibly political, areas. What problems do you see as ripe for discussion with the Soviets?,THE PRESIDENT. I should first indicate that talks already are going on with the Soviet Union in one sense. The discussions that the Secretary of State and I have had with Ambassador Dobrynin have been substantive and have been talks, in effect, with the Soviet Government, because he had consulted with his own government before he had his talk with me and with the Secretary of State.,The talks on the Mideast would be the first subject in which bilateral as well as multilateral discussions could take place.,The possibility, also, of discussions on strategic arms--this is a possibility for the future.,Let me indicate where it stands now. We have completed our discussions with some of our European friends. We will have more discussions with them as we get our own position developed. We are going forward with the analysis of the American position--of our strategic arms capabilities, of our conventional arms capabilities-so that when we have before us the decision as to whether we go into talks, we will know what our position will be.,Assuming that those studies go forward on schedule, and assuming that we make progress on some of these political areas, like the Mideast, then there is a possibility, a good possibility, that talks could go forward in that area.,I can see those as two areas, and there are others which could develop as well.,THE SOVIET UNION AND THE MIDDLE EAST,[21.] Q. Mr. President, I believe you have said, although I couldn't give you the direct quote, but the general assumption is that the Soviet Union is interested in peace in the Middle East. But how can this be reconciled with the fact that they have very quickly rearmed and fully rearmed the Arabs?,What evidence do we have, what proof do we have, that the Soviet Union is in fact interested in peace in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Soviet Union's policy in the Mideast and Vietnam--and your question is quite perceptive from that standpoint--is ambivalent.,On the one hand, in Vietnam, they are heating up the war. They furnish 80 percent to 85 percent of the sophisticated military equipment for the North Vietnamese forces. Without that assistance, North Vietnam would not have the capability to wage the major war they are against the United States.,In the Mideast, without what the Soviet Union has done in rearming Israel's neighbors, there would be no crisis there that would require our concern.,On the other hand, at the same time that the Soviet Union has gone forward in providing arms for potential belligerents--potential belligerents in the one area and actual belligerents in another--the Soviet Union recognizes that if these peripheral areas get out of control, the result could be a confrontation with the United States. And the Soviet Union does not want a confrontation with the United States, any more than we want one with them, because each of us knows what a confrontation would mean.,I think it is that overwhelming fact-the fact that if the situation in the Mideast and Vietnam is allowed to escalate, it is that fact that it might lead to a confrontation-that is giving the Soviet Union second thoughts, and leads me to, what I would say, the cautious conclusion at this point: that the Soviet Union will play, possibly, a peacemaking role in the Mideast and even possibly in Vietnam.,I say a cautious conclusion because I base this only on talks that have taken place up to this time. But we are going to explore that road all the way that we can, because, let's face it, without the Soviet Union's cooperation, the Mideast is going to continue to be a terribly dangerous area--if you continue to pour fuel on those fires of hatred that exist on the borders of Israel. And without the Soviet Union's cooperation it may be difficult to move as fast as we would like in settling the war in Vietnam.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH PERU,[22.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned earlier the deeds rather than words in our international relations. In our relations with Peru and our problems there, is the United States prepared to take action should Peru not respond to our protests over the seizure of the oil company and the attacks on fishing vessels?,THE PRESIDENT. What Peru has done, as you know, in the seizure of our oil company is that under international law they have the right to expropriate a company but they also have the obligation to pay a fair amount for that expropriation.,It is the second point that is at issue, not the right to expropriate. Now if they do not take appropriate steps to provide for that payment, then under the law-the Hickenlooper amendment, 1 as you know--we will have to take appropriate action with regard to the sugar quota and also with regard to aid programs.,1 For texts of amendments sponsored by Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Senator from Iowa 1945-1969 and former ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, see 77 Stat. 386 and 79 Stat. 1280.,I hope that it is not necessary because that would have a domino effect--if I can be permitted to use what is supposed to be an outworn term--a domino effect all over Latin America.,I feel, in my studies in recent days, that we are making some progress in attempting to get some steps taken by the Peruvian Government to deal with the expropriation matter in a fair way.2 If they do so then we do not have to go down that road.,2 The White House on March 11, 1969, announced that President Nixon had appointed John Irwin II, as a special emissary to Peru to explore with the Peruvian Government all factors that would lead to mutually agreeable resolution of differences. See the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 5, P. 395).,PRESIDENT DE GAULLE,[23.] Q. Mr. President, there are some people who think you were a little more fulsome in your praise of General de Gaulle than you were of the other European leaders. Were you conscious of that? Do you have any background you can give us on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I try to have a policy of evenhandedness. I suppose that is a bad word, too--well, it is in the Mideast. In any event, I have the highest regard for all of the leaders that I met. I tried to speak of General de Gaulle with the proper respect that an individual with my background should have speaking to one with his.,After all, of the leaders of Europe, whether we agree or disagree with him, he is the giant, not only in his physical size but in his background and his great influence.,He deserved, I think, the words that I spoke about him. But I can assure you that in speaking of Prime Minister Wilson, Dr. Kiesinger, President Saragat, and Prime Minister Rumor, I intended to speak of all of them with the same feeling, the same affection.,PROBLEMS OF YOUNG PEOPLE,[24.] Q. You demonstrated a great deal of interest, Mr. President, in young people in your discussions, both public and private, abroad. Do you feel that those discussions have given you a better understanding of young people abroad, and are their problems similar to the problems of young people in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the problems differ, of course, in the different countries. I think they are the same in one respect. The young people abroad, it seems, have somewhat the same problem as many young people here. They know what they are against, but they find difficulty in knowing what they are for. This is not unusual, because this is perhaps something that is common to young people generally. Except that when we look to the revolutions of the past, the revolutionary movements, usually there has been-whether we agreed with those movements or not--there was something, a philosophy, that the young people who supported the revolutions were for. All over Europe this seems to be the case--a young generation against the established institution, against the way the universities are run, and yet not having a sense of purpose, a sense of direction, a sense of idealism.,I feel that that is part of the problem here in the United States, and I think that much of the responsibility rests not on the young people for not knowing what they are for, but on older people for not giving them the vision and the sense of purpose and the idealism that they should have.,In talking--and I talked with every leader about this, every one--all of us are concerned about it. All of us feel that we must find for this great Western family of ours a new sense of purpose and idealism, one that young people will understand, that they can be for.,That is not a satisfactory answer, because I am not able to describe it yet, but, believe me, we are searching for it.,NEW U.S. COMMITMENTS,[25.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some concern in Congress about reports that a general in the Pentagon took the initiative in arranging for the United States to recognize a threat to Spain from North Africa. In your opinion, is this concern merited, and what is the policy of your administration about the carving out of new commitments to other countries by the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think as far as commitments are concerned, the United States has a full plate. I first do not believe that we should make new commitments around the world unless our national interests are very vitally involved. Second, I do not believe we should become involved in the quarrels of nations in other parts of the world unless we are asked to become involved and unless also we are vitally involved. I referred earlier to even the quarrels and divisions in Western Europe. I stayed out of most of those up to this point and I intend to in the future.,As far as this report is concerned, with regard to the general on the Spanish bases, I have checked into it, and no commitment has been made. My view is that none should be made. We will, of course, analyze it at the time to see whether our national, vital interests might require me to reassess it.,PRESIDENT DE GAULLE ON AMERICAN INFLUENCE,[26.] Q. Mr. President, there were some interpretations some weeks ago about some of General de Gaulle's actions, as his wanting to have Western Europe free of American influence. Did he address himself to this in talking with you? Did you get any deeper understanding of this?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], it would be not divulging a confidence to indicate that President de Gaulle completely disassociated his views, which he expressed in great detail to us, on the European Alliance and France's relation to it from any anti-American position.,He believes that Europe should have an independent position in its own right. And, frankly, I believe that, too. I think most Europeans believe that. I think the time when it served our interests to have the United States as the dominant partner in an alliance--that that time is gone. We will be dominant because of our immense nuclear power and also because of our economic wealth.,But on the other hand, the world will be a much safer place and, from our standpoint, a much healthier place economically, militarily, and politically, if there were a strong European community to be a balance basically, a balance between the United States and the Soviet Union, rather than to have this polarization of forces in one part of the world or another.,Now, as far as President de Gaulle's position is concerned, as I understand it, he has talked very eloquently on his desire to have European unity and a separate European identity. He has disagreed, however, with the proposals that currently are supported by most of the other European countries. He believes that it could better be worked out, as he indicated publicly, and he also indicated to me privately, through the major powers reaching an understanding rather than having it done through basically a convention or caucus of all the powers of Europe.,CONDITIONS FOR SUMMIT TALKS,[27.] Q. Mr. President, some of us have been under the impression that you attached important preconditions to summit talks with the Soviets, specifically some prior evidence or showing on their part that they were doing something to improve conditions in either the Middle East or Vietnam. Have those impressions been false or has something happened to your own thinking in this area very recently?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I did not intend to leave the impression that we say to the Soviet Union that unless they do this we will not have talks that they want on strategic arms.,What I have, however, clearly indicated, is that I think their interests and ours would not be served by simply going down the road on strategic arms talks without, at the same time, making progress on resolving these political differences that could explode. Even assuming our strategic arms talks were successful, freezing arms at their present level, we could have a very devastating war. It is that point that I have been making.,I should also emphasize that I made this point to every European leader that I talked to, and every one of them--and I do not commit them to the position-every one of them understands the position, because the Europeans have a great sense of history. All of them recognize that most wars have come not from arms races, although sometimes arms races can produce a war, but they have come from political explosions.,Therefore, they want progress, for example, on Berlin; they want progress on the Mideast; they want progress on Vietnam; at the same time that they want progress on strategic arms talks.,So our attitude toward the Soviet is not a highhanded one of trying to tell them: \"You do this or we won't talk.\" Our attitude is very conciliatory, and I must say that in our talks with the Soviet Ambassador, I think that they are thinking along this line now, too. If they are, we can make progress on several roads toward a mutual objective.,Frank Cormier, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-02-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO EUROPE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, as you will note from a release from the Press Office, I will leave on the 23d of this month for a trip to Europe which will take me to Brussels, to London, to Berlin and Bonn, to Rome and to Paris.,I will be accompanied on the trip by the Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, and by my Adviser for National Security Affairs, Dr. Kissinger.,The purpose of the trip I will describe as being a working trip rather than a protocol trip. I plan to see in each of the countries I visit the head of government, and in addition to that, I will have a visit with the members of our United States delegation in Paris, headed by Ambassador Lodge, and will have a meeting with Pope Paul in Rome.,While I am in Brussels, I will see leaders of the NATO community. As far as the agenda is concerned for these meetings, it is wide open. I have some ideas about the future of the European community which I will discuss, and I am sure that my colleagues in that community have some ideas that they will want to discuss.,I have requested that, in addition to the usual group meetings which will take place, I have an opportunity to have an individual, face-to-face meeting with each head of government, with no one present except a translator when needed.,As I look at this trip and what it may accomplish, I want to make very clear that this is only a first step in achieving a purpose that I have long felt is vital to the future of peace for the United States and for the world. That is the strengthening and the revitalizing of the American-European community.,This will be the first, I would hope, of several meetings of this type that will take place in the years ahead. I would trust that, as a result of this meeting and as a result of other meetings that will take place, this great Alliance which, in my view, has been the greatest force for peace, to keep the peace, over the last 20 years-this great Alliance which was brought together by a common fear 20 years ago-will be held together now and strengthened by a common sense of purpose.,I will go now to your questions.,QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT AND THE PEACE TALKS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your visit to Paris and your talks with Ambassador Lodge, do you see any possibility of your having any direct contact with the other side in these negotiations, specifically, the representatives of North Vietnam or the NLF [National Liberation Front]?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith [Merriman Smith, United Press International], I do not see any possibility of that kind of conversation at this time. I would not rule it out at some later time, if Ambassador Lodge and others who have responsibility for negotiation thought it were wise.,With Ambassador Lodge and his colleagues, I hope to get a complete report on the progress of the negotiations and also any recommendations that he or they may have with regard to new initiatives that we might take to make more progress than we have made.,I think we have made a good start in Paris, incidentally. I believe that we can now move forward to some substantive achievements.,FUTURE MEETINGS WITH SOVIET LEADERS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, looking beyond this trip, could you give us a clue to your attitude toward the possibility of future meetings with Soviet leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that a meeting with Soviet leaders should take place at a future time. I should make clear that I think that where summitry is concerned I take a dim view of what some have called \"instant summitry,\" particularly where there are very grave differences of opinion between those who are to meet.,I believe that a well-prepared summit meeting, where we have on the table the various differences that we have on which we can perhaps make progress, would be in our interest and in their interest, and it will be my intention after this trip is completed to conduct exploratory talks at various levels to see if such a meeting could take place.,I should point out, incidentally, that one of the reasons that this trip takes precedence is that I have long felt that before we have meetings of summitry with the Soviet leaders, it is vitally important that we have talks with our European allies, which we are doing.,AMERICAN TROOP WITHDRAWAL IN VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, this morning South Vietnamese President Thieu said that the South Vietnamese army is capable of relieving a sizable number of American troops in Vietnam. What is your understanding of \"sizable,\" and do you think there will actually be a reduction of the number of American troops?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, speaking personally, and also as the Commander of the Armed Forces, I do not want an American boy to be in Vietnam for one day longer than is necessary for our national interest. As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back. However, at this time, I have no announcements to make with regard to the return of troops.,I will only say that it is high on the agenda of priorities, and that just as soon as either the training program for South Vietnamese forces and their capabilities, the progress of the Paris peace talks, or other developments make it feasible to do so, troops will be brought back.,THE PARIS PEACE TANKS,[5.] Q. Mr. president, on your trip to Paris, do you plan to see the South Vietnamese negotiators there? In that connection, a general question on the talks themselves: Do you think you can continue to separate the military issues from the political issues and the political settlement of South Vietnam in the negotiations in Paris?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News], that is one of the matters that I want to discuss with Ambassador Lodge, to get his judgment on that point. It is our view that at this time the separation of those two items is in our interest and in the interest of bringing progress in those talks.,Now, as far as meeting with the South Vietnamese leaders is concerned, we have no present plans to do so. If Ambassador Lodge advises that it would be wise to do so, such meetings will be scheduled- There will be enough time in the schedule for a meeting if he does suggest it.,AMBASSADOR CHARLES W. YOST,[6.] Q. Mr. President, your nominee and now your Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Yost, has been under attack from some conservative groups, such as the Liberty Lobby, for his past associations with certain individuals, particularly including Alger Hiss. In light of your more than passing familiarity with the Hiss case,1 would you comment on these attacks on Mr. Yost and whether they should be given any credence?,THE PRESIDENT. As far as Mr. Yost's background is concerned, I am completely aware of it because, of course, all of these matters are brought to my attention before appointments are made. But what I am looking to now is his capability to handle the problems of the future and not events that occurred over 20 years ago.,1As a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee, Congressman Nixon spearheaded the 1948-1949 investigation of Communist activity which subsequently led to the perjury conviction of former State Department official Alger Hiss.,There is no question about his loyalty to this country. And I also think there is no question about his very good judgment on critical issues confronting the United States, particularly in the Mideast.,As I pointed out, he is one of our prime experts in the Mideast. He sat in on the National Security Council meetings when we discussed the Mideast and made some very valuable contributions.,U.S. POLICY ON THE MIDDLE EAST,[7.] Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, now that you have completed your review with the NSC [National Security Council], you spoke of a need for new initiatives, can you tell us what your policy is going to be now and what initiatives you do expect to take?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bailey [Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Tribune, Minneapolis Star], our initiatives in the Mideast, I think, can well be summarized by that very word that you have used. What we see now is a new policy on the part of the United States in assuming the initiative. We are not going to stand back and rather wait for something else to happen.,We are going to assume it on what I would suggest five fronts:,We are going to continue to give our all-out support to the Jarring mission.2 We are going to have bilateral talks at the United Nations, preparatory to the talks between the four powers. We shall have four-power talks at the United Nations. We shall also have talks with the countries in the area, with the Israelis and their neighbors, and, in addition, we want to go forward on some of the long range plans, the Eisenhower-Strauss plan for relieving some of the very grave economic problems in that area.3,2United Nations mediation mission in Arab-Israeli dispute headed by Gunnar Jarring, Swedish Ambassador to the Soviet Union.,3A project to employ nuclear energy for water desalination and irrigation to further economic development of the Middle East. Proposed in the summer of 1967 by Lewis L. Strauss, former Atomic Energy Commissioner, and supported by former President Eisenhower, the plan was approved by Senate Resolution 155 of December 12, 1967, sponsored by Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr., of Tennessee.,We believe that the initiative here is one that cannot be simply unilateral. It must be multilateral. And it must not be in one direction. We are going to pursue every possible avenue to peace in the Mideast that we can.,TAX REFORM PROPOSALS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the Johnson administration's tax reform proposal that would exempt many poor families from paying any taxes at all, but would guarantee that wealthy families at least pay some minimum income tax? We are told that you are sending up a tax reform proposal and would like to get your opinion.,THE PRESIDENT. Tax reform has been a matter of discussion within administration councils during the past week. In a discussion, which I understand has already been widely publicized, that I had with Chairman Mills of the Ways and Means Committee, and the ranking Republican, Mr. Byrnes, we went over the agenda and also the timetable as to when the proposals should come down.,The Secretary of the Treasury will have a preliminary announcement to make on tax reform tomorrow. He will make major tax reform recommendations to the Congress at a later time.,But at this time I do not want to indicate in advance the areas in which we are going to move. I will say that the two areas that you mentioned were considered and were discussed in the conference that we had here in the White House with the ranking members of the Ways and Means Committee.,LATIN AMERICA,[9.] Q. Sir, would you please tell us how you plan to move in solving some of the problems of Latin America? Have you decided on your Assistant Secretary of State in that field?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe we have decided on the Assistant Secretary of State, but I am not yet prepared to make the announcement because the necessary clearances have not taken place. 4,4Charles A. Meyer was nominated on March 10, 1969, as Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress. Subsequently he was named to represent the United States on several bodies concerned with special aspects of inter-American affairs (5 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., pp. 412, 605, 643, and 726).,May I make one thing very clear: I have noted news stories to the effect that the job was going begging and we were unable to find a qualified man. We have several qualified people but the Secretary of State and I agree that this is an area of top priority. We think we need new initiatives with regard to the Alliance for Progress.,I would describe that in this way: I think the difficulty in the past, a well-intentioned difficulty, has been that we have been putting too much emphasis on what we are going to do for Latin America and not enough emphasis on what we are going to do with our Latin American friends. The new Assistant Secretary will attempt to remedy that and we shall attempt to develop new policies.,SENTINEL ABM SYSTEM AND ARMS CONTROL TALKS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Pentagon announced this morning that Secretary Laird had ordered a temporary halt in the construction of the Sentinel system, pending a high level review. Does that represent a change in policy on our part? Does it indicate that maybe we are getting somewhere with the Russians toward an agreement whereby neither one of us would have to build it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], answering the second part of your question first, there has been no progress with regard to the arms control talks with the Russians. I have made it clear in the appointment of Mr. Smith to that position that we are going to put emphasis on those talks, but I do believe we should go forward on settling some of the political differences at the same time.,As far as the decision on the Sentinel is concerned, Secretary Laird and his colleagues at the Defense Department will make decisions based on the security of the United States, and he will announce those decisions and justify them at this point.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ASIA,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some .apprehension, sir, in Asia that your re-emphasis on U.S. relations with Europe would mean a lessening of U.S. interests in Asia. Would you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. This gives me an opportunity to perhaps state my philosophy about emphasis on different parts of the world.,The reason that we have been discussing the Mideast a great deal lately is that it is an area of the world which might explode into a major war. Therefore, it needs immediate attention. That does not mean, however, that we are not going to continue to put attention on Latin America, on Africa, on Asia.,I think you could describe me best as not being a \"half-worlder,\" with my eyes looking only to Europe or only to Asia, but one who sees the whole world. We live in one world and we must go forward together in this whole world.,THE ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to the ABM [antiballistic missile] system, you know this was planned originally to protect us against the threat of a nuclear attack by Red China early in the 1970's. Does your information indicate that there is any lessening of this threat, or is it greater, or just where do we stand on that?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I do not buy the assumption that the ABM system, the thin Sentinel system, as it has been described, was simply for the purpose of protecting ourselves against attack from Communist China.,This system, as are the systems that the Soviet Union has already deployed, adds to our overall defense capability. I would further say that, as far as the threat is concerned, we do not see any change in that threat, and we are examining, therefore, all of our defense systems and all of our defense postures to see how we can best meet them consistent with our other responsibilities.,PROPOSALS FOR A DEPARTMENT OF PEACE,[13.] Q. Mr. President, as you are aware, I am sure, there has been discussion on the Hill about trying to set up a Department of Peace to include the Peace Corps and the Disarmament Agency and other organizations. I wondered about your reaction to that idea.,THE PRESIDENT. In fact, one of my task forces recommended a Department of Peace. I think, however, that derogates and improperly downgrades the role of the Department of State and the Department of Defense.,I consider the Department of State to be a \"Department of Peace.\" I consider the Department of Defense to be a \"Department of Peace,\" and I can assure you that at the White House level, in the National Security Council, that is where we coordinate all of our efforts toward peace.,I think putting one department over here as a Department of Peace would tend to indicate that the other departments were engaged in other activities that were not interested in peace.,FCC PROPOSAL TO BAN RADIO-TV CIGARETTE ADVERTISING,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you support the FCC proposal to ban cigarette advertising on radio and TV?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a nonsmoker, it wouldn't pose any problems to me. I, however, have only had that FCC proposal brought to my attention by the late TV reports last night and the morning papers. I have not yet had an opportunity to evaluate it. After I have evaluated it, I will make an announcement as to my position.,ADMINISTRATION POLICY ON SCHOOL DESEGREGATION,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there has been conflicting speculation about the extent to which your administration will seek to advance school desegregation. Could you tell us what your policy will be on that, specifically including the so-called \"freedom of choice\" plan?,THE PRESIDENT. That was a subject, as you will recall from having covered me in the campaign, that I addressed myself to on several occasions.,First, as far as freedom of choice is concerned, freedom of choice must be defined in terms of what it does. If freedom of choice is found to be simply a subterfuge to perpetuate segregation, then funds should be denied to such a school system. If a freedom of choice plan, however, is found to be one which actually is bringing an end to segregation, then a freedom of choice plan, in my opinion, is appropriate and should receive funds.,As far as school segregation is concerned, I support the law of the land. I believe that funds should be denied to those districts that continue to perpetuate segregation. I think that what we have here is a very difficult problem, however, in implementing it. One is our desire, a desire that was emphasized by Dr. Allen,5 to keep our schools open, because education must receive the highest priority. The other is our desire to see to it that our schools are not segregated.,5Dr. James E. Allen, Jr., Assistant Secretary designate for Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and U.S. Commissioner-designate of Education.,That is why I have, in discussing this with Secretary Finch and with Dr. Allen, urged that before we use the ultimate weapon of denying funds and closing a school, let's exhaust every other possibility to see that local school districts do comply with the law.,AID TO URBAN SCHOOLS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you support Dr. Allen's statement of yesterday that he believes massive aid to urban schools is necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I support the proposition that there needs to be a massive infusion of assistance to education. Let me make one thing very clear in that respect, so that you can get my thinking directly. You will note yesterday that I supported a $10 million increase in the funds for the National Science Foundation, which will go to higher education.,I believe higher education needs more assistance, too. But at the present time the great need is in the area described by educators of \"K through 12,\" kindergarten through the 12th grade--preparing students in those years for the higher education which is now available to virtually every student who is capable of meeting the standards for getting into college.,As far as Dr. Allen's method of doing so, I do not believe that he, sophisticated as he is as the superintendent of a State school system, would suggest that we go around the States. We cannot do that because the cities and the school systems within a State cannot exist without the State government.,However, the area of need is primarily in the city school systems. We will try to meet that problem as best we can.,OIL LEAKAGE IN SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL,[17.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask you two questions about the disaster in Santa Barbara. One, do Secretary Hickel's actions so far accord with your policies; and two, what implications does this disaster have for future conservation policy here?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, answering the second part of your question first, I have found that for 15 years we have not had any updating of our policies with regard to offshore drilling. Secretary Hickel has now initiated a study within the Department for updating those regulations so that this kind of incident will not occur again.,With regard to the action that he has taken, I think he acted promptly in temporarily stopping the drilling and then insisting on very stringent requirements on the Union Oil Company and others involved so that this would not happen.,Looking to the future however, we have got to get at the source of the problem. That means very stringent regulations in offshore drilling, because there isn't any question that if the companies involved will make the necessary expenditures in setting up their wells offshore, there is minimal danger of this kind of an activity.,THE DOCK STRIKE,[18.] Q. Mr. President, we were told yesterday by the congressional leaders, 6 that in dealing with labor disputes, like the dock strike, you preferred a permanent, long-range approach. And yet there seems to be real skepticism on the Hill that anything will be done. Can you give us your views currently on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my view with regard to the dock strike is that for the White House to indicate publicly that we are going to do this and that generally has the effect of telling the parties to do nothing. For that reason, I think Secretary Shultz very properly is playing a mediating role but making it very clear that the primary responsibility is on the parties themselves.,6 Following a meeting with the President on February 5, 1969, Senate Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois and House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan met with reporters at 10:40 a.m. in the Fish Room at the White House for a news briefing (5 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 219).,Now, long range, I believe that the Taft-Hartley Act's provisions for national emergency strikes, which I helped to write along with other members of the Labor Committee 20 years ago, that those provisions are now outmoded. I do not believe we have enough options in dealing with these kinds of disputes and breakdowns. I have, therefore, asked the Department of Labor to develop some new approaches in this field, and we will submit them by legislation to this Congress.,BLACK CITIZENS AND THE NEW ADMINISTRATION,[19.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with those who say that you and your administration have a serious problem with distrust among the blacks, and whether you agree that it is one of your more serious problems or not, could you tell us specifically what you are doing to deal with what some consider to be this distrust among the blacks?,THE PRESIDENT. I am concerned about this problem; and incidentally, let me make it very clear that those who have raised this question are not simply those who are political opponents. My Task Force on Education pointed up that I was not considered--I think the words they used--as a friend by many of our black citizens in America.,I can only say that, by my actions as President, I hope to rectify that. I hope that by what we do in terms of dealing with the problems of all Americans, it will be made clear that the President of the United States, as an elected official, has no State constituency. He has no congressional constituency. He does not represent any special group. He represents all the people. He is the friend of all the people.,Putting it another way--as a lawyer-the President is the counsel for all the people of this country, and I hope that I can gain the respect and I hope eventually the friendship of black citizens and other Americans.,RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL,[20.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some confusion this week on the relationship between the National Security Council and the State Department--for example, the Assistant Secretary of State reporting to the NSC. Could you clarify that for us, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The Secretary of State is my chief foreign policy adviser and the chief agent of this Government in carrying out foreign policy abroad. As one of my very close friends, personally, he advises me independently as well as through the National Security Council.,The question has also, I know, been raised as to who makes the policy and the decisions? Are they made in the National Security Council or are they made in the State Department?,The answer is, neither place. The State Department advises the President. The National Security Council advises the President. The President has the authority to make decisions, and I intend to exercise that authority.7,7A White House press release of February 7, 1969, announced steps taken by the President since January 20, 1969, designed to revitalize the structure and role of the National Security Council and reorganize its staff. The announcement (5 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 232) lists the substantive components of the NSC staff and its personnel.,FOREIGN TRADE AND LIMITATION ON TEXTILE IMPORTS,[21.] Q. Mr. President, during the election campaign, sir, you said that you would seek international agreements to limit the import of certain textiles. Can you tell us when you plan to get around to doing that?,Also, could you give us some idea as to what you feel about the growing feeling of protectionism in Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me start at the second part of the question first. I believe that the interest of the United States and the interest of the whole world will best be served by moving toward freer trade rather than toward protectionism.,I take a dim view of this tendency to move toward quotas and other methods that may become permanent, whether they are applied here or by other nations abroad.,Second, as far as the textile situation is concerned, that is a special problem has caused very great distress in certain parts of this country, and to a great number of wage earners, as well as those operate our textile facilities.,For that reason, exploratory discussions have taken place and will be taking place with the major countries involved to see if we can handle this on a volunteer basis rather than having to go to a legislation which would impose quotas, and I think would turn the clock back in our objective of trying to achieve freer trade.,THE \"PUEBLO\" AFFAIR,[22.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a court of inquiry in the city of Coronado, California for several weeks now on the Pueblo 8 seizure. Do you think it is proper for the Navy, in effect, to be sitting in judgment of itself, or do you see any need for any kind of Presidential commission on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a Navy man, I know that the Navy has procedures which I think very adequately protect the rights of defendants in courts-martial.,8The electronic intelligence ship U.S.S. Pueblo and its 83-man crew were seized by North Korean patrol boats January 23, 1968, and taken captive to the port of Wonsan. On December 22, 1968, President Johnson announced the release of the 82 surviving crewmen.,Second, I believe those procedures, from my investigation to date, have been very scrupulously followed.,Third, however, because of the great interest in this case, the Secretary of Defense has asked, as you know, Mr. [David] Packard, the Deputy Secretary, to conduct a thorough investigation, not only of the handling of this case, but also an investigation as to how we can avoid this kind of an incident occurring in the future.,I also want to make it clear that I, as the Chief Executive of the Nation, will examine the whole record myself, both with regard to the individual guilt or innocence of the people involved, and also with regard to the even more important objective of seeing to it that this kind of incident can be avoided in the future.,NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY,[23.] Q. Mr. President, you have now asked the Senate to ratify the Nonproliferation Treaty. On your trip to Europe, do you have any hopes of trying to persuade particularly West Germany and France to move a little closer toward signing that Treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. My view about asking other governments to follow our lead is this: They know what we think, and I am sure that that matter will come up for discussion.,I will make it clear that I believe that ratification of the Treaty by all governments, nuclear and nonnuclear, is in the interest of peace and in the interest of reducing the possibility of nuclear proliferation.,On the other hand, I do not believe that we gain our objectives through heavy-handed activities publicly, particularly in attempting to get others to follow our lead. Each of these governments is a sovereign government. Each has its own political problems. I think in the end, most of our friends in Western Europe will follow our lead. I will attempt to persuade, but I will not, certainly, attempt to use any blackmail or arm-twisting.,WOMEN IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION,[24.] Q. [Vera R. Glaser of the North American Newspaper Alliance] Mr. President, in staffing your administration, you have so far made about 200 high-level Cabinet and other policy position appointments, and of these only three have gone to women. Could you tell us, sir, whether we can expect a more equitable recognition of women's abilities, or are we going to remain a lost sex?,THE PRESIDENT. Would you be interested in coming into the Government? [Laughter],Very seriously, I had not known that only three had gone to women, and I shall see that we correct that imbalance very promptly.,SOVIET UNION AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND THE NONPROLIFERATION TREATY,[25.] Q. On the Non-proliferation Treaty again, last fall during the campaign, Mr. President, you opposed ratification because of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Can you tell me, sir, how you feel that situation has changed since then?,THE PRESIDENT. It has changed in the sense that the number of Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia has been substantially reduced.,It has changed also in the sense that the passage of time tends somewhat to reduce the pent-up feelings that were then present with regard to the Soviet Union's actions.,I want to make it very clear that in asking the Senate to ratify the Treaty, I did not gloss over the fact that we still very strongly disapproved of what the Soviet Union had done in Czechoslovakia and what it still is doing. But on balance, I considered that this was the time to move forward on the Treaty, and have done so.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Richard Nixon","date":"1969-01-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, since this is my first press conference since the inauguration, I can imagine there are a number of questions. Consequently, I will make no opening statement, and we will go directly to your questions.,QUESTIONS,PRESENTATION OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS,[1.] Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press],Q. Sir, do you plan to make your own State of the Union Message, and do you have a major legislative program to present to Congress this year?,THE PRESIDENT. I shall have a major legislative program to present to the Congress this year. Whether that would best be presented by a series of individual messages or a State of the Union Message, supplemented by some individual messages, is yet to be determined. I will make a determination within the next 2 weeks, after consultation with the legislative leaders.,PEACE PLAN FOR VIETNAM,[2.] Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,Q. Mr. President, now that you are President, what is your peace plan for Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that as we look at what is happening in the negotiations in Paris, as far as the American side is concerned we are off to a good start. What now, of course, is involved is what happens on the other side.,We find that in Paris, if you read Ambassador Lodge's 1 statement, we have been quite specific with regard to some steps that can be taken now on Vietnam. Rather than submitting a laundry list of various proposals, we have laid down those things which we believe the other side should agree to and can agree to: the restoration of the demilitarized zone as set forth in the Geneva Conference of 1954; mutual withdrawal, guaranteed withdrawal, of forces by both sides; the exchange of prisoners. All of these are matters that we think can be precisely considered and on which progress can be made.,1Ambassador-at-Large Henry Cabot Lodge, head of the United States delegation at the Paris peace talks.,Now, where we go from here depends upon what the other side offers in turn.,RELATIONS WITH COMMUNIST CHINA,[3.] Q. Mr. President, now that you are President, could you be specific with us about what your plans are for improving relations with Communist China, and whether you think they will be successful or not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have noted, of course, some expressions of interest on the part of various Senators and others in this country with regard to the possibility of admitting Communist China to the United Nations.,I also have taken note of the fact that several countries--including primarily Italy among the major countries--have indicated an interest in changing their policy and possibly voting to admit Communist China to the United Nations.,The policy of this country and this administration at this time will be to continue to oppose Communist China's to the United Nations.,There are several reasons for that. First, Communist China has not indicated any interest in becoming a member of the United Nations.,Second, it has not indicated any intent to abide by the principles of the U.N. Charter, and to meet the principles that new members admitted to the United Nations are supposed to meet.,Finally, Communist China continues to call for expelling the Republic of China from the United Nations; and the Republic of China has, as I think most know, been a member of the international community and has met its responsibilities without any question over these past few years.,Under these circumstances, I believe it would be a mistake for the United States to change its policy with regard to Communist China in admitting it to the United Nations.,Now, there is a second immediate point that I have noted. That is the fact that there will be another meeting in Warsaw. We look forward to that meeting. We will be interested to see what the Chinese Communist representatives may have to say at that meeting, whether any changes of attitude on their part on major, substantive issues may have occurred.,Until some changes occur on their side, however, I see no immediate prospect of any change in our policy.,MAJOR PROBLEMS OF CONCERN TO THE PRESIDENT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what problems that you have to cope with do you feel require your most urgent attention now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Kaplow [Herbert Kaplow, NBC News], the major problems with which I have been concerned in this first week have been in the field of foreign policy, because there only the President can make some of the decisions.,And consequently the Security Council, as you ladies and gentlemen are aware, has had two very long meetings, and, in addition, I spent many long hours at night reading the papers which involve the foreign policy of the United States.,This afternoon I will go to the Pentagon for my first major briefing by military officials on our military situation.,Going beyond that, however, I would say that the problems of our cities, which have been discussed at length at the Urban Affairs Council, and our economic problems, which were discussed at the meeting we had in the new Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy,2 require urgent attention.,2The Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy was established by Executive Order 11453 of January 24, 1969.,It is very difficult to single one out and put it above the other. There are a number of problems which this administration confronts; each requires urgent attention. The field of foreign policy will require more attention because it is in this field that only the President, in many instances, can make the decisions.,NONPROLIFERATION TREATY AND MISSILE TALKS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, on foreign policy, nuclear policy, particularly, could you give us your position on the Nonproliferation Treaty and on the starting of missile talks with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. I favor the Nonproliferation Treaty. The only question is the timing of the ratification of that Treaty. That matter will be considered by the National Security Council, by my direction, during a meeting this week. I will also have a discussion with the leaders of both sides in the Senate and in the House on the Treaty within this week and in the early part of next week. I will make a decision then as to whether this is the proper time to ask the Senate to move forward and ratify the Treaty. I expect ratification of the Treaty and will urge its ratification at an appropriate time, and, I would hope, an early time.,As far as the second part of your question, with regard to strategic arms talks, I favor strategic arms talks. Again, it is a question of not only when, but the context of those talks. The context of those talks is vitally important because we are here between two major, shall we say, guidelines.,On the one side, there is the proposition which is advanced by some that we should go forward with talks on the reduction of strategic forces on both sides--we should go forward with such talks, clearly apart from any progress on political settlement; and on the other side, the suggestion is made that until we make progress on political settlements, it would not be wise to go forward on any reduction of our strategic arms, even by agreement with the other side.,It is my belief that what we must do is to steer a course between those two extremes. It would be a mistake, for example, for us to fail to recognize that simply reducing arms through mutual agreement failing to recognize that that reduction will not, in itself, assure peace. The war which occurred in the Mideast in 1967 was a clear indication of that.,What I want to do is to see to it that we have strategic arms talks in a way and at a time that will promote, if possible, progress on outstanding political problems at the same time--for example, on the problem of the Mideast and on other outstanding problems in which the United States and the Soviet Union, acting together, can serve the cause of peace.,THE MIDEAST PROBLEM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you or your administration have any plan, outside the United Nations proposal, for achieving peace in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. As you ladies and gentlemen are aware, the suggestion has been made that we have four-power talks. The suggestion has also been made that we use the United Nations as the primary forum for such talks. And it has also been suggested that the United States and the Soviet Union bilaterally should have talks on the Mideast, and in addition to that, of course, that the problem finally should be settled by the parties in the area.,We are going to devote the whole day on Saturday to the Mideast problem, just as we devoted the whole day this last Saturday on the problem of Vietnam.,We will consider on the occasion of that meeting the entire range of options that we have. I shall simply say at this time that I believe we need new initiatives and new leadership on the part of the United States in order to cool off the situation in the Mideast. I consider it a powder keg, very explosive. It needs to be defused. I am open to any suggestions that may cool it off and reduce the possibility of another explosion, because the next explosion in the Mideast, I think, could involve very well a confrontation between the nuclear powers, which we want to avoid.,I think it is time to turn to the left now [turning to reporters on his left].,BUDGET PROSPECTS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, sir, could you tell us whether you have had a chance to examine the Johnson budget, and whether you see any hopes for a reduction in the Johnson budget?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have examined it. As far as hopes for reduction are concerned, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has just Friday issued instructions to all of the departments to examine the budgets in their departments very closely and to give us recommendations as to where budget cuts might be made.,This is for two purposes: One, because we would like to cut the overall budget; and two, because we want to have room for some of the new programs that this administration and the new approaches that this administration would like to implement.,At this time I cannot say where and how the budget can be cut. I will say that we are taking a fresh look at all of the programs and we shall attempt to make cuts in order to carry out the objectives that I set forth during the campaign.,POSSIBILITY OF A CEASE-FIRE IN VIETNAM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you consider it possible to have a cease-fire in Vietnam so long as the Vietcong still occupy Vietnamese territory?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that it is not helpful in discussing Vietnam to use such terms as \"cease-fire\" because cease-fire is a term of art that really has no relevance, in my opinion, to a guerrilla war.,When you are talking about a conventional war, then a cease-fire agreed upon by two parties means that the shooting stops. When you have a guerrilla war, in which one side may not even be able to control many of those who are responsible for the violence in the area, the cease-fire may be meaningless.,I think at this point this administration believes that the better approach is the one that Ambassador Lodge, under our direction, set forth in Paris--mutual withdrawal of forces on a guaranteed basis by both sides from South Vietnam.,NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE SOVIET UNION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, back to nuclear weapons. Both you and Secretary Laird have stressed, quite hard, the need for superiority over the Soviet Union. But what is the real meaning of that in view of the fact that both sides have more than enough already to destroy each other, and how do you distinguish between the validity of that stance and the argument of Dr. Kissinger3 for what he calls \"sufficiency\"?,THE PRESIDENT. Here, again, I think the semantics may offer an inappropriate approach to the problem. I would say, with regard to Dr. Kissinger's suggestion of sufficiency, that that would meet, certainly, my guideline and, I think, Secretary Laird's guideline, with regard to superiority.,3Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.,Let me put it this way: When we talk about parity, I think we should recognize that wars occur, usually, when each side believes it has a chance to win. Therefore, parity does not necessarily assure that a war may not occur.,By the same token, when we talk about superiority, that may have a detrimental effect on the other side in putting it in an inferior position and, therefore, giving great impetus to its own arms race.,Our objective in this administration, and this is a matter that we are going to discuss at the Pentagon this afternoon, and that will be the subject of a major discussion in the National Security Council within the month--our objective is to be sure that the United States has sufficient military power to defend our interests and to maintain the commitments which this administration determines are in the interest of the United States around the world.,I think \"sufficiency\" is a better term, actually, than either \"superiority\" or \"parity.\",CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you talked quite a bit during the campaign about crime in the District of Columbia. We have had quite a bit of it since January 1st, and I wondered how you proposed to deal with it.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Healy [Paul F. Healy, New York Daily News], it is a major problem in the District of Columbia, as I found when I suggested to the Secret Service I would like to take a walk yesterday. I had read Mary McGrory's column and wanted to try her cheesecake.4 But I find, of course, that taking a walk here in the District of Columbia, and particularly in the evening hours, is now a very serious problem, as it is in some other major cities.,4Mary McGrory of the Washington Evening Star and United Features Syndicate. Her column of January 26, 1969, was in the form of a letter to the President and referred to the problem of crime in the District of Columbia. In the column Miss McGrory mentioned that the policemen of Precinct 8, after investigating four robberies at her residence, had sampled cheesecake which she had prepared in her kitchen.,One of the employees at the White House, just over the weekend, was the victim of a purse snatching, which brings it very close to home.,Incidentally, I might point out in that case that my advisers tell me that by seeing that the area is better lighted, that perhaps the possibility of purse snatching and other crimes in the vicinity of the White House might be reduced. Therefore, we have turned on the lights in all of that area, I can assure you.5 [Laughter],5The President was referring to President Johnson's economy move that all unnecessary lights in the White House be turned off.,But to be quite specific with regard to the District of Columbia, it was not only a major commitment in the campaign; it is a major concern in the country. I noted an editorial in one of the major papers, the New York Times, for example, that Washington, D.C. was now a city of \"fear and crime.\" That may go too far, but at least that was their judgment. All three of the Washington papers indicate great concern.,Consequently, I have on an urgent basis instructed the Attorney General to present to me a program to deal with crime in the District of Columbia, and an announcement of that program and also an announcement as to what we will ask the Congress to do, in addition to what we will do administratively, will be made at the end of this week.,WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATIONS AND REEXAMINATION OF PACIFIC AIRLINE ACTION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, why did you decide to withdraw all the appointments 6 that had been sent to Capitol Hill by your predecessor, and can you tell us why you decided to cancel the decision, for the time, in the Pacific airline case?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, with regard to the appointments, I had two precedents to follow. And so consequently, I took my choice. In the one instance, President Kennedy, as you will recall, did not withdraw the appointments of judgeships which he inherited from President Eisenhower. On the other hand, President Eisenhower had withdrawn all appointments and then proceeded to make new appointments, including some from the list that had been withdrawn.,6For list of withdrawals, see Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 5, p. 166).,I felt that the Eisenhower approach was the more efficient way to handle it.,I should point out that among those names that have been withdrawn, I already know that some will be reappointed. But I felt that the new should examine the whole list and make its own decision with regard to whether the individuals that had been appointed would serve the interests of the Nation according to the guidelines that the new administration was to lay down.,With regard to the action that had been taken by the previous administration on the airlines, I received recommendations or, shall I say, requests on the part of both the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that this matter be returned to the White House for further examination.,As you know, the President has authority in this field only where it involves international matters. Under the circumstances, since both Chairmen were members of the other party, and since also had received suggestions from a number of other Congressmen, both Democratic and Republican, as well as Senators, that this should be reexamined, I brought it back for reexamination.,One other point that should be made: There is no suggestion, in asking for a reexamination of that decision, of impropriety or illegality or improper influence. We will examine the whole situation, but particularly with regard to its impact on foreign relations.,DISCUSSIONS OF NOMINATIONS WITH THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Ramsey Clark stated this morning that you gave president Johnson assurances through Attorney General Mitchell that you would not withdraw the judicial nominations of Mr. Poole and Mr. Byrne 7 and several others. Could you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I remember exactly what did occur, and it may be that we did not have an exact meeting of the minds in the event that Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General Clark, had that understanding. What happened was that Ramsey Clark discussed this matter during the period between the election and the inauguration with Attorney General Mitchell. He asked Attorney General Mitchell to ask me whether I would object to action on the part of President Johnson in the event that he did submit these appointments to the Senate.,7Cecil F. Poole and William M. Byrne, Jr. Their nominations as United States District Judges for the Northern and Central Districts of California, respectively, were submitted to the Senate by President Johnson on January 9, 1969.,My reply was that I would not object to President Johnson's submitting such-submitting names to the Senate, just as I did not object to his action in the trans-Pacific case or in any other area. As you ladies and gentlemen are quite aware, I have scrupulously followed the line that we have one President at a time, and that he must continue to be President until he leaves office on January 20.,However, I did not have any understanding with the President directly, and no one, including Attorney General Mitchell, as far as I was concerned had any discretion to agree to a deal that these nominations, having been made, would be approved by me. I have withdrawn them and now I am going to examine each one of them. As I have already indicated, I have decided that in at least some instances some of the names will be resubmitted.,THE TFX AND CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES,[ 13.] Q. Mr. President, in the last administration, the McClellan Committee8 ran into a considerable problem in obtaining information on costs, performance, and development on the TFX [Tactical Fighter Experimental aircraft], F-III contract. I wondered if you will open the records on this, and what your general view is with regard to dealing with congressional committees?,THE PRESIDENT. I understand not only the McClellan Committee, but Mr. Mollenhoff9 did some examination in this field, too.,8The Senate Committee on Government Operations under the chairmanship of Senator John L. McClellan of Arkansas.,9Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune, who asked the question.,With regard to the TFX, and also with regard to all of the matters that you have referred to, this administration will reexamine all past decisions where they are not foreclosed, where the reexamination is not foreclosed, by reason of what has gone before.,I will not, however, at this time, prejudge what that examination will indicate. I believe that it is in the best interests of the Nation, when a new administration comes in, with a new team, that the President direct the new team, as I have directed it very strongly during this first week, to reexamine all decisions that may have been questioned, either by Senate committees or by responsible members of the press, or by other people in public or private life. This we are doing and this is one of the areas in which a reexamination is going forward.,PLANS FOR CURBING INFLATION,[14.] Q. Inflation and rising prices, Mr. President, are of great concern. What specific plans do you have to curb them?,THE PRESIDENT. In the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy, which I set up, one of the three new institutions I set up--I say three new institutions-if I might digress for a moment, I suppose the Nation wonders what a President does in his first week and where is all the action that we have talked about. We have done a great deal, particularly in getting the machinery of government set up which will allow us to move in an orderly way on major problems.,I do not believe, for example, that policy should be made, and particularly foreign policy should be made, by off-the-cuff responses in press conferences, or any other kind of conferences. I think it should be made in an orderly way. So it is with economic policy. That is why, in addition to the Urban Affairs Council and a revitalized National Security Council for foreign affairs, we now have a Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy. That Cabinet Committee has considered the problem of inflation, and the problem is, first, that we are concerned about the escalation of prices to a rate of 4.8 percent, and we do not see, if present policies continue, any substantial reduction in that.,And, second, we are considering what actions can be taken which will not cause an unacceptable rise in unemployment. By unacceptable rise in unemployment, I want to emphasize that we believe it is possible to control inflation without increasing unemployment in, certainly, any substantial way.,I should make one further point. Unless we do control inflation, we will be confronted, eventually, with massive unemployment, because the history affairs in other countries indicates that inflation is allowed to get out of eventually there has to be a \"bust\" then unemployment comes. So what are trying to do, without, shall we say, too much managing of the economy, is, going to have some fine tuning of fiscal and monetary affairs in order to control inflation.,One other point I should make in respect: I do not go along with the suggestion that inflation can be effectively controlled by exhorting labor and management and industry to follow certain guidelines. I think that is a very laudable objective for labor and management to follow. But I think I am aware of the fact that the leaders of labor and the leaders of management, much as they might personally want to do what is in the best! interests of the Nation, have to be guided by the interests of the organizations that they represent.,So the primary responsibility for controlling inflation rests with the national administration and its handling of fiscal and monetary affairs. That is why we will have some new approaches in this area. We assume that responsibility. We think we can meet it, that we can control inflation without an increase in unemployment.,THE OUTLOOK FOR PEACE IN VIETNAM,[15.] Q. Mr. President, during the transition period in New York, several persons who conferred with you came away with the impression that you felt the Vietnam war might be ended within a year. Were these impressions correct, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I, Of course, in my conversations with those individuals, and any individuals, have never used the tern \"6 months, a year, 2 years, or 3 years,\" because I do not think it is helpful in discussing this terribly difficult war, a war that President Johnson wanted to bring m an end as early as possible, that I want to bring to an end as early as possible.,I do not think it is helpful to make overly optimistic statements which, in effect, may impede and perhaps might make very difficult our negotiations in Paris. All that I have to say is this: that we have a new team in Paris, with some old bees, but a new team. We have new direction from the United States. We have a new sense of urgency with regard to the negotiations.,There will be new tactics. We believe that those tactics may be more successful than the tactics of the past.,I should make one further point, however: We must recognize that all that has happened to date is the settlement of the procedural problems, the size of the table, and who will sit at those tables.,What we now get to is really that hard, tough ground that we have to plow: the substantive issues as to what both parties will agree to, whether we are going to have mutual withdrawal, whether we are going to have self-determination by the people of South Vietnam without outside. interference, whether we can have an ex-. change of prisoners.,This is going to take time, but I can assure you that it will have my personal attention. It will have my personal direction. The Secretary of State, my Adviser for National Security Affairs, the Secretary of Defense--all of us--will give it every possible attention and we hope to come up with some new approaches.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1969-01-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Mr. President, Mr. Ex-President,1 my fellow clubmates and my fellow travelers:,1John W. (Pat) Heffernan, incoming President of the National Press Club, and Allan W. Cromley, outgoing President.,OPENING COMMENTS,[1.] Thank you very much for this introduction and this welcome. I felt that it would not be right for me to leave Washington without coming here to my old club that I have been visiting since the days of George Stimson's and Bascom Timmons' presidency.2,2 Presidents of the National Press Club during the 1930's.,As I went to the Congress for two reasons, to tell them how I felt and for sentimental reasons, I come to the Press Club today largely for the identical reasons.,I also wanted to be sure that I acknowledged the close and the frank relationship that we have always enjoyed. You were always frank and I was close. [Laughter],I am told that Pat Heffernan will soon be taking the oath of office. I have had some experience in that field myself, as you may know. And I want to say, Pat, that I hope you will believe me, since I was sworn in I have been known to utter a few oaths myself. Many of them were at times directed at members of the press.,But today all is forgotten. I have never, I must say, doubted your energy or your courage or, for that matter, your patriotism. That is why I asked General Hershey3 to get in touch immediately with each of you. [Laughter]\nYou may wonder, really, why I am here today, and I guess you are wondering that now, and I will be wondering that when I leave.,3 Lt. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, Director of the Selective Service System.,Actually I have been out with Mrs. Johnson inspecting the new route for Pennsylvania Avenue. A lot of people have been asking us what we are going to do with our spare time. She can and she does always speak for herself. But I will tell you what I am going to do. I am going down to the ranch Monday afternoon, and I am going to sit on that front porch in a rocking chair for about 10 minutes. And then I am going to read a little and write a little. Then I am going to put on my hat and go out and find Walter Lippmann.4 [Laughter],4Syndicated columnist who opposed President Johnson's position on the Vietnam conflict.,Someone told me the other day that the press had had a few complaints about the treatment that you had received during this administration. Well this is a fine time to be telling me now. Why didn't you mention it sooner?,Well, I have got some complaints of my own. Maybe I should have mentioned them sooner to you. Getting misquoted, for instance, is one thing I have got to complain about.,I remember that Peter Hurd painting.5 Do you all remember that? I never said it was ugly. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good likeness, except for one little detail: It left off the halo.,5A portrait of the President painted by New Mexico artist Peter Hurd in 1965.,Again, someone on our Korean trip quoted me as saying that an ancestor of mine was in a fight at the Alamo and lived. Now that is true, but I had no opportunity to answer it, and the correction never catches up with the story. You didn't ever give me a chance to explain it.,What I was trying to say was that my ancestor was in a fight at the Alamo--that is the Alamo Hotel in Eagle Pass, Texas.,And on another occasion I remember where, I guess, you were more accurate. I did show my scar, but I think in explanation you ought to know that it was only after a question from Sarah McClendon.6 She jumped up behind the weeds out there on the golf course--maybe it wasn't the golf course, but it was a grassy area, I remember, near the Bethesda Hospital--and she said: \"Mr. President, you have been in office almost 2 years and what do you have to show for it?\" And I get blamed for giving her the truth.,6A reporter representing several Texas newspapers, who questioned the President following his gall bladder operation.,One of the things we have to show for it, though, is another chapter, and it is almost closed, in the long story of the relationship between the President of the country and the press of the Nation. That relationship began when the country was founded, and now for nearly two centuries the press has held the President and his family and his administration in the fixed and the constant light of publicity. And through nearly two centuries the Presidents have felt, in one degree or another, uncomfortable in that steady glare.,That relationship between the President and the press has always had the nature though, I think, of a lovers' quarrel. And I am not sure it is ever going to be much different. That doesn't bother me as long as both sides concern themselves with the basic fundamentals, and as long as Presidents and each member of the press base their acts upon the respect for the other's purposes. I think most of the time that has been true.,I would be less than candid if I failed to say that I am troubled by the difficulties of communicating with and through the press. I think it might be interesting if at a future gathering of the National Press Club you focused on this problem, if you think it is a problem. Instead of the President, your guest might well be a famous member of the press, itself, who has known both the difficulties of reporting and of dealing with reporters--a few such men as Russell Wiggins, Arthur Sylvester, Douglass Cater.7 I would be very much interested in their views of what could be done there.,7J. Russell Wiggins, former editor of the Washington Post, who served as United States Representative to the United Nations from October 4, 1968, to January 20, 1969; Arthur Sylvester, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; and S. Douglass Cater, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,But despite all the problems we have heard and read about, and despite all the complaints, I am very much an optimist. I have faith in the power of our institutions to solve their problems. And of course that applies to our Government and to our press.,The secret, as the poet put it a long time ago, is to see ourselves, if we can, as others see us. I think that is very good advice for Presidents, and I also think it is good advice for the press and for the people.,So now our chapter is almost closed and I want to say to Allan and Pat, to the ladies and gentlemen, my parting words are taken from a great statesman of the press whom I have an appointment with when I finish this meeting, Mr. Merriman Smith,8 \"Thank you, Mr. President.\",8A reporter with United Press International.,I will be glad to take any questions that you may have if you care to give them.,QUESTIONS,THE PRESS CORPS,[2.] Q. I have several, Mr. President, bearing on your relations with the press, some of which you have already answered. But there is one here that maybe I could ask.,Will you miss the press corps as much as it will miss you?,THE PRESIDENT. I will miss the press corps very much. I can't speak for them. I came to this town, as most of you know, 38 years ago. And I have always found in my personal relationship that I very much enjoyed the members of your profession.,Most of the time the people who have worked with me in the press have been among my best friends. And while that has not been always true of other members, I know one of the things that I will miss most when I leave is not just my friends, but my critics, too.,Q. Sir, another question along that line: Do you expect that Mr. Nixon will be accused of creating a credibility gap?,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt that they would use the same words, but I have no doubt that from time to time there will be differences in the opinion of the people who observe the events and the people who have principals in it.,ON CHANGING MAJOR DECISIONS,[3.] Q. Sir, if you had any major decision to make again--Vietnam, whether to run again--would you make it differently?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure I would make a number of decisions differently in the light of 5 years' experience, although I would not change either of those.,ON CONTINUING TO BE OF SERVICE,[4.] Q. Would you be willing to undertake special assignments from time to time for President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot see any assignment at this time that I could make a contribution to, although as long as I live I want to be at the service of whoever happens to be President and to do anything l can to help him be a good President and to serve this country that has been so good to me.,THE ELECTION,[5.] Q. Why do you think the Democratic Party lost the election?,THE PRESIDENT. They didn't get enough votes. [Laughter],NOMINATION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE,[6.] Q. Did you seriously consider naming Arthur Goldberg as Chief Justice after the Fortas nomination was withdrawn? 9,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. And before, too.9Arthur J. Goldberg, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and Associate Justice Abe Fortas, whose nomination as Chief Justice was withdrawn on October 2, 1968 (see Item 509).,INTENTION CONCERNING FUTURE PUBLIC,OFFICE,[7.] Q. Do you contemplate ever running for public office again, possibly as United States Senator?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't want to withdraw any of my options. I try to always keep them. I didn't leave public life with any intention of entering again.,STUDENT PROTESTS,[8.] Q. Concerning student unrest, what advice can you give in encouraging constructive protests within the system and opposing the violent campus destructive protests?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't give much. I am not as close to it as I want to be. I don't think that I understand the students, or I don't think that my generation understands the students as we should. I have had some very new experiences opened to me, new situations that I have faced.,I don't have the answers for them. Most of the young people whom I have dealt with, and we have two young daughters and their friends--a good many of the young people have come our way socially and officially. I have been on many campuses. I have always felt that I had a good understanding and rapport with the students but I think I will be better able to enlighten you and give you a better answer to that question a year from now.,It is a problem that is not just for us. It is a problem for the world. I was reading a report the other day, and I believe the summary showed that in some 25 or 30 countries the students had taken over the schools and also have taken over government buildings and things of that nature.,So, obviously, we don't understand. And we have not concerned ourselves enough with the problems or with the answers.,OUTSTANDING MOMENTS AS PRESIDENT,[9.] Q. What, sir, did you regard as your greatest accomplishment as President, and what do you regard as your happiest moment while President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, actually, most of my moments have been happy ones. We have had critical decisions to make and we have had troubles, but the American people do very well by their President.,I think generally speaking, the Congress, the business community, the labor community, even the press, have treated me better than I have a right to expect. It looks to you today that maybe this is a little off-balance one way or the other, but when I review the entire 5 years and I look back at other Presidencies that I am going to try to become a little more familiar with before I start talking to these youngsters at the campuses, I find that we have had very good experiences and many, many happy moments.,I expect the thing that has pleased me as much as any other thing that has come to me is the response that the Congress made to my Voting Rights Act. I have felt very deeply most of my adult life, that this was a problem in America that we had not really faced up to and that we did not have a real democracy as long as a substantial percentage of our population was disenfranchised.,And I felt that if we could pass a voting rights bill back in the fifties that we could solve a lot of our problems between the races. I think if we addressed ourselves to those problems in the fifties, as we did in the sixties, we could have avoided some of the conflict and the tragedy that followed.,We had the problem of the cities. The people were leaving the farm and migrating to the cities in the fifties, but we did not do anything about it. We had the problem of disenfranchising a large percentage of our population, but we did not do anything about it.,When we had the Selma situation and the leadership talked to me about it and I asked for the privilege of going before the Congress in March of 1965 and recommend the Voting Rights Act,10 to me it was almost like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, except it did not just extend to the States in rebellion; it extended it to everyone in the United States and said to them that the Federal Government would see that they had a right to vote.,10For the President's special message to the Congress on \"The American Promise\" delivered in person before a joint session on March 15, 1965, following civil rights demonstrations in Selma, Ala., for his statement of April 20, 1965, on the eve of Senate consideration of the voting rights bill, and for his remarks of August 6, 1965, in the Capitol Rotunda upon signing the measure, see 1965 volume, this series, Book I, Items 107 and 201, and Book II, Item 409.,And I believe if everyone has the right to vote that they can take care of their own problems pretty well. As you see, when they are electing southern sheriffs, southern mayors, and southern judges, the Negroes have been emancipated a good deal.,It is going to take time for you to understand that and for you to feel it. But it is really going to make democracy real. It is going to correct an injustice of decades and centuries. I think it is going to make it possible for this Government to endure, not half slave and half free, but united.,While there are many things we have done to help poor people--to help educate them, to provide better health for them, to conserve our resources, all of those things we have taken great pride in--I expect the greatest single individual act that meant the most to me that I wrote and authored was the Space Act. That was back in 1958. But in 1968 we saw its results--some 10 years later.,I think you will be seeing the results of the Voting Rights Act in this country and throughout the world. At least I have felt that way for a good many years.,It finally came to pass after a tragedy at Selma. And I think it really may mean that our Government will endure--can endure.,PLANS FOR TRAVEL,[10.] Q. If I might ask just another couple of questions, Mr. President:\nDo you plan to travel abroad soon, namely to see the Pope?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no plans to travel abroad at all, except to my neighbor across the border, Mexico. Mrs. Johnson and I hope to go there fairly soon.,I always enjoy my visits to the Vatican. I have made many. I would certainly like to return there sometime when I don't have to get home for Christmas, and if Hugh Sidey11 with his new affluence as chief of a bureau can afford it, I want to take him back sometime when he can enjoy coming back to the United States via the Vatican.,11Hugh S. Sidey became chief of the Washington bureau of Time magazine early in January 1969. He was a member of the press corps which accompanied the President on his round-the-world trip of December 19-24, 1967, during which the President met with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican.,LATIN AMERICA,[11.] Q. One pertaining to Latin America, sir: Why in your administration, was the Pan American Highway not finished, considering that this would be the highest achievement in the linking of the three Americas and considering that only a gap of 300 miles is not finished?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are a good many things that should have been done in this administration that have not been done. We are leaving a great deal unfinished. We are leaving a great many other problems in Latin America that are unfinished.,We just have not been able to do the things that we should do in the time we had. Some said that we did too much too fast. I have never agreed with that. But I can agree that we have left much undone and this is one of the unfinished items on the agenda that I hope will be dealt with soon.,ASSESSMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION,[12.] Q. Many experts foresee famine and chaos for the world in the year 2000. What is your view? Can we avoid world famine? Do you think your administration was able to do enough to forestall catastrophe?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think my administration has done enough in hardly any field. I tell this story every day, but it is very true. Some of you have heard it two or three times already today.,It is reputed that Prime Minister Churchill, at the end of World War II, was called upon by a group of temperance ladies, and a little lady in tennis shoes, the chairman of the group, said: \"Mr. Prime Minister, we want to tell you \"They had come to complain about his drinking habits and said: \"We want to tell you that we are reliably informed that if all of the alcohol you have consumed during World War II, if it were emptied in this room, it would come up to about here.\",And the Prime Minister looked at the floor and then at the ceiling and he said: \"Well my dear little lady, so little have I done, so much I have yet to do.\",So I don't agree generally, with the evaluation that a good many people have made about what has been done, for instance, in 1968. I have not been deliberately taking the time that I want to be positive about this, but I doubt that we have had many better years with the Congress than in 1968, although I think everybody felt since 1966 we haven't done anything because they elected some Republicans and increased their membership, and because we were defeated on some things.,Now, a President is always going to be defeated on some things, and some very important things. Sometimes it is going to be justice speaking. Sometimes it may be a little injustice. The President always thinks it's injustice, but if they just passed everything the President sent up there, we would not need the Congress. It is basically a system of checks and balances.,In 1968, we saved the dollar, stabilized it, and left ourselves in a wonderful economic situation, perhaps the strongest situation, relatively speaking, balance of payments or otherwise, that we have been in in many years.,But who can say that tax bill wasn't one of the most important measures we ever passed in history in an election year. I am sure those who wanted to defeat me were very happy that it at least contributed to my withdrawing, because it was very obvious to all that the Republicans were not about to make the Democratic President look good by taking the responsibility of passing his tax bill and giving him a surplus. Yet, after we withdrew, in a matter of weeks, we passed the tax bill.,The housing bill, I think, will be remembered as one of the 10 landmark pieces of legislation of the 188 years of this Government. This was passed in 1968. This was passed by the Congress in an election year.12,12The President's decision not to seek reelection was announced on March 31, 1968, the tax bill was approved on June 28, and the Housing and Urban Development Act on August 1 (see Items 170, 343, 426).,So I think that we will have to take time to look at these things. I went over them last night, just the year 1968--some of the outstanding measures. I think that as time goes along we will appreciate it.,I don't think anyone in this country understands the far-reaching revolutionary effects that this housing measure is going to have. We have not pulled the bark off it yet.,I met with 35 civil rights leaders, all of whom were advocating open housing by Executive order. I told them we could not do it that way; we don't make laws by Executive order in this country. And as a product of the Hill, one who had spent 12 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate, I didn't think we could make an act stand up and be effective over the long pull of history if we did not have the Congress embrace it.,There was only one of those leaders that stood up at that meeting and said: \"Mr. President, you are right.\" His name is Clarence Mitchell.13 He lives here. He is the NAACP representative. I was thinking then in terms of several years. I don't know, but I thought perhaps it would take 10 years to get an open housing bill in this country.,13 Director of the Washington, D.C., office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.,It had taken that long to get a voting rights bill since it was first seriously sent up. It had taken that long to get Medicare, and so forth. But in 2 years we had open housing legislation on the statute books. And I think the Congress will be remembered for that.,THE VIETNAM CONFLICT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, are you sorry that more countries did not take a more active part in the effort to help South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We need all the help we can get. I wish that every country that did participate could have participated more. I wish all of the signatories to the SEATO Treaty could have actively helped more.,PROBLEMS OF WORLD POPULATION,[14.] Part of the question of yours I don't think I answered a moment ago. I do think we have got serious problems of world population. When I came into office we were spending about $6 million a year on the population question. This year it is about $166 million. It is not a question though of the dollars you spend; it is attitudes, policies of government, and opinions and so on and so forth.,I do think that we must do something about the population problem as well as the food problem. I am very proud that the basic industry of agriculture has been able, up to now, to produce much more food than we can consume in this country and do it at a much lower percentage of the total dollar that is spent for food than we have ever done before. I think it is a great tribute to agriculture.,I was pointing that out to Secretary Hardin, who is a scientist and who comes from the University of Nebraska, a very able man who is going to be Secretary of Agriculture.14 That is one of the problems he is going to deal with.,14 Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture designate.,We have not learned yet how to master the distribution system. I think it is a tragedy that here we live in the midst of plenty, with more than we can eat and a great deal more, as you can observe, than we should eat, and so many of our fellow human beings are starving throughout the world.,I had great doubts about making $1 billion worth of wheat available to India, almost $1 billion. I had an extended discussion with the Cabinet. I finally appointed George Ball15 to come and make an argument against it so I could hear all the reasons why it shouldn't be done, and he did.,15George W. Ball, former Under Secretary of State. For the President's special message to the Congress on food for India and for his statement upon signing a joint resolution providing additional emergency food aid for India, see 1967 volume, this series. Book I, Items 33 and 153.,While I was considering it he called me the next day and said: \"I made that argument against it because you asked me to. But the more I have thought about it the more I think you ought to go ahead with your original inclination.\" So we did.,It has been one of the decisions that I have been very proud of. I wish that we could feel that we could do more in the way of using our surplus capacity to produce food and to distribute it where it is needed. I think it is tragic that we live in a world where every person doesn't have all the food they need. And there are many people in this country who don't have it. We are trying to face up to it some.,We have greatly extended it through the Food Stamp plan, through Public Law 480,16 but we have not scratched the surface. We have not done near enough. We are still in the horse and buggy days. And it is not Christian. It is almost criminal to have the capacity to produce what we have and not know any more about how to distribute it and get it to the people who need it.,16For remarks and a statement by the President upon signing the extension of Public Law 480 (the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) and the 1968 amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, see Items 417, 519.,I think that we are going to be held accountable and we ought to face up to that problem. It is one of the big problems for this administration. It is a problem I did not solve. I think we have made some progress, some headway, but we have not found the answers.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS,[15.] Q. How, sir, did you make the deficit in the balance of payments disappear in the last 2 weeks of your administration? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I think sometimes you are lucky and sometimes you are unlucky. I think it is a combination of very long and hard work, primarily on the part of Secretary Fowler,17 who is one of the most tenacious men I have ever known and who tried to be the guardian of the country and the trustee, and never let a dollar go out that he did not personally approve. He spent his last few months going around the world trying to bring as many dollars in as he could.,17Henry H. Fowler, former Secretary of the Treasury.,I think that he recommended to the President and the President adopted a balance of payments policy that encouraged our business institutions to do some of their financing abroad.,The interest rate question, of course, helped. A good many people were attracted to this country by what they could earn on their money and also they are very interested in America's industrial system and our stocks. I don't think I did it all. I think we got some good breaks.,I think Secretary Fowler's vision and tenacity paid off and I think we had a good many friends in the world who helped us in circumstances that bounced our way.,GUN REGISTRATION AND CONSERVATION,[16.] Q. The administration's gun registration bill would use wildlife funds to pay the cost. Has it become anticonservation in its old age?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. One of the great disappointments that I have had as President was--notwithstanding the tragedies that we have had to live through these last few years--our people are apparently unwilling to face up to what I believe is a necessity, and ultimately the Congress will recognize it as such, of a gun registration law. And I said so in my meeting the other night.,Of course, the hunters and the sportsmen are very interested in being able to pursue their desires and we have no desire to interfere with that. There is not anything in the law--because you have to register a car is no reason why you can't use that car; because you have to get a driver's license is no reason you can't drive. There may be some legitimate criticism about the conservationists and how that legislation was drawn. I don't know. I have not gone through the hearings of it, but I would not fight about the financing.,What I am concerned about is having adequate authority to see that demented people, children, crazy folks, and criminals don't have guns that are not registered, that we cannot find and don't know where they are, and have them prey upon the country and kill our leading citizens.,I think this would at least deter crime and improve our record. I think ultimately we will come to it. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.,THE PRESIDENT'S GRANDSON,[17.] Q. Mr. President, quite a number of the questions which have come up to me have concerned that grand little boy, your grandson, Lyn.18 One asks, is it true that Lyn is being left behind to help in the transition?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The fact of the matter is that I urged Luci, who is always receptive to her father's suggestions, to let Lyn accompany us to our last State of the Union. I thought it would be an experience that I would like for him to have--at age 19 months. He might not remember it, but I would.,18Patrick Lyndon Nugent, son of AIC. Patrick J. Nugent and Luci Johnson Nugent.,Mrs. Johnson violently objected, just as she objected--as you see from the truth that the photographers revealed--when Lyn volunteered to be an astronaut the other day and when he protested that the Air Force, to which his daddy belongs, to being called up last. But Mrs. Johnson's picture gave you her opinion of children in public places and so forth.,But, anyway, Luci and I outvoted her and Lyn went to the State of the Union. A little later that evening I heard a television commentator say that Mrs. Johnson was in tears. I said: \"Well now you are the architect of this decision. And this is just a part of the Lady Bird plan of beautification. You are moving me out of town. Why would you be crying about it?\" She said: \"I wasn't crying. I was just laughing with fear.\" I said: \"How do you laugh with fear?\" She said, \"Well, you could understand if you had been there in that balcony with me, with Lyn wildly throwing a glass bottle of milk around through his hands, with my fear that it was going to slip and hit H. R. Gross19 right on the top of the head.\",19Representative H. R. Gross of Iowa.,I guess she felt by that--I don't think that she was favoring re-election of the Republicans, but she felt that every Congress ought to have one H. R. Gross. I don't know. I guess she wanted to preserve him.,In any event, you know, Pat, Lyn's father, lives in Waukegan, Illinois. And they had a friendship with the Dirksens20 before they did with the Johnsons. It seems that Waukegan is a Republican territory. Senator Dirksen was at Luci and Pat's wedding and they are very close. So he insisted that we come to the Hill for the State of the Union and come back to the Senate yesterday. And who am I to turn down Senator Dirksen, even when I am leaving town? So when the leadership asks me to go, I go, and he said, \"Bring Lyn.\",20 Senate Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois and Mrs. Dirksen.,I took Lyn. Lyn didn't understand everything, but he does like Senator Dirksen like his father does and his grandfather. Senator Dirksen kept calling for Lyn and he was in the back of the room playing with the telephone. And when he finally got Lyn up there, Lyn was somewhat irritated by having been taken away from his telephone and he reached over and got Senator Dirksen's glasses. That is a very inconsiderate thing. It was displeasing to Mrs. Johnson. It made the photographers all happy. And in any event Lyn is not with us today. For that reason he has been confined to quarters by his grandmother. But that does not mean that he is going to be confined to the White House after we leave. He is going with us Monday.,Q. In that connection, sir, would you let Lyn become a newspaper man?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like very much for him to be a newspaper man or whatever he wants to be. I don't think I will have much to do with that. I have not been able to influence my own children on what they do, and I doubt that I will influence my grandchildren very much.,But my wife wanted most of her life to be a newspaper person. And I am afraid the rest of the time she is going to be. She tells me she is going to travel and write about it so that is why I was so indefinite about my plans for travel in the future. I expect I will grab my cane and just kind of trot and follow along.,THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS CLUB,[18.] Q. There are a number of people here, sir, who would like to get you involved in press club politics. We did discuss before you came two vital issues. One was credit and the other was the position of the ladies in respect to this club. I will not ask you the questions here because I am sure you wouldn't want to get into press club politics.,THE PRESIDENT. I believe in both of them, I might say. The more troubles I have and the more burdens I carry, the more I need both of them.,Q. May I ask the last question on a personal note? Would you care to comment on the likelihood that fish and chips will replace Texas-style chili on the National Press Club menu?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not very much of an expert on menus since Mrs. Johnson had that early experience with a French cook.,But I do appreciate so much your asking me to come by here. Frankly, this is the first club I came to when I came to town. Mr. Kleberg,21 for whom I worked, was a member of the National Press Club. You were not so profitable then. You didn't have as many members. And you had a heavy debt. You were in depression times. There were not so many happy faces here as I see now.,21Richard M. Kleberg, Sr., Representative from Texas 1931-1945.,But the Press Club has always been a most interesting spot and I have come here to your annual parties and I am very glad that in my retirement, as I turn over the Office of the Presidency, that you would be generous and kind enough to ask us to come back.,VIETNAM PEACE EFFORTS,[19.] Today and yesterday have been memorable days in our life. The things we have looked for and prayed for all along have not yet been realized, but it has moved a step forward.,I almost hate to say this, but this is true: Mrs. Johnson doesn't stay in my room all evening, every evening, because she does require some sleep, and I have been able to get through the years with a minimum of sleep. So sometimes she gets up and puts on a robe and leaves kind of haughty, with expressions about the telephone ringing in the middle of the night.,But in the very blackest part of the morning the telephone rang and I leaned over and turned on the light and saw the time and I said: \"This is nothing but another catastrophe.\",That phone doesn't ring at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning unless there is trouble. They just don't wake up a President practicing.,She is over on the other side of the bed-far over on the other side of the bed and she is reaching for her robe, and getting ready to make her exit, and it's Mr. Rostow.22 He said: \"Pardon me, Mr. President. I regret very much--.\" And I said: \"Come on, hurry, what is it, Walt?\" And he said, \"I just want to tell you that things have gone very well and we have agreement and we will move to substantive talks at a specific time. And he outlined it.,22 Walt Whitman Rostow, Special Assistant to the President.,I said: \"Fine, Walt, wait just a minute. I want to hear the details.\" Then I said: \"Lady Bird, pull off your robe and stay here. It is not trouble.\",It is the only call I remember receiving in the early hours of the morning that had some hope of being good news. So our hopes and our prayers are on what happens in Paris, not just today but in the days ahead.,We think that we have had a move forward. We have got a breakthrough now with what kind of a table we will have and perhaps we can get on with the substantive talks that we envisioned back in March when we took what we thought were rather far-reaching and dramatic steps in that direction, and certainly what we anticipated in October when we made those decisions.,If I could have one thing presented to me today that I would rather have than anything else in the world, it would be that I could bring back from Vietnam all the men I sent out there and that we could have peace in the world so that those men could come and enjoy being with their families again and enjoy the benefits of our affluence in this great society that we have.,I received a letter from Pat 23 last night and he said: \"It will be the last letter that I write you as Commander in Chief. I want to thank you.\" And so on and so forth, as if he had something to thank me for for sending him there. But he said, \"A GI's expression out here is 'I got it short.' So that means I have only 88 more days to stay here.\" He said: \"That means a lot to me because this is the first Christmas I ever spent away from my family, my father and mother.\",23The President's son-in-law Alc Patrick J. Nugent.,I thought about the half million others-perhaps it was their first Christmas away. This morning I got one from Major Robb.24 He is not quite so sentimental. He is a Marine. He was telling me about the situation there. But he did wind up asking me a question or two about his three-month-old baby girl whom he had not seen. As hard, and tough, and Dean Ruskish, indifferent, and General Marshall as Chuck Robb is, I still perceived from that letter that he wanted to be back, too, even a hardened Marine.,24 The President's son-in-law, Maj- Charles S. Robb, husband of Lynda Bird Johnson Robb.,SUPPORT FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT,[20.] So the thing I would like to do most is to find some way, somehow, soon to bring peace to the world. It has eluded me. I don't want to appear paternalistic or even charitable or even nonpolitical, but I was a Democratic leader of a Republican administration for most of the Republican administration that we have had in recent years-the only one we have had since I came to Washington. It came and went and the country was preserved, even though we had a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, because we tried to understand each other, and we tried to give each other credit for being motivated properly.,So I hope that the members of my party will try to treat President Nixon as I tried to treat President Eisenhower. If they do, I believe that they will find that it will be the best investment they ever made, not only for their country but for themselves.,President Eisenhower returned that investment to me in my 5 years of the Presidency with interest, in wise counsel and great help. We are not wise enough to solve these problems if just half of us are aboard.,The President has got to have the country's support. It doesn't make any difference how much he wants peace--unless the country has respect for him and confidence in him and support for him, he can't have it. President Nixon is going to be in this job not just working for President Nixon. He is going to get $200,000 a year. I think some of you ought to feel a little bit sorry for me that I am going to take a $175,000 cut. But he is going to be there working for all of us.,I said to him one time: \"Hubert25 and I have brought the plane in from the Pacific and we have crossed it and we have been in a lot of thunderheads and electrical storms. It has been very dangerous, and our radar has been out. By luck we are here and now we are going to take our grandchildren and get back here in the tourist section. You and Mr. Agnew26 are going to have to take the controls. But we are going to be on this plane, and you are going to head it across the Atlantic. The squalls will jeopardize you more in the Atlantic than they did us in the Pacific.,25Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey.26 Vice President-elect Spiro T. Agnew.,\"But I sure do want that plane to land, and I want it to land safely. For that reason I am going to try to keep my trips up to the cabin to the very minimum. I am not going to knock down any doors or wave any revolvers or put any at your temple or pull your hair or scratch you or try to attract your attention away from the big job you have got of carrying all of us safely through these treacherous clouds.\",So I would say to all of you that I appreciate your asking me here. I have had a wonderful 5 years. I don't hold a thing in the world against anyone in this town that I know, or anywhere else.,If you can just indulge in a little objectivity and I can indulge in a little introspection, I just can't think of a country that could have been better to me and, generally speaking, I don't think that there are any segments of that country that haven't been good to me.,I am leaving this town with nothing but gratitude and love in my heart. There is not a Republican in the House or Senate mean enough for me to dislike or hate--or a Democrat either."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-12-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S OPENING REMARKS\nAPOLLO 8,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] We had a good visit with Dr. Paine1 this morning and reviewed the developments and had his observations on what had transpired the last few days.,1Dr. Thomas O. Paine, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.,Following that, I talked to the three wives of the astronauts2 and expressed our gratitude and the gratitude of the Nation to them for this great performance of their husbands and the contribution it had made to our advancement and the advancement of the world, to America's standing and prestige in the world.,2 See Item 645.,All of us know that a man's wife is an integral part of his every act. Except for the strength and comfort that we get from them, few of us could really measure up to what people expect of us.,These men have given us so much pride that I wanted the womenfolk to know how the Nation felt about it.,Naturally, as you would expect, I have never been a wife; I don't know what to expect; they were very excited and very thrilled, and looking forward eagerly to when their men get back on the carrier.,We have a brief statement that the President will communicate to the men if they decide to bring them back by chopper, pick them up before daylight, and bring them back to the carrier. We will probably communicate it to them. 3 If we do, we will communicate from the Fish Room and Tom 4 can prepare you in advance for it.,3See Item 647.,4 Wyatt Thomas Johnson, Jr., Assistant Press Secretary to the President.,DEPARTURE FOR THE LBJ RANCH,[2.] We then plan to leave. Mrs. Johnson and, I think, Lynda and the baby are going. Luci went back yesterday on a skiing expedition or something that she is going on football games and so forth5 So she is already there.,5Lynda Bird Johnson (Mrs. Charles S. Robb), her daughter Lucinda Desha Robb, and Luci Baines Johnson (Mrs. Patrick J. Nugent).,PLANS FOR THE COMING WEEKS,[3.] We will stay at the ranch for the next few days, wrapping up some of the official things that we have yet to do this year, and making some minor appointments, filling some places that need to be filled to carry on, working on the three principal things that we have to turn out some time between now and January 20th. We don't know just when it will be. That will depend on the progress we make.,We have had outline after outline. We now are developing the State of the Union Message, which will be coming along sometime in January. The budget will have to go to the Congress preceding the Economic Message.6,6 See Items 676, 678,684.,As most of you are aware, we have gone over with all the Cabinet departments their budget problems. We have not finished them by any means yet; although we have their budget views, I have not resolved a great many of the differences.,Every department has a difference of from a few million to a few billion. For instance, Defense alone asks many more billions than the Secretary could grant, and the Secretary is probably asking more than we can approve. So between now and the time we return, which I would expect to be after New Year's, we will be making some of those decisions, because sections of it will have to go to the printer.,We are ending the year, I think, in reasonably good shape from the standpoint of our agenda. I have seen almost half of the new Cabinet, and spent some time in the Mansion this morning with Mr. Klein,7 exchanging views and talking about problems of the Presidency.,7Herbert G. Klein, designated by the President elect as Director of Communications for the Executive Branch.,You know the others. I won't recount them. I saw Mr. Volpe yesterday, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, and others. I had planned to see Secretary. Kennedy, but he had a death in his family and it had to be canceled. I will do that when I come back, as I will with other members of the Cabinet.8,John A. Volpe, William P. Rogers, Melvin R. Laird, and David M. Kennedy, Secretaries-designate of Transportation, State, Defense, and Treasury.,The transition is going along very smoothly and we are very pleased. I think it is what the American people have a right to expect. The new administration seems to be bending every effort to adjust themselves to our problems. I hope our people are leaning over backwards to try to help them with what would be their problems, because this is all one country, and the same people pay all of our salaries. They have a right to expect us to perform with good humor, good taste, and maximum efficiency.,I think up to now Mr. Murphy and his counterpart, Mr. Lincoln,9 have kept things very well channeled.,9Charles S. Murphy, Counselor to the President, and Franklin B. Lincoln, Jr., designated by the President-elect to collaborate with Mr. Murphy on matters concerning the transition of executive power.,I received an economic report last night that is very good for the year. The unemployment report is down to 3.3, as you know. We are thankful for that.,Our education programs and training programs have been effective. The fact that people are working and factory smokestacks are burning, and production is running well, means that we are getting a good deal more revenue than we anticipated. What was once thought of as a deficit now looks like it will be a surplus for this year.,So with unemployment down, with revenues up, with a balanced budget, with our boys home from Cambodia, our men home from the Pueblo,10 the Apollo coming in as it has, as I told you this morning, Mr. Vance11 says he believes we can get going in substantive talks after his return there, and we are just praying that can be true. The one thing that mars all of our hopes and wishes this Christmas is that our men are away out there protecting us.,10 Cyrus R. Vance, deputy U.S... representative at the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam.,But the casualty rates are down. We are just hoping that we can have some progress in Paris. If we can do that, we would just almost throw our hats in the air.,I am even thankful that you all seem to be doing better this Christmas. You have the Christmas spirit, wearing red dresses around, kind of like Santa Claus.,So we are generally very happy and thankful for the good breaks that are coming our way.,I will take any questions you want. I expect we will be leaving within the hour. I will go straight to the ranch. I expect to stay there the entire time.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[4.] I feel all right. I am not sick, but I am tired, and I have been trying to get these things cleaned up so we can leave. I do still have this hacking cough. I am just hoping I can get some 80-degree sunshine for a day or two. I have had a cold and cough back and forth almost since we went to West Virginia. I am getting tired of it. I am getting disgusted with it.12,12The President was released from Bethesda Naval Medical Center on December 22 after being hospitalized for a respiratory infection. A statement on his health was released the same day (4 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 1740).,SPACE PROGRAM,[5.] Dr. Paine said this morning that he remembered when Mrs. Johnson and I saw the Sputnik through the skies from the banks of the Pedernales. That is almost a decade ago, more than a decade ago. It was November 25, 1957, following the orbiting of the first earth satellite on October 4th. Here is the Library of Congress report:,\"Senator Johnson took the initiative in the first congressional hearings on our satellite program. The inquiry into satellite missiles resulted in testimony from all the Nation's experts during the following two months. On January 23, 1958, the subcommittee concluded that decisive action must be taken to strengthen the United States space program and accelerate it in 17 specific areas.\",So in this decade, we do have--this was 1957. That is a Congressional Library report, if you want to look it over, any of you. Helen?1313 Helen Thomas of United Press International.,QUESTIONS,THE PARIS PEACE TALKS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, did Mr. Vance give you anything in the way of specifics on why he thought we would now move into a substantive part of the Paris talks?,THE PRESIDENT. He expressed the hope that when he got back, progress could be made.,STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, have you decided, sir, on how you are going to deliver the State of the Union Message?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,APOLLO 8 ASTRONAUTS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to see the three astronauts in person?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no definite plans as yet.,THE SPACE RACE,[9.] Q. Does this put us ahead in the space race and quickest to the moon?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very pleased with the progress we have made. There are various firsts. Each side has different examples of its achievements. But in the 10 to 11 years since Sputnik I that I was talking to you about, when we didn't even have a space committee in the Congress, when we were talking about the basketball up there in the air, when we have weathered the storms that have brewed--everyone who wanted to cut anything, the first thing they wanted to cut was the space program--when we have seen the editorial professors inform us that there was really no value in doing all of this anyway, it gives me great pleasure now to see the thrill that even they are getting out of it.,It must be a great satisfaction to men like Mr. Webb, Dr. Paine, and poor Dr. Dryden,14 who has passed on, to know that his men have not let him down.,14James E. Webb, who resigned as National Aeronautics and Space Administrator on October 7, Dr. Thomas O. Paine, Acting Administrator, and Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, former Director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and Deputy NASA Administrator. For the President's statement on the death of Dr. Dryden, see 1965 volume, this series, Book II, Item 634.,EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS WITH VIETCONG,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do we have any reason to believe that the Vietcong offer to exchange prisoners had any substance to it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I would want to comment on that kind of a question.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[11] Q. Mr. President, in terms of Mr. Vance's hope for progress in Paris, can you give us any specifics, sir, on what progress has been made?,THE PRESIDENT. Not any more than what I said to Helen.,Q. Pardon me, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Not any more than what I said to Helen.,THE PRESIDENT'S FEELINGS WHILE WATCHING,COVERAGE OF APOLLO SPLASHDOWN,[12.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us a little bit about your feelings this morning as you watched television and waited for the ship to get back, waited and watched? Were you excited? Did you feel kind of tense inside about it? How did you feel about it?,THE PRESIDENT. That is very difficult to describe, to portray accurately. I think all of you must know the anxiety that a President feels during a period like this. I think you must have thought a thousand times, \"Are you sure we are ready? Is this the date? If something terrible happens, why does it happen the last week I am here or the last month I am here?\" or \"Has every possible precaution been taken? Has every man performed his every requirement?\",About all you can do under those circumstances is to pick men that you have confidence in, that you trust, give them the support they need, and then hold on. That is what I have done.,President Kennedy asked me at Palm Beach to assume responsibility for the space program and try to give it some leadership and direction.,The first thing he asked me to do was to select the leader for it. I interviewed 28 different people before I interviewed Mr. Webb for the second time, when he turned it down the first time. I kept going back to him. He had a combination of military experience in the Marines, State Department diplomatic experience, budget experience, scientific experience, that very few men in this country had.,The President talked to me a number of times about the desirability of setting a goal to go to the moon in this decade, and the dangers of it and the wisdom of it. He asked for my recommendation, which we made in writing. I recommended this goal for this decade. Mr. Sorensen15 and I discussed the goal at length before it was announced.,15 Theodore C. Sorensen, Special Counsel to President John F. Kennedy.,In view of the fact that our beloved President had set that goal, naturally we have religiously adhered to it and tried to make it. There have been many pitfalls every step of the way. I don't know how many folks have just wanted to abandon it, clip it, cut it, take the money for the cities or the war or just anything else. Space has been a whipping boy.,So when you see the day approaching when visions, and dreams, and what we said to the Congress when we created the Space Administration back in 1958 are becoming reality, you naturally are hopeful.,I don't guess your blood pressure can get down completely normal until you see the astronauts back with their wives in Houston, until they come up out of that water, until they come on the carrier, until they are moved back home.,But we have come so far, so fast, so good. I have said many prayers the last few days expressing thanks for the good fortune we have had.,SPACE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS,Q. Mr. President, having nursed this thing along and having been with it since the beginning, have you a specific recommendation you are going to make to your successor involving the space program and where it goes?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think President Nixon feels very strongly about the program and its value. He will have to-looking at all the other priorities confronting him, and the problems that he faces--determine how this fits in.,I have every confidence that his decision will be a good one. I am not very strong on advising Presidents and speaking with cool authority on just how they ought to handle each specific subject. I have received a lot of advice in my time and a good deal of it has been worthwhile, but I am not sure that the next President would profit a great deal by just having my personal views on some of these things. They will be available to him on anything that he wants them on, but I want to try to follow a policy somewhat like President Eisenhower has followed with me: To be there to help if you can, but don't be presumptuous enough to think that you are required.,EARMARKING OIL SHALE REVENUES FOR\nEDUCATION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, this morning you said something very interesting about using the oil shares as a possible resource for an education fund. Has anything specific been done to try to implement an idea like that?,THE PRESIDENT. It hasn't been developed very much yet. You know what has been done about trying to kind of examine and explore to see if the processes we have, with the estimates and values we have--we don't know really what it is worth, how much it is worth, until we get some bids. The bids weren't very good.,But back in, I guess, the late forties, I was very anxious to earmark--I haven't been too much of an earmarker as President--but as a legislator, I wanted to earmark all the Continental Shelf for education.,I do think we ought to give a good deal of thought as to how we can take our resources and dedicate them to such things as education. I think that is worthy of some exploration.,I, as a Member of the Senate, tried to bring about the earmarking. As you know, last year we all had a bill that Mrs. Johnson was interested in, in earmarking part of the Continental Shelf revenues for conservation, which we have done in acquiring public domain as extra land.,Q. How much do you estimate would be available for education?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't know at all. If there is no more than indicated by these last two bids, it wouldn't be very much. But there is a great variance of views there. Helen, you wanted to say something.,THE PRESIDENT'S GOALS UNTIL JANUARY 20,[14.] Q. Sir, I wanted to ask you if you had any particular goal between now and January 20th that you would like to achieve, something that you feel would be summing up your 5 years.,THE PRESIDENT. I have a lot of them, Helen, but I don't know that we will do any of them. I think we don't want to ask too much. A lot of good things have come in a few days.,The one thing that would make us all happier than anything else is to have a truce in Vietnam and to have substantial progress toward peace, and make progress on substantive matters, to cut out all of this dillydallying--talking about where you sit at the tables, who comes in first, who speaks first, and all that.,But I think the thing that nearly every American wants more than anything else is to have our boys home. We just had the best Christmas I think we nearly ever had. Everyone was gay, healthy, happy, prosperous. But you just couldn't look at either one of these little babies without knowing that their daddy was gone. As a matter of fact, we talked to them at Da Nang the other night. Pat had slipped off up there Christmas and spent a day with Chuck. He had to be out at 4 o'clock. We heard their voices on the phone and had to make the baby cry a little so her daddy could hear her voice. The little boy got stubborn and didn't want to talk, but I tickled him some and let his daddy hear his voice16,16The President's sons-in-law, AIC. Patrick J. Nugent, USAF, and Capt. Charles S. Robb, USMC, both serving in Vietnam, and his grandchildren, Lucinda Desha Robb and Patrick Lyndon Nugent.,These are just two of 550,000. Those other men have babies, too, at home. It would just be paradise if we could end that thing. But we must end it with honor.,As Mrs. Johnson has said so often, if we have to defend what we believe in, and we have to carry out our promises, and some men are going to have to be there, we are glad ours are there with them, although I will tell you it is pretty hard for every woman to kind of understand it. I imagine it is so even for the little boy. He goes up and hears his daddy's voice played back to him on tape and kisses his picture. Things of that kind wring your heart. Peace--that is what all of us want more than anything else.,Advances in space are wonderful. Great movements forward in education and health, that is good. Making this a more beautiful land, all we have done in conservation, we are thankful for that.,But what really counts is whether we can keep people from dying, whether we can get our men home. lust running out is not going to do it, because we have found out, as Mr. Chamberlain did, and a good many times in our history, that unless things are settled honorably, they are not settled. You may pay more dearly later on if you appease.,So, that is what we would like to see. That is what we are working hard for. I talked to Secretary Roger, about it, and a great deal to Mr. Vance about it. Governor Harriman17 is doing everything he can. But we are not the only ones involved. We just have to hope and pray and do the best we can, right up until the bell rings, which we are all going to do.,17W. Averell Harriman, chief U.S. representative at the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam. A press briefing by Mr. Harriman, held on December 4, 1968, following his report to the President and the Cabinet, is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, p. 1660).,We will be letting up some at the ranch. The main thing we are going home for is we are just hoping we can get a little sunshine. I can make more progress there than I have made here.,I still have three important things: the details of the Economic Message--and in that you have to include all the things that you think would be good to be done, from that standpoint. We have had big charts that I have looked at by the hour in my bedroom in the morning before I get up.,So we will try to prepare our State of the Union Message, the Budget and the Economic Messages, not as a guide or a lot of advice to our successor, but as an attempt to present our views on the state of the Nation and things that ought to be considered.,I want to get home, if you will let me, in time to see Mrs. Johnson's television performance on ABC, with Howard K. Smith, at 7:30.18 I am getting a little jealous.,18See Item 648.,Q. It is very good.,THE PRESIDENT. Have you seen it?,Q. I read the script.,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen it or read it. I asked them to let me see it last night, but they said they couldn't. Are there any other questions, any of you?,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS FOR THE FUTURE,[15.] If not, we will put an end to this. I wanted you to have some idea of my feelings and the plans as the year ends. Some of you want to know exactly what we are going to do. I would like to finish that, too.,We have no plans to take on any jobs of any nature, either as counselors, advisers, chairmen of the board, or to even go on any boards, although we might do some health work or education work of a public service nature.,We are not going to be in any business enterprises. We are going to rest and maybe take a little visit some time in some warm climate in February. We will be doing some reading and some writing. We have 31 million pages of material through this ado ministration. A good deal of it will have to be reviewed, selected, and transferred over to the library. There will be groups of people from the Government and from our staff working to process those. I would like to process them during the next few years.,Some of President Truman's haven't been completed yet. I would like to have the job of saying that \"This goes in with a 25-year release date,\" than have Luci doing it.,So, that is what I am going to be working a good deal on. Preparing, dictating from my notes while I still have some little recollection of these things. But you don't need to anticipate any great adventures or anything new. I will spend most of the time right there at the ranch.,I will go into Austin on occasion. I will have six or eight lectures during the entire year, of limited duration, on the course they are teaching on the American Presidency as I told you this morning.,So, to summarize, it will be this, and there will be a lot of aides, prognosticators, and prophets who will have their own dreams and ideas about what I am going to do. It will be first to rest and then read and then write. That will be something you can misunderstand.,I will repeat it for you so you won't be in any doubt. Rest, read, and write. If there is a little extra time I might walk some with Lady Bird.,FLIERS HELD IN NORTH VIETNAM,[16.] Q. One final question: Is there any hope by the end of the year that we might see some of the fliers released from North Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't make any prediction of that now.\nReporter: Thank you."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-11-15","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S INTRODUCTION OF ROBERT D. MURPHY,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I think most of you know Secretary Murphy.1 Secretary Murphy has been designated by President-elect Nixon to work here with us as his liaison and observer with the Secretary of State.,1 Robert D. Murphy, former Under Secretary of State.,In the Secretary of State's absence, at the NATO meeting this week, I asked Secretary Murphy to come down and he has met with Secretary Katzenbach earlier this morning and with Mr. Rostow.2 We have just had a pleasant exchange here.,2 Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Under Secretary of State, and Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the President.,We think it is very fortunate for the country that Mr. Nixon would designate Mr. Murphy and that Mr. Murphy could agree to serve, because after three or four decades of brilliant and distinguished service in the Government, Mr. Murphy continues to serve. I believe he has served three Presidents now, as a member of the President's highest intelligence board.,He meets from time to time with the President and makes recommendations, suggestions, and observations, and gives me counsel.,So Secretary Rusk and Secretary Clifford3 and I assured the President-elect that we felt first he should designate the Secretaries of State and Defense at as early a date as possible and, until they could be selected, we would like to have some liaison or observer to follow the developments of the day and we could have timely consultation on matters that would concern our Nation, and certainly the new President, after he is inaugurated on January 20th.,3 Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, and Clark M. Clifford, Secretary of Defense.,Mr. Murphy will be here about 3 days a week. He will have an office at the State Department. I will be available to him at any time he desires to talk to me. We will be glad to have him follow carefully all of the 700 or 800 cables that go out every day and we hope, in that way, that his spending some time with the President-elect and his people will effect an orderly transition that will be in the best interests of the whole country. Do you have anything else to say?,MR. MURPHY. I am delighted to be here. The admiration I have for you and for Mr. Nixon makes this very short, temporary helping-out process so much more pleasant and desirable from my point of view.,Any little thing I can contribute I will be just delighted.,QUESTIONS,FOREIGN POLICY DURING TRANSITION,[2.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday Mr. Nixon described his part of the understanding about the foreign policy matters between now and the 20th of January, speaking of the need for prior consultation and agreement on important matters of state.,Could you tell us how you understand this process will work for these next few weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mr. Nixon stated that--his language, I think, was--[quoting reporter's question and Mr. Nixon's reply] \"Would you clarify on the need for agreement on the course of action? Are you saying the President will not take a course of action unless you have approved of it?\" Mr. Nixon said, \"We did not discuss it that precisely.\",Now, what we discussed, and all that we discussed in the meeting Monday with the Secretaries present: Both Secretaries asked that their successors be designated as early as possible, as did Mr. Rostow, so that the three people who would replace them could have a background of knowledge and information so that when the new President was called upon to suddenly make judgments after he became President he would have that background to do so.,Mr. Nixon entertained the thought of selecting a liaison or observer at that time because he said he had not made up his mind who his Secretaries would be. So, it would have to be someone in the interim. As Mr. Nixon said, on the question of the President taking a course of action unless it was approved, \"We did not discuss that precisely.\",We just discussed selecting an observer to have timely consultations with. We think that has been handled rather well, as far as Mr. Murphy is concerned. He will be here part of the week and be up there part of the week. We would hope that we could have an orderly transition.,Of course, the decisions that will be made between now and January 20th will be made by this President and by this Secretary of State and by this Secretary of Defense.,Mr. Murphy, not being Secretary, not having been confirmed by the Senate, will be there as an observer and will be following these decisions very closely in order to keep the new administration informed and prepare it for its obligations beginning January 20th.,Q. Mr. President, does that mean that prior consultations therefore do not involve or imply Mr. Nixon's agreement about any steps that might be taken?,THE PRESIDENT. That means that Mr. Nixon and I agreed that it will be desirable for him to have an observer, and he will have an observer, but I will make whatever decisions the President of the United States is called upon to make between now and January 20th.,Now, to give you an example of what I think may confuse some of you--and I know you don't want to be confused--but what might confuse you is, Secretary Rusk was present and said to Mr. Nixon, about this statement: \"This might be well for you to say if you agreed to it.\" It did not involve a decision between now and January 20th. It involved a statement of policy by the new administration after January 20th. That was in his statement.4 It said:,4A statement to be read by Secretary Rusk at the NATO ministerial meeting at Brussels.,\"I have discussed NATO in general terms with the President-elect. Those of you who have read the statement on the subject and have talked to Governor Scranton5 on the latter's recent visit to Europe will have no anxiety about Mr. Nixon's firm commitment to NATO and to the collective security of the NATO area. We can anticipate that President Nixon will make clear the approach of his administration to NATO matters at an early date.,5 William W. Scranton, former Governor of Pennsylvania.,\"He joins with the present administration in extending the invitation to you to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of NATO in Washington in the spring of 1969.\",The Secretary said two things. First, designate a liaison man and, second, here is a matter I would like to include: quoting you inviting them here and saying that a change in administration does not mean a change in NATO policy. That was not only speaking for this President, but speaking for the next President beyond January 20th.,So, I think that was referred to yesterday. The matter that the policy of the Government is and will be as stated, I think, by Mr. Nixon here Monday evening, and I quote: \"I gave assurance in each instance to the Secretary of State, and, of course, to the President, that they could speak not just for this administration but for the Nation, and that meant for the next administration as well.\"6,6 See Item 585.,Now, I hope that after January 20th, Mr. Nixon can speak not only for his administration, but he can in good conscience, for all the American people, and I will work to that end. That is what Mr. Murphy is here to try and bring about.,I think it is very much in the interest of all of us that we submerge any party differences and that we forget that we are Democrats and Republicans in this field and that we try to do what is best for our country.,Now, until January 20th, I will be doing that.,After January 20th, I will try to do anything I can to make Mr. Nixon's burdens easier.,THE SITUATION IN WEST BERLIN,[3.] Q. Mr. President, are you concerned about possible harassment about West Berlin in the next few days?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I will go into that now.,FURTHER MEETINGS WITH MR. NIXON,[4.] Q. Do you have any further dates set for meeting with Mr. Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. No. But I am sure that we will be exchanging viewpoints. Mr. Murphy will be observing the developments in the State Department and I assume there will be others.,Of course, I will be available to the President-elect any time on the whole field. I assume our Budget Directors will want to be talking as soon as they can, our Secretaries of Defense will want to be talking as soon as they can.,Mr. Nixon has the problem of making a good many judgments on personnel. We have set up arrangements for quick clearance of those people through the security channel. I and all of my staff will be available to them any time that we can be helpful in any way.,THE PEACE TALKS IN PARIS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, one of the immediate problems in foreign affairs is the peace talks in Paris, the expanded talks. Do you have any encouraging news from Saigon?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I should say that we are doing all we can to bring about substantive discussions in Paris that would include the Government of Vietnam at as early a date as possible. We are going to continue to do what we can to that end.,Q. On that subject, Mr. President, there were reports from Saigon that President Thieu7 is, as they said, \"edging toward an agreement with the United States\" to participate in the talks in return for certain conditions such as no coalition government. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think ought to be speculating or anticipating on some reporter's phrase that somebody may be \"edging\" toward something. I saw a couple of my own plans in the paper the other morning that I didn't recognize at all and didn't know anything about.,7President Nguyen Van Thieu of the Republic of Vietnam.,So, that may also be true of some other presidents. Let's see how those things develop and we will do everything we can to bring about substantive discussions at as early a date as possible with the Government of Vietnam present in Paris.,Q. Mr. President, do you see any progress in that pursuit?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to be running a thermometer temperature. We are working at it and we are going to do everything that we can. We will keep you informed when we have any new developments.,POSSIBILITY OF RECALLING THE CONGRESS INTO SPECIAL SESSION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, have you decided whether to call Congress back to consider the treaty [Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons], or have you decided not to?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not made that decision.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRAVEL PLANS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, may I repeat a question? Do you have any travel plans?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,BUDGET LIAISON DURING TRANSITION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, on the budget, have you worked on any arrangement yet with Mr. Nixon for a budget liaison or observer?,THE PRESIDENT. We have suggested that when it is possible for Mr. Nixon to make that judgment we would welcome an exchange with the designated individual. We would be very glad for him to sit in as an observer and follow developments.,SECRETARY CLIFFORD'5 STATEMENT ON,SAIGON'S POSITION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Secretary Clifford's statement the other day that if Saigon continues to boycott the talks that we could go ahead and discuss certain military matters with Hanoi on our own?,THE PRESIDENT. I think what I have just said gives you my viewpoint of where we are now and what we should, all of us, be trying to do now, that is, bring about substantive talks in Paris with the Government of Vietnam present at as early a date as possible.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-10-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. George1 discussed with me earlier in the week the fact that some of you desired to meet with the President in a press conference. It is convenient now to take any questions you may have to ask.,1 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President,QUESTIONS,UNITED STATES POSITION ON VIETNAM,[I.] Q. Mr. President, has there been any change since George issued his statement of October 16 on the Vietnamese situation? There has been no basic change in the situation, no breakthrough?2,THE PRESIDENT. The statement Mr. Christian issued was accurate at that time, and is accurate now.,2Mr. Christian's statement and his memorandum for the press on the U.S.. position on Vietnam are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, p. 1496).,We want peace very much. We have been doing all we could for several months to try to bring about some kind of an understanding that would result in substantive discussions and ultimate settlement of the Southeast Asia problem.,We do not want to make news until there is news. And we realize that many times diplomacy can be more effective in private than to have all your discussions, recommendations, and 'prophecies carried in the press.,But I would say, on the statement Mr. Christian made on October 16th, there has been no basic change, no breakthrough. Our position remains as set forth by the President and the Secretary of State. When there is anything to report, you will be informed.,Q. Mr. President, has there been any kind of a reply from Hanoi on any sort of new initiative? I qualify the word \"new,\" but any kind of a stepped-up approach?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the answer to that question was given in the preceding one. I will have to stand on that answer.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRAVEL PLANS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports, from time to time, in recent weeks on possible plans for foreign travel. Could you give us any guidance on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have seen some of those reports. I have read them. I don't think I have instigated any of them. I am unaware of any plans the President has.,There are a good many people in the Government who travel from time to time, but I have no plans at this time. Something could develop. If it did, I wouldn't want to be precluded by saying I am not going to have any travel. But I have no plans to do so at this moment.,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS FOR THE CAMPAIGN,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans for campaigning beyond what you have done so far?,THE PRESIDENT. When we can, and have made the decision to speak, we try to notify you promptly.,We consider many requests, but until a decision is made, we don't think we serve any purpose by speculating that we might or might not do this or that. It creates disappointments if you can't go, and so forth.,We are going to have a political radio address Sunday night at 7:35 over the CBS radio network. We are going to have a televised address the following Sunday night over the NBC television network at 8:30 Sunday evening, the Sunday before the election on Tuesday.3,3 See Items 569, 576.,It is likely that both of those addresses will be transcribed and filmed in advance. I would hope that I could make some announcements of any other speeches that I am able to make in plenty of time for you to have adequate coverage, but I am not in a position to do that now.\nYes.,THE ELECTION OUTCOME,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of discussion of the possibility of this election going into the House, sir. Some of the candidates and some Members of the House have suggested that if it is, if that comes to pass, the House should be guided by whoever wins the popular vote.\nWhat is your view of that in this year?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope it doesn't go to the House. I don't think I will speculate on it going there. I don't believe it will. I think that Mr. Humphrey,4 in the days ahead, will eliminate the necessity of the House making any judgment on it.,4 Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, Democratic Presidential candidate.,When and if it should go to the House, I think our Constitution makes clear the action that is to be taken.,I don't know what the circumstances would be if it did go to the House. I would like to be confronted with that position and see what they are before issuing any decision other than to say that we will follow the constitutional processes.,THE \"PUEBLO\" AND ITS CREW,[5.] Q. Mr. President, how soon do you think the men of the Pueblo may be released and is that involved in any way in these talks that you are now having with regard to peace in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I will give you any information we have on the Pueblo when we have any information to give. We have stated everything that we can state on the subject as of now.5,5 For a statement by the President on the release of the crew, see Item 641.,ABM TALKS WITH THE RUSSIANS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any chance of moving ahead soon on the ABM talks with the Russians?,THE PRESIDENT. I am unable to make a prediction at this time. I know of no immediate plans in the offing.,AMERICAN CASUALTIES IN VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, if I may respectfully return to the Vietnam subject for just a moment, the casualty figures released today, American casualties in Vietnam, were the lowest in a number of months.,Do you see this as an inability on the part of the enemy to inflict heavier casualties, or is it part of some kind of lull on the part of the enemy, or could you address yourself to those low casualties?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very pleased that the casualties are no higher than they are. We lost 100 American lives last week.,The enemy lost 1,243. The South Vietnamese lost something less than 200.,We are very glad that we are able to keep our losses at that level. We wish it had not been necessary to lose any.,I am hesitant, from this distant point, to use this much overworked word \"lull,\" when 1,500 people give their lives in 1 week. In some places, there is not a lull. The last thing I would want to do is to lull anyone into a false sense of security.,I am very proud of the record General Westmoreland and his men have made in South Vietnam, and I salute General Abrams6 for taking that command and continuing that good work.,6Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff and former Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, and Gen. Creighton W. Abrams, who succeeded General Westmoreland in Vietnam.,I have not the slightest doubt that in due time, when all of the facts are analyzed by the people of this country and the world, that they will be very proud of the record of the American serviceman, of his conduct and his purpose, and the objectives which he sought and which he succeeded in obtaining in Vietnam.,THE \"LAW AND ORDER\" ISSUE IN THE CAMPAIGN,[8.] Q. Mr. President, law and order has become a chief, if not the chief, issue in this campaign, at least on the domestic side. Mr. Nixon7 says that the crime rate in the country has increased nine times faster than the population. This remark is made repeatedly. He lays the blame for this with you and your administration. And Ramsey Clark8 has become the chief whipping boy on the question of law and order.,7Richard M. Nixon, Republican presidential candidate.,8 Ramsey Clark, Attorney General.,I wonder if you could respond, as President, to the problem of law and order in this country and its use in the campaign as an issue.,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to comment on the statements of individual campaigners, as I have told you before. In signing legislation only this week, I made some comments and gave some details and figures to support that. Under our Constitution, except for a very few highly specialized areas, we must rely upon local officials to enforce the law and to see that justice is meted out.,The great bulk of our law enforcement machinery is controlled at the local and the State level. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Narcotics Bureau, the Customs Service, and the Secret Service perform some federally assigned tasks under Federal statutes.,We do think there is much the Federal Government can do to support the States, to support the cities, and to support the local officials who are responsible for law and order and justice.,We have made our recommendations to the Congress. We had a very thorough study by one of the ablest commissions ever assembled and we have made our recommendations. A good many of those recommendations have been carried out. Some have been diluted. Some have not been acted upon. Some have been materially reduced because of a failure to provide funds to give them adequate support.,But we have made great strides in that direction. We will continue to do that. I am convinced that law enforcement is one of the very serious problems that we face and we must do everything we can to improve it. We must do everything we can to get at the root causes of violations of our laws.,I think the Attorney General has testified hour after hour before the Congress on the administration's views as to how we can handle the juvenile problem; how we can rehabilitate some of the criminals; how we can give better support, better pay, and better education for the people who protect our lives--the policemen; how we can have better inducements and incentives for men to go into that service.,We are working with the Defense Department to try to take some of our better trained men there, and when they are discharged, to give them a career in service of this type. It is a very serious problem for this Nation.,The President can't direct and handle every police force, or sit on every jury, or preside over every trial.,The President does have an obligation to see that the Nation supports the local and State officials whenever and wherever it can. I think we need to support them more than we are.,I think we need a stronger gun control law9 so we can keep them out of the hands of the maniac, the insane, the delinquent, and the minor. I think we should have registration.,9 See Item 553.,I think we should put much more Federal money in support of local and State efforts at law enforcement.,I think we should put much more Federal money into the poverty effort, the education effort, and the health effort, because all of these contribute to the problems that we are faced with--which have grown because they have been neglected through the years.,The local and the State people just do not have the resources to get at all these causes.,We have tried to move, and move fast, in that direction. We haven't moved fast enough. We haven't done enough. We were late starting and our efforts have been inadequate in my judgment.,The next President, I think, will have this as one of his major problems. But I don't think there is anything we could do other than to get the recommendations that we have submitted to the Congress enacted, and get additional funds to support those recommendations.,A lot of people think that we have an attitude that promotes violation of the law. I don't believe there is any Federal official who countenances, or approves, or will ever justify anyone violating the law.,On the other hand, the Federal Government can't take over the responsibilities of the local people and the State people, except to supplement them, as we are doing. We have to speed up what we are doing and increase what we are doing.,This is not a problem that is just common to the United States. I saw a report the other day where we had had a great deal of restlessness in many countries in the world. I believe there were some 25 nations where the young people had taken over the universities of those countries and presented their officials with a very serious problem. We do lack communications with many groups. We have not moved fast enough. It is a big job that has not been faced up to, to the degree it should be. It will be, in my judgment, by whoever follows me in this assignment.,VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, returning to Vietnam for one moment, you have said several times that almost any sign or signal from North Vietnam, you are looking forward to, to justify a bombing halt. Would that signal necessarily have to be public?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that on Vietnam it is better that we just stay with the statement that we have made. We have communications with the North Vietnamese from time to time. And we have no problem exchanging viewpoints at this stage.,The decision we made March 31st resulted in their agreement first to meet in Cambodia and later in Poland, and finally we agreed on Paris. I am very glad that I made that decision March 31st.10,10In an address to the Nation on March 31 the president announced his decisions to limit U.S.. naval and air bombardment of North Vietnam and not to seek reelection (see Item 170).,One of our problems is not how we exchange viewpoints. I have told you generally that I don't think it is good policy to try to handle all diplomacy in public. The negotiators have to present their views and we have to give them our instructions. A great many times we would negate our policy if you got the instructions before the negotiators did.,So we are working very hard and very diligently and very earnestly. The only thing I can say to you is that I think the decision of March 31st was indicated, was justified, and I am more pleased by it every hour that goes by.\nYes.,THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Democratic candidate, your Vice President, seems to feel that the other two candidates are not discussing the issues in any detail. He would like to have a face-to-face debate. How do you feel about that? Would it improve the climate of the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I will make any comment on the views of the candidates or their expressions. I have tried to get that over to you several times. We will stay with that position until after the election.,THE MIDDLE EAST PROBLEM AND THE SOVIET UNION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, are we having any diplomatic consultations with the Soviet Union with respect to rising tensions in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. We have diplomatic contacts with most of the nations of the world at all times about a variety of subjects. I don't think it would serve any useful purpose for me to specify a contact that we had on a specific situation at a specific time.,I think it is generally known we have exchanged views with the Soviet Union on the Vietnam problem, on the Middle Eastern problem, on the arms control problem, and on the Eastern European situation. We do that from time to time as we do with other leading powers.,DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE HOUSE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, how do you see Democratic chances of retaining control of the House?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't evaluated that. I have been busy on some other matters.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-09-06","text":"MEETINGS WITH SENATE BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I think you would be interested in some of the meetings I have had. I observed some of you wanted a chance to meet with me, so I thought this would be a good time to arrange it.,I spent a good part of the morning meeting with the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. We tentatively planned to meet with the leadership of the House this afternoon, but Mr. Albert1 is out of town, so we will meet Monday at 5 o'clock.,1 Representative Carl Albert of Oklahoma, Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.,We had a bipartisan meeting with a briefing by Secretary Rusk2 on Europe, Vietnam, and the Paris peace talks.,2 Dean Rusk, Secretary of State.,PENDING LEGISLATION,In addition, I talked to Senators Mansfield and Dirksen3 about various Senate matters, particularly the appropriation bills that are pending, the HEW bill, the supplemental bill, the Defense bill, certain nominations that have been sent up and will be sent up, 16 bills that are now in conference between the House and the Senate, and 7 bills which have passed the House but which have not been acted upon in the Senate, as well as 16 bills which have passed the Senate and have not been acted upon by the House.,3 Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Majority Leader of the Senate, and Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Minority Leader of the Senate.,I did that so I could emphasize that we have made long strides forward with some 30 or 40 bills. And I hoped that we would not lose the work that we had done on them by not completing action before January 20.,We are paid on a year-round basis, and even while the campaign is on, we have business to do, and until we get our job done here, I am sure the people of the United States would want us to take action on these important matters.,THE NOMINATION FOR CHIEF JUSTICE,[2.] We discussed the Fortas4 nomination. I pointed out to them that from the best account we had, there had been some indications of support for Justice Fortas that we did not have when we left here.,4Abe Fortas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. See also Items 339, 509.,I asked them if they were aware of anyone who was for him who was not now for him, and they did not know of anyone. I told the leaders that I had seen the play in the press that the situation had hardened some. I wanted to get the basis for it because in the history of the nominations for the Supreme Court of the United States, there has been no instance in which the Senate failed to act on the nomination because of the filibuster.,There has never been a single case where the Senate failed to act on a nomination because of the filibuster. This does not mean that the Senate acted by either confirmation or rejection on every nomination submitted. Some of them languished and were not acted on at all, but the Senate was in no case prevented from acting because of the filibuster.,In the case of Justice Brandeis,5 where we had a somewhat similar situation, several months passed in committee and there was a great deal of protest and controversy in the country. But after it was brought to the Senate floor, it took a relatively short time to have him confirmed.,5Louis D. Brandeis, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1916--1939.,I expressed the hope that in view of the fact that the friends of Justice Fortas felt that between 60 and 70 percent of the people favored the nomination, we should not allow a little group, a sectional group primarily who disapproved of some opinions Supreme Court justices have rendered, to be able, by parliamentary tricks, to filibuster and prevent the majority from expressing its viewpoint. And I expressed the hope that would not be done.,Both Senators agreed to talk to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Eastland of Mississippi, and other members of that committee, Mr. Thurmond6 and others who are opposed to Justice Fortas, and attempt to get a vote in the committee.,6Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.,We believe there are more than two to one in the committee who would favor reporting it if they were permitted to vote. We believe that vote is almost that strong in the Senate.,REVIEW OF THE BUDGET,[3.] Mr. Zwick7 reviewed the budget situation. We have instructed the Cabinet and appropriate officials to live within the $6 billion reduction that has been determined and ordered by the Congress. However, matters over which we have no control indicate we are going to be required to have another $600 million or $700 million in CCC payments because of the law. Also we have no control over, no discretion over the Governors and States who determine eligibility requirements in Medicaid. There are indications that will be up $500 million or $600 million.,7 Charles J. Zwick, Director of the Bureau of the Budget.,So those two items alone will not only make a $6 billion reduction necessary, but perhaps $7 billion, unless they are exempted. Some of the members favor exempting CCC and Medicaid. I believe either the House or Senate bill provided that, but in conference it was changed.,If they are not exempt, the amount that you have to pay out under the law, compulsory in CCC and on Medicaid, will have to come from some other sources. We explained that to them and asked them to consult their colleagues and give us their judgments.,We also reviewed what we had done on cuts and pointed out that we hoped that of the $6 billion, we could get about $3 billion of it in Defense. It looks like the Congress will cut in the neighborhood of $2 billion. They haven't acted yet. That is an estimate. That would mean the executive will have to cut an extra billion. Secretary Clifford8 and his people are working hard on that. We are awaiting action of the Congress on the Defense bill.,8Clark M. Clifford, Secretary of Defense.,We are trying to reduce our loan program by several hundred millions of dollars. That means Farmers Home and intermediate credit and others, by finding other means of financing, by withholding loans and so forth, will help us with the $6 billion.,We expect to get a total of about half a billion from highways, NASA, Corps of Engineers, Reclamation, Small Watershed, and some holdbacks on AEC over and above what Congress reduces.,It looks like the highways might be around $200 million expenditure. They spend about $4 billion plus a year. We will try to not allocate a couple hundred million of that expenditure. NASA will be something like $100 million over and above what the Congress has reduced them. The Corps of Engineers, Reclamation, and Small Watersheds will probably be in the neighborhood of $100 million. AEC holdbacks will be about in the same neighborhood.,Those are not final, but just projected so they can talk it over with their colleagues.,THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,Mr. Okun9 reviewed with them the gross national product economy figures for the first two quarters, his estimates on the coming quarter, and the effects of the tax bill and expenditure reductions and his estimates.,9 Arthur M. Okun, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.,EUGENE BLACK'S ASIAN TRIP,[4.] As you know, I visited with Mr. Eugene Black at some length late yesterday. I asked him and he came to the ranch and visited with me some time ago on a weekend. I prevailed on him to make a trip to Asia to learn of economic and social development.,He has been my special adviser in that field for some time. He is leaving today for visits to the Philippines, Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam. I have asked him to pursue especially plans for the Mekong Basin program for development for peaceful purposes. If you are interested further in his itinerary, the Press Office will give it to you.\nI will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS\nSENATE ACTION ON NONPROLIFERATION TREATY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, about July 1, in the course of the signature of the Nonproliferation Treaty,10 you discussed it as the most important international agreement since the beginning of the nuclear age, and Secretary Rusk went to the Hill asking for prompt enactment.,10 See Item 349.,In view of today's stories to the effect that in addition to the Fortas nomination, the treaty appears to be running into trouble in the Senate, can you say whether you are still as anxious to have it ratified now as was the case in July?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with the story but I will comment on my views on the treaty. The Nonproliferation Treaty is a multilateral effort aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons in all parts of the world. It was a treaty that was reached after very prolonged and very painstaking efforts on the part of the United States and a good many other nations.,It represents a very important interest to the United States of America, as I have stated before, both in the security field and the encouragement it gives to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy throughout the world.,We continue to believe that the treaty is very much in the interest of the United States, despite any recent developments. The treaty has been submitted to the Senate.\nI am not in a position to predict when the Senate will take it up. I do hope it will take it up. I do hope it will ratify it. Mr. Christian11 made that very clear in his briefings on several occasions and I want to repeat it, I hope finally, today.,11 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,THE U.S.S. \"PUEBLO\",[6.] Q. Mr. President, do we have any information that would lead us to believe that the Pueblo will be released this Sunday, or shortly? 12,THE PRESIDENT. I do not have any comment to make on that at this time.,12 See Item 641.,PLANS FOR THE CAMPAIGN,[7.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything yet about your plans for this fall and the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No, except what you already know. I think a good guideline is my March 31 speech. I plan to devote every moment of time I have allotted to me in this office to the Presidency.,I have no desires or plans or hopes to enter into any personal, partisan, political activities. I think all of you know that I would like to see my party win the election. I think all of you know that I believe the Democratic Party is better for the country than the Republican Party.,I think all of you must have observed in 1964 that I made a recommendation of the person I felt was qualified to succeed me. The person whom I felt I would want to recommend to succeed me, to the American people, was Mr. Humphrey,13 in the capacity of Vice President. I did so to the convention and subsequently to the people.,13 Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice President of the United States and Democratic candidate for President.,After my announcement March 31, I took occasion to state to the Cabinet my opinion of his performance as the Vice President and I thought he had been an \"A\" Vice President. I felt that the convention had fully considered the candidacies of all persons who were desirous of that nomination and maybe some who were not desirous of it, and carefully considered them and in their judgment made a decision.,I am very pleased with that decision, as Mr. Christian has told you on other occasions. Specifically where I am on a certain date or what I do will have to be determined by the events. I expect to speak out and I expect the Cabinet to speak out from time to time on any matters affecting this administration.,I expect to maintain a policy of complete open doors so far as all the candidates are concerned in keeping these men briefed on foreign policy. I will, no doubt, have more bipartisan briefings such as the one we had this morning so the leaders of all the parties can have full information.,But I would think that so far as a specific statement and a specific time, we will have to let events determine those. Generally, I am going to be guided by the views I expressed at some length on March 31. And if you will read that speech, I think we can save a lot of these questions.,REPORTS OF POSSIBLE EUROPEAN SUMMIT MEETING,[8.] Q. Mr. President, what are the prospects of you going somewhere in Europe sometime this fall for a summit meeting with the Soviets on the missile issue?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to speculate on prospects, Jack.14 We have no immediate plans for such meetings. I see none in the offing at this moment. I would not want, if I thought it desirable to have a meeting with any head of state later, to be precluded from doing it because I had committed myself to Jack Homer not to do it in a press conference.,14 Garnett D. Horner of the Washington Evening Star.,I think the stories that you have seen from time to time about my anxiety and my desire to travel are like Mark Twain's death-grossly exaggerated. I am very content to stay here and do my job.,If I felt, though, by going anywhere, any time, I could improve our position and the cause of peace in the world, I would certainly do it. At this time, I don't see any trip in the offing.,FOOD PRODUCTION AND POPULATION CONTROL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in light of your efforts to help the people of the world who are starving, and the governments' efforts to control the world's population, I wonder if you could appraise the Pope's edict on birth control 15 for us.,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think I have given you my views. I have done what I could to encourage all nations to materially increase their food production.,15Pope Paul Vl's encyclical on birth control, \"Humanae Vitae,\" promulgated on July 25, 1968.,In connection with population control, the Government has been willing to provide counseling and monetary assistance to countries and people who desired that assistance. As long as I am President, we will continue to do so.,I feel that food production and the population explosion are matters that individual countries must deal with. They are very serious problems for some of the countries. We are very anxious to work with them in any way that they desire, where we consistently can.,I have asked the commission headed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller16 to go more into detail, to study in depth the population situation. I have asked him to make a report to me a little later in the year. At that time I will give you the benefit of any developments that may have come about.,16John D. Rockefeller 3d, Cochairman of the Committee on Population and Family Planning.,I can only speak for myself, but I feel one of the great questions of the 20th century is adequate food production in order to take care of the needs of humanity. I do feel that our country and our Government should be helpful and responsive to those who desire our assistance and counseling in connection with population matters.,REPORTS ON ASYLUM FOR CZECHOSLOVAKIAN REFUGEES,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports in the last few days that you had under serious consideration offering a special asylum for refugees from Czechoslovakia.17 Is that a fact?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what reports you have, but generally unidentified reports are unreliable. Speculations and reports generally that are unidentified are usually unreliable.,17 On August 20, 1968, as reported in the press, more than 200,000 Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia.,Q. I think this was an Associated Press report.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to get into any comments about individuals, but I think most of the speculations I read are not based on facts.,THE VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO,[11.] Q. Mr. President, as you recall, George Christian told us down at the ranch that you deplored the violence which you saw in Chicago.18 I wondered, since you have had a chance to read and see more on that, if you have come to any conclusion as to where the blame lies?,THE PRESIDENT. George, I think, covered it rather fully for you. I don't think I would want to add anything to it.,18Clashes between Chicago police and dissidents engaged in protest demonstrations occurred during the Democratic Convention which was held in Chicago in August.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, is there any new cause for hope in the Paris talks?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly hoping, working, and trying. We don't want to hold out any false hope or speculate or make any predictions. But a part of every day is devoted to trying to find areas of agreement there.,POSSIBILITY OF SOUTH AMERICAN VISIT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there had been some criticism of the common market in South America since we traveled to San Salvador-that it hadn't progressed possibly as fast or as rapidly as had been hoped. Do you plan, possibly, further visits to South America during your term, looking toward improving the relations between the common market nations as well as to cement other relations in South America?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very interested in their development. We want to do everything we can to make every contribution to it. We have no new travel plans in the offing. It is some 4 to 5 months before this administration ends. I wouldn't want to foreclose any travel possibilities. But we have nothing that we are planning, no suggestions and no recommendations that I am aware of that I go back to South America.,PARIS PEACE TALKS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, has any thought been given to allowing the Republican Party to have a representative at the Paris talks in case Mr. Nixon 19 did win the election, for purposes of continuity?,THE PRESIDENT. It is not a question of a party matter. The Republican nominee and the Republican leaders are being kept fully informed on developments.,19Richard M. Nixon, Republican candidate for President.,This is not a question of a Democrat or a Republican meeting over there. It is a question of the United States of America and North Vietnam. So far as I am aware, no one has raised any partisan question about those talks. I don't even know what party Mr. Vance 20 and others belong to.,20Cyrus R. Vance, deputy U.S.. negotiator at the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam and former Deputy Secretary of Defense.,SITUATION IN EASTERN EUROPE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech in San Antonio,21 you indicated concern about the possibility of further aggression in Eastern Europe. Do you see any reason to be reassured about the situation there now?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very concerned about the situation in Eastern Europe. We have had some assurances following the speech in San Antonio, which we are very glad to have. We continue to maintain a deep interest in that part of the world.,21 See Item 462.,MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT HUMPHREY,[16.] Q. Mr. President, did Vice President Humphrey ask yesterday in those private meetings for you to help him in his campaign this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, are we any closer to the start of talks,THE PRESIDENT. I might say we didn't have any political meetings yesterday, though. Mr. Nixon didn't ask me for help when he met with me, either.,DISARMAMENT TALKS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[17.] Q. Mr. President, are we any closer to the start of disarmament talks with the Soviet Union, or has the situation in Eastern Europe--,THE PRESIDENT. Are we what?,Q. Closer to the start of talks on disarmament with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we are very much aware of the importance of disarmament and want to do everything we can to bring it about. Since January 1964, we have had proposals pending and suggestions to the Soviet Union about steps that should be taken. Particularly since Glassboro,22 we have urged attention in this field. The developments of the last few days haven't advanced the possibility of those talks any, however.,Frank Swoboda, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President.,22 For the President's meetings in Glassboro, N.J., see 1967 volume, this series, Book I, Items 279-283."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-08-27","text":"QUESTIONS,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,[1.] Q. How do you think the Convention is going, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. It has been a good Convention, interesting and lively, attracted the attention and excited the people. All viewpoints and facts have been presented and well represented. I have enjoyed what I have seen. I think this one has been quite well handled.,I saw some of the debate this morning between the candidates. I thought all of them did extremely well. I saw some last night before I went out and took a little swim.,I remember we had the real problems in 1948 and 1952, where we were in for several surprises. I remember Adlai Stevenson asking for suggestions and getting them and making his decision without reference to many of them.,I was very active in the 1960 Convention. It was a good one. In 1964 it was the same way. The Democratic Conventions always seem more alive and interesting. It makes it better for the audience.,I hope when they get into it they will select the best man and we can all get behind him and have a good campaign.,Q. Mr. President, have you made up your mind whether you are going to attend the Convention?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not decided yet. If there is anything I can do that might be helpful as President of the country or as a participant, I want to do it, but I have to balance that. I have to be a little more careful than the ordinary person because of interpretations and constructions that are placed on things.,So I am trying to be very careful. I would prefer to get the credentials problem settled and the platform settled and the candidate problems out of the way. Then I have the right and I might even have the duty to act as a citizen and exercise my prerogatives as a good American in these matters.,But from my experience, I have judged that if you have confidence in the delegates it is not usually very wise to get involved and give opinions on individual items. I am not talking to the Convention. I am not sending any emissaries. I don't have anyone reporting to me other than Cronkite.1,1 Walter Cronkite of CBS News.,I think the people of the States select these fellows and I can't remember when I have tried to drum up any sentiment for a successor.,I was in the public service in two or three schoolteaching jobs. In college I taught government. When I left Congress after 12 years I had had only one contested election. When I ran for the Senate I never expressed a preference for the man who succeeded me. I would not have recognized him. He has since become a good friend. He is sometimes referred to as a \"crony.\",I think the same thing happened with the Senate with Senator Tower.2,2 Senator John G. Tower of Texas.,I have always had views about it. I don't believe you help the person you want to help if you leave the impression that it is your prerogative to press a button and tell him what to do. Even the good editorialists don't have a good effect sometimes when they tell people what to do. Editorials appearing the day before an election don't always have the effect intended. I think a fellow who tries to point out who should be selected must not be very helpful. I am not involved in any of the fights, the rules, credentials, or platform or personalities.,I know all of the candidates and all of them have supported my domestic program and so far as votes are concerned, they have supported my foreign program. I could not point to one hurtful vote any of them cast. Since the campaign began, some have expressed themselves in opposition, but in 5 years, although there have been little differences of view, they have supported me from poverty to education to Medicare, and when the robs were called on the Southeast Asia resolution, and the Defense bill, all these important things, they all supported me.,I have my own views, but I think people have good enough judgment to select the Democratic nominees through the years and they don't expect me to come up there. Everyone was certain there was no other course in the world for me except to hang on to the Presidency and clutch it right to the last minute. Alternative sources had that worked out, but it didn't come out that way. I think perhaps they would expect that I would do the same thing from what they say in the reports, so I have tried to lean over backwards not to give any credibility to that position.,If I conclude that it would be desirable to go there on the way back to Washington or for an evening--but I have not made any plans. The authorities have urged me to come. They urged Mrs. Johnson to come and appear at the Convention, but I told them I have no plans to do so.,THE PRESIDENT'S WISH FOR THE FUTURE,[2.] Q. What is your number one wish on your birthday?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very thankful that I have had the opportunity I have had these years to be the instrument of the Democratic Party, to do what I could; and I am very grateful to all the people who have made it possible and the party that made it possible. I am very appreciative to Congress.,Overall, if you look at it, I don't have any cause to complain about individuals. We have not had any purges. We have not had everything we want, but not really anything important to us was sabotaged. That is true of the other party. I don't think the Republican Party has been as harmful or even as political as they have been in other administrations.,I went to Washington almost 40 years ago, in 1931. I had a very clear concept that I picked up from my grandfather and my father that I have expressed to you a number of times. There is no use taking your time repeating it, but the American people didn't ask for much.,They wanted food for their bodies and clothes to cover them, and a home, a decent place to live, and education for their children, and health for their family.,I would like to see all these things without discrimination and peace without war. I think we have worked at that for 40 years. We have made some progress in advancing all of those things, but they are all still very basic.,As I have said to you many times, there is much more yet to do. I look forward to doing what I can to get more and better housing, more and better education, more. and better health, more and better justice for all of us citizens.,Specifically answering your question, I guess I would like for all of our boys to be able to come home and lay down their arms and live in dignity without fear.,You can imagine what it would do for this room if Pat threw off that helmet and left that C-123 and came in here and saw this kid this afternoon, or if Chuck would get out of Danang and come home and meet Lynda Bird when her plane lands out there.3,3The President was referring to his sons-ln-law, AIC. Patrick J. Nugent, Air National Guard, and Capt. Charles S. Robb, USMC, both serving in Vietnam, and to his grandson, Patrick Lyndon Nugent.,There are 600,000 more there, and hundreds of thousands other places in the world. So if you could just mash a button, I guess you would want all humanity to live at peace with each other.,We are trying hard to do that and I am happy that we are at least talking about it. Since March we have been exchanging views. Every week brings some different development-some encouragement. If you specified them and got too enthusiastic about them, why, you would hold out hope and maybe be disappointed. Some weeks they bring discouragement. If you got pessimistic about it, you might not try so many different things. But I think we are not going to make much progress in this field until the conventions get over and until it is recognized that under the American political system, parties select each one of the nominees and then the American people get behind whoever is the chosen leader.,Until January 20, I will exercise that leadership. I think everybody knows my views. I am hopeful that the views of the nominees of the conventions will not be too divergent so the world will not have to wait until November to try to pick the softest spot.,FURTHER QUESTION ON THE CONVENTION,[3.] Q. Mr. President, when you said you were leaning over backwards not to give any credibility to the people who made statements about predicting your views, do you mean people who predicted you would try to influence the Convention heavily and try to get the Convention to go in the direction you wanted?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't mean anybody in particular. There is not anything wrong with the President going to the Convention and saying, \"Here's how I feel.\" I have been to one when President Roosevelt left us a letter and another when President Truman came with Averell Harriman. I just haven't done it. It is probably proper and within my right. Some people might even think it is within my duty. I am not being critical of any human and certainly not of the press.,When we decide where we are going, the first person I will let know is Mrs. Johnson and the second will be George Christian.4,4 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,Carroll Kilpatrick, The Washington Post: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-07-31","text":"STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON STEEL PRICE INCREASES,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] The Bethlehem Steel Company this morning announced an across-the-board increase of almost 5 percent in steel mill products. If this action were followed by the rest of the steel industry, it would have dire economic consequences for our Nation:\n--resulting in a price increase exceeding one-half billion dollars to the American consumer,\n--setting back the efforts of all Americans to reverse the current inflationary trend and get back on the road to price stability,\n--creating pressures for price increases across the whole range of products that are made out of steel,\n--eroding our world competitive position and jeopardizing our balance of payments, and\n--aggravating the steel industry's own problems in meeting competition from foreign producers and substitute materials.,Steel prices have been moving gradually upward on a selective basis. A general price increase has been wisely avoided. I stated last May, and I quote, \"The relative stability of steel prices has been one of the key favorable factors in our recent price record, and it must be preserved.\",The steel companies and the union reached a collective bargaining agreement yesterday. The terms of their settlement are high. That settlement will result in some increases in steel costs, but the announced Bethlehem price increase far exceeds any reasonable calculation of the cost of the wage settlement.,Steel is the Nation's basic industrial product and the industry's pricing decisions affect our entire economy. Inflation in steel is inflation for the Nation. American consumers are now threatened by a price increase that will take $600 million a year directly out of their pockets and pocketbooks and at the very time they are paying increased taxes as their contribution to the urgent task of restoring price stability.,According to the ticker this afternoon, Bethlehem Steel Company, with sales buoyed by second-quarter hedged buying against a strike that never came, today reported net profits of $93,400,000 for the first half of 1968, a 41 percent increase over last year's first half.,The Bethlehem price increase is unreason- able and just should not be permitted to stand. The public interest must be recognized by the entire steel industry in its price decisions at this critical time.,I spoke on this general subject to the Business Council, as some of you may remember, that met at Hot Springs back on May 11, 1968. I believe at the ranch on July 23, 1968, I had another statement to make on it for your reference.1,1 See Items 241 and 404.,The Cabinet Committee on Price Stability made reference to it in a release to you in July of 1968.,Those statements are available to you through the Press Office if you care to take them.,STATEMENT ON RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR IMPACTED SCHOOL AID,[2.] I have one additional statement that I would like to make and then I will be glad to have your questions on these or on any other subjects.,We are reserving the $91 million for impacted school aid that the Congress added to the second 1968 supplemental bill over and above our budget. These funds are in addition to those requested by the administration and they will add to 1969 budget expenditures.,Both the House and Senate have also added another $110 million to the fiscal 1969 request for impacted school aid.,Therefore, these two items will add $200 million to the 1969 budget over and above that requested. Faced with the requirement in the law to cut expenditures in the budget by $6 billion in fiscal 1969, I do not believe that it is good public policy to add another $200 million to that budget.,In other words, the Congress in one breath says you must cut $6 billion from your budget as you send it to Congress, and while doing that, we add another $200 million over and above that budget. That would make $6 billion 200 million we would have to cut out.,We knew that the anticipated relief expenditures for public welfare--public assistance expenditures--because of the action taken by the Ways and Means Committee by postponing for a year the legislation in that regard, will cost us probably $125 million more.,We know that the Supreme Court ruling, the \"man-in-the-house\" ruling, will probably cost another $75 million, making an additional $200 million there.\nBecause of the extra good weather and the bountiful harvest in wheat and other commodities, no human can guess, but we are anticipating the possibility that extra funds will be required for additional payments. It is not unlikely that we would have to cut $6 1/2 billion or close to $7 billion from the budget I proposed.,Therefore, I do not believe that we should add to that budget now in any way, where it can be avoided. There are 4,300 school districts involved in this matter, but there are 138 school districts which receive a substantial amount of their revenue from this source. These are school districts in which there are a large number of \"A\" students. An \"A\" student is the student whose parents work or live in a Government installation and, therefore, do not contribute to the local taxes.\nOf the $91 million, only $22 million would go for \"A\" student entitlements, that is, where the parents live and work in Government installations and do not contribute to local taxes. Out of the $201 million for fiscal '68 and '69, approximately 25 percent, I am informed, would go to \"A\" students.,I would agree to the payment for the full entitlement for \"A\" students in fiscal 1968 and 1969 if Congress had decided in its wisdom that that was essential. This would add less than $50 million, instead of the $200 million, to the budget. I would hope this would relieve the real hardship cases. It is always difficult to reserve any money that has been appropriated.,I believe that the decision of the Congress to reduce $6 billion, and the decision in the Congress and the \"man-in-the-house\" decisions of the Court adding a couple of hundred million more on public assistance, and then the problem of $200 million here on education, and then the problem of $300 million or $400 million, maybe, on extra agricultural payments, would get you up to $700 million or $800 million, plus the $6 billion.,We are going to have to make those reduction adjustments. I think we should make the announcements now and inform the interested parties.,I will be glad to take any questions that you may have.,QUESTIONS,ADMINISTRATION CONTACT WITH STEEL OFFICIALS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, have you or administration officials been in direct contact with Bethlehem Steel officials concerning your concern over the price increase?,THE PRESIDENT. We met with the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability this morning. They met and reviewed this very carefully and thoroughly. They made their recommendations to me in the form of a statement, most of which is incorporated in my statement.\nDuring the lunch hour, about 3:30 or 4 o'clock, I met with the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fowler, and my staff assistant, Mr. Califano.2 We explored the matter rather fully for perhaps an hour.,2 Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,I asked that various members of the Cabinet notify interested parties. I assume that has been done, or is being done, or will be done during the day. I have not checked it since I came back from lunch.,THE SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question about the Vietnam situation.,At the time of the enunciation of the so-called San Antonio formula,3 as I understand it, I believe that you said that the United States, in order to get the talks started, was willing to assume that while the discussions take place, the Communists would not take advantage of a halt to the bombing.,3 Stated by the President in an address before the National Legislative Conference at San Antonio, Texas, September 29, 1967. See 1967 volume, this series, Book II, Item 409.,Since that time, specifically in the Honolulu conference, President Thieu and yesterday Secretary of State Rusk, seemed to have changed the administration's position to one of requiring some kind of formal commitment by the Communists before we would agree to a halt to the bombing. Is there a change, indeed, in our position?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Pierpoint,4 I would think the key word in your question is \"seem.\" It does not seem that way to President Thieu. It does not seem that way to Secretary Rusk. As Mr. Christian5 informed you yesterday, it does not seem that way to the President.,4 Robert C. Pierpoint of CBS News.,5George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,We have no information that it seems that way to North Vietnam. I don't know how else to get at it. You no doubt are aware that they have rejected the San Antonio formula. Since then we have had the March 31st speech6 which made additional proposals and which brought us to the conference table in Paris. Those negotiations are now going on there.,6 See Item 170.,There has been no change. Nothing Secretary Rusk said yesterday changes our position. The facts are very clear to those who have the information on them.\nThe number of North Vietnamese soldiers now entering South Vietnam at the end of the Ho Chi Minh trail is now greater than at any other time in this war. We estimated that 30,000 or more North Vietnamese soldiers entered South Vietnam in July. We estimate that even more, Mr. Pierpoint, will come in August.,I have an unclassified portion of a report today that gives some insight into what our men, fighting for our freedom there, are confronted with.,\"North Vietnam's efforts to expand and diversify its military and logistic capabilities continue unabated.\",These are not assuming things. These are facts.,\"All indicators of traffic movement are at high levels with observed water traffic activity reaching record levels.,\"Flight activity south of the 20th parallel has increased during recent weeks and days. More than 1,200 small watercraft were sighted south of the 19th parallel--four times the weekly average observed since April of 1968.,\"Truck sightings were 25 percent above the weekly average since April 1. Pilot reports of trucks destroyed--40 percent above the average; although rear service traffic has decreased somewhat, the total traffic for the month of July will probably be three times greater than that detected during the month of March.\",To give you an illustration, the week of 15-21 July, we sighted 947 trucks as compared to the weekly average of 717 in April. That gives you some insight into what we can assume and what we know.,In March, the short-term tons per day traffic was 107 tons. In April it was 215. In May it was 238. In June it was 274. In the first 19 days of July it was 320.\nIn North Vietnam itself, the movement of troops and war south appears to he down from the all-time high of recent months but is more than twice as high as the 1967 average.,Now our bombing activity in the very restricted area that we placed upon it on March 31st results in our damaging many of these trucks that are headed south on the infiltration routes.,That means to all of you that many of the enemy soldiers who are being sent south never have a chance to shoot an American soldier. They don't get there. It means a great deal of ammunition that is carried in those trucks is not available to them to unload on your boys there. It means that many of the bullets and the rockets and the shells being sent south are destroyed and never get fired.,We have every reason to believe in a cable this morning from our commanders which indicates that the enemy is preparing a massive attack on our forces and those of our allies.,That is the lesson that we draw from infiltration that is taking place. That is what the captured prisoners tell us that their plans are and their orders are and their instructions are.,That is what we learned from the documents that we take from those prisoners when they give dates, times, and places. That is the apparent purpose of the huge arms caches that we have discovered and that we are daily destroying. That is what we are told from other forms of various secret intelligence that we have.,That is the unanimous judgment of your best military leaders in that area. That is the assessment of our allies with whom we have just conferred.\nI met with Secretary Bundy 7 last night at some length after he had paid visits to some of our allies.,7 William P. Bundy, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.,There is, therefore, evidence that a massive enemy effort is underway to reequip--the President has this evidence where he can see it--and to retrain for massive attacks upon South Vietnam and particularly on certain specified major cities.,We were hopeful on March 31st, and we are still hopeful, that the substantial act of restraint against the enemy that we took would be matched by some similar acts of restraint on their part. But the regroupings and rebuilding of thousands of men and deployment grounds a few miles from Saigon, the launching of 100-odd rockets on Danang the other day, just last week, the activity that we encounter and that we observe, makes us discouraged, and we would hope that the enemy offensive which seems imminent could be aborted.,I cannot ignore this evidence. I cannot order the cessation of further unilateral acts of bombing of the infiltration routes--that are headed toward our men--which are crowded today with men and war materials that the enemy needs. I cannot just step aside and leave our men in the lurch.,Everyone, I think, is dear on one thing: We are prepared to halt the bombing when we feel confident that the halt in the bombing will not lead to the loss of heavy American and allied casualties. More than that I cannot do, and more than that you should not have me do.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON STEEL PRICES,[5.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could go back to the steel statement for just a moment.,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly.,Q. You seem to be asking for a voluntary rollback on the part of Bethlehem Steel in their price increase. Are there any instruments you have that could compel them, because of the nature of this, to roll back the prices?,THE PRESIDENT. We are, of course, very hopeful that the other steel companies will not join this parade. We urge them and reason with them, and counsel with them and plead with them not to do so.,If they do not do so, we hope the competitive factors would, as they have in the past, bring about a readjustment on the action that the Bethlehem Company has taken.,Q. Mr. President, in your opening statement, sir, you mentioned only Bethlehem Steel. I believe that U.S.. Steel has also taken an increase which is higher in percentage, although more limited in scope. Do you mean to include them in your comments about Bethlehem Steel also, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We were not talking about the selective increases that individual companies have made gradually upward. We were talking about the general price increase across the board of almost 5 percent in the steel mill products.,We naturally hope that all prices can be carefully studied and any unnecessary and absolutely unessential increases can be avoided, because it is of just as much interest to the companies involved in maintaining their world competitive position and trying to reverse the inflationary trend as it is yours and mine.,The ones that are particularly disturbing are the general price increases such as Bethlehem made. Our people--the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Smith; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury; and the Secretary of Labor--are all very concerned about this particular action.,THE NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT IN VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in your judgment, do you think the National Liberation Front could ever be taken in as a group, into the political process of life in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We have covered this time and time again. I have asked Mr. Christian to give you all my statements on that question.,We have said that the National Liberation Front, in our judgment is a pure Communist front for Hanoi. The evidence indicates that, although there is great effort in the Front to conceal their real purpose and identity.,We have said that Hanoi would find no difficulty in getting their views, as they do all the time, and have them reflected in any discussions or any exchanges. They would have no difficulty in making their position known in conference.,POSSIBLE ACTION IN THE STEEL SITUATION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in 1962, during the steel crisis of that year, there was some talk or discussion of the possibility of cutting off defense orders to the steel companies that had raised prices. Do you envisage any necessity for that at this time in the case of Bethlehem?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't studied the 1962 action. I wasn't heavily involved in that. We have gone no further than what we thought would be the wise and prudent course that is envisaged in this statement today.,We will be talking to the companies and hoping that they will see the national interest involved here and the problem that confronts the Nation in this critical period. We will try to do the best and hope that that appeal will be considered and that, to the extent that they can, they will comply with it.,THE PARIS PEACE TALKS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that the Paris peace talks are in danger of breaking down. Do you feel that that is a possibility; and if this attack that you expect does materialize in South Vietnam, would that have any bearing on the peace talks?,THE PRESIDENT. We continue to hope for the best in the peace talks. So many of our people have encouraged me to believe that if we would take some act of deescalation, we might meet with a response from the other side. I have taken that action. I want to give them all the time necessary to consider it and talk to their allies about it.,There is always the chance that we will have to act promptly on additional military measures if the enemy puts our men in danger. We are not invading North Vietnam. We have exercised great restraint by removing from the limits of attack 90 percent of their population and almost 80 percent of their area.,We are hoping that that will be recognized and, in fact, acted upon by them. I cannot anticipate the full extent of all of their actions-military and diplomatic--but if a major offensive does occur, our commanders believe that we are in a position to deal with it and they will be prepared to do so.8,8On August 1 the President met at the White House with William J. Jordan, a member of the United States delegation at the Paris peace negotiations. After the meeting the White House Press Office released the following statement:,The President met for a half hour this morning with William J. Jorden, member of the U.S.. delegation at the peace negotiations in Paris.,Mr. Jorden reviewed for the President the current state of the Paris talks, including the various constructive proposals that have been made by the U.S.. delegation to move the conversations in the direction of a resolution of the Vietnam war. He also described the consistent refusal of the North Vietnamese delegation to enter into serious discussion of any proposals, except their demand that all bombing of the North be ended.,The President expressed his earnest desire for an early and honorable end to the fighting. He told Mr. Jorden that the world had called upon the United States to exercise restraint in Vietnam. In response, he had taken a major and unilateral step toward peace on March 31 by ending the bombing of military targets in nearly 80 percent of North Vietnam, an area where about 90 percent of the people of the North live. The President now hoped that the world would call on North Vietnam to show similar restraint. He regretted that such restraint had not yet been undertaken.,The President expressed his sincere hope that the North Vietnamese representatives in Paris would soon join with the American delegation in serious consideration of meaningful measures to bring the fighting in Vietnam to an end.,ASSESSMENT OF MISSILE DISARMAMENT TALKS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any assessment of the missile disarmament talks, how dose they seem to be? Are you encouraged at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. We have exchanged views a number of times over recent years about the importance of those talks. The first month of the first year that I was in the Presidency, I expressed myself rather fully concerning such matters as nonproliferation and offensive and defensive weapons, disarmament, and so forth.,We have been quite hopeful--at least I have been--that we could bring a satisfactory conclusion to the nonproliferation treaty,9 certainly, during this term, this administration.,9 See Item 349.,We also wanted very much to have talks at some level to start on offensive and defensive weapons. We went into that in considerable detail at Glassboro10 --periodically and often since--as often as very recently.,10For items related to the meetings of the President and Aleksei N. Kosygin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., at Glassboro, N.J., see 1967 volume, this series, Book I, Items 279, 280, 282, and 283.,We believe, on the basis of the information we have, barring any unforeseen emergency or development, that in a matter of a reasonably short time we should be able to have an agreement on the place and the dates to start and plan for those talks.,I know of nothing that I have dealt with in my almost 5 years as President that I believe to be as important as--there is nothing I am determined to succeed on as much as this, if it is at all possible. I cannot speak for the other side. But our side is ready, willing, and waiting.,DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, here in the District, the Black United Front is demanding community control of the police precincts and the Democratic chairman,11 has called for the resignation of Police Chief [John B.] Layton and appointment of a Negro in his place. What is your attitude toward such demands?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not informed on the demands. I regard Chief Layton very highly. I think that we deal a great deal of unnecessary abuse upon the people who protect our homes and our lives. That frequently happens in the case of the criticism--some of it unjustified--that we apply to our public officials, particularly our police officials.,11 Bruce Terris, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee in the District of Columbia.,We all make mistakes. We all err at times. In retrospect, we can improve on what we have done. But I think our police should be supported when they are right.,I know of no justification for the removal of Chief Layton. It is not up to the President to select him or to remove him. When he was selected, I had hoped that the Commissioners could review all of the men available to the Nation and select the most outstanding chief for the assignment in the District. I indicated that to the Commissioners.,The Commissioners acted, though, before they notified me. Chief Layton was selected without my knowledge or without any evaluation here. That was proper that that be done, although I had hoped that we could concentrate on a thorough search of the Nation and get the best. I think they felt they did. I am not in possession of any facts that would indicate that the demands that you have referred to--which I have not studied--are justified.,SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask you to comment on the situation regarding your appointments to the Supreme Court, Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry.12,12The nominations of Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and of Judge Homer Thornberry as an Associate Justice of the U.S.. Supreme Court were announced by the President in his news conference of June 26, 1968 (see Item 339). For later statements by the President concerning the nominations, see Items 509, 527.,Are you discouraged with the proceedings in the Senate and the treatment that has been accorded Mr. Fortas so far by the Senate Judiciary Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know that I can improve the situation by any comments that I would make. I certainly don't want to inflame it any.,The first knowledge that I had that the Chief Justice, who was appointed when he was Republican Governor of California by President Eisenhower, desired to retire was when he asked for an appointment and came in and told me he desired to retire. I asked him to reconsider.\nI tried to prevail upon him as earnestly as I could and as persuasively as I could to continue, because I thought he was in good health and he said he was.,I did not have in mind any person to appoint as his successor in the last days of the Senate which I thought then would be going home early. We discussed it at some length, but he was very firm.,I expressed the hope that he would think it over and he told me no, that he would be sending me a letter later that day; that there would be two letters, a letter of resignation at my pleasure, and the other, the detailed reasons for his resignation.,Those letters came in,13 and I still hoped that he would give some thought to it and reconsider it. I respectfully submitted the letters to the legal authorities in the Department of Justice who handle appointment matters and check those things.,13The two letters from Chief Justice Earl Warren, and his own letter in reply, were read by the President at his news conference of June 26, 1968 (see Item 339).,I asked for a list of possible successors. We had many, many conferences for days, even after it had leaked out and some of you were asking questions about when the resignation would be announced and accepted.,Extended discussion took place between the President and his advisers in the Department of Justice and some of the other members of the Cabinet. I believe that we all hoped that the Chief Justice would stay, but since he would not stay, it was discussed whether the President should put a new man on the Court or promote a man from the Court to that position.,After I heard the various viewpoints, I concluded that we should promote someone from within the Court. We looked over the various members of the Court. A list was made up. The first name on that list submitted to me was the man I nominated as Chief Justice. His name was submitted to the Bar Association and they were asked to examine it and comment on it and give us their reaction.,They arranged for some kind of a consultation with, I am told, some 10 or 12 outstanding lawyers from the American Bar Association from different regions covering the entire United States.,We waited for that consultation. Following that, the Attorney General informed me that the man who was at the head of the list submitted to me had been found by all the American Bar Association members in all regions of the country to be, I believe he said, \"highly qualified.\" You can read the language.,We then looked at the California Circuit and Texas Circuit because of the vacancy left by Justice [Tom C.] Clark and because of the vacancy left by Justice Warren.,We looked at the experience. The Fifth Circuit (Texas) was a busy circuit. The California Circuit was also a busy circuit. I do not know a great many lawyers personally in either circuit. I considered several, though, on both circuits, as did the Attorney General.,I talked to several Members of the Senate about these men, including the leaders of various groups--Democratic groups, Republican groups, and other groups, young groups and older groups--and I submitted several names to them that I had under consideration for the Court posts.,After talking to them, I concluded that, in the words of Mr. Christopher,14 \"It is a very rare thing to find a man with the unusual qualifications of our Associate Justice, Justice Thornberry.\",14 Warren Christopher, Deputy Attorney General.,He had been a law enforcement officer for several years. He had been a mayor pro tem of a city for several years. He had been a member of a State legislature for several years. He had been a prosecuting attorney trying cases every day in the courtroom for some time. He had been a Member of Congress for 15 years. He is the only man now on the Court, if he is confirmed, to have ever served both on the trial court and the appellate court.,The members of the American Bar Association and the Senate had repeatedly recommended, I believe, that we promote judges to the Supreme Court from the appellate courts or the district trial courts. In this case, Judge Thornberry had served at both the city hall level, the State level, and the congressional level. There is only one other man now on the Court who has had legislative experience, and that is Justice [Hugo L.] Black.,After talking to the leaders of Congress, I submitted Judge Thornberry's name to the American Bar Association committee for the United States Supreme Court appointments. They had consultation on Justice Thornberry and representatives of the 12 regions all over the country found him \"highly qualified.\",I did not anticipate that there would be any opposition because both of these men had been confirmed twice previously by the Senate--Justice Fortas as Under Secretary of the Interior Department, and as Associate Justice just 2 or 3 years before, and Judge Thornberry as a district trial court judge and as a circuit court judge.,But while we were getting these clearances, there was a statement made by a group of Republican Senators who said that no appointment should be made because of this being an election year.,I analyzed that and asked for comment on that statement. I don't believe that many Senators felt that the President should refuse to send two names to the Senate for action on two Supreme Court appointments for 6 or 7 months, or that I should play that I was not President for that period.,As a matter of fact, just a few days before, some of the Senators who have since objected were recommending that I appoint their own judges and some are recommending that I appoint them now, and we will be sending some of their judges up as soon as the American Bar Association gives clearance.,So it is a matter for the Senate. I have no doubt that these two men, both of whom have been promoted from the bench, are qualified. I have no doubt but what a very substantial majority in the Senate believes them to be qualified.,Some men who said they will vote against them believe they are qualified and said they would vote for them next January if another President named them.,What the Senate decides is a matter for them. I have made my decision and promoted two good men.,Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-06-26","text":"RESIGNATION OF CHIEF JUSTICE\nEARL WARREN,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] On June 13th I received letters from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which read as follows:,\"Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C., section 371(b), I hereby advise you of my intention to retire as Chief Justice of the United States effective at your pleasure.\n\"Respectfully yours,\n\"EARL WARREN.\",\"My dear Mr. President:,\"In connection with my retirement letter of today, I desire to state my reason for doing so at this time.,\"I want you to know that it is not because of reasons of health or on account of any personal or associational problems, but solely because of age. I have been advised that I am in as good physical condition as a person of my age has any right to expect. My associations on the Court have been cordial and satisfying in every respect, and I have enjoyed each day of the fifteen years I have been here.,\"The problem of age, however, is one that no man can combat and, therefore, eventually must bow to it. I have been continuously in the public service for more than fifty years. When I entered the public service, 150 million of our 200 million people were not yet born. I, therefore, conceive it to be my duty to give way to someone who will have more years ahead of him to cope with the problems which will come to the Court.,\"I believe there are few people who have enjoyed serving the public or who are more grateful for the opportunity to have done so than I. I take leave of the Court with the warmest of feelings for every member on it and for the institution which we have jointly served in the years I have been privileged to be part of it.,\"With my very best wishes for your continued good health and happiness, I am\n\"Sincerely,\n\"EARL WARREN\",I responded to that letter today, June 26th, as follows:\n\"My dear Mr. Chief Justice:,\"It is with the deepest regret that I learn of your desire to retire, knowing how much the Nation has benefited from your service as Chief Justice. However, in deference to your wishes, I will seek a replacement to fill the vacancy in the office of Chief Justice that will be occasioned when you depart. With your agreement, I will accept your decision to retire effective at such time as a successor is qualified.,\"You have won for yourself the esteem of your fellow citizens. You have served your Nation with exceptional distinction and deserve the Nation's gratitude.,\"Under your leadership, the Supreme Court of the United States has once again demonstrated the vitality of this Nation's institutions and their capacity to meet with vigor and strength the challenge of changing times. The Court has acted to achieve justice, fairness, and equality before the law for all people.,\"Your wisdom and strength will inspire generations of Americans for many decades to come.,\"Fortunately, retirement does not mean that you will withdraw from service to your Nation and to the institutions of the law. I am sure that you will continue, although retired from active service as Chief Justice, to respond to the calls which will be made upon you to furnish continued inspiration and guidance to the development of the rule of law both internationally and in our own Nation. Nothing is more important than this work which you undertook so willingly and have so well advanced.\n\"Sincerely,\n\"LYNDON B. JOHNSON\",NOMINATION OF NEW CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE,[2.] I have the nomination for the Chief Justice. The nomination will go to the Senate shortly. It is Justice Abe Fortas of the State of Tennessee. His background will be available to you as prepared by the Justice Department.,To the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, when Mr. Fortas is elevated, I am nominating Judge Thornberry, presently on the fifth circuit. Also he is a former Federal district judge, and his home is in Austin, Texas. I think most of you know him.,I will sign those nominations momentarily. They will be at the Senate when the Senate opens today.,QUESTIONS,SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS,Q. Judge Thornberry's first name?,THE PRESIDENT. Homer.,Q. Sir, have you decided whom you are going to name to take Mr. Thornberry's place on the fifth circuit?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate any trouble in having the Senate ratify these?,THE PRESIDENT. I would suspect that they would review their records very carefully. I believe when they do, that they will meet with the approval of the Senate.,Q. Did you discuss this with Senator Eastland 1 or anybody else on the Judiciary Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have discussed it with the leadership, with several Members of the Senate, the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership, and the leadership of the committee.,1 Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.,GUN CONTROL,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you judge the temper of Congress now to be such that you might expect to get any, if not all, or most of the restrictions that you have proposed in the gun legislation yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that we could. I am not able to predict. This is the first day they are taking testimony in the Senate. I haven't followed that this morning. I understand that the Attorney General, Mr. Glenn, and others were appearing, along with Mayor Lindsay.2 But I don't have an up-to-date report on that testimony or what action they will take.,2Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Col. John H. Glenn, Jr., former astronaut and leader of a nationwide write-in campaign organized by the Emergency Committee for Gun Control, and Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York City.,Q. Mr. President, Monday I think you recommended that other mayors follow the example of Mayor Alioto 3 on a set of programs to try to encourage people to turn in guns. I know that you happen to have some guns down at the ranch. I was wondering by any chance if you are thinking of turning in some of your guns?,THE PRESIDENT. If we have any that would meet that qualification, we would be glad to do it.3 Mayor Joseph Alioto of San Francisco.,NORTH VIETNAMESE ACTION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that the North Vietnamese are infiltrating at a larger rate into the South. Would you comment on that and comment on the ground situation, as well as reports that some offensive on their part is expected?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think I would want to comment on that now.,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN'S REVIEW OF THE PARIS TALKS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about your talks with Ambassador Harriman? 4,THE PRESIDENT. The Ambassador reviewed with me the situation as he saw it. He brought me up to date on the exchanges and gave me his evaluations. I don't think there is a great deal that he said to me that he hasn't said in meeting the press following these various meetings. We discussed some of the thoughts he had in mind and certain ideas that he had, and reviewed them. We exchanged views.,4W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large and U.S. Representative to the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam.,COMMUNIST PRESSURE ON WEST BERLIN,[6.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think are the reasons for the intensified Communist pressure on West Berlin at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not able to evaluate the reasons for the Communist action.,POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the Resurrection City encampment has now been ended and some of its leaders are embarking on the strategy of civil disobedience and the rest are wanting to be arrested. Do you think any good purpose can be served by this kind of behavior?,THE PRESIDENT. I made a rather lengthy statement at my press conference before the march.5 There is not much I can add to that. I think that everyone in Washington in a position to serve the people of this country is going to do everything he can to aid the poor.,5See Item 223 [9].,I have pending between $70 billion and $80 billion worth of programs that are regarded as social programs.,We are doing everything we can to get those programs funded by the Appropriations Committee. I would hope that anyone who is concerned with the poor would make appropriate representations and certainly express their viewpoints, but not do it in such a way that finds them conflicting with the law of the land.,UNITED STATES-SOVIET RELATIONS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you directed yourself to relations with the Soviet Union three times recently--Glassboro and twice subsequently. Is there anything you would like to add to that; possibly evaluate the relationship?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,ANTIPOVERTY FUNDS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the poor, would you like to see the House restore the funds cut by the Appropriations Committee for education in the antipoverty program?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have made our recommendations to the committee during the consideration of the bill. And we have done so since they have acted.,SENATOR MC CARTHY AND THE PARIS TALKS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Senator McCarthy 6 has said he may go over to Paris to find out more about the peace talks and perhaps talk to the representatives of Hanoi. Do you have any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,6 Senator Eugene J. McCarthy of Minnesota, candidate for the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination.,PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to meet Prime Minister Trudeau? 7,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans, no.,7 Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau of Canada.,SIGNING OF THE TAX BILL,[12.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any indication when you might sign the tax bill? 8,THE PRESIDENT. I would think shortly, in the next day or two. I think that all of you are familiar with the problems we have with these bills. Under the Constitution, the President has 10 days to act.,8 See Item 343.,When these bills are messaged down, they go to a central point in the executive branch of the Government. They don't come to the President's desk. He, in turn, circulates the measures for examination to all the other departments concerned.,Depending on how much new material is in it and how familiar they are with the various sections, the groups meet and analyze and evaluate and make their recommendations. That is true on every piece of general legislation.,Some of them can make evaluations quicker than others. It is easier if the bill that you submit is passed as you submitted it, because you have already considered it. But if they change it as they do in most bills, you have to go back and have all that reviewed and see how it affects the expenditures and the policies of the Government.,I am not sure just when this examination process will be completed. As soon as it is, and I can read their comments, I will be prepared to act.,MEETING WITH PRESIDENT THIEU,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to meet soon with President Thieu of South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure just when that meeting will take place. I don't have a date on it now.,POSSIBILITY OF SUMMIT MEETING OR TRIP TO SOVIET UNION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, we keep getting these reports or rumors from abroad that a summit meeting between yourself and Mr. Kosygin 9 may be forthcoming soon, or before January 20 of next year.,9 Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin of the Soviet Union.,Is there anything in the works for a summit meeting or a trip to the Soviet Union by yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. I know of no basis for those rumors. I have no plans for it.,POSSIBILITY OF LATIN AMERICAN TRIP,[15.] Q. As long as we are on the subject of possible travel, Mr. President, there are also recurring rumors or reports that you might go to Latin America at about the time you go down to the Hemis-Fair celebration.,Can you pin those down for us one way or the other?,THE PRESIDENT. When I can, I will.,I wouldn't deal in rumors very much though, if I were you. George 10 will always make this available to you just the first moment he can.,10George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,As a matter of fact, before I could sign these nominations that came over from the Justice Department, we called you in.,I am going to proceed to sign them so we can get them up there before 12 o'clock.,Douglas Cornell, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-05-30","text":"OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Prime Minister and Mrs. Gorton, General Westmoreland, ladies and gentlemen:,We are delighted to have you here with us today.,I have an announcement or two to make.,VICE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY,First, I should like to announce the promotion of Lieutenant General Bruce Palmer, Jr., to the full rank of General.,General Palmer will be retiring from his current position as Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Vietnam, to become Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army with headquarters in Washington.,He will serve as the Vice Chief of Staff to General Westmoreland,1 who will be Chief of Staff.,1Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, became Army Chief of Staff in July 1968.,General Palmer has a distinguished military career spanning 31 years of service. He has been in Vietnam since March 1967, serving as the Commanding General of the Second Field Forces and as the Deputy Commanding General.,COMMANDER IN' CHIEF OF THE ARMY IN THE PACIFIC,[2.] In addition, I am announcing the reassignment of General Ralph E. Haines, Jr., as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army in the Pacific.,He will replace General Dwight E. Beach, who is retiring.,General Haines presently serves as Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army.,I am also announcing numerous other promotions which will be supplied to you by the Press Secretary.,TALKS WITH PRIME MINISTER GORTON,[3.] We are delighted to have with us today the distinguished Prime Minister, Mr. Gorton, and Mrs. Gorton, from Australia. Although Mr. Gorton and I had met before in Canberra, this was our first meeting since he became Prime Minister.,We took the occasion to spend a good deal of time together since his arrival last Monday.,As all of you know, the ties between Australia and the United States grow stronger each year. As part of this shared vision, and to honor our common interests and commitments, our men are now fighting side by side under General Westmoreland's leadership in Vietnam.,So we have reviewed together, with Ambassador Vance,2 who returned from the Paris talks, the progress of the Paris talks.,This morning, with General Westmoreland, we reviewed the course of the battle on the ground.,2Ambassador Cyrus R. Vance, U.S. negotiator at the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam.,As a result of our talks, I am confident that we have strengthened the bonds between our two countries as we face together the hard but the productive tasks which lie before us in the months ahead.,PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION,[4.] It now gives me very special pride to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the D Company of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment for extraordinary heroism while serving in Vietnam.,I have long had reason to know personally what we have learned as a nation over the past half century since the World War. That is, that in a fight, there is no better man to have by your side than an Australian.,Only yesterday morning I received a typical report of Australians in combat. A very small unit of the 3d Royal Australian Regiment was blocking an infiltration route toward Saigon 26 miles northeast of the capital. About 1,000 of the enemy, some fresh from North Vietnam, threw themselves against this Australian base.,Heavy fighting took place over a hours. The enemy withdrew, leaving 44 dead and 32 weapons on the battlefield. Seven prisoners were captured.,General Westmoreland sent a message of congratulations to Major General MacDonald who commands the Australian forces in Vietnam.,Now this is the kind of steady courage that we have come to expect from the Australians, and I think this is a very good moment to remind all of the American people of this fact.,The war is not being fought in Vietnam simply by Americans; it is being fought by the South Vietnamese, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Koreans, the Thais, and the Filipinos.,Together, we shall bring a just and honorable peace to Southeast Asia, for that is our objective--and I want to repeat, that is our only objective.,From last summer to the end of March of this year, we have made a very special effort to move this war to the conference table and to peace talks.,On March 31, in a speech to the Nation,3 I said that we would undertake a major unilateral act of de-escalation. We would lift the bombing from most of the territory and population of North Vietnam, including Hanoi and Haiphong, and we would free our hands so we could concentrate every resource at our command in the search for peace.,3 See Item 170.,At that time I announced that I would not seek or accept the Presidential nomination.,I felt that these two steps might--just might--bring Hanoi to the conference table.,A month went by, but that has now happened, and these talks are being conducted in Paris.,I cannot report to the American people any substantive progress, nor can I even report that Hanoi has matched our restraint with theirs.,But if Hanoi will take responsive action, we are ready to go far and fast with them, and with others, to reduce the violence and to build a stable peace in Southeast Asia.,We have done everything that we know how to do to bring us to this point, and we shall continue to do everything that we know how to do to bring peace to the world.,Now it gives me great pleasure to present the Presidential Unit Citation to the distinguished Prime Minister.,We would be glad to have a word from him if he cares to.,REMARKS OF PRIME MINISTER GORTON,[5.] PRIME MINISTER GORTON. Mr. President, Mrs. Johnson, General Westmoreland, ladies and gentlemen:,I accept with a feeling of very great pride in my countrymen this Presidential Citation which has been awarded for their heroism in action. So I shall take it and hand it to the Chief of Staff of the Australian Army. He and all Australians will feel the same pride that I do, that this has been presented for what they on that day did.,I would like, too, to thank you, sir, during this brief visit of mine to the United States, for I leave tomorrow, for all the time which you have put aside for discussions with me, and for all the time which your senior officials and secretaries of relevant departments have put aside for discussions with me. I feel that this has been of great advantage to me, and I believe that we know each other's minds as to the problems of the Southeast Asian area generally, and as to the future we both wish to see in the Southeast Asian area generally--a future where prosperity is able to be based upon peace and peace is able to be based on an absence from fear.,I thank you, sir.,REMARKS OF GENERAL WESTMORELAND,[6.] THE PRESIDENT. General Westmoreland arrived earlier this morning and briefed me, and together--I heard a somewhat detailed report with the Prime Minister of Australia of developments in South Vietnam. I should like to ask him to summarize for the American people and for those of you who have come here today, briefly, that report he has given to us. General Westmoreland.,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen:,I am happy to summarize my discussion on the situation in Vietnam.,First, what are the current objectives of the enemy?,In my opinion, his primary objective is to destroy the Government of South Vietnam.,This has been his objective since 1958, but Hanoi is now emphasizing this objective more than ever before.,Secondly, he wants to develop an image of strength in the eyes of the people of the United States and the world in the hope that this will bring about an attitude of futility toward the success of our objective of a free and independent South Vietnam.,How is he attempting to accomplish these objectives?,First, by resorting to terrorizing the people, creating refugees, and attempting to coerce the people to demonstrate against the Government.,Second, by waging a massive worldwide propaganda campaign based on distorted information.,Third, by defeating Vietnamese troops and isolating them from the American and free world forces.,Fourth, by defeating the United States units for propaganda purposes.,Finally, by seizing territory and thereby strengthening his posture in the South.,The enemy is having to deploy ever-larger numbers of men from the North, and the war is destined to become increasingly more and more of a North Vietnamese invasion of the South.,The North Vietnamese are strangers to the people in the South and are unfamiliar with the area. In fact, now over 72 percent of the organized combat forces, excluding guerrillas, are North Vietnamese.,It is estimated that there are approximately 90,000 North Vietnamese soldiers in the South, with more arriving every day.,The facade that the enemy has carefully created, that this is a war of the people, has been destroyed with the influx of hordes of North Vietnamese.,But in spite of this total effort, his only victories of the last few years have been in the propaganda field.,In this connection, I am confident that the enemy is receiving false reports from his field commanders. This partially explains his alleged and exaggerated battlefield successes, which are distorted by a factor of from 3 to 12, and in some cases even more.,In summary, the enemy seems to be approaching a point of desperation; his forces are deteriorating in strength and quality.,I forecast that these trends will continue.,On the other hand, the South Vietnamese armed forces are becoming progressively stronger and more effective. Our troops and those of our free world allies continue to perform in magnificent fashion.,However, we must be prepared for continued heavy fighting ahead, especially in the northern area, the highlands, and around Saigon.,But time is on our side. Endurance on the battlefield and patience at home are required.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, General Westmoreland. It is very difficult to give, in a few minutes, the full report that you have made today.,I have asked the General to take the statement that he dictated and reviewed with the Prime Minister and me and to make it available to you.4 You will have an opportunity to review the details of it much more at length than he has been able to go over with you now.,4The full text of General Westmoreland's statement is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, p. 888).,We are very happy General Westmoreland is returning to Washington to take the place formerly occupied by General \"Black lack\" Pershing, George Marshall, and Dwight Eisenhower as Chief of Staff of the United States Army and the leader of the United States Army in this country.,His performance has been exceptional and brilliant. I look forward to working very closely with him in the days ahead.,If there are any questions that you care to ask, I will be glad to receive them.,QUESTIONS,THE BOMBING PAUSE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the step-up of the war on the enemy side, the unprecedented infiltration of men and supplies, do you have any plan to reconsider your partial bombing pause?,THE PRESIDENT. We have under consideration appropriate actions every day. They are constantly being considered. What is the proper course to bring peace in the world? What is the proper course to bring an end to the war in South Vietnam?,THE TAX BILL AND THE 6 BILLION DOLLAR SPENDING CUT,[8.] Q. Mr. President, this week the House took action that would indicate the sense of the Congress is to tie a $6 billion cut in Federal spending to any tax increase. Would you be prepared to sign a tax bill that has that big a Federal cut in it?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Yes, for nearly 2 years I have urged the Congress to pass a tax bill. That tax amounts to about I cent on the dollar.,With it, though, I think America could follow a sound fiscal course, and I have repeated those recommendations week after week and month after month.,Without it, the gates of economic chaos, I think, could open, and I think the country would face several serious problems.,First, an inflation tax of at least 4 cents on every dollar.,Second, interest rates could go up as high as 10 percent.,Third, a severe housing depression would be in the offing.,Fourth, the disappearance of our world trade surplus.,Fifth, the end of our unprecedented 87 months of prosperity in this country.,Now the Nation and the Congress are faced with a tax bill. But it has coupled with it a $6 billion requirement in a reduction of expenditures. I deeply regret that we are faced with such a choice, as I have said on several occasions.,The budget that I submitted in January blended fiscal responsibility with what we considered urgent national purpose. That tight budget was my best judgment in January, and that is my best judgment today.,Nevertheless, the President does not make laws alone. He only approves measures that the Congress has passed.,I have indicated that I would approve a tax increase with a $4 billion cutback in 1969 expenditures.,Yesterday, however, the House of Representatives defeated a motion to limit the expenditure cutback to $4 billion.,So the only choice remaining now is whether the need for a tax increase is so urgent that we must accept the $6 billion reduction.,I believe that the need for a tax increase is that urgent. I believe that the national interest requires the tax increase as soon as possible.,Therefore, if the Congress will vote for the conference report containing the tax increase and the $6 billion expenditure cut, I shall approve it.,I urge the Congress to adopt the conference report at as early a date as possible, and give me the opportunity to sign the measure.5,5 The tax increase was enacted by the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, approved June 28 (see Item 343).,THE PARIS PEACE TALKS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you share the belief of Cyrus Vance that because North Vietnam is at the conference table in Paris, it eventually wants peace and that, therefore, these talks are going to, as Mr. Vance put it, move to the end and go into full-scale peace negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. We feel that as a result of our statement back in March, as I repeated earlier, that we had two steps to take: One was to try to get Hanoi to the conference table. That has been done.,Now how far we are going to get in those conferences is pure speculation. We don't know. We hope that we can have a satisfactory conference that will produce results.,I don't care to speculate. I do not feel it has produced any substantive results to this date.,I think we must all continue to try to explore every possible avenue; get down to substantive discussions as soon as possible.,But as to what the outcome might be, I think I would rather let developments take care of that.,THE TAX BILL,[10.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us where, if you get this bill now through Congress, you feel you would be forced to make most of these cuts in human terms, what the country is likely to lose from that kind of a spending cut?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have to make announcements on that. But I wouldn't want to make an announcement on a measure that I have not seen, and expenditure cuts that have not been made.,After the measure gets to me, and if it is in the amount that the conference report contains, I will sign it. Then we will ask the Budget Director to review with all the departments the cuts.,We generally feel that they will be divided in non-Vietnam defense expenditures and other budget expenditures. But I do not have the time or the information that would permit me to outline in specific detail how they would add up.,DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, today, in light of what has been happening in France, there is quite a run on the French franc. I wonder if you could give us your judgment on whether that will increase or decrease the pressures on the U.S. dollar.,THE PRESIDENT. We are very hopeful that the leadership of France and the people of France will find ways and means to bring stability in that country.,We realize that the developments there not only have a serious effect on France but on the entire world. We are watching the situation very closely.,The leadership of France is taking certain steps and putting in motion certain actions. I don't care to speculate on how successful those actions will be or what their outcome will be.,I do know that it is very important to the American people and the rest of the world that we have stability in France. We deeply regret the problems that face the French people.,THE ANTI-CRIME BILL,[12.] Q. Mr. President, is the administration determined to accept an anti-crime bill even if amendments remain which would authorize wiretapping and attempt to limit Supreme Court decisions?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration very strongly favors an anti-crime bill and has for several years, and has urged the Congress to take action on a crime bill. Both Houses have now acted. That measure is in conference.,When the conferees reconcile their views, we hope the measure will come to the President. Then I will review the details of it and take the action that I believe is in the best interest of the American people.,I hope the conferees can work out the differences between the two bodies and reconcile their different viewpoints.,I would, of course, express the hope that the measure that comes to me is as near the measure that I recommended as possible, although I know that that is too much to expect.6,6The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was approved June 19 (see Item 320).,VIETNAM CONFLICT,[13.] Q. Did General Westmoreland report that his position on the ground has been weakened by the partial halt in bombing?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,LOWERING THE VOTING AGE TO 18,[14.] Q. Mr. President, last night you advocated that the right to vote be granted to 18-year-olds across the country. Since the States set this voting age, is there anything you can do or intend to do in the time you have left in the Presidency to bring this about?,THE PRESIDENT. Over the weekend, we will be working on a very special message to Congress. A constitutional amendment will be required. The President will send that message to Congress, I hope, next week, making his recommendation.7,7See Item 341.,TROOP STRENGTH IN VIETNAM,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the reports of increased casualties, and General Westrnoreland's report to you on battlefield conditions, does the administration foresee any need for a step-up or an increase in our troop strength in Vietnam beyond what you have already announced?,THE PRESIDENT. General Westmoreland has made no such recommendation.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-05-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S OPENING STATEMENT,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] I don't want to detain you long. Some of you may be going to the Press Club, but George1 was getting a good many inquiries and I had two or three things that I thought you would be interested in.,1 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,I will try to have these mimeographed as quickly as possible.,AMBASSADOR VANCE'S REPORT ON THE PARIS TALKS,But on the Vance talks this morning, I talked with Ambassador Vance at some length before our breakfast briefing.,As you know, he is home on consultations from Paris. He and Mrs. Vance have spent the night at the White House.,He described the exchanges which have taken place in Paris and gave me his evaluation of them in some detail.,As you know, he and Ambassador Harriman 2 are associate spokesmen for us in Paris. The other side has sought to use these talks for two purposes: First, to see if we could be pressured to stop the bombing completely in the southern panhandle of North Vietnam, without any compensatory action on their part.,2 Cyrus R. Vance and Ambassador at Large W. Averell Harriman, U.S. negotiators at the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam.,At the present time, they are pouring men and supplies through this area at an unprecedented rate. The supplies go directly to the battle in South Vietnam. We are destroying something over 20 percent of what is coming through to the South.,Without our attacks, our men and our allies would be bearing a considerable extra burden. It would be translated into casual' ties--American, South Vietnamese, Australian, Korean, Thai, and Filipino casualties.,Those casualties have been very heavy, particularly since the Paris talks began, and the stepped-up attacks that they have made.,Our negotiators, Ambassador Harriman and his associate, Mr. Vance, have made it clear that we have already taken a very major step, as I announced in my March 31 speech,3 both personally and officially, in connection with the bombing of large segments of their population and territory.,3 See Item 170.,We have withdrawn some 90 percent of the population from the area that we bombed and some 78 percent of the territory. Now we have stopped the bombing of most of the territory and population in North Vietnam.,We made it clear if North Vietnam responded, if they would show some similar restraint, we are prepared to make further decisions to try to reduce the violence.,That has been our position since the formula was presented on March 31, which brought about the Paris negotiations. That is our position today, and it will remain our position.,Second, the other side has been using the occasion of these talks for obviously very wide-ranging propaganda. They have been unwilling to enter into serious, quiet discussion of the conditions for ending the bombing or any other matters of substance.,On the other hand, Ambassador Harriman and Ambassador Vance have been putting forward a series of constructive proposals, including the reestablishment of an effective demilitarized zone and the implementation of the Laos accord of 1962.,They have also indicated the principles that we believe should govern a total settlement of the problem, including the withdrawal of forces from South Vietnam and a political settlement.,I discussed with Ambassador Vance, and a number of my other senior advisers, the positions that had been taken and that we should take in Paris in the future.,While our men deal with Communist forces in the field, we shall continue patiently to see whether the Paris talks can yield anything in the way of constructive results.,In our judgment, it is time to move from fantasy and propaganda to the realistic and constructive work of bringing peace to Southeast Asia.,In addition, at 6:00 this afternoon, Ambassador Vance will meet with me here at the White House, and I have invited to be my guests the bipartisan leadership. We expect Members from both parties--leadership in the Senate and House, to be present for that briefing.,I think that you have been told that the same briefing given to me was given to the Prime Minister from Australia this morning.,MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS ON THE TRADE EXPANSION ACT,[2.] We are submitting a message on the Trade Expansion Act.4 There will be some notes on what this proposal does.,4 See Item 274.,It extends the provisions of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It allows the President to conduct negotiations for tariff reductions. It eliminates the American selling price system of customs valuation which is necessary to implement the last of the Kennedy Round agreements.,It authorizes specific appropriations to pay our share in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It produces a new adjustment assistance program. It also asks as a part of this bill an extension of the adjustment assistance provisions of the Automotive Products Trade Act. This act has allowed us to create an integrated U.S.-Canadian auto market and assist workers in firms who might be injured.,It comes out strongly against quota bills now pending in the Congress. It makes a strong statement on the need to join with other nations in eliminating nontariff barriers. It states that the President will shortly sign an Executive order to initiate a full-scale study of long-range American trade policy.5,5Executive Order 11425 \"Study of United States Foreign Trade Policy\" (4 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 1286; 33 F.R. 12363; 3 CFR, 1968 Comp., p. 133).,There will be a detailed briefing for that if those of you interested in that subject want to get it when the message goes up. I think that is all that I have.,I will be glad to take any questions that you may have. I don't want to run this unnecessarily long because any of you who can go to the Prime Minister's meeting, I want you to go there.,QUESTIONS,[3.] Q. Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Lisagor? 6,6 Peter Lisagot, Chicago Daily News.,THE PARIS TALKS,Q. The two points that you gave us that the other side is making, were those Mr. Vance's report to you, or are they two points that you have concluded from his report?,THE PRESIDENT. Those are my statements. I didn't want to go into the specifics of Mr. Vance's report. I don't think we will. I am not sure that that would contribute anything to the negotiations.,Q. Mr. President, did Mr. Vance express his hope or confidence that in time North Vietnam will move away--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to go into Mr. Vance's report or the details of his conversation. As I said to Mr. Lisagor, Mr. Young,7 I don't think anything can come from this that would be helpful. I would not be drawing contrary conclusions though.,7 Robert C. Young, Chicago Tribune Press Service.,TAX INCREASE AND SPENDING CUTS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in your Trade Expansion Act message, you mentioned the need for a tax increase again. Are you ready yet to say whether you would accept the $6 billion cut in Federal spending as part of the tax package?,THE PRESIDENT. I am ready to say that there is a compelling and overriding necessity for a tax bill as soon as possible; 8 that the President believes that expenditure reductions in a very tight budget that Congress is already increasing in votes in the Senate and the House is not in accordance with his best judgment.,8 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (see Item 343).,For that reason, I sent a tight, lean budget to the Congress. And I have not advocated reductions in it. My press conference statement still stands on that.,I think that if the Congress insists that before they give us a tax bill that will produce $10 billion, that they are willing to reduce expenditures by $4 billion, the President would try to accept their judgment and live with that. That's what I said at the last press conference.,Mr. Burke of Massachusetts 9 is making a motion to that effect that will be voted on tomorrow morning. Now, the men who do the appropriating tell me--and they have been there for years, 30 years and up--that they do not believe the Congress, when it votes on specific reductions, will vote and let stand very long more than $4 billion, if that much.,9 Representative James A. Burke of Massachusetts.,They predict less than half that much, actually. So in my press conference, I said I doubt that they will vote $4 billion actual specific reductions and allow them to stand. Anything they vote above that, I think, would be changed later. In effect, I think I referred to it as \"phony\" or something that would be unreal and unlasting over a long period of time.,Now if Congress is willing to vote the $4 billion by supporting the Burke motion, we would do our best to live with it. If they don't vote the $4 billion, we will have to look at the situation, and we will draw whatever conclusions we think are justified.,We feel that a tax bill is very essential. The President will do everything he can to meet the Congress more than halfway once the Congress can determine what it is willing and has the power to vote.,It would do no good if the President arbitrarily assumed the appropriation power and just impounded funds if Congress did not agree with it, because the Congress could restore it very quickly.\nAny other questions?,THE POOR PEOPLE'S MARCH ON WASHINGTON,[5.] Q. Do you have any message for the poor people marchers who are camped near here?,THE PRESIDENT. I covered that rather fully in my last press conference.10,10 See Item 223 [9].,We have $78 billion in messages on social programs in the Congress. We are doing everything that we can to get those measures approved by both authorizations and appropriations, and we are making rather substantial progress in most of those fields.,FUNDS FOR ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee voted down funds for the Asian Bank and deferred funds for IDA. How do you feel about that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that all Americans should share my concern about the effect of this action. I think it goes to the fundamental American commitment to try to help Asia help itself.,I do not think it is wise to defer this action. The forces of change are at work in Asia, and they should not be put off. If we act now, change can be progress, and if we delay, I think it can be tragedy.,I would hope that in this close vote, the Members who have doubts could try to resolve those doubts by discussing the matter with Mr. Black,11 who is a very eminent specialist in this field, and an American whom all of us respect.,11Eugene R. Black, Adviser to the President on Southeast Asian Economic and Social Development and former President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.,If we are ever to get away from the aid-grant programs, we ought to try to encourage the regional development banks and encourage other nations to join with us in sharing part of this load.,I believe that Mr. Black has made a very convincing case. I would hope that Members of the Congress would keep an open mind and see if there could not be a meeting of minds that would permit favorable action before the session ends.,THE SUBMARINE \"SCORPION\",[7.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any late reports on the submarine Scorpion? 12,THE PRESIDENT. We are conducting an intensive search. We are all quite distressed, and we have been since the middle of the afternoon yesterday. We are quite concerned about it. We have nothing that is encouraging to report.,12The nuclear submarine U.S.S. Scorpion was reported missing on May 29, 1968, when she had been 2 days overdue at Norfolk, Va., following training exercises with the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. The ship, with 99 men aboard, was listed as \"presumed lost\" on June 5 after a fruitless search by the Navy.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-05-03","text":"FORTHCOMING CONVERSATIONS WITH HANOI\nIN PARIS,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,[1.] I was informed about 1 o'clock this morning that Hanoi was prepared to meet in Paris on May 10th, or several days thereafter.,As all of you know, we have sought a place for these conversations in which all of the parties would receive fair and impartial treatment. France is a country where all parties should expect such treatment.,After conferring with the Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassadors Goldberg and Ball, Mr. Harriman, and Mr. Vance,1 I have sent a message informing Hanoi that the date of May 10th and the site of Paris are acceptable to the United States.,1Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Clark M. Clifford, Arthur J. Goldberg, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations, his successor, George W. Ball, Ambassador at Large W. Averell Harriman, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus R. Vance, private advisor to the President.,We will continue in close consultation at all stages with our allies, all of whom I would remind you now have representation in the French capital.,We hope this agreement on initial contact will prove a step forward and can represent a mutual and a serious movement by all parties toward peace in Southeast Asia.,I must, however, sound a cautionary note. This is only the very first step. There are many, many hazards and difficulties ahead. I assume that each side will present its viewpoint in these contacts.,My point of view was presented in my television statement to the American people on March 31st.,I have never felt it was useful for public officials to confuse delicate negotiations by detailing personal views or suggestions or elaborating positions in advance. I know that all of you, therefore, will understand that I shall not discuss this question further at this conference.,MEETING OF U.S.-MEXICO COMMISSION FOR BORDER\nDEVELOPMENT AND FRIENDSHIP,[2.] I am delighted to have with us this morning the Chairman of the Mexican-United States Border Commission between our two countries, which is meeting here in Washington. I especially welcome Senor Vivanco and Mr. Telles, the American Chairman.2\nI am glad that discussions have been fruitful here.\nI will be glad to take any questions that you may have.,2Jose Vivanco, Chairman of the Mexican Section, and Ambassador Raymond Telles, Chairman of the United States Section, United States-Mexico Commission for Border Development and Friendship. A White House announcement and summary of their February 3 report to the President is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, p. 212).,QUESTIONS,NORTH VIETNAM'S ACTIONS SINCE MARCH 31,[3.] Q. Mr. President, without trying to contravene your desire not to discuss this further, I would like to refer to your March 31st statement, when you expressed the hope that after we cut back our bombing, you hoped that this would also lead to additional restraints on both sides.,Since March 31st, has there been any detectable military restraint on the part of the North ?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been quite concerned with the developments since my March 31st statement, and we have been following them very closely. You may be sure that we are aware and will at all times protect the American interests.,ROLE OF SOUTH VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT AND ARMY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, you have had some talks with your diplomatic and military leaders from Vietnam recently, both here and in Honolulu. Can you comment on the state of affairs in Vietnam and whether or not the South Vietnamese Government and army are prepared to take over more of the burden of the war?,THE PRESIDENT. We think that they are working to that end. We think that they are making progress. We have detected increased efforts there and among our other allies, and certainly in this country, to expedite our equipment so that they may be able to effectively carry a larger share of the burden.,As you know, they have taken certain actions in connection with their own draft, drafting 19-year-olds and drafting 18-yearolds. They have substantially increased their call-up of forces.,I think they are doing about all that we could expect them to do under the circumstances.,THE 1968 CAMPAIGN,[5.] Q. Mr. President, will this new move by Hanoi toward the peace table in any way affect the other part of your announcement of March 31st against running for another term?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, to go on, perhaps could you clarify the second part of your March 31st statement for us to this extent:,Could you tell us whether you plan to campaign on behalf of the Democratic candidate, no matter who he may be?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to go into that matter at this time. I will be glad to visit with you about it after the convention, when we see what the situation is.,PUBLIC DISCUSSION DURING NEGOTIATIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, referring to your statement here, you spoke of the delicate nature of these negotiations that are going to take place in Paris. Would you go far enough to say that perhaps it would be a good idea to declare a moratorium in our political campaign and public discussion of these negotiations while they are taking place?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not urge that. I think my viewpoint was presented about as effectively as I knew how in my March 31st statement.,I do not think we do justice to our country and keep faith with our people when we spend our time pursuing personal ambitions that result in dividing our people.,I think we must be very careful not to do that. That does not mean that we must put a stop to expressing individual viewpoints.,In my own judgment, we still have too much division in this country and too many people thinking of self and too few people thinking of country.,I would remind everybody of President Kennedy's statement in his inaugural address with regard to that. I don't think we have put an end to all the division since March 31st, although I do think that some of the personal criticism has been more restrained and has abated.,I do think that our country has benefited from it. I think it will continue to benefit by individuals recognizing what their individual duties are and permitting the Executive, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense to discharge their proper constitutional duties.,We frequently confuse the world in our democratic system, which has been a part of our history, by a clamor of voices, individuals assuming to speak for the United States, or at least other nations assume they do speak for the United States, when it does not represent the official Government position.,So I would not say that we should stop discussing these very important problems, but I do say that everyone should measure what he has to say, and the public generally should size up the man who is free to comment on any given occasion, on any given subject, most of which he may not have all the details on, or may perhaps not have enough information to justify the decisions or judgments he reaches.,We in the White House, in the State Department, and in the Defense Department, try to constantly develop this information with our Ambassadors from throughout the world, with our Ambassadors to the United Nations, Ambassador Goldberg and Ambassador Ball, who met with us this morning-Ambassador Goldberg, whom I talked to at length--and try to take a careful reading and evaluate all the conflicting reports.,Now, there are just no other people who have that information available to them. While we always are anxious and welcome suggestions from any source--private, editorial, congressional, judicial, or whatnot-we do think that our Nation's best interests are served sometimes if those suggestions are made privately, even though they don't make a headline, to the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense or to the President.,VISIT OF PRESIDENT THIEU AND OTHER ALLIES,[7.] Q. You have invited President Thieu of South Vietnam to the United States. Can you say anything today about the imminence of that visit?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We expect it to be in the next few weeks. We expect to have visits with various of our allies--the Prime Minister of Australia, representatives from Thailand, representatives of South Vietnam. We expect them to come here.,We just finished a very successful, productive meeting with the very able President of South Korea. We will be meeting with representatives from these countries in the days ahead.,MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMAN,[8.] I plan to leave here after the press conference this morning to go to Kansas City to meet with President Truman later in the day. We talked about this before the announcement early this morning, so we plan to carry out that program. After you have a chance to file your statements, we will proceed to Kansas City.,THE POOR PEOPLE'S MARCH ON WASHINGTON,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, the Reverend Dr. Abernathy,3 who is leading the Poor People's March on Washington, was quoted yesterday as saying that the \"shantytown\" they are going to build here will remain here until something is done.,3Dr. Ralph D. Abernathy, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and leader of the Poor People's March which converged on Washington from all parts of the country during the first weeks of May 1968, and occupied a campsite in West Potomac Park known as Resurrection City, U.S.A. The purpose of the march was to bring to the attention of Congress and the administration the need for intensified action on behalf of some 29 million economically disadvantaged Americans.,I wonder, sir, if you could give us your view as to whether Congress might respond affirmatively to this kind of pressure or whether you think it would be wiser for them to work for the kind of Congress that will pass the programs they want from their home bases?,THE PRESIDENT. The Congress now has under consideration some $80 billion worth of recommendations that the President has submitted in connection with social matters, welfare, the poor, security payments, additional food allotments, and so forth.,We are hopeful, and we expect, that the Congress will give due consideration to all of these matters and act in the best interests of the country.,We recognize that there are a good many different viewpoints as to the adequacy of what the Federal Government is doing for the poor and what we are doing in connection with the urban crisis that we face in this country.,We all think more should be done. We all want more to be done.,Reverend Abernathy and the people represented in his march have presented their viewpoint respectfully to the many members of the Cabinet who have listened with interest and concern. We are now attempting to do everything that we think can properly be done to meet the needs of the country.,The people of this country must always have a right, and we hope the opportunity, to present to their Government their viewpoints, as long as that is done lawfully and properly.,We do expect that the poor will be better served if, after that viewpoint is presented, the Congress and the appropriate administrative agencies can have the time to try to act upon it and execute it.,We hope that the presentation made will be nonviolent, although we are well aware that no single individual can give any assurances that they can control a situation like this. It contains many inherent dangers. We are concerned with them. We have made extensive preparations.,Every person participating and every person in the Capital should be aware of the possibilities of serious consequences flowing from the assemblage of large numbers over any protracted period of time in the seat of Government where there is much work to be done and very little time to do it.,So we expect the leaders to present their viewpoints. We expect to seriously consider them. We believe the Congress will do likewise. Then we expect to get on with running the Government as it should be run.,CABINET MEMBERS AND OTHER PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES AND THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN,[10.] Q. Mr. President, sir, it has been traditional for the Secretaries of State and Defense to keep out of politics in an election year. I wonder if you could tell us why you have extended this rule to all members of your Cabinet?,THE PRESIDENT. I told you that in some detail on March 31st.,I felt that perhaps the Communist leaders of the world were getting a false impression of this country because of the great divisiveness that existed and the personal statements that were being made, the acrimony that existed.,I felt that I could better serve my Nation by trying to withdraw from that personal campaign, and try to unite the country. I felt that if I did that, perhaps I could get the help and the cooperation of the various candidates of both parties in trying to heal the wounds, unite the Nation, and present a united front to the world instead of a divided one.,Now, I think it would be very difficult to do if the President took that position, and his Secretary of State or his Secretary of Defense, or any of the other Cabinet members, or the Presidential appointees ran around the country campaigning for one candidate or the other.,Every person has the right to state who he is going to vote for and to campaign for whomsoever he pleases. But I don't think he should do it as an appointee of the President while he is paid to perform a public service.,I think he has plenty to occupy him. He ought to stay on the job and do that job well. Of course, he can vote for whomsoever he pleases, but if he desires to run up and down the country campaigning for any individual, I hope he will give me an opportunity to have someone else take over his job here in Washington.,I made that abundantly clear--I thought I made it clear--in my March 31st statement. But I have tried to clarify it some since.,THE NEED FOR ACTION ON THE TAX BILL,[11.] Q. Mr. President, what, in your opinion, are the prospects for Congress enacting your recommended tax increase this session?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have a long and difficult road ahead. My own views were expressed by Secretary Fowler to the Appropriations Committee this week.,If I were making up the budget for the next fiscal year in May, as I made it up last fall, I would perhaps add some to it instead of taking from it.\nWe have additional needs from our men in uniform, additional equipment in the form of helicopters, armaments, ammunition, and things that we couldn't foresee at that time.,We have very serious problems in the cities that should be met; very serious problems with the poor that need more attention.,So it is my personal view, the President's view, that the $186 billion expenditure is a very lean budget.,However, the President cannot handle these tax matters alone under our Constitution. Since 1966 I have felt that it was very important for many reasons--to avoid large deficits, to try to help the inflation picture, to get the confidence of the financial leaders of the world, and to best serve our own people--that we have a tax increase.,I got little, if any, support for it in 1966. In 1967 that support increased some and the business leaders and the labor leaders agreed to try to help me.,The Congress has not been that cooperative. They talk about increasing taxes, but they haven't taken any action in that direction except for the action the Senate took.,They tied to that certain restrictions that I do not believe would serve the national interest. I do not think we could live with them. I think they would really bring chaos to the Government.,We have informed the leadership of our views on that, but we must receive their views and consider them.,The Appropriations Committee, responding to suggestions from Mr. Mills of the Ways and Means Committee,4 and others, met this week, and by a very close vote determined that they expected to prune the President's requests and try to reduce expenditures by $4 billion, and obligational authority or appropriations by $10 billion, and the President would be called upon to rescind about $8 billion.,4 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.,We did not agree with that viewpoint. We do not think it is the wisest course for the Nation.,We had pointed that out a number of times, but we said that if that is the only way that we can get the Ways and Means Committee to take action, if that is the only way that we can get Mr. Mills to report out a tax bill and try to pass a tax bill, after more than 2 years of urging, if the Congress in its wisdom, decides that it wants to do this and submits this kind of a program to the President, the President, while he will not recommend it and does not urge it, and does not submit it, would reluctantly approve it.,That may have just whetted the appetite, because as it appeared that the tax bill might be possible, other views began to be expressed which, in my judgment, will serve the purpose of killing a tax bill if they are insisted upon, because in my judgment the Congress is not going to cut more than $10 billion in appropriations, and more than $8 billion in rescission, and more than $4 billion in expenditures.,If it did so, it would injure the national interest instead of serving it.,Actually, in my judgment, if Congress is left alone, it probably will not reduce appropriations the $10 billion planned, will not rescind the $8 billion, and will not reduce expenditures more than $1 1/2 or $2 billion. That is all it did last year, until the President stepped in and asked them to take additional action.,I am informed by the Appropriations Committees this year that they would not anticipate more, normally, than a $i ½ billion cut. So it is easy to demand figures that cannot be reached.,The Senate has voted increases to the budget, not decreases, in the supplemental appropriation bill it passed. But it does serve as an excuse to people who don't want a tax bill at all to say, \"Well, unless you cut expenditures deeper, you can't get a tax bill.\",We would hope that the Congress, in their wisdom, would conclude that the action taken by the House Appropriations Committee-namely, to reduce appropriations $10 billion, to have that as their goal, recisions $8 billion, and $4 billion expenditures-would be acceptable.,We will have to await the pleasure of the Congress. This is an independent decision for them to make.,You asked for our view. I have tried to give it. I have been giving it for 2 or 3 years.,I want to make it perfectly clear to the American people that I think we are courting danger by this continued procrastination, this continued delay.,The President can propose, but the Congress must dispose. I proposed a budget. If they don't like that budget, then stand up like men and answer the roll call and cut what they think ought to be cut. Then the President will exercise his responsibility of approving it or rejecting it and vetoing it.,In my judgment, they will not send me appropriation bills that cut more than $4 billion. If they do, it will be some phony paper cut. I have seen no inclination there to do this. But there are individuals who think that can be done.,I don't want to charge any partisanship, but I would hope that men of both parties would try to go as far to meet us in the executive department as we have gone to meet their view. If they do that, I think we can have a tax bill.,I do think that we can absorb some reductions that Congress would normally make anyway, without wrecking our urban program, killing off all of our Corps of Engineers' public works projects, or stopping our highway building or taking needed items from the men who fight to defend us.,But I think the time has come for all of the Members of Congress to be responsible and, even in an election year, to bite the bullet and stand up and do what ought to be done for their country.,The thing that I know that needs to be done more for their country than anything else, except the step we have taken this morning to try to find a peace solution, is to pass a tax bill without any \"ands,\" \"buts,\" or \"ors.\" If they want to effect reductions, then as each appropriation bill comes up, they can offer their amendments like men out on the floor, and call the roll. But don't hold up a tax bill until you can blackmail someone into getting your own personal viewpoint over on reductions.,THE \"PUEBLO\" SITUATION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your present assessment of the Pueblo 5 situation? Have you evaluated these confessions, sir, that have been coming from North Korea?,THE PRESIDENT. We have nothing to report that is new. Secretary Katzenbach,6 the day before yesterday, and Secretary Rusk, yesterday, reported all of the information we have in connection with the Pueblo situation.,5The U.S.S. Pueblo, an intelligence ship seized by North Korea on January 23, 1968. One crew member died in captivity; the remaining 82 men were released on December 22, 1968 (see Item 641).,6Under Secretary of State Nicholas deB. Katzenbach.,We have made it clear to the North Korean authorities that we think these people should not be held; that they should be released; that we will carefully examine all of the evidence following their release.\nIf there is any indication that we have acted improperly, or have violated their boundaries, we will take appropriate action.,That is where the matter stands. We think the next step is up to them.,We hope that upon careful reflection, they will release the men. Then the United States will fairly and impartially look at all the facts available and take a position in keeping with those facts.,THE NEXT PRESIDENT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, without indulging in politics or partisanship, what particular qualities do you look for in your successor to the Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. Let's leave that to another day. I am going to devote a good deal of my attention in the months ahead to the Presidency, while I am in office, and as soon as I get out of office, on how we can improve the office, how we can improve its administration.,I don't think the question is nearly so much a matter of the individual's personality as it is his background, his training, and his philosophy.,Between now and November, the American people will have adequate opportunity-more opportunity, perhaps, than they want-to judge each person.,Who am I, after almost 40 years in political life, in public office by virtue of the votes of the people--who am I to question their good judgment?,MILITARY DEPENDENTS, TROOP LEVELS, AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in 1960 President Eisenhower directed that no more dependents accompany U.S. military personnel to Europe because of the balance of payments problem. The balance of payments problem, of course, is much more serious now.,I wonder whether you have given any thought to either sending the dependents home and shortening the tours of the troops there, or even reducing the troop level a little more than you have.,THE PRESIDENT. I can assure you that we have given all the thought of which we are capable to the balance of payments situation and all of its ramifications. We are taking every prudent step that we feel we can take to improve our balance of payments situation.,That does involve the rotation of troops. That does involve efforts on the part of the Government to reserve our expenditures, not only dependents, but in all other fields.,We know of few questions that are as important to us as the improvement of our balance of payments situation.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-04-25","text":"UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE\nUNITED NATIONS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have today accepted with regret the resignation of Arthur Goldberg as U.S. Representative to the United Nations. Ambassador Goldberg has expressed to me his desire to leave this position for personal reasons. He will continue at the United Nations, probably until around the early part of June, while certain matters that he now has underway are being handled and disposed of.,Ambassador Goldberg has, in conversations over the last several months, assured me that he would be available to the Government to consult and help out with any problems that we might feel he was equipped to help us handle.,To replace Ambassador Goldberg, I am appointing the Honorable George Ball. He is a distinguished public servant who has held many important positions--including Under Secretary of State--and who serves me unofficially in many advisory capacities at the present time.,Mr. Ball will be available to take over when Mr. Goldberg leaves. We anticipate a smooth transition.\nI will answer questions if you have any.,QUESTIONS,COMMUNICATION WITH HANOI,[2.] Q. What do you hear from Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no comment. I have nothing new really to add to what you have been told in the official briefing.,AMBASSADOR GOLDBERG'S PLANS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, has Ambassador Goldberg informed you as to what his future plans are? Is he going into private law practice?,THE PRESIDENT. Ambassador Goldberg will have a statement, I think, later in the day. That is a matter for him to handle.,TAX INCREASE,[4.] Q. Are prospects for a tax increase improving?1 How do you see that, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I am unable to evaluate them. If I remember, you had a tip or two from up there before. You may get that information there better than we can.,1The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (see Item 343).,Our position is the same; there has been no change in it. We would like very much to see the Congress act upon the recommendation we have made. The tax proposal is still in the committee.,I would say the members of the committee are better able to tell you about what action they might take or whether they will take any than I am.,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the reports on the Hill are that you told them at lunch today what you are going to do next year. Can you tell us?,THE PRESIDENT. The meeting today was off the record. I told Tom2 to check with them and if they have no objection, I don't have any objection to releasing portions of that statement that might be of interest to you. I didn't tell them anything that you haven't already known for a long, long time--so don't feel sorry for yourselves.,2 Wyatt Thomas Johnson, Jr., Assistant Press Secretary to the President.,Q. Did you tell them you were going back to Texas to teach at the university?,THE PRESIDENT. I will give you the transcript.3,3 See Item 212.,ARTHUR KRIM,[6.] Q. What are your plans for Arthur Krim? 4,THE PRESIDENT. I will make that announcement in due time.,4 Arthur B. Krim, former treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.,MILITARY SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Sir, can you give us any new advice on the military situation in Vietnam? There have been conflicting reports out of the Embassy in Saigon about what is happening. Can you give us something more authoritative?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think so. You have reporters out there. The information I have available to me is not much different from what you have. I don't know what conflicts you are talking about.,Q. Stories about an impending attack and then reports to the contrary.,THE PRESIDENT. We do have reports like that.,SECRETARY OF STATE RUSK,[8.] Q. You have seen the Secretary of State more often than you usually do in the past 36 or 48 hours. Would you tell us what has been the subject of these conversations?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I would deny that that is true. Secondly, we had our regular Tuesday meeting and we talked then, as we do at most of our meetings, about world conditions and matters that relate to his Department and to my duties here.,We had a Security Council meeting yesterday. I see and talk to the Secretary of State practically every day, so I would not agree with your premise.,Q. I was thinking especially about the 5:30 meeting yesterday. That was not unusual?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not at all, nor is 4:30 in the evening or 8:30. There is nothing different about that; I often see him several times a day.,Q. Was Ambassador Goldberg in that meeting yesterday afternoon with the Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't ever discuss off-the-record meetings. I have a long-standing rule that I keep a man's confidence. If a meeting is set up as off the record, I keep it that way. I cannot be responsible for what other people may say. You won't find me discussing any off-the-record appointments I have.,ACTION IN CIVIL DISORDERS,[9.] Q. In view of the efforts your administration has made during the winter to avoid personal injury and death in civil disorders that might occur in the cities, could you give us your view on whether or not city police ought to shoot at looters?,THE PRESIDENT. I have made a statement that expresses my view. It is in writing and has been distributed to you. I suggest that you read it.5,Richard McGowan, New York Daily News: Thank you.,5 See Item 209."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-04-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a few announcements to make that I think will be of interest to you.,CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,[1.] First of all, as you know, the civil rights bill that we submitted to the Congress some time ago will shortly become law, having been acted upon in the House of Representatives this afternoon.,Senator Mansfield1 has talked to me within the hour, informing me that they have completed action. It is now up to the House to send it to the President. We will have a signing ceremony at a very early date.2,1 Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Majority Leader of the Senate.,2 See Item 195.,We have passed many civil rights pieces of legislation, but none more important than this. When we first met to consider the subject of open housing, there were only two or three in the room representing government, housing groups, civil rights groups, and others, who felt that we could approach this subject in any way other than by a regulation that had doubtful legality and certainly whose coverage would be quite limited.,I took the position at that original meeting that if we really believed in open housing, equal housing, and fair treatment to all of our citizens, we should have a congressional declaration to that effect and a statute that would give us that protection.,It has been a long, tortuous, and difficult road.,There have been days of sunshine and sorrow.,But it is now a finality. I congratulate first the Members of the Senate who had the courage and the wisdom to pass the bill, and invoke cloture; and then to the Members of the House of Representatives of both parties who supported that measure.,I have a brief statement that George3 will give you as soon as it is off the typewriter. It says:,3 E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT,\"Today the Nation's Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This is a victory for every American. The only true path of progress for a free people is the one that we will take when this legislation is made the law of the land.,\"Through the process of law, we shall strike for all time the shackles of an old injustice.,\"I call upon the Congress now to complete its work of hope for millions of Americans who now look to it for action.\",APPOINTMENTS,POSTMASTER GENERAL,[2.] I have received and accepted the resignation of Mr. Larry O'Brien as Postmaster General.,Larry asked to see me this morning when I returned to town. He came in and talked to me about his resignation and told me he would like to resign. I told him what I told the other members of the Cabinet the other day, that since I was not going to be a candidate for reelection, I realized the Cabinet had made many sacrifices in order to serve me and serve the country, and that now was the time for any of them to make decisions concerning their families and their future.,So Larry told me that he would present his resignation.\nHe has. It is accepted.,I have sent to the Senate the name of W. Marvin Watson as his successor. He is the Appointments Secretary who has served me ably--as Larry has--for a good deal of the time I have been President.,A biographical sketch will be given to you by the Press Office.,I have never been served by a more competent, more efficient, nor more likable or effective employee than Larry O'Brien. We shall miss him, but we are very happy to cooperate with him in his desire to enter private life after having given fully of himself to his country for 7-plus years.,PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANTS,[3.] To replace Marvin Watson, we will have Mr. Jim Jones, of Oklahoma, and Mr. Larry Temple. They both are good men. It will take at least two good men to replace what Marvin has been doing here.,Mr. Larry Temple is from Texas; former Appointments Secretary and assistant to Governor Connally. Mr. Jones is from Oklahoma and has been with us, as you know, as deputy to Mr. Watson.,COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC,[4.] I have named Admiral John McCain to succeed Admiral Sharp, as Commander in Chief of the Pacific. I did this on the recommendation of Admiral Sharp, the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary Clifford.,COMMANDER OF U.S. FORCES, VIETNAM,[5.] I have named General Abrams to succeed General Westmoreland.,Biographical sketches on all of these will be given to you when you retire.,As you know, General Abrams is the present deputy to General Westmoreland, and we think the man most competent to assume this very heavy responsibility.,DEPUTY COMMANDER IN VIETNAM,[6.] To succeed General Abrams, we are naming General Andrew Goodpaster, who was with the Security Council during the Eisenhower period and is a lieutenant general. He is now head of the War College. He has been a very trusted adviser to me during the period of my Presidency.,He has also been the person I have selected to brief General Eisenhower from time to time, if that will help you in identification. He will be deputy to General Abrams.,We have discussed this with General Eisenhower. We will have General Wheeler, who has assumed this responsibility on occasions, and General Westmoreland will be our contact. Whenever General Eisenhower desires to receive a briefing, they will perform the functions previously performed by General Goodpaster, who will be out of the country.,General Abrams, General Goodpastor, and Admiral McCain have been recommended by the Joint Chiefs of the services, by Secretary Clifford, and in the case of Admiral McCain, by Admiral Sharp and the Navy service; in the case of General Goodpaster, by General Westmoreland and General Abrams, under whom he will work, as well as President Eisenhower.,We discussed this with General Eisenhower. I would not say he recommended it, but he showed pleasure in the appointment. But, I don't want to leave the impression that he was dictating it or pushing this matter. Of course, all of these nominations are based upon the recommendation of the Secretaries involved, and the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,I think that is all the announcements I have for you.,QUESTIONS ADMIRAL MC CAIN,[7.] Q. Where is Admiral McCain now, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Naval Forces in Europe. He is 57 years old and has served as Commander in Chief of the Naval Forces in Europe. He is a military adviser and representative of various mutual defense alliances.,EXCHANGE WITH HANOI,[8.] Q. Can you take us any further along the road on the exchange with Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Mayor Linsay 4 has said that your Civil Disorders Commission is being reconvened. Can you give us your thoughts on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not aware of it. I don't know.,4 Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York City.,MR. O'BRIEN'S RESIGNATION,[10.] Q. Did Mr. O'Brien tell you why he wanted to resign at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. No. He said he wanted to enter private life. He told me about some of his plans, but I don't think he has them definitely fixed yet. He is not exactly sure of where he is going.,ADDRESS TO JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you still plan to address a joint session of Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I have nothing to add to what I have already told you. That has been postponed for the time being.,THE VICE PRESIDENT'S POSSIBLE CANDIDACY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there is some indication that the Vice President might declare for the Presidency. I was wondering if you felt you would have to maintain--,THE PRESIDENT. I would not get into that at all.,CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,[13.] Q. Mr. President, on the signing of the civil rights bill, you said \"early date.\" Could that be as early as tomorrow, or somewhere down the road?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me tell you when I know. I can't speculate because I can't tell when I will receive it.\nHelen Thomas, United Press International Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-03-31","text":"[The news conference was held immediately following the President's announcement of his decision not to seek reelection.],Q. How irrevocable is your decision?,THE PRESIDENT. It is just as irrevocable as the statement says--completely irrevocable. You just take the statement and read it. There were no shalls, no woulds, no buts; I just made it \"will.\",Q. Can you describe the processes that led you to this decision; how long ago it started, what the factors were?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any calendar on it. I spent some time considering it. I guess perhaps the turning point was probably last November when General Westmoreland 1 was back here. But it wasn't anything definite or firm at that point.,1Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,Q. Why was it when Westmoreland was back here?,THE PRESIDENT. That just happened to be the time.,Q. Mr. President, now that you have made this announcement, how do you feel?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel as good as a fellow could feel who has gone through what I have gone through today. I think I feel pretty good.,Q. Do you have a candidate for the Democratic nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I made that clear, how I felt about that. You all get the speech and read it; all these questions will be answered for you.,Q. Mr. President, how about the why-why was it last year you began thinking in these terms? I am sure there are some personal considerations in here. I remember your saying as much as 2 years ago, I think you told Ray Scherer2 not to regard you as such an automatic man, that the life back at the ranch and the university appealed to you. Was this part of what went into your decision?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I tried to explain that in about 590 words tonight.,2Raymond L. Scherer of NBC News.,Q. I wondered about other considerations, other than the campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't say that I pointed to every consideration, but I think that basically it is just as I stated it.,Q. Mr. President, was there anything other than General Westmoreland's visit last November that goes into this decision?,THE PRESIDENT. No. His visit didn't bring it about at all. I just said that was the point that I remember identifying when I really turned that corner. I talked to him about it and that is why I remembered the date.,Q. Did you tell the Vice President this morning about the decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I didn't tell him that I was going to state this tonight, but I discussed it with him--and have discussed it with him a number of times.,Q. Mr. President, what do you think will be the situation of the Democratic Party now that you have made this announcement?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know.,Q. Did Senator Kennedy's3 entry into the race have anything to do with the timing of your announcement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it added to the general situation I talked about that existed in the country.,3 Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York.,Q. Mr. President, will you support any nominee of the Democratic Party?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to spend much of my time on partisan politics between now and then. When the time comes to take an active part, I will make my announcement. But I don't want to get into that now.,I tried to make it clear that I don't want to mix up the Presidency and party politics when we have a half million men out there who are willing to give their lives in order to protect us back here. I want to try to get all the people in this country to support us to the extent I can.,Therefore, as I said tonight, I am not going to spend an hour on it or a day on it.,However, I will vote like every good American ought to vote. If there is anything that I think I should say concerning my own personal affairs, I will be glad to say it at the proper time--but I will have to select that time.,Q. Mr. President, is it your hope that removing the personal and political factor from this situation would put you in a better position to bring about a peaceful settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that by what I did tonight that we can concentrate more of our energies and efforts on trying to bring about peace in the world and we will have a better chance to do it.,Q. Mr. President, are you now ready still to go anytime, anyplace, anywhere for peace?,THE PRESIDENT. We said that tonight.,Q. Have you had any kind of response yet, Mr. President, from any foreign capitals?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Where?,Q. Good response?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. What response?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not going to get into that.,Q. Mr. President, you have done more for our country than a number of people-whether it is education, housing, et cetera; more than any other President.,THE PRESIDENT. I have not done near enough. That is one of the reasons for the announcement tonight. I want to do a lot more these next 9 months.,Q. Why don't you stay on, since you have not done as much--,THE PRESIDENT. I have 9 months to do what I am going to try to do. I hope, by the end of that time, I will have contributed my part and done my duty. But I have several months yet to do it. And I am going to spend all the time I can trying to get the big job done.,Q. With these fundraising dinners that are coming up, does that mean, sir, that you will not participate--like the one in Washington Thursday night?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what my schedule will be Thursday. I want to do anything that I can to see that first things come first. I feel that the most important thing for us right now, that I have this week, is some of the efforts I launched tonight.,I just don't know what I will be doing on these dates.,Q. Mr. President, there are many men around the country, like Governor Hughes4 and Mayor Daley,5 who supported your candidacy for reelection. Did you convey your thoughts to them of this decision then, before you made it on television tonight? Or did they learn about it as everybody else did?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I had not talked to them. I talked to some folks after the speech tonight. I have not personally talked to them.,4 Governor Richard J. Hughes of New Jersey.,5Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago.,Q. Mr. President, could you say whether the way was prepared for this step of deescalation that you have taken, by diplomacy?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure I understand what you are saying.,Q. Well, you said you had no assurance that Hanoi would accept your suggestions of tonight. I was wondering if you could say whether or not the way had been prepared, however, perhaps by third parties or by other forms of negotiation for presentation at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not have anything to say about that.,Q. You would not want to say, for example, whether you have discussed--,THE PRESIDENT. I said I wouldn't have anything to say about that.,Q. Mr. President, you said your decision is irrevocable. If this peacemaking initiative is successful, do you foresee a situation where you could be under great pressure to run again?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I cannot. My statement speaks for itself and is very clear. I don't see any reason why we ought to have these high school discussions about it. I am genuinely sincere in what I said. There wasn't any reason that caused me to say it except I felt that it was the thing that I ought to do in the interest of my country and in the interest of the people who had so much at stake.,I don't feel very good about asking half a million men to stand out there and defend us, and offer their lives and die for us, and for me not to do everything I can to put myself in a position to do a job as successfully as they do theirs.,I think that if I do not have the aura of a political campaign around me and I am not out trying to win a primary or a State convention or please some party leader, that my efforts might be a little more fruitful.\nI have never been a deep partisan, some of you have referred to some of my actions as consensus. I do think now is the time--if it is at all possible to do so--to try to remove yourself from any selfish actions and try to turn in as good a result as the men out there are turning in.,So, as I have told you before--we have priorities and this is the top priority.,Q. Sir, then you are sacrificing yourself.,THE PRESIDENT. No, no, I am not sacrificing anything. I am just doing what I think is right, what I think is best calculated to permit me to render the maximum service possible, in the limited time that I have left.,Q. Can you amplify on these rather important meetings you hope to have this week?,THE PRESIDENT. This gentleman standing up there with the blue tie on will be involved in some of them--and you can just guess what will be the general subject matter.,Q. Who is he?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of Defense. That question was from Miss Thomas.6 [Laughter],6Helen Thomas of United Press International.,Q. Sir, maybe somebody asked you this before I got here. But Senator Jackson7 raised tonight the question of continuity here. You will stay in office until January?,THE PRESIDENT. That is my plan, God willing.,7Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington.,Q. And you do not feel under these circumstances you will provide the country--,Is Mr. Humphrey coming back to the country right away?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure. I would think tomorrow.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Christian 8 said earlier that Horace Busby9 and then, during these months of decision-making, that Mr. Clifford knew when he was appointed Secretary of Defense that you might be leaving.,8 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,9Horace Busby, management consultant, Washington, D.C.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. He did?,THE PRESIDENT. He did not know that I would not be a candidate, but he did not know that I would be.,Q. What role did Mrs. Johnson play in your decision?,THE PRESIDENT. The same role she plays in every decision I make--a very important one.,Q. Did Governor Connally10 know?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Has he known it for a good while?,THE PRESIDENT. No, he did not know until tonight that I was going to say what I said tonight--but he knew before he announced that he was not going to run for Governor that there was a strong possibility that I would not run for President. He told me that he would like to consider that in his decision; if I thought that I was going to run and it was important that he run, he would like to consider it.,10Governor John B. Connally of Texas.,I told him no, that I felt that I was not sure what my plans were and if he felt like he did not want to run, that would be all right with me.,So, I think that he understood. I talked to very few people about this. I discussed it with Mr. Clifford. I discussed it with Mr. McNamara before he left--in fact, I guess, last August--about the possibility.,I discussed it with Secretary Rusk, Governor Connally, and I have talked with Mr. Busby about it and some of the staff members--Mr. Christian.,But generally speaking, I have asked the people whom I have great confidence in-both in their judgment and in their ability-- to counsel with me in private, and several members of my family and my very close official family.,Q. Mr. President, you may have answered this before I got here--but, is your health all right?,THE PRESIDENT. Perfect. Never better.,Q. Sir, there is a very delicate question that comes up here, and I don't have anyone to ask it of but you, and you are the only one who has the answer, and Mr. Clifford.,THE PRESIDENT. You ought to be in the habit of asking delicate questions; go ahead.,Q. But sir, what affect do you think this will have on the troops in the field tonight?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they will understand what I have done and the reasons for it. I would hope they will appreciate the value-if any--that flows from it. I think they will. I discussed that with General Westmoreland and asked him what effect he thought it would have when he was here in November.,Q. Mr. President, do you care to discuss what your plans might be after January?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have no immediate plans.,Q. Do you intend, for instance, to return to Texas?,THE PRESIDENT. I said I don't have any immediate plans.,Q. Sir, what effect will this have on the dollar, do you think?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hope that what I said tonight will strengthen it.,Q. Mr. President, will you ask your Cabinet aides and others also not to spend any particular amount of time on the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have not asked them to spend or not to spend any time. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, who are the principal Cabinet officers involved in Vietnam, do not engage in partisan political activities, although that is just a matter of their choice. They are perfectly free to do so because individuals, like institutions, have the right of dissent. They have the right to answer and defend and advocate and so forth in this country.,But it has been generally the practice of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, under my administration, to try to avoid being involved in deep partisan matters. I think they have been reasonably successful in that. That is not to say that they would not attend a public meeting and speak on Vietnam. I don't want them to ever be intimidated because somebody might say that a Cabinet officer is traveling out of town at Government expense and $48 is paid by the Government--and try to hush him up that way.,Just as we invite people to express their views, who may differ with us, we reserve that same privilege for our own people.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan to go to the Democratic Convention?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans at this time one way or the other.,Q. Would you like to be a member of the Texas delegation to the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, perhaps one other question that we could ask you: The historical record shows that when people are known to be leaving seats of power, they sometimes suffer a diminution of influence. Do you anticipate any difficulty along that line and had you put this into your calculation of the timing of your announcement?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It was, I guess, 16 years ago this week that President Truman made a similar announcement, March 29, 1952. This is March 31. But you were not at my meeting March 29, so I had to wait because I didn't w-ant you to be scooped. I had a press meeting yesterday or the day before, but I thought it would be better to wait until all of you could be here.,Q. Mr. President, by any chance, did you discuss this before tonight with President Truman?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the answer would be no to this particular event tonight. I have discussed with him the problems of the Presidency and the service of the Presidency and things of that nature, but if you asked me, did I talk to him about announcing that I would not be a candidate, and I would not accept the nomination--the answer is no.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about the reaction within your family?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I think that it is a mixed reaction. I can't really speak for them. You are running pretty dangerous when you speak for women, but I think they all go along with the decision I made. Lynda has not been here and she wasn't sure that it was as imminent as it was, but she came in at about 6:30 or 7 o'clock this morning. Her mother and I met her. We wanted to be at the door when she came back.,So, we discussed it back and forth a good deal of the day. She had ridden all night and she slept part of the day.,I took time out with Luci to go to church with her while Lynda slept.,Q. Mr. President, is it fair to interpret what you said tonight and in fact everything that you are doing as really a plea to all the candidates and all parties to just leave this war out of their campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. You just take my script, that is the safest thing for you to follow. I just gave my own views, briefly and succinctly as I knew how. I hope it was all right and I would hope that you thought it was the best thing to do; at least, I did.,Q. Mr. President, did you get any calls asking you to reconsider?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have had a good many calls. I won't go into the content of them.,Q. Sir, does this mean that in the months ahead--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to hold an individual press conference now with you, Sarah.11 You have had your share of questions. Get one more and let's go on.,11Mrs. Sarah McClendon, representative of Texas newspapers.,Q. Does this mean in the months ahead that you are going to devote the main part of your time on getting peace and does it mean that you will also be still working to bolster your domestic programs or not?,THE PRESIDENT. It means I am going to work on all of the problems of the country. High on that list of problems, of course, and a thing that concerns most of us, is an early peace, if it could be found. There are many other problems, though, that require attention every day. We hope we will not neglect any of them.,I think maybe we will go out and take a trip tomorrow, but I am not positive, so I can't announce it tonight. If any of you want to go with me, you might want to check in early in the morning. If we make a decision to go I won't know until I have a meeting a little later in the evening.,Mr. Christian or Tom 12 will notify you. The best thing for you to do is go home and get some sleep and get comfortable and be ready early in the morning in case we go, if you want to go. If you don't, why we can get by without you.,12Wyatt Thomas Johnson, Jr., Assistant Press Secretary to the President.,Q. Why don't you go get some sleep, too?,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, thank you very much."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-03-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] We have some nice spring weather, I see.,Mr. Zwick, the Director of the Budget, is here. We will have a release1 that you are somewhat familiar with involving reduction in foreign personnel abroad in various Government departments. It runs from $12 million to $15 million for the transitional year, and to $20 million to $25 million for the coming fiscal year.,1See Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, p. 618).,Mr. Zwick will be glad to answer any specific questions you have on that at the conclusion of the meeting.,I would be glad to take any questions you want to ask.,QUESTIONS,WISCONSIN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY,[2.] Q. Do you know who is going to win the Democratic primary in Wisconsin?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't.,ADDRESS TO THE NATION,[3.] Q. Mr. President, there has been talk about another bombing pause. Can you tell us what your thinking on that possibility is?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that a military strategy that is under review from time to time, or troop deployments, or matters of that kind, ought to be speculated on until the President has made a decision. There is not anything to announce at this time.,I do think that as a result of the intensive review that the President and the diplomatic and military and congressional officials have given Vietnam in recent weeks, particularly since the Tet offensive, that it would be well if the President would speak on that subject rather fully.,Therefore, I plan to speak from my office tomorrow evening to the country at 9 o'clock.2 I will at that time discuss troop speculations that have taken place, what our plans are, and what information we have that we are able to talk about now. I will also talk about other questions of some importance.,2 See Item 170.,It will be more or less a report on the reviews which have taken place, together with an announcement of some actions that we are taking.,REQUEST FOR A TAX INCREASE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Representative George Mahon3 said yesterday it would be meaningful, that you really should ask the people for a greater tax increase than the 10 percent surcharge. I wonder if you are prepared to do that?,THE PRESIDENT. We can't do much about it between now and Sunday evening. I will cover that in my statement Sunday evening--my views on the entire fiscal policy. These remarks are being prepared now.,3 Representative George H. Mahon of Texas, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.,POOR PEOPLE'S MARCH ON WASHINGTON,[5.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the proposed Poor People's March on Washington next month in light of the events in Memphis this week, sir?4,THE PRESIDENT. I recognize that there are many serious problems, some anticipated and some that frequently are not anticipated, that flow from situations of this kind.,4 See Item 166.,In this season of the year, we are very concerned about dealing properly and adequately and appropriately with the various protests and marches that may take place.,The Attorney General has met with the Governors and with the mayors and has been in touch with them from time to time. Generally, he tries to plan and anticipate problems to the extent he can with the mayors and with the Governors, whose primary responsibility it is to maintain order.,In the case of Washington, the Attorney General and Mayor Washington 5 and others have given a good deal of their time to it. I would hope if there is a march that it will be in keeping with the law, that the law will be obeyed, that the individual rights of all will be respected, and that no violence will flow from it.,5 Mayor Walter E. Washington of the District of Columbia.,Q. Mr. President, on that point, there has been a suggestion in the Senate that there be an injunction to stop the march, or some type of restriction. What is your personal viewpoint on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with the suggestions. I have given my viewpoints generally. We believe that these marches should be kept within the law. We know of no way to prohibit people who comply with the law from exercising their rights.,DECISION ON VIETNAM AND THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, does your speech tomorrow indicate that you have come to the end of your A to Z evaluation? Does the speech tomorrow on Vietnam mean that you have arrived at a decision?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Helen.6 We are constantly reviewing this problem every day-we will never fully complete our work until we have peace in that area of the world.,6 Helen Thomas of United Press International.,We haven't even completed our work in Europe. We are reviewing it every day.,My statement tomorrow night will deal with evaluating the problems as I see them, giving the Nation my views on those problems, and announcing certain actions that I propose to take.,That is not to say that we have completely closed the door and nothing else will be considered. I will have conferences next week. They are rather important ones in connection with the actions that I will announce tomorrow night. But I think you will get from the speech pretty generally the Government's position and the course that we intend to take.,Q. Sir, will it be painful?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you call me and tell me after you hear it.,Q. It will be on television, though, won't it?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to make it available, if they choose to carry it.,EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, have the talks that resulted in our releasing the three North Vietnamese sailors been encouraging to you as far as our making progress on the Pueblo7 and in having dialogue with the North Vietnamese generally?,THE PRESIDENT. We are always glad to be able to get the release of our prisoners and to be able to reciprocate the actions they take.,7United States intelligence ship seized by North Korea on January 23, 1968. The crew was released on December 22, 1968 (see Item 641 ).,I don't know just how to describe those releases in your terms. You will have to draw your own conclusions there. We are pleased that those exchanges have worked out to the extent they have. We would like to see more of them.,STATUS OF U.S. DEFENSE SYSTEM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, this last week Senator Stennis said something about the Defense Department being down to kind of a bare bones position and there has been a request for some $3 billion or $4 billion in addition. Are you satisfied with the status of the preparedness or do you have any special concern at the present time?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly trying to strengthen the weaknesses that develop in the defense system of the Nation--the shortages that appear. Sometimes it is helicopters. Sometimes it is helicopter parts. Sometimes it is M-16 rifles. Sometimes it is ammunition. Some days it may be various fuels of certain kinds at certain spots.,Overall, I think generally there has never been a war fought as far away as this one has been fought that has been as well supplied and has had as few necessities in short supply.,But that is not to say that we don't make errors. That is not to say that we don't goof at times. We are constantly trying to find those goofs and correct them.,There will be some increases in certain items like helicopters, parts, guns, ammunition, and other things that flow from the needs that we found that appeared after the Tet offensive. The cost of those items is being worked on now. They are substantial, but there is not anything like the amounts that have been speculated on. I will try to give you some more accurate estimate of them tomorrow evening.,I would say they will involve a few billion dollars, but not anything like the $10 billion to $20 billion that I have seen and heard people use. It will not be anything like the hundreds of thousands of call-ups and deployments that I have heard speculated upon.,HANOI'S RESPONSE TO THE SAN ANTONIO FORMULA,[9.] Q. Mr. President, has there been any change in the San Antonio formula, and has there been any reaction from Hanoi to it in a positive way?,THE PRESIDENT. We extended the offer at San Antonio. And that offer still stands. They have commented on that offer. As far as I am aware, they have not indicated to anyone that it was acceptable to them.,We constantly explore leads that we think might offer some hope. But I am not able to point specifically to any action that they have taken in response to the San Antonio formula that makes me believe that it is acceptable, totally acceptable, to them now.,THE MISSING F--III AIRCRAFT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you have a report on the F-111 that disappeared in Southeast Asia, whether it was shot down or just crashed?,THE PRESIDENT. Do you want to be a little more specific?,Q. This week an F-111 flying over North Vietnam or in the vicinity disappeared.,THE PRESIDENT. The only information that I know that is available is that it did not return; that it is missing. That is the last information I have.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PLANS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans tomorrow to discuss your future role in this campaign, or candidacy?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, there was a story a week ago saying---on what authority it wasn't indicated--,THE PRESIDENT. What story? I don't want to chase these vacuums.,Q. It was a dope story. The authority wasn't indicated, but it said you won't announce your plans as far as 1968 are concerned until the August convention in Chicago. Is that possible?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't comment on any of those stories. I will cross that bridge when I get to it. The fact that it is a dope story is the best evidence of its total unreliability. Usually those stories are the thoughts of people who are not making the decisions, although we haven't made any decision on the matter yet.,MEETINGS ON ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN,[12.] Q. You mentioned that you were going to have a series of important meetings next week related to your speech tomorrow.,THE PRESIDENT. I said we will be meeting through next week on all of these matters, trying to implement them and carry them out, review them.,Q. I was wondering if those meetings were going to be here in Washington or whether you are considering another specific meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I will be here in Washington at least some of next week. If there are any meetings out of Washington, I will make an announcement when they are definitely determined.,PREMIER KOSYGIN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to meet again with Premier Kosygin this year?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have no plans.,PLANS TO ATTEND HEMISFAIR OPENING,[14.] Q. Do you plan to go to the Hemis-Fair opening next weekend, Mr. President, and meet with President Diaz?8,THE PRESIDENT. It is difficult for me to talk this far ahead, Helen. Of course, we would like to. Mrs. Johnson has plans to be there. If I can, I would like to. But there may be other items that would not make it possible for me to go there.,8 Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, President of Mexico.,CAMPAIGN MANAGER,[15.] Q. Sir, I realize the fact that you are not yet a candidate for reelection, but would you please tell us who you consider to be your main leader in your organization, the manager of your organization?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I just hope that all of you are as helpful as you can be.,DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, as regards the Memphis turbulence, have you talked to Dr. Martin Luther King,9 or do you plan to, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not talked to Dr. Martin Luther King.,9 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.,FRENCH POSITION ON THE GOLD PROPOSALS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there are indications out of Stockholm that the French are declining to go along with our latest proposals on gold. Are you disappointed in that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think I would say I am disappointed, but it is not unexpected. Is that clear?,You don't think I ought to advertise the wire services? What is this? Is this Reuters?,The Agence France-Presse says a spokesman for the French delegation declared-I just saw this before I came out, and I thought this would be helpful to you--\"We decline to associate ourselves with the final communiqué of the Conference of Ten.\" French Minister of Finance and Economy Michel Debre will distribute a statement and answer correspondents' questions as soon as possible.,Mr. Ed Fried of my staff is there with Secretary Fowler and Mr. Martin.10 He has reported to me from time to time. His first reports said that the first day was spent in staking out positions, with no great surprises; that Mr. Debre carried on discussions extensively, and they seemed to be isolated on most issues; that he spoke on each issue.,10William McC. Martin, Jr., Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.,The outcome has not yet been determined. So I would hope that this conference will be successful. We will have to read the communiqué that is in the process of being prepared.11,11On March 17, 1968, the White House released the text of a communiqué by governors of the central banks of gold pool member nations following their meeting in Washington (4 Weekly Comp. pres. Docs., p. 536).,It is obvious that the French have not agreed with our position. We have tried to be tolerant and flexible. We are very proud of our representation there--Secretary Fowler, Mr. Martin, and others--and we are very pleased generally with the cooperation that comes from the other members.\nNow, just what will come out finally, I don't want to say at this time, although I hope that it will be successful.,THE F--III--B AIRCRAFT,[18.] Q. Mr. President, on the F-111, the F-111-B was shot down also by the Armed Services Committee on a 11 to 2 vote this week after an expenditure of I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $ I billion.,I wonder what your view is on that and the plans to go into some other new plane?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you specialists in that field could better deal with that. The Navy and Mr. Clifford have some first-hand information on what has taken place on that.,I don't think I could add anything to what you already know or change your opinion in any way.,NEW COMMANDER IN VIETNAM,[19.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to name a new Vietnam commander tomorrow?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST,[20.] Q. Mr. President, we have had a renewal of hostilities in the Middle East in the past few days. Have you had any personal involvement in trying to cool things off there outside of what we are doing at the U.N.?,THE PRESIDENT. We keep in very close touch through our diplomats in that part of the world. They are reporting to me all the information that they have together with any suggestions they may have.,That is under the general jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary in charge of the Middle East, Mr. Battle.12 I have had a number of meetings with the Secretary of State and the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Battle, as well as with Ambassador Goldberg. I have had a number of conversations with Ambassador Goldberg at the U.N.,12Lucius D. Battle, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.,We are trying to exercise all of the strength we can in the direction of avoiding hostilities and maintaining peace consistent with the five points that I announced back last June. That is our general position.,That is what we think should be considered and carried out. We are trying to help with the Jarring 13 mission wherever we can.,13Gunnar Jarring, Swedish Ambassador to the Soviet Union and United Nations mediator in the Middle East dispute.,Ambassador Goldberg and Mr. Battle are working on the general problem every day. We deplore and regret violence wherever it originates on both sides.,We think fighting is a very poor substitute for reasoning and meeting with each other. We would hope that all sides to the controversy would be more amenable to talking it out rather than fighting it out.,But I cannot say to you that we have their agreement to that kind of a program as yet.,COPPER STRIKE SETTLEMENT AND THE ECONOMY,[21.] Q. Mr. President, could you discuss with us your view of the effects of the copper developments, the settlement, that seems to be emerging and the price increases that seem to be emerging?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very happy that we are able to resume production and to get the strike settled. We regret very much the inflationary aspects attached to that settlement.,We did everything we could to try to keep the increases in wages and prices lower.,In a free enterprise system where you have collective bargaining, unless you have mandatory controls which we do not have, all you can do is to lay down your views and express them and appeal to the individuals concerned to bear them in mind in their collective bargaining decisions.,Chairman Okun of the Council of Economic Advisers spoke very emphatically about the effect of these decisions. He spoke and I think released his statement to the press.,I would hope that all the copper producers would not follow the example that had been set of accelerating a general round of price increases.,We are very concerned about the inflation picture. We have been appealing to the country to give us support and to the Congress to give us support that we think would help to avoid inflation.,Early in 1966, we felt that the time had come when we ought to consider restoring some of the tax revenues that we had repealed in 1964 and 1965.,We counseled with labor and business and the congressional leadership. It was evident that it would be impossible to get a tax increase in 1966.,In 1967, we were more hopeful. Both business and labor agreed to support us. But as you know, the Congress did not agree with us for various reasons.,Some thought the economy was sluggish and didn't need it. Some thought that there ought to be reductions in the budget and a variety of reasons.\nThe economy, I think, demonstrated that it could take a tax increase and that it would be desirable. Most of the bankers, insurance companies, and economists testified to that effect as well as the labor leaders.,But the demand was made that we reduce expenditures. We could not act on that until Congress had their chance to do it. When they did, they reduced appropriations by several billion dollars and expenditures by somewhere between $1 and $2 billion.,The leadership thought that was not enough and asked us to reduce them even further. We agreed and recommended a formula to Congress that was known as the 2-10 formula that made additional reductions which ran about $8 billion or $10 billion in appropriations and about $4 billion in expenditures last year.,In light of this, we were hopeful that we would get a tax bill to deal with the constant increase in prices, the constant challenges to the dollar, the fear that we had of the in. crease in interest rates, and the effect that would have on employment, on housing, and all of the other matters.,Congress has not seen fit to favorably act upon the tax bill. Although I do believe that if the country would indicate its willingness to face up to this very necessary situation, I believe Congress might act favorably.14,14 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (see Item 343).,I think the country ought to know that it is very dangerous not to act. We are carrying on quite a gamble. Unless we have a tax bill with the increased expenses that we have in our defense setups in supporting our fighting men, as well as what we are trying to do in our domestic programs, then the price that we are going to have to pay is going to be much higher than the price we would pay by acting prudently and passing a tax bill.\nSo I think that that would be the best action we could take to help the price situation. In the meantime, we are going to try to encourage labor and encourage business to exercise restraint in their bargaining decisions.,We cannot force them. We do not have the power to restrain them and keep them from reaching these decisions.,We encourage collective bargaining in this country. But we do think that in this instance the increases are excessive.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-03-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a few appointments that I thought you would be interested in and would give you something to do over the weekend. I want to keep all of you occupied. There are no trips in the offing.,AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE,[1.] I am naming Sargent Shriver as Ambassador to France. Secretary Rusk talked to him today in Europe. He understands that the French Government has cleared him. The nomination will go to the Senate and when acted upon by the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate, he will go through a period of briefings here, and then go to the Paris post at a reasonably early date.,SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND\nWELFARE,[2.] I am asking Mr. Wilbur Cohen to be my new Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. He is the present Under Secretary. His successor has not been chosen.,We have tentatively reviewed some names together and we will meet again and talk about the Department, his functions, and the specific types of people we would like to carefully consider for Under Secretary. It will take some time, but we will make that announcement as soon as a decision is reached.,OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,[3.] I am asking Mr. Bert Harding, the Deputy to Mr. Shriver, to take over the duties of the poverty program during the time Mr. Shriver is away, and while he is going through the Senate confirmation hearings. When I make a permanent decision on the Poverty Director, you will be informed.,JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF,[4.] I have had under consideration for some time the filling of the expiring terms of certain members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On January the 19th, Mr. McNamara1 gave me several alternatives here with his recommendations. I have had Mr. Clifford 2 review those alternatives and those recommendations.1 Robert S. McNamara, former Secretary of Defense.2 Robert S. McNamara, former Secretary of Defense.,We have not completed action on all of them, but I have secured the consent of General Wheeler3 to an extension of one year in his term that would expire normally July 2, 1968.,3 Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.,Secretary McNamara, in this longhand note, was hopeful these could be announced in early February. General Wheeler has had a physical and taken the necessary steps, and he is available. If Congress is willing, his term will be extended for 1 year. The resolution will be submitted. It will be necessary to get congressional action.,I have conferred with Senator Russell, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Rivers.4 They both enthusiastically support this decision.,4 Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.,General Johnson's5 term expires as Chief of Staff of the Army in July 1968. He plans to retire. He has notified us of his desire to retire. He will be succeeded by General Westmoreland,6 who will assume the duties, assuming the Senate acts on the confirmation at that time, on July 2, 1968.,We have not selected a successor to General Westmoreland.,5 Gen. Harold K. Johnson, Chief of Staff, United States Army.,6 Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC,[5.] Admiral Sharp's7 term ends May 1st. We are going to ask Admiral Sharp if it is possible for him to continue through a July date so that we can have this transition smooth and simultaneous. If that is possible, we will ask him to continue to July 2d.,7Adm. U. S. Grant Sharp, Jr., Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in the Pacific.,His successor will be named from nominations from the services. The Air Force will nominate a man, the Navy will nominate one, and perhaps the Army, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary will make that recommendation. I believe that is all that I have now.,I would say that the resolution on General Wheeler will go up very shortly. The nomination on Mr. Cohen will go up today if the Senate is still in session. If not, it will go up when the Senate is in session. The same thing will be true of Mr. Shriver.,I would be glad to take any questions that any of you may have. If I am not talking loudly enough, I will sit down and you can hear through the microphone.,QUESTIONS,GENERAL WESTMORELAND,[6.] Q. Mr. President, when would you anticipate General Westmoreland coming back to this country?,THE PRESIDENT. July 2, 1968, is when I would anticipate his taking over the duties of Chief of Staff. I don't know what the pleasure of the Senate committee would be. But, they very likely would want him present to act upon him.,When they do want to act upon him, if they want him personally present, I would imagine that would be when he would return, Smitty,8 but I am not sure.,8Merriman Smith of United Press International.,GENERAL WESTMORELAND'S SUCCESSOR,[7.] Q. Mr. President, when would you think would be the latest that you would have to name a successor to him in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. July 2. That successor post specifically doesn't require Senate confirmation. General Westmoreland would be relieved of his duty effective that day. I would think a successor would be named much earlier. But your question, as I understand it, was the latest I would announce a successor.,PROSPECTS FOR PEACE,[8. ] Q. Mr. President, are we any closer to peace?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot answer that question. Peace is a very elusive thing. We cannot pinpoint a time or a date that may be in other people's minds. We are trying constantly each day to think and plan in every way we can for a solution that would bring a resolution to what is happening in South Vietnam.,But what may be in the enemy's mind I am not able to speak with any real authority. I would not want to try to be prophetic about what their decisions might be. We are living, I think, in a very dangerous time. It is taxing the ingenuity, the determination, and the strength of the leaders of the Nation, as well as our fighting men.,I have no doubt about what the resolution will be. But as to the moment or the exact timing of it, I cannot speak for it.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Frankel.9,9Max Frankel of The New York Times.,FUTURE STRATEGY IN VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Thank you. To help us meet the invariable discussion that will greet some of these appointments, could I ask two questions?,One, does the replacement of General Westmoreland imply any change of search and destroy strategy with which his name has been associated or any other tactical adjustment in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. The strategy and the tactical operations have nothing to do with the appointments as such. I do not know at this time who the commanding general of our troops there will be.,Therefore, I cannot speak for his plans or for his program. I feel that General Westmoreland is a very talented and very able officer. He was considered for the Honolulu assignment and for the Chief of Staff assignment that has been held by many of the greatest men in our military history--such as General Pershing, General Eisenhower, and General Wheeler.,After thorough consideration for many months and upon the recommendation of both the outgoing Secretary and the incoming Secretary who evaluated every general in the Army, to be Chief of Staff of the Army, General Westmoreland was selected.,Now, what contributions he will make to the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be a matter for him to decide and what the recommendations his successor will make will be for him to decide.,I don't think it would be fair or correct or possible today to announce the program of the unannounced, unknown successor.,SARGENT SHRIVER,[10.] Q. The second part, Mr. President, goes to Mr. Shriver. Did he ask to be relieved of his OEO duties, or is this just a good time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not say that he asked to be relieved. He told me many months ago that he had been in the poverty job and in the Peace Corps job in Washington for many years--some 7 years--that he had looked forward to the possibility of some foreign service, that the opportunity that he had for relations with other nations in the Peace Corps was a very satisfying experience for him. He said if there were anything that would be available where he could serve his country abroad, he would be glad to be considered for it.,I told him there were two places that he could be considered for. He gave me his preference. He had discussed this with the Secretary of State before he discussed it with me.,After our conversation, I sent him back to the Secretary of State. They exchanged views. And the Secretary recommended to me that his name be submitted to the French Government. That was done some time ago.,In accordance with the custom, we attempted to respect their wishes on the matter and made no announcement until they had been given the courtesy of considering his name and acting upon it.\nThey did that, I believe, yesterday.\nThe Secretary talked to Mr. Shriver today and informed him that the French Government had acted upon it and that he was prepared to submit to the President his recommendation if Mr. Shriver felt that he wanted that done in light of the action of the French Government.,Mr. Shriver stated that he did. Secretary Rusk submitted it to me this afternoon following the luncheon I had with him.\nDoes that answer both of your questions?,Q. Yes, sir; very well.,ADDITIONAL TROOPS FOR VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision on the question of additional combat troops for Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not. I have no specific recommendations at this point. The people in the field and the people in the Department are giving this matter very thorough consideration--replacements, extra needs, developments that are taking place there, the enemy's actions, and so forth.,When I have any recommendations that I am able to act upon and do make a decision, I will announce it to the extent that I can without involving our security.,I don't want to speculate on it because, first, I don't have a recommendation or facts enough to know. If I don't know, I don't know who does know, because the decision really has to be made here.,Figures from 1,000 to 1,000,000 you will be reading, hearing, and reporting. But that is a matter of somebody else's credibility. I want to try to watch mine.,SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR DEFENSE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you know yet whether you will have to have a supplemental appropriation for Defense?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have not made a decision on that. We do know that there are going to be some step-ups in filling inventory needs. The new Secretary has talked and consulted frequently with the Chairmen of the two Armed Services Committees about certain of those needs.,I don't want to get into specifics, but they involve everything from types of spare parts to ammunition, to guns, to certain types of equipment, both for us and for our allies, for extra troop commitments that our allies are making and for extra equipment commitments that we are making, such as to Korea.,So, when those things are decided upon and costed out, the Congress will be informed.,THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, rightly or wrongly, speculation grows that the coming presidential election campaign is going to be one of the most bruising, if not one of the most brutal, in memory, partly because of the divisive and emotional issues of Vietnam and race in this country.,Do you have any comment on that and, as a footnote, do you have any reaction to Governor Rockefeller's action yesterday?10,THE PRESIDENT. First, reaction--I don't know whether it is hope or speculation, but both, maybe. My reaction is that I would hope that is not true. I would hope that the American people and their candidates for public office can discuss the issues with those people factually in an atmosphere where people can deliberate and make a decision based on what is best for their country. I hope and I believe that can be done.,10Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York had announced his decision not to be an active candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.,I would not want to accept the anonymous speculators' judgment that it is going to be a bloody and bruising campaign, or whatever other adjectives you used.,So far as Governor Rockefeller is concerned, I am not in the practice of selecting or speculating on the candidates of the other party. I do not want to interfere in their business. My relationship with most of the Governors is very good.,I don't believe there has ever been a period when any President had more cooperation or better relationships with the States than the Federal Government and this President have with the Governors and the States at this time.,Right at the top of this list is Governor Rockefeller. He has been very cooperative, very helpful, very wise and constructive in all of his suggestions. We communicate with each other frequently in connection with the problems of the cities, the problems of the ghettos, the problems of the defense of the Nation, foreign relations, and other matters. I have always found him, while not always in agreement, always constructive.,SENATOR KENNEDY'S CANDIDACY,[14.] Q. Mr. President, within your own party, sir, Mr. Weisl,11 the Democratic National Committeeman in New York today said that Senator Kennedy of New York 12 has a lust for power to become President.,11 Edwin L. Weisl, St.12 Senator Robert F. Kennedy.,How do you evaluate or what is your reaction to Senator Kennedy's entrance into the presidential race?,THE PRESIDENT. I would have no comment on Senator Kennedy's entrance other than to say I was not surprised. And I could have made this statement to you this time last year.,THE PRESIDENT'S CANDIDACY,[15.] Q. When are you going to announce your own entrance into the race, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. When I get to that bridge, I will cross it. I am not there yet.,REPORT ON CIVIL DISORDERS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some people in public life who expressed disappointment that you did not react the way they felt you should to the report of the Commission you appointed on civil disorders.13 I wonder if you could tell us how you feel about some of this criticism and about the report?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know much about the criticism. I spent a good deal of time selecting the Commission. I tried to select men of ability and dedication and competence in this field. I thought I picked a very good Commission.,13The \"Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders\" is dated March 1, 1968 (Government Printing Office, 425 pp.).,I did not, in any way, make suggestions to them after I appointed them and explained to them the kind of study I hoped could be made. We selected an outstanding staff director. We provided several hundreds of thousands of dollars to the staff--I believe something over $1 million. We provided a good many Government people. We cooperated at the White House in every way we could.,We thought the report was a very thorough one, very comprehensive, and made many good recommendations. We did not agree with all of the recommendations, as certain statements have indicated.,When the report was received, we asked that copies of it be widely distributed to the Cabinet, to the Congress, to the Governors, to the Mayors, to the housing people and the Attorney General in connection with matters under his jurisdiction. He was asked to give special attention to the problems that they dealt with.,We felt that overall the Commission wanted to be and was constructive and helpful.,A good many of the things they recommended we had already made decisions on. Those are in one basket.,A good many more recommendations we had incorporated into our cities message14 that had gone up and was pending. There was a difference in amounts, perhaps, although they did not cost out theirs. I am not sure how much difference, but we could recognize differences.,14 For the President's message to Congress \"The Crisis of the Cities,\" see Item 87.,Housing, for instance. We recommended all that we thought that we could get the Congress to act upon--6 million over this period of time--and it represented a great acceleration. The Commission felt that it should be more.,I would not oppose more if we could get more and if we could get more funded. But we recommended what we thought we could build, realistically, and what we could get funded.,I asked the Budget Director the day after the report was prepared:,One: To have each Cabinet officer analyze it and to divide it into three phases: What we were doing that they had recommended, see how we could improve on it in line with their suggestions.,Two: To see what they had recommended that we had already requested authorization on and appropriations for: jobs, employment, housing, civil rights matters, and to try to accelerate those and get them passed.,Three: To put in this basket the things that we recommended that we had not taken action on and then to call upon the Cabinet officers to submit to me their recommendations on the things that had not been acted upon.,The Budget Director did that. We have heard from those Cabinet officers and have taken some action on them. From time to time I am sure that we will not only be acting upon other things in the report, but some things not covered by it.,We don't agree with everything in the report and they don't agree with everything we are doing. But there is a general \"simpatico\" of views, I think, between the Cabinet officers who handle these programs and the recommendations of the Commission. In some cases there is a different sum in amounts and emphasis.,We think it was a good report made by good men of good will that will have a good influence. We hope that every person in the country can read it and try to take such action as they can to implement it.,I talked to the Assistant Secretary of HEW. I talked to Secretary Gardner himself. I talked to Mr. Whitney Young and Mr. Wilkins and a good many of the leaders who are interested in housing, .particularly Mr. Weaver.15,15Whitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director, National Urban League, and Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The President may also have referred to Roy Wilkins, Secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or his nephew Roger W. Wilkins, Director, Community Relations Service, Department of Justice.,Some of our people, I think, talked to the leaders in the Senate and the House.,We want to take action on every recommendation that we can embrace that they think would be helpful.,I have detailed comments from the various Cabinet officers on parts of it, but I do not think you want me to go into this. But I will read one department's brief comments:,\"The Department of Commerce concurs with the Commission that the Federal strategy of the cities is needed, but devoted its comments to economic development and employment, the suggestion that in addition to the budget, the Economic Development Administration and the Department of the Army are well along in their planning for civil disturbance control.,\"My staff has prepared a thorough analysis of the agencies using initial reports from the agencies and the data they will provide.,\"This, in effect, will provide information on main points.,\"Funds are now being devoted to areas in which they have made recommendations; additional action to carry out the recommendations within existing funds; action to carry out very high priority Commission recommendations by modest budget add-ons; which recommendations cannot be implemented now; actions through Federal leadership consultations; State, local and private agencies to promote adoption and acceptance of the Commission's recommendations.\",This budget report came back to me in the middle of March. It already has been reviewed by all the departments and has been communicated to most of the appropriate chairmen of the various committees.,Merriman Smith: Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Any of you all want to wait and visit with my grandson, I will be glad to have you."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-02-16","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] George1 tells me that he has given you something not to announce today. I want to give you something you can announce just as soon as you get out of here.,1George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,We have accepted with very deep regret the resignation of Mr. Sandy Trowbridge-Mr. A. B. Trowbridge--the Secretary of Commerce. The resignation is effective March 1st.,We will send to the Senate the name of Mr. C. R. Smith, the former president of American Airlines, and the present chairman of the board of American Airlines.,Mr. Smith was born in Minerva, Texas, and for the last 30 years has been associated with American Airlines, residing in New York.,Mr. Smith is a member of the Business Council and has been for some 10 or 12 years. He is recommended very warmly and strongly by Secretary Trowbridge and other leaders, including Secretary Wirtz, with whom he will have to work closely.,Mr. Smith has agreed to move to Washington and join us effective March 1st.,CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,[2.] As you know, some time ago Mr. Charles Murphy informed us of his desire to leave the Civil Aeronautics Board. We are accepting his resignation from that Board. For the time being, he will be a consultant to the President, acting as a counsel for me here in the White House on a part-time basis.,He will be succeeded as Chairman of the Board, the Senate willing, by Mr. John H. Crooker. Mr. Crooker is a member of the law firm of Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman & Bates, in Houston, Texas.,I first knew him 38 years ago when he defeated my debating team in Houston High School. He was a star senior debater. I later took one of my men and Mr. Crooker and they defeated the State champions.,Since that time Mr. Crooker has graduated with honors from the Rice Institute, and with honors from the University of Texas Law School. He was on the Law Review there.,He is presently a resident of the District of Columbia, representing his firm here. His nomination will go to the Senate very shortly.,He was born in 1914, and Mr. Smith was born in 1899. Mr. Smith is 68 years of age. Mr. Trowbridge is 37 years of age.,I think that is. all I have. George will give you the biographies on these men.,QUESTIONS,MR. TROWBRIDGE'S RESIGNATION,[3.] Q. Is it health in Mr. Trowbridge's case?,THE PRESIDENT. The doctors had some question when he became Secretary of Commerce. He went through a very thorough examination. He had had a heart problem. He decided to accept the challenge. He did a very fine job.,He has been working long and hard, but he has suffered a little relapse. He has been out for a few weeks. After completing his examinations at Johns Hopkins with other doctors in the last few days, he gave me his letter yesterday resigning as Secretary of Commerce.,We are very hopeful that we can utilize his services to the extent his health will permit in some other capacity, but we have not even discussed that.,Q. Is he returning, Mr. President, to his private company?,THE PRESIDENT. I just answered that. As far as I know, he said to me that he would be available to us for anything he could do, so far as his health is concerned. But I do not think he has made any plans of any kind. I think he will have to speak for himself.,My judgment is he would wait for some time to see how his health comes along. Then if we could use him on something not so strenuous as a Cabinet job, we might be able to get him to do that. If not, he will make some private connection, I am sure.,Q. How long did he serve? From last June, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. George will supply that information to you.,Q. Mr. President, are you concerned by what may seem to some as a considerable number of departures from your administration at high levels?,THE PRESIDENT. We always hate to see anyone depart, particularly men like Mr. Trowbridge. But in the light of the circumstances, I think I wouldn't want him to stay and I don't think you would, either.,MR. MURPHY'S DUTIES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything more specific about what Mr. Murphy will be doing for you here?,THE PRESIDENT. He will be a counsel here at the White House, advising with the President, reporting directly to the President. His specific duties will be primarily legal. He was counsel to President Truman. He will be available, I think, for any assignment that the President desires to give him.,Q. I wondered, sir, if you might have any political assignments in mind for him?,THE PRESIDENT. None whatever.,A SECRETARY FOR HEW,[5.] Q. Do you foresee a new Health and Welfare Secretary soon?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any immediate timetable on that. We have a very outstanding man as Under Secretary.2 I would anticipate that he would act for at least a few weeks.,2The nomination of Under Secretary Wilbur J. Cohen to succeed John W. Gardner as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare was announced by the President in his news conference of March 22, 1968 (see Item 153).,THE AID PROGRAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some problems relative to the AID program lately. I wondered if you could give us your viewpoint as to what this amounts to, if you feel it jeopardizes your AID program this year, and what you are doing about it?,THE PRESIDENT. The AID program always has its problems with the Congress. The information I have about it is that the matter is now under consideration by the Justice Department. The Inspector General of the State Department has been very diligent in attempting to make a thorough study of the problems in the AID program. He is making his report available to the Attorney General and to the appropriate committees of the Congress.,GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you may have noticed that Governor Romney now refers to our force in Vietnam as the Johnson-Nixon policy. Does that ring any bell?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would think we shouldn't play politics with the war and try to associate it with name-calling.,I think most of the Americans at one time or another have agreed with the policy and there have been some departures from the ranks. But I am not going to say anything that I consciously believe will involve the war and the men who are fighting it in a political campaign.,STATUS OF GENERAL WESTMORELAND,[8.] Q. Mr. President, sir, there have been some rumors in the last couple of days from various Members of Congress that General Westmoreland might be transferred. Can you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that has been thoroughly covered. I should think you could observe from the sources that they are not either my confidants or General Westmoreland 's.,I don't want to attribute bad motives to anyone, but I would think it hardly likely that the Commander in Chief would get information about the future of General Westmoreland from a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin. I think that would be apparent to almost anyone.,I think that General Westmoreland is confronted with one of the great tests of his career, as we are in this country.,Just before he goes into battle there in South underequipped Vietnam--Khe Sanh, or whatever engagements may follow--I would not want to have him in doubt for a moment, or a single one of his men in doubt, about his standing with his Commander in Chief or with his superiors.,I am amazed that you would give the attention to him that you do in the light of my expression of admiration and respect for him so recently--in December, at Cam Ranh Bay, when I spoke very personally about him and gave him one of America's highest decorations.,I have observed this question being raised. I think it was first raised abroad. It continues to be raised here every day.,I don't know how to put a stop to it, except to say that I have never known a man with whom I have worked in the military for whom I had a higher regard or a greater respect.,I would hope that that statement could end the gossip and the rumors about General Westmoreland's future.,I think we all know that he has served there at my insistence and with the approval of the Joint Chiefs longer than one would ordinarily serve in an ordinary post.,But these are not ordinary times. They require each of us to help along and contribute whatever we can.,Just as General Taylor3 said to me, \"I have been away from my family now in three wars, but I am ready to go back again if you need me,\" General Westmoreland has said he would stay there as long as I want him to stay there.,3 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, USA, Ret., Special Consultant to the President.,While I don't want to be inconsiderate of him, I do think that it is in your interest and the Nation's interest, and the free world's interest, that this man, with his background, his experience, and his knowledge of conditions there be there at this critical stage.,I know the credibility problem. I cannot say to you that he will never leave.,I know he has. been there over 4 years already. But I can tell you that I have no intention of seeing him leave, I have no plan for him to leave, and, if I did have, I don't think it would come to you the way it has.,I think all of you should give consideration to how these things come to you. Because if you flash around the world the doubt that someone has and then to remove that doubt he has to make a statement, when, in the normal routine of things it should be changed, then you say, \"You misled us..\" So you get it either way--\"Have you stopped beating your wife?\",I said to General Westmoreland, when I saw reports in the intelligence of what was being said about him, and I saw them picked up by certain overseas newspapers, and before they came into wide circulation here but appeared, I think, in one brief reference, that I wanted him to know very bluntly that I had never known a man in the military whom I had more confidence in. I don't know how to go any stronger than that.,But there is a campaign on to get over the world that we have doubts in General Westmoreland. That campaign I don't believe is going to succeed. It is not going to succeed with me. I have no doubts about his ability, about his dedication.,If I had to select a man to lead me into battle in Vietnam, I would want General Westmoreland.,Does that make it clear to anybody and everybody, including all the foreign press that may want to pick it up?,You see, what irritates me is that I see these things about a week or two ahead of time. They originate, go around the world and then they get real hot here. There are reasons for doing these things. One of the reasons is to destroy people's confidence in the leadership.,With all the men we have at stake out there, with all the lives that are involved-it could be any of you or your boys--I just don't think that is the way to play it.,I see where General Westmoreland may be named a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have never discussed that with General Westmoreland for one second.,So far as I am concerned, if there is any way General Westmoreland could go, it would be up. Right now, he has the most important assignment I know of, and I am going to try to help him. I hope I am helping him by making it clear--repeat, clear--loud and clear--that every person that I know of who deals with General Westmoreland has great respect and confidence in him.4,4The President, in his news conference of March 22, 1968, announced his appointment of Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, to succeed Gen. Harold K. Johnson as Army Chief of Staff (see Item 153).,NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you address yourself, please, sir, to the gossip and rumors about nuclear weapons in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Press Secretary covered that very well.,The President must make the decision to deploy nuclear weapons. It is one of the most awesome and grave decisions any President could be called upon to make.,It is reasonably apparent and known to all that it is very much against the national interest to carry on discussions about deployment of nuclear weapons; so much so that the act, itself, tries to guard against that.,I have been in the executive branch of the Government for 7 years. I think I have been aware of the recommendations made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of Defense during that period.,So far as I am aware, they have at no time ever considered or made a recommendation in any respect to the deployment of nuclear weapons. They are on our planes on training missions from time to time.,We do have problems. There are plans with our allies concerning what they do.,There is always a person available to me who has full information in connection with their deployment, as you newspapermen know. I think if any serious consideration were ever given, and God forbid there ever will be, I don't think you would get it by some anonymous caller to some committee of the Congress. I think most of you know that, or ought to know that.,No recommendation has been made to me. Beyond that, I think we ought to put an end to that discussion.,PROSPECTS FOR PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any new, hopeful prospects for negotiating with Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. We look for them every day.,I would like to be able to say \"Yes.\" In the last few days, preparatory to closing out the statement that Secretary Rusk issued yesterday, I believe, or the day before, we reviewed Hanoi's actions in response to more than 20-odd proposals made by well-intentioned and interested people.,We reviewed the many overtures that we had made, including the most recent one where we thought we went as far as honorable men could go--the San Antonio proposal.,As near as I am able to detect, Hanoi has not changed its course of conduct since the very first response it made.,Sometimes they will change \"will\" to \"would\", or \"shall\" to \"should\", or something of that kind. But the answer is all the same.,While we were prepared to go into the Tet truce, they were moving thousands of men from the North into the South for the subsequent attacks on that sacred holiday. I think that ought to be an answer that any elementary school boy or girl could understand.,If you want to go to the negotiating table, if you want to talk instead of fight, you don't move in thousands of people with hundreds of trucks through the night to try to catch people--innocent civilians--by surprise m the city, anticipating a general uprising.,We are familiar with all the approaches that have been made to them, and we have encouraged them all the time. But when it is all said and done, I don't want to leave the American people under any illusions, and I don't want to deceive them.,I don't think Hanoi is any more ready to negotiate today than it was a year ago, 2 years ago, or 3 years ago. I don't think it has been at any time during any of that period.\nYes?,U THANT'S PEACE EFFORTS AND COMING VISIT TO WASHINGTON,[11.] Q. Could I ask you whether your review included anything you may have had lately from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or does that await your visit with him next week?5,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is yes, that does include such reports as we may have on conversations that have taken place in other capitals.,5The text of a White House statement following the President's February 21 meeting with United Nations Secretary General U Thant is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, p. 323).,We have responded on occasions to other requests the Secretary-General has made of us. We applaud his efforts to try to bring about a just negotiation, and to get all sides to the peace table.,Ambassador Goldberg had a long meeting with the Secretary-General and got a full report on his recent trip, just as I got a full report on Prime Minister Wilson's recent trip.,I have received a good many reports from folks who have visited other capitals. We are always glad to hear those reports, although we are saddened, sometimes, that they don't bring us the hope we would like to have.,Ambassador Goldberg told me that the Secretary-General would like to see me. He had been to the Soviet capital and met with the leaders there. He had been to the British capital and met with the leaders there.,He has been to India. He has been to the French capital and met with the leaders there.,I told the Secretary-General that, of course, as long as I was in this place, I would always be glad to meet with him any time that he desired to. He suggested next Friday. I told Mr. Goldberg that I didn't know what plans you might have for Friday, but George tells me you always get a little restless, jittery, tired, worn, and snappish on Fridays. Washington's Birthday is Thursday. Maybe if we wanted to get the maximum out of this, we ought to be here where you could be with us on Wednesday. So we moved it up to Wednesday.,On Wednesday I expect to see the Secretary-General and thank him very much for another try, to hear his views and to give him mine.,Q. Will this be lunch or dinner that he is coming for?,THE PRESIDENT. That will be 11 o'clock.,GENERAL WESTMORELAND,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned a worldwide movement or scheme to undermine confidence in the American military leadership,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think I said a worldwide scheme. I said we first heard reports in our intelligence reports that come to me every morning. At that time, the strategy was to discredit General Westmoreland's leadership. He had suffered great losses out there.,That was before it was determined that they didn't hold any of the cities they had attacked. But that followed with comments in other capitals, as it frequently does, namely, that there was great division in Washington, and that it was very probable that because of this great disaster General Westmoreland had suffered, he would have to be recalled.,All I ask you to do is just imagine how you are going to feel if the rumor is around that the Chicago Tribune is getting ready to replace you and it gets into the papers, even when you haven't a battle on. Put yourself in General Westmoreland's position.,The very morning that we anticipated one of our most difficult attacks, this came through in reports.,I called in my secretary and I dictated a wire to General Westmoreland. I said, \"I want to put it just as bluntly as I know how, that your Commander in Chief has never had more confidence in any military officer with whom, under whom, or above whom he served. Whatever you choose to do here will have my full support.\",I made it just as strong as I know how to write it. Sometimes down in my country you can make things pretty strong. I didn't circularize it because I thought that would just give added encouragement to those who would like to feel there was a division.,I did, in response to a series of queries from a number of people, send him a wire. I told only one man and my secretary. I hadn't told Secretary McNamara and I hadn't told Secretary Rusk.,That afternoon I had three inquiries from newsmen about the wire saying, \"We know you sent it to him. Give it to us.\",I learned I couldn't even trust anyone on a matter like that except my secretary.,I haven't made the wire public, but I am telling you the contents of it.,That happened many days ago and I feel just as strongly about it now as I did then.,I want to emphasize that I don't want to leave the impression with any soldier in that command, with any parent of any man out there, that there is any justification whatever for all this rumor, gossip, talk, about General Westmoreland's competence or about his standing with this President.,MR. VANCE'S VISIT TO SOUTH KOREA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess United States relations with South Korea in the wake of Mr. Vance's visit?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mr. Vance's visit was a fruitful one. I think he had a very cordial and understanding discussion.,South Korea feels very distressed about the attempt that was made to assassinate their President and all the members of his family, as we certainly do.,We feel very deeply our problem connected with the Pueblo.,We have an understanding, a treaty, with them.,Mr. Vance had spent a good deal of time on matters of this kind in the 7 years he has been here.,He had lengthy talks with the Defense Minister, the Prime Minister, and the President.,He made that report to the Cabinet committee yesterday. We thought it was a very good report and his mission was a very helpful one.6,6On February 9 the White House announced that former Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus R. Vance would visit Seoul, Korea, as the President's personal representative for talks with President Chung Hoe Park and other high Korean officials. Following his report to the President upon returning from that mission, Mr. Vance met with reporters at the White House. Texts of the announcement and news briefing are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 4, pp. 280 and 293).,LEVEL OF ARMED FORCES IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, are you giving any thought to increasing the level of our forces in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we give thought to that every day. We never know what forces will be required there. We have, tentatively, a goal. We would like to reach that goal as soon as we can. In light of the circumstances that existed when we set that goal, we hoped to reach it sometime this year.,In light of the developments and the subsequent substantial increases in the enemy force, General Westmoreland asked that he receive approximately half of the remaining numbers under that goal during February or early March.,Did you mean enemy forces or our forces?,Q. Our forces.,THE PRESIDENT. I said in light of substantial increases in the enemy force. You understood that, didn't you?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. So General Westmoreland told us that.,We carefully reviewed his request in light of the information that had come in. We made certain adjustments and arrangements to comply with his request forthwith. That will be done.,When we reach our goal, we will be constantly reviewing the matter many times every day, at many levels. We will do whatever we think needs to be done to insure that our men have adequate forces to carry out their mission.,PRIME MINISTER WILSON'S STATEMENT ON VIETNAM,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in light of your earlier comments on negotiations with North Vietnam, could you discuss with us the basis for Prime Minister Wilson's statement to the House of Commons, that there was only a narrow margin between the U.S. and Hanoi positions?,THE PRESIDENT. I have given you my views. I assume you have means of getting any details of the Prime Minister's from him.,My views are very clear. I don't know anything I can add to them.,If I have confused you somewhat, I will be glad to help clear it up.,I have told you that I have never felt that they have changed their position, modified it, or moderated it.,Douglas B. Cornell, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-02-02","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Tom1 will have copies made of this statement and distribute it to you later, so you don't need to take it verbatim. You may want to take notes as you go along. It is very brief. Then I will take any questions that may occur to you from it.1 Wyatt Thomas Johnson, Jr., Assistant Press Secretary to the President.,STATEMENT ON THE SITUATION IN VIETNAM,We have known for several months, now, that the Communists planned a massive winter-spring offensive. We have detailed information on Ho Chi Minh's order governing that offensive. Part of it is called a general uprising.,We know the object was to overthrow the constitutional government in Saigon and to create a situation in which we and the Vietnamese would be willing to accept the Communist-dominated coalition government.,Another part of that offensive was planned as a massive attack across the frontiers of South Vietnam by North Vietnamese units. We have already seen the general uprising. General Westmoreland's headquarters report the Communists appear to have lost over 10,000 men killed and some 2,300 detained. The United States has lost 249 men killed. The Vietnamese, who had to carry the brunt of the fighting in the cities, lost 553 killed as of my most recent report from the Westmoreland headquarters.,There were also a number of attacks on United States airfields throughout the country. We have confirmed the loss of 15 fixed-wing aircraft, and 23 helicopters were destroyed. A good many more were damaged but will be returned to service.,This is a small proportion of our aircraft and helicopters available in that area. Secretary McNamara, General Westmoreland, and the joint Chiefs of Staff do not think that our military operations will be materially affected.,The biggest fact is that the stated purposes of the general uprising have failed. Communist leaders counted on popular support in the cities for their effort. They found little or none. On the other hand, there have been civilian casualties and disruption of public services. lust before I came into the room, I read a long cable from Ambassador Bunker which described the vigor with which the Vietnamese Government and our own people are working together to deal with the problems of restoring civilian services and order in all of the cities.,In the meanwhile, we may at this very moment be on the eve of a major enemy offensive in the area of Khe Sanh and generally around the Demilitarized Zone.,We have known for some time that this offensive was planned by the enemy. Over recent weeks I have been in close touch with General Westmoreland, and over recent days in very close touch with all of our Joint Chiefs of Staff to make sure that every single thing that General Westmoreland believed that he needed at this time was available to him, and that our Joint Chiefs believe that his strategy was sound, his men were sure, and they were amply supplied.,I am confident in the light of the information given to me that our men and the South Vietnamese will be giving a good account of themselves.,As all of you know, the situation is a fluid one. We will keep the American people informed as these matters develop.\nNow, I will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS,NEGOTIATIONS WITH HANOI,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in your State of the Union Message, you said we were exploring certain so-called offers from Hanoi and as soon as you could you would report to the people on that.,Is there anything you can tell us today about the status of possible peace negotiations with them?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I would think that that statement is about as good as I could make on that general subject. That accurately describes what has been going on and what is going on. But I do not have any success or results to report on it.,ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION IN SOUTH VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, does this present rampage in South Vietnam give you any reason to change any assessment that you have made previously about the situation in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure that we will make adjustments to what we are doing there.,So far as changing our basic strategy, the answer would be no. I think that there will be changes made here and there as a result of experience that comes from efforts such as they have made. Our best experts think that they had two purposes in mind.,First was a military success. That has been a complete failure. That is not to say that they have not disrupted services. It is just like when we have a riot in a town or when we have a very serious strike, or bridges go out, or lights--power failures and things. They have disrupted services. A few bandits can do that in any city in the land.,Obviously, they have in the Vietcong hundreds and thousands, so it is nothing unexpected to anticipate that they will try in cooperation with their friends from the North to coordinate their activities.,The ferocity and the violence, the deception and the lack of concern for the basic elements that appeal to human beings--they may have shocked a lot of people in that respect.,But the ability to do what they have done has been anticipated, prepared for, and met.,Now so much for the military movements. This is not just a civilian judgment. This is the judgment of the military men in the field for whatever that judgment is worth to us back here as experts--Monday morning quarterbacks.,That is the judgment of the best military advice I have here. I met with them yesterday at lunch at some length. I had General Ridgway 2 come down and spend some time with me and talked to him.,2 Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, USA (Ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific (1951) and in Europe (1953) and Army Chief of Staff (1953-55).,I have spent a good deal of time talking to General Taylor.3 I had all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in yesterday. We explored and discussed what had happened, what was happening, what might happen, and so forth.,3Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, USA (Ret.), Special Consultant to the President.,I have talked to the Pentagon this morning, very early, and have been in touch with Secretary McNamara before his testimony.,Their general conclusion is that as a military movement it has been a failure.,Now, their second objective, obviously from the--what you can see from not only Vietnam but from other Communist capitals-even from some of our unknowing people here at home--is a psychological victory.,We have to realize that in moments of tenseness and trial--as we will have today and as we have had in the past days--that there will be a great effort to exploit that and let that substitute for military victory they have not achieved.,I do not believe when the American people know the facts, when the world knows the facts, and when the results are laid out for them to examine, I do not believe that they will achieve a psychological victory. I do not want to be interpreted as unduly optimistic at all. I would rather wait and let the facts speak for themselves because there are many things that one far removed from the scene cannot anticipate.,In all of the battles, there are many disappointments for the commanders and even the commanders in chief.,So I think that at this very critical stage I would much prefer to be played low key than to give any false assurances. I can only say this: that based on the best military advice that I have, I feel confident that the men will give a good accounting of themselves.,Now, Sarah,4 let's get yours, and we'll get through with that if you want.,4Mrs. Sarah McClendon, representative of several Texas newspapers.,THE \"PUEBLO\" AND ITS CREW,[4.] Q. Sir, I was going to shift from that question in view of what you just said to another question.,THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead.,Q. Have you any news on the crew of the Pueblo?,THE PRESIDENT. We understand from neutral nations and from reports from North Korea that the men are being treated well; that those who have suffered wounds are receiving treatment; that the body of the man who died is being held. We have received those reports and examined them. That is about the extent of the information we have on it.,Q. Did you say \"men\" or \"man\", sir, who died?,THE PRESIDENT. Man.,Q. Mr. President, are you confident that we can get back both the ship and the crew?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not. I don't want to hold out any hopes on information that I have that is not justified. All I can say is that these things take time.,The most comparable incident, I am told by the military people, to this one was the RB-47 that went down in 1960 and it took some 7 months of negotiations to get our pilots back.5,5 See \"Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960-61,\" Item 231; and \"Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, John F. Kennedy, 1961,\" Item 8.,We are exploring every diplomatic means that is available to us. We have our best military men reviewing all that happened and, as I said in my statement to you and to the country some time ago, we are taking such precautionary steps as we may think the military situation justifies.,THE SAN ANTONIO FORMULA,[5.] Q. Clark Clifford's6 testimony before the Armed Services Committee has raised some questions about the San Antonio formula.,THE PRESIDENT. Only in the press, not with anyone in the administration. Mr. Clifford said what I have said, what Mr. Rusk has said, what everybody has said, so far as the San Antonio formula is concerned. The country should know once and for all this morning that Mr. Clifford said just what I said at San Antonio.,6Clark M. Clifford, former Naval Aide and Special Counsel to the President (1946-1950), who took office as Secretary of Defense on March 1, 1968 (see Item 104).,POSSIBILITY OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TROOPS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, is it possible that these developments in Vietnam that you had outlined, plus the imminence of this major offensive, could lead to deployment of additional American combat troops in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to make predictions. Of course it is possible. The answer is yes. I wouldn't want your lead to say though, \"Johnson predicts possibility of troops\" because that is not anticipated. We see no evidence of that.,Yesterday I saw that George 7 said that of course we would consider calling up specialists or, of course we could consider some of these things. I must emphasize to you that lots of things would be considered, but so far as adding additional men, we have added the men that General Westmoreland has felt to be desirable and necessary.,7 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,There is nothing that has developed there that has caused him to change that estimate. We have something under 500,000. Our objective is 525,000. Most of the combat battalions already have been supplied. There is not anything in any of the developments that would justify the press in leaving the impression that any great new overall moves are going to be made that would involve substantial movements in that direction.,I would not want to foreclose any action in a matter like this. Anything can happen on a moment's notice. But we have constantly under advisement various things that we would want to anticipate. And after reviewing them now for several days, I have not seen the requirement or the necessity, nor have the Joint Chiefs, of making any additional requests to the Congress at this time involving additional authority.,It would be desirable, as it was last year, to have legislation a little more generous in one respect or two, or maybe more funds appropriated for military assistance that were reduced. We may have to get some adjustments in those fields, but there is nothing that is imminent at this moment.,THE \"PUEBLO\" INCIDENT AND VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, how much, if any, definite information do you have on the connection between the Pueblo incident and what is happening now in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not have evidence that would say that they are definitely, positively one and the same here because I cannot prove that. Practically every expert I have talked to on Korea and North Vietnam and the Communist operation--all of them, I think without exception, believe there is a definite connection.,I would have you know, though, that that is based on their opinion and not on hard evidence that I could establish to CBS's satisfaction in a court of law.,NORTH VIETNAMESE PEACE FEELERS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in light of what has happened in the last few days, or going back to the Pueblo incident, do you have any reason to believe that in the last 2 years there have been any genuine peace feelers put cut by the North Vietnamese or other Vietnamese Communists, or have they been phony, except when they were winning in '64?,THE PRESIDENT. We have tried to explore every suggestion made by enemy and friend. I must say that in retrospect I do not think we have overlooked anything, and I do not think that we have found anything that would give an impartial judge reason to be encouraged.,VALIDITY OF BASIC ASSUMPTIONS,[9.] Q. Sir, do you see anything in the developments this week in these attacks in Vietnam that causes you to think you need to reevaluate some of the assumptions on which our policies, our strategy there has been based? I am thinking in terms of the security ratings, amount of population that is considered under Government control? Do you think the basic assumption is still valid?,THE PRESIDENT. We do that every week. I see nothing that would indicate that that shouldn't be done. We must do it all the time to try to keep up, and to be sure we have not made errors and mistakes. If you are saying, have we felt that what happened could not happen, the answer is no. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bailey,8 if you have seen any of the intelligence reports, the information has been very clear that two things would happen:,8Charles W. Bailey 2d of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune.,One is that there would be a general uprising, as I stated.,Two, there would be a general invasion and attempt to secure military victory, and that the objective would be to get a military victory and a psychological victory.,That is one of the great problems the President has to deal with. He is sitting there reading these information reports while his own people, a good many of the best intentioned, are supplying him with military strategy, and the two do not fit in.,So you have to be tolerant and understand their best intentions while you are looking at the other fellow's hole card. That is what General Westmoreland has been doing while all of these Monday morning quarterbacks are pointing out to him that this is the way he should move, or this is the way he should move.,This is a part of what happens when you look at history. It may be that General Westmoreland makes some serious mistakes or that I make some. We don't know. We are just acting in light of the information we have. We believe we have information about what they are trying to do there. We have taken every precaution we know of. But we don't want to give you assurance that it will all be satisfactory. We see nothing that would require any change of great consequence.,We will have to move men from this place to that one. We will have to replace helicopters. Probably we had 100-odd helicopters and planes seriously damaged and we will have to replace them.,Secretary McNamara told me he could have that done very shortly.,We will have to replace the 38 planes lost, but we have approximately 5,900 planes there. We anticipate that we will lose 25 or 30 every month just from normal crashes and so forth.,EVALUATION OF THE SITUATION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe, sir, their winter-spring offensive and their call for an uprising and their attempt to impose a coalition government is based on their belief that they are taking military punishment that they cannot sustain for a long time?\nIn short, sir, are we still winning the war?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I see nothing in the developments that would indicate that the evaluation that I have had of this situation throughout the month should be changed. I do think that the second phase is imminent. What we have expected is upon us. We have gone through the first phase of it. We will have to see what happens in the second phase. If it comes out as expected, I think I can give you a better answer to your question when it is over with.,I do not want to prophesy what is going to happen, although we feel reasonably sure of our strength.,VIETCONG MORALE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, one of the problems people seem to be having in making up their minds on the psychological importance of this goes back to our reports that the Vietcong were really way down in morale, that they were a shattered force.,Now people ask: Well, how, then, can they find the people who are so well-motivated to run these suicide attacks in so many places in such good coordination?,Some people say: Well, that proves they know they are licked and this is their dying gasp. And some people say: Well, it proves that we underestimated their morale. How do you feel, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't read those reports about underestimating all their morale, and their being out of it, and no more problems, and so forth. That hasn't been the information the Government has received.,We do think that we have made good progress there. We are for that. We don't want to overplay it or play it in high key. We just want to state it because we believe it is true.,But no one in authority has ever felt-that I know anything about--that you could not have an uprising of this kind, particularly when they have ordered it and predicted it and we have been expecting it.,As I view history, I think that you have things of this type replete throughout. You can expect it. I see it even in domestic problems. The fact that people's morale may be suffering and they may be having great difficulty doesn't keep them from breaking glass windows and shooting folks in a store or dashing into your home or trying to assassinate somebody. That goes with it. That is a part of the pattern.,Now whether they are doing this from a position of greater strength or greater weakness--I would say neither. I don't think that they are as weak as you picture them in your straw man that you place up there--that the Government has this feeling. I don't think we feel that way.,I think we know that a march on the Pentagon can disrupt traffic and tie up things and cause problems here. I think we can see what happened in Detroit. I think we can see what happened in Saigon.,I think there are times when a few highly energetic and courageous people could seize National Airport. But, could they hold it? Does it endure? Is it a victory? Do they pay more than it is worth and so on and so forth? Those are the things you have to evaluate.,Now, I am no great strategist and tactician. I know that you are not. But let us assume that the best figures we can have are from our responsible military commanders. They say 10,000 died and we lost 249 and the South Vietnamese lost 500. Now that doesn't look like a Communist victory. I can count. It looks like somebody has paid a very dear price for the temporary encouragement that some of our enemies had.,We have approximately 5,900 planes and have lost 38 completely destroyed. We lost 100-odd that were damaged and have to be repaired. Maybe Secretary McNamara will fly in 150 shortly.\nNow, is that a great enemy victory?,In Peking today they say that we are in panic. you have to judge that for yourself. In other Communist capitals today they say that we have definitely exhibited a lack of power and that we do not have any military strength. You will have to judge that for yourself.,But General Westmoreland--evaluating this for us and the Joint Chiefs of Staff reviewing it for me--tell me that in their judgment it has not been a military success.,I am measuring my words. I don't want to overstate the thing. We do not believe that we should help them in making it a psychological success.,We are presenting these reports daily to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate where the Secretary of Defense is testifying and will be through a large part of next week.,There will be moments of encouragement and discouragement. And as things go on ahead, we can't estimate them, but they will be given to the committees who have jurisdiction.,Since the Armed Services Committees help draft our people and raise our armies and provide the equipment and so forth, the Secretary is appearing there morning and afternoon. He will be giving periodic reports that will be much more in detail and will supplement what I have said to you.,TALKS BETWEEN SOUTH VIETNAM AND NLF,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you still support talks between the South Vietnamese and the NLF? 9,THE PRESIDENT. I have not changed the viewpoint that I expressed when I quoted the statement of President Thieu of South Vietnam in my interview with the correspondents.,9National Liberation Front, political arm of the Vietcong.,RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in your judgment, did the interview Premier Kosygin gave to Life's editors reflect any deterioration in our relations with Russia since the Glassboro talks?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't care to weigh and speculate on the developments in the Soviet Union. We just tabled last week a nonproliferation agreement with them. We have other plans for exchanges of thoughts on various subjects.,We would always like to improve our relations with the Soviet Union and with all nations where we can do that consistently.,PROPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS MARCH ON WASHINGTON,[14.] Q. Mr. President, some people interested in civil rights, including Martin Luther King, are planning a massive march on Washington this spring. There is some talk that they would like to stop the wheels of Government.,Are you planning to try to talk them out of this? Would you assess that for us?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what their plans are. I am not sure that they have developed them yet.,Of course, I would be hopeful that our energies, our talents, and our concerns could be directed in a more productive and a more effective manner.,I would hope that some of these people who are leaders of the causes could recognize that the Congress is having hearings every day on subjects of vital importance to their cause.\nBy coming there and following constitutional methods, presenting their evidence to the Congress and persuading the Congress, it would be more helpful than just trying to stop the functioning of the Government who is also trying very much to help their cause to eliminate discrimination, get more jobs, and improve housing. Whatever time and attention the Government has to give to these things is taken away from things that they could be doing to help them.,So we will do all we can to work with all groups in this country to see that their views are heard, considered, and acted upon with promptness and understanding.,RELATIONS WITH SOUTH KOREA,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the Pueblo incident appears to have put a certain strain on relations between Washington and Seoul. Some political figures in South Korea are saying that the United States appears more interested in getting back the 83 men than in doing something about North Korean incursions into South Korea.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know which political figures you refer to. I can't comment on that.,We are in very close touch with the President of that country. I think he understands how we feel.,I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you I was deeply concerned about 83 Americans, as I am sure the President of Korea is.,I am also deeply concerned about the situation in South Korea and the obligation we have there. We are going to be equal to that obligation. We are going to be true to our commitment.,We have some 50,000 men there. We are going to see that not only are they adequately informed and supplied, but that all of our plans take into consideration the recommendations of that Government that we have found to be not only a friendly Government but an effective one--and one of our best allies.,I have great respect for the President of South Korea and his judgments. They are being received, considered, and acted upon every day.,I see nothing in any of these developments to justify a concern on the part of South Korea or America that there is a strain in our relations. I think that is largely talk and speculation and so-called reports.,MEETINGS WITH NORTH KOREA,[16.] Q. Are we now trying to arrange talks with North Korea at Panmunjom or has there been a meeting since yesterday there?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there has been a meeting between representatives of North Korea and the United States. We hope there will be additional meetings.,These meetings have not produced any satisfactory results as far as the United States is concerned.,I know of nothing that I should add to that statement. And I don't plan to.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-01-19","text":"INTENTION TO NOMINATE CLARK M.\nCLIFFORD AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,THE PRESIDENT. I asked you to come here.,[1.] I had a rather extended visit with Secretary McNamara this morning. We reviewed a number of departmental matters, budget matters, and other matters that concerned the Defense Department, including the progress he has made on the budget and the statements that accompanied it, which would be related to it, as well as his expected time of departure.\nWe agreed that Mr. McNamara would leave sometime in February, not later than March 1st, depending on the progress he makes there.,I discussed with him again this morning, as I have several times before, his resignation and, since his resignation, his successor.,I considered four or five men that he suggested, as well as a number of other men suggested by myself and others.,I asked Mr. Clark Clifford to serve as Secretary of Defense this morning, and he has accepted. I intend to submit his name to the Senate at a very early date. The Senate being willing, he will be available to qualify when Mr. McNamara completes his present assignment.,Mr. McNamara has had a truly outstanding record of Government service. He has served as Secretary of Defense longer than any other man has ever served in that job. He has had 7 grueling years, but with a very highly satisfactory performance to two Presidents, and I think, generally, to the people of this country and to the people of other countries with whom he dealt.,I have never known a more competent public official, a more energetic or dedicated one.,It is with great regret to the President, everyone in the White House and in the Cabinet, that he will be assuming other duties. We are pleased that Washington is not losing him. He will not be far away to counsel with us when appropriate.,I think that is all I have to say. I will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. What were the factors that pointed to Mr. Clifford?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first he was very high on the recommendations of everyone who made recommendations to me, including Mr. McNamara.,Second, I have very intimately worked with him when he participated in the consolidation of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, in the unification program, unifying the Department as an adviser of another President.,In 1949 I worked with him in connection with my duties with the Armed Services Committee on the amendments to the unification act after he had gotten the bill together that was passed earlier.,He was in Mr. Bundy's job, or what we might say Mr. Rostow now does,1 with the Defense Department during the Truman administration.,1Former Special Assistant to the President McGeorge Bundy and Special Assistant to the President Walt W. Rostow.,He was liaison with the Defense Department Secretary, Secretary Forrestal and later Secretary Johnson.2,2James V. Forrestal and Louis A. Johnson, former Secretaries of Defense.,He came into the service as a lieutenant (jg) and he went out as a captain. He is familiar with all the services.,President Kennedy appointed him as a member of a task force to study the Defense Department, its administration and its organization and its management, in 1960.,Following the Bay of Pigs, when the President set up a Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, one of the most important boards to be selected by the President, Mr. Killian 3 headed that Board, but Mr. Clifford was a member of it. When Dr. Killian got sick, I believe he recommended Mr. Clifford to be his successor. Mr. Clifford became Chairman of it. He was Chairman when I became President. I continued him in that capacity, as I did most of the men serving with President Kennedy.,3Dr. James R. Killian served as Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from May 5, 1961 to March 7, 1963.,He has been a very wise and prudent counselor to many Presidents, and certainly to me, in the field of defense, and in the field of diplomacy.,As Chairman of that Board, he had to work very closely with the State Department. Secretary Rusk considered him eminently qualified and one of the finest men who could be available for the assignment. He has traveled throughout the world in his capacity as adviser to the President and Chairman of this Board. He has been in the Far East and South Vietnam I believe three times in the recent years. He was my counselor at Manila.,When we were planning the democratic developments in South Vietnam that led to the election of the Constituent Assembly, the President and the Vice President, and the Members of Congress, he was there.,He has been a counselor on most of the important decisions made in many of the international fields from defense to strength to weapons to actions.,I think he is universally regarded by those with whom I have talked as being a man that the Government ought to have if we could get him.,We have had such a high type of servant in the Secretary of Defense that I think Mr. Clifford did not feel in a position to turn me down just \"period\" when I asked him to do it.,I made the decision finally today, although I had him under consideration since his name was first mentioned last August, and again in November.,I saw some squib that some speculative reporter wrote that indicated he might be under consideration for this assignment. I commented to him at a social affair one evening, \"I understand you are a candidate for the Secretary of Defense.\" He flushed a little bit and said he was not a candidate; he was not.,But if the Senate is willing, he is going to be Secretary of Defense.,Q. Mr. President, occasionally a Cabinet officer comes over with an understanding of serving for a year or some specified time. Is that the case here?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have not discussed the term. I asked him if he would accept the appointment. He cleared his throat, and I said, \"I expect to announce your appointment. If you would like to talk to me about it beforehand, I would be glad to see you.\",He said all right, he would come over. He came over and he talked to me. He is aware that he is going to be announced, but he is not aware of how long he will serve, nor am I.,Q. Mr. President, was he given time to discuss it with his wife?,THE PRESIDENT. If she is not in the beauty parlor; if her whereabouts are not unknown.,Q. Did you just talk with him?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked to him here today.,Q. Will there be any other changes in the Defense Department?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure there will be changes from time to time in all the departments, but I don't have any that I am aware of at this moment.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1968-01-01","text":"BALANCE OF PAYMENTS,THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,I hope all of you had a good Christmas. I wish for each of you a Happy New Year.,[1.] I have asked you to come here today for a brief announcement, the details of which will be carried in a more lengthy statement which will be available to you later.1,1 See Item 2.,The statement that I will make here concerns a firm and decisive step that the United States Government has taken today to improve our balance of payments situation.,I am taking a series of actions that are designed to reduce our balance of payments deficit by $3 billion as a target in the year ahead, 1968.,There are a good many details connected with each of these five specific actions. I counsel you to follow those details in the more formal statement.,But to roughly outline for you now those five decisive steps, I will say that the first is an Executive order 2 that I signed at 10:45 this morning that will give to the Secretary of Commerce, delegate to him, authority the President presently has to regulate foreign investment.,2Executive Order 11387 \"Governing Certain Capital Transfers Abroad\" (4 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 26; 33 F.R. 47; 3 CFR, 1968 Comp., P. 90).,We anticipate that foreign investment abroad, which was in the neighborhood of some $5 billion this past year, as a result of the restraints effected by this mandatory program, contrasted to the voluntary program which we have just had--our target is to improve our balance of payments situation by an additional $1 billion, as a result of tightening up on foreign investment abroad. The specific areas of the world which will be affected can come in the detailed statement.,Second, the Federal Reserve Board will exercise authority in connection with loans to be made abroad, some $9 billion last year.,We have, as a target to improve our balance of payments situation, as a result of the authority I delegate to the Federal Reserve Board, and the authority it already has--the regulation will follow that authority-to save an additional half billion dollars by tightening up on the loans made abroad. That will be $1 1/2 billion.,I am directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other appropriate members of my Cabinet to make a thorough, detailed study to effectuate every possible restraint we can in aid and in defense expenditures abroad, with a target goal of $500 million of improvement from our present defense, aid, and other expenditures abroad.\nThat would make $2 billion.,In addition, we now have a deficit of about $2 billion each year in our tourist account. We have appointed a committee headed by Mr. Robert McKinney, of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and I am asking him for a report on tourism in the next 90 days.3,3For the President's statement on February 19, 1968, upon receiving the report of the Industry-Government Special Task Force on Travel, see Item 83.,In the meantime, the President is appealing to all American citizens to help their country in this situation by deferring any travel outside the Western Hemisphere that is possible to defer.,As I say, we have a net deficit of $2 billion in our travel-tourism account. We hope that our target of saving $500 million in tourism will be a realistic one. That will depend on the cooperation we get from the citizens themselves, and from the Congress, which will be asked to enact certain legislation in that field.\nThat makes $2.5 billion.,We have sent representatives of the President to various countries today to exchange views with our friends in the world about our trade situation, our imports into this country and our exports out of this country. We expect to formulate a program. Our target is to improve our trade balance by a minimum of $500 million to $750 million. The details of that program will be announced following these consultations.,If it is necessary, as a result of the nature and scope of the program we feel desirable, we will ask the Congress to act in that field.,In the last two fields--tourism and trade-we may and very likely will have a message later to the Congress in that connection.4,4 See Item 88.,So, in summary, through this series of five direct actions, we are determined to improve our balance of payments situation in the neighborhood of $3 billion, and to bring it as closely into balance as is possible in the year 1968.,I will be glad to take some limited questions from you on this or on other matters.,I have staff here to give you a detailed backgrounding on all the problems relating to these five specific steps--Mr. Rostow, Mr. Califano, and Mr. Goldstein 5 from my Washington office have come here this morning.5Walt W. Rostow, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., and E. Ernest Goldstein, Special Assistants to the President.,While I don't want to cut off questioning, I am very anxious for this very important story to go out, and I am very anxious for you to have all the information you need in connection with it. I'll be glad to take a limited number of questions.,If Mr. Rostow, Mr. Goldstein, and Mr. Califano will come up here now, I will take questions on this or any other subject for a period of a very few minutes, and then I'll yield to them.,QUESTIONS PEACE IN VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Do you see any prospects for peace or the end of the Vietnam war this year, the new year?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very hopeful that we can make advances toward peace. We are pursuing every possible objective. We feel that the enemy knows that he can no longer win a military victory in South Vietnam. But when he will reach the point where he is willing to give us evidence that would justify my predicting peace this year--I am unable to do so--that is largely up to him.,FOREIGN TRAVEL,[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what type of legislation you are considering in the tourism field? For instance, cutting off customs exemptions, or what type of things?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we had better wait until we have that program completely formulated. I think that there are several items that are still under consideration. We believe that the most effective action that could be taken would be for the citizens themselves to realize that their traveling abroad and spending their dollars abroad is damaging their country. If they just have a trip in them that must be made, if they could make it in this hemisphere, or see their own country, it would be very helpful.,We are going to try to make that appeal to them. But we are going to support it to whatever extent is necessary to try to reach our target goal of $500 million improvement in the tourism situation.,GOLD COVER ON DOMESTIC CURRENCY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to ask Congress to remove the gold cover on domestic currency?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made no recommendation on that in this message at all.,THE POSSIBILITY OF WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Wirtz said the other day that if you don't have a tax increase, then you will have to face up to the question of wage and price controls, How serious do you regard that prospect?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we are going to have a tax increase. 6 In this statement this morning, I ask both the employers and employees to exercise the utmost restraint in connection with their negotiations. Now, I do not hold to the view that wage or price controls are imminent at all. And I might say that statement was made without my knowledge. I don't know how accurately he is quoted. But the Government has not given 6 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (see Item 343). any consideration at this time to action of that type.,6The revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (see item 343).,REPORTS OF POSSIBLE PAPAL PEACE MISSION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, when you were in Rome, did you and the Pope discuss his sending a peace mission to Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no, although I don't want to get into the process of eliminating what we discussed and what we didn't discuss.,But we did not discuss specifically his sending any mission. We discussed a number of subjects where--if he decided, if His Holiness decided, he wanted to act in that area--that could call for such action. But we did not specifically discuss it.,Q. May I follow that up a bit? The Foreign Minister of North Vietnam, according to some reports---,THE PRESIDENT. We are familiar with those reports. As of now, they are just reports. We are evaluating them. They come from a newspaperman who has written in this field heretofore. We have found it advisable to carefully check the statements in the report. We are doing that now.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PLANS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, it is 1968 and a presidential election year. Perhaps you would like to make an announcement of some kind on that subject. But if not, maybe you could go over with us your own thinking on the factors that will go into the decision for you as to whether you are going to run or not.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, Mr. Pierpoint,7 for your invitation. I have no doubt but what I will do that, but if you can just restrain yourself for a little while, we will do it at a later date. This is balance of payments morning. I will have something to say in that field during the year 1968.\n7 Robert C. Pierpoint of CBS News.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS; THE NEED FOR MORE STRINGENT MEASURES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, does your statement contain, and if not we would like to have it in your own words, just why,THE PRESIDENT. My statement is my own words, Mr. Frankel. 8,8Max Frankel of the New York Times.,Q. No, that is not what I meant. If it does not say, could you tell us exactly what makes these more stringent measures necessary and why you think the voluntary program of restraints failed?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, generally speaking, our balance of payments has had a deficit for the last 17 out of the last 18 years. In 17 of the last 18 years we have had a deficit. The first three quarters of this year, that deficit was within bounds. In the last quarter, it goes much further than we would like to see it go. It makes it very evident to me that those who are determined to preserve the soundness of the dollar and our entire fiscal situation--that direct, additional actions are necessary in this field where we have, as I say, had a deficit in 17 of the last 18 years.,For that reason, we have promulgated this program and we are placing it into effect. We believe that these actions will result in a reasonable balance in the coming year.,PRINCE SIHANOUK'S REMARKS ON U.S. MILITARY ACTION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the Cambodian Prince Sihanouk is quoted as saying he would like to meet with an envoy from the United States to discuss possible U.S. military action against the North Vietnamese seeking sanctuary in Cambodia. Can you tell us anything official regarding this newspaper report?,THE PRESIDENT. I can say that we have read with a great deal of interest--and I might say pleasure--the quoted statements by Prince Sihanouk. We are studying those statements very carefully, and confirming them.,When we have anything to announce on it, I will be in touch with you. I would say that we are quite encouraged by the reactions of Prince Sihanouk as reflected by the newspaper story. Any further announcement will be made after we have gone into it more thoroughly 9 and more definite statements can be made.,9 On January 4 the White House announced the appointment of Chester Bowles, U.S. Ambassador to India, as the President's special emissary to meet in Phnom Penh with Prince Sihanouk (4 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 35).,Mr. Davis? And then I believe Dan Rather 10 asked a question.,Dan, do you want yours, and then I will go to Mr. Davis?,10 Saville Davis of the Christian Science Monitor and Dan Rather of CBS News.,MEETING WITH POPE PAUL,[10.] Q. Thank you very much.,Mr. President, Newsweek magazine has described, as I read it, your meeting with the Pope as somewhat less than cordial. Could you clear us up on that without getting into specifics of what you and the Pope discussed?,THE PRESIDENT. I tried to clear Newsweek up on it, but I couldn't do it. It is just made out of whole cloth. It just didn't happen. The people who participated in the conference from our side were startled and shocked at their information. We told them it was just completely untrue. So that is our version. You can take Newsweek's or ours, whichever you want.\nMr. Davis?,EFFORTS TO CONTROL INFLATION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, since one of the leading factors in the foreign confidence in the dollar is the degree of the control of inflation in this country, do you anticipate that the tax increase and other measures of the sort will keep the rising of prices in this country sufficiently stable in the coming year?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very concerned with that, Mr. Davis. Prices have risen more than we would like to see them rise. We still have the best record of any industrial country in the world. But we are not happy with the record we have ourselves.,This statement, to some degree, deals with it. We have asked the Government officials responsible for supervision in this field to exert renewed efforts in an attempt to ask employers and employees to keep their negotiating agreements within the ball park so far as increased productivity is concerned, and not let the increases in one field go above increased productivity in the other. We are hopeful that that action will be successful.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS DEFICIT FOR 1967,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke about the balance of payments deficit in the last quarter. What is your estimate of that for the year as a whole?,THE PRESIDENT. I have that statement in the detailed statement, but I think it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 1/2 billion to $4 billion.,Q. That is for the year as a whole?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Now let's not prolong this thing if you want to get this story. There are a lot of details, just as I have repeated here, that these men are waiting to tell you. I want to answer any question you have that is really important to you; otherwise, let's go on with the purpose of the conference.,WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you are urging employers and employees to keep within the ball park. Is there any specific figure, such as a guideline estimate, specifically?,THE PRESIDENT. I would refer you to my statement in the lengthy statement which you will see as soon as you get a chance to get to it. We want very much to try to emphasize the necessity of following guidelines. The guideline is the increased productivity. We feel that you can justify only the increased productivity.,IMPACT ON 1969 BUDGET DEFICIT,[ 14.] Q. Sir, I was just wondering if you have any idea now as to what the likely deficit in your fiscal 1969 budget might be since this could have an impact?,THE PRESIDENT. No. A lot of things could have impacts. But I think we have covered in this detailed statement about as much as we can. If you have any further questions after you get that and file your story, submit them to Mr. Christian 11 and we will try to work it out.\nThank you very much.,11 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President.,FURTHER REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING HIS NEWS CONFERENCE,[During a briefing subsequent to the President's news conference, the following exchanges between the President and reporters took place.],LEGISLATION ON TRAVEL ABROAD,[15.] Q. You are asking people not to THE PRESIDENT. We will have legislation toward that end?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have legislation in that direction. We would also like to have voluntary action upon the part of all of our citizens. We believe we can have both. We think that we can announce, number one, that it is important to the country that every citizen reassess his travel plans and not travel outside of this hemisphere except under the most important, urgent, and necessary conditions.,Second, we think that we can develop certain legislation that will insure and guarantee our reaching our goal of a half billion dollars to three-quarter billion dollars of the reduction from the $2 billion deficit we already have.,It must be obvious that our people are traveling a good deal when you consider all the travel that comes here and deduct it from what we travel abroad, and we still have a $2 billion deficit.,Now we have a target of reducing that by a half to three-quarters of a billion dollars. We don't mean to threaten anybody with anything. We do expect that it will be necessary to have certain adjustments made in our present travel policy, and we will ask the Congress to do it. But we want to do that in concert with the Congress, after discussing it with them, and after reaching agreement with them.,Q. Mr. President, I am just curious as to whether the nature of this legislation will affect travel itself or the amount spent on travel?,THE PRESIDENT. I wonder if you can wait until we talk to the Congress about that. I think it will affect both. But let's don't tie it down and get hard on it, fixed, right here on January 1st, when Congress doesn't come back until January 15th. We would like to explore with them, give them our views of the most effective way of achieving this target, get their views, and try to get something that would be acceptable to both the executive and the legislative branches.,But we don't want to imply a threat to anyone on anything. We are too happy this New Year's, to get into that field.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. You can be sure, though, that we will ask Congress for legislation primarily to do with tourism and trade.,The other three, direct investment, bank loans, and reducing our own defense expenditures and aid expenditures abroad, the President can do, and he has done it. That is that.,One thing that is positive I would like to leave with all of you. This President, this administration, and we think the Congress, including Democrats and Republicans, are determined to achieve our goal of trying to bring our balance of payments in better equilibrium. We have outlined it here to the extent of some $3 billion.,It is pretty difficult to estimate a quarter of a billion here where we may fall short and a quarter of a billion we might exceed. [p.7] But we have a target and we are going to put all the muscle that this leadership, this Government has in the executive branch and the legislative branch behind the dollar, keeping our financial house in order.,MINIMIZING FOREIGN EXCHANGE COSTS,[At this point the President responded to a question relating to discussions to be held with NATO allies on minimizing foreign exchange costs.],[16.] THE PRESIDENT. They have made arrangements to offset our expenditures to the extent that we could work them out with the British and the Germans as a result of the McCloy mission.12 That is not included here.,12John J. McCloy, Chairman, General Advisory Committee, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, conducted negotiations early in 1967 with NATO countries relating to the costs of U.S. forces in Europe.,These steps have been under consideration for some time. Before they are effectuated, we want to exchange views with all the leaders of the world. I have been in communication with them myself.,In addition, I will have representatives communicate with them in various parts of the world.,I have this balance of payments program announcement behind me now. We will be working in the days ahead on the budget. Mr. Schultze will be here tomorrow. He will be accompanied by Mr. Cater, Mr. Gardner,13 and some other people. I will ask George to give you the announcement.\n13Charles L. Schultze, Director, Bureau of the Budget, S. Douglass Cater, Jr., Special Assistant to the President, and John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.,In addition, we will be working all the time we are here on appointments, on budget reductions, and on the budget for next year.,As all of you know, because of the late adjournment date, we are behind on the reductions on which they resoluted in the last few days, as well as getting to work on the new budget.,NOMINATION OF GARDNER ACKLEY AS AMBASSADOR TO ITALY,[17.] I am naming Mr. Gardner Ackley, the present Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, as the new Ambassador to Italy. We have received word from the Italian Government this morning clearing the agreement. When the Congress resumes its deliberations, his name will go forward to the Senate.,I consider Mr. Ackley one of my most trusted and closest friends and advisers. While he has been on the Economic Council now for several years, he agreed to stay on an extra year, which ends in January. I have asked him to take this post to Italy. Because of his interest in that field and his knowledge of the political and economic conditions in Italy, and his interest in that area, he has agreed to accept. The Senate willing, he will be going to that post as soon as he is confirmed.\nThank you very much.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-12-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,ANNOUNCEMENTS,NOMINATION OF GEN. LEONARD CHAPMAN AS COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS,[1.] I thought that some of you would like to know that I am sending to the Senate this afternoon, or at a very early time if they are not in session when we finish, the nomination of General Leonard Chapman to be the Commandant of the Marine Corps.,General Chapman is presently the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and I think is well known in the Congress and among the general officers, and perhaps even among some of you correspondents.,General Chapman is here. And I present him to you.,If you have any observations you want to make, General, we will be glad to have it, or if the correspondents have any particular thing about you they would like to ask, we'll be glad to do that. Otherwise, I'll go on to some other announcements. Anything you want to say?,GENERAL CHAPMAN. Mr. President, thank you, sir.,I would just like to say, sir, that this is an occasion that does me the greatest honor, and I appreciate it, sir. I assure you I am going to do my very best for you, and for the country, and for the United States Marine Corps-to the best of my ability.,If I may, I would like to say a word of thanks to my wife, who has stood by me all these many years and in company with thousands of other Marine wives who have stood by while their husbands served their country and their Marine Corps. And she has certainly done that. And I want to take this opportunity to thank her.,THE PRESIDENT. You better run and call her now before she hears it on the radio. We have a brief announcement to make.,FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,[2.] Mr. Nicholson, of Indiana, will be the new Federal Trade Commissioner, succeeding Mr. Reilly. George Christian will give you biographical sketches on that.,INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION,[3.] We have three members 1 of the Indian Claims Commission: Mr. Yarborough, and Mr. Vance of Montana, and Mr. Kuykendall, formerly of the Power Commission, a Republican, you will remember--Chairman, I believe, under President Eisenhower. And he has been recommended as the Republican member of the Indian Claims Commission.,1 Richard W. Yarborough, John T. Vance, and Jerome K. Kuykendall.,Those nominations go up.,I believe that's all the announcements I have. I will be glad to take any questions any of you may have.,QUESTIONS,MILITARY BUDGET FOR 1969,[4.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us something about your conference today about the military budget for 1969? And particularly, is the failure of passage for the tax bill 2 related particularly to the size of that budget?,THE PRESIDENT. That didn't enter into our discussions today.,2 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (Public Law 90-364, 82 Stat. 251).,The discussions today involved the general picture for the coming fiscal year, and pointed up any specific differences that the services might have, where there was not complete agreement, as there is not each year.,General Wheeler, I think, observed, and it was confirmed by Secretary McNamara, that fewer of those differences exist this year, and they are of less magnitude than has been true any time since General Wheeler started participating in these discussions, he said, which was some 6 years ago.,But there always the Army will have a question that they think should be pressed with the President, and they present their viewpoint.,The Navy will have a carrier or a submarine situation, or certain aircraft.,The Marines will have personnel number, or something else.,The Air Force will have some particular matter they have in mind.\nThey involve pages and pages and pages of general material explaining and discussing it. They come in and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs more or less presides with them. The President listens and he calls on each Chief to review his budget with him-not the details of it but the details of any difference.,We will get to the total budget later on and we do that.,Then that starts with the Army, and then the Air Force, and the Navy, and Marines. That is what we did today.,I think it is fair to say that the questions involved are not of compelling significance, not anything like some of them have been in previous years. And the amounts involved, so far as the next year's budget is concerned, are, compared to the total budget, relatively small.,Q. Mr. President, do you have a total at this point in mind for 1969 in general terms at least?,THE PRESIDENT. Whatever is necessary to give us an adequate defense that will adequately protect our security. We haven't come to any total figure at all as I said in the beginning.,SECRETARY MCNAMARA'S RESIGNATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, rightly or wrongly, some significance was attached to the fact that in your statement the other night on the resignation of Secretary McNamara 3 you did not say that you urged the Secretary to stay.,3 See Item 511.,Could you tell us the circumstances? Did you urge him to stay, or did you accede to to his wishes, or just what was the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the best explanation of my viewpoint is in that statement. I told just exactly what happened in that statement.,LEVEL OF NON-VIETNAM SPENDING,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Mills and Congressman Byrnes of the Ways and Means Committee indicated last week that they would like, in order to get your tax increase through next year, for you to keep the non-Vietnam spending down to the levels in fiscal 1969 or fiscal 1968.,Do you think you can do that? Do you want to?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to speculate on the information I have at this time as to what the budget will be for any particular department.,I have found from previous experience when you even express a hope sometimes you mislead people.,So, I want to say that we are going to keep them as low as we possibly can, consistent with the security of the Nation.,SELECTION OF MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT,[7.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of speculation--,THE PRESIDENT. There always is speculation.,Q. --about the Marine Corps appointment before the fact. I don't know how much there will be after.,I wonder what you could tell us to head it off, in terms of some of the considerations that go into such an appointment, why, what makes you settle on one man rather than another?,THE PRESIDENT. I selected the Commandant as I have selected the Chief of Staff of each of the other services that I have been called upon to make recommendations on. I do that on the basis of the record of the men and their service; also upon recommendations that come to me from their superiors.,And I think that there are many good men in the Marine Corps who would make very able Commandants. One man said you could flip a coin and any one of three or four would be ideally equipped.,It happens that the Commandant is going out and his first assistant is going in, and that is not an unusual thing either in the service or out of the service. He is a man possessed with unusual military traits and qualifications. He has had a very fine record in the service. I believe he is the senior three star man being considered. He is highly recommended by all of those with whom he is associated.,Q. Mr. President, is he being nominated for four stars?,THE PRESIDENT. The Commandant may carry that--I'm not sure. I don't know how to--[At this point, Deputy Press Secretary Robert H. Fleming handed the President a note.] He says not to touch the mike. Stand here. [Laughter] Don't want any speculation to start. I have heard about these notes being passed before, so I want to clear that up right now.,PEACE TALKS WITH NORTH VIETNAM,[8.] Q. There is a story out of London this afternoon, one that Prime Minister Wilson is coming to see you. The second part of it quotes a Russian official as saying talks definitely will start if you would stop the bombing unconditionally. Have you received such information?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no comment on the story. I have not seen it. I think that my last press conference makes it pretty clear what our situation is there. And I doubt that when and if a situation of that kind comes about you will be reading it over the ticker before we know it.,ALTERNATIVES TO A TAX INCREASE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the situation on your request for a tax hike, are you giving consideration to any alternative proposals? One idea mentioned has been that you might consider requesting Congress for emergency authority to enact wage and price controls.,THE PRESIDENT. We have no such proposals under consideration, I say at this time. I wouldn't foreclose that next year, or 4 years from now, 8 years from now--I don't want it to come out of context and make a prediction that never will be. Nothing of that type is imminent at this moment.,Q. Mr. President, without the tax increase there would be a much larger Federal deficit in fiscal '68. In light of this, are you considering any deeper cuts in spending than were discussed last week by Director Schultze 4 at Ways and Means?,4 Charles L. Schultze, Director of the Bureau of the Budget.,Secondly, could you discuss your outlook for the economy in light of the larger Federal deficit?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, the Congress has the cutting power. And we would hope they would exercise that power on any individual items in any of the bills that they may think necessary.,Second, they control the purse strings so far as appropriations are concerned. I am afraid some of you get the idea sometimes that that is a matter for the President to do.,The President can veto or approve the bills they send him, but the President can't spend a dime that they don't appropriate for the purpose of spending ahead of time.,Now, in times past, with their consent, in my administration we have deferred and withheld and postponed and frozen items for the time being. But I would hope that the Congress would go as far as it can go.,On the tax bill, we are very hopeful that they will pass the tax bill. They have the authority. We think each day it is becoming more evident that we need the revenue-that the economy needs the tax bill. And we are very hopeful that the Congress will, in their wisdom, act upon one.,POSSIBLE VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER WILSON,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there was a twopart question and I don't believe you answered the first part.,THE PRESIDENT. I may not have.,Q. That was whether Mr. Wilson is coming to see you soon.,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't understand they asked that question. I do not know. No definite arrangement has been made. No date has been agreed upon. There have been discussions about a visit, but that is not definite.,Q. Mr. President,THE PRESIDENT. No time has been set, although Mr. Wilson would be welcome any time he chose to come.,SENATOR MCCARTHY'S CANDIDACY,[ 11. ] Q. Mr. President, Senator McCarthy has now thrown his hat into the ring and is going to enter several primaries to challenge you for the nomination. How do you view this? What is your assessment of this situation and how do you view its effects on the party itself, in an election year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think everyone has a right to run for any office in this country that he wants to run for. I think that is about all the comment I would have to make on Senator McCarthy.,THE SENATE RESOLUTION ON VIETNAM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, what are you planning to do on the Senate resolution to take the Vietnam question to the U.N.? Have you started plans on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure that we will get the resolution, it will go to the State Department and we will get their reactions and Ambassador Goldberg's reactions. And then I will consider what is appropriate under the circumstances.,REPLACEMENT FOR SECRETARY MCNAMARA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, have you picked a man, even if you don't want to tell us who he is, to replace Mr. McNamara?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't.,PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S VIEWS ON VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, former President Eisenhower said the other night it might be useful at times to send American forces into North Vietnam, and a couple of Republican Congressmen have commented and predicted that might happen. What are your feelings on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't make any comments on that in a press conference. I don't have what the General said. And I don't want to be passing judgment on his comments anyway.\nWhatever military action would be desirable and fitting under the circumstances, I would rather handle it through General Westmoreland than NBC.,MEETING WITH CYRUS VANCE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to see Mr. Vance 5 tomorrow?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, if he is here.,5On November 22, 1967, the White House had announced that Cyrus R. Vance, New York attorney and former Deputy Secretary of Defense, would fly to Ankara and Athens for discussions with Turkish and Greek officials in an attempt to mediate the dispute between the two countries over the island of Cyprus (3 Weekly Comp. Pres. Does., P. 1613).,STATUS OF MEMBERS OF THE CABINET,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Joe Alsop this morning had in his column, he stated as a fact, that all members of your Cabinet, including Mr. McNamara, had fairly recently made a promise to you that they would stay through the 1968 elections. Is that a fact?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't recall it. [Laughter] I have never felt that anyone was obligated for any reason to stay in the President's Cabinet. There have been men come in the Cabinet and leave the Cabinet. I am sure that will continue to be the case.,Q. Mr. President, cleaning out that speculation basket, some of the language that was used in the McNamara exchange about fresh faces in Government positions set off a new guessing game as to whether anybody else in the Cabinet is getting ready to yield to a fresh face. Do you know of any other changes in the Cabinet coming up?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I know that \"some kids\" have been calling around some of your bureaus predicting that and planning it and these same boys from time to time set up straw men and then knock them down. They get about a 2- or 3-day run on some of these things. But most of them are not as close to the situation as they might be, or might desire to be.,I would doubt that they would have any information the President doesn't have. I have no information that any Cabinet officer has any intention of leaving, but I could conceive of Cabinet officers--one, or two, or more--leaving at some time under certain circumstances. I don't think that the sources you quote would have much information on it one way or the other, or on any that had left, either.,Q. Sir, would these \"kids\" be of an age sufficient to serve in Congress? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't have any Members of Congress in mind, although I am sure some of them were involved. All I know is what some of the newspaper people have told me. The reference came from them. I didn't see them or hear them, but I do understand some calls were made. I think some of the Cabinet officers were familiar with that.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PLANS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, if you run next year, sir, do you contemplate conducting any sort of a different kind of campaign than you did the last time, using more or less television, more or fewer appearances?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't given any consideration to that at this time.,STEEL PRICE INCREASE,[ 18.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask you about the recent price increase announced in steel, whether you plan any personal action to stop this spiral? Steel is usually basic, and we usually get other prices to follow in the wage and price spiral. What action do you contemplate in that?,THE PRESIDENT. We have expressed to the people in the industry our very strong-felt views as elaborated on in the statement of the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Ackley. We have made our position very clear.,We have exercised such rights as we had in the matter. And we will continue to attempt to prevail upon both labor and business, or business and labor, to bear in mind that when the increased costs exceed the increased productivity, we have an undesirable and bad situation.,We will try to appeal to them to try to keep that from occurring, although it will occur, as you know.,PLANS FOR AN ASIAN SUMMIT MEETING,[19.] Q. Mr. President, what is the status of your plans now for an all-Asian summit meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have any immediate plans. When we do have, we will announce them. There is not any date or time.,We do like to get together at periodic intervals when it is convenient to all of them. But as you know, there have been a good many things taking place in many of the countries involved--elections, inauguration, off-year senatorial elections, and other things. So, there is nothing in the works immediately.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-11-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I will be glad to take your questions.,QUESTIONS,FORCE LEVELS IN VIETNAM,[1.] Q. Do you think that at this point our force levels in Vietnam will begin to level off in authorized strength, or do you think more troops may be needed in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. We have previously considered and approved the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the force level.,General Westmoreland discussed this at some length with me last night and this morning. He anticipates no increase in that level.,APPRAISING CRITICISMS OF THE PRESIDENT,[2.] Q. Mr. President, we are getting close to the end of your 4th year in office. You have been subjected to a great deal of personal criticism, ranging from a Senator in your own party planning to run--,THE PRESIDENT. I am generally familiar with that.,Q. --to the preacher in Williamsburg. I wonder how you appraise this personally?,THE PRESIDENT. It is not a surprise. I am aware that this has happened to the 35 Presidents who preceded me. No public official, certainly not one who has been in public life 35 years as I have been, would fail to expect criticism.\nThere is a different type of criticism. There is a difference between constructive dissent and storm trooper bullying, howling, and taking the law into your own hands.,I think that the President must expect that those in the other party will frequently find it necessary to find fault and to complain-to attempt to picture to the people that the President should be replaced.,It is also true in all parties that there are divisions. We don't all think alike. If we did, one man would be doing all the thinking.,So you have divisions in parties. We have perhaps more than our share sometimes. But I am sure the Republicans think that, too.,When you get into a political year, with the help and advice and the abetting that the press can do, and the assistance that the opposing party can do--because it is to their interest to try to destroy you in order to have a place for themselves--and you take the divisions in your own party, and they concentrate, then it does seem to mount up and at times occupy a great deal of public attention.,But I don't think it is unusual for a President to be criticized. That seems to be one of the things that goes with the job.,Not many of us want to say, \"I failed,\" or \"I made a mistake,\" or \"We shouldn't have done that,\" or \"This shouldn't have happened.\",It is always easier to say that someone over there is wrong. The President is more or less a lightning rod. At least I have seen that in this country.,I remember, to take one or two illustrations, when President Truman very courageously and, I think, very wisely went into Korea.,One of our pollsters dashed out with a poll--Dr. Gallup--and found that that position was approved by about 81 percent. Six months later, when the sacrifices were evident and the problems began to appear, the same pollster, talking to the same people, found that this had dropped from 81 to 26 percent.,Now, those things have happened in all of our crises--economic, domestic, and international. A President learns to expect them and learns to live with them.,The important thing for every man who occupies this place is to search as best he can to get the right answer; to try to find out what is right; and then do it without regard to polls and without regard to criticism.,THE BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, a good many Americans have said that a stop to the bombing is worth trying just to see if North Vietnam will respond. What is your view on this?,THE PRESIDENT. North Vietnam has responded. Their statement this week in the Hanoi newspaper in response to my statement from the Enterprise is very clear and very compelling. It should answer any person in this country who has ever felt that stopping the bombing alone would bring us to the negotiating table.,Hanoi made it very clear in response to my appeal from the Enterprise that their position, in effect, was the same as it has always been. It was the same as enunciated in Ho Chi Minh's letter to me which Ho Chi Minh made public.,There are some hopeful people and there are some naive people in this country--and there are some political people.,But anyone who really wants to know what the position of North Vietnam is should read what the spokesmen of North Vietnam say.,That is best summarized in Mr. Ho Chi Minh's letter to the President that he made public, that is on the record, that he has never changed.,So all of these hopes, dreams, and idealistic people going around are misleading and confusing and weakening our position.,THE VIETCONG'S WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE,[4.] Q. Do you have any evidence that the Vietcong might be moving toward the position of wanting to negotiate separate from Hanoi and, if so, what would be your attitude toward negotiating with them?,THE PRESIDENT. I would prefer to handle our negotiations through diplomatic channels with whomsoever we may negotiate.,I don't think this is the place to do our negotiating. We are very anxious to find a solution that will bring an end to the war.,As we have stated so many times, we are ready to meet and discuss that with the officials of Hanoi and the Vietcong will have no problem in having their voice fully heard and considered.,But I think that it would be better if we would wait until opportunity develops along that line and then do it through our trained diplomats.,REFLECTIONS AFTER 4 YEARS IN OFFICE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, a minute ago you talked about the job of being President. This Wednesday you are going to complete 4 years in the Office of the President. I wonder if you could reflect for a moment on the Presidency and what have been your greatest satisfactions and what are your greatest disappointments.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we had better do that a little later. I can't tell all the good things that have happened or the bad ones, either, in these 4 years in a 30-minute press conference. I would be charged with filibustering.,But we primarily want to think of the future--and not the past.,It has been almost two centuries since our Revolution and since we won our freedom. We have come a long way during that period. But we have much farther to go, as you can see from our education and health and city statistics, and farm statistics.,As long as there are four people out of every ten in the world who can't spell \"cat,\" or can't write \"dog,\" we have much to do.,I am particularly proud of what we have done in education--from Head Start to adult education, where men and women past 70 are learning to read and write for the first time.,I am very pleased, for instance, that we have raised our contributions from the Federal Government to higher education from 16 percent to 24 percent in the last 4 years, while the States have remained practically static.,We have made revolutionary strides in education, in health, in conservation, where we are probably taking in as much land in the public domain for the first time in years as we are letting out.,We feel that we have brought a degree of stability into our international relations to this hemisphere through the Alliance for Progress and our meetings at Punta del Este.,Working with other nations, we have made material advances in helping underdeveloped nations in Africa.,We are very pleased with what has come out of our meetings with the Germans and with the British in connection with our trilateral talks; what has come out of our Kennedy Round meetings; the several treaties that we have negotiated with the Soviet Union, and the one that we are working on so hard now--the nonproliferation treaty.,We are happy that 9 million more people have good-paying jobs today than had them when I came into this office.,But these are things of the past, and we should accept. They are here. We want to preserve them.,But the important problems are ahead. What is the next century going to be like? What is the third century going to be like?,As long as the ancient enemies are rampant in the world--illiteracy, ignorance, disease, poverty, and war--there is much for government to do.,We are working on that now. We will be talking more to you about that in the months ahead.,ASSESSMENT OF SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your talks this week with General Westmoreland, Ambassador Bunker, and others, what is your present assessment of our progress and prospects in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will repeat to you their assessment, because they are the ones who are in the best position to judge things locally. I will give you my evaluation of what they have said.,First, I think every American's heart should swell with pride at the competence and capacity of our leadership in Vietnam.,I believe, and our allied people believe, that we have a superior leadership. I think it is the best that the United States of America can produce--in experience, in judgment, in training, in general competence.,I have had three meetings with Ambassador Bunker and three with General Westmoreland. I had coffee with him at length this morning, just before I came here.,Our American people, when we get in a contest of any kind--whether it is in a war, an election, a football game, or whatever it is--want it decided and decided quickly; get in or get out.,They like that curve to rise like this [indicating a sharp rise] and they like the opposition to go down like this [indicating a sharply declining line].,That is not the kind of war we are fighting in Vietnam.,We made our statement to the world of what we would do if we had Communist aggression in that part of the world in 1954.,We said we would stand with those people in the face of common danger.,The time came when we had to put up or shut up. We put up. And we are there. We don't march out and have a big battle each day in a guerrilla war. It is a new kind of war for us. So it doesn't move that fast.,Summarizing and trying to be fully responsive to your question in the time allotted, we are moving more like this [indicating gradual rise]. They are moving more like this [indicating decline], instead of straight up and straight down.,We are making progress. We are pleased with the results that we are getting.,We are inflicting greater losses than we are taking.,Amidst the horrors of war--and more people have been killed trying to vote in South Vietnam than have been killed by bombs in North Vietnam, according to the North Vietnam figures--in the midst of all the horrors of war, in guerrilla fighting in South Vietnam, we have had five elections in a period of a little over 14 months.\nThere was great doubt whether we could have any. It took us from 1776 to 1789--not 13 months but 13 years--to get a Constitution with our Anglo-Saxon background and all the training we had.,To think that here in the midst of war, when the grenades are popping like firecrackers all around you, that two-thirds or three-fourths of the people would register and vote, and have 5 elections in 13 months--and through the democratic process select people at the local level, a constituent assembly, a house of representatives, a senate, a president and a vice president-that is encouraging.,The fact that the population under free control has constantly risen, and that under Communist control has constantly gone down, is a very encouraging sign.,The improvement that has been made by the South Vietnamese themselves in putting in reforms, in announcing other programs, and in improving their own Army, is a matter of great satisfaction to Ambassador Bunker and to General Westmoreland.,We have a lot to do yet. A great many mistakes have been made. We take two steps forward, and we slip back one. It is not all perfect by any means.,There are a good many days when we get a C-minus instead of an A-plus.,But overall, we are making progress. We are satisfied with that progress. Our allies are pleased with that progress. Every country that I know in that area that is familiar with what is happening thinks it is absolutely essential that Uncle Sam keep his word and stay there until we can find an honorable peace.,If they have any doubts about it, Mr. Ho Chi Minh--who reads our papers and who listens to our radio, who looks at our television-if he has any doubts about it, I want to disillusion him this morning.,We keep our commitments. Our people are going to support the men who are there. The men there are going to bring us an honorable peace.,HANOI'S INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC OPINION IN THE UNITED STATES,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Hanoi may be interpreting current public opinion polls to indicate that you will be replaced next year. How should this affect the campaign in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how it will affect the campaign in this country. Whatever interpretation Hanoi might make that would lead them to believe that Uncle Sam-whoever may be President--is going to pull out and it will be easier for them to make an inside deal with another President, then they will make a serious misjudgment.,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS FOR 1968,[8.] Q. Are you going to run next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I will cross that bridge when I get to it, as I have told you so many times.,PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE OF TAX BILL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there are increasing statements from Capitol Hill that say your tax bill is dead for this session of Congress. Is there any plan on the part of your administration to try and revive this before Congress leaves; and, secondly, if not, what plans might you have next year to avert this inflationary trend that we are told will be coming?,THE PRESIDENT. We want very much to have a tax bill just as quickly as we can get it. We think the sound, prudent, fiscal policy requires it. We are going to do everything that the President and the administration can do to get that tax bill.1,1 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (Public Law 90-364, 82 Stat. 251).,I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you that I have no indication whatever that Mr. Mills or Mr. Byrnes 2 or the Ways and Means Committee is likely to report a tax bill before they adjourn.,2 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, ranking Republican member of the Committee.,I feel that one of our failures in the administration has been our inability to convince the Congress of the wisdom of fiscal responsibility and the necessity of passing a tax bill not only for the effect it will have on the inflationary developments, but the effect it will have on the huge deficit that we are running.,I think one of the great mistakes that the Congress will make is that Mr. Ford 3 and Mr. Mills have taken this position that they cannot have any tax bill now. They will live to rue the day when they made that decision. Because it is a dangerous decision. It is an unwise decision.,3 Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan. House Minority Leader.,I think that the people of America--none of whom want to pay taxes--any pollster can walk out and say, \"Do you want to pay more tax?\" Of course you will say, \"No, I don't want to pay tax.\",But if you ask him: \"Do you want inflation; do you want prices to increase 5 or 6 percent; do you want a deficit of $30 or $35 billion; do you want to spend $35 billion more than you are taking in?\" I think the average citizen would say, \"No.\",Here at the height of our prosperity when our gross national product is going to run at $850 billion, when we look at the precedents of what we have done in past wars-in Korea when President Truman asked for a tax increase, people supported it.,This request has been before the Congress since last January. They have finished most of the appropriations bills. I read the story this morning. It looks like out of $145 billion they will roughly cut a billion dollars in expenditures.,But they will cut several billion from revenues because of inaction, because people don't like to stand up and do the unpopular thing of assuming responsibility that men in public life are required to do sometime.,I know it doesn't add to your polls and your popularity to say we have to have additional taxes to fight this war abroad and fight the problems in our cities at home. But we can do it with the gross national product we have. We should do it. And I think when the American people and the Congress get the full story they will do it.,We have failed up to now to be able to convince them. But we are going to continue to try in every way that is proper.,INTENTIONS OF SENATOR EUGENE MCCARTHY,[ 10.] Q. Senator McCarthy has said he is considering opposing you in the presidential primaries because he believes it would be a healthy thing to debate Vietnam in the primaries, for the party and for the country, too. Do you agree with him? What effect do you think this would have on your own candidacy?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how I am going to be, after all this opposition develops, so far as my state of health is concerned. But I am very healthy today. I don't know whether this criticism has contributed to my good health or not.,I don't know what Senator McCarthy is going to do. I am not sure that he knows what he plans to do. I think we had better just wait and see, until there is something definite there, and meet it when it is necessary.,PUBLIC OPINION ON VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Why do you think there is so much confusion, frustration, and difference of opinion in this country about the war in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. There has always been confusion, frustration, and difference of opinion when there is a war going on.,There was in the Revolutionary War when only about a third of the people thought that was a wise move. A third of them opposed it, and a third were on the sideline.,That was true when all of New England came down to secede in Madison's administration in the War of 1812, and stopped in Baltimore. They didn't quite make it because Andrew Jackson's results in New Orleans came in.,They were having a party there that night. The next morning they came and told the President they wanted to congratulate him-that they had thought he was right all along, although they had come from Boston to Baltimore in a secessionist move.,That was true in the Mexican War when the Congress overwhelmingly voted to go in and later passed a resolution that had grave doubts about it. Some of the most bitter speeches were made. They were so bitter they couldn't be published. They had m hold up publication of them for 100 years.,I don't have to remind you of what happened in the Civil War. People were here in the White House begging Lincoln to concede and work out a deal with the Confederacy when word came to him of his victories. They told him that Pennsylvania was gone; that Illinois had no chance.\nThose pressures come to a President.\nYou know what President Roosevelt went through, and President Wilson in World War I. He had some Senators from certain areas then that gave him very serious problems until victory was assured.,Now, when you look back upon it, there are very few people who would think that Wilson, Roosevelt, or Truman were in error.,We are going to have this criticism. We are going to have these differences.,No one likes war. All people love peace. But you can't have freedom without defending it.,THE CUTBACK IN FOREIGN AID,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the foreign aid authorization has been cut back nearly a third from what you requested. What is the impact of this economy?,THE PRESIDENT. At a time when the richest nation in the world is enjoying more prosperity than it has ever had before, when we carefully tailor our requests to the very minimum that we think is essential--the lowest request that we have had in years-and then Congress cuts it 33 1/3 percent; I think it is a mistake. It is a serious mistake.,When you consider that $1 billion that we are attempting to save there, out of the $850 billion that we will produce, we ought to reconsider that decision. Because what we are doing with that money not only can give great help to underdeveloped nations; but that, in itself, can prevent the things that cause war where you are required to spend billions to win it.,I would rather have a little preventive medicine. Every dollar that we spend in our foreign assistance, trying to help poor people help themselves, is money well spent.,I don't think we overdid it. I don't think we went too far. But I think the Congress has, in the reductions it has made.,Again, it is popular to go back home and say, \"Look what I did for you. I cut out all these foreign expenditures.\",But when the trouble develops--the people who are starving, the people who are ignorant, illiterate, and diseased--and wars spring up and we have to go in, we will spend much more than we would if we had taken an ounce of prevention.,THE VIETNAM DISSENTERS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, some people on the air and in print accuse you of trying to label all criticism of your Vietnam policy as unpatriotic. Could you tell us whether you have guidelines in which you are enabled to separate conscientious dissent from irresponsible dissension?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't called anyone unpatriotic. I haven't said anything that would indicate that.,I think the wicked fleeth when no one pursueth, sometimes.,I do think that some people are irresponsible, make untrue statements, and ought to be cautious and careful when they are dealing with the problem involving their men at the front.,There is a great deal of difference, as I said a moment ago, between criticism, indifference, and responsible dissent--all of which we insist on and all of which we protect-and storm trooper bullying, throwing yourself down in the road, smashing windows, rowdyism, and every time a person attempts to speak to try to drown him out.,We believe very strongly in preserving the right to differ in this country, and the right to dissent. If I have done a good job of anything since I have been President, it is to insure that there are plenty of dissenters.,There is not a person in this press corps that can't write what he wants to write. Most of them do write what they want to. I say \"want\" advisedly. I want to protect that. Our Congress wants to protect it.,But if I, by chance, should say: \"Now, I am not sure that you saw all the cables on this and you are exactly right; let me explain the other side of it,\" I would hope that you wouldn't say I am lambasting my critics, or that I am assailing someone.,What I am trying to do is to preserve my right to give the other side. I don't think one side ought to dominate the whole picture.,So what I would say is, let's realize that we are in the midst of a war. Let's realize that there are 500,000 of our boys out there who are risking their lives to win that war. Let's ask ourselves what it is we can do to help.,If you think you can make a contribution and help them by expressing your opinion and dissenting, then do it.,But then if the Secretary of State starts to explain his viewpoint, don't send out instructions all over the country and say: \"When he starts to talk and says 'Mr. Chair, man,' stamp your feet. When he comes to the end of a sentence, all of you do this, and at the third sentence, all of you boo.\",I am amazed that the press in this country, who insist on the right to live by the first amendment, and to be protected by it, doesn't insist that these storm trooper tactics live by the first amendment, too, and that they be wiped out.,I think the time has come when it would be good for all of us to take a new, fresh look at dissent.,We welcome responsible dissent. But there is a great deal of difference between responsible dissent and some of the things that are taking place in this country which I consider to be extremely dangerous to our national interest, and I consider not very helpful to the men who are fighting the war for us.,Now, everyone must make that judgment for himself.,I have never said anyone was unpatriotic. I don't question these people's motives. I do question their judgment.,I can't say that this dissent has contributed much to any victories we have had.,I can't say that these various proposals that range from a Senator to a county commissioner to a mayor of a city have really changed General Westmoreland's plan much, or Ambassador Bunker's approach. The papers are filled with it every day.,So I think you have to consider it for what you think it is worth and make your own judgment.\nThat is the theory of the first amendment.\nWe don't stop the publication of any papers. We don't fine anyone for something they say. We just appeal to them to remember that they don't have the privilege at the moment of being out there fighting.,Please count to 10 before you say something that hurts instead of helps.,We know that most people's intentions are good. We don't question their motives. We have never said they are unpatriotic, although they say some pretty ugly things about us.,People who live in glass houses shouldn't be too anxious to throw stones.,U.S. AIMS IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, is your aim in Vietnam to win the war or to seek a compromised, negotiated solution?,THE PRESIDENT. I think our aims in Vietnam have been very clear from the beginning. They are consistent with the SEATO Treaty, with the Atlantic Charter, and with the many, many statements that we have made to the Congress in connection with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. The Secretary of State has made this clear dozens and dozens of times--and I made it enough that I thought even all the preachers in the country had heard about it.,That is, namely, to protect the security of the United States. We think the security of the United States is definitely tied in with the security of Southeast Asia.,Secondly, to resist aggression. When we are a party to a treaty that says we will do it, then we carry it out.,I think if you saw a little child in this room who was trying to waddle across the floor and some big bully came along and grabbed it by the hair and started stomping it, I think you would do something about it.,I think that we thought we made a mistake when we saw Hitler moving across the landscape of Europe. The concessions that were made by the men carrying umbrellas at that time--I think in retrospect we thought that was a mistake.,So as a consequence, in 1954 under the leadership of President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles, we had a SEATO Treaty.,It was debated, it was considered and it was gone into very thoroughly by the Senate. The men who presented that treaty then said: This is dangerous. The time may come when we may have to put up or shut up.,But we ought to serve notice in Asia now as we refused to serve notice in Europe a few years ago that we will resist aggression-that we will stand against someone who seeks to gobble up little countries, if those little countries call upon us for our help. So we did that.,I didn't vote for that treaty. I was in the hospital. Senator Kennedy didn't vote for it--the late President--he was in the hospital. Senator Dirksen didn't vote for it. But 82 Senators did vote for it. They knew what was in that treaty.,The time came when we had to decide whether we meant what we said when we said our security was tied in to their security and that we would stand in unison in the face of common danger.,Now, we are doing that. We are doing it against whoever combines out there to promote aggression. We are going to do whatever we think is necessary to protect the security of South Vietnam--and let those people determine for themselves what kind of a government they have.,We think they are moving along very quickly in that direction to developing a democratic procedure.,Third, we are going to do whatever it is necessary to do to see that the aggressor does not succeed.,Those are our purposes. Those are our goals. We are going to get a lot of advice to do this or to do that. We are going to consider it all. But for years West Point has been turning out the best military men produced anywhere in the world.,For years we have had in our Foreign Service trained and specialized people. We have in 110 capitals today the best brains we can select.,Under our constitutional arrangements the President must look to his Secretary of State, to his foreign policy, to his Ambassadors, to the cables and views that they express, to his leaders like the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to General Westmoreland and others--and carefully consider everything they say and then do what he thinks is right.,That is not always going to please a county commissioner, or a mayor, or a member of a legislature. It never has in any war we have ever been in been a favorite of the Senate.,The leaders on the military committees and the leaders in other posts have frequently opposed it.,Champ Clark, the Speaker of the House, opposed the draft in Woodrow Wilson's administration. The Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--with the exception of Senator Vandenberg--almost invariably has found a great deal wrong with the Executive in the field of foreign policy.,There is a division there, and there is some frustration there.,Those men express it and they have a right to. They have a duty to do it.,But it is also the President's duty to look and see what substance they have presented; how much they thought it out; what information they have; how much knowledge they have received from General Westmoreland or Ambassador Bunker, whoever it is; how familiar they are with what is going on; and whether you really think you ought to follow their judgment or follow the judgment of the other people.,I do that every day. Some days I have to say to our people: \"Let us try this plan that Senator X has suggested.\" And we do.,We are doing that with the United Nations resolution. We have tried several times to get the United Nations to play a part in trying to bring peace in Vietnam.,The Senate thinks that this is the way to do it. More than 50 of them have signed a resolution.\nThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a big day yesterday. They reported two resolutions in one day.,I have my views. I have my views about really what those resolutions will achieve. But I also have an obligation to seriously and carefully consider the judgments of the other branch of the Government. And we are going to do it.,Even though we may have some doubts about what will be accomplished, that they think may be accomplished, if it is a close question we will bend to try to meet their views because we think that is important.\nWe have already tried the United Nations before, but we may try it again because they have hopes and they believe that this is the answer. We will do everything that we can to make it the answer.,I don't want to hurt its chances by giving any predictions at this moment.,We will consider the views that everyone suggests.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-11-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S REVIEW OF THE CABINET MEETING,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] There were two or three developments in our Cabinet meeting that I thought you might be interested in. I will review with you briefly and will ask the staff, including Mr. Alexander and Mr. McPherson 1 who reviewed them with us, to go into them in some detail. They will take any questions and explain any gaps that may occur to you after I have finished.,1 Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., Deputy Special Counsel, and Harry C. McPherson, Jr., Special Counsel to the President.,IMPACT OF ECONOMIC PROGRESS,First of all, we have just entered our 81st month of prosperity. We had Gardner Ackley 2 evaluate other periods in our history and the average periods of economic progress that have taken place.,2 Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers.,Then we asked each Cabinet member to give us his view and to give consideration to what this economic progress had meant in his jurisdiction. From Secretary Gardner, a sample of what this progress had meant to the health of this country, to the education of its children, the social security of its people, to the pollution problem, and to the other matters that may come under the jurisdiction of HEW; what it had meant to the Labor Department, the people employed, the children and so forth; what it had meant to the State Department in our program for underdeveloped countries, and so forth.,They have a general view and general statements, but they presently are examining what it has meant to each of them--Secretary Trowbridge in business, what it has meant to the American corporation and to the American businessman; Secretary Udall in conservation; Secretary Weaver in Housing and Urban Development; and so forth.,REPORT ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES,[2.] Second, we had a very excellent presentation on the report of a group I had asked to study the social and economic conditions of Negroes in the United States. Following through on our national conference at El Paso, 3 which you had a brief glance at--those of you who were with us--we will ask them to make a study of the Mexican-American and report to the Cabinet at an appropriate time on the social and economic conditions of people of Mexican extraction in this country.,3 See Item 452.,I asked two Government agencies to draw together the latest, most relevant data concerning the social and economic conditions of the Negro in America--the bad with the good, the disappointing with the encouraging. They placed it in a simple format that can be understood. The staff will give you the charts and review.,The study was prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. 4 I am hopeful all Americans can give serious study to it and make some contributions, because I think probably our number one domestic problem is our urban problem, our city problem, the fact that Negroes and whites have left the rural areas and gone to the cities. There we have the problem of finding jobs, training, education, hospitals, and housing for these people.,4 For the President's statement upon making the report public, see Item 463.,We are doing our best to encourage and accelerate our efforts. on every front toward finding the best solutions. We have had some disappointments.,CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON URBAN PROGRAMS,[3.] We are greatly distressed at the action the Congress took in the model cities program. The program was a very small beginning but it will necessarily be smaller now. But it is a beginning.,We very much regret that the Congress saw fit to cut the rent supplements from $40 million to $10 million. That would have taken care of housing for many thousands of people. But the Congress did not see it that way. They did leave us $10 million.,Ten million dollars is not as good as $40 million, but it is better than nothing.,I think you will be interested in this presentation. I will be glad to take your questions on these subjects or on any other subjects that you may want to take, subject only to your time limitation.,QUESTIONS,POSSIBILITY OF TAX INCREASE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what is your view of the likelihood of now getting a tax increase through the Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. The final decision will have to come from the Ways and Means Committee. We very much want it. We think it is very necessary in the national interest. We think that it will cost the American people much less by taking the tax route that we have suggested than by taking the inaction route that is now being followed.,As to prophesying or predicting what the Ways and Means Committee will do-even what the House will do--when and if they act, I cannot be very accurate with you. All I can say is what we feel very strongly. We have informed the leadership and the Congress and the committees of both Houses, of both parties. I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you that we are disappointed at the results obtained thus far.,We will just continue to do the best we can here to persuade the Congress to take this action that we think is very essential to avoid inflation, to keep our interest rates down that are galloping every day, and to maintain a semblance of paying part of our bills as we go along.,We think our economy not only can stand it, but we think it requires that we be responsible and that we take some action along the lines we have suggested.,We are glad to see that there are Members that think we should have a tax bill. We are glad that the businessmen, generally, and labor, generally, and people experienced in this field, like the leading economists, believe that a tax bill now is in the best interest of the country.,As to whether Congress will act this session or not, you will have to wait and see.,PENDING LEGISLATION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, with Congress talking of adjourning the end of this month, it would appear obvious that all the legislation that you have recommended cannot be passed. Have you given the congressional leadership any kind of a priority designation?,THE PRESIDENT. None. We never do. Now, the press this morning called these measures \"must bills\" and that is your credibility, not ours. You call them priority bills.,I have gone through this for about 35 years. About this time every session, you get into that.,We had a routine meeting yesterday that we have generally every Monday. We made that public in San Antonio. The leaders came in. We took up first the bills that had passed the House that were pending in the Senate. Not \"must bills.\" Not priority bills. Not bills that had to be passed or even ought to be passed, but bills that had passed one body that had not been passed in the other. We asked for their status, and we ran through those. They ran about 20, I believe, maybe 21.,Then we turned from the Senate, from Senator Mansfield sitting here, to the House Speaker McCormack and said: \"Now let us see the bills that have passed the Senate before the House acted.\",We took about 20 that had passed the Senate. That did not mean 40. It may be military construction appropriations, for example, that had passed the House now on the Senate's list and both finally would pass it. It would be one bill instead of two.,So we went through 20 on each side and got the status of them. Some of the hearings are being held, some reported, some on the calendar, and some seeking a rule. We reviewed them. That is all.,We did not talk about adjournment. We did not talk about \"This must come ahead of this.\",We said military construction has passed the House and is in the Senate. The Senate leader said, \"We are doing so-and-so about it.\",Then we looked at truth-in-lending that had passed the Senate and was in the House. They said, \"That is in committee.\",We did that to the tune of about 20 on each side. We had no news. We made no news. We left. Some of the leaders said the UPI told them they were going to call them when the meeting was over, and if they did, they were going to say just what happened. We considered the 20 bills that had passed the House and were in the Senate.,Some won't get out of the Senate. Some won't get out of the committee. Most of them, we think, will pass--particularly the appropriations bills. Then we considered those in the House. That was all.,INFLATION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, from your conversations with your study groups and Mr. Ackley, can you foresee a period in this country's history where there will not be inflation that is more or less a way of life?,THE PRESIDENT. We did not approach it from that standpoint at all yesterday, Smitty. 5 I did not get out my crystal ball.,5 Merriman Smith of United Press International.,Q. I was thinking of the fact that it has continued without a break since World War II and wondered if by a combination of government measures you think this could be reversed?,THE PRESIDENT. I said we did not go into that with them.,EFFECT OF THE PEACE DEMONSTRATIONS,[7.] Q. Secretary Rusk said the other day that Hanoi had been encouraged by the recent peace demonstrations. I wonder, sir, if you could give us your assessment of what damage you think has been done to the American cause by the peace demonstrations?,THE PRESIDENT. I would prefer not to be negative. I would hope that every person who has a plan, a program, or observation in connection with the war that our young men are fighting out there would engage in some introspection and ask himself whether what he is about to say is going to make a contribution to solving the problem before he speaks.,If, in his judgment, it does, then he has that opportunity and that right.,So far as I am aware, there have been no great, unexpected developments that have flowed from the various suggestions and programs that have come from people on the outside who have busily engaged in finding out what is wrong.,I meet with Congressmen and Senators every day. I read every morning their statements.,We give consideration to them. But in considering them I must always bear in mind that most of those people--not even the intellectuals or the editorial writers or the columnists, pro or con, have had the benefit of the hundreds of cables that come from 110 countries, or from the men in charge, or men who really have the responsibility for the planning and execution of some of the most intricate, detailed, dangerous, and comprehensive steps that we have ever taken.,So while we want to be reasonable, keep an open mind, and take any suggestion that is designed to help--and will--I could not honestly tell you that the various plans, programs, phrases, and key words that they use--like \"snow\" and \"phony\" and the headline-hunting phrases--i don't think they have really helped our Marines a whole lot up there on the DMZ.,I can't see that they have made any great contribution to solving the problem that we all are so earnestly seeking to solve.,I don't want to be critical of anyone. I think, though, that if the American public could read Hanoi's cables and statements and could see their reaction to some of the things that are being said in the country, that they would agree with me that all their private proposals and statements have not contributed a great deal to the solution that we so eagerly seek.,Q. Who are Hanoi's cables to, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. They are statements to people in this country. They are statements to people in other countries. They are statements on their radio. They are statements in their press. They are statements in their propaganda. I use cables symbolically of what their expressions or statements are. I will substitute the word expression for you--or their statements--if it is better.,ASSESSMENT OF VIETNAM SITUATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, sir, do you see any lessening of their determination to go on fighting?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to make a prediction as to their condition now. I have my views on it, but they involve a certain amount of speculation and judgments that I am making, so I couldn't underwrite and guarantee.,I would not want to pay the price of stating it and then back up later and say I misled you somewhere or made a mistake.,Q. Are you optimistic, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I believe that we are making progress. I believe that we are doing what we ought to do. I think we are going to continue doing what we ought to do. I think that it is going to be exacting, difficult, and going to require the best that is in all of us-but not nearly as much from us as it is from the men fighting out there.,If we can manifest on the home front the same courage, the same stability, and the same good judgment they are manifesting out there, I have not the slightest doubt that we will find the solution--and find it much earlier united than we will divided.,U.S. POLICY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, one of the main points in the domestic arguments about the policy of the war has been the fact that in 1964, when you were campaigning, you spoke of not wishing to send American boys to fight a war that Asian boys should fight. Then a year later, the Government did that. I wonder if you could give us your thinking on the change in policy?,THE PRESIDENT. There has not been a change of policy. You have quoted one sentence in a speech that contained many sentences and many paragraphs. We always have said--and we repeat now--that we do not want American boys to do the fighting that South Vietnamese boys ought to do or that Asian boys ought to do.,We are asking them all to do all they can. But that did not imply then, and does not imply now, that we would not do what we needed to do to deter aggression.,As a matter of fact, before that statement was made, we began discussing at this table in May of that year the desirability of asking the Congress to join with us in deterring aggression.,In presenting that resolution to Congress, we made clear to Congress some of the things that I would ask you not to overlook now, namely, that we had a vital security interest in Southeast Asia, that Asian security was important to our own American security.,Second, we intended to comply with what we believed to be our commitments under the SEATO Treaty signed by Senator Mansfield and others at Manila in September 1954.,Finally, that we asked the Congress not only to approve what we had already done in resisting aggression in the Tonkin Gulf, and elsewhere in that area, but to also authorize us to take whatever steps necessary to deter further aggression.,URBAN PROBLEMS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke of the urban problem as being our number one domestic problem. I would like to ask you a sort of double-barreled question.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say urban with all the other things related to it--jobs, housing, ghettos, et cetera--included.\nDo you understand what I mean by that?,Q. Yes, sir. Do you think now, sir, that that will be an issue in the next year's political campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't tell what will be an issue. I am not thinking about what is going to happen in next year's campaign now. I am thinking about what we have to do right now--as quickly as we can.\nIf you are asking me whether it is a Democratic Party matter or whether it is a political matter, I do not think it ought to be. I would hope that most Democrats and a substantial number of Republicans would signify by their votes that they are willing to pay the price necessary to meet this problem.,I have been, as I said before today, disappointed at the vote on the model cities in the House. We talk about urban coalition, but when we call the roll on the floor, we find that the only coalition is the one that is against us on the cities problem.,We talk about the great need for housing, but when we ask for $40 million for rent supplements out of almost a $145 billion budget expenditure this year, we get it cut by $30 million. We have over 100 cities in the model cities program and we had our authorizing legislation cut in half. Then we ask for only half of what had been authorized.,We had $600 million of really the $900 million. Then we got only about half of the $600 million we asked for. That is not the way to meet the problem. It is going to be slow, painful, and costly. I would hope the American people would support the leadership that urges the Congress to take action in these fields: model cities, urban renewal, rent supplements, Turnkey housing, et cetera.,I am very pleased at what has been done by private industry. I saw yesterday, as a result of our meeting with the insurance people--the billion dollars they pledged-that the mayor of New York announced that part of that money that was pledged is now going to the insured housing for a big New York project. I am pleased that private industry has responded the way it has.,I am disappointed that the Congress has made the serious, drastic reduction it has in these already inadequate programs.,THE NEW GOVERNMENT IN VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, with the new government established in Saigon, do you think it would be useful or helpful or constructive if they could negotiate directly with the NLF?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it would be helpful for me to tell you to tell them what they ought to do. These people in South Vietnam have had five elections in a period of a little over 3 months.,We hope and we pray that as a result of this last election they will have a government that will be close to the people, that will provide good leadership and clean leadership, free of corruption, with a maximum of efficiency, and will get rid of incompetence wherever it appeared and corruption wherever it appeared.,We will have to see how these things develop as the government progresses.,This is their government, selected by their people. We have made, I think, according to even our most embittered critics, a rather substantial political progress in the last 13 months.,I would ask all of you to remember that it took us 13 years to go from 1776 to 1789 when we finally got our own Constitution. They have come a long way from the time we met in Honolulu to the time they elected their President in something over 13 months. That is what we did in 13 years.,They selected a Constituent Assembly. They drafted their Constitution. They ratified their Constitution. They elected the Senate. They elected the House. They elected the President and the Vice President.,Their elected leaders, in their judgment and in their wisdom, are there every day, Mr. Kilpatrick, 6 trying to make progress and move forward.,6 Carroll Kilpatrick of the Washington Post.,A good many of the Vietnamese lost their brothers when they were trying to vote in one of these five elections. A great many people were killed. They died trying to vote.,Some were almost killed yesterday during the inauguration there--trying to get a President sworn in. That action ought to revolt the civilized world. I do not know why people do not get worked up when they go to lobbing mortar shells into the city where the President is being inaugurated.,But I think what they do is a matter for them to decide. Of course, we have our hopes and our desires.,I will be talking to Ambassador Bunker before very long. He will be coming here, I hope, before Ambassador Laise 7 leaves. I will talk to him and get his judgments. I am sure if his counsel is sought it will be available.,7 Ellsworth Bunker, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam, and his wife Carol C. Laise, U.S. Ambassador to Nepal.,Pardon me for including you out of this deal, but I am sure that he will respond when desirable.,THE STOCK MARKET AND THE ECONOMY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you talked about 81 months of stable economy. Yet the stock market appears very unstable. It has been going down for some days. and it went down 13 points today. Does this suggest a loss of investor confidence in the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I want to correct you before you get a credibility charge. I didn't say anything about a stable economy. I spoke of a prosperous economy.,The stock market goes up and it goes down. Last month they were talking about it going up and breaking 900 and this month it goes down.,I do think, in fairness to your question, our people are concerned and that concern may be reflected in the market. They do not know today what to expect from the Congress now or in the future so far as taxes are concerned.,I think when you have an uncertain future, you have uncertain markets and you have uncertain stock prices. Some of this uncertainty is being reflected in the market. I think it is being reflected in the bond market and in the interest rates. I think you are paying every day--more than you know, right this moment--for the inaction that is taking place and for the refusal of our people to stand up and take the action that responsibility requires.,At first, we said there were some doubters, not many. I thought the tax testimony was overwhelming. I don't know of many bills where the testimony has been so overwhelming and so compelling as. I viewed it.,But the first question was, \"Well, we do not believe the economy can stand it.\" Do you remember that? That was back a good many months--after we submitted it in January. And that went on to August, and nothing was done about it.,Then the first days of the hearings in August it was repeated in the testimony, if I am not mistaken--the doubt that the economy could stand a tax bill then.,Then they got off that line for a while and the question then became, \"Couldn't we cut appropriations?\" We pointed out, \"The appropriations are there to be cut. Just call the roll. We have made our recommendation. We will be glad to have you make yours. We will give yours as much consideration as you have given ours. We will try to meet you halfway. We will try to be reasonable.\",Then the question was, \"Will you cut them before we send them to you?\" We think we made clear to all of them that if the House passed a bill of $4 billion and the Senate passed a bill of $6 billion, and the bill was in conference, we didn't know whether we could cut $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion.,We would have to see what we could cut, depending on the bill to be cut. So now I think that has been made clear.,Then we got into the programs business. \"We ought to look at the programs down the line to see if we could reduce or curtail or cut some of them back by several billions.\",We have no objection to that. Congress can do that in every hearing. They look at programs--the committee that has jurisdiction can revise, repeal, or abolish any program they want abolished or cut, if the Congress sees fit.,I am not adverse to setting up a task force to study the programs. I am not adverse to having Congress new judgment on appropriations.,I think they will cut $4 or $5 billion out of the appropriations that we have recommended this year. I will sign those bills they send me, although I think some of them are close ones.,In the first instance, can the economy stand it? In the second, shouldn't we cut appropriations? Third, should we cut the programs?,Now we are doing nothing. We are at a standstill. I would very much hope that the Congress could say, \"Well, now, we want to cut appropriations so much--$5 billion, $6 billion, or $7 billion.\" Whatever their judgment is. \"And we are willing to give you $4 billion, or $5 billion, or $6 billion taxes.\" Whatever they are willing to do.,We will study the programs in the future and we will have a meeting of the minds. I think it is important to do this as soon as possible. Every day we are losing revenue. It costs us every day in increased prices and in increased uncertainty and greatly in increased interest.,It may have some bearing on the stocks that you are talking about.,Q. To follow that up, is it fair to say then you believe part of the reason for the downslide on the market is congressional inaction on the tax bill?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not saying that. If you want to, you say that. If you don't know what I said, I hope you will read it. I didn't say that at all.,My job, as I have said to my press friends so many times, is to prevent a fight, not to provoke one. You have a different responsibility. I respect your position on the matter. I recognize it and I feel it.,VIETNAM POLICY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, again, pressure is building up in the country and around the world to have another bombing pause. Will you discuss with us the pros and cons of that situation?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I don't think there is anything that I can contribute that would be helpful. We are doing what we believe and what we know to the best of our knowledge to be the right and proper thing to do. And we are going to continue to do what we believe is right.,I would admonish and caution all of you to avoid irresponsibility and quit grabbing out of the air these speculative future ventures about which we know very little and about which the folks that apparently are guessing for you know nothing.,Q. Mr. President, in that same vein, do you think that you, personally, can help to alleviate some of the uncertainty in the country over Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I am doing my best to do that every day. I tried my best in San Antonio when I said to the American people on the televised networks--some live and some a little later that night delayed--and through all of the press, that we would go the last mile.,We were willing to, at that moment, stop our bombing and enter into prompt and productive discussions, assuming they would not take advantage of it. They have not given us any affirmative response to this point.,We will continue willing to negotiate now, to stop the bombing now, if they will talk promptly, productively, and not take advantage of us.,But the problem is not here with your country or with your Government or with your soldiers. The problem is with the Communist enemy who insists on continuing the course that places us in Vietnam and that will keep us there until they decide might does not make right, and they cannot gobble up weaker people because they are stronger.,We are going to stand for limited objectives. We are going to try to keep from widening the war. We are going to try to deter aggression and to permit self-determination in South Vietnam.,And when that is done, we are going to be content. We do not want bases, domination, colonization. We do not practice colonialism.,We seek to do nothing except keep our commitments--try to help innocent people who want the right to live according to their own self-determination.,CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in a general way, could you describe how you feel about how administration programs are going in Congress and what you think the final score might look like?,THE PRESIDENT. They are not going as well as we would like. They are going better than most people would expect from the domestic standpoint when you look at the 47 new Republicans elected last November. Most of the 47 Democrats that supported measures like model cities were replaced. A good many of them supported most elements of the Democratic platform. They have been replaced by 47 Republicans--a good many of whom oppose these bills.,This is only the first half of this Congress. The next half will begin next January. I do not know when the first half will be over, when the bell will ring. I hope it will not be until we have faced up to some of the compelling and immediate decisions that confront us.,I do not recall precisely, but I believe that counting investment credit, tax bill, the draft, the consular treaty, and other matters of that nature--including some minor bills and treaties--that we have passed 76 measures.,We started out scheduling something over a hundred. I do not remember how many over a hundred. But I believe 76 of them have been finalized. Some of them are very minor. I emphasize minor. We do not want to overstate the case.,There are some 20 measures that have passed the House that we know the Senate is considering. Some of those will be passed. About 20 have passed the Senate. Some will be considered by the House.\nWhen you add what we expect the House to pass that the Senate has acted upon and what we expect the Senate to pass that the House has acted upon, that number will move up some. How much, I do not know.,But for the first half, I believe it will be a credible one. It will not be 90 percent as it has been in some sessions. But if you compare it to almost any other single session, you can form your judgment. I will leave that up to your opinion.,f looked at what we passed in 1935. I looked at the first hundred days in the New Deal. I looked at the first 3 years of the Kennedy-Johnson administration, and I have reviewed the last 3 years of the Johnson-Humphrey administration.,While this session is not as good as the last Congress, this session, I think, will stand reasonably well compared to the previous Congresses. That is a matter of judgment you can make by reviewing it all.,I am sure before we go home that if you desire we will review all of the achievements, accomplishments, and failures.8,8 For a final report on the record of the first session of the 90th Congress, prepared by the White House legislative staff, see note to Item 575.,Merriman Smith: Thank you very much, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-10-05","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have summoned you to this hastily called, impromptu press conference for the purpose of giving you some information that I think you will be interested in. That information is that we are signing a continuing resolution providing funds for the operation of the Government for another 3 weeks.,I have a brief statement here. It will be distributed to you shortly. If you want to follow it as we go through, I will go slowly enough so you can make some notes on it.,REDUCTION IN FEDERAL SPENDING; THE TAX BILL,I have signed House Joint Resolution 853. 1 This measure provides continuing appropriations for 3 more weeks until October 23, 1967, for those agencies whose regular appropriations for fiscal 1968 have not as yet been enacted by the Congress. Four have been enacted.,1 Public Law 90-102 (81 Stat. 256).,Of the 14 major appropriations bills recommended in January, 10 are still pending in the Congress. My recommendations on each of these bills are unmistakably clear. They have been before the Congress for 9 months.,Over the past several days, the House has debated this continuing resolution. I have signed it here.,During that debate and during hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee, there have been numerous statements calling for unspecified reductions in fiscal 1968 expenditures.,Just a few days ago, in fact, a majority of the Members voting in the House expressed the desire for unidentified reductions in Federal expenditures--many wanted a $5 billion reduction in fiscal 1968.,A reduction of $5 billion in fiscal 1968 expenditures would require appropriations cuts of up to $10 billion, a reduction many times larger than the entire Congress by its specific appropriations actions to date has been willing to make.,Against this background, it is essential for the Nation and the Congress to recognize these key facts about the budget:,First, the budget I submitted last January for fiscal 1968 represented the best judgment of the President, his economic and budget advisers, and his Cabinet and the directors of the independent agencies.,That budget was carefully drawn, fiscally responsible, and prudent. It represented a reduction by the President of $27 billion from the requests made by the civilian agencies and the military services. I believed then and I believe now that at that time the administration's budget represented the best allocation of Federal resources to meet the Nation's needs.,Second, last July and August it became apparent that revenues would be lower than anticipated and that defense expenditures, always difficult to estimate in the middle of a war, were rising.,I immediately consulted with the congressional leadership and the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the House Ways and Means Committee. After those consultations with the bipartisan leadership of both Houses, I reviewed the request made in January for a tax increase. That January request was raised to provide for a total tax of about one penny on each dollar of income.,I stated then, and I state now that this tax will be less of a burden, in my judgment, on the average American family than the inflation tax that will come if the Congress refuses to face up to its responsibility.,All taxes are burdensome, but the cruelest tax of all is the inflation tax that will follow inaction of the Congress.,Third, at the time of my tax message, I directed a review of each appropriation bill as it was passed in an effort to eliminate amounts equivalent to those that might be added by the Congress as well as to recommend \"every possible expenditure reduction--civilian and military--short of jeopardizing the Nation's security and well-being.\"\nThat is a quote from my tax message.2,2 For the message and related news conference, see Items 329 and 330.,I did this only because it appeared that the Congress was unlikely to make any substantial reductions in the budget in overall amounts and in certain areas might actually vote to increase it. In fact, some of the first bills reaching me this year--the Government employees insurance bill, which I vetoed, the veterans benefit bill--contained large increases.,Moreover, the House will have before it shortly the civilian pay bill.3 As reported out of committee, that bill already exceeds my 4¼ percent pay raise recommendation and will add at least $63 million to my fiscal 1968 budget and some $35° million to $400 million to the fiscal 1969 budget.,3 For the President's remarks upon signing the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, see Item 546.,Fourth, of a total budget expenditure of over $136 billion recommended in the January budget, $115 billion or more are for national security or expenditures fixed by law (such as veterans benefits and medical payments) and binding contracts already signed as authorized by the Congress over which the President has little or no discretion. Only the Congress can repeal or amend the laws under which most of these funds must be spent.,There remains some $21 billion in expenditures. The expenditures in the major civilian appropriation bills subject to reduction are as follows:\nEnacted: Million\nTreasury, Post Office ............... $900\nInterior and related agencies ..... 700,Secretary Barr,4 speaking for the Treasury, reported to the Treasury and Post Office Committee this morning in connection with that bill. The Interior Secretary reported to his appropriate subcommittee his views yesterday or the day before.,4 Joseph W. Barr, Under Secretary of the Treasury.,The other bill is the legislative appropriation bill. That is a matter for Congress.,Pending: Not received or signed,Billion\n      Agriculture and related agencies. $3. 1\n      HUD and independent offices. 2.9\n      NASA 3.6\n      Labor-HEW 3.6\n      Public works, including AEC 2. 2\n      State, Justice, Commerce, etc 1. 6\n      Transportation 1.1\n      Foreign assistance and related\n      agencies, excluding military aid 1.0\n      Other items awaiting authorization 9\n      Total major civilian bills $21. 6,Fifth, the executive branch cannot spend 1 dollar, hire one employee, or let one contract without appropriation or authorization by the Congress. If a majority of the Members of the House and Senate desire wholesale cuts in Government spending, the course is through the normal appropriation process--the careful examination by the Congress of specific appropriations for specific programs. This has been a procedure woven deeply into the experience and tradition of the American Government.,Those House Members who now urge unidentified budget reductions can specify where to cut, and by how much--just as the President did in reviewing agency budget requests and preparing his budget for the Congress in January.,The Congress has ample opportunity to cut specific programs in the 10 major appropriation bills still pending in the Congress. We will try to come into agreement with the legislative branch on the three bills already acted upon by the Congress and the President.,I would interpolate that we have done that in the two instances and the legislative appropriation bill is a matter for them. We have gone before them and submitted our views.,The historic power of the Congress over the appropriations process is a sound tradition. The appropriation process is far preferable to a procedure which imposes an overall expenditure limitation inconsistent with prior and subsequent appropriation action and which explicitly assigns to the President blank check power to make wholesale reductions in expenditures without the approval or checks by the Congress.,I am deeply concerned about the cost of the delay in enacting a tax bill, not only in the approximate $20 million that we are losing each day now in revenues, but also in sharply rising prices and interest rates. For example:\n--3-month Treasury bills have risen from a 1967 low of 3-33 percent to 4.52 percent yesterday.\n--6-month Treasury bills from 3.71 percent to 5.06 percent.\n--12-month Treasury bills from 3.80 percent to 5. 15 percent.\n--1-year Federal agency paper from 4.35 percent to 5.60 percent.\n--AA corporate bonds from 5.22 percent to 6.33 percent.\n--New municipal bonds from 3.4° percent to 4.19 percent.,Failure of the Congress to act on the tax legislation is costing not only the Federal Government, but millions of Americans, many millions of dollars in interest rates-when they buy their homes or their automobiles or borrow money to send their children to college. And continued failure to act will cost many millions more in inflated prices as each week passes.,The President cannot take over the appropriation process. The executive branch cannot impound appropriations until both Houses of the Congress are in agreement and have passed the appropriations to be impounded.,This is not a problem of parties or politics--and should not be permitted to become a partisan matter. For it involves the fundamental powers--and responsibilities-of the legislative and executive branches in our democracy.,It is my considered view that it neither is necessary nor wise to delay action upon the tax measure until the final passage of all the appropriations acts and the announcement of any additional reductions or deferrals by administrative acts consistent with the pledges that I made in my tax message.,There may be some differences between the Congress and the Executive on how much of a tax increase or how much of a definable expenditure reduction is appropriate.,But I would hope that the administration and those responsible for the legislative process could develop an appropriate procedure for resolving any differences that might exist.,The Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Budget have been ready all this week--and stand ready today--to work with the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, and other appropriate congressional committees to this end.,They are ready to explore the various alternative procedures pursuant to and consistent with my tax message that lead to a resolution of this impasse involving the appropriation process in the House Appropriations Committee, the taxing process in the House Ways and Means Committee, and the actual expenditure of appropriated funds involving the President, the Director of the Budget, and various department and agency authorities.\nThe American taxpayer is entitled to an efficient and responsive Government. He is entitled to have the House and the Senate coordinate their efforts and make the wishes of the Congress on appropriations bills known in a clear and a timely manner.,Whatever the wish of the Congress, I ask that it act promptly. I pledge to do my best to cooperate wherever I can in good conscience.,I shall be glad to take any questions on the subject to clarify the statement or explore it further if you want to.5,5 For the President's statement on December 19, 1967, upon signing House Joint Resolution 888 providing further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1968, with provisions for reducing Government spending, see Item 556.,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, have you, yourself, decided how much could be squeezed out of that $21 billion that I think is called inflatable sometimes?,THE PRESIDENT. We do not know what will be in those bills until they come to us.,As a hypothetical example, let us take appropriation bill \"A\". This is not an actual case, but let us assume the budget request was $5 billion. Let us assume the House carefully pruned and cut it to $4 billion and the Senate added to it, making it $6 billion. We do not know whether we are cutting $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion. Obviously, if the $6 billion came to us and we had only asked for $5 billion to begin with, we probably would be able to reduce it by a billion dollars or more.,But if the $4 billion came to us and it had been cut already a billion dollars, you would have an entirely different proposition.,Also, some items may be added to that which we think are not necessary--and some that we think are highly necessary may be taken from it--which would create other problems.,There would not be any great delay, however, if the House and Senate consider these matters and make their decisions. The general process is for them to decide how much they want to cut or how much they want to increase.,Now if the House by a majority vote--as it did the other day in recommitting this resolution--feels very strongly on reductions-the House has passed these bills now and we are prepared to go before them and say, \"Here are the reducible amounts. After you tell us how much we will be allowed, we will either sign the bill when it comes to us or veto it, and give you a chance to override the veto.\",I am glad to say we haven't had to veto any. A good many bills are in Congress and could come to us in a reasonably short time. We hope they do. We hope they will come containing the judgment of the Congress, so it wouldn't be necessary to take any further action.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, has Congress explained to you why they want you to specify the reductions or do you have a theory on it, rather than for them to do it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the Congress has stated any position to me on it. There have been individual statements by individual people. I do not know that they are all in agreement.,For instance, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee could feel quite differently from members of the House Ways and Means Committee, or members of the House Ways and Means Committee could feel very differently from members of the House Appropriations Committee, or the House Labor and Education Committee.\nSo it is a matter for them to come to an agreement among themselves first. We cannot impound funds from an agreement reached by the House and Senate until the House and Senate agree. A good many of these bills are still in conference and they have not resolved the differences between themselves.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, your statement speaks as if there is something of an institutional breakdown between the Executive and legislative, and I think you also called for some better procedure for resolving this.,Do you have any specifics in mind for a different procedure? Has there been an institutional breakdown that needs to be remedied with a substitute procedure?,THE PRESIDENT. Did you say I thought there had been?,Q. I interpreted from your remarks that you had seen this as a breakdown.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe I said that.,Q. You spoke about mixing up the appropriations process.,THE PRESIDENT. I said they have a difference of opinion that they have not resolved yet. The bills have been there for 9 months. When they act upon them, we want that to represent the majority judgment of the two bodies. Then we will immediately act upon them by signing or vetoing them.,[5.] Q. How much more would the inflation tax cost them than the 10 percent surcharge?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe the extent of that can be predicted. I believe the testimony before the committee--if you will recall when the first witnesses appeared--indicated that at least some of the members of the committee felt that the economy 'might be sluggish and there might be reasons for not enacting a tax bill in that amount at that time because of the sluggish economy.,I believe as the testimony developed, most of the members indicated that they got away from that viewpoint.,Then they got to the viewpoint of restraining expenditures. We--as we said in our message--are very anxious to have them act upon these and restrain any expenditures that they feel ought to and can be restrained. We want to do the same thing.,We believe both of them are important. We believe if you don't have restraint on expenditures and you don't have a tax bill, you will see an increase in the cost of living and in the Consumer Price Index, as we have been seeing with each report.,You will see an increase in interest rates. You will see a slackening off in the housing market, and these attendant developments that will follow inaction on the tax bill and inaction on restraints on appropriation bills.,There is a great deal of uncertainty when you are trying to let contracts, trying to make plans for a program and you are trying to operate in far-flung places in this country, all 50 States, when after 9 months you don't have a decision on how much it is appropriate to spend there. So we think two things are important:,It is important to make a decision on the tax bill and it is important to make a decision in the appropriations bills.,Both of those decisions are pending in the Congress. Once they are made, whatever confirmation we have to take in connection with them--we can't veto a bill that doesn't come to us or we can't sign one that doesn't come to us--as soon as they come, we will have very prompt action within a period of a relatively few days.,We believe if neither action comes, we will have increases in the cost of living, the cost of money, a general weakening of the dollar, and general inflation that we will all have to bear, particularly those in the lowincome group.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you have given us two examples, at least, of what you think will be the rather immediate effect if no tax increase is granted, or if your increase is not granted. One is the increase in the cost of money and the other is the slowdown of building of houses. Can you give us any other example of immediate effects as it affects the ordinary person?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I believe it results in a general inflationary spiral that has a tendency to increase prices across the board. It results in a higher cost of living for every family's cost of living. I think it will be reflected in all of the prices that you pay.,[ 7.] Q. Mr. President, at this point, what date would you hope the tax surcharge would go into effect?,THE PRESIDENT. The date is recommended in the message. I believe that is the better part of wisdom. It might have to be delayed a few weeks, a few days, on account of the collection problem on personal incomes, having passed the October 1st deadline. But as near those dates as possible.,We would not have an insurmountable problem on corporation taxes, but you might have to add just 30 days or a month and a half on personal.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, is this your reply to the Ways and Means Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. No. This is a statement. We do not want to reply and get into fights. They have not given us anything to reply to. The Congress has not sent me any message or bill or direct communication.,This is a statement. As I pointed out--I guess you had not come in when we signed this bill--that explains what this bill contains, a resolution for 3 weeks and the problems connected with the appropriation bills to which this referred.,This gives the Executive viewpoint on what we believe to be the importance from the national interest standpoint of acting in the Congress on appropriations bills and on the tax recommendations.,[9'] Q. Mr. President, what happens after 3 weeks? This is continuing authority or why did you pick 3 weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. As the bills are passed, they come here, they are acted upon, and we sign them. This resolution applies only to bills which have not passed. I believe the House has passed all but three. Most of those bills will be acted upon by the Senate between now and October 23. Some of them will be down here and will be signed.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, when the Ways and Means Committee decided to put aside the tax bill until--as I recall they said--some understanding is worked out between Congress and the White House on spending reductions, did we understand you correctly that they did not communicate this action to you?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of the Treasury was at the committee session representing the administration. He had certain proposals that he desired to make along the lines of my tax message and along the lines of what I said in this statement--that we will try to have the administration and the Congress agree on the restraints that the Congress desires put into effect.,I think it was the feeling of some of the members of that committee that they felt they should act upon the motion and consider any further agreements at a later date. We were ready that day, and we have been ready every day since--the Secretary of the Treasury and each department head--to appear before the Appropriations Committee or the Ways and Means Committee to express our views and to go as far as we can in carrying out the decision of the Congress.,Q. Mr. President, I am not sure I understand what you meant by that last thing there. Do you mean by what you said that various Cabinet officials are ready and willing to go up and talk about specific cuts in their departments?,THE PRESIDENT. We have done that on the two bills we have received. When we receive the others, we will be delighted to do that. We have said that.,Q. What do you mean? Are they standing by ready to talk to Appropriations or Ways and Means?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I mean just what I said.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, am I correct in interpreting your statement here to mean that the administration at this point feels that the budget as submitted in January is correct and does not recommend any cuts in it?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,[ 12.] Q. What about this process?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to leave you unclear. We have said that was our judgment when we made those recommendations. As each bill comes to us, we don't know what that bill may contain. They may substitute an amount that we request for the Job Corps in the form of a school program.,Our judgments on that could be quite different, although the amounts might not vary a great deal. We cannot really make an intelligent decision here until a decision is made by the Congress on the bill itself.,You may get the House form or the Senate form or the conference form. We said in our tax message that when we got them, we wouldn't know whether the Congress would add to them or subtract from them. In any event, we will look at what Congress appropriates.,We will try our best to save every penny we can and operate on the lowest possible amount consistent with security and the national interest.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, if the Congress voted your bills as submitted, would this mean you would sign them as is?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It would mean that I would sign them as is.. If they didn't change any items in them and we found that the situation on that particular item was the same as it was when we recommended it-as is generally the case--we would spend it that way. But if we found that the situation had changed and we had more in some cases--we have had to cut back on various items, maybe planes, or maybe ammunition or maybe personnel or things of that kind with changing conditions--we would cut back.,As a matter of fact, I believe in the last 2 years Congress has authorized and appropriated about $31/2 billion more than the Executive has used.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary McNamara announced today that he was deferring certain military construction. Is this in line with what you said about not being able to act on a bill until Congress passes it and sends it down to you?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that each agency understands that it can spend only at the rate of last year's appropriation and only until October 23d. Each Cabinet head is very careful not to obligate or to contract expenditures over and above the amount appropriated last year or beyond the date of October 23d.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-09-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have some announcements that may be of interest to you.,APPOINTMENTS IN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,SPECIAL, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,[1.] Mr. Stephen Pollak, who has been my Special Assistant for District of Columbia matters, will be returning to the Department of Justice shortly, as soon as he can effect a transition with Mayor Washington, to be Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with a wide variety of duties involving urban affairs, civil rights matters, and a good many special functions.,Mr. Pollak has done an unusually creative and very excellent job in his present post. He will work very closely with Mayor Washington and the Deputy Mayor, Mr. Fletcher, in the next few days before going over to the Department of Justice.,I will not have a successor to Mr. Pollak in the assignment formerly held by Mr. Horsky 1 and then Mr. Pollak, but will deal directly with Mayor Washington in connection with District matters.,Mr. Christian 2 will have a brief biographical sketch of Mr. Pollak and answer any further inquiries you may have on the subject.,1 Mr. Charles A. Horsky preceded Mr. Pollak as the Presidents Advisor for National Capital Affairs.,2 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,[2.] I have asked Mr. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., presently Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Lands Division, to come here today. I have tendered and he has accepted assignment as Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Civil Division, which is one of the most responsible legal jobs in the Department of Justice.,Mr. Weisl is a graduate of Yale and Columbia. His distinguished father is a senior member of the firm of Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett, in New York, and a Democratic committeeman in New York. Mr. Weisl has been in the Department of Justice since 1965.,He will succeed to the job formerly held by Mr. Sanders,3 who is here with us today and now a member of our staff, and before that by Mr. John Douglas.,3 Harold Barefoot Sanders, Jr., Legislative Counsel to the President.,SOLICITOR GENERAL,[3.] We are very anxious to make the Department of Justice a department of excellence, where we have the best trained and best equipped, and most meritorious appointments. For that reason we have spent some time searching the country to try to find a replacement for the Solicitor General who has recently been appointed to the Supreme Court. He has been confirmed to that position and will take over his duties next week.,I am delighted to tell you that Dean Griswold, Dean of the Harvard Law School since 1946, who formerly served in the Solicitor's department for some 5 years, has, at the request of the President, agreed to accept appointment as Solicitor General. I shall send his name to the Senate shortly.\nI believe that covers all the announcements.,If you have any questions relating to them that I need to answer, I will be glad to do it. If not, I will turn them over to Mr. Christian. If you have any questions of the Attorney General or any of the appointees, they will be glad to try to answer those.,QUESTIONS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to go into questioning on other subjects?,THE PRESIDENT. I hadn't scheduled a press conference, but I don't want to refuse it if you have some compelling need that Mr. Christian can't satisfy, I will be glad to take it.,Q. I haven't tried this one on Mr. Christian.,THE PRESIDENT. I would just try it and if you don't get results, well then let me know.,COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE POPE AND U THANT,[5.] Q. I wondered if you have any knowledge of the communication between the Pope and Mr. U Thant yesterday in which His Holiness referred to certain current peace moves and those coming up in the future. Do you know whether he was referring in a generalized way or to anything specific?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have anything to say about that. I think His Holiness would be the proper authority to determine what he had in mind. And I wouldn't want to presume to speak for him.,THE PRESIDENT'S SAN ANTONIO SPEECH,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in the past you have mentioned a reciprocal move by North Vietnam as a condition for our either halting or decreasing the bombing. Last night in your San Antonio speech, you did not mention this reciprocity. Was this not mentioning it any change in our policy or any softening of our position?,THE PRESIDENT. I will let that speech stand for itself. I don't agree, necessarily, with the first part of your statement, that in the past when I only referred to it I referred to it in a certain way. That is your statement and not mine.,The statement last night has been made before. It was made, as I said, time and time again. It was made in recent press conferences.,I think you were present when I made substantially the same statement. It represents official Government policy, namely, that we are trying every way we can to find any way to sit down at any time, any place, with these people and talk about the possibilities of peace.,We, a number of times, have specified the different ways we thought that could be done.,Last night I may have indicated that we would be very specific about stopping the bombing. And I developed that some by speaking about the timing, the promptness of the discussions, the productivity of the discussions, and the situation that we would expect to exist.,I don't think I would want to elaborate on it any more than I did last night, or any more than I did in previous references by the President and by various other public officials.,I did not intend last night--I did not feel that I had any requirement to submit only new material. I tried to discuss the general Government policy and to explain to all the people some of the things that I felt had not gotten through to them. And that was one of them.,But I did not mean that I felt the criteria of the speech had to be something new in it.,Q. Thank you, sir.,RESPONSE FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA TO SPEECH,[7.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any message from anyone in the Far East since your speech last night?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't understand the full import of your question.,Q. Well, I wondered had there been any diplomatic response from Southeast Asia as a result of what you said last night?,THE PRESIDENT. Are you asking if I have heard from the North Vietnamese?,Q. Among other people, yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I haven't read everything that has come in. To my knowledge, we haven't heard from them.,But if some rancher from Australia had wired me congratulations, I wouldn't want to be caught in a credibility gap by saying I hadn't heard from that part of the world.,If you are asking about North Vietnam, the answer is, to my knowledge, no.,Q. Mr. President, since you have seen some of the responses, can you tell us how it is running and whether you are gratified by it?,THE. PRESIDENT. No, I haven't gone over the responses.,DEAN GRISWOLD,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Dean Griswold has been a very distinguished member of the academic community in law, but from time to time he has been something of a critic of the Supreme Court, particularly in some areas of its activism. I recall precisely his criticism of one of the prayer decisions, I think it was an implied criticism. Does his appointment imply any criticism on the part of the administration about its activism in the fields of social and economic areas in which it has not traditionally operated?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you know the answer to that question. Anyone as well informed on the Dean's views should know it.,The answer, of course, is of course not. He was selected because of his ability as a lawyer and his stature as a citizen, and not because of any individual views or political views he might have.,As a matter of fact, I think he is a Republican, a registered Republican.,PLANS TO RUN FOR REELECTION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of Republicans, there are some Democrats around the country who are organizing rival slates for the convention to oppose your renomination for the Presidency. Do they know something that we don't, namely, that you are running?,THE PRESIDENT. You have better contacts with those various groups through your medium than I do. I am not fully aware of who they are or what they are.,Q. When do you anticipate that you might make known your decision on whether you will run?,THE PRESIDENT. When I have made a decision, I will make it known. I will cross that bridge when I get to it.,SPECIFIC CUTS IN PROGRAMS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you sending to Chairman Mills a list of specific cuts in programs?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not. No.,I think it must be clear to all of you that the President, in response to the request made by the Ways and Means Committee, said we would review the appropriation bills when they reached us.,Now, I will illustrate what I mean by that this way: There are 15 appropriation bills. Ten of those bills are still pending in the Congress.,On the HEW bill, for instance--Health, Education, and Welfare--the House passed one bill. The Senate passed another bill, adding funds to the House bill.,The views of the House and Senate are now attempting to be reconciled in conference.,The President does not know whether he will get the House bill or whether he will get the Senate bill; whether he will get the lower bill; whether he will get the higher bill; or what kind of bill he will get.,It is pretty difficult to determine what you can do in the way of impounding funds or reducing them until you know what version you are going to get.,For instance, if there are substantial amounts that are added to the budget, it would be very easy to conserve those.\nIf there are substantial amounts reduced from the budget, it would be much more difficult.\nThis is a responsibility of the Congress. The President's view is the view presented in his budget. That is the President's recommendation. That is the Cabinet's recommendation. That is the Budget's recommendation.,Now, if the Congress feels that something should be increased, as it has felt in some areas such as the veterans bill we signed the other day, such as the insurance bill we vetoed the other day, such as the pay bill that has been reported out of the House committee--that is a function, and an appropriate one, a proper one for the Congress.,The President has great reluctance to go further than he has recommended in his budget. And he would do so only in consultation with the Congress.,On the other hand, I am very anxious to be cooperative with them and to attempt to find an area of agreement with them.,When they act on these matters and give me their decision on the matter, I want to really stretch myself to try to accept it, if possible.,Now, what their decision is going to be, I don't know. The President's decision was made in his budget.,He has stated to them, because they have asked him to in connection with the tax message-and I refer you to that message,4 that being the administration's position--that we would review the bills.,4 For the President's message to Congress on the budget and the economy, and for his news conference following the message, see Items 329 and 330.,For instance, if they had added substantial amounts to them, we would try to withhold some of those additions.,If they had reduced them, then that would be more difficult to do. But we would carefully review and evaluate each one of them after they come to us.,NEED FOR A TAX INCREASE,[ 11.] Q. Mr. President, we are approaching the final quarter of the year now. Is there anything in the business or economic outlook that you see ahead that would alter your view on a tax increase?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the very small 1 percent average tax that we suggested on income is very desirable.5,5 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (Public Law 90-364, 82 Stat. 251).,I believe firmly, now even more than I did when I recommended a tax last January and when I added to it last August, that if we don't follow the recommendations that we have made to increase our revenues, we won't be avoiding a tax. We will get a tax either way. You either get the tax recommended by the best economists and by the Cabinet officials, by the Federal Reserve Board and others, or you will get an inaction inflationary tax.,It is our view that the inflationary tax will be more burdensome, more costly, more dangerous, and more undesirable than the tax that we have indicated.,Now, most people like to vote for appropriations and be against tax measures. That is traditional. That is historic. You don't see any pickets going up and down the streets saying, \"We want more taxes.\" That just doesn't happen. But most people also are responsible and they want to be fiscally responsible.,When you realize that we have had two tax reductions--and if we had not had those reductions we would take in almost $24 billion more this year than we will take in-I think if they study it carefully they will find that the $7 billion plus we are asking for is not an unreasonable request when we would have taken in $24 billion except for the reductions we have made.,We think that that small request we have made of just 1 percent of the income of the average person is very necessary if we are to avoid the evil effects of a more burdensome tax, namely, an inflationary tax, a weakening of the dollar, increased interest rates--high and ruinous interest rates--with a big blow to our homebuilding program.,We think that every day the delay that takes place not only costs us many millions of dollars each day, but also increases the danger each day of the inflation tax.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-09-28","text":"STATEMENT ON HURRICANE BEULAH AND RELATED FLOOD DAMAGE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] First of all, we are very thankful that we have had as small a loss of life as we have had attendant to this disaster.,Second, we are very proud that our neighboring country of Mexico, through its President, could work so cooperatively with the United States in meeting the common problem.,The Governors of the States across the river and the Governor of this State have been in close communication and have worked in perfect harmony throughout.,There wasn't a great deal that I could personally do by coming here. I had received reports from Senator Yarborough, Senator Tower, and Congressman Jones of the Public Works Committee. The Governor has been in touch with me every day since this disaster started last week. I was generally familiar with the distress that had been suffered.,We had taken steps to provide all the assistance that we could to the local, county, and State officials who were dealing with the situation.,I asked Secretary McNamara last Friday to see that every facility of the Defense Department was available to the extent needed. And I am very proud of the performance that the Defense officials have carried out.,Mr. Hastings, who is Governor Bryant's 1 regional manager, with headquarters in Denton, has been by the side of the Governor and the local officials throughout this period. It has been a common judgment in connection with every recommendation that has been made.,1 George E. Hastings, Director, Region 5, Office of Emergency Planning, and Farris Bryant, Director, Office of Emergency Planning.,The thing I want to stress particularly by coming here this afternoon and visiting some of the hospital centers and the food centers, and flying over the area, was to let these people know that their Government cares for them, and let our neighbors who are the unfortunate victims of distress across the river know that we care for them, and that we are a compassionate and understanding Government. And in the hour of need, we are there. As nearly as I can see, every need that they have had has been met.,Governor Connally has presented, through Mr. Hastings and Mr. Bryant, on behalf of the State of Texas, with the approval of our regional headquarters, a very thorough report and request that we declare this a disaster area, applying it to several counties. There will be additional counties added from time to time.,The purpose of that declaration is primarily to make eligible certain funds for the rebuilding of public facilities--roads, and any buildings that may have been destroyed, things of that nature.,The law requires that the Governor make an appraisal of the damage that has been suffered. It is a very difficult thing to do, but the State officials, the regional officials, and the local officials have been at work. And they tell me that they estimate that it will be somewhere in excess of $20 million.,The Governor is making that application, and I am acting on it as of now.,It will be declared a disaster area. $2.5 million will be set aside immediately.,As the local authorities, the engineers, the State, regional, and Federal officials have a meeting of minds after the water recedes and they can see just how much damage has been done to the streets, highways, underpasses, and matters of that nature, we will add to it.,We are going to do whatever is needed to be done.,We are going to meet whatever requirements must be met.,We are, as I said, an understanding, compassionate Government--and in the hour of need we are going to be there.,I have, unfortunately, had to observe a good many disasters of this and other natures--hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, and so forth--since I have been President.\nI have never seen one where the people were more cooperative and more understanding of the problem confronting them.,I have never seen one where the local, county, State, and Federal officials worked more cooperatively together.,I congratulate one and all from the small town mayor to the Governor of the State, and to the generals of the Army and the privates who supported them in this effort. I am very proud of my country.,I am very proud of the officials of the various subdivisions of the Government.,We are sorry this had to happen, but we are thankful that we have lost as few lives as we have.,Now is the time to rebuild. And that will be underway. I will affix my signature to the declaration of the disaster as soon as I get in the plane. $2.5 million will be set aside. That money will be available if, as, and when projects are presented that justify approval. Allocations will be taken from that fund.,As we get better surveys and get additional damage known, those applications will be extended, not only to the 24 counties now involved, but there may be additional ones. Well, then the fund will be increased proportionately.,Senator Yarborough and Senator Tower have assured me, as have the Congressmen involved--Congressman de la Garza, Congressman Kazen, and Congressman Young--that the Congress will make available in their judgment whatever funds are necessary to see that the Federal Government does its part.,So I leave here sad at what has occurred, but proud that our Government has extended its hand in the hour of need, and that the officials have worked well together. And, I think we will come out of it strong and more appreciative of each other.,I will be glad to take your questions, if you have any.,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, what was the most impressive thing you saw today on your tour of the valley?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I saw many impressive things. Everything I saw was impressive. I saw the doctors and the nurses caring for the sick, the unfortunate, and the injured. And, I was so thankful that we had skilled people who were trained.,I saw the Army under its excellent leadership apparently anticipating every problem. And, I saw the engineers in charge of the International Boundary Commission.,I saw the people being fed. Every mother that I talked to said they were being handled properly and they were grateful. The food was adequate and good.,I saw these hundreds of poor people who had lost their homes, or who had to move from their homes in Mexico and come to their neighbor across the river. And that touched me.,The doctors, the food people, the irrigation and engineering folks who were in charge-all have made their individual contributions. I think we have much to be proud of,[3.] Q. Mr. President, am I correct in nay understanding that this $20 million estimate is for public facilities only? That does not, of course, include private property, crops or anything like that but just the public facilities?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, one of the points that has been made to the Governor, and I am sure he has passed it along to you, is that a lot of people will be unemployed because of the loss of citrus and other crops for the next 3 or 4 months. Is there any kind of public works program in mind for the valley?,THE PRESIDENT. There are public works programs that are available. We will be glad to survey the unemployment needs and try to provide allotments that will be helpful in that connection through the poverty program, through the public works program of the Army Engineers, and other agencies, the Neighborhood Youth Corps and things of that nature.,[5.] Q. Could this result in some further diversion dams or flood control devices along the Rio Grande?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Friedkin,2 of the International Boundary Commission, and Congressman Jones, Congressman de la Garza and the Senators pointed out to me the very important necessity of planning additional dams that will avoid, to a large degree, some of the waste that has occurred here.,2 Joseph F. Friedkin, Commissioner, U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, Texas.,There is no question, I think, but what those plans will be processed and ultimately the Congress will act upon them. Another dam is very much needed.,If there is one thing that impressed me today, it is that I am glad we have built with our neighbor Mexico the Falcon and Amistad Dams--the Amistad now underway. But it is very clear to me that we have not built enough dams in this area.,[6.] Q. The question has been raised that possibly the Federal Government is responsible for the flooding, particularly in the Harlingen area and the Mercedes area, legally responsible because of the failure of the structure near Anzalduas Dam. Do you care to speak about that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I wouldn't think that would have much merit. There is always something that the Federal Government is blamed for. And there are always some blamers and complainers.,I started out in my public career by creating a man-made flood up on the Colorado.\nBut, the same people who are doing that now are the ones who are saying we shouldn't have any additional taxes, and we ought to cut appropriations by several billions, and so forth.,I think the Federal Government has been rather enlightened in its actions in this area. Perhaps they have spent more money than the people themselves wanted spent at times. We have completed the Falcon Dam. We are now on the Amistad Dam. And we are now talking about another dam.,If we spent a little less time blaming people and a little more time building instead of tearing down, it would be better for our Government and for our people.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, will you talk with President Diaz Ordaz about some control of the river for avoiding this kind of problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We will, of course, welcome the chance to talk to our friend President Diaz Ordaz, who will be in Washington next month. We have already exchanged several messages with him.,We, at his request the other day, sent helicopters into the area and provided certain other assistance. We notified the Ambassador this morning to tell the President we are sending six additional helicopters tonight to help evacuate people.,We will work cooperatively on the job at hand, but we will also talk about any new construction plans that are indicated.,I went to Mexico in 1958 when we had our first conversations with Adolfo Lopez Mateos about the Amistad Dam. I expect we will have a repeat performance when President Diaz Ordaz visits Washington. We will be planning some other dams.,I can't speak for him. And I can't speak for myself now. But, the congressional group and the Governor have urged us to consider putting underway plans for other facilities that will take care of situations like this in the future.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the Brownsville weather bureau has seemingly had some sort of difficulty in predicting the stages for the Rio Grande because Mexico broke a levee and was diverting water through there and they had no way of knowing exactly how much. So they had difficulty telling us what the stages would be. Do you think there could be more cooperation between the IBWC [International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico] and the Mexican Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I always want to get all the cooperation that can be gotten. And I think we are very fortunate that the neighboring countries cooperate to the extent they can. If that can be improved, I will do nay part so far as the United States is concerned. I am sure that the United States can at least improve everything it does.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan any meetings with any Mexican officials before President Diaz Ordaz comes to Washington next month?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,I want to particularly thank the committee from the House and the Senate that has come here; and the alertness of Congressman de la Garza, who has worked day and night on this matter.,I want to thank Senator Yarborough and Senator Tower. This is the second trip they have made. They have been here on the ground floor.,I am particularly grateful and proud of Governor Connally who has talked to me every day since this started.,I am happy that all these servants of the people still care about the people.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-09-01","text":"QUESTIONS,BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM,[1.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be, at least in public, some dispute going on within the administration on bombing policy in North Vietnam, with Secretary McNamara's representatives taking one position and the military another.,First, if such a dispute exists, could you sort of define it for us, and second, has Secretary McNamara--,THE PRESIDENT. Let's take one at a time, Smitty.1 I will give you another chance.,1 Merriman Smith of United Press International.,Q. All right.,THE PRESIDENT. The President is the Commander in Chief under the Constitution. His principal deputy in military matters is the Secretary of Defense. The Joint Chiefs are his military advisers.,The Joint Chiefs are a group of very able men. They are the finest in character and the best trained soldiers and sailors that we have. Their judgment is requested and respected, and certainly always carefully considered.,No two men ever see everything alike. Throughout our history there have been differences among Army leaders and naval leaders, between members of the Joint Chiefs and the civilians, between the civilians and the Congress. That is really the strength of our system.,The Congress, in writing the National Security Act of 1947, in which I played some part as a member of the Armed Services Committee, provided that the individual judgments of members of the Joint Chiefs would be available to the Congress on request. As advisers to the President, of course, they are always available to him.,I have been here 36 years. During that period I have been intimately associated with the armed services. I have never known a period during that time when I thought there was more harmony, more general agreement, and a more cooperative attitude, or when there were more able men in control.,That is not to say that they all agree. It is very rare when the President finds that the men around the table are all in agreement. If all agree, I usually adjourn the meeting and send for somebody to give me the other viewpoint.,I did that last week on the question involving Indian wheat. I asked that the other side be given to me.,Roughly speaking--and this is subject to some adjustment--there are in the neighborhood of some 350 principal, significant targets that the President has seriously considered from the JCS list. Approximately 300 of those have been authorized. So six out of seven have been authorized.,Of those 300 authorized, all the civilians and all the military have agreed on them. Their opinion has varied from time to time. There has been some little difference of opinion--the President may feel this way and the Secretary of State may feel another way; or they may agree and the Secretary of Defense agrees with them, and maybe the Joint Chiefs feel that this is more important than the other.,Some of them don't have the viewpoint on how it might affect our overall political situation in the world, and so forth. All of those things are considered.\nBut in 300 of the 350 instances there has been general agreement.,The 50 left are in very strategic areas, primarily the port of Haiphong, Hanoi, and the buffer zone. The decisions to bomb those other 50 targets have not been made.,Before the President acts on them, he will carefully consider the views of his principal military advisers, such as the Joint Chiefs; his principal political advisers, the Secretary of State; his principal deputy in military matters, the Secretary of Defense.,I think it is fair to give you my impression that while the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the President, are not in complete agreement on everything, there is no deep division. The viewpoints of all are carefully considered and weighed, with decisions made on what we believe to be in the national interest. There is a very surprising and very agreeable amount of unanimity, with the men of the same general opinion.,There are no quarrels, no antagonisms. I think the Joint Chiefs have acted very ably. From their viewpoint they have expressed themselves thoroughly. They are available to come to the President any time they choose without coming through the Secretary of Defense. They have been requested to do that any time they want to.,I think at least the implications of the testimony before the committee is somewhat blown out of proportion. That has always been true, though.,I remember when we were fighting for a 70-group Air Force when the Secretary of Air, Mr. Symington, asked if he would not be permitted to give his own personal opinion before a congressional committee of which I was a member. Very frequently you find that men of strong minds do not always agree. When they do, you have to consider their individual viewpoints and then act in the way you think is in the best interest of the Nation. That is what we have done.,But six out of every seven targets recommended have been authorized. As of now, I think that we are operating effectively, efficiently, and in the national interest.\nNow I will take your next question.,SECRETARY MCNAMARA'S RECOMMENDATIONS,[2.] Q. Has Secretary McNamara recommended to you that the rate of bombing in the North be reduced?,THE PRESIDENT. The recommendations that we get from time to time are to authorize specific targets. When those meetings conclude, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President have as of now been in agreement with each other.,STATEMENTS OF STENNIS COMMITTEE ON CONDUCT OF THE WAR,[3.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would address yourself perhaps to a couple of specific statements by the Stennis committee. One, their assertion that the present policy has not done the job and it has been contrary to the best military judgment; and second, their assertion that it is necessary to bomb Haiphong now?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't want to get in an argument with the Senate committee. They have their responsibility to get as much information as they can get and to express their views. You will find that in every struggle that this country has gone through, various committees of the Congress do that.,That is their privilege. I don't care to argue with them. I believe our policy is a sound one. It is based on the best judgment that we have.,Every decision is going to be made after we get all the facts and then we are going to do what we think is in the national interest. I am sure the committee wants to do the same thing.,STEEL PRICE INCREASES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to the recent steel price increases in the face of urgings by Mr. Ackley that the companies hold a line?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Ackley expressed the viewpoint of the administration on that, Mr. Horner.2 We regret very much that the companies felt it necessary to take the action they did. We expressed our view as strongly as we could in our recommendations.,2 Garnett D. Hornet of the Washington Evening Star.,Mr. Ackley spoke for the administration in that respect.3,3 For the text of the report to the President and Cabinet by Gardner Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, see the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, P. 1261).,SECRETARY MCNAMARA AND THE BOMBING IN THE NORTH,[5.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to Vietnam, has Secretary McNamara suggested that he resign if the rate of bombing is stepped up or if new targets are hit?,THE PRESIDENT. Absolutely not. That is the most ridiculous, nonsensical report that I have seen, I think, since I have been President.,Anyone who knows Secretary McNamara would know that on the face that was not true. He doesn't go around threatening anything or anyone.,VIEWS OF GEN. WALLACE M. GREENE, JR., ON THE BOMBING,[6.] Q. Mr. President, was General Greene speaking strictly in accordance with the administration's policy when he said there were more important targets for bombing?,THE PRESIDENT. General Greene speaks as Commandant of the Marine Corps. He doesn't clear his speeches here. None of the Chiefs of Staff clear them here.,The provision of the Security Act says that \"no provision of this Act shall be construed as to prevent a Secretary of a military department or a member of the Joint Chiefs from presenting to the Congress on his own initiative or to inform the Secretary of any recommendation relating to the Department of Defense that he may deem proper.\",So the Secretaries of the Departments-Army, Navy, and Air--and the Chiefs of Staff of those Departments, express their opinions from time to time. They can do so without any approval from here, and they do.,PREDICTION BY GEN. HAROLD K. JOHNSON,[7] Q. Mr. President, do you concur with General Johnson's prediction that the troops will be brought home in 18 months from Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. That is General Johnson's opinion. I have made no prediction and wouldn't care to at this time.,General Johnson is a very competent military officer and he has been out there and reached some conclusions. He expressed those to me.4 But I haven't made any prediction. I believe I will just leave that up to others.,4 General Johnson, Army Chief of Staff, held a news conference on August 12 following his report to the President. The text is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 1141).,THE SURTAX REQUEST,[8.] Q. Mr. President, a number of Congressmen from different parts of the country have said that they are opposed to your 10 percent surcharge. At this time, would you modify your request?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The committee has it under consideration. They will be taking additional testimony, after they return from their recess.,I would hope that they could act promptly upon the administration's recommendation. I would not anticipate the administration modifying them in any respect in the interim.5,5The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28 , 1968 (Public Law 90-364, 82 Stat. 251).,THE PRESIDENT'S WEEKEND PLANS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, can you give us an idea of what items of business apparently are keeping you in the Washington area this weekend?,THE PRESIDENT. What?,Q. What items of business are keeping you in the Washington area?,THE PRESIDENT. Nothing unusual. This is where my work is. I will have plenty to keep me busy. I don't know that I will be strictly here in Washington. I have no plans to go any other place. But if I get caught up with my work, and felt like I could, I would. There is not anything unusual about it one way or the other. I have been here a good many weekends.,Q. Mr. President--you caught me off guard now.\nThe PRESIDENT. Next question.,GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON THE PRESIDENT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Romney held a news conference this week at the Midwestern Governors Conference and among other things he said that you are a political animal and said just about everything you do is politically motivated.\nHow do you take a statement like that?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll just let you judge that statement. You could be more objective.,EFFECT OF A STRIKE BY AUTOMOTIVE WORKERS,[11.] Q. How much do you think an auto strike would hurt the national economy?,THE PRESIDENT. We, of course, hope we will not have a strike. We will do everything we can to avoid it. There is no question but what any strike costs the economy.,The overall effect is difficult to estimate. That would depend on the nature, the length, and the extent of the strike.,THE COPPER SUPPLY PROBLEM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that copper is getting in increasingly short supply because of the strike. I was wondering if you had any idea when it might become necessary for you to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have reached no decision along that line. We are watching the matter very carefully. I have talked to some of the public officials involved, the Governors and others. I have talked to some of the administration officials--Mr. McNamara and others.,We are giving careful attention to it. We are very hopeful that we could resume production at as early a date as possible. We are doing everything to that end ourselves.,THE VIETNAMESE ELECTIONS 6,[13.] Q. Mr. President, what about these persistent reports that there may be some kind of a new peace move around about the time of the Vietnamese elections, which fall on Sunday, and the possibility that this might include another bombing pause? Are you giving any thought, yourself, to such a move?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say the reports-bombing pause and peace proposal Sunday-so far as I am aware, are off the top of someone's head. I know nothing about them. We look every day for every possibility that would lead toward peace, as I said yesterday.,6 For the text of a news briefing by Ambassador-at-Large Henry Cabot Lodge upon his designation as coordinator of United States observers, and for a press pool summary of the observers' report, see the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, PP. 1227 and 1256).,But I think that we do ourselves a great disservice when, out of the clear air, we conjure up something that has no basis in fact. I cannot say what would happen tomorrow or the next day, or the next day.,But so far as I am aware at this time, the reports you mention are purely speculative and are without any foundation.,Q. Could I follow that up, sir? How will the United States follow up the election in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Just as it is. The United States has a policy there, a carefully thought-out policy. It is a consistent policy. We want to see those people have the right of self-determination. We are very hopeful that they will be able, notwithstanding the terror that is being practiced, the murder that is being committed, to be able to carry out their election with a minimum loss of life and with a maximum fairness and freedom that is possible in the conditions under which they operate.,We think it will involve substantial progress if they can have a fair and free election, and select their own officials. We believe that following this election, the officials so selected will do everything they can to improve the efficiency of their services, both military and civilian.,We have definite ideas in that regard-so far as pacification is concerned, so far as land reform is concerned, et cetera. We believe that the officials selected by the people themselves will, when they get the election behind them, take steps in that direction.,Of course, we will do anything we can to be helpful. It is a decision for them. It is their government, their actions, requiring their support. But any way we can supplement that support, we will do so with both counsel and resources.,FUTURE ASIAN SUMMIT MEETING,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you still have an Asian summit meeting in your future?,THE PRESIDENT. We think that there will be a meeting of the leaders that have met from time to time sometime in the next few months. We have no country, no time, and no date. There is no speculation on it and no exchange of times or dates at this moment. But we expect to have one.,PEACE CANDIDATE IN 1968 ELECTIONS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, because of shifts in the polls, there has been a lot of talk within the Republican Party recently about the desirability of their running a peace candidate next year, someone more \"doveish\" than some of their leading spokesmen. Would you welcome such a contest?,THE PRESIDENT. We in America want peace more than we want anything else. I believe that every person who is nominated by a national party will have that as his principal objective and principal goal. That has been true throughout our history. I think it will continue to be true.,CUT IN FOREIGN AND AUTHORIZATION,[16.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in line with your indication to Congress that you hope there would be a cut down on spending, and balancing that against your programs, how do you feel about the cut in the foreign aid authorization?,The PRESIDENT. We felt that when we sent the recommendations to Congress, they were a very small proportion of our total national product and of our total budget. We cut all of the fat out that we thought was safe to cut.,The Senate had a different viewpoint. The House had a different viewpoint. We will give our support to the conferees to try to obtain as much of our request as is possible under the circumstances.,We worked very closely with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. We did the best we could to impress upon them our views. In some instances they accepted them; in some instances they rejected them.,Now we are going to try to reconcile the differences and get the best program that is possible. We won't make much progress until they come back here September 11th. But needless to say, we were disappointed in many respects at the action taken.\nWe are hopeful that we can improve both the Senate bill and the versions in conference in the conference committee. But that remains to be seen. We will do everything we can to get a bill as close to our best judgment-which was contained in our recommendations-as possible.,I don't want to spend too much time with you. If you people in the back will raise your voices a little, and raise your hands, I will get to you.,THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST,[17.] Q. Mr. President, I was interested in knowing whether you could bring us up to date on the Middle East situation. You had the Yugoslavian Foreign Minister 7 in here the other day. Is there anything you can tell us with regard to Mr. Bundy? 8,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Bundy is back in New York working with the Ford Foundation. He is available for consultations and does consult with us from time to time.,7 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Marko Nikezic of Yugoslavia met with the President on August 26 to deliver a personal message from President Tito as part of a continuing exchange with a number of interested governments on the situation in the Middle East.,8 On June 7 the President had appointed McGeorge Bundy as a Special Consultant and as Executive Secretary of the National Security Council Committee on the Middle East (see Item 255)- The text of a news briefing held at that time by Mr. Bundy and George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President, is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 837).,We are doing everything we can to aid in attempting to work out some settlement in that area of the world. As you know, some of the leaders of state in the Middle East have been meeting among themselves. From time to time we will get reports from the heads of state, as I did the night before last. We will consider them and contribute anything we can to bringing peace to that area. I have no specific progress to report to you.,CIVILIAN CONTROL,[18.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Mansfield has raised a question about the civilian control which is being challenged by both the Stennis report and the testimony of the generals. Do you regard the leader in control of the Government being under challenge?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have gone through these things in every period of hostility that this Nation has engaged in. We speak our minds freely. We have differences and we express them.,But as President Truman used to say, in the last analysis, decisions will have to be made, and are made. I try to give proper weight to the recommendations made to me and then do what I think is best for our country.,We will expect reports from committees. I made many of them when I was Chairman of the Preparedness Subcommittee. Mr. Truman made many of them when he was chairman of the Truman committee.,Amidst hostilities we have these committees to check on each other and to check on the Executive. We will be getting their recommendations, as we get individual recommendations from Senators and Congressmen from day to day and time to time.,VIEWS OF GENERAL GREENE AND GENERAL JOHNSON,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you said earlier that you thought the controversy has been blown out of proportion.,Do you have any comment on the fact that General Greene and General Johnson have seen fit to take it to the public forum, before the American Legion and other places?,The PRESIDENT. I think that these men have expressed their opinion. I think they have a right to. I would think that the press has encouraged this from time to time and they ought to protect it, the right to dissent.,I don't ever expect all the people who are in the executive department to agree. I like to review various recommendations and pick out the best course that I think is open.,We don't all see everything alike, just because a man happens to be in the Marine Corps or the Chief of Staff.,I feel that I get complete cooperation out of all the Chiefs of Staff, and I think Mr. McNamara feels the same way. That does not mean they don't have an opinion that differs from ours.,I think you would be doing the country a disservice if you felt for a moment that there were any deep divisions between us. I think it is a pretty good team. I think it is working very effectively.,I think you make a little copy out of it and you blow it up. I don't detect any fire, except from what I read. I meet with them all the time.,Sure, sometimes one man would say, \"I think we ought to hit this target,\" and three men have a reason why you shouldn't, who have a lot more facts or different views. They have to look at it from different angles.,When you ask the fellow, \"Did you recommend it?\" he will say, \"Sure,\" but he doesn't say that someone acted improperly when he didn't get it approved.,If I approved everything that has been recommended to me, I wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable as I do. That is domestic, military, and everything. On occasion, we have people especially selected to come in and give the other viewpoint.,IMPORTATION OF LONG STAPLE COTTON FROM EGYPT,[20.] Q. Mr. President, do you think if Congress passed a bill to keep importations of long staple cotton from Egypt, a country that has cut off diplomatic relations with us, do you think if we pass such a bill and let our own farmers raise such cotton, that it would endanger relations in the Middle East, as the State Department says?,The PRESIDENT. I think, Mrs. McClendon,9 you might want to pursue that question with the Secretary of Agriculture. I don't have all the information on the implications of it now.,9 Mrs. Sarah McClendon, representative of several Texas newspapers.,Q. He is against it, too.,THE PRESIDENT. I am aware of the problem, but I am not prepared to go into it.,I do have a brief announcement that may be of some interest to you.,STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON ADDITIONAL WHEAT SHIPMENTS TO INDIA,[21.] [Reading] Last February the Congress authorized shipment to India of up to 3 million tons of U.S. wheat, \"provided it is appropriately matched\" by contributions from other industrialized countries.,Last May our efforts to mobilize other donors--and our painstaking measures to assure that their donations were large and real enough to fulfill the matching criterion established by the Congress--brought us to the point where the United States agreed to send half this wheat--1.5 million tons. That action was taken in the light of more than $96 million in contributions from other donors.,For the past few weeks, relevant senior officers of the U.S. Government have been engaged in a deep and detailed review of India's current food needs and the performance of other donors during the past 3 months.,This review has included careful documentation of food production and consumption conditions in India, as well as a thorough assessment of our ability to help, consistent with the letter and spirit of the resolution.,On the basis of this review, the President has today authorized a new agreement, providing a further 1 million tons of U.S. wheat to India. This decision reflects the following facts:,1. The food situation in India continues desperate. Public stocks are at their lowest point in living memory. Private stocks are completely exhausted. Food rations in major cities are at subsistence level and are the object of increasing political unrest. The immediate future of the world's largest democracy is greatly threatened. Free and peaceful development of Asia hangs in the balance.,2. However, this is only the short term outlook. Current reports on the monsoon rains suggest that 2 years of severe drought are over, and that, with luck, India can look forward to a record grain crop next crop year, with the fruits reaching Indian markets beginning in December of this year.,3. Since last May, India has received pledges from other industrialized nations totaling $122.2 million in new aid which provides food, food related resources, or frees Indian foreign exchange to buy food. If it could be counted in full against the matching criterion, it would justify nearly a million tons in additional United States wheat.,4. However, in order to be meaningful, the new aid from other donors must be a real increment to Indian resources, and it must be additional to regular contributions to the India Aid Consortium. No one's interests are served by a charade in which real American wheat is \"matched\" by meaningless financial transactions or by funds which would otherwise be provided through the Consortium anyway and are merely earmarked for this purpose.,5. In all frankness, we do not know precisely how much of the $122 million in new pledges meets these additional criteria. There is strong evidence that much of it does. If only about half of it does, we have a basis for providing 1 million tons of United States wheat.,6. We will not be able to make a precise estimate of how much of this aid is eligible for matching until the next meeting of the India Consortium, which will probably be held in October.,But starvation and threat of political chaos cannot wait. Therefore, I have determined to authorize now a further 1 million tons on the expectation that at East half of the new contributions from others will in fact be proven real and additional to normal Consortium contributions.,However, in order to assure that this Government behaves in strict accordance with the terms of the congressional resolution, I have also determined that the size of the United States contribution to the Consortium will not be finally determined until it is clear how much of the new aid contributions meet these criteria. If there is any shortfall between the cost of the grain authorized today and the amount of real and additional aid supplied by other donors since last May, the United States contribution to the Consortium can be reconsidered. [Ends reading.],What it adds up to is that we are going to make a million tons available today so that they can arrange for the shipping and get it worked out. Then we will determine whether the additional half million tons can be supplied at a later date. That will depend on other factors--the matching, et cetera-after the Consortium meets. The problem will be reviewed later concerning the remainder of the 3 million tons. But 1 million will be allotted today.\nI will take any question on it.,QUESTIONS,EFFECT OF CLOSING THE SUEZ CANAL,[22.] Q. Will the closing of the Suez Canal, the present closing of the Suez Canal, interfere with getting the grain to India?,THE PRESIDENT. We will make our decision here and we will get it there as soon as we can. I am not quite sure what you mean by \"interference.\" Do you mean delay or something?,Q. Delay.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there is some difference in time in shipping, if that is what you are asking.,AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZATION,[23.] Q. That is 1 1/2 million tons, and the additional million tons makes it 2 1/2 million tons that has been given, and a half million more is pending?,THE PRESIDENT. We were authorized to give up to 3 million tons, provided it was appropriately matched.,Q. Right.,THE PRESIDENT. And this makes 2 1/2 million tons of the 3 million tons.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-08-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Question?,QUESTIONS,ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[1.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us, please, your current assessment of the situation in Vietnam, and the meaning and significance of what seems to be a rather obvious lull in the ground war and an equally obvious stepping-up of bombing? More specifically, do you agree with your Army Chief of Staff, General Harold K. Johnson, that 45,000 more troops may be enough to see us through to a solution?,THE PRESIDENT. The people of Vietnam are in the middle of an election campaign to select a President and a Vice President, and about 60 members of their Senate. In October they will elect a House of Representatives.,From time to time there seems to be-from news reports and operations reports-accelerations, escalations, lulls, and other various types of descriptions of our activities out there.,Our policy in Vietnam is the same: We are there to deter aggression.,We are there to permit the people of South Vietnam to determine for themselves who their leaders should be and what kind of government they should have.,It is remarkable that a young country, fighting a tough war on its own soil, has moved so far, so fast, toward a representative government.,Since we first went to Honolulu, we have urged that steps be taken in this direction. First the Constituent Assembly was elected. Next a constitution was written.,At Guam that constitution was given to us. A pledge was made that they would have free and fair elections--that the people would have a chance to select a President and a Vice President, and members of the Senate.,In the last 2 or 3 days there has been a lull in the air activity. That is because of the weather, and because those who direct our operations there felt it was necessary to restrain themselves and not to carry out certain targets that were available to them.,Our activity in the South is determined a great deal by what the enemy there is willing to do. More and more here of late--we think that because of the losses he has suffered, because of the position in which he finds himself--he is less anxious to engage our troops in combat.,As a consequence, last week we had one of the lowest killed-in-action rates that we have had in several weeks.\nThat is not to indicate that we won't have a bad week next week.,But weather, enemy operations, local conditions--all of those determine in some respect what happens between a lull and stepped-up activity.,So far as this Government is concerned, our policy has not changed. It remains the same. We are steadfast in our determination to make our pledges good, to keep our commitments, and to resist the attempt to take over this little country by brute force.,FAIRNESS OF VIETNAMESE ELECTIONS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in this same context, what do you think accounts for fears being expressed on Capitol Hill, even to the point of a suggestion today that the election possibly be postponed? What do you think accounts for fears up there that maybe the election won't be on the up and up?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that that is to be expected in all elections.,I have participated in a good many. I have never known one where there weren't some who questioned the efficiency of the election, the accuracy of the election, or the wisdom of the voters' expressions.,The date for the election has been set. The nearer you get to that election date, the more charges you will hear concerning the individual candidates, concerning the methods they use, concerning the type of candidate you should select, and concerning anything they can question or criticize.,We do that in this country. You will expect more of it in a young country that is really having its first overall national election under wartime conditions.,We hope that whoever wins, civilian or military leaders, will work together and will cooperate in the essential work that is ahead of them.\nWe realize that one of our most difficult periods is going to be between now and the early part of September. We have realized that all along. We have had to adjust a good many things in this country, as long as we have had a Constitution.,During the election period, we have to forgo a good many things. We have to indulge ourselves the luxury of a great many rash statements and criticism. You can expect that to come from South Vietnam. We are going to do all we can.,It is not our election. It is not our government. We are not running things.,It seems to me this is a matter for the Vietnamese themselves.,But to the extent that our counsel is sought, and our advice is followed, we are going to do everything we can to see that we have an orderly, free, and fair election.,Ambassador Bunker, who is one of our most experienced men, tells me that he is hopeful that this will come about.,DOMESTIC PROGRAMS; PROPOSALS FOR THE CITIES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, a number of people are asking more for the cities in the way of social welfare. But how about the things that you have already recommended? For example, sir, yesterday the House passed a social security bill close to your recommendations, but the rest of your domestic programs seemed to be foundering up on the Hill. How do you see this?,THE PRESIDENT. We have almost 100 measures pending in the Congress. About half of them have been passed. At the end of the Congress, in the last few months of any Congress, we try to make a maximum effort to clean up all the bills that are left.,We are very happy at the action that the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives took on our social security measure. There are some matters that they brought into it that we had hoped they wouldn't. There are some reductions made that we didn't favor.,But generally speaking, our recommendations were carefully considered. The House acted in its judgment and passed by that overwhelming vote yesterday a measure that I think the Senate can improve. I hope it will be sent to the President.,We do have a crime control measure that has been acted upon by the House. We have a civil rights measure. That has been acted upon by the House. We have an Economic Opportunity Act. It is now pending in the House committee.,We have a model cities bill that has been greatly reduced in the House, but I expect the Senate to act on it this week. We have a rent supplements that the House cut out entirely that should be restored in the Senate. We hope that it will.,We have the urban renewal measure-almost a billion dollars, some $750 million. We have the urban mass transit, the urban research. We have the rat extermination, the education bill--some 15 or 20 measures that are extremely important to the cities.,I have talked to all the leadership about it. I have talked to a good many of the individual Members about them.,I think there is a general belief that the Congress will consider all of these measures and, I believe, pass most of them. We don't expect to get everything that we had recommended. But we believe we will get most of it. We think it is essential.,As I said in my letter to Senator Mansfield,1 we have housing legislation, we have rent supplements, we have model cities, and we have a good poverty bill. I believe Congress will, in the last few days of this session, face up to all of these measures and pass them.,1 See Item 353.,LETTER FROM FAMILY LOSING SON IN VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, this week a family that lost a young son in Vietnam sent a letter rejecting your note of sympathy, calling the war senseless.,I would be interested to know how this affects you. Does it upset you? How do you respond to that kind of mail?,THE PRESIDENT. I heard that over the radio. I regret, of course, the feelings of the family. But I can understand the feelings of any parent who has lost a child.,When I heard it, I just wished that it was possible for me to have enough time to sit down and express the gratitude this Nation feels for the service of the young men such as the one who belonged to this home, and perhaps give them a little better explanation of what we were doing there, and why.,PROPOSAL FOR BOMBING PAUSE AFTER ELECTIONS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the South Vietnamese Chief of State, General Thieu, has said that if he is elected President in the elections next month he will ask for a bombing pause and another attempt to get peace talks started.,Could you tell us how you feel about a bombing pause after the elections?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to consider and discuss any proposal that would indicate it would lead to productive discussions that might bring about peace in that area of the world.,I am very happy that Chief of State Thieu and Prime Minister Ky indicate that after the election they are hopeful conditions would be such that productive discussions and negotiations could take place.,The United States is very anxious to meet with the representatives of the North Vietnamese Government at any time, at a mutually agreed place, to try to agree on some plan that will resolve these differences.,We have made a number of proposals ourselves. As of this moment, there has not been communicated to us any change of position any different from that reflected in Ho Chi Minh's letter of several weeks ago.,We would, of course, welcome any indication on the part of the North Vietnamese that they would agree to a cease-fire, that they would agree to negotiations, that they would agree that if we had a bombing pause that they would not take advantage of that pause to increase our men killed in action.,NO STALEMATE IN VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, on the basis of that lack of indication from Hanoi, in your opinion, based on your information, have we reached a stalemate in the Vietnam war?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think there are those who are taking a pretty tough drubbing out there, who would like for our folks to believe there is a stalemate. But I haven't been there. I can't personally say that I have observed all the action that has taken place.,General Westmoreland is there. I have sent General Wheeler there within the month.,General Johnson, the Chief of Staff of our Army, has just returned from there.,General Larsen, a very able general who has been in the II Corps now for 2 years, has just returned from there.2,2 Lt. Gen. Stanley Larsen, former commander, II Corps, Vietnam, held a news briefing on August 25, 1967 (3 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 1220).,All of these men think that the stalemate charge is nothing more than propaganda.,NEW BOMBING TARGETS NOT A THREAT TO CHINA,[7.] Q. It will come as no surprise to you, sir, that there are a number of critics of your Vietnam policy inside and outside the press. But the Minneapolis Tribune, for example, has, in the past, rather consistently supported your objectives and policies in Vietnam.,But on Tuesday of this week, its lead editorial calls your permission to bomb within 10 miles of China a dangerous escalation of the bombing which could lead to war with China.,What would your counsel be to this implied anxiety?,THE PRESIDENT. First I would like to make it clear that these air strikes are not intended as any threat to Communist China. They do not, in fact, pose any threat to that country. We believe that Peking knows that the United States does not seek to widen the war in Vietnam.,The evidence has been quite clear, we think, that the strikes were made against the major military staging areas and lines of communication where the enemy has been concentrating his supplies and troops. The transportation routes and bridges over which those troops have been moved against our men have been hit.,We think that these targets are directly related to the enemy's capacity to move material into South Vietnam to kill American boys.,The targets to us were clearly identifiable. They were carefully selected. They were all within North Vietnam.,The strikes were made by the most highly trained pilots that we had. They employed every human and every technical precaution to insure that the ordnance fell on target. It did.,While everyone is entitled to his opinion-a good many of them express it--the tougher the going gets, the more difficult it will be for some to stay with us and go all the way, and last it out.,Nevertheless, we believe that if we are going to be there, it is essential to do everything we can to protect the men we have there.,We are going to try to provide the maximum deterrent at the minimum loss.,PROGRAMS FOR THE GHETTOS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Representative John Conyers says he will introduce legislation to allocate $30 billion to rebuild the Nation's ghettos. Would you support such a project?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we have pending before the Congress some 15 or 20 measures to try to bring about an improvement of living conditions in our cities. They involve many hundreds of millions of dollars. The Congress up to now has not seen fit to pass the ones we have requested.,We are going to urge upon them the program that we have recommended. We would be glad to consider any other recommendations that may come, but I think we will be rather fortunate if we can pass the measures that are now pending before the Congress without material reduction in our recommendations.,For instance, the model cities program is designed to improve the ghettos in the cities of the land. We asked the Congress for $2 billion 300 million. They reduced that to about $1 billion--almost half.,Then we asked for the funding of $600 million of that billion for model cities this year. They have cut that $600 million to $200 million.\nOver the long run--many years ahead-- I am confident that we will make substantial increases in our expenditures in the dries. If we can get the modal cities passed this year, if we can get the Kaiser commission's recommendations on the pilot projects for housing passed,3 if we can get good, sound poverty measures, if we can get our rent supplements--the program that has already been thought out and worked out--I would be very pleased.,3 See Item 355.,In the meantime, we have a group in the Housing and Urban Development organization under Secretary Weaver and Secretary Wood--as well as Mr. Kaiser's committee-that has taken a look at every proposal that has been made with a view to determining what merit they hold and how far we can go in embracing them.,FARM PRICES,[9.] Q. Out in Des Moines this week several thousand farmers authorized the leaders of their organization to try to increase farm prices by withholding products from the market. Could you give us your view on the appropriateness and the efficacy of this kind of effort by farmers to increase their prices?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that one of the very serious problems we have in this country-all of the consumers--is trying to insure that the farmers who produce the food we eat and the fibers we wear get a fair price for their products. I do not think they have gotten a fair price over the years--in line with the earnings of the workers in industry.,I talked with some of the farm leaders before the Des Moines meeting. The Secretary of Agriculture brought in some of those leaders.,I think that this Government should give very serious consideration to evolving some kind of a program that will give the farmer an equity of fairness, on the same basis for bargaining for the prices of his product as we have for the workers bargaining for the wages they receive for their labors. Now the particulars of that have not been worked out. I just don't know how we can obtain it.,But I do think that the farmers are on the short end of the stick. I do think that people are leaving the farms by the thousands and going into the dries. I do think that is creating a very serious problem for us.,Today the farmer gets a smaller percentage of the dollar for the food that he produces for us than in any other period. I would very much hope that the administration, at some date in the reasonably near future, could find some legislation that would give to the farmer a means of bargaining reasonably and collectively, as we permit our workers to do.,THE TONKIN GULF RESOLUTION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Constitution does not give you the right to carry on this war without permission from Congress. I am sure that you realize that more than anybody. In view of this misunderstanding that has occurred about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, why don't you dear up this matter with your critics by calling for a new vote in Congress on this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. Sarah,4 you don't always clear up your critics that easily. They will be with you before the vote, and they will be with you after the vote. That is the way it is in a democratic society.,4 Mrs. Sarah McClendon, representative of several Texas newspapers.,I have given a lot of concern and attention to attempting to get the agreement of the Congress on the course that the Government followed in its commitments abroad.,As a young Senator, I recall very vividly hearing Senator Taft speak on several occasions about President Truman's intervention in Korea. He frequently said, in substance, that while he thought what the President did was right, he did it the wrong way; that he should have consulted the Congress and he should have asked for their opinion.,Now under the Constitution, the Congress has the right to declare--to declare--war. It was never intended that the Congress would fight the war, direct the war, take the bombers off the ground, put them back on it, or ground them. But it has the responsibility to declare the war.,Senator Taft thought that President Truman, before he committed our troops in Korea, should have asked the Congress not necessarily for a declaration but for an opinion-for a resolution.,President Eisenhower followed that policy in several instances, asking the Congress for an opinion. He discussed it with the leaders before he submitted the resolution.,Back in May and June 1964, before the Tonkin Gulf, we considered what we should do in order to keep the Congress informed, to keep them in place, and to keep them in agreement with what our action should be there in case of contingencies. There was very active debate in the Government, as I remember it, back as far as May and June of that year. Then we had the Tonkin Gulf.,After the Tonkin Gulf we responded to the action with appropriate measures in the Tonkin Gulf.,But after that, we felt that we should point out that there was likelihood there would be other instances. We could see the problem developing in that area. So we asked the leadership of the Congress to come to the White House.,We reviewed with them Senator Taft's statements about Korea, and the actions that President Eisenhower had taken, and asked their judgment about the resolution that would give us the opinion of the Congress.,We were informed that a resolution was thought desirable. So the members of the executive and legislative branches talked about the content of that resolution.,A resolution was drafted. That was reviewed with the leaders on, I believe, August 4, 1964.,I sent a message up to the Congress shortly afterwards and asked for consideration of a resolution. Some of the Members of the Congress felt that they should amend the resolution, even after amendments had already been put into it by Members, to provide that if at any time the Congress felt that the authority delegated in the resolution should be withdrawn, the Congress, without waiting for a recommendation from the President he might differ with them-could withdraw that authority by just passing a resolution which did not require the President's veto. They could do it by themselves.,That suggestion was made to me by a prominent Senator. I readily accepted.,So the machinery is there any time the Congress desires to withdraw its views on the matter.,We stated then, and we repeat now, we did not think the resolution was necessary to do what we did and what we are doing. But we thought it was desirable. We thought if we were going to ask them to stay the whole route, and if we expected them to be there on the landing, we ought to ask them to be there on the takeoff.,So Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara went before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Then they went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. They testified before all four of those committees.,As I said, they accepted some suggestions by the Congressmen and Senators, and amended the resolution. The committees reported the resolution. I believe the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House reported unanimously. The Armed Services Committee went along with it.,On the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, I think there was only one vote against it--Senator Morse. 5 Then it went out to both Chambers for debate.,5Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon.,We had stated our views in the message and in the measure. The leadership, too, expressed our views in some of their statements.,On August 5th, 6th, and 7th, during that period, there was debate, 2 days in the Senate--I believe on the 6th and 7th. I don't recall the dates exactly in the House. But that resolution was sent to us by a vote of over 500 to 2.,I believe that every Congressman and most of the Senators knew what that resolution said. That resolution authorized the President-and expressed the Congress willingness to go along with the President--to do whatever was necessary to deter aggression.,Now we are, as I say, trying to provide a maximum deterrent with a minimum loss. We think we are well within the grounds of our constitutional responsibility. We think we are well within the rights of what the Congress said in its resolution.,The remedy is there if we have acted unwisely or improperly.,It is going to be tougher as it gets along. The longer the fighting lasts, the more sacrifice is required in men and materiel; the more dissent, the more difficult it is going to be.,But I don't believe we are acting beyond our constitutional responsibility.,OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT AND THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, what are your ideas on the need for early processing of the billions of gallons of oil from oil shale in Colorado in the Rocky Mountains in view of the Middle East stoppage of oil shipments?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of the Interior, since the Middle East crisis, has had a very special group in his Department dealing with imports and production matters. His various advisory committees give him counsel as to emergency measures that could be taken--and some that have been taken--to adequately protect our petroleum requirements.,They are reasonably well in hand. We think that there is a great future in the oil shale development. I would doubt that in this immediate crisis that you could expect any great acceleration.,But if at any time our petroleum supply should be threatened more than it is now, the need should become greater. In any event just as the processes develop, you can expect further action in that field. But I don't think it is imminent now.,METHODS OF REDUCING THE DEFICIT,[12.] Q. Sir, earlier this week Budget Director Schultze said the administration hopes to squeeze out between $1 1/2 billion and $2 billion from the administrative budget. Could you share with us your thinking as to where some of these cuts might come?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, from the 15 appropriation bills sent to the Congress--two of which have been passed. We are examining them now. There is little indication that much in the way of savings can come from them.,We have talked to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House, where they originated, last week. Mr. Mahon was here earlier in the morning. We have pointed out the problem we have. We have urged the leadership to set a target date for getting those appropriation bills to us so they can be examined.,There are about $61 billion worth of nondefense expenditures in the budget. We would expect to have to get the Congress to reduce many hundreds of millions--perhaps several billions in those appropriations. If the Congress fails to do it, we will have to see where it fails--what bills contain the money we think can be reduced and that have the lowest priority--and then act.,Each department has been instructed to immediately contact the chairmen of its subcommittees and urge them to take action on the bill. When those reductions are made by the Congress, if they are not sufficient, then the Executive is pledged to make further reductions.,We believe we should try to keep our borrowing within 50 percent of the anticipated deficit. We hope that we can get a tax bill that will raise about $7 billion-plus. That will amount to about 25 percent of the anticipated deficit.,Then we believe by refusing to pass certain measures that have been proposed--and are pending--by taking action on other measures that the House has reduced, by reducing several billion ourselves, the Congress and the Executive can reduce the anticipated deficit by some 20 or 25 percent in withholdings, deferments, impoundings, and actual cuts.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-08-03","text":"THE TAX MESSAGE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] We have reached the day some of you have been expecting for some time. The tax message is going to the Congress.,We will ask for taxes that we expect to produce about $7 billion 400 million for the fiscal year beginning July 1.,We have reestimated our revenues and our expenditures. They run something like this: The deficit we went in with last January was $8.1 billion. We estimate now we will have $8.5 billion additional expenditures that were not included in this first figure. There are $8.5 billion in additional expenditures.\nThere will be $1.5 billion in funds we released last spring that had been impounded, you will remember. That will be spent the next fiscal year. That is like housing funds, public works projects, and some of those funds we impounded.,The Congress is considering a pay bill that will be $1 billion above the budget. We think prudence indicates that we ought to consider the possibility of that being enacted.,We recommended a 4.5 percent increase for Federal, civilian, and military employees. The bill which they have--the most popular one under consideration--would be another $1 billion.1 We think we have to look at the facts of life there.,1For the President's remarks upon signing the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, see Item 546.,We asked for $4.4 billion in participation certificate sales. We think it will be $2 billion short of that at the moment.,In the light of the additional men we will have to send to Vietnam, which will be in the neighborhood of 45,000 or 50,000, and the allowance for extra expenses that we can best calculate, we estimate that to be in the neighborhood of $4 billion. That is $8.5 billion total.,Our revenues are down $7 billion-plus. I will give you the breakdown on that. Our tax bill of 6 percent, we had calculated, would give us another $4.7 billion.,If we don't have a tax bill, the interest will be an additional $700 million. $4.7 billion and $700 million will be $5.4 billion. There is where we start with the potential deficit. That is $29 billion.,What are we going to do about the $29 billion? We hope, first, that we can take $x billion off here by the pay bill if the Congress will stay with the budget estimates, and we so recommend.,We hope we can take $1 billion more off by giving us the authority to sell $2 billion PC's [participation certificates].,For every billion we take off, we will save 2 points on the surtax. If we have a pay bill of an extra billion dollars, we would have to have 2 points extra on our 10 percent surtax to take care of that extra billion. For every $1 billion you spend, it means 2 points surtax, so here we hope we can save 6 points on surtax.\nThat takes $3 billion off there.,We have a 10 percent surtax on corporations effective July 1st. We have a 10 percent surtax on individuals effective October 1st. We have to have our forms printed and the withholding. We think that is the earliest date possible--October 1st. They could make it July 1st if they were so disposed to, and we hope they will.,I made clear to Chairman Mills and the Democratic leadership, the members of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Byrnes,2 and others, that we would like to have prompt hearings and have this measure voted. If they cannot vote it as we recommend it, then vote it as their best judgment indicates; at least take action one way or the other.,2 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, and Representative John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, ranking Republican member of the Committee.,There is nothing that is as hurtful as uncertainty in the economic community. Chairman Mills has indicated to me that he will try to start hearings on the 14th. When he gets his social security bill out, and it will be up in Congress, he hopes we can be ready for testimony on the 14th. I have instructed all of our people to be ready for that testimony.,Under that tax bill, that 10 percent surcharge that expires in 1969 or when the Vietnam problem is over with, plus the extension of the excises due to expire next April--and they will give you the details-that will raise $7.4 billion, so that will give us $10.4 billion, if we get everything that we are asking for, and we will not.,One billion dollars for the pay bill. Bear in mind, we can have a pay bill of 4.5 percent, but they are considering one that is $1 billion above the 4 1/2 percent. That is what we want knocked out. We are getting $2 billion in certificates, but they are cutting $2 billion in certificates. We are asking to add the $2 billion. We asked for it in the budget. We counted on it in the budget. We hope the Congress will put it in the budget. There is an indication they will. So that is $3 billion.,Take the $1 0.4 billion from your $29 billion. That gives you an $18.6 billion. Then we only have three appropriation bills. We expect to get another 10 or 12, probably 12 more. We will take each one of those 15 and see what we can cut out of there.,The tax message shows that really there is only about $12 billion that is within the discretion of the President. First the Congress will cut some of it, and we hope it will reduce this $18.6 billion. But we have about $12 billion in the nonmilitary. If we can cut $1 billion, $1.5 billion, 10 percent out of that, then we have the military. That will be some $79 billion, I guess, counting the atomic energy and the estimated $4 billion. We will try to squeeze any water we can out of that.,Whatever we can squeeze out will be deducted from the $18 billion. It could be as much as $4 billion. The deficit will likely be somewhere in the area of $14 billion to $1 8 billion, depending on the appropriations.\nYou cannot cut an appropriation that has not been appropriated. We have only had three of them, and they are the minor ones, not the big ones. If the bill comes to you that has $79 billion in appropriations, you can cut it more than you can with one that has $69 billion. We will have to see what happens there.,That is roughly the picture. Summarizing briefly, and the experts can take all of your questions, we see the potential deficit as $29 billion. We have to be realistic and face that budget.,What do you do with that kind of a deficit?,We could borrow it all, but with corporation profits, personal income, farmers' income, prosperity what it is, we don't think that would be a wise course. There is no one in the Government that recommends borrowing it all.\nWe could tax it all, but if you only get $7.4 billion out of a 10 percent surtax, you see it would take a 40 percent surtax, or maybe more, because part of that is excises, to tax it all. We don't think the economy would take that.,So without taxing it all, or borrowing it all, we have taken another alternative. We wish we had a balanced budget. We wish we didn't have any problems. I guess all of you do in your own lives.,But we will borrow a part of it, tax a part of it, and save a part of it. So we are going to tax--of the $28 billion or $29 billion, whatever it runs, $30 billion--we are going to try to tax $7.4 billion. We are going to try to tax $8 billion and try to save $8 billion and have the best of the $14 billion or $16 billion, somewhere in there, by taxing, by cutting, and by borrowing, instead of borrowing it all or taxing it all.,We may be off a billion or two. I don't want to affect your credibility by having you make speculations that didn't always come true. I am sure that happens once in a while. I don't want to get myself into a credibility problem any more than I already have.,I would warn all of you that these are \"guesstimates\" as best they can be. We have sent four State of the Union Messages, four Budget Messages, to the Congress since I have been President. We estimated our deficits in those 4 years would be $23.9 billion and it is $23.8 billion-plus.,So our estimate on the deficits we have had has been reasonably good. We want to try to make it as accurate as we know how. But in an $800 billion economy, $175 billion NIA [national income accounts] budget, $135 billion budget here, if you are off 2 percent you have a lot of serious trouble.,We hope we are not off 2 percent or 1 percent. We have not been on our 4-year deficits. This year we were off, but the first 3 years we had a plus.,So we took the plus the first 3 years and the minus the fourth year and we came out right on the nose, $23.8 billion. and we predicted a $23.9 billion deficit. That is what we are trying to guess now, just as sincerely and accurately as we know how.,We have looked at the economy. We have sent wires to 100 corporations to get their estimates. We have talked to labor leaders. We have talked to farmers. We have had economic advisers and Treasury estimators, as well as the Federal Reserve Board.,It is our best judgment that these are the best figures we can assemble. We know there will be an error somewhere. We think this $8.5 billion in additional expenditures can be cut quickly by $3 billion in these two items.3,3 Here the President pointed to a blackboard. The terns were \"pay bill\" and \"participation certificates.\",We know this other cannot be cut--the $1.5 billion--because it has already gone. We do not know what will happen on the $4 billion, but it is a prudent estimate at the moment. There are a lot of things that are not in this estimate.,The Forrestal was not in it--at $100 million. The supply facility yesterday was not in it. The Danang mortar shell the other day--$80 million--was not in it. We just cannot guess those things.4 Those things usually are not put in.,4 The President referred to disasters costly to the United States, including an accidental fire which badly damaged the aircraft carrier Forrestal in the Gulf of Tonkin near the coast of North Vietnam on July 29, 1967.,We have some contingency. There may be more of them. They may be different. But our hope is that we can get this $29 billion down to $10.4 billion quickly with these three items--tax, participation, and pay. That is $18 billion.,We hope that we can cut something out of this $12 billion that I can play with.,We have $61 billion nonmilitary expenditures in the budget. Of that $61 billion, there is $30 billion I cannot touch. $14 billion of it is interest. $4 billion of it is untouchable. There is $15 billion more that is in contracts; that is untouchable. That is $45 billion.,Then there are $8 billion more that is in salaries for Federal workers. That is $53 billion.,So, of the $61 billion, there is $53 billion-and in that $53 billion, $1 billion of it is pay--and that gets me down to just the few billions you can reduce.,If you reduce the 10 percent, or 20 percent, you would just be getting it bigger.,It is unlikely you can reduce Defense much, unless you had something you cannot calculate at the end. So we will cut that $18 billion, we hope, somewhere between $14 billion and $18 billion. We will cut everything we could hope for--or if we did not get any of it--somewhere between $14 billion and $18 billion.,That is what we are saying. Instead of borrowing it all or taxing it all, we are going to borrow part of it, tax part of it, save part of it, and cut part of it. Cut, tax, and borrow-none of it is pleasant.,I wish I did not have to tell you, but that is the fact. That is all I know about it. I will answer any questions I can. Then, you will get better answers from Mr. Fowler.5\nYes, Mr. Lisagor.6,5 Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury.,6 Peter Lisagor of the Chicago Daily News.,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. I thought I heard you say in passing that \"in 1969 when the Vietnam problem is over\"--did I hear that correctly?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I said that the tax would expire on a certain day in 1969, or it could continue. On the tax, I gave an expiration date, except for Vietnam.,TROOP LEVELS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, the mention of 45,000 and 50,000 troops over those presently authorized levels for fiscal 1968--what would that bring the total to of troops in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. It is 525,000.,Q. In what period is that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Over this year--the fiscal year of July to June.,ATTITUDE OF WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,[4.] Q. Does Congressman Mills support this proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. You will have to talk to Congressman Mills. He will start hearings on the 14th. We believe he will want to hear our justifications.,We have asked the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Budget Director to be available to him. I have briefed all of the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee on it--Mr. Mills and Mr. Byrnes.,I have talked to Mr. Mills several times. I talked to Mr. Byrnes at some length. I talked to all of the Ways and Means Committee earlier this morning. I have asked for no commitments from them, and I have received none.,I think they all realize the problem we have to face together. It may be that we have a better way of doing that than we are doing it. But the way we can see it is that if we had to borrow $29 billion, everybody said we cannot do that.,If we had to tax $29 billion, everybody said we should not do that. If you cannot borrow it, and can't tax it, what do you do? We are going to try to save as much as we can. We will give you that as soon as we get the bills.,We are going to try to tax $7.4 billion. That is laid on the line. Then we are going to try to borrow the rest. I do not know what Mr. Mills will do, or what the Ways and Means Committee will do, or what Congress will do.,I hope whatever they do, they will do it promptly. They indicated to me they will try to face up to it very quickly--on the 14th--just as soon as they get this social security bill reported.,SIZE OF SURTAX NEEDED,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you said every billion dollars means 2 points of surtax. Does that mean if they don't do any of this, and it is $29 billion instead of $18.6 billion, that is 5 more points of surtax for the man in the street?,THE PRESIDENT. Let us just take one illustration.,I don't follow your illustration as well as I follow my own. We are all that way, I think.,There is a $1 billion pay bill. If they vote the $1 billion more in pay than the budget request, if we were to offset that with taxes, we would have to raise the surtax 2 points.,If they voted $2 billion more, we would have to raise it 4 points.,If they voted $3 billion more, it would be 6 points.,EFFECTIVE DATE; OTHER POSSIBLE FORMULAS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, if Congress would give you the savings quickly that you are asking, would you be willing to scale down the surtax?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that this is the best formula. This is the most realistic. We do not think that you can get much before October 1st. We are asking that it be July 1st on corporations.,We have had that notice out since January. Most of them have figured it in their plans. Corporations can do that, but we cannot get out your forms and get withholding of your 10 percent surcharge on individuals before October, in our judgment.,This is the first of August, so it would give us just August and September. Even if they start the 14th and hurry it, we think that is the most realistic date.,We do not think any of these figures will be just exactly what we are estimating. There may be some fellow who has a better plan. But we can't borrow it all and we can't tax it all. We have to borrow part of it, save part of it, and tax part of it. That is what we are doing.,They may have to raise the tax more than the $7.4 billion out of the $29 billion. They may want to lower it. I would hope that they would not lower it.,They may want to borrow more than we think we should borrow. We impounded some of these funds to try to save some of this. They may not want us to do that. They did not here. That is why we had to release that.,They appropriated $1 billion for housing and we just spent a part of it. We impounded it, but they got us to release a part of it. This is in these figures.,We have asked for their judgment. We hope they will give their judgment promptly. This is our judgment. Then, as always, there will be a blending of the two, of course.,REACTION OF BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND OF LABOR,[7.] Q. Mr. President, what was the general reaction of the business community when you talked to these people?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe most of the responsible business people--and I think all of them I talked to are responsible--believed we ought to have a tax increase. There is a difference of opinion as to the amount. There is a difference of opinion as to the date. There is a difference of opinion as to the type.,That is true with both business and labor. But I would guess--and this is off the top of my head--if you took 100 top business executives, 95 of them would feel we should have a tax increase rather than borrow the $29 billion, or rather than think you could save the $29 billion.,We will have a lot of speeches on nonessential expenditures. We are going to try to cut out what we think are some nonessential items. But no one thinks you can cut Out $29 billion or $10 billion or $15 billion. Everybody thinks you have to raise some of it or borrow it all.,I would say 95 out of rod think you have to have a tax raise. I would say labor people would like it to be more on corporations than individuals. We have tried to meet that some by exempting a family of four that earns under $5,000 a year.,It means about $9 a month for a family that has an income of $10,000 a year. I don't have it on the $20,000 or $30,000 figure that would affect some of you.,REVENUE ESTIMATES IN THE TAX MESSAGE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, this might be a question for Mr. Fowler or Mr. Ackley,7 but on page 5, the revenue estimates, I am not clear about the dual reference to the loss of personal income tax, based on lower income.,7 Gardner Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.,THE PRESIDENT. If you are through with me, I may go along.,ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED BY REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE,[9.] Q. Could I ask your reaction to the Republican Coordinating Committee's call for you to withdraw your budget and send a new one to avoid any tax increase? Is that a practical alternative?,THE PRESIDENT. What committee is that?,Q. The Republican Coordinating Committee.,THE PRESIDENT. I have given you my reaction.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-07-31","text":"EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Yesterday I talked to Mr. David Ginsburg in Seattle and asked him to become the Executive Director of the group that met with me Saturday--the group that is headed by Governor Kerner.1 He agreed to return and accept that assignment. I will be seeing him later in the day.,1 see Items 326, 327.,As you know, Mr. Ginsburg is in the private practice of law here in Washington. George 2 will give you a biographical sketch concerning his governmental experience.,2 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,That is all I have to say. I will be glad to answer any questions.,QUESTIONS GOVERNOR ROMNEY'S CRITICISM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Romney over the weekend was increasingly critical of the administration for the manner of sending troops into Detroit. The Governor also said that he thought that the riots in Detroit resulted from national conditions rather than local conditions.3\nWhat are your thoughts on it?,3 See Items 321,322,325.,THE PRESIDENT. The group we have asked to study this will take into consideration the requests I made of them the other day. They will be able to shed light on all of the things that entered into the problems in Detroit.,Basically, so far as I am concerned, I do not have knowledge as to the whys, wherefores, and causes.,I was asked to make two basic decisions: The first, under the Constitution and laws, was to act upon the recommendation for troops. I did that at about 11 o'clock Monday morning.,Later, when Mr. Vance and other Federal, State, and local authorities unanimously recommended deployment, I immediately signed the proclamation and the Executive order.,I don't think anything is to be gained by trying to justify or explain.,GALLUP POLL ON VIETNAM POLICY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, the Gallup poll released today indicated that 52 percent of the public does not agree with you in Vietnam.,Do you think that accurately reflects public opinion?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know.,U THANT'S STATEMENT ON VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary General U Thant made a speech yesterday in which he put forth the claim that the war in Vietnam is due to the desire of the Vietnamese people to have the same kind of freedom that we fought for in 1776. Could you explore for us your feelings?,THE PRESIDENT. J do not agree with him, but I don't care to argue with a representative of the United Nations on his desire to give his viewpoint to our people.,FEDERAL RIOT FORCE SUGGESTION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any merit in the suggestion by Mayor Cavanagh for a 1,000-man Federal riot force?,THE PRESIDENT. I would see a good many problems connected with it. I haven't received his suggestions. All I know is what I saw in the paper. I will be glad to have them evaluated and considered by the executive and legislative branches, but I would not care to embrace that recommendation with the information that I have now.,DEMOCRATIC CRITICISM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, 51 former Democratic National Convention delegates are said to be urging you to retire for the good of the party and their criticism seems to be mainly on foreign policy. What is your comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. None.,EFFECT OF RIOTS ON LEGISLATION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the outbreak of riots, do you think this might have a plus effect in Congress in changing its minds on measures you have asked for? I have in mind rat control and things like that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the Congress has carefully evaluated the situation in the Nation as it sees it. I think all of us should be concerned with the developments that are taking place in the cities.,What their reaction will be on any specific piece of legislation, I would think the leadership would have better information about that than I have. None of them has talked to me about it since Newark and Detroit from the standpoint of whether there might be a change of opinion in the Congress or not.,So, very frankly, I just don't know what their reaction would be.,TAX INCREASE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, should we still expect a tax increase request and can you give us some idea of the thinking as to when and how much?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As soon as the decision is made on that you will be informed. I think you know that we have a recommendation pending, a 6 percent surcharge recommendation.,As I said at my last press meeting, we have had various people in the administration studying the receipts and expenditures, the action taken on appropriations in the Congress, and that we believe that we should have a tax measure this year.,There will be some adjustments made to our recommendation, but as of the moment, I am not in a position to actively spell those out.,Q. Will they be upward adjustments, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I say at the moment I am not in a position to actively spell them out. As soon as we reach a decision, we will communicate it to you. I do not want to speculate in a field like that until the recommendations are in from all the people involved.,TAYLOR-CLIFFORD MISSION,[9.] Q. Mr. President, what do you hear from General Taylor and Mr. Clifford about support for the war among our allies, and other matters? 4,THE PRESIDENT. I think they have had very good meetings where they have been. The last I heard from them was following their meeting with Prime Minister Holt and his Cabinet. I read a report earlier this morning that they had spent several hours-I think 7 hours--and that they generally agreed that this meeting was very helpful to both sides.,4 A news briefing following their trip to the Far East was held by Clark Clifford and Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor on August 5, 1967, at 4 p.m. in the Fish Room at the White House. It is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 1114).,SELECTION OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS,[ 10.] Q. Mr. President, did you consider putting any of the advocates of black power on your advisory Commission? Can you tell us why there are no representatives of the more militant Negro point of view on the Commission?,THE PRESIDENT. The President selected the people in the country that he thought could make a study of this matter and make recommendations to him that he thought would encompass the entire problem.,We tried to select men and women of experience, ability, and judgment whom we felt could consider all the evidence and make a judicious finding.,We did not consider them from the standpoint of militancy or antimilitancy. We considered them from the standpoint of their experience and the people from whom the President would want a recommendation.,I am sure that every person in the Nation who has a viewpoint he wants considered will have a chance to present it in writing or orally, or make any recommendations he cares to make. We will be glad to have them.,We appointed the people who we think will be best on the Commission. I did that without regard to any label.,EFFECT OF GALLUP POLL ON VIETNAM POLICY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, does the fact that the Gallup poll reports increasing opposition to our troop commitments in Vietnam suggest any change in your course of action?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We do not base our actions on the Gallup poll.,PHILIPPINE POSITION AND THE TAYLOR CLIFFORD MISSION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, does the fact that Mr. Clifford and General Taylor are not going to Manila come as a surprise or was this known--President Marcos' position on further troops known--before they went off on their mission? Can you explore that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it did not come as a surprise. I am not familiar with the President's position on further troops.,PRESIDENT TITO,[13.] Q. Mr. President, it was reported on Saturday that Marshal Tito received a Personal message from you, sir. I wonder if you would say anything about that.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are in communication from time to time with the leaders of other nations. We have communicated with President Tito on occasion.,EFFECT OF RIOTS ON VIETNAM AND SPACE SPENDING,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Mayor Cavanagh on \"Meet the Press\" also said that he felt that we were trying to pacify the villages of Vietnam while we should be pacifying American cities and that we were going to send a man to the moon by 1970 when he couldn't walk down Woodward Avenue in Detroit.,I was wondering if there was any possibility that you are considering cuts in either Vietnam spending or space spending to increase this flow of funds to the cities.,THE PRESIDENT. We have submitted our recommendations to the Congress in both of those fields. They are now in the process of debating them. I do not know what action they will take.,We will review the appropriations as soon as Congress has acted and make any decisions that we think are indicated by the requirements of the national interest.,AIRPORT REPORT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you had a task force on airports which I think reported to you a couple of months ago. I wonder whether you could say whether you have plans to release the contents of that report and what the administration's plans are for a new national airport plan.5,5 A report to the President on aircraft noise and compatible land use near airports is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 527).,THE PRESIDENT. I do not have any comment on that now.,TAYLOR-CLIFFORD MISSION REPORT TO PRESIDENT,[16.] Q. Can you tell us when you plan to meet with General Taylor and Mr. Clifford?,THE PRESIDENT. Shortly after they come back, when it is convenient for them.,SENATOR MORTON'S PROPOSAL ON URBAN PROGRAM FUNDS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think about Senator Morton's proposals for giving you the power of transferability to take 10 percent of the long-range urban spending programs and apply it immediately to the problems of the cities, the cities that have the most urgent problem this summer? He estimates that will give you an antiriot war chest of up to $1 billion.,THE PRESIDENT. We have members of the Cabinet concerned with urban problems constantly evaluating the requests of the cities and trying to act upon those requests within the means they have available promptly. If there is any way that we can improve the administration and the expedition of the programs we have, I am sure the Cabinet officers concerned are anxious to do it.,I know they have been trying to minimize the time involved in every application on every program to every possible extent, consistent with sound administration.,I have been meeting with groups of them from time to time in that connection. I do not believe that the bulking together of the programs is either a problem or a requirement.\nI do think that it would be helpful if some of the dozen or so programs that are pending could have the approval of the Congress. I have enumerated those programs before.,We have a number of programs for the cities which are now being applied. But we also have some that we would like very much to have fully funded, such as rent supplements, model cities, the rat measure, the poverty bill, and a good many others.,SUMMIT MEETING OF ALLIES,[18.] Q. Mr. President, is there now some doubt that a summit meeting will be held?,The summit meeting of the seven allies. Is there now some doubt? Mr. Clifford said on the wires, I believe it was Saturday, that the decision had not been made, which seemed to differ from what we had been told, that a decision had been made, but the date and place had not been set.,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen Mr. Clifford's comment. I would like to see it before I comment on what he has said.,I think it is reasonable to assume that we will be meeting with the leaders of South Vietnam and the other allies from time to time, but we have no place and time now.,EXECUTIVE ACTION TO PREVENT RIOTS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, back to the summer riots: What can you do or what can the executive branch do, administratively, without legislation, to head off these riots?,I am asking this: Is there anything preventive that you can do?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that we can and have done some of those things. We asked Congress for $75 million for summer employment for unemployed young people. They granted that fund. But we have allocated it.,I think that is one thing that is helpful.\nI think that the work with the various mayors and appealing through private employers and to public officials to show deep concern for the needs of the unemployed in these areas is absolutely essential.,We must never let up on that. I think the attempt to provide the encouragement and leadership with the recreation people, the school authorities, the civic leaders is a matter that is receiving all-out support from the administration.,The prompt action upon the requests from the mayors on various programs that we have, from the standpoint of food stamps, from the standpoint of housing, from the standpoint of general urban problems, including poverty and employment, is indispensable and absolutely necessary.\nWe try to stay on top of that.,We have a group in the Justice Department under Mr. Roger Wilkins, with Community Relations, and Mr. John Doar, the Assistant Attorney General, who counseled with certain minority groups to try to be helpful, who frankly said Washington is not nearly as close to these problems as the local people are, or as the State people are. But we are very concerned with them and very anxious to cooperate with all governmental units in any way we can that would be helpful.,Those are some of the areas in which we are working with them.,DISASTER RELIEF FOR DETROIT,[20.] Q. Mr. President, what is the status of the appeal by Detroit for disaster relief? Can the Government grant that?,THE PRESIDENT. We have received several suggestions from the mayor and from the Governor. Mr. Vance is acting upon those. I believe he had a press conference earlier this morning in which he presented the Administrator of the Small Business Administration for the Detroit area, who is opening offices there this morning pursuant to the declaration of a disaster area made in connection with the small business loans last Saturday.,The other agencies, food and health and employment and others, are already busy and have been for several days working with the local authorities.,In connection with the disaster declaration handled by Governor Bryant's office, that concerns itself a great deal with public building damage. There are several types of disaster declarations.,Governor Bryant is concerned with the damage to public facilities. The small business disaster declaration has to do with loans and assistance of that kind.,The other departments, while they do not call it disaster, in an emergency situation move as they have with food and so forth.,Mr. Vance is having presented to him by the local authorities the justifications for each of these areas. He will consider them, make recommendations and submit them to the appropriate departments.,The most necessary ones have already been processed and I am sure there will be others.,TIMING OF TAX PROPOSAL,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in discussing the tax outlook, you mentioned the waiting for Congress to act on appropriations bills. Were you indicating that a tax increase proposal might not go up to Congress until the appropriations bills are completed?,THE PRESIDENT. NO.,POSSIBILITY OF DETROIT OR NEWARK VISITS,[22.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any intention of visiting Detroit or Newark in the coming days or weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to go at this time.,NATIONAL SPENDING PRIORITIES,[23.] Q. Mr. President, whenever we have a national crisis, such as we have had in the last couple of weeks, there seems to be an outcry that we rethink our national priorities and perhaps spend less in Southeast Asia and more on the home front. Do you think this country can sustain both viewpoints?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Can you give us your thinking on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I have given it a good many times. Our gross national product is big enough. I think we are rich enough. I think it is important enough for us to meet our responsibilities at home without neglecting our responsibilities in the world.,I would hope that not many people would feel that because we have a problem at home is any indication that we would ignore or surrender our interests abroad.,Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask the question in an absolutely different way. If your new Commission should come up with some recommendations which would cost substantially more than you have now asked Congress for in the way of appropriations for the cities and so forth, would the country, in your judgment, presently be able to finance them?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no doubt for a moment but that our country will be able to do whatever is necessary to do.,If we had the same tax rates applied this year to our income as we had when I became President about 3½ years ago, we would be receiving in the Treasury some $23 billion more than we will receive.,NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY,[24.] Q. Mr. President, can you bring us up to date on the status of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that we have made progress. We are optimistic, but we are not ready to announce that an agreement has been reached and that the matter has been concluded.,ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DISCUSSIONS,[25.] Q. Mr. President, what about ABM? Have discussions started on that yet.\",THE PRESIDENT. No. There is not anything to add to what Secretary Rusk said yesterday on the \"Face the Nation\" program.,We have indicated a desire to exchange viewpoints with the Soviet Union on this subject.,We think that it is very vital, as is the whole disarmament subject.,We have urged upon them that we agree upon a time and place for such discussions.,They have indicated that they would exchange views with us and we could have discussions on the subject, but no time and place have been set.,PROBLEMS IN AIDING THE CITIES,[26.] Q. Mr. President, do you recognize the problem of accelerating aid to the cities in a manner that does not seem to reward the rioters?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-07-18","text":"SPECIAL BOARD IN RAILWAY DISPUTE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] George1 thought you would want to have the names of the board members that we worked on last night and this morning.,1 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,We will have Mr. Fred Kappel, the former president of American Telephone and Telegraph. He has retired recently. He is now doing two other jobs--one is study the Post Office Department, and the other is the pay study for the President.,Q. Will he be chairman, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have Mr. Kappel and Mr. George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO.,We will have Senator Leverett Saltonstall, a former Republican deputy leader, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. You all know him. He is a former Governor of Massachusetts who is retired now.,We will have Mr. Ted Kheel, a skilled mediator who has worked with me many years on many problems. He was in the 1964 railroad labor dispute, as you will remember, with Mr. Taylor.2 He has not worked on this one.,Senator Wayne Morse will be the chairman.3 I will attempt to see Senator Morse during the day. I haven't talked to him today, but I will call him during the day after the luncheon to review the situation with him and the other board members.,2 George W. Taylor, economist and labor arbitrator.,3 Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon held a press conference later in the day; see Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, P. 1034).,I am sure he will want to call a meeting of the board at an early date.,Of course, we are very hopeful that we can get an agreement between the parties.,VISIT OF GERMAN CHANCELLOR KIESINGER,[2.] Chancellor Kiesinger will be here on August 15 and 16. We have had several possible dates that we have considered. We have a number of visitors coming here in the next several weeks.,This is the most convenient date for both of us. It is firm. They will be announcing it there very shortly. That is all.,QUESTIONS,Q. Can I ask you about Chancellor Kiesinger, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Did you write a letter to him?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't discuss correspondence.,Q. Did you express any approval of the German defense decision? 4,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to get into any correspondence.,4 The West German Cabinet had decided to reduce the defense budget as part of the nation's austerity program.,SPECIAL BOARD IN RAILWAY DISPUTE,[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us the mechanics and the time you signed the legislation yesterday 5 until now, when you communicated? Did anyone possibly refuse?,THE PRESIDENT. Shortly before 9 the legislation got to us. Our lawyers examined it. About 9:30 I signed it after talking to the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Defense, and other appropriate people. It normally goes to the departments but they were all familiar with it.,5 See Item 311.,There had been some minor changes made. I went to dinner about 10:30, and then I talked to Mr. Kappel and Mr. Kheel. Mr. Kappel was in Switzerland. Mr. Kheel was in Paris.,I talked to Senator Morse and Senator Saltonstall. Mr. Meany was unavailable at a late hour. He was in Miami.,This morning I discussed the details of the situation further with Secretary McNamara, Secretary Wirtz, Secretary Reynolds,6 and others. I decided on the announcement at 11 o'clock. That is when it was finalized.,6 James J. Reynolds, Under Secretary of Labor.,Q. And Saltonstall was last night, too?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked to these individuals concerned last night.,TAX INCREASE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you bring us up to date about your thinking on the urgency and timing of the tax increase?,THE PRESIDENT. I made my recommendations in that connection in January. There may be some adjustments, although I have not decided on any.,The recommendations I made I still support, and have every month since I made them. I can understand the situation confronting the Congress, because of a very heavy load that certain committees have.,I am informed that the social security bill has been finalized during July. It is hoped that this will be behind us at the end of the month. Then it will be possible, if they choose to, to take up the tax bill, which I hope they will do.,I believe those recommendations very strongly. From a revenue standpoint we are going to need the revenue. The economists at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers are all of the unanimous opinion, as are most businessmen, that the economy would indicate that a tax bill would be a need, if we are to avoid the very heavy price we pay with tight money, et cetera.,Q. Mr. President, when the message went up in January, or when you discussed this in January, it was cast primarily as an anti-inflationary device, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think anything is \"primarily.\" I think we just felt that we ought to have a tax bill. We knew then we would have a substantial deficit.,We recommended $8.1 billion. Without it, it would be some $13 billion or $14 billion, assuming we got all the revenue that we anticipated. So it is not primarily any one thing.,In this period of prosperity, when we have the employment and the gross national product we do, and when we have reduced taxes--we would be paying about $24 billion more per year now than we are paying except for the tax reductions that we have put in since I became President--we do not think it is unreasonable to ask for the return of a small portion of that $24 billion.,This would help us meet the costs of our schools, our health, our poverty program at home, and our needs throughout the world in foreign aid, in Vietnam, and in troop deployments in other places.,We thought that in January. We still think that. It would be good to help us reduce the deficit. It would be good from the standpoint of economy.,Q. Mr. President, are you standing by the 6 percent surcharge?,THE PRESIDENT. We recommended that. There could be adjustments. I made that recommendation in January, and up to now I haven't changed it.,Q. Mr. President, what would dictate the adjustment of that 6 percent figure?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to speculate. When I do, I will give you the word.,Q. Could you give us any indication whether you would be thinking in terms of a higher charge than 6?,THE PRESIDENT. When I do, I will let you know.,GOVERNORS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there are three Governors in town on educational matters. Did you meet with them this morning?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,PROBLEMS OF THE CITIES,[6.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder whether we could have your views on what happened in New Jersey in the last couple of days-Newark and Plainfield.77 Racial disorders occurred in these cities in mid July 1967 (see Items 321,322, 325).,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have any more information on it than you have. I have sent many messages and said a number of times ever since I became President that we have had a great need to see that our people are employed, to see that we have more employment opportunities that are equal, better schools, better recreation areas, better living accommodations, and better housing.,We have tried to do our part in providing leadership in those fields. We think that we have a serious problem in our cities. For that reason, we have urged the rent supplement where we could get the benefit of private industry and provide decent living accommodations for the poorer groups in our country.,We think that program has been successful. We have urged the Congress to expand it. We feel that the model cities program is a good approach to improving living conditions in the cities of this country. While it is very limited, the administration has urged the Congress, last year and again this year, to act upon it.,Even though they have materially reduced our request, we still have asked the maximum under the authorization bill that was passed.,In the poverty field we doubled last year the amount we had the year before. We have asked for an increase of 25 percent this year to try to provide jobs. Over and above that we asked for a special allotment to provide summer job opportunities.,But all of these things have not remedied the situation that exists. Until we can improve and correct them, we are going to be confronted with unpleasant situations. No one condones or approves--and everyone regrets--the difficulties that come in the Wattses, the Newarks, and the other places in the country.,They do emphasize the necessity of the people of this country realizing that we must get on with the job of improving living conditions, educational and employment opportunities where the people are--and they are in the cities.,We can't correct it overnight. We can't correct it in a day or a year or a decade. But we are trying at this end of the line as best as we can--in rent supplements, model cities, poverty, education.,PRISONERS OF WAR IN VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any response on the White House appeal concerning prisoners of war in Vietnam, concerning the statement yesterday allowing the exchange? 8,THE PRESIDENT. No.,8 On July 17, 1967, the White House issued a statement on treatment of prisoners in Vietnam, the text of which follows:,The United States Government has been greatly concerned at the plight of Americans held prisoner by the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam. More than 20 American soldiers and several American civilians are believed held by the National Liberation Front. We know that more than 160 American military personnel are confined in North Vietnam. Several hundred more are considered missing because the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam withhold the names of prisoners and generally prohibit most prisoners from sending letters. We are gravely concerned that some of these prisoners may not be treated humanely. The claims of the National Liberation Front and the North Vietnamese that they are treated humanely cannot be verified because neutral observers or organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross have not been allowed to visit the prisoners, and inspect their places of detention.,Vietcong and North Vietnamese prisoners held by the Government of Vietnam are confined in camps inspected regularly by the ICRC. These prisoners include many captured by U.S. forces and turned over to the Government of Vietnam for safekeeping under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Their treatment and the conditions of their confinement have been humane and in accord with the Convention as verified by these neutral observers.,On several occasions prisoners including seriously sick and wounded have been released by the Government of Vietnam within South Vietnam and to North Vietnam. Additional seriously sick and wounded prisoners who may be captured in the future and who wish to be repatriated will be given the same opportunity, as required by the Geneva Convention.,The United States calls on the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam to permit impartial inspection of all prisoners, and urges them to repatriate those sick and wounded prisoners who qualify for repatriation under the Convention.,The Governments of the United States and Vietnam have repeatedly made clear both publicly and privately through many channels their desire to bring about an exchange of prisoners. The Government of the United States reiterates this desire and its willingness to discuss such exchanges at any time and in any appropriate way, using intermediaries or directly, by public means or privately.,MEETING ON VIETNAM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some stories out of the Far East in the past 24 or 36 hours indicating, at least from the Thai point of view, expectation of a summit meeting much like the Manila Conference sometime in October. Do you anticipate that?,THE PRESIDENT. I anticipate that we will have a meeting at some future date--in the next few weeks or months. No time, place, or agenda has been set. We have generally agreed to meet every few months.,I would anticipate we would have a meeting. But I have heard of no specific time or date or place.,U.N. ROLE IN VIETNAM PROBLEM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, on this Vietnam situation, before the latest Middle East crisis, there were indications that the administration might favor the U.N. Security Council taking up the problem of Vietnam, inviting perhaps representatives from Hanoi, China, and other parties involved to lay it before the Security Council.\nDo you favor that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of any developments that have taken place that I could announce at this time.,CASUALTIES IN VIETNAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, this morning there was a story in the New York Times saying that--I believe it was since May--it was quite apparent in the casualty figures that Americans were bearing the brunt of the fighting, more Americans had been killed than South Vietnamese.\nDo you have any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I didn't see the story but I saw the report on television. In a specific period here--a period of 60 days perhaps-because of the location of the fighting the Americans lost more people than the South Vietnamese. There are other periods when they have lost a good deal more than we have. That will fluctuate back and forth from time to time.,If you take a period of the last month or the last 6 weeks--May and June--I think it is accurate to say that, because of where the fighting has been. If you take May and June of another year it will be reversed.,I don't think we really gain anything by pointing out that this country or that country lost more yesterday than the one the day before. I think all the countries are doing the best they can in a united front against a common foe.,I wouldn't want to play much on having any of them feel that the others weren't doing their part or that some people were doing a lot more than their part.,Our job is to try to get them to do all they can do. There have been periods when the South Vietnamese have lost more than we have lost and may be days when any one of the allies would lose more.,This is a selective period as I saw it--May and June up to now--and is a true figure although it is not different by any great amount.,ALLIED TROOPS IN VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us anything about the progress of consultations with the allied governments about increasing the troop level in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We are in constant touch with them through our Ambassadors. We usually start at the level of General Westmoreland and their people out in the field.,I have had no direct communications with them of late on it, although I am not foreclosing it.,ARMS SHIPMENTS IN MIDDLE EAST,[12.] Q. Mr. President, what is happening to our efforts to hold down arms shipments in the Middle East by us with the Russians?,THE PRESIDENT. We made a proposal that all of us file with the United Nations a statement as to the amount of shipments that have been made. We have not been able to get an agreement on that. We talked about it at Hollybush in Glassboro.9 It was hoped the other nations would do likewise. As of now, there has been no agreement.,9 See Items 279, 280, 282, 283.,SOVIET CHAIRMAN KOSYGIN,[13.] Q. Mr. President, what is your estimate of Mr. Kosygin and his place in the Soviet scheme of things?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not care to go into an analysis of their governmental structure. I thought him to be a very able exponent of their viewpoint and a well-prepared speaker for the Soviet interests.,REPORTS OF BOMBING HALT IN NORTH VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports in Japanese newspapers and British newspapers quoting unnamed U.S. officials as saying that the United States was considering a halt in the bombing of North Vietnam. Can you shed any light on that for us?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I am not familiar with the reports there. I have more reports in American newspapers than I can keep up with.,I think we have always made it clear from the first day that we were ready to negotiate when there was anyone with whom we could negotiate--outside of this country. We have a lot of people in this country to negotiate with.,Mr. Ho Chi Minh made clear his views in his letter.10 We have made our position clear from time to time--that we were ready and anxious to go to the conference table and meet the other side halfway at any time, but we have no indication at this time that they are willing to do that.,10 See Item 136.,U.S. ATTITUDE TOWARD RED CHINA,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there have been a number of reports about shifting our feelings towards Red China. They came out of your talk with the Prime Minister of Romania. Would you care to comment on your feelings about our attitude?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made it clear in a good many statements since I became President that we would like to see all of the nations of the world join in the community of nations and try to learn to work together and to live together in peace and harmony.,We repeat that on every appropriate occasion. I have discussed our views in that regard with a number of leaders from other countries. I know of no change from the policy that I have had ever since I have been President.,BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM,[16.] Q. Mr. President, may I follow up Mr. Deakin's 11 question and your answer? Is the United States position that we would only be willing to stop the bombing if there were reciprocal action on their side?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States position is that we are ready to meet with them at any time to discuss arrangements for bringing the war to an end on an equitable and just basis. We have never been able to get them or any of their friends to bring them to a conference table.,11James Deakin of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.,Until we can, we are not able to explore with them what they might be willing to do. We hear from travelers and from self-appointed spokesmen from time to time this and that. On occasions we have attempted to confirm it, and we have negotiated directly with them.,I think the last position stated by Mr. Ho Chi Minh is a safe statement of their viewpoint. I refer you--as I did Mr. Deakin-to their position as enumerated in that letter. Our position is that we would be glad to meet tomorrow, next week, or any time to discuss conditionally or unconditionally, on any basis, to see what they would be willing to do.,BRITISH INTEREST IN MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE,[17.] Q. Mr. president, Britain brought out a Defense White Paper this morning in which it was planned to withdraw British troops from Malaysia and Singapore by the mid-1970's. Do you have any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have expressed ourselves as very hopeful that the British would maintain their interest in that part of the world. We are very hopeful that they will find it in their interest to do so.,OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM,[18.] Q. Mr. President, have we had any further response from the Israeli Government concerning our proposals on keeping the Old City of Jerusalem international in character so that all religions would have access to the shrines there?,THE PRESIDENT. I know of no decisions that have been made in that area.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-07-13","text":"[Held with Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam],SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS ON VIETNAM,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I thought it would be desirable, since it was necessary for General Westmoreland to return to this country, to ask him to come from South Carolina, where he has buried his mother, to visit with me briefly before he returned to his duty.,The General came in a little after 10 p.m. last night and we talked until a little after midnight.,We resumed those discussions this morning with Secretary McNamara and General Wheeler. We have just concluded them at the luncheon table.,The General will be returning to pick up Mrs. Westmoreland this afternoon and he is going back to his post in the morning.,I have, in the last few days, received detailed reports on the Vietnam theater from Ambassador Bimker, Mr. Locke, Mr. Komer, Secretary McNamara, Mr. Katzenbach, and General Wheeler.,I have read all of those very carefully and have exchanged views with Secretaries McNamara and Katzenbach, General Wheeler, and Mr. Komer about them.,I have exchanged messages with Ambassador Bunker and Ambassador Lodge. I have talked about the various subjects involved in those reports in some detail with General Westmoreland: the military operations there, the plans, the programs, the results, and so forth.,I think that it is fair to say that at no time during my Presidency have I been more pleased with the quality of leadership, namely, the leadership being provided by General Westmoreland and the leadership being provided by Ambassador Bunker, there than I am now.,We have tried to evaluate our successes-they are many. And our problems--and they are many. We have tried to find solutions and resolutions to some of the unanswered questions--and we have. I know that you will want to explore some of those on your own.,Suffice it for me to say that we are generally pleased with the progress we have made militarily. We are very sure that we are on the right track.,We realize that some additional troops are going to be needed and are going to be supplied. The President, the Secretary, the Joint Chiefs, and General Westmoreland are in agreement on our needs.,In consultation with our allies, we will meet those needs as they arise. We still have 20,000 or 30,000 under our previous authorization to be fitted into Vietnam. We will have others to follow them.,The exact time, the exact number, the exact type, the exact country, we will work on back in Vietnam--following General Westmoreland's return--and also in our discussions with the services here, and the other allies involved.,We cannot, today, give you any specific figure other than to say what Secretary McNamara said yesterday: We can foresee, at this time, no necessity to call up the Reserves.,Secretary McNamara, do you want to observe anything?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, other than to say, Mr. President, because of General Westmoreland's unexpected departure from South Vietnam, General Wheeler and I did not have an opportunity to complete our discussions with him while we were there. We have done so today.,I was very happy to have this chance to draw to a conclusion the discussions of potential troop requirements that we had begun there.,THE PRESIDENT. General Wheeler, do you have anything you want to say?,GENERAL WHEELER. No, sir; except to say that, as you said, Mr. President, we are in accord. The problem now is to settle upon the resources and how we are going to meet the requirements.,THE PRESIDENT. General Westmoreland.\nGENERAL WESTMORELAND. Despite many speculations as to the number of troops that I have asked for, the fact is that I have not asked for any specific number of troops.,I have recommended a deployment to Vietnam of a certain number of combat units that would comprise a part of a balanced force. I am being provided the forces, as I have recommended.,Over the period of the last 2 years, we have built up in South Vietnam a large logistical base which is well organized and is flexible. It is one of our real strengths.,We are now in a position where for every man that is deployed we will get a double return in combat power. Or, to put my thought in other words, we have already written off the logistic support.,We will get greater return in combat power for the forces that are henceforth deployed.,Logistic forces can be provided by military personnel, by contract, or by indigenous hire. We are using all of these methods at the moment to provide this logistical support. We will continue to do this in the future.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.,QUESTIONS NUMBER OF TROOPS,[2.] Q. Mr. Secretary, could you clarify for us what seems to be a discrepancy between the figure announced at the Pentagon of 264,000 troops in Vietnam and your explanation yesterday that there were still 20,000 or 30,000 to come to make 280,000?,SECRETARY McNAMARA. I think you are talking about 460,000 and 480,000.,Q. Yes.,SECRETARY McNAMARA. The figure I said yesterday was 480,000. We have there 450,000 or 460,000 and we have on the order of 20,000 or 30,000 to go. They will be supplied within the next few weeks.,ALLIED TROOPS,Q. Mr. Secretary, will these consultations with the allies in the future involve a proposal for an outright increase in the number of troops they have in the field?,SECRETARY McNAMARA. We don't request troops from our allies for use in Vietnam. I think we must engage in joint discussions of the requirements.,They are assuming responsibilities, as are we, as sovereign states for participation in the defense of Vietnam. We will counsel with them as to their views as to what the requirements are and how we might jointly fulfill those.,SOUTH VIETNAMESE EFFORT,[3.] Q. General Westmoreland, could you comment for us, from your viewpoint in Saigon, on the adequacy of the mobilization and effort by the South Vietnamese?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. During the last 3 years the South Vietnamese Armed Forces have more than doubled in strength. This includes the three major components, namely, the regular ground forces--the ARVN, the regional forces, and the popular forces. This has involved quite a strain on their leadership resources.,During the past year there was a slowdown in the creation of new units because we realized about a year ago they were overextending themselves. They have made tremendous strides during the past year in improving their quality and their general proficiency.,They are now in a position where they can, again, expand. It is implied that during the coming year, there will be an increase in the strength of their forces. I cannot give you the specific numbers, but the increase will be fairly substantial.,BASIS FOR TROOP REQUESTS,Q. General Westmoreland, could you tell us, to help us understand both the present situation and, as these periods are repeated of troop requests, just how you do recommend, how you frame your recommendations, without necessarily giving away any specific numbers?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. This matter is under constant study. It is a function of the enemy strength, the Vietcong strongholds that must be cleared and pacified, the objectives that we set for ourselves in connection with clearing areas, holding areas, opening up lines. of communication, invading well established VC base areas, containing North Vietnamese forces--such as along the demilitarized zone in western Pleiku and Kontum.,Needless to say, our requirement for U.S. forces has to take into consideration the free world military assistance forces and the ARVN forces. Our plans are based on integration of all of these type forces into a single military force and a great deal of study is given to it.,IMPACT ON DRAFT CALLS,[4.] Q. Mr. Secretary, could I ask you, quite apart from the figures that may be involved, what will be the impact of the additional personnel needed on the draft calls?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. There won't be any significant impact on current draft calls. The statements I made at the President's ranch last November will still hold.,The draft calls for 1967 will be significantly lower than for 1966 in total.,TOUR OF DUTY,Q. Mr. Secretary, along that line, will there be any need to increase that 1-year tour of duty?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, definitely not. I am glad you asked that question. None of the plans that we are considering involves any change in the basic program of a 1-year tour of duty in South Vietnam, except for those who volunteer to extend their tours beyond that.,I should say in passing--and General Westmoreland can add to this--a substantial percentage of the men have volunteered for an extended tour, but the basic tour is 12 months.,THE MILITARY SITUATION,[5.] Q. Sir, what is your outlook? What can we expect in the next year or so in military terms in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I wonder if you could tell us what we have done in the last year and expect in the next year, very briefly. Touch on this \"stalemate\" creature.\nGENERAL WESTMORELAND. The statement that we are in a stalemate is complete fiction. It is completely unrealistic. During the past year tremendous progress has been made. I think the Secretary noted this during his recent trip.,The Secretary was there about 9 months ago and I am sure that the progress was evident to him. I live it from day to day and it is not as evident to me as it is to visitors who come in periodically.,It is like watching your children grow up. The grandmother comes and sees them once a year. She is always surprised at the extent to which they have grown.,I am living with the situation day to day and it is more evident to visitors than it is to me, but when I research my memory, go back into the records, it becomes quite evident that we have made tremendous progress.,We have opened up roads. They are now being used not only for military purposes but for commercial purposes.,We have invaded long-established base areas representing tremendous investment value such as in the vicinity of Saigon. We have pushed the enemy further and further back into the jungles.,The enemy had planned to take control of the two northern provinces, Quang Tri and Thua Thien. He has been stopped. He has suffered large casualties.,The enemy had planned to take over domination of the highlands. Again, he has been defeated and great casualties have been suffered. Greater population has been secured and taken away from Communist domination.,The revolutionary development program has made encouraging progress. It has a long ways to go, I admit, but the Government's program is off to a good start.,The ARVN troops are fighting much better than they were a year ago. They are showing greater professionalism. We have paramilitary units that are defeating North Vietnamese regular forces and Vietcong main forces. A year ago this was unheard of.,The number of defectors coming into the Government has substantially increased. The ratio of friendly troops killed to those killed of the enemy continues to increase. It has doubled during the past year.,The number of weapons lost by the Government forces, compared with those captured from the enemy, has turned in favor of the Vietnamese forces.,Two years ago they were losing two weapons for every one captured. Now they are capturing two to three weapons for every one they lose. These are all very favorable trends.,I think to measure progress, one has to think in terms of objectives. Our objective in South Vietnam is to give the people freedom of choice, to resist the aggression from the North, to try to give the people protection from the terror and intimidation of the Vietcong.,On the contrary, the enemy's objectives have been to terrorize the people, to disrupt the revolutionary development program, to take over more of the population, to sabotage the roads and lines of communication.,He has failed in achieving his objectives. We have succeeded in attaining our objectives. Despite the fact that North Vietnam has now apparently fully mobilized, sending her best troops and leadership to the South, developed a very large air defense system, and having her physical infrastructure progressively destroyed by our offensive strategy, our air war, she has nothing to show for it.,The enemy has not won a single significant victory during the past year, despite the tremendous effort that she has put forth.,SOUTH VIETNAMESE FORCES,[6.] Q. General, could you explain in connection with that why the South Vietnamese have not fully mobilized?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. The South Vietnamese have a very large force under arms now, over 700,000 men. This is a considerable military force for a country of 15 million, approximately.,True enough, they are capable of organizing additional military forces. As I stated a moment ago, they will increase their regular and paramilitary structure during the coming year.,Leadership has been a problem and a major problem. Their leadership potential has been stretched almost to the elastic limit. Training facilities, budgetary considerations, demands of the local economy and the local government have, too. It makes no sense at all to increase a military force if you are going to degrade the quality.,One has to always strike a balance between quality and quantity. I feel that during the past year, we struck a pretty good balance-the Vietnamese Armed Forces--between the quality considerations and the quantity involved.,But now that they have had a chance to settle down to improve the quality of their force, with emphasis on their leadership, they are now in a position to continue to expand.,ADDITIONAL UNITS,Q. General, was your request for additional units primarily for American units?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. Frankly, I did not specify.,POSITION OF NORTH VIETNAM,[7.] Q. I wonder if I could ask you about some stories we have been reading and hearing about based on intelligence reports from the North. There seems to be a division in the North about their judgment on our staying power. Is the North weakening now? Do they feel we are going to stay there as long as we have to? Are they weakening their position? What is your view of that?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. Frankly, my intelligence I don't believe is any better than yours in this regard. The leadership in Hanoi continues to send the regular troops to the South. They are continuing to move supplies to the extent that weather and the disruptive effect of our air strikes permit to the South.,As I mentioned a minute ago, their national effort has been enormous, almost to the capacity of the country. It must be a bit discouraging when they realize they have nothing to show for it.,OUTLOOK,Q. The coming year--what would be your view of what is going to happen?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. I am in no position to speculate on that.,NUMBER OF UNITS NEEDED,[8.] Q. General Westmoreland, without going into numbers, could you say, using your phrase \"units,\" about how many units have been agreed upon?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. I am not privileged to discuss that.,GENERAL WESTMORELAND'S REQUEST,Q. (Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International.) Will this increase, Mr. President, in whatever form it takes, fully meet the request that General Westmoreland has made?,THE PRESIDENT. The General can answer that as well as I can. But we have both answered it before. The answer is: Yes, we have reached a meeting of the minds. The troops that General Westmoreland needs and requests, as we feel it necessary, will be supplied.,General Westmoreland feels that is acceptable, General Wheeler thinks that is acceptable, and Secretary McNamara thinks that is acceptable. It is acceptable to me and we hope it is acceptable to you. Is that not true, General Westmoreland?,GENERAL WESTMORELAND. I agree, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. General Wheeler?,GENERAL WHEELER. That is correct, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Secretary McNamara?\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Spivak?\nMR. SPIVAK. Yes, sir.,NORTH VIETNAMESE FORCES,[9.] Q. General, could I ask, sir, how much of the main Vietnamese force has been committed to the struggle, percentage and otherwise, and are we prepared, in case the North Vietnamese decide to put the bulk of their army against the forces?\nGENERAL WESTMORELAND. There are over 50,000 regular North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam right now. There are other troops north of the demilitarized zone, and there are additional troops in the so-called \"panhandle\" of Laos.,As to the total number involved, frankly we are not sure. It is certainly far in excess of those that we are in contact with in the South.,Now the enemy has a substantial number of forces tied up in their air defense system in order to counter our air offensive actions to the north. There is a substantial number of people involved in maintaining their lines of communication.,No doubt they could send additional troops to the South and they may do so. But they will do so at great risk.,As long as we continue our air interdiction program, I believe they will be hard pressed to properly support them.,FREE WORLD FORCES,[10.] Q. Sir, will the majority of additional troops or units be other than American?\nGENERAL WESTMORELAND. As Secretary McNamara pointed out, discussions will be taking place with our allies.,As to the number of Americans, I think it is impossible to say at this time. I think the Secretary will agree with me. I am confident that we will welcome contributions from the free world forces.,SECRETARY McNAMARA. As the General pointed out, there will be significant increases in the Vietnamese forces. I believe the other allies will add to their forces as well.\nMr. Spivak: Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-07-01","text":"INTRODUCTION BY GOVERNOR HAROLD HUGHES OF IOWA,GOVERNOR HUGHES. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen:,We have concluded our Democratic Governors Conference meeting for the day. We are very delighted that the President could find the time--late this afternoon when we called again to see if he could possibly come up and visit with us for a while--that he was able to make the trip.,We have had a very responsive time. We are here to, I think, say that probably the meeting today has been one of the best held in my experience in 9 years in public life in my own State.,There is certainly great confidence among all of us as we look to the future and I think, a great display of uniformity of thought for the Democratic Party, the Governors of the United States, and the President of the United States.,We are available for your questions. They can be directed to the President, Governor Hearnes, or myself, as you would desire, about any topics.,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. Governor, was the statement of accord unanimously adopted? 1,1 The Governors had issued a formal statement of accord prior to the President's arrival in which they supported his efforts to achieve peace in Vietnam, combat crime in the United States, and obtain equality of opportunity for all U.S. citizens.,GOVERNOR HUGHES. No, it was not unanimously adopted. There were two Governors who abstained from voting on it.,Q. Could you tell us who they were?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. They were Governor McKeithen and Governor Maddox.,Q. Was the President satisfied with the conference?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. We had a very general meeting in which we asked the President if he would brief us as to the Far East and the Mid-East and the summit meetings that he had recently.,The briefing was of a confidential and restricted nature. In addition, beyond that, the President signed a bill.2 Also, we had a lengthy discussion about the Federal programs, the programs passed by the Congress this year, those still lying before the Congress this year, our general purposes for our Nation and its people, both internationally and internally within the United States, and our hopes together as a political party, as well as a people, and looking forward to the campaign in 1968.,2 Older Americans Act Amendments of 1967 (see Item 299),QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT THE MIDDLE EAST,[3.] Q. Does the President have any comments at this time as to developments this afternoon in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have been kept aware of them, but that is the only comment I would make.,Q. Mr. President, have you activated the \"hot line\" at all today to contact the Soviet Union with respect to the activity this afternoon in the Middle East?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, Pakistan has moved today to condemn the Israeli annexation of the city of Jerusalem. Would the United States support that resolution in the United Nations?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to state the United States position on any resolutions that will be stated in the United Nations. Ambassador Goldberg will do that in the appropriate place and at the appropriate time.,SUPPORT BY THE GOVERNORS AND THE PUBLIC,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us if this show of unity among the Governors today improves your political position for next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I am pleased to observe that it is very welcome.,Q. Mr. President, do you find any vestiges here at all of the spirit--,THE PRESIDENT. I think when the Governors support you and are behind you, you always improve.,Q. Mr. President, the Governors here at the conference seem to be in agreement that your popularity has increased considerably just recently. How do you view the national polls?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are never as good as you would like to have them. That is the first thing.,Second, we just must do what we think is best for the country, regardless of how it stands up in the polls. You never know, when you make a decision, what the end results are going to be. Some of them are popular and some are very unpopular.,You do what you think is right--and that is what we do.,Q. Do you view the polls as a good sign? Is your popularity increasing, and do you look forward to 1968 confidently?,THE PRESIDENT. I think everyone must judge that matter for himself. Of course I am glad to see the polls when they indicate that what we do is being accepted by the people and they believe in it. I am pleased by it.,FEDERAL-STATE-CITY RELATIONSHIPS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, a great many of your programs of domestic legislation deal directly with cities like St. Louis and metropolitan areas, and sometimes it appears that this bypasses State government.,What is your position regarding your relationship with the State governments in view of this kind of legislation which deals directly with cities so often?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that all of us work for one boss--the people of the United States. The people pay our salaries.,I think it is up to every public official to try to work with the other public officials selected by the people. I spend a lot of my time trying to coordinate our work with the chief executives of the States, because I think it is important that the Chief Executive of the Nation cooperate with the chief executives of the States.,We also work very closely with the chief executives of the cities. Vice President Humphrey, a former mayor, is well acquainted with their problems. He spends a large part of his time working with all the mayors of this country--as he does working with the Governors.,I have three former Governors who work directly under the President in the White House in coordinating matters with the Chief Executive. In this complex society in which we live, I think it is very important that all of the officials who are selected by the people, and who work for the people, try to work with each other.,REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS CONFERENCE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican Governors just met at Jackson Hole and they didn't seem to come together on a candidate for 1968.3 Do you have any advice for them?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,3 The Republican Governors Association Conference was held on June 29-30, 1967, at Jackson Hole, Wyo.,CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT,[7.] Q. Mr. President, a lot has been said at this meeting, and at some other meetings, about establishing law and order in the streets of this country. What more can be done in this direction?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a bill that will be considered in the House of Representatives as soon as Congress returns--the safe streets and crime bill.,We discussed that at some length with the Governors today. I asked for their consideration and their support. This is a primary responsibility of the local officials--the State officials. The Federal Government doesn't come in until the last one and only then upon request of the local and State officials.,But there are certain things we can do to help and to support. We are trying to do everything we can in that field to back the local mayors, the State Governors, and the law enforcement officials.,Our Founding Fathers have decreed that they should have the primary responsibility they do have. We want to work with them in helping them discharge it in any way they think we can be helpful, and that is proper to be helpful.,CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the matter of ethics seems to be of some concern in Washington these days. You served in Congress for better than an years. Do you think there ought to be a strong code of ethics for Members?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,REVIEW OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GOVERNORS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us any more of what you discussed with the Governors, particularly as regards politics?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I gave them an intelligence briefing that I received this morning in connection with the Middle East. I reviewed with them an intelligence briefing in connection with Vietnam. I reviewed with them the record of this administration over the last 3 or 4 years, and particularly the record of the Congress this year.,I discussed with them some of the problems that we have together. I summarized-the Press Secretary will make these statements available to you--some of the accomplishments of medical care the first year. Today is the first anniversary. I signed the older Americans bill which provides many millions of dollars for our older people, for research and community projects that will greatly benefit them. I discussed the draft order that I signed recently in connection with the draft legislation that I just affixed my signature to.4 I appealed to the Governors to cooperate in seeing those draft boards were fairly constituted and that minority groups were properly represented upon them.,4 The President referred to Executive Order 11360 of June 30, 1967, \"Amending the Selective Service Regulations\" (3 Weekly Comp. Pres. Does., p. 947; 32 F.R. 9787; 3 CFR, 1967 Comp., p. 295); and the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 (Public Law 90-40; 81 Stat. 100).,As you know, the Governor recommends the appointees to the President, and the President makes them. We like to go along with the Governors on the people they recommend, because we have asked them to perform this thankless responsibility, and we like to concur in their judgments.,But, since last December, we think that more equity has been obtained in having minority group members represented on draft boards that draft them for service. But, we still think there is a good deal of progress that needs to be made. And I urged the Governors to carefully consider my views.,EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POVERTY PROGRAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there have been racial flare-ups both in the North and the South, in certain areas. Do you consider this a sign that your domestic poverty programs are, or are not working; that there are other things that should be done in those local areas?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think there is a lot that should be done that we want to do to help. We are never able to do as much as we want to do. I think we have the problems that have grown up through the years. The Federal Government is trying to assume as much responsibility as it can within its province and its jurisdiction. We have increased our poverty program 25 percent this year.,We think that that is helpful, but we don't think that is the cure. We think a lot of other things have got to grow besides that one program. We do want to work closely with the local citizens and with the State leaders-and we are.,DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNITY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, how unified do you think the Democratic Party is today?,THE PRESIDENT. The Democratic Party is never a party that is unanimous on many things. We are made up of individualists. We belong to a party where we can speak our mind and we frequently do.,We spoke it very well in '64; and we are going to speak it very well in '68. There will be some divergent opinions; there will be some differences of viewpoint. We don't all see everything alike--not even all Democrats-because if we did, we would all want the same wife.,But we respect other people's opinions-even if we don't share them. I think, generally speaking, the worst Democrat is better for the country than the best Republican.,VIETNAM ELECTIONS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, what are the problems, if any, with reference to having an all military ticket in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. There are going to be 19 tickets out there, so the people will be allowed to choose the one that they think will best serve them. The fact that a man has had some service in the Army or the Air Force doesn't disqualify him under their Constitution--as it doesn't disqualify him under our Constitution.,It hasn't been too long since we had a great president who had worn a uniform most of his life.,POLITICAL PROSPECTS FOR 1968,[13.] Q. Mr. President, did you get a political briefing from the Governors on what 1968 looks like for you?,THE PRESIDENT. We discussed it. I don't think you would formally call it a briefing, but what they said was music to my ears.,Q. Would you give us some idea?,THE PRESIDENT. I will just refer you to Mr. Harris or Mr. Gallup, or any of the Governors. They can speak for themselves better than I can.,But I think that they feel very much alike on the subject and that is that if you give to the country the best you have, the best will come back to you.,ATTITUDES OF THE GOVERNORS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in 1964 when we met with you, your statement was that all honesty and purpose,THE PRESIDENT. I am not hearing you. I am sorry.,Q. When we, the National Negro Publishers Association met with you in 1964, you said you were going to be President for all the people of the United States. That you have shown beyond a reasonable doubt. I wonder if your honesty, integrity, and humility will rub off on many of the Governors throughout the United States as the years go along.,THE PRESIDENT. I think all public officials try to do what they think is right. I never have any problem doing what is right when I know what is right. My problem sometimes is knowing what is right.,There are so many questions that are close that give you difficulty.,I believe that the Governors here today are all doing their best to conscientiously represent the views of the people who elected them. I am certainly going to try to provide any leadership that I can to them and to the country.,VIETNAM ELECTIONS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, was the United States Government caught surprised at all by the withdrawal of Premier Ky from the race in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think that we read the newspapers, received the reports, and I think it was generally assumed that Premier Ky would be a candidate for President. He had announced that he was a candidate for President. I think that the decision for him to withdraw and go on the ticket of candidate-for-President Thieu was a matter that we did not know about until he made that decision.,Reporter: Thank you very much, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-06-13","text":"QUESTIONS\nUNITED STATES POSITION ON THE MIDDLE EAST,[1.] Q. On May 23d you reaffirmed the policy of three Presidents before you, committing this country to the territorial and political integrity of every nation in the Middle East.1,1 See Item 233.,When Ambassador Goldberg explained the U.S. vote at the cease-fire, he stated the same policy to the world. May I ask how you are going to honor this commitment in view of the Israeli conquest of the Arab lands?,THE PRESIDENT. That is our policy. It will continue to be our policy. How it will be effectuated will be determined by the events of the days ahead. It will depend a good deal upon the nations themselves, what they have to say and what their views are, what their proposals are after they have expressed them.,I cannot give you any rule of thumb or arbitrary formula at this meeting of what the developments in that distressed area will be, other than to say what our policy is.,In that statement, as well as my statement to Senator Mansfield,2 you will find that this Government, under many Presidents, has first in its mind--has had and does have now--peace in the area. How that will be involved with the other parts of the statement, as that was a vital part of it, will be determined by the events.,2 See Item 257.,NEGOTIATING BOUNDARY CHANGES,[2.] Q. Sir, could I follow up on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Is it correct, then, to assume that if the parties in the dispute negotiate changes in the boundaries that obtained before the fighting, the policy of the United States would not then necessarily be in opposition to such negotiated changes?,THE PRESIDENT. I will stay with the statement, if you can live with it until the nations can adjust themselves to their positions and give their stories. I think it would be better for our country and for them.,I see no real reason for my going beyond the statement I made. I do not think it would serve your interest as an individual or the Government's interest, or the Nation's.,Q. Mr. President, would you favor the two sides sitting down together and negotiating?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't go into that now. I have nothing more to say than my statement.,RUSSIAN PEACE EFFORTS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, during the war the Russians worked more or less in tandem with us to bring about a cease-fire. Is there any indication now or is it your hope that they would work in tandem, the two superpowers, to bring about this peace?,THE PRESIDENT. We would like all nations to do everything they can to promote an acceptable and honorable peace. We can only speak for ourselves. But it is our hope that we can avoid war and can achieve peace. That is going to require the best efforts of all of us.,Q. Mr. President, in the statement3 that was issued on Monday when the fighting started, there was a sentence about new programs of development for the entire area. Could you give us some of your thinking as to what new programs might be involved?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think I ought to go beyond the statement that I made on May 23d at this time.,3 The statement which was issued by George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President, is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 831).,THE U.S.S. \"LIBERTY\",[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any more facts that you can release on the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think you know about as much about it as we do.,VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to have been a lull or a fall-off in the fighting in Vietnam in the last few weeks. If that is true, and perhaps you could confirm it for us, do you think there is a change in the situation vis-a-vis both Vietnam and the Soviet Union that might lead us closer to a settlement of that conflict?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not make such a prediction. I think the fighting goes up and down depending on a good many factors.4,4 Following a verbal report to the President, Lt. Gen. Lewis W. Walt, Commanding General of the III Marine Amphibious Force in Vietnam, met with reporters at 1:30 p.m. on June 12 in the Fish Room at the White House for a news briefing on the military situation in Vietnam. The full text is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 864).,THE DEBT LIMIT,[6.] Q. Sir, on the domestic side, what does the administration plan to do about the problems you are having with the debt limit bill in the House?,THE PRESIDENT. The Treasury and Mr. Mills 5 are exchanging viewpoints, I think, at the moment. I think the committee will take action sometime shortly and make its recommendations to the House. I would not want to anticipate what they would do in their votes, but I think it will be acceptable to the administration.,5 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.,THE SELECTION OF A NEW SOLICITOR GENERAL,[7.] Q. Mr. President, have you decided upon a successor to Mr. Marshall 6 at the Justice Department?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not. We have been canvassing some other appointments there. They will be announced later in the week. I doubt that the Solicitor General will be announced for some time, at least until Mr. Marshall's nomination is acted upon.,6 For the President's remarks to the press announcing the nomination of Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, see Item 263.,RACIAL VIOLENCE IN THE CITIES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, we have had a new outbreak of racial violence in the cities this summer and it looks as if it may get worse. I wonder if you would comment on the causes of it and what might be done about it?,THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to do everything we can in cooperation with the cities, the counties, the States, and the private employers to minimize the tensions that exist. We have asked the Congress for help in this direction. They have promptly and generously acted in the $75 million special appropriation for the cities for the summer.,We shall continue, under the leadership of the Vice President, the Attorney General, Secretary Wirtz, and others in this field, to try to lessen these tensions by providing employment, by opening up recreational areas, swimming pools, supervised play, and additional training facilities, all of which we think will be helpful.,We want to keep these incidents to a minimum, but we will have to rely primarily on the good judgment of the people themselves and the local authorities to try to work out solutions to the problems as they arise.,THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. MARSHALL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to the Supreme Court appointment, did you receive advice that someone more conservative than Judge Marshall should be appointed?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I received very little pressure of any kind in this connection. I consulted the bar and the bar gave me their opinion--an impression that is similar in Judge Marshall's case to the one given in Justice Fortas'.,Their impression, as I recall it, was that the American Bar Association finds him highly acceptable.,RESUMPTION OF AID TO THE MIDDLE EAST,[10.] Q. Mr. President, to return to the Middle East--for the near future, what plans, if any, do you have for the resumption of economic aid?,THE PRESIDENT. We are reviewing the aid program throughout that area. The Congress is presently considering our program for next year. I would think that the events of the next few days and weeks will determine the extent, the desire, and the need more clearly.,This morning, I don't think I could say this is it because I might have a credibility problem, if I did that. I don't think that they are that far along. I don't think the needs, the problems we face, are going to be clear this morning.,REGIONAL COOPERATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Walt Rostow 7 said yesterday in a speech in Vermont that regional cooperation in the Middle East would appear to be a key solution to their problems over there. Does that accurately reflect the administration's thinking of possibilities?,THE PRESIDENT. We have felt, as you know, for some time that where we could-as in Latin America, Africa, or in Asia, in various areas of the world--that the regional approach was a very desirable approach to facing up to the problems, economic and otherwise.,7 Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.,Some areas are further along than others. In the last 2 years, we think we have made considerable progress along this line. We would hope that we could do better in the days ahead in all areas.,INDIVIDUAL VIEWS ON THE CRISIS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there is a story in the Baltimore Sun today quoting the American Charge d'Affaires in Cairo saying the administration was not as sensitive to the seriousness of the crisis before it erupted into war in the Middle East. Would you have any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think you will find that there are pro-Egypt spokesmen, pro-Israel spokesmen, and individual opinions that will flow pretty freely these days.,I do not believe anyone very high in the administration would feel that way about it. The Middle East has occupied a good deal of our thoughts, our attention, and the time of some of the ablest leaders in our Government ever since I came into the executive branch in 1961. It still does.,I do not know the person to whom you refer. It sounds very much like a parochial view, or a local viewpoint.,ARAB CHARGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the Arabs, particularly the Egyptians, have made quite an emotional case against the United States, claiming that we backed the Israelis and that our Air Force helped them in the military action, itself. What is your reaction to this campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the people of the world should know that uppermost in my mind, our Government's mind, our people's mind, is trying to contribute anything we can to helping people get along with their neighbors and with each other. I do not want to say anything that would contribute to inflaming the feeling that already exists.,I think that all of you--and most of the world--know that the charges about our active participation with our carrier planes in the events was completely untrue. In due time--when that becomes evident to all the parties--the attitudes of a good many people will change and will improve.,THE SUEZ CANAL,[14.] Q. Mr. President, can you say what steps, if any, are being taken by the users of the Suez Canal to get the canal reopened?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't.,THE PROBLEM OF REFUGEES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, have you had an opportunity to look into the problem of the refugees and whether any emergency relief will be needed?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is a problem that is high on the agenda of the problems of that area. It will be one that all of the interested parties will no doubt address their attention to.,So far as our reaching an independent, unilateral decision, none has been reached-although we have considered various factors involved and have given a good deal of attention to it for some time.,ROLE OF THE \"HOT LINE\" IN THE CRISIS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how helpful a role the \"hot line\" played in Russian-American relations during this period?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is always helpful when you can convey your thought orally or in writing to a person whom you want to communicate with. We did that on occasions. I did not see, except for the time involved, a great deal of difference between this and the other communications that save time.,You send a message just like you send a cable. There is no voice involved. The \"hot line\" was something dramatic, I guess. We just write out our message, giving our views, and say, \"Here is how we feel about it.\" They come back with the same message. You take it and read it as you would any other message.,Q. Was time saving important in some of those messages, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is always good to save any time you can. I don't know how important it might have been.,Q. Mr. President, was there any voice communication with Premier Kosygin during the period of the crisis?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,ON BEING A PROTESTER,[17.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday Mrs. Johnson said you have been a protester all of your life.,THE PRESIDENT. She has reminded me of that a good many times before yesterday.,Q. You agree with the statement, then?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,DISCUSSIONS WITH CHANCELLOR KIESINGER,[18.] Q. Mr. President, what do you expect for a range of topics to discuss with Chancellor Kiesinger when he comes here next month?,THE PRESIDENT. I had lunch yesterday with Mr. Von Hase, his press secretary and advance official. We will have a wide variety of subjects to exchange viewpoints on.,I thought we had a very fruitful meeting in Bonn, although our time was limited and we were limited somewhat by the occasion. We will discuss anything that the Chancellor is interested in.,I am sure that among the matters will be the future of Europe and Germany, our trade problems, our troop deployment problems, our understandings that we have entered into in the past, our relations in the days ahead.,I anticipate that it will be a very pleasant and productive meeting. I enjoyed the Chancellor. We communicated well together. From what Mr. Von Hase said yesterday, I think that it will be one of our most pleasant and productive visits.,We have a good many coming this year.,We are very pleased that the Chancellor has found it possible to accept our invitation. I told him we would be delighted to see him any time, in June, July, August, or September, and he selected July 7th and 8th.,THE FOOD FOR PEACE PROGRAM,[19.] Q. Sir, on the Food for Peace program, have you had a new assessment of the needs in India this year; and, second, do you have pending a reorganization of the United States effort in this area?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans for a reorganization. I don't know what you may have pending around the various departments. I suspect that some of them may be pending or you wouldn't have used that word.,I have no plans pending, as far as I am concerned. The assessment on the Indian situation is no different from what it was when we asked Mr. Rostow to ask the Indians to join him in presenting the problem to the rest of the Nation and the world and to assure them that we would do our part, and that when and if they could present to us commitments, we would make every effort to match them at least 50 percent.,We will be considering the various commitments that other nations have pledged in connection with any commitment we may make in the days ahead.,RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ARAB COUNTRIES,[20.] Q. Mr. President, sir, do you see any steps the United States might take to encourage resumption of diplomatic relations with the Arab countries?,THE PRESIDENT. We think that at this time the best thing for us to do is to let things clear up and let the people of the area and the world realize just what has happened. Then we will be exchanging viewpoints with all concerned.,No doubt Secretary Rusk will be talking to the NATO nations today and tomorrow, receiving their viewpoints and giving them ours. I do not expect any immediate decision in that field.,.MR. MARSHALL ON HIS NOMINATION,[21.] Q. I was just going to ask Justice Marshall, if we might, how he feels about this appointment.,THE PRESIDENT. I hope the Justice doesn't go into an extended news conference before his confirmation, but I am sure that if you deal purely with health matters he will be glad to respond.,THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. You speak for me, Mr. President. We will wait until after the Senate acts.,Reporter: Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-05-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I don't have anything.,QUESTIONS,FORECAST FOR THE CITIES,[1.] Q. Sir, some of us did want to chat with you for a spell. I think one thing that is on the minds of the public is the repeated threats or forecast of violence and other manifestations of upset in the cities this summer over primarily racial problems and housing and things like that.,What is your forecast and what can you do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I have had pleas from various officials who have had responsibility in this field.,In addition, I have asked the staff people directly responsible to me to maintain a constant, active interest in this situation. They have done so by going into San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and five other cities. They have spent their weekends there and have prepared reports. That has been taking place for the last several weeks.,Acting upon the judgments I formed from those reports, I asked the appropriate committees in the Congress if they would respond to a request for a supplemental appropriation.,Senator Pastore has assured me that he will work on it. He talked to other Senators about it and requested $75 million immediate funds to provide employment, to supervise recreation, light playgrounds, provide new jobs, swimming pools, hydrants, et cetera, in cooperation with the mayors and school board officials.,Senator Pastore told me yesterday the Senate had been cooperative and he had been able to put it in the Senate subcommittee. He said it would be before the Senate. He said he hoped we would be able to hold it.,We are now working on the House Members, hoping they will approve that request. If so, we will immediately get it to areas that need it.1,1 The Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1967, providing funds for summer youth programs, was approved by the President on May 29, 1967 (Public Law 90-21; 81 Stat. 30).,VIETNAM PACIFICATION PROGRAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what your reasoning was in the decision you made to place the pacification program in Vietnam under the command of General Westmoreland?,THE PRESIDENT. The spokesman and the top man the country has in Vietnam is Ambassador Bunker. We have had advice from the people out there, from people in Congress, and from some of my own staff, for many months. The question was raised as to how we could make everyone's effort more efficient, get more for our effort, how we could get everything possible out of the Vietnamese and how we could improve our pacification program.,We talked at length to the civilian officials and to Ambassador Lodge, then asked Ambassador Bunker for his judgments.,He made a survey and a study. He gave his recommendations. I would say the most compelling argument he made was that we had a problem of a single chain of command, a direct line. He felt we could get more done in our pacification effort if he delegated to General Westmoreland the responsibility of directing and working with the South Vietnamese in the pacification effort than the civilians could get.,He thought this would be the most efficient, the most effective.,General Westmoreland was not anxious to take it on. He was somewhat reserved about it. But he felt that it was the judgment of our top man--the judgment of Ambassador Bunker, concurred in by Secretary Rusk, Secretary McNamara, Mr. Komer, Mr. Lodge, and Ambassador Locke.,We thought we would give it a try. We believe that in that way we will get more efficient work in pacification from the South Vietnamese, themselves.,THE BUDGET,[3.] Q. Mr. President, there have been a number of stories about what is happening to our budget, but none really from you.,This seems to be related to what you told us about the decision you face on the possibility of more troops. Could you tell us where that whole situation stands? What are your estimates on budget?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have any. We will just say without being critical of anyone--I want to tread very lightly now because I don't want to touch any sensitive toes--that the stories I have read are without any basis in fact.,Q. Out of Hot Springs?,THE PRESIDENT. Out of Hot Springs and over the whole period. I do not mean there will not be an increase or a decrease. It could very well be $5 billion extra in defense. But it is not anything like that now. No one sees anything like that at this time.,The Government people have never used that figure, that I can find. I have explored it rather thoroughly, I assure you. So, I think that if you can just wait a bit, we will have to see how these expenditures go and how our revenues go.,We have a more accurate estimate on the revenues and we know that some of them are down, some of them are up.,We are finalizing them now for the last year, based on the April 15 returns. But our estimates are less than 1 percent off. They are pretty close on the nose.,The expenditures, as of now, as nearly as we can tell are not going to be far off. Any month can change anything.,But the action of the Congress in one day can change it. But as of now, I see nothing that would indicate any deviation as large as 5 or 10 percent. I say: as of now, as of today--May 18, 4:15 p.m.,VIETNAM OBJECTIVES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in the past there has been a great stress on limited objectives in Vietnam.,Now, many people seem to have the opinion that you have changed it.,THE PRESIDENT. I would agree with the first statement.,Q. Has there been any change?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know about the people in the second group. The answer is no.,CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT ON VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, 16 Senators and now a number of Members of the House have signed this letter to Ho Chi Minh saying that although they may object to some parts of your policy, they don't want to interpret that as meaningful. They don't want a unilateral withdrawal.2,2 The statement on the Vietnam conflict signed by 16 Senators and entitled \"A Plea for Realism\" is printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1957 (p. S 7039).,How do you feel about this? Do you think it will clear the air as far as Ho Chi Minh is concerned?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I should comment on it. I think I will leave it where it is. You have read the letter, haven't you?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. I will just leave it where it is.,THE U.N. AND VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, have you planned anything with the U.N. on the Vietnam question?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to foreclose it. I don't have anything to announce on it now. It has been clear that we will welcome any constructive action that they could take or get our adversaries to take. But I just don't know when action could come.,POLLS ON THE PRESIDENT'S POPULARITY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the polls show you are becoming more popular again. What would you say the reasons are for this, if you believe the polls?,THE PRESIDENT. Nothing.,IMMINENCE OF WORLD WAR III,[8.] Q. Mr. President, U Thant says he is very much worried about world war III breaking out in Asia and in an alleged interview with Chou En-lai is quoted as saying the Chinese are preparing for world war III. How close do you think we are to world war III?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it would serve any purpose to speculate about that.,Q. I judge from that you don't think we are very close?,THE PRESIDENT. Same answer.,TAX INCREASE POSSIBILITY,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the Commerce Department released some revised figures showing that the gross national product actually declined in the first quarter, there was an actual decline in output. Does this change your viewpoint on the possibility of a 6 percent surcharge or some increased tax later on this year?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,PEACE DEMONSTRATIONS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the peace demonstrations which have been going on outside for 2 days?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. These people have communicated their views to the country and to the President on two occasions in the last 2 days. I assume that is the group you are talking about. Their views have been brought to me. We are aware of how they feel about it. I think generally they are aware of our feeling about it.,REASSIGNMENT OF GENERAL WALT,[11.] Q. Mr. President, does the relief of General Walt 3 indicate dissatisfaction with the way some of the generals are running the war in Vietnam?,3 Lt. Gen. Lewis W. Walt, outgoing Commanding General of the III Marine Amphibious Force in Vietnam.,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly not. Is there any indication of that?,Q. I don't know. I am asking is that why he was relieved?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Can you tell us why he was relieved?,THE PRESIDENT. I think his tour was extended a year beyond its normal time. I would assume this was very much like General Taylor and Ambassador Lodge who were out there. This is not a permanent assignment. He has been there a good while.,My information was--several days ago-they asked for a change in his assignment on the grounds that he had been there and already had an extended tour. I don't think I am wrong on that. You had better check with the Defense people.,CONCESSIONS TO SOUTHERN CONGRESSMEN,[12.] Q. Mr. President, some southern Congressmen say they are getting substantial concessions on the school bill, civil rights enforcement, in exchange for their votes. Is that sort of horse trading going on?,THE PRESIDENT. What southern Congressman said that?,Q. I am sorry, sir. I have forgotten which one.,THE PRESIDENT. Bring the Congressman's statement to me and let me see it. I never heard of it. I don't know anything about it. I doubt if a Congressman said it. I know it is not true.,HOUSE ACTION ON RENT SUPPLEMENT BILL,[13.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on the action of the House yesterday on your rent supplement bill and what you think the future is for it?,THE PRESIDENT. We regretted very much that the committee reduced the amount we requested for rent supplements. We had hoped the House would retain what the committee recommended. They did not see fit to do it. We think that it is a program for the disadvantaged and the poor that will help us provide housing that is very necessary.,We hope the Senate will give more favorable consideration to it. When the Republicans take a party position on it and oppose housing for the 'poor and disadvantaged, it is going to be very difficult to get it passed.,There is our program for model cities. It passed by a few votes, but with great difficulty. I wish we could be more convincing to the Republican leadership in the House. I am glad that we were able to pass the model cities involving more than $200 million. I regret that we lost the $10 million item for rent supplements.4,4 See also Items 370, 467.,I am pleased that the Senate acted upon the $75 million for the cities program this summer. I am grateful that they put in the Teacher Corps--even though for a very limited amount--in the Senate committee. The Teacher Corps and the $75 million for the summer received approval in the Senate committee and the model cities survived in the House.,We lost the $10 million on rent supplements. While this $10 million is not a great amount in the total, we regret very much to see it was stricken on the floor. We hope that Senate committee deliberations will restore it.,DOMESTIC LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, this all seems to add up to a kind of tougher fight all along the line on these domestic programs.,THE PRESIDENT. We are talking about four programs. We got three of them. We lost the $10 million out of a total budget of $175 billion. I wouldn't say that is a very big loss, although we do think it ought to be restored. It will grow into more than that. I haven't added up the appropriations. I am very thankful that yesterday four of them were voted on. Three of them were approved and we lost $10 million. I hope that is not the final action of the Congress. I hope they will agree with the House committee or maybe the Senate committee will restore more than that. We can't tell right now.,You will just have to wait until the final bill is written. We don't like to see these items put out. If we didn't believe in them, we wouldn't have recommended them. We don't always like everything Congress does, and I am sure the Congress doesn't like a lot of things we do. You have to understand that this is their prerogative.,VIETNAM SUPPORT AND DISSENT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the public opinion polls show that the support of the country for your Vietnam policy is at least substantial if not on the increase, yet congressional dissent seems to be going on at a pretty steady level. Can you explain what seems to be a paradox?,THE PRESIDENT. This seems to be a congressional problem. I don't know how to explain it. I didn't draw the conclusion that you drew. You may be right, and I may not be as well informed. I talked to Congress about it.,For instance, on the draft, there were two votes against it, and on stopping the bombing, in the House there were 18 votes against it.,The other expression I have seen is the 16 in the letter saying, \"Don't be misled, North Vietnam.\",I think during this period there are going to be a great many heartaches, some frustration, and certainly dissent. I think the first part of your statement is an accurate one. I believe all of us regret that we have to do what we are doing, but I think we would regret it more if we didn't do what we are doing.,ON BECOMING A GRANDFATHER,[16.] Q. Mr. President, this may be a question better suited to the other side of the house, but I wonder if you might share with us some of your thoughts on becoming a grandfather?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very happy for Luci and Pat. I am very fond of little children. We just hope and pray that everything is all right and that the baby is a healthy one. Luci is very cheerful.5,5 For the President's telegram on the birth of his grandson, see Item 273.,Maybe I had better not go into any of my conversations with Luci. I have learned you can't even talk to a priest about them.,NONPROLIFERATION TREATY,[17.] Q. Mr. President, the Geneva talks on the nonproliferation treaty are getting started again now. How far apart or how close together are we and the Soviets on an agreement on that and what about the problems with our allies?,THE PRESIDENT: We are carrying on exchanges of views with all concerned--as we have been for many months. I don't think that one can accurately predict what the outcome will be. I would prefer to wait until things jell a little more before speculating on what and when.,I have, all along, very much hoped that after we got the tripartite talks out of the way, the consular treaty, the space treaty, and the Kennedy Round, that we could make some progress in the ABM and the nonproliferation field.,I still have hopes in those fields. I am very grateful for the progress that has been made in space, in the consular, tripartite, and Kennedy Round. I would hope for equally good results in the other two, but I don't know. I don't want to paint a rosy picture only to have you remind me about it at the next meeting. I am hopeful. I see no insurmountable barriers to the nonproliferation at this time, if that gives you a feel of it.,RELATIONS WITH RED CHINA,[18.] Q. Mr. President, does the resumption of conversations in Warsaw between Ambassador Gronouski and the Red Chinese Ambassador give you any hope that relations that we have between ourselves and the Red Chinese will improve, the atmosphere will improve?,THE PRESIDENT. I know of nothing that would indicate any optimistic changes. Ambassador Gronouski reported to me at some length this morning--as I assume he did to you--about his work there. He is diligent and dedicated. We believe that he is doing a good job.,I don't think that we have the answer to the kind of relations with a good many other nations that we would like to have. We constantly work on them, try to improve them. There is our bridgebuilding, East-West trade.,We were and are hopeful that someday it might lead to an improvement of relations and that someday it might make it possible for all of us to live with understanding and peace in the same world together. It hasn't made that progress yet--either there or here. We still have a long way to go.,The consular treaty was a close vote, as you know. There are some differences now about the ABM. There is still a good bit of feeling about the nonproliferation agreement. We have to bridge some gaps several places yet, but we are working on them.,THE 1968 CAMPAIGN AND FUNDRAISING,[19.] Q. Mr. President, there is a lot of betting going on as to whether you are going to run again. The Vice President says you are. There are a lot of dinners coming up for raising funds. Are you going to run again?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't remember at just what press conference I answered that.,Q. Last fall, in November.,THE PRESIDENT. You will have to read that. I don't want to get in conflict with what I said then.,Q. You will cross that bridge when you come to it?,Q. I don't remember what you said then.,THE PRESIDENT. Helen 6 can tell you. She remembers when it was.,6 Helen Thomas of United Press International.,We try to go out, Helen, once a year to attend all dinners. We try to make appearances before party leaders and party officials in several places to try to reduce the debt and get extra funds to carry the employees as far ahead as possible.,The Committee has had a substantial deficit and still does, although it has come down from $3 million or $4 million to a little over $1 million now. The Committee is hoping that we can have a good attendance in New York, Texas, maybe here in Washington--that hasn't been decided-and California. We agreed to have a dinner in California last year. Some people paid for the dinner. The Committee got the money and they never got the dinner. We have planned for some time to return there. That is imminent now. We hope to do it sometime in the next few weeks. But we will try to sandwich them in where you can hear the speeches in one month and hear them repeated about three or four times. Then we will get away from those Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners.,I expect most of them will be in the month of June. We want them that way so we can take the weekend. We are tentatively committed to either go myself or have some of the other leaders in the administration go to try to pay that debt off. Some of them are pressing us. A million dollars is a lot of money for the Democratic National Committee.,Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would permit another whack at that same question. Could you discuss the factors which would determine whether you will run again?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. In a general way--just the factors?,THE PRESIDENT. I have a lot of things to spend my time on now, Ray 7 besides that.,7 Raymond L. Scherer of NBC News.,PACE OF THE WAR,[20.] Q. Mr. President, the other side of that China question is: For some reason there seems to be an impression that things are getting a little more dangerous than they have been in months past, that maybe things are headed for a much bigger collision, that things are getting out of control.,Do you have the sense that the pace of the war or the nature of the people who are arrayed around it is very different from what it was 5 or 6 months ago?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that our objectives are the same and our determination is just as strong as it has ever been.,I don't see any great fluctuation in activity, opinion, or judgment. I have said that it is a very difficult thing that we are going through. It tests the patience and the understanding of each of us.,I hope that all of my countrymen and our friends in the world will recognize and realize what we are doing and why we are doing it.,We believe it is in the best interests of freedom everywhere. We have given our views on negotiation, on peace, and on related matters many, many times.,I know of nothing to be gained by repeating them. But I think that you can see there is hardly anyone who feds that there ought to be unilateral withdrawal. I think that fewer feel that way today than yesterday-or the period behind us.,Q. Sir, there seems to be in that same connection, at least from reading the reports, an intensification of the troops building up around the DMZ. Would you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to discuss that. I see the reports as you do. We don't always know what the intentions of the other people are. We try to be prepared for them.,DISCUSSION WITH THE NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS,[21.] Q. Mr. President, at the meeting in Connecticut the other day, Governor Curtis said that he was not in favor of a tax-sharing plan and seemed to be in agreement with some form of bloc grants to the States. Was there a great deal of discussion with you on that subject of sharing Federal funds with the States?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think his reference was to what Mr. Gardner had done about consolidating some grants in his Department. There was no discussion beyond that. It was one of the most constructive meetings I have attended.,We listened to the problems the States have and talked about meetings that might find a solution to them. We didn't solve any, but we had a better understanding after the meeting.,No commitments were asked; none were given. No proposals were made--other than we would hear any suggestions the Governors had about things we could do that we were authorized to do.,The Governors and the Federal representatives were very happy at the outcome.8,8 See Items 222, 223.,Q. Do you intend to go to any more of these regional conferences of that kind?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT,[22.] Q. Mr. President, have you abandoned your plans to ask Congress to reorganize the District Government?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Will you be submitting that soon, sir, shortly?,THE PRESIDENT. If I do, I will tell you. I don't have any announcement to make now--if we had made an announcement. I don't know whether we could abandon something we hadn't launched.9,9 For the President's message to Congress transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 3 for the District of Columbia, see Item 247.,Q. I thought it had been mentioned in the State of the Union.,THE PRESIDENT. We have been discussing with leaders in the District and with leaders in the Congress how we could make more efficient the services of the District Government.,There are many varied opinions on it. Some suggestions have been made to the President, Mr. Pollak,10 the Budget, and the Commissioners. We have had them under consideration. There is quite a difference of opinion about whether we should have three commissioners or one commissioner, whether you should have a central leader and a larger council, different things. We are now discussing it. No decision has been made.,10 Stephen J. Pollak, Advisor for National Capital Affairs.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-05-03","text":"THE PRESIDENT. George 1 said that some of you wanted to have a visit with me. I am available.,1 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,QUESTIONS,TROOPS FOR VIETNAM,[1.] Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to recurrent stories as recently as this morning about General Westmoreland desiring quite a few additional troops in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly studying our force structure in Vietnam and in the world. I have discussed with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and our people in Southeast Asia, General Westmoreland, Admiral Sharp, and others, and our people in Europe, these structures.,We are making adjustments here and there. General Westmoreland and Admiral Sharp submit their requests. The Joint Chiefs study them and evaluate them. They go up through Mr. Vance and Mr. McNamara. Then they make their recommendations and they are acted upon.,I have no recommendations at this time that I am giving my personal consideration to, although Admiral Sharp and General Westmoreland and other commanders have made comments to the Joint Chiefs that they are evaluating. No doubt in the weeks ahead, perhaps Secretary McNamara and General Wheeler will make recommendations to me which I will consider.,I do not consider anything immediately imminent in the next few days or even the next few weeks.,TROOP DEPLOYMENTS IN GERMANY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to our withdrawal of troops from Germany, have the Soviets indicated they may withdraw some of their troops, as well?,THE PRESIDENT. Our troop deployments are a matter that we will discuss with NATO.2 We trust they will be agreeable to NATO. Secretary Rusk is testifying before the Mansfield committee 3 this morning. Secretary McNamara has already testified.,2 On May 2, 1967, the State Department announced that plans for the withdrawal of 35,000 American ground and air troops from West Germany were being considered by the Defense Planning Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The proposal followed discussions with the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany on the defense needs of NATO and the balance of payments position of the respective parties resulting from the stationing of troops in Germany. Redeployment of military personnel to the United States was not scheduled to take place before January 1, 1968.,3 Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Majority Leader of the Senate and Chairman of the Combined Subcommittee of the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services on the Subject of U.S. Troops in Europe.,What the Russians do is a matter for them to decide. We believe that such actions as we take will not materially affect our capability. We believe that such actions as we contemplate will be acceptable to our alliance partners. I discussed some of the prospective decisions prior to the time we made them with the affected people, particularly the Germans, and Chancellor Kiesinger. Our people will be discussing them more in detail with NATO people at a later date.,MILITARY SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, what is your assessment of the current military situation in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I couldn't add anything to the rather detailed assessment that General Westmoreland gave you. He is my best authority. He has talked at some length about it in his report to the country, at the Associated Press meeting, and also to the Congress. There is nothing I can add to that.,Q. Mr. President, would the two brigades that are going to be withdrawn from Germany be available for service in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. The reductions in Europe have no connection with the Vietnam picture whatever. I would not want to say that all of our people would not be available under certain circumstances. This is entirely independent of any Vietnam measure.,Q. I didn't mean to suggest, Mr. President, that it was related, but there is a story from Europe saying that some of those forces might be redeployed to Vietnam.,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is still the same.,PROPOSED NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION AGREEMENT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in your talks last week with Chancellor Kiesinger and with Premier Moro of Italy, did you feel you overcame the objections of those two governments to the proposed draft of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. We did not speak in terms of objections. We were positive and talked about the language of the agreement that might evolve.,At this point, we are not in agreement with the Soviet Union. We are exploring areas of agreement with all concerned. But we expect certain safeguards. They feel they cannot agree to certain safeguards, so we haven't reached the point of agreement among ourselves. Our allies are being kept informed. Our allies are making their views known about the protections that they would like to have--the safeguards they would like to have from their national interest.,We have had some lengthy discussions here with the representative of the Prime Minister of India. I did discuss with Mr. Moro their views on the matter. I did discuss this with Chancellor Kiesinger. Both have made a number of suggestions which we will look at.,Q. Can you see any prospect that the draft will be ready, as you had hoped, for presentation to the Disarmament Conference next Tuesday when it reconvenes?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to predict when there would be a meeting of the minds. I think you get into difficulty when you do that. We are working on it. We want to have an agreement whenever we can get it.,RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, would you go all the way to recommending compulsory arbitration in the rail situation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we do not plan to recommend compulsory arbitration. We do not plan to recommend seizure. We do not plan to recommend legislation of a specific formula. We have considered a good many alternatives. We are now reviewing those alternatives with the appropriate people concerned. We hope to be able to make our recommendations to the Congress this week, perhaps tomorrow or the next day or the next day.,Some of the ideas that we are considering are the proposals authorizing the establishment for a 90-day no-strike, no-lockout period, of a five-member special board to be appointed by the President.4 The functions of the board would, among other things, involve a period that we have set aside for an intensive further mediation with the parties.,4 For the President's message to Congress recommending procedures to complete collective bargaining in the dispute, see Item 207. See also Items 170, 172, 174, 188, 194, 310, 311, 386.,Another period is designed to implement the collective bargaining contemplated by the board's recommendations and see they are fair and equitable, see if they could take collective bargaining, and see if they fulfill the purposes of the Railway Labor Act. This board would do that.,During the second period after mediation, if there are no agreements, the board would file with the President and the Congress its determinations concerning the special mediation panel proposals--together with any modification that this board thought was necessary to assure these criteria above mentioned. These would be: fair and equitable, protect collective bargaining, fulfill the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, and protect the public interest. If there is still no agreement, then the modification which the board has found necessary to insure conformity with these criteria could take effect and remain in effect for a certain period.,So we are attempting to evolve a procedure that will permit and encourage further mediation for a period of time. We will carefully evaluate what has been recommended by the Ginsburg board and the Fahy board 5 to see if they have met these criteria of being fair and equitable, promoting collective bargaining, serving the purpose of the Railway Labor Act and the public interest, determine if any modifications, in the new board's opinion, are necessary, required, and desirable. If so, we will get their recommendations.,5 On January 28, 1967, the President issued Executive Order 11324 establishing an emergency board to investigate the railway labor dispute (3 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 129; 32 F.R. 1075; 3 CFR, 1967 Comp., p. 245). David Ginsburg, a Washington attorney, was appointed chairman.,On April 12, 1967, the President appointed Charles Fahy, former judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, George W. Taylor, professor of industry at the University of Pennsylvania, and John T. Dunlop, professor of economics at Harvard University, to a mediation panel in the dispute. For an announcement of the appointment and a statement upon receiving the panel's report, see Items 174, 188.,Then, finally, providing that the situation as determined at that time be in effect for a certain period. The details of that are being worked on now.,I have talked to, first, the Cabinet officers primarily concerned--the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Wirtz, and Mr. Reynolds, Secretary Boyd, and Secretary McNamara.,Then we have discussed it with the leadership of the House and Senate, with some of the people who have been active in this field, like Senator Morse.,I have reviewed with Justice Fahy some of his suggestions. I have reviewed this with Mr. George Taylor, an expert from the University of Pennsylvania in this field; and also with Mr. John Dunlop, a member of the board from Harvard, who has made suggestions.,I am waiting to talk with Mr. David Ginsburg, the chairman of the first board. He is out of the country. He will be in today or tonight late. I want to get his suggestions and comments. Then we will try to put a message and resolution together to submit to the Congress. I hope during this 40-odd day period that they can act upon it.,THE 6 PERCENT SURCHARGE PROPOSAL,[6.] Q. Mr. President, what is the outlook for your proposed 6 percent surcharge?,THE PRESIDENT. Our position remains the same. The economy has moved along somewhat on the line that we anticipated. Our revenue estimates are not firm. They are within a reasonable degree of what we expected in our budget estimates--less than a billion dollars off, out of $117 billion. We can't tell. We don't have it firm yet. They are coming in--the corporation taxes, the excise taxes, and other things. Some of them are up; some a little down. But they are relatively firm.,We still have a need for a tax from a standpoint of revenue. We think it will serve a good purpose from the standpoint of economy. We believe if we can get the investment credit bill passed and into effect-either the House or the Senate bill--that our predictions will be confirmed for the second half.,We would expect that when the committees get these other matters out of the way that they would give consideration to our request. We would hope they would act favorably.,Q. Are you sounding out what their feeling is right now?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I listen to the radio programs and read the newspapers. I don't know why you want to make me point out that some of them are against it. Yes, we think it has its problems. We recognize them. We are concerned with them. At the appropriate time we hope that the situation will be compelling and persuasive even to those who have their doubts now.,DRAFT OPPOSITION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, do you consider Martin Luther King's urging of young men not to answer the draft call outside the bounds of reasonable dissent with your Vietnam policy?,THE PRESIDENT. We regret when any person asks the young people of the country to refuse to serve what we believe to be the needs of the country. We regret it very much.,CAMPAIGN FINANCING LEGISLATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Long's campaign financing amendment seems to have been finally defeated yesterday. I wonder if you could tell us your thinking on this kind of legislation; whether you hope any such law would be enacted this year.,THE PRESIDENT. I have not talked to the leaders in the Senate about this. I think it is a matter for them to decide. I wouldn't go along with your description at this moment. I do not think they have really determined-from what I see--what the outcome of it will be.,I would like to see what I am confronted with before passing judgment on what my action would be when they finally pass the bill. I do not know what is going to come out of the Senate or the conference.,RAILWAY DISPUTE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, to return to this question of the railroad resolution, the labor resolution, did the 90 days which you spoke of as being under consideration--is that 90 days in addition to what the Railway Labor Act now provides?,THE PRESIDENT. We will keep that flexible until our recommendations go up. I wouldn't get hard on that, but I would say that it will be 90 days from the time I sign the legislation. That would be my best guess, although it could be 70 or it could be 110.,GOP POLICY STATEMENT ON VIETNAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any views on the GOP policy statement on Vietnam? 6,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't read the details of the Senate Republican Leader's statement. I do not find myself in very much disagreement generally with him on these matters. I think that he is better able to express the Republican position in the Senate than I am.,6 A statement on the Vietnam conflict prepared by the Senate Republican Policy Committee under the leadership of Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper of Iowa.,What I have observed of his statements I am in general agreement with. I do not know what Senators, if any, are tied to this document. It looks kind of like--well, I don't know--,PESSIMISM CONCERNING VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a good deal of pessimism in the country about Vietnam--we are bogged down; not making much progress. Could you address yourself to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would just quote General Westmoreland. I do not know anyone who can give you a better evaluation of what is going on than General Westmoreland did in those two speeches. I do not have any information that he didn't give you except what you see in the papers.,Generally speaking, there is more pessimism here than there. There are plenty of reasons for sadness in both places.,RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE MISSILES IN VIETNAM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there were reports yesterday that the Russians are considering putting offensive missiles into Vietnam. Have you heard these reports, and are they a matter of concern for the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen the newspaper reports on them. We are interested in all reports.,DISSENT ON VIETNAM,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the general level of dissent throughout the Nation on Vietnam has reached a particularly critical point now? You addressed yourself to it a couple of times this week.,THE PRESIDENT. I think whenever you have men dying and men sacrificing, when you have half a million or more committed to a theater of war, you have dissent. It occupies a stage of discussion in our lives every day.,I was just reading last night a speech by Mr. Thurman Arnold,7 a departmental lawyer, that he delivered at Valparaiso University. He reviewed what happened after the fall of France: how as late as 1941, when the vote on the draft in the House was 203 to 202, there were eloquent voices of dissent which, according to his quotations, said that we should shrink our Army and concentrate our major efforts upon the Navy and the Air Force and lend-lease.,7 Thurman W. Arnold, member of a Washington law firm and former Assistant Attorney General and Associate Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.,That was just a few days before Pearl Harbor, after France had fallen, after Hitler had successfully invaded and successfully performed the conquest of France.,We will expect dissent in any period like this. We have always had it. We hope that a majority will support our proposals, our appropriations, and our recommendations. We hope it won't be that narrow.,You cannot overlook the fact that there are a good many people who think we are not doing enough. There are also a good many who think we are doing too much. From the information we have, we are doing what we really believe is the best course for the country. We carefully consider that every day and try to keep an open mind.,I read a statement to a group this morning from Benjamin Franklin who, when he was presented a copy of the Constitution at Philadelphia, arose and said, \"Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects. The older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment and pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men, as well as most sects of religion, think themselves in possession of all truth.\",We try not to think ourselves in possession of all truths. We take the recommendations that we receive from all of the corners of the globe and the most experienced people we have, diplomatic and military.,I am meeting momentarily with the Security Council and Ambassador Goldberg. We will review various alternatives in the United Nations on the diplomatic front and the military front. Whatever decisions we reach, there will be differences of opinion-that is democracy. They will be expressed. We will constantly try to make decisions that are supported by facts, by equity, and by the needs of our time and of our country.,But we will never have unanimity. We don't seek it. We don't expect uniformity. We will be disheartened. We deplore and disagree with folks who burn our flag and who take rather extreme measures. So far as they express an honest difference of opinion, we expect it. We rather think that we will always have it in our form of government.,COMMUNIST LEADERSHIP IN ANTIWAR DISSENT,[14.] Q. Mr. President, during the demonstrations in New York and in San Francisco a few weeks ago, we were told that you had received a report by the FBI Director on the degree of Communist leadership in this antiwar dissent. Since then there has been some public discussion about whether or not we have a revival of McCarthyism in this country over the degree of influence of the Communists.,THE PRESIDENT. I would go back and review that with George. I read that. I didn't read his saying what you attribute to the report. I don't recall seeing a report along that line.,Q. Mr. President, could I just ask you the general question: How serious do you believe the Communist leadership is in this dissent, or how much influence the Communists have on it?,THE PRESIDENT. There is a Communist position which you can judge from the Communist propaganda which comes out of Peking, North Vietnam, and the Soviet Union every day. One can judge their position on this general Vietnam question. We keep in close touch with it at all times. I don't know any purpose which would be served by my going beyond that.,I might find myself needing a defense attorney after you wrote your report on any comment I might make. I don't want to spend any more time doing that than I need to normally.,EDUCATION BILL IN THE HOUSE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, how serious do you consider the threat to your primary and secondary education bill in the House?,THE PRESIDENT. I won't speak in terms of party. I do feel that there are those who much want to change a measure which was put together with great care, which is working reasonably well. I believe that if it were torn to pieces now, as I believe it would be by certain recommendations which have been made, it would be disastrous for the school children of this country. Improvements can be made in this administration and in the relationships between the administration and the schools.,I don't think the \"meat ax\" approach of tearing the formula apart is good. I think it would take us back a decade instead of moving us forward.,I certainly hope that the Congress will not tear up the fine educational house which has been built. I hope they will strengthen it instead of tearing it down. I believe they will.8,8 The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 7819) were approved by the President on January 2, 1968 (Public Law 90-247; 81 Stat. 783).,VIETNAM,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Aiken said last night, in talking about this Republican report on Vietnam, that the North Vietnamese simply will not negotiate with you. Do you believe they are waiting for the 1968 elections, sir, or to hold out until then?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not privy to their thoughts. I don't know what may motivate them.,Q. Mr. President, what is the outlook for the immediate future in Vietnam, a greater increase in the war effort there, or are there any prospects for peace?,THE PRESIDENT. We will diligently pursue each day any route that we could think would lead to a peaceful settlement. We do not see any hopeful prospects at the moment. We are pursuing this week, as we have every week, every road that could lead in that peaceful direction.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-03-21","text":"REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, at Mr. Christian's 1 request, I am here to summarize for you the developments of yesterday and today.,1 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,We have just completed our exchange of views. That is: Yesterday was devoted primarily to exchanges with the leaders of South Vietnam. Today Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland, as our specially delegated representatives there, went into their respective responsibilities with us.,General Westmoreland reported to us on the military developments in that country, evaluated them and analyzed them. He went into some detail on the training, both of our troops and our allies; the supplies, the health conditions, the casualties, the accidents-more or less the general condition of our troops and their problems.,Ambassador Lodge reviewed the nonmilitary matters.,He spent a good deal of the morning discussing the situation that we went into some detail on yesterday, and of which the leaders of South Vietnam are so very proud. That is the new Constitution that Premier Ky presented to me yesterday.,He reviewed the developments that led to that Constitution.,He went into some detail on the actual provisions of it--its strengths.,We discussed the elections that will follow in the aftermath of it--the hamlet and province elections that are coming up in the next few days and weeks; the presidential election that will come within 6 months; .and the legislative election that will follow.,In addition to that, while we went into these things at some length yesterday, we really targeted in on them this morning with our own people--for the benefit of Ambassador Bunker, who will be taking over there, we trust, in the next month, so that we could have a proper transition.,We went into some detail on land reform, what has been accomplished, what is in the works, what the problems are, what we can do to be helpful, the problems of civilian casualties, and the medical treatment they are receiving. Dr. Humphreys 2 reported at some detail in that field.,2 Maj. Gen. James W. Humphreys, Jr. See Item 235.,I will be glad to take any of your questions. I would sum up the whole conference by saying I think it has been a very constructive exchange. We have faced up to our problems frankly.,We have not made any momentous decisions of one kind or the other.,The problems we are working on have been with us all along, some of them being in much better shape than they were when we met last at Manila. Certainly great progress has been made since we first met at Honolulu.,The outstanding fact of the conference, I think, was Premier Ky's presentation to me yesterday of a Constitution that is really in being--the Constituent Assembly has already adopted it, and it is ready to be promulgated and will be 'promulgated shortly and the fact that local elections are on the way to being held, that presidential elections will follow in a matter of weeks. Then, too, the provisions of that Constitution.,I will be glad to take any questions. Then I will ask Ambassador Lodge and Ambassador Bunker to make any report they may care to make. They will be available for questions.,QUESTIONS,PROGNOSIS ON VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, after having had the advice and counsel of not only the Vietnamese, but your own people out there, could you now give us your up-to-date prognosis of the war, and particularly your prognosis of peace efforts?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I don't think they have changed any from what I have given you before.,I think we have a difficult, serious, long, drawn-out, agonizing problem that we do not yet have the answer for. We think that our military situation is considerably strengthened.,We think that the action the Constituent Assembly has taken, and the elections that are to follow in the wake of the Constitution, will be very helpful. But they are not the answer to our problem. It is going to take a lot of extra effort and a good deal more time.,I am unable to predict just how long or the extent of that effort, except to say that our Ambassador, who is in direct charge of our civilian activities, is highly pleased with the progress made. And General Westmoreland gave a very good report.,ENEMY SANCTUARIES IN' CAMBODIA AND LAOS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you see anything that can be done about what Premier Ky calls \"enemy sanctuaries\" in Cambodia and Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. We are concerned with all of the matters that the Premier outlined in his prepared statement yesterday. We have been throughout the period that we have been there. We are handling those matters as best we know how.,We can understand the Premier's deep concern, because it is his people who are suffering the depredations that come from some of these problems that he mentioned. We are going to try to keep them uppermost in mind and do everything that we properly can about them.,MILITARY DECISIONS AT THE CONFERENCE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, sir, although the emphasis of the conference was on pacification, were any decisions taken that will result in an intensification of the Vietnamese war?,THE PRESIDENT. There were no military decisions taken of any nature. That was not the purpose of it, as we have tried to explain, Mr. Roberts,3 time and time again.,3 Charles W. Roberts of Newsweek.,We have a new team going in there on the civilian side. There will be some additions on the military side due to changes of duty, but General Westmoreland will continue to head that up, and his top people will continue to be there.,Ambassador Lodge, as we have understood for some time, will be coming out of there and returning to Washington to help me there, and Ambassador Bunker will be going out. We wanted to try to have as smooth a transition as we could.,The Vietnamese leaders wanted to report to us on their views of what had taken place in their government, the Constitution, the details of it.,I wanted Ambassador Bunker to get the benefit of that. Generally, those were the subjects that were discussed. We did talk about the health, the welfare, the conditions, the supplies, the ammunition, the planes, the helicopters--things of that nature. But we took no decisions of a military nature, and we did not contemplate taking any.,As Premier Ky said yesterday, he was concerned about the infiltration, and we are concerned about it. He is concerned about the casualties, and we are concerned about them. He is concerned about sanctuaries, and we are concerned about them. But this wasn't a meeting to deal with those specific problems and they were not dealt with. As a matter of fact, they were not even discussed other than just his mentioning them in part of his whole general outline.,MR. KOMER'S JOB IN VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in this workout of how this new team is going to fit in, was it decided for whom Mr. Komer would be working when he is in Saigon?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, he is working for me. He is my special assistant. He will be working with the United States missions there, civilian and military, and the Vietnamese Government.,The details of where he will spend his time, and how he will spend it, were not gone into. Mr. Komer will be going out there from here. He has been visiting there frequently.,But I anticipate that he will be spending a good deal more time there now. But we have no details that we can give you at this time because no decision has been made.,PACE OF PACIFICATION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, did the conference produce any fresh idea on speeding the pace of pacification?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we talked about the various problems involved and what needed to be done. We evaluated them. We made no far reaching decisions that would bring about any revolutionary changes.,OBSTACLES TO PEACE TALKS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister Ky raised the question once again about dealing with the National Liberation Front. Do you see that as raising any obstacles to possible peace talks?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was amazed that you all devoted the attention to it that you did yesterday. I remember your raising it at Honolulu. It seems to be a favorite subject. But it is a matter that was just mentioned by him in going through, that in no way changed our position, or so far as I know there were no changes.,We have said that if anyone can give us any indication they want to talk peace, conditionally or unconditionally, we think the Vietcong will have no difficulty having their views heard.,I know nothing that happened here that changed that position. As a matter of fact, I think it is blown up a good deal out of proportion to its importance in these meetings. There was no discussion of it except in the press conference.,AMERICAN TROOPS AND THE PACIFICATION PROGRAM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, did General Westmoreland during the conference bring up any suggestion or proposal for additional American troops in connection with the pacification program, that is, to secure and clear areas?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I must repeat to you again and again and again that there were no military proposals of any nature made. I repeat what I have said and what was said to you yesterday by Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara, that this is not a meeting to raise troops, or to disperse troops, or to raise forces. They were not discussed.,It was not a military meeting at all. I have outlined the purposes of the meeting. I have seen the news stories and the predictions, and so forth. But I have become accustomed to that, Bob.4,4 Robert C. Young of the Chicago Tribune Press Service.,U.N. DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there has been another flurry of speculation growing out of the U.N. for the last couple of weeks about some moves up there. Could you tell us whether the situation has changed in any way in terms of diplomatic activity related to the war?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not really aware of these flurries except that some people do have flurries from time to time. I am not aware of any serious change that has been made on the part of our adversaries in this situation.,I think we really do our people a considerable disservice when we imply that there is something just around the corner or something that may show up tomorrow, unless we have some factual basis for it.,I know of nothing that would lead me to believe at this point--as of this moment-that Hanoi is seriously interested in doing anything to bring the war to an end.,That is a repetition of a statement that I made to you several weeks ago, but the fact is there has been no serious change since then that I am aware of.,HANOI'S ASSESSMENT OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Premier Ky this morning made an appeal to the American people, as he put it, in which he said that if all Americans and the American Government could demonstrate to Hanoi that we were united and in agreement against aggression, then Hanoi would come to the conference table.,Do you think that is the primary obstacle to getting peace negotiations; that is, a disagreement among the American people?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is pretty difficult to search the minds and hearts of the people in Hanoi. I don't know what makes them react as they do. I think there has never been a period in American history when we haven't had a difference of opinion.,We provide for it and we want to preserve that right. We get a great many strengths from it.,It is very irritating and I think damaging at times to have any deep divisions among us. But I don't know what effect the divisions that have been expressed in our country have upon Hanoi.,My honest judgment is that they shouldn't get too much encouragement from our differences because in the last analysis you will find the American people will unite as they did last week when, after debating the situation of the bombing and cutting it off, the House voted, I think, maybe only 18 votes, or along that line, and the Senate voted 89 to 2 to pass the defense bill.,So I don't think Hanoi is going to get much encouragement from thinking that she can divide the American people.,PLANS FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us what you have in mind for Ambassador Lodge when he gets back?,THE PRESIDENT. Ambassador Lodge will be nominated to be Ambassador at Large, to serve the President, the Secretary of State, and our country first as an adviser and counselor in connection with all of the important decisions to be made in Southeast Asia, and to also handle any other big decisions that may develop in other parts of the world.,He is a very highly regarded and trusted public servant. I am very happy that he can have this change of duty and still be available to the President.,HANOI'S VIEW OF THE CONFERENCE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, sir, you say no military decisions were taken at this meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that is a correct statement.,Q. Then in light of that, sir, what conclusions do you think Hanoi should draw from this meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you would have to talk to Hanoi about the propriety of the decisions she reaches. I think we are concerned with what we are doing out there. We want to be sure we are doing the most efficient and effective things that we can do.,We have brought our best men here to consider that. And we have done it. We are leaving feeling hopeful and feeling that we have had a constructive 2 days.,Hanoi's decisions will have to depend upon Hanoi. I am not sure she is willing to follow my advice anyway. If you have any indication that she would, I would suggest that she come to the negotiating table, as we have agreed to do on some 15 or 20 occasions.,AMERICAN TROOPS AND THE PACIFICATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, was any decision made to use American troops to a greater extent in the pacification program?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Reporter. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Do you have any questions of Ambassador Lodge or Ambassador Bunker?,REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR LODGE,[13.] AMBASSADOR LODGE. Perhaps I can grab the microphone in the approved style and say that to me the highlight of these 2 days was the fact that Prime Minister Ky arrived with the completed Constitution. I don't believe anybody who works in Vietnam expected the Constitution to be ready this soon.,It is a sign of what political energy and political evolution there has been in what is an underdeveloped country which is emerging from colonialism and has not had anything like the experience in self-government that we have had.,This is a Constitution that is worthy of respect. It provides for a President, a Prime Minister, a Lower House, and Upper House. It has substantially the Bill of Rights, the safeguards for the individual.,It is an interesting footnote that the legislative branch, under this Constitution, has really more authority, relative to the President, than the U.S. Congress has. Because if the President vetoes a bill, they can pass the bill over his veto by a simple majority, which is a reflection of the fear that there is of dictatorial, arbitrary rule.,This is a step toward really popular government. So to me that was very impressive.,Then I would like to say what a fine thing I think it is for the President to have named Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker. He is a man of great talent and great experience. He made an excellent impression on the Vietnamese. I am sure he is going to render many valuable services. I am very happy that this appointment has been made."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-03-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen:,RESTORATION OF INVESTMENT CREDIT AND ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION PROVISIONS,[1.] I am sending a message to the Congress this afternoon asking it to act speedily to restore the investment credit and the use of accelerated depreciation for buildings. I am asking that this be made effective as of today.,You will recall that last fall, when I signed the legislation temporarily suspending these investment incentives, I said then, and I should like to quote now:,\"The legislation which I have signed provides for automatic restoration of these special tax provisions in January 1968. If, however, any earlier reinstatement would be appropriate, I shall recommend prompt legislative action to accomplish that result.\",That action is appropriate today, and I am so recommending action today.,Both the House and Senate committees which considered this legislation recognized the need to restore these incentives promptly once the suspension was no longer necessary.,It is now clear that the temporary suspension of these investment incentives has done the job that we hoped and expected it would do.,Interest rates began to decline last September-immediately after this proposal was first submitted to the Congress. Since then, aided by actions of the Federal Reserve Board, interest rates have come down as much as 1 1/4 percentage points from their September peaks. Treasury bill rates are down from 5.59 percent in September to 4.34 percent yesterday. Interest rates on new municipal bonds are down from 4.24 percent in September to 3.60 percent now.,Last spring and summer, savings and loan associations had virtually no new money whatever to lend to home builders and home buyers. In the past 4 months, they have been taking in deposits at a normal rate, and again have money to lend. So we are beginning to revive the homebuilding industry.,Since the recommendations were made last September, the excessive pressure on our machinery industries has, we think, eased very dramatically.,--After rising 28 percent from September 1965 to September 1966, order backlogs for capital goods have now already leveled off, and actually declined in January for the first time in more than 3½ years.,--Last September, the machinery producers were operating close to 100 percent of capacity. Now their operations have moved down to a much healthier and much more efficient rate.,--The acute shortage of skilled machinists has now greatly moderated.,--Imports of capital equipment which had previously been climbing on an average of 14 percent a quarter, have already leveled off.,So this evidence of moderation in our economy has now been confirmed by the survey of investment plans for 1967 conducted by the Department of Commerce and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was released to you yesterday and published this morning.,A moderate increase of 3.9 percent in capital outlay is planned for 1967, according to these estimates. That is a very sharp contrast to the increases of 16 percent and 17 percent in the past 2 years.,So the actions that we took last fall, with the cooperation of the Congress, have helped to do what we thought very much needed to be done.,The imbalance in our economy that we were aiming at has now been righted.,We said that we would restore the tax incentives when appropriate, and when the suspension was no longer needed.,The suspension is no longer needed. I propose that we restore the investment incentives, effective today.,I will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS,DIFFERING OPINIONS ON VIETNAM POLICY,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the recent statements and speeches which either differ with your Vietnam policy or suggest major changes in it, are you considering any effort to de-escalate these apparent differences with such people as the Senators Kennedy and people who believe as they do?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith,1 we have help and suggestions from Members of the Senate, and from leaders in public life throughout the Nation and throughout the world.,1 Merriman Smith of United Press International.,I think all of us are very anxious to seek a peaceful settlement in Vietnam.,As far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.,We are ready to use any procedure that the other side is willing to engage in.,We have stated our position a good many times: the machinery of the Geneva Conference, the United Nations, an all-Asian Conference, or any other appropriate forum.,Individuals have different approaches to this matter.,I have the benefit of a worldwide network of trained diplomats.,I have the experience of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,I have the judgment and recommendations of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense.,I have constant consultations with our allies in the world, in particular our allies engaged with us in Vietnam.,On the basis of that information I must make judgments, and I do. Sometimes those judgments are different from what other people, if they were in this position, would make.,I have no particular fault to find, or criticism to make, of others. I just must act in the light of the information I have, exercise the best judgment I can, and do what I think is best for this country. That is what I am doing without regard to personalities or politics.,INCOME TAX INCREASE,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you think, still, that an income tax increase on July I will be necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have recommended a 6 percent surcharge. We see no reason to change that recommendation.,The Ways and Means Committee is now busy considering legislation involving matters of deep concern to the administration, such as the social security bill.,We think by the time they get to hearings on the tax bill, the administration will be able to make a very good case, based on the economy, based on all the factors that that Committee must consider.,There are some doubts in Congress about the wisdom of it. We will have to debate those out.,As of this time, I would see no reason why we should change the recommendations we made in our State of the Union Message.,VIETNAM,[4.] Q. What is your reaction, sir, to the statement by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., yesterday to the effect that your administration does not really want negotiations concerning Vietnam at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. I have tried to make it abundantly clear to all the people of this country and all of the people of the world that we are prepared to talk without conditions, we are prepared to talk about conditions, or we will talk about a final settlement.,I said to you I think the last time we met that this Government is always willing, anxious, and eager to go more than halfway. But I must call to the attention of you and the American people that I do not think that we can stop half the war while the other side continues to kill our men, to lob their mortars into our air bases, to seize South Vietnam by force.,I just must repeat each day that we are ready to speak unconditionally or conditionally. The problem with all of those who love peace--and I think most of us do--is not with this Government. We are willing to go to a conference room any day. We are ready to go without stopping or after stopping if they are willing to do likewise, or if they are willing to make any concession.,But I do not think it is fair to ask an American Commander in Chief to say to your men, \"Ground your planes, tie your hands behind you, sit there and watch division after division come across the DMZ, and don't hit them until they get within a mile or two of you.\",I don't think that is fair to American Marines or American soldiers.,We have talked before while acts of war continued. We did that in Korea. We had the blockade on in Berlin while we had conferences.,So we are willing to talk unconditionally, or we are willing to talk conditionally. All we ask is equity and fairness, and that the other side do likewise. We don't think you ought to ask the American boys to do one thing while other folks do nothing.,Q. Mr. President, has the Vietnam situation reached a stage where you and your advisers feel that time is now increasingly on our side?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very difficult to speculate and give you a direct reply to that question. I think our men have given a very wonderful account of themselves.,I no longer see any possibility of a military victory on the part of North Vietnam. I think they realize it. I think they are struggling desperately today to try to get a propaganda victory, and to try to bring world opinion and public opinion in this country to permit them to win here what they cannot win from our men out there.,MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR LODGE AND GENERAL WESTMORELAND,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that Ambassador Lodge would like to be relieved of his post and that you are looking for a successor. Is there any truth to these reports?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is no truth that I am looking for a successor.,Ambassador Lodge has talked to me on several occasions that he, in due time, would leave his post. He left it on one other occasion, took a rest and went back and served a tour of duty.,There is no definite date set at this moment for his departure. I do expect to be visiting with Ambassador Lodge and with General Westmoreland, as we do from time to time.,We will fully explore his future in Vietnam, or elsewhere, if he cares to do that.,CIA ACTIVITIES,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Vice President Humphrey has said that he is not happy with what the CIA has been doing in relation to financing student and other groups. What he said--does that reflect your view?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think any of us are happy to see our Nation divided and see our country upset about situations such as Mr. Katzenbach is now studying.,I think it would be better for all of us if we were united and if all of us could agree upon a wise course of action and be free of any mistakes, any errors.,I regret very much some of the intemperate statements and some of the severe criticisms that have been made about various Government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency. I have asked the best people in the Government to study everything they have done and to make a report to me. I expect to receive that report sometime-perhaps by the middle or the 20th of the month.2,2 See Item 147. A preliminary report from Under Secretary of State Nicholas deB. Katzenbach is published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, P. 297).,Then I will review it and make such decisions as may be indicated.,VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, sir, one point that some of your critics on Vietnam have discussed in the past week is the question of whether or not what we would ask in return for stopping the bombing has changed in the past year.,They say that a year ago, apparently we would have settled for simply getting talks if we stopped, whereas, now you are speaking of the need for reciprocal military action. Could you discuss this?,THE PRESIDENT. We have talked about reciprocal military action in every pause we have had, Mr. Bailey.3,3 Charles W. Bailey 2d, of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and the Des Moines Register and Tribune.,We have had five pauses now.,On the first pause of 5 days we made it very clear that we were taking this action and we would keep our ear to the receiver and listen intently for any indication from the enemy that he would take reciprocal action.,He turned our letter back to us on the third day of that pause.,Later, we had a 37-day pause. We were told before we went into that pause by some of the same people who are recommending a pause now, or urging a pause now, that if we would go into it for 12 days or at the most 20 days, we could get reciprocal action.,We made it very clear that we would take the initiative and we would try to see if they were willing to pick up the telephone.,We went 37 days. They gave us no indication that they were willing to take any reciprocal action.,We have just finished a pause of 6 days during the Tet period.,At the beginning of each of these pauses we made it clear that we were going to pause, ask our men to withhold action, and give them an opportunity to agree to come to conditional discussions, unconditional discussions, any kind of discussion. We have just completed that 6-day pause.,So I would respond to your question by saying at the beginning of each pause we made it clear that we would take action, we would listen intently for action on their part. We have. We have heard the same story every time.,I see nothing in any evidence that I have that would give me any indication that they have had a change of mind, or that they are willing to take any serious action to stop this war.,I am searching every day. I am following every lead I can. I hope that we will find something at the beginning of every week. But I can't give you any assurance now.,RUSSIAN VIEWS OF VIETNAM SITUATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in view of what Mr. Kosygin said after the truce ended and in view of what Mr. Podgorny has said as recently as today, do you still believe the Russians genuinely want peace in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I believe that the Russians genuinely want peace. I think that most people in the world want peace. Some want it on different terms.,I am hoping that the day will come when we can find some area of agreement. But I don't think that that day is here yet. We will just continue to try.,FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Martin's term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board expires at the end of this month. Can you tell us, sir, whether you have been pleased with the recent policies of the Federal Reserve and whether you intend to reappoint Mr. Martin?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that it was evident from my statement that--first, I think it is generally known that I am glad that interest rates have fallen and have come down. I think it is clear that they have been reduced from one-half of a percent in some instances to 1 1/4 percent in others.,I said in my statement today that that is in part due to the action of the Federal Reserve Board.,I am pleased with the action the Chairman and other members of the Board took that contributed to that.,CONDITIONS FOR VIETNAM SETTLEMENT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a public quarrel over the word \"permanent\" insofar as the bombing is concerned. The Russians are said not to be using that word and Hanoi has been said to insist upon it.,I wonder if you could straighten us out as to whether Hanoi is demanding a permanent end or simply an unconditional halt in the bombing.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to quarrel with anyone. I think it is rather dear to me that they have laid down conditions that to me mean that they insist that we agree to permanent cessation of bombing before they might talk.,Q. Mr. President, you and Secretary Rusk have both talked of a military quid pro quo and reciprocal action in exchange for a halt in the bombing. I wonder if you could be specific and say what we would require from the other side as part of this quid pro quo?,THE PRESIDENT. I think a good, general way to express it is what I said at my last press conference--just almost any reciprocal action on their part. We have said that we would be glad to stop our invasion of North Vietnam if they would stop their invasion of South Vietnam.,We would be glad to halt our bombing if they would halt their aggression and their infiltration. We are prepared to discuss anything that they are willing to discuss. But they are not willing to discuss anything, as of now.,RELATIONS WITH SOVIET UNION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I know you believe in reciprocity. I wonder if you have been able to get the Russians to give us any promises? We are making so many promises and overtures to them, with good will and desire for concessions.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have reached an agreement that is satisfactory to us and in our national interest in a number of fields. I do not think that I should take your time to enumerate them. But the consular agreement is one that is now being debated. Cultural exchange is another. The space agreement is another.,We are working very diligently, although we do not know what results will be forthcoming, in connection with the nonproliferation treaty. Discussions will soon begin in connection with offensive and defensive nuclear weapons. Ambassador Thompson will participate in those discussions in Moscow.,We have exchanged ideas, and views, and reached agreements to the benefit of both countries and both peoples.,SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCEDURES,[12.] Q. I wonder if you could deal with two points on the draft. Your Advisory Commission suggested that the Negro and other minority groups were getting a poor shake in many areas of this country in military policies. They also suggested that in addition to the random selection system that you have now endorsed, that you overhaul the whole Selective Service procedure.,Tell us, first, whether you think the overhaul is necessary to correct the situation for minorities; and secondly, why the random system seems to be drawing so much opposition?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I cannot speak for the opposition. I can only speak for myself. It has been many years since we had a thorough study of the draft such as we have had very recently by two distinguished panels, the Marshall commission 4 and the General Clark commission.5,4 The National Advisory Commission on Selective Service under the chairmanship of Burke Marshall. Its report is entitled \"In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves When Not All Serve?\" (Government Printing Office, 219 pp.).,5 The Civilian Advisory Panel on Military Manpower Procurement, chaired by Gen. Mark W. Clark. Its report to the House Committee on Armed Services is dated March 28, 1967 (Committee Print, 90th Cong., 1st sess., 30 pp.).,I think they made many good recommendations. I think there will be more yet to come that will flow from the debate in the Congress. Unquestionably, in the field of the Selective Service boards and the draft machinery, as in the general machinery of Government at all levels, there has been discrimination against minority groups. I will do all I can to see that that is corrected. I don't believe our people want to see that happen or want to see that continued.,I expect that the system now being worked on by General Hershey and Secretary McNamara, when we issue our Executive order, will be a fair and impartial random selection.,I realize that there are differing opinions. We will hear much of them during the extensive debate. But generally speaking, I agree with the conclusions reached by Mr. Marshall and his commission. I stated this in my message to the Congress. I want to hear the debate on the student deferment matter from both sides. The commission was divided on that question. And then I will reach a decision when the Congress has had a chance to act.,PLANS FOR 1968,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Ted Sorenson contends that it would be breaking historical precedent for you, as a President who succeeded to office, to seek a second full term.,Would you end all this speculation for us and tell us (a) if you intend to run in 1968; and (b) if Hubert Humphrey will be your running mate?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't know, Miss Means,6 there had been that much speculation about it.,6 Marianne Means of Hearst Newspapers.,I am not ready to make a decision about my future after January of 1969 at this time. I think that down the road--several months from now--would be the appropriate time for an announcement of my future plans.,I have never known a public servant that I worked better with or for whom I had more admiration, or who I thought was more entitled to the public trust than the Vice President. I felt that way when I asked the convention in Atlantic City to select him. I feel even stronger about it today.,THE \"OTHER WAR\" IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, David Lilienthal and Robert Komer 7 recently reported to you on the \"other war\" in Vietnam. As I understand it, they said that there was substantial progress in establishing a constitutional democracy. They reported economic progress. In fact, I gather the only place we weren't making any progress was in the propaganda war.,7 See Item 73.,But their reports seem to be so different from what we are hearing on radio and television, I don't know if it is at variance or just exactly how to describe it. Can you tell us how you appraise the \"other war\" and why so little is known about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not sure that Presidents are objective viewers or listeners.,I recall some very distinguished President not many years ago saying he was reading more and more, and liking it less and less. I guess all Presidents feel that way the longer they are in office.,I do think that Mr. Komer brought back an optimistic appraisal of the situation in Vietnam. I think that we have made great progress there. It has been only 18 months since we sent our troops there.,I don't think we can expect any quick, overnight success story.,I will be receiving a report sometime later this month from both General Westmoreland in person, and from Ambassador Lodge, and from Mr. Porter and all of those engaged in Vietnam.,We meet about every 6 months. We will review in some detail our weaknesses out there--and they are legion--as well as our strengths.,I am very proud of what the United States Government has been able to do in the last 18 months in that area.,I am very sure of victory. I am very grateful to the men who are making sacrifices to bring it about.,THE WEST COAST SHIPYARD STRIKE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, have you made any decision on the West Coast strike against 13 shipyards?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have ordered a directive prepared. The lawyers are working on it now. Perhaps the secretary is typing it. I will send later today a directive to the Attorney General to proceed on a Taft-Hartley injunction.,I think as you know, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service over the past 4 months has worked rather intensively but they have been unable to resolve this very difficult labor dispute.,The Secretaries of Defense and Labor and the Attorney General have recommended that I establish an emergency board.,I understand the Attorney General will very likely go to court in San Francisco perhaps tomorrow morning on the matter.,DIFFERING OPINIONS ON VIETNAM POLICY,[16.] Q. Mr. President, two points on Vietnam: Do you think the critics of your policy, particularly those critics within your own party, are basing their criticisms on misinformation; and, second, at what point would you activate the pledge that you just reiterated a moment ago of going more than halfway for peace, or do you feel you have already gone more than halfway?,THE PRESIDENT. Just at any point that I had an opportunity, that I had a signal from the other side, of what their intentions were, what they were willing to do.,They have taken a rather steadfast position. There has been little flexibility in it. If I could get any sign from them or any indication from them that they were anxious to stop the war, that they were serious about it, that they were willing to talk unconditionally or conditionally, I would act very promptly.,Second, so far as the critics of the Vietnam situation are concerned, I must grant to them the same sincerity that I reserve for myself.,Now as to the extent of their information, I think that varies. I think some men have more than others. Some men have more opportunity to have it than others.,I am just not in a position to know how much information each critic of my policy in Vietnam happens to have at the time he makes his criticism.,I might say that it seems obvious to me that some of them do need more information sometimes. Because when they make suggestions following a course of action that we have just completed, it makes me wish that all this information was available to everybody who is assuming responsibilities in the matter.,MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR LODGE AND GENERAL WESTMORELAND,[17.] Q. Mr. President, are Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland coming here for a conference?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I expect we will meet them in the Pacific area somewhere. I would expect it would be perhaps sometime this month.,EFFECT OF APOLLO TRAGEDY ON SPACE PROGRAM,[18.] Q. Mr. President, is there any information you have from the Space Agency, sir, on whether our goal of landing men on the moon in 1970 will be altered because of the Apollo tragedy? 8,THE PRESIDENT. I have had reports from them. I think we have a very difficult undertaking. I think it has been a very close question since the original target date was set.,8 See Item 19,,I am very hopeful we will be able to keep it. I don't think there is any guarantee that we will at all.,SALE OF RIFLES TO SINGAPORE,[19.] Q. Mr. President, some question has arisen about lightweight rifles that have been sent to neutral Singapore on a straight sale basis while our Korean allies in Vietnam have been urging the United States to provide some.,Can you tell us if this has come to your attention?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Our people are always very anxious that every one of our men have the best and most modern equipment available at all times. I have scrupulously inquired of General Westmoreland if our men are short of any supplies or any equipment at any time. He has assured me that they have been amply equipped and amply taken care of.,We have, from time to time, helped other nations. Some of the equipment we have had has gone to them.,Whether or not any equipment that has gone to them was desperately needed in any other theater, I would doubt.,I think that we can rely on commanders of the stature of General Westmoreland. I think he is closer to the scene. I think he knows more about it. I think he is a better authority.,While I do not question either the purpose or the sincerity of the individuals who assume to make suggestions in this area--and I will carefully consider them--at the present time I am going to rely on General Westmoreland's judgment unless somebody gives me something better.,Merriman Smith: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-03-02","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] For your information, prior to visiting with HEW, I am going to drop by Howard University. Today is the 100th anniversary of the signing of the legislation that brought Howard University into existence.1,1 See Items 81 and 82.,I have been requested to appear there at a brief ceremony that they are holding. I shall go out a little earlier.,For any of you who may want to go, there will be transportation for you. If you don't want to go, there will be a pool that can report to you on it.,DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[2.] I have a brief announcement to make. I have received a reply from Chairman Kosygin to my letter of January 27.2 This reply confirmed the willingness of the Soviet Government to discuss means of limiting the arms race in offensive and defensive nuclear missiles.,2 The text of the letters was not made public.,This exchange of views is expected to lead to further discussions of this subject in Moscow and with our allies. It is my hope that a means can be found to achieve constructive results.,I will be glad to take any questions in the time allotted to me.,QUESTIONS,Q. Mr. President, this applies, did I understand correctly, to offensive weapons as well as the establishment of an antimissile system?,THE PRESIDENT. Offensive and defensive.,Q. Mr. President, on what level will these discussions be?,THE PRESIDENT. They will be in Moscow with Ambassador Thompson. Then we will see how they progress.,Q. Mr. President, will these Moscow discussions be concurrent with the ones going on in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference going on in Geneva?,THE PRESIDENT. Not necessarily. They are not timed in connection with any other conferences.,As you know, I sent Chairman Kosygin a letter and asked him to consider the desirability of an exchange of views in this regard. He has responded. We would assume that the discussions would be initiated with Ambassador Thompson. I wouldn't go further than that at this time.,Q. Mr. President, do you see an interconnection between Senate passage of the consular treaty, the space treaty, East-West trade, and a nonproliferation treaty? Do you see these as kind of one movement?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they are all very desirable moves in the national interest of the United States.,When I became President, one of the first steps I took in the first few weeks I was President was to communicate with Chairman Khrushchev and suggest that we explore together certain agreements that would be beneficial to both nations in promoting peace in the world.,Exchanges between our two countries resulted in: the signing of the civil air agreement; the signing of the consular agreement, which I devoutly hope will be ratified by the Senate, and about which I have had innumerable conversations with the leaders of this Congress of both parties; the progress that has been made in the nonproliferation agreement--although we have not come to a complete meeting of the minds with all of the individuals involved, we have made progress; the space agreement, which we hope the Senate will act favorably upon; the East-West trade, which is being considered.,We have recommended all of those. We hope that the Congress will confirm our judgment that they are in the best interests of the United States. They were not made as a package move. They were made as individual recommendations.,But I do think that what your question implies is: Does that reflect a policy on the part of this Government of attempting to find areas of agreement with the Soviet Union?,The answer is, yes. We are exploring, with every means at our command, every possible way of relieving tensions in the world and promoting peace in the world.,HOUSE ACTION ON REPRESENTATIVE ADAM CLAYTON POWELL.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any reaction to the House action denying Mr. Powell a seat?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would have no comment on that matter, other than what you have been given before, that it is a matter for the Members of the House that is reserved to them by the Constitution.,The President doesn't engage in internal affairs of the House or the Senate.,VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, sir, the Prime Minister of North Vietnam is quoted in a dispatch from Hanoi this morning as saying there is no present possibility of talks and the NLF representative in Hanoi is quoted in the same dispatch as saying now there is one way open to us--to struggle until final victory.,In the light of these comments, could you comment on our objectives at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. We are in Vietnam because of the violation of two solemn international agreements.,In 1954 Hanoi agreed that North Vietnam should not be used for the resumption of hostilities or to further an aggressive policy.,In 1962 Hanoi agreed to withdraw all of its military forces from Laos, to refrain from reintroducing such forces, and not to use the territory of Laos to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.,If I had the time, I would go in some detail into the recommendations that General Maxwell Taylor made to President Kennedy in his report of November 3, 1961, after Hanoi had violated the Geneva Declaration of 1954, but before the Geneva Declaration of 1962 was finally completed.,Referring to that report General Taylor said, among other things, that his recommendation that he made at that time was not \"the final word.\" Then he went on to add that it might be necessary to attack the sources of supply at their source if they continued to insist on aggression.,We have made it abundantly clear that we were willing to have a complete cease-fire at any time they were willing to cease attack and cease aggression.,They have made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to do that, notwithstanding the \"reports\" that you refer to from time to time.,It is very dear to us that if they are going to bomb Pleiku as they did and kill our men in the middle of the night, if they are going to bomb Danang as they did just a few days ago, if they are going to lob their mortar shells into the backs of our soldiers as they did last night, you must, if you are at all fair to those men who are defending you there, permit them to respond.,They will respond, they are responding, and they will continue to respond, I believe, successfully.,I think that the American people should know that this is a question between their President, their country, their troops, and Mr. Ho Chi Minh and the troops that he is sending in from the North. Everyone can take whatever side of the matter that he wants to.,As far as this Government is concerned, we have, from the very beginning, tried to keep our hand out and our guard up. We have tried to extend the hand of peace and say that we are willing to cease fire, for unconditional discussions, for 4 points, or 14 points, or any points, but if they were unwilling to do that and they insisted on carrying on their offensive, our men had to be in a position to respond?,8 On the previous day Secretaries Rusk and McNamara held a press briefing during which they summarized their reports to the President on the diplomatic and military situation in Vietnam. The text of their remarks is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, P. 351).,DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, may I go back to your statement on the Soviet willingness to limit the arms race? Is it your understanding from Chairman Kosygin's letter that they will now cease the construction of antiballistic missile systems while we discuss the problem?,THE PRESIDENT. My understanding of his letter is reflected in seven simple sentences. There will be a transcript available to you. I wouldn't go beyond that.,I don't think there is any implication that is not made dear.,Q. Mr. President, if you have told us this, I missed it: Can you give us some idea as to when the conversations are going to start?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have a date on that. It will be at a mutually satisfactory time. We will be very glad for them to start at the earliest possible date.,Q. Mr. President, can you give us the date on the Kosygin letter?,THE PRESIDENT. My letter was January 27, and I don't have the date of his at the moment.,NEW ORLEANS CHALLENGE OF WARREN COMMISSION CONCLUSIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you appointed the members of the Warren Commission, sir. I believe at a news conference recently you said you saw no reason from stories that had been written to doubt the conclusions of the Commission.,The District Attorney in New Orleans 4 is attracting worldwide attention with statements now. First of all, he challenges the Warren Commission's conclusions and he does not want to cooperate, it appears, with the Federal Government in a case that involves a matter of very severe national importance. How do you feel about this?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not have any information from New Orleans, other than what I have seen in the newspapers. I would not have any comment to make with the limited information I have seen in the newspapers at this time. I know of no reason to change anything that I have said before.,4 James Garrison.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON DISCUSSION WITH SOVIET UNION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Chairman Kosygin's letter refers to offensive and defensive nuclear missiles. Did your letter go so far or was your proposal limited to defensive?,THE PRESIDENT. My letter was prompted by the desire to raise the question of defensive weapons. We had previously raised the question of offensive weapons.,The Chairman's reply to us is agreeable to us. We are very glad to have the opportunity to discuss both, as we had indicated previously, although not in the same channels.,Q. Mr. President, was your January 27 letter prompted primarily by the Soviet antimissile system being deployed around Moscow, the one you mentioned recently?,THE PRESIDENT. The January 27 letter was prompted by two primary reasons. First, the desire to have a discussion involving the limitation of arms, whenever 'possible, that might lead to an agreement. We are constantly pursuing any courses that might lead to an agreement that would be in the interest of the people of the world.,Second, before reaching a final decision on the course this Government would follow in connection with a defensive system,,I think we would like to explore an agreement.,In any event, we would like to have some discussions and be sure we couldn't get an agreement before we made a very basic decision that was far-reaching, comprehensive, and one on which we could not turn back.,Q. Mr. President, during the discussion, what will be the status of the research and development on the antiballistic missile? Will it continue or be suspended?,THE PRESIDENT. I assume both countries will continue with whatever efforts they think are desirable. I would see no reason for us to suspend work that we have underway.,Q. Mr. President, I didn't understand what you said earlier, referring to six sentences about the transcript. Could we have the texts of the exchange of the two leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. I think at this time I will limit you to my statement on the subject. That will be in the transcript. I will read it again, if you have the time and if I have the time. If not, it will be in the transcript.,Q. Sir, can you tell us exactly when you received the letter?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have that.,Q. Not when it was dated, when you received it.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have the date of the letter or the time it was received.,Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility of you and Mr. Kosygin meeting in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. I see nothing in this that would indicate that now.,Merriman Smith (UPI): Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-02-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I will take any questions you have.,QUESTIONS,VIETNAM,[1.] Q. Sir, over the weekend we have had reports from Saigon about three new kinds of military actions--shelling by the Navy, the mining, and the long-range artillery fire into North Vietnam.,Can you give us a reading on whether this represents a step-up in U.S. activities? Do you regard it as any change in the level of the war?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would say that there is some activity taking place that we would not say has been normal through the past weeks, particularly the truce period. I think you could, if you searched, find some comparable action here and there, some similar actions.,I wouldn't want to put my credibility in doubt by saying it never had happened before and then have somebody do a little research and find that on occasion something had happened that was at least comparable.,But I think it is fair to say that this is action over and above what has been taking place over the last few weeks. Certainly it is more far-reaching.,The step-up may connote something that I wouldn't want to embrace, but I would say it is more far-reaching.,Q. Would you say, sir, you would characterize it as just keeping the pressure on? You have spoken of that kind of an approach.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say we don't need to label it, really. I think what we would want to conclude, really, is that our military and civilian leaders are doing what they believe is best to do to protect the safety, the lives of our men there and to try to bring about a halt to the war and the aggression.,I don't mean that it necessarily follows that we ought to have a slogan for it. But it does represent the reasoned judgment of our military and civilian men that this is desirable and essential in the context of our situation there, namely, their infiltration and their buildups and so forth.,Q. Sir, I was going to ask if they consulted with you before or after the action.,THE PRESIDENT. What action?,Q. This action they have just taken now. Did they make you aware of it before?,THE PRESIDENT. Sure, we are always in touch with them on the situation out there; that is through our military people, our Ambassador, and sometimes direct, and through the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.,Q. Mr. President, there were reports out of Saigon that there is a military victory psychologically there now. Is that reflected in the reports you have been getting?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think we ought to speculate on that. I would have to be explaining whatever I said ad infinitum if I did.,I think we are doing the best we can to bring about peace in the area, to deter aggression and to bring an end to the hostilities. I think the men are giving a very good account of themselves.,APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,[2.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any idea of how soon you expect to appoint an Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would think very soon. If I didn't think you would criticize me I would appoint one now. You like to get it mimeographed, don't you?,Q. No, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Can I get a commitment it will be all right with you if I name one now?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I will very shortly.,VIETNAM,[3.] Q. Mr. President, this stepped-up action or far-reaching action,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't embrace that. You and Bailey 1 get together on those slogans.,1 Charles W. Bailey 2d of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune.,Q. You did say it was far-reaching, did you not? Does this make the situation more ominous? Are we moving far away from hopes of peace to come?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so.,Q. Mr. President, does it represent a recognition of failure of political or diplomatic efforts to bring peace?,THE PRESIDENT. None whatever. We have fired from ships before. We have done what we could to stop supplies coming down before.,As I said, I believe it is more far-reaching than some of the actions before, but I wouldn't interpret it beyond that.,Q. Mr. President, last week Congressman Laird said, in effect, that you should give the American people and the Congress the report on the Vietnam war, the Vietnam situation that you mentioned in your State of the Union Message. Do you intend to give them anything like that or some similar report in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. I do that almost daily. I did it at such length in the State of the Union that some of you felt that the message was too long because I had to go into some of my views on Vietnam there.,Some of the reporters said we spent too much time just talking on one subject in the last press conference. We do plan, from time to time, in our testimony and in our statements, to review that with the various Congressmen and with the people.,As a matter of fact, one Cabinet officer spent over 50 hours on that subject this year. He has released statements, I believe, almost 200 pages on Vietnam. It will be necessary for us to do some more of it as we go along. It will be present in all of our exchanges and speeches and testimony on different things. I think it should be.,I don't know of anything new that I can say that I haven't said. I met with the joint leadership of the Congress this morning at breakfast at 8:30. I reviewed with them some of these subjects in some detail.,I will be doing that with the American people from time to time. Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara also will.,INTER-AMERICAN MEETING IN BUENOS AIRES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us at this point any views on the inter-American meeting in Buenos Aires and your own plans in that respect?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We discussed that this morning. I met with the bipartisan leadership to have a general exchange of views. It lasted approximately 2 1/2 hours. Mr. Christian 2 can give you the exact timing.,2 George E. Christian, Special Assistant to the President.,Secretary Rusk reported in some detail on his meeting with the foreign ministers. He told them the date of the conference, the conference first suggested by a Latin American President.,We were asked if we could attend. We told them we would try to do so. Subsequently, in Mexico in our trip there, you will remember I said we would be glad to attend if they decided they wanted to have a conference.,Since then I have met with the President of Mexico on two occasions. We have discussed it. The foreign ministers have met and we have all concluded that if an agenda can be worked out that would meet with the approval of the Latin Americans that they would evolve an agenda and the foreign ministers go over it and reach conclusions on it, that we would be glad to attend and be available and participate. We plan to do that.,I believe the place is Punta del Este. I believe the dates are April 12 through 14.3 We did review the agenda, the economic matters, and others that we will discuss there.,3 See Items 171, 173, 175-178.,The Secretary said, in effect, that the conference was very serious and very successful; it concentrated on the problems of economic integration. There will be five or six items on the agenda.,PLANS TO VISIT OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES,[5.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us whether your plan, at this time, includes visiting any other Latin American areas on this trip?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I could not. I do not have any plans at this time to do so. I do not anticipate doing so, but would not want to foreclose that possibility.,We might have to touch down and get gas somewhere and we might want to, if the time allowed, go some other place. But we have no plans now to do so.,THE ECONOMY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do the signs, somewhat, of the slowdown in the economy demand more of you this moment than the release of the highway funds? Are you planning to step up to an earlier time the lifting of the investment credit or any other action on money? 4,THE PRESIDENT. We will follow this very closely on a day-to-day basis. There is not anything unusual. The Council of Economic Advisers have reported their views and my views to the country. That is where we stand as of this time. We did that last September.,4 On February 20, 1967, the White House had made public a report to the President from Alexander B. Trowbridge, Acting Secretary of Commerce, on the impact of investment tax credit suspension. The report stated that capital spending programs planned for 1967 had been trimmed $2.3 billion below what private industry would have spent in the absence of the legislation, and that 1966 capital expenditures had been reduced by over $300 million.,The complete report is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 3, p. 288).,We said that we felt that if we could take these series of actions--several were contemplated as you recall. One was to ask the States and the cities and other public bodies to share with the business people of the country the responsibility of cooling some and of resisting inflationary pressures by not putting gasoline on the fire.,We called the Governors, the mayors, the businessmen, and the Federal Government in for a series of meetings. Thirty-four of the leaders of the Congress asked us not to put all the responsibility for restraint either on the Federal Reserve, through monetary restraints, or private business, through plant and equipment expenditures.,So we pledged to them then, when we sent that message in September, that we would attempt to defer, stretch out, hold back a series of allotments there to the extent of $3 billion in programs--emphasize, capitalize programs--and to have the Federal Government share some of that responsibility.,In addition to that, we had withholding action of $600 million on soldiers' housing at that time. The housing has waited about 18 months. We have released that because we felt, first, the economy could take it, and second, that the soldiers shouldn't have to take it any longer. They had waited 18 months.,Two, we released $250 million in private housing, because housing dropped from a rate of 1,200,000 to 800,000 plus. We thought that had gone far enough and that we should do something to help that field. They had been restrained enough so we released $250 million.,Third, I suggested to the Secretary of Transportation over the weekend--and we have consulted the Governors--that we would release $175 million of the $1.1 billion in highway allocations, in authorizations, that had been temporarily withheld. This will permit them to do some planning, particularly in connection with safety, right of way, bids and things of that nature. It will equalize some of the hardships that have taken place. We said we would move the date that would end it up to July from October.,There is not a great deal of difference there. But it would provide 2 or 3 months so they could plan, could see, could get in the work in the summer months when weather is not such a big problem in construction. We are going to release $175 million immediately. We are speaking of allocations.,I think I had better break this up. The whole expenditure is only $400 million. We are going to try to bring the $400 million expenditure back in line by the end of the fiscal year. That is what our commitment was originally. I don't think that is because of the economic condition. But it is taken in the light of the economic condition.,We think it is a good time. We think it won't heat up things like it did last September. The plant equipment that was 18 percent over last year when we took these series of actions--Governor Rockefeller took some very excellent ones in New York, Governor Hughes in New Jersey took some good measures, and the other Governors did, too-but when some other Governors and mayors did defer, it had the effect of bringing it down where they are estimating 6 or 7 rather than 18.,Q. Down to rather than off the top?,THE PRESIDENT. An increase of 6 or 7 over last year instead of 18.,VIEWS OF SECRETARY RUSK AND SECRETARY MCNAMARA,[7.] Q. There was surprise last week when Secretary McNamara felt obliged to say that he had never disagreed with Secretary Rusk on the bombing in the North.,Can you elaborate on why he felt so obliged?,THE PRESIDENT. The reports, you know, back and forth, from the testimony said: \"Doesn't this involve a difference of opinion? It seems to us, when you are testifying here that you intimate that this is the situation and the Secretary seems to intimate this way. Do we concede that to be a difference in viewpoint? And does it actually exist?\",I haven't discussed this with him, but from what I have seen and read--what was the word you used?,Q. Obliged.,THE PRESIDENT. He did feel obliged to protect his credibility. That is the truth. These are facts. I am unaware at any time that we have ever met and discussed these high .policy matters when we didn't leave the room in general agreement on general decisions.,That not only applies to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, but it applies to other civilians in the Government.,I have never observed two men who I thought could represent the State and Defense Departments more successfully and also the national interest more cooperatively.,Secretary Rusk is a man with some background in not only diplomatic matters, but in military, too. Secretary McNamara is a man with some civilian diplomatic background. He understands Secretary Rusk's problems and Secretary Rusk understands Secretary McNamara's problems.,We are very fortunate in the respect that they not only understand each other, but that we have men of such high caliber in high places, men who have had 6 years experience in their jobs.,Their experience is a great asset to this country. They have gone through a great many trials together.,VIETNAM,[8.] Q. Are these far-reaching steps being taken because the bombing has not halted the infiltration into the South, and do you have any better reading than you did a few weeks ago on that rate of infiltration?,THE PRESIDENT. I want to reconstruct your statement a little bit. Rather than put a slogan on it of some kind, I would say that the action itself is more far-reaching than it was the day before or something. That is what I mean. I don't mean to imply that these are in themselves a far-reaching thing. That is clear?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to get that connotation in that context.,No, I don't think that we can state with any great precision how many individuals are in South Vietnam because we didn't bomb or did bomb during a period. We were very careful about that. Some people will put up a straw man sometimes and say bombing hasn't done what you said it would do.,Well, if you will go back to what we said it would do when we started there--and what we said in Baltimore in April--generally speaking, we feel that it has done those things that we expected it to do.,No one has ever expected, except those who want us to stop it, that bombing would stop infiltration. So that is my comment on your question. We never thought it would stop infiltration.,We do think that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are busy trying to put the bridges back and the railroad ties back, and the other things back. I would estimate we have lost less than 500 men in our bombing experiences. Probably we have lost a billion dollars in planes. We thought that we could make them pay a rather heavy price in manpower.,They may have a hundred thousand busy on air defense. They may have a hundred thousand or so busy on coastal defense. I don't want to be held to these figures.,I am just illustrating there are a substantial number of people engaged in these activities. Some have estimated as many as 300,000 additional on roads, rails, and these other things--if they were busy in cleaning up after them, repairing the roads, bridges, and railroad ties.,So you have a labor force of 500,000 there busy doing these things that the 500 men who lost their lives brought about.,If they weren't doing that they would be down there with some of your cousins and brothers doing other things or bringing in other things. Their efforts in this direction now would be doing something else. We know that. We do think it has cost them. We do think from their own voices and their sympathizers and their friends in the world that there are good indications that they would like to see the bombing stopped. They would like to see these men unrestrained and let them go on to doing other things that our men over there, our 500,000, would have to defend.,I don't know how much more ammunition these people would be down there using and fighting if they weren't building bridges. You can't be precise on all of those things.,I think the proof is in their own statements, how they feel about stopping this activity. Just as I would like all of you to write and talk and speak on the stopping of the bombing of Danang yesterday. I assume there will be a good many speeches today, a good many editorials tomorrow, and a good many columns from the press that will really say that the bombing of Danang yesterday was a very bad thing because it killed a number of Americans, wounded a number of Americans. It destroyed a lot of things on that air base. The hand grenades and mortars they fired did this.,We know it hurts us. We assume it hurts them. We believe it does.,Does that answer what you want me to say?,Q. Yes.,PROSPECTS FOR PEACE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you answered a question a few minutes ago as to whether the present moves in Vietnam were ominous and were leading away from peacemaking and the conference table by saying no. I would like to turn the question around, if I could.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I can predict exactly what is in somebody else's mind or heart. It is not our purpose or our belief that this is what is happening.,I have a quotation here that someone sent me in a letter signed yesterday from one of the great men that America has produced, General Stimson,5 Secretary of War and State. It says:,5 Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War under Presidents William Howard Taft, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry S. Truman, and Secretary of State during the administration of President Herbert Hoover.,\"The sinfulness and weakness of man are evident to anyone who lives in the active world. But men are also good and great, kind and wise. Honor begets honor; trust begets trust; faith begets faith; and hope is the mainspring of life. I have lived with the reality of war, and I have praised soldiers; but the hope of honorable faithful peace is a greater thing and I have lived with that, too.,\"That a man must live with both together is inherent in the nature of our present stormy stage of human progress, but it has also many times been the nature of progress in the past, and it is not reason for despair . . .,\"We have been late in meeting danger, but not too late. We have been wrong, but not basically wicked. And today with that strength and soundness of heart we can meet and master the future . . .,\"Let them learn from our adventures what they can. Let them charge us with our failures and do better in their turn. But let them not turn aside from what they have to do, nor think that criticism excuses inaction. Let them have hope, and virtue, and let them believe in mankind and its future, for there is good as well as evil, and the man who tries to work for the good, believing in its eventual victory, while he may suffer setback and even disaster, will never know defeat. The only deadly sin I know is cynicism.\",I don't say that all of that is pertinent to your immediate question. But I think that each day the big road we follow is a search for peace. Everything we do is in that direction.,I believe that what I am doing--the course open to me now--is best calculated to bring that about. I don't mean that I can do that tomorrow. I don't think I can. But I don't see any other alternative.,I think doing nothing would take me much further away from it. Our principal objective there is to provide the maximum deterrent to people who believe aggression pays with a minimum cost to us and to them.,Do you want to follow through on that?,Q. No.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think we have to be limited in this conference. One of the things I think about in an exchange of questions like this, if you ask a question you can follow through, which you don't always get to do on TV.,Q. I wanted to be sure we got a positive rather than a purely negative answer to whether in your judgment you consider the moves in Vietnam are positive in the direction of peacemaking. I think you have answered that.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to predict that they are going to bring that about and be held up to scorn next week for being a poor prophet. But I do believe this is the best course.,I have evaluated a good many options. As you see, a good many are suggested from time to time.,TACTICS IN VIETNAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in view of these new moves in Vietnam, what do you say to those who say you haven't gone far enough, especially in light of the mining of the waterways? You have still left Haiphong untouched.,THE PRESIDENT [quoting from Lincoln]. \"I will do the very best I know how--the very best I can; and I mean to keep on doing it until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said about me won't amount to anything.,\"If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.,\"if I will try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business.\",That is generally the way I approach these suggestions that I have from day to day. I think they are indispensable to the democratic form of government. They are very good.,I went around the table this morning and asked every man there to make his comments. I heard expressed some views I considered extreme one way or the other. I am sure they can pay me the same compliment.,But after all those exchanges--as President Truman says, \"The buck stops here\"--I finally have to do what I believe is right. Even when you put it off as long as you can and you do it then a few hours later, there is some strange something that will wake you up and say, \"Did you think of these two points?\" Then you consider them.,But we have taken the actions that we think are best calculated to protect the national interest of this country, freedom in the world, and humanity everywhere.,From time to time we will make mistakes and we will make decisions that will be open to question. We try to get all the information we can.,We try to hear all the experts we can. We try to get all the civilian advice we can. One time last year the congressional leadership said that we were consulting too much. After these consultations, then we make the decision.,One of the great men in the country said to me a few weeks ago, \"Call in all of your civilians and listen to them. Then call in your Joint Chiefs of Staff and listen to them. Then call in all your scientists and listen to them. Get representatives of all groups of various administrations. Then,\" he said, \"go over there to that bedroom and pray, pray. You may be wrong with what you do then.\",That is what we try m do with these things. Some of the decisions, people think, are very late in coming. That is true.,But in my judgment, if they weren't wise we wouldn't have made them. I may be wrong in that. I know I am in some instances, but I don't see some of the things that other people think ought to be done now nor do my advisers. That is why we haven't done them.,POLITICAL CRITICISM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, some of the criticism of our situation in Vietnam has been political rather than strategic. For example, Governor Romney has said political expediency has led us to where we are now. Do you have any response?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not want to get into that.,AMBASSADOR GOLDBERG'S TRIP,[12.] Q. Would you be surprised if Ambassador Goldberg turned up in Burma now with the North Vietnamese committee there which is meeting with U Thant?,THE PRESIDENT. Ambassador Goldberg, I think, had intended to visit Burma originally. If my memory serves me correctly, it is one of the countries I asked him to visit. Because of the hearings he had to divide his trip.,I have not been informed just where that division will be. I don't think you should place any unusual significance on whether he did it in the first trip or the second trip, or the second or the first trip.,Q. I meant at this particular time when the North Vietnamese are supposed to be there.,THE PRESIDENT. He is not on any peace mission. He is visiting some of the areas.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-02-02","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,CONSULAR CONVENTION WITH THE U.S.S.R.,[1.] I have been asked to give a statement about the consular convention that is pending before the United States Senate.,I should like to say very briefly that I hope the Senate will give its advice and consent to the proposed convention with the U.S.S.R. I feel very strongly that the ratification of this treaty is very much in our national interest. I feel this way for two principal reasons:,First, we need this treaty to protect 18,000 American citizens who each year travel from this country to the Soviet The convention requires immediate notification to us whenever an American is arrested in the Soviet Union. It insures our right to visit that citizen within 4 and as often thereafter as is desirable.,We think that we need these rights help to protect American citizens. These are rights which the Soviet citizens already have who travel in this country, because guaranteed by our Constitution.,Second, the convention does not require the opening of consulates in this country or in the Soviet Union. It does provide that should any such consulate be opened, the officials would have diplomatic immunity.,The Secretary of State informs me that no negotiations for consulates are underway and that the most that he can envision in the foreseeable future is the opening of one consulate in each country, to be manned by from 10 to 15 people.,There are presently 452 Soviet officials in the United States who have diplomatic immunity. If an additional consulate were opened, and if another 10 were added to the 452, Mr. Hoover has assured me that this small increment would raise no problems which the FBI cannot effectively and efficiently deal with.,In short, I think we very much need this convention to protect American interests, and to protect American citizens abroad. In my judgment, it raises no problem with respect to our national security. Therefore, I hope very much that the Senate, in its wisdom, after full debate, will see fit to ratify it.1 I will be glad to have any questions.,1 For the President's statement of March 16 following Senate approval of the convention, see Item 119.,QUESTIONS,VIETNAM,[2.] Q. We are hearing and reading and writing a good deal lately about diplomacy aimed at a Vietnam settlement. I wonder if you could give us your assessment of the peace front at this time.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier 2 states a question that I know is on the minds of all the people here today and all the people in this country.,2 Frank Cormier of the Associated Press.,As you know, I have underlined over and over again the very deep interest of the United States in a prompt and peaceful settlement of all the problems in Southeast Asia.,I have said many times that we are ready to go more than halfway in achieving this result.,I would remind all of you that we would welcome a conference in Southeast Asia. This might be a Geneva conference. It could be an all-Asian conference, or any other generally acceptable forum.,We would be glad to see the unconditional discussions to which I referred in my statement of April 1965 at Johns Hopkins.,We would participate in preliminary discussions which might open the way for formal negotiations.,We are prepared today to talk about mutual steps of deescalation.,We would be prepared to talk about such subjects as the exchange of prisoners, the demilitarization, or the demilitarized zone, or any other aspect which might take even a small step in the direction of peace.,We would be prepared to discuss any points which the other side wishes to bring up, along with points which we and our allies very much want to raise ourselves.,Or there could be preliminary discussions to see whether there could be an agreed set of points which could be the basis for negotiation.,So it is against this background that we study very carefully all of the public statements made which appear from time to time and which bear upon Southeast Asia, and all the views which we receive from or through other governments.,It would not be helpful to me--and I do not intend to do so--to comment on any particular channel or communications at this point. But you may be sure that we are diligent in our search for the possibility of peaceful settlement.,In all candor, I must say that I am not aware of any serious effort that the other side has made, in my judgment, to bring the fighting to a stop and to stop the war.,Q. Mr. President, you have been so eloquent in the past about expressing your desire for peaceful negotiations. I would like to ask you whether or not--if you thought it would speed this war down the road to peace--you would be willing personally to participate in negotiations with some of your opposite numbers, such as the leadership in Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made clear that if the other side desires to discuss peace at any time, we will be very happy to have appropriate arrangements made to see that that is carried out.,Where we would talk, who would talk, what we would talk about are all matters that could be worked out between the two governments involved.,We have made clear to them, and to the world, the principles that we believe must govern a peace meeting of this kind, and a settlement that we would hope would come out of it: the honoring of the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962, the right of self-determination for the people of South Vietnam, to insure that they are freed from the threat or use of force.,But we have, I must say, as of today no indication that the other side is prepared in any way to settle on these limited and decent terms.,We hope very much that we can have some signals in that direction, but I in candor must say that as of now we do not have.,Q. Mr. President, does your expressed willingness to negotiate a peaceful settlement imply any willingness to compromise on any of our stated objectives in that part of the world?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that any peace agreement will involve understandings on both parts and certain concessions on both parts and certain understandings. I don't think that we can determine those before we come together, or through any press conference techniques.,I can only repeat what I said in the State of the Union: that I wish that the conflict in Vietnam was over.,And I can only repeat what I have said: so many times: I will do anything I can the part of this Government to go more than halfway to bring it to an end.,I must say that we face great costs. We face agony. We do plan to carry out our efforts out there. We are going to support our troops in the field. We are going to work with our Vietnamese allies toward pacification and constitutional government.,While we are doing that, every hour of every day the spokesmen for this Government are under instructions to explore every possibility for peace.,But I do not want to disillusion any of you. And I do not want any of you to be caught by speculation. As of this moment, I cannot report that there are any serious indications that the other side is ready to stop the war.,Q. You have three times now used phrase \"no serious efforts by the other to bring the war to a close.\",How would you characterize what has been going on in the last couple of weeks? Do you recognize any signs of maneuverability or fluidity in their position?,THE PRESIDENT. I see almost every day some speculation by some individual or some hope or desire expressed by some government. And I assume that different individuals get different impressions. Certainly they have different hopes. I can only \"speak for myself, John,\" and with the information that I have, with the knowledge that is brought to me, I must say that I do not interpret any action that I have observed as being a serious effort to either go to a conference table or to bring the war to an end.,Q. Mr. President, could you give us your assessment of how recent events in China may be affecting the chances for peace in Vietnam?,First of all, your assessment of what is happening in China, and then how you think that may affect the chance of a peace?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that there is little I can add to what the general public knows about the events in China. I think that we all know that they are having very serious problems.,And I would not think that would add anything to the strength of our adversaries in that area. I think that we can see from some of the problems that we have ourselves from time to time that unity is very important in connection with our operations.,And I do not see that the differences in China are going to contribute anything to the strength of the North Vietnamese.,On the other hand, I do not want to hold out any hopes to you that I do not have myself. And I cannot say at this moment that the events in China are going to contribute immediately to the end of the war in Vietnam.,Q. Mr. President, would you discuss the reports that there has been a decline in the infiltration rate to the South, to say whether you think the bombing has had any effect on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I stated in my Baltimore speech in early 1965 what we expected to come from the bombing.,We felt that it would improve the morale of the people in South Vietnam who felt that they had almost lost the war.,We felt that it would make the North Vietnamese pay a much heavier price for what they were doing.,And we felt that it would make the infiltration more difficult.,We think it has achieved all of those expressed purposes.,We cannot speak with cold assurance on the infiltration and the numbers each day, or each week, or each month.,In some quarters of the year our indications are that they increase. In other periods of the year, the next quarter, they may go down Some.,I know of nothing that I can conclude as highly significant from the guesses and the estimates that we have made.,Q. Mr. President, we have said in the past that we would be willing to suspend the bombing of North Vietnam in exchange for some suitable step by the other side. Are you prepared at all to tell us what kind of other steps the other side should take for this suspension of bombing?,THE PRESIDENT. Just almost any step.,As far as we can see, they have not taken any yet.,And we would be glad to explore any reciprocal action that they or any of their spokesmen would care to suggest.,We have made one proposal after the other. We would like to have a cease-fire. We would be very glad to stop our bombing, as we have on two previous occasions, if we could have any indication of reciprocal action.,But as of now they have given none. And I assume they are willing to give none until I hear further.,THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PRESS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, last fall your image was described in some very harsh terms. Some saw it as arrogant and not to be believed. But lately these terms have switched to something much more sympathetic and you have been seen lately by many as an underdog.,You have been President for more than 3 years. How do you feel about the job, and, if you can bear to tell us, how do you feel about us in the press?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have not given a lot of thought to you in the press. We have our problems with the press twice a day at our regular briefings. I try to meet with them at least twice a month, in some manner. And almost every day I see a collection of them on one subject or the other about something that interests them.,I think our system requires that, and I always try to reciprocate their understanding.,Now as for being President, I can only add to what I said the first day I was in this office: I am going to do the very best I can. I need all the help that I can get. I think the country, and the Congress, and the other nations of the world have been very willing to be reasonable in their relations with me.,I think all in all we have succeeded in obtaining some of our objectives.,I go to bed every night feeling that I have failed that day because I could not end the conflict in Vietnam.,I do have disappointments and moments of distress, as I think every President has had.,But I am not complaining.,And if you can endure it in the press, I will try to endure it in the Presidency.,THE NEW CONGRESS,[4.] Q. Have you been able to take a reading of the new Congress? Is it perceptively more conservative than the last one?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think it is quite a different Congress. I think it is going to be a more partisan Congress. And I think that it is going to be more difficult to obtain favorable action on administration measures. I said after the first Congress after the election in 1964 that the President's mandate rarely lasted longer than 6 months, and I hoped that we could get most of the pledges we made in our platform enacted as soon as possible.,I have never tabulated it, but I believe Senator Mansfield made the statement that the Congress has enacted about 85 percent of our platform.,We still have some other things to pass. We will win some and we will lose some. We will try to work out an area of agreement where we can take some modified language in certain legislation we have to pass.,I don't want to anticipate more difficulty than I need to.,I am going to do with the Congress like I am trying to do with our adversaries in other places in the world: I am going to say to the minority party, which I do think appears to be able to find fault with almost our every act, that I want to meet them halfway, and I want their cooperation. I want their help. Because I don't believe it is good for the country to have partisan political in-fighting all the time. We ought to reserve a few weeks before the election for that, and then all of us work for America the rest of the time.,I hope and believe that most Members of the Congress will feel that way.,RELATIONS WITH EASTERN EUROPE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, for some time you have been talking about building bridges to the countries of Eastern Europe. Despite the appeals of this Government, the Czechoslovakian Government has sentenced an American citizen to what we believe to be a rather harsh punishment.,How does this affect your thinking on building these bridges to the Communist Eastern European countries?,THE PRESIDENT. There are many obstacles that come in the way in our attempt to reach all of our objectives. I regret very much the incident to which your refer.3 I am very hopeful that the government concerned will take appropriate, just, and fair action.,3 In November 1966 Vladimir Kazan-Komarek, a Czech-born American citizen, was arrested in Prague, tried on charges of anti-state activity, and sentenced to a prison term. The sentence was commuted in April 1967, and Mr. Kazan-Komarek was expelled from the country then peace talks could be arranged.,I am still determined that, notwithstanding some difficulties that may arise from time to time, that this is in the overall best interests of this country. And I am going to continue to try to work toward that goal.,VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the Foreign Minister in North Vietnam has said that if the United States stopped bombing the North,Would you consider a mere willingness to talk peace to be enough of a step on their part to halt bombing or would some military move be necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen nothing that any of them have said that indicates any seriousness on their part. I am awaiting any offer they might care to make.,They know that we are in contact with them. I cannot speak for them. But I am very anxious for them to make any proposal. And we will give it very prompt and serious consideration.,COMMUNISM SINCE WORLD WAR II,[7.] Q. Recently experts have testified at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the whole threat of communism has changed a great deal since World War I[ and that it is quite a different picture now. Do you agree that the Communist threat is sufficiently different?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We still have our problems, but I think they change from time to time. And I think there have been material changes in the thinking of various countries and their approach to their relations to other nations since World War II.,I am very hopeful that we can continue to try to evolve a satisfactory formula for getting along in this world. And I am encouraged in that hope every day. I see more encouraging signs than I do discouraging ones along that line.,THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,[8.] Q. Since the election of last November, a number of Governors and other people have criticized the efforts or lack of efforts of the Democratic Party and the national committee.,When Mr. Staebler 4 left the White House the other day he said important things are happening within the national committee.,4 Neil Staebler, member of the Democratic National Committee from Michigan.,Can you tell us what is happening within the Democratic Party?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not see Mr. Staebler. I do not know what he refers to. I think he would be a better person to make that reply than I am.,The Democratic National Committee has a very competent chairman, vice chairman, chairman of the finance committee, and the deputy chairman. All of those people were in the committee when I came into the Presidency. While they have only had one national campaign since that time, it was very satisfactory so far as I am concerned.,And I think some people have used the committee as a kind of whipping boy--some of them that really did not understand the functions of the committee. I have worked on both the national committee, as an officer, and the congressional committee, as an officer, for many years.,It has never been the function of the national committee to take over the congressional elections. We support them. We work with them. We aid them every way we can in the national committee.,But there are not many Congressmen that want the Democratic national chairman to manage their campaigns in their local districts. And for that reason, we have a congressional committee and we have a senatorial committee.,It is my judgment that those committees are well run, well operated. They did a good job this year. And I know the Democratic National Committee gave them more support and more assistance and more effort than we have given in any period in our history.,So I do not know exactly what they are referring to. I think if they had a knowledge of the situation, they would not feel as badly as they do about the present membership.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1967-01-17","text":"[ Held with Charles L. Schultze, Director, Bureau of the Budget ],BUDGET AND ECONOMIC MESSAGES,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] We have our Budget Message about in shape. It will go up on Tuesday, the 24th. You will be briefed Monday afternoon, a full day before it goes up.,The Economic Message will go up on the 26th unless something unforeseen develops. We have been working this afternoon on the details of the deferments and the withholding that we indicated to Chairman Mills 1 and others back in September we would attempt to make from last year's authorizations and appropriations.,1 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives.,CUTBACKS IN PROGRAMS AND EXPENDITURES,[2.] You will recall that we stated at that time that we would attempt, along with the investment credit legislation, and as soon as appropriations bills were passed and were reviewed by the various departments, to try to withhold or defer or stretch out and postpone the equivalent of $3 billion, or at least $3 billion. It was $3 billion in Federal programs, and not expenditures.,Most of the articles were written on expenditures. There is a good deal of difference between the two. I am not criticizing. I want to point that out so we don't make the same error again.,When we did make the announcement, in order to get the $3 billion in expenditures which the stories had indicated, it was necessary to go to $5 billion-something in programs. We are still working to that end. We have gone over various items this afternoon.,Just as a little more background for you-this is on the record, but it is a little background on the subject--the Congress increased my budget recommendations by $3 billion 202 million. The last figure we have on the expenditures increase is $2 billion 600 million. That is what we estimated would be the increase in expenditures.,We propose to reduce the program level not by $3 billion, but by $5.3 billion. We propose to reduce the expenditures by $3 billion.,HIGHWAY PROGRAM,[3.] One of the bigger items is the obligation for roads. As we have previously told you, that was $1.1 billion. We have under consideration an additional $400 million. That is not included in any of these figures. No determination has been made on it.,I will want to review that with the successor to Mr. Whitton and some details with the Budget Director and with Mr. Boyd.2 But we do plan definitely to withhold $1.1 billion, or to defer it. How long, I don't know, but that depends on the economic situation.,2 Rex M. Whitton, Federal Highway Administrator, Department of Commerce. With the transfer of that position to the new Department of Transportation, the White House on January 17 announced the appointment of Lowell K. Bridwell, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, as Federal Highway Administrator in the Department of Transportation (3 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., P. 52). Alan S. Boyd, until then Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, was sworn in on January 16 as the first Secretary of Transportation (see Item 5 above).,For your background, our road program in 1967 was estimated to be $4 billion 440 million. From that we are withholding $1.1 billion at the moment, and considering another $400 million.,Q. These are expenditures?,THE PRESIDENT. These are obligations.,Q. What fiscal year is this, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. This is fiscal 1967. I will take questions after this is over, if I may give you this now. I think that I can make it clear.,As an illustration, in 1960 we had $2 billion 610 million in road obligations. In 1961 we had $3 billion 187 million. In 1962 we had $3 billion 34 million. That jumped from $3 billion 34 million to $4 billion 1.,We think it is a very desirable program. We are very anxious to carry it on, but if we do have tight labor supplies and if we do have tight problems such as we have had with our economy, we would like to release this under different conditions. We would feel free to do it at any time if we felt those conditions were justified. We expect to get about $400 million in expenditures from that item.,PURCHASE OF MORTGAGES,[4.] In addition, the Congress appropriated about $1 billion to purchase various housing paper over and above our request. We have released $250 million of that. We have impounded, or withheld, $750 million. Those are the two bigger items.,A good many people are anxious to get more details on more detailed programs. We have those. They will be submitted to the Congress very shortly. Mr. Schultze will go over some of those now with you.,CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PUBLIC WORKS,[5.] One is the Corps of Engineers, which they call the public works program. I think you refer to them as \"pork barrels.\" They are the dams and the post offices and things like that under GSA. Dams and irrigation are under Interior and the Corps of Engineers. He can review the exact figures on those. I think that they will be interesting.,MR. SCHULTZE. Starting with the Corps of Engineers, there are some illustrations of the kinds of things that are involved in cutting back programs by $5 billion and expenditures by $3 billion.,For the Corps of Engineers in the 1967 budget, we asked for 25 new starts. The Congress gave us 58. What we are doing is taking every one of those and deferring them from 3 to 6 months, depending on the nature of the project.,Q. including the 25?,MR. SCHULTZE. All 58. In other words, they will be deferred from 3 to 6 months, depending on the nature of the project. In addition, we have gone down the list of ongoing work in the Corps of Engineers. Where it is physically possible and economically possible to defer new components, and new parts of an ongoing project, we have done that. Altogether the value of contracts involved that will be deferred under this procedure comes out to about $4.36 million. The value of expenditures that will be cut in the fiscal year 1967 from that is about $60 million.,These, as you know, are long-term projects. You cut a $100,000 contract and you get about $10,000 to $20,000 the first year.,THE PRESIDENT. I could make one point. One of the handicaps we have is the appropriation bills came the latter part of the year. Almost 6 months of the fiscal year had gone.,MR. SCHULTZE. A good example of that is the highway program. Given the fact we were well into the year, we started with October 31. From October 31 we told them to take $1 billion 100 thousand off.,HEW PROJECTS,[6.] In the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare we cut back, or deferred, or postponed contracts on obligations and commitments amounting to $590 million, approximately, in such areas as the following: for example, deferring or postponing construction contract awards in various health and education areas amounting to some $200 million-odd. This leads to expenditure cuts in this year of $100 millionsome, and cutting back on some research facility grants.,In other words, it was simply postponing things that would have been done in December, and pushing them over to January and February.,This sort of postponement within the year on about $60 million worth of work can save us about $45 million in actual expenditures simply because you are starting them later in the year.,EXAMPLES IN GSA,[7.] In the case of, for example, the General Services Administration, which builds most Federal buildings--we are deferring and postponing those buildings to the tune of some 85-odd million dollars, giving us an expenditure saving of $20 million.,The next is a small item. It indicates the fact that you have to go through hundreds of items to do this. We have issued new standards to the purchase of automobiles, which will cut back about $8 million worth of automobile purchases this year.,It is my recollection of those standards that they used to be that you would run the car for 6 years or 60,000 miles. Now I think it is 7 years or 72,000 miles. We calculated how many cars were involved. It comes to $8 million.,That is a small item but it is indicative.,AGRICULTURE PROJECTS,[8.] In another case, in the Agriculture Department, we are taking the so-called small watershed project, which is another form of public works, the small upstream public works of one kind or the other, dams and embankments and the like, and postponing, deferring, and stretching those out, and saving us some $17 million in expenditures this year.,In that particular case, for example, we started the year in terms of our own budget recommendations, asking for 35 such small watershed starts. We got 80 from the Congress. There are others in various FHA loan programs and similar loan programs of the Department of Agriculture.,THE PRESIDENT. That is farmers' home loan program.,MR. SCHULTZE. We are again deferring and cutting back oil those loan programs, giving us altogether in the loan programs combined a saving up to about $90 million in expenditures for the year.,THE PRESIDENT. We hope if money continues to get easier, the drain on those loan programs, or the demand, will be less. As they tightened they couldn't get money at the bank. They could come to the Government agencies to get it.,AEC PROJECTS; THE PROGRAMS GENERALLY,[9.] MR. SCHULTZE. In the case of the Atomic Energy Commission again, scattered throughout the Commission's program, we are deferring or postponing some construction and other projects worth about $85 million in contract value, saving us about $30 million in expenditures.,These are the kinds of items. Obviously, it is not a complete list and it won't add up to the totals. We are preparing the totals in usable and assimilable form which we will submit to the Congress shortly. This gives you an idea of the kind of things involved across the board.,I tried to give you illustrations of the different kinds of items. You see they are heavily in terms of deferring and stretching out and slowing down and postponing wherever possible rather than cutting whole Programs out.,THE PRESIDENT. I think we should emphasize to all of you, so you don't misunderstand, that we are making no claim or no pretense. We have made no promise to kill any one of these items.,They all remain authorized where that was the action, or authorized and appropriated. But because the economy at that time was heating up, and because we were asking the Congress to suspend the investment credit and to ask the States and the cities and the private people to withhold their construction and their plant and equipment investment, we agreed with Chairman Mills to withhold and postpone or to defer for the time being $3 billion worth of programs.,We are shooting now at in excess of $5 billion in 'programs. We hope $3 billion in expenditures. The economy will come and go and change. That is our breakdown as of today. That is what we are shooting at.,In addition, we have in all of the departments other items under consideration and we have not made judgments on them.,For example, there are $400 million in obligations that won't mean near that much in expenditures. But would you guess $100 million in expenditures?,MR. SCHULTZE. For this year, it will probably be less than $100 million.,THE PRESIDENT. But we have that under consideration. In other departments we are reviewing to see if there are any other places that we can take action.,MR. SCHULTZE. One point is very important, if I may add. In the President's September 8th Economic Message, we indicated that when we went at this business of reducing expenditures, we would essentially do it in three ways. That is exactly what we have done:,First, we would withhold or postpone or defer funds that we had requested in the budget.,Secondly, we would withhold, defer, or postpone in areas where the Congress had added appropriations to our recommendations.,Thirdly, we would reduce in cases where the Congress, as they did in a number of cases, substantially increased our substantive legislative authorizations--we would not send up appropriations to cover that.,THE PRESIDENT. That is it in the supplemental. A good many times the Congress will pass a bill and say, \"We authorize you to spend $50 million.\" Then, they will come right down and say, \"Now that we have passed the legislation, send up a supplemental so we can get it this year.\",So we said, \"We will do it in three ways.\" Some of those would be withholding authorizations that had been passed, not asking for supplementals. Although we think they are desirable and we would like to do it, we are withholding some.,MR. SCHULTZE. Last September, when we sent the supplemental up, we did not include such items and again when we went up--whatever supplementals we have to send this year we will not include those.,THE PRESIDENT. We will take any questions.,QUESTIONS HIGHWAYS,[10.] Q. Sir, as to the $400 million additional program withholding on highways, it is not included in the $5.3 billion program you have given us?,THE PRESIDENT. No, nor in the $3 billion expenditures.,Q. What you have been doing is mainly today hardening up these $5.3 billion and $3 billion figures which you told us about down in Texas earlier, getting down to specific programs where that will come from?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been pretty specific. This is somewhat more detailed. We will see if there have been any changes from what we thought and what extra items should be considered, like the road program.,Basically, this is what we have planned: The two big items, as you must see, are the $1 billion for roads and $750 million for purchases of housing, the public works and the Corps of Engineers and Interior. Those are the really big ones. HEW has some.,We have, on new construction, tried to postpone new construction wherever we could. That means new buildings, new post offices, new HEW research centers, and new things of that nature. That is what we had in Texas. But we are now just trying to take a good look and see if there is anything else that can be added.,HOUSING CREDIT,[11.] Q. I am not clear yet on this $750 million and $250 million figure that you used.,THE PRESIDENT. Congress appropriated $1 billion not requested by the administration for the administration to use in purchasing housing paper. We have decided that we would get the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, because of the conditions in the market, to make available more money to savings and loans.,The legislation we passed up there last year has improved their situation some. They have reduced their interest rates to the borrowing persons by one-quarter of 1 percent, as I announced the other day.,We are trying to withhold the appropriated funds that Congress gave us to the extent of $1 billion. We have already authorized the expenditure of $250 million. It is conceivable that we would have to release other amounts of it, but we have not done so. We hope we do not have to. That will depend on the economic situation.,Housing had a big jump again in December. We had one in November. We don't know how permanent that is. That is one of the major items that we did not ask for and Congress gave us. We are not going to use it, as of this time, in light of the conditions today.,REASONS FOR CUTBACKS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, would it be fair to say that all of these programs would have gone ahead under the original figures if it were not for the war in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't say that.,Q. Then could you explain why you are cutting down on all of these?,THE PRESIDENT. I have done that two or three times. It is the economy. There are a lot of people employed, a tightness of labor. We are over our budget figures. We are running in excess. Congress added about $3 billion in programs from what we asked. Presidents pretty generally have tried to hold back additions when Congress exceeded them.,Q. If the economy should turn around, would these withholdings be reversed?,THE PRESIDENT. They could be very easily. We are now studying it every day. There are some funds in the past several years that have been authorized and appropriated. We have given serious consideration to releasing those at the appropriate time. They may very well be released any day. That depends on the conditions in the particular department.,We think that you can get by, at least for a few months, on new Federal buildings and post offices. We may not think that we can get by on a very important ammunition depot that has been authorized. It depends on the department. It depends on the situation.,But we are now studying what we can do. In this year's budget, we will include a request for new obligational authority for $1 billion for defense facilities over and above what has already been authorized and appropriated for.,In case we wanted to, or in case we needed to, if the men should come home and we should have a need for extra jobs, we could immediately come up to Congress and say: \"You have already authorized this. Give us some money now, we will come in with a supplemental for it.\",We are now prepared. In case we do need jobs for our men, we will have projects that are available to them. We will not have to work them up overnight.,RELATION TO PROPOSED TAX INCREASE,[13.] Q. In your mind, does this buttress your case for a 6 percent tax surcharge?,THE PRESIDENT. This just carries out a commitment that we have made at the time. We sent up the investment credit request and the accelerated depreciation request. We believed that would temper the economy--in some degree cool it.,We told them that with the announcement of this, which we did announce, and which we had withheld, and which we did not put into the economic bloodstream, that we thought that would be helpful to the economy.,Now, we think that in the light of the expenditures we are going to have next year, and in the light of the fact that $20 billion have been rebated to the taxpayers, over what they would have paid had we not had three tax repealers, that this is prudent and good, sound fiscal policy to go ahead with the budget that we have.,We will ask married people with two children who earn over $5,000 to make some modest contribution. I believe the schedule showed yesterday, if you have two children and make $10,000, you would pay $67 a year. That is about $5 a month with a $10,000 income.,With a $15,000 income, it is $10 or $20 a month. It is a very nominal amount.,As to a corporation, I had better not get in to corporation figures, but I saw one schedule where I believe with $500,000 it is $14,000. So we think it is a very small part of what has already been rebated.,We think it is fiscally desirable so we don't have to pay interest on this amount of money, to try to raise at least a part of it, or $4 billion, or $5 billion, or $6 billion. We think we can do it.,We hope with social security we will pay out to the lower groups in the neighborhood of $4 billion plus. We would expect to take from those making above $10,000 and up a little over $4 billion. So it kind of balances off.,We think that is desirable rather than have a deficit of the magnitude we would have. However, in all of the wars we have had we have not only had tax bills and controls, but we have had deficits.,During World War II, we had deficits that ranged up in the dozens of billions of dollars.,During Korea, we had rather high deficits, too. You know we look at it as to how it affects the economy. We hear our people say, \"If you bring these people back from Europe, we will save money that way. You will reduce expenses here and there.\",Well, that is fine. If they can reduce expenditures that the Congress is willing to vote, we will gladly consider their judgments. We invite them.,Someone said today at lunch that they seriously thought it would cost us as much if we brought them back. So where they are going to reduce, I don't know.,What happened last year? At one time that figure was up from $3 billion to $8 billion. But we had conferences with the leader-,ship, several times, of both parties. We had . conferences with the members of the Appropriations Committees of both parties. We pied with them to stay within the budget estimates.,We have a budget estimate in here for $1 billion for a pay raise that would give our Federal people some increase to come close to as much as private industry is getting.,A good many items in the budget they may raise, instead of reduce. I am sure they will reduce some.,My judgment is if we can judge it further by the past, you can see what will happen. We have tried to reduce everything and postpone everything that we could reduce which we thought was in the national interest.,I don't think we can reduce the Teacher Corps. I don't think we can postpone the Head Start projects. I don't think we can postpone what we are doing in the cities.,I know we have our interest bill. I know we have our defense bill. The increase is $5 billion for defense and $700 million for interest, and $1 billion for the pay raise. That makes $6.7 billion. The total increase was $8.3 billion. So there is $7 billion of the $8.3 billion there.,Some people say that they can reduce other items.,In most instances those items were increased rather than reduced. I don't want to make a judgment on what they want to do. I am trying to tell you what we are trying to do. We may not be able to do everything that we hope.,This is what we hope. There it is spelled out in just about as much detail as we can give it to you by department.,There are about five principal items. There are roads, housing, agricultural loans, and so-called public works projects in both the Corps of Engineers and in Interior. They may all be AA-plus projects. We are trying to hold them back until we have a stronger need for them than we had last September and October.,I want to emphasize that nobody said we are going to save this much money ultimately. We are trying. I went over all of this list with the leadership several times. It has been reviewed with them. They understand it. They did not endorse it item by item, but they generally are familiar with it. They generally approved it. I would hope that all of them would try to stay within the budget this year.,SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS TO CHAIRMAN MILLS,[14.] Q. Are you sending a detailed list of these proposals to Chairman Mills?,THE PRESIDENT. We have. I am giving it to all of you now. I can't get much more detailed than to point out 85 projects in the various areas, the new construction in hew and things of that kind. We have watched the construction angle very closely because of the tightness of the labor market and because of the overhearing there.,I will be glad to answer any other questions if you have them.,HEART, CANCER, AND STROKE CENTERS,[15.] Q. Are some of these HEW Projects the heart and cancer and stroke centers that were under construction?,MR. SCHULTZE. Yes, a small amount. That was about $10 million. It is a small amount.,THE PRESIDENT. I will take any other question on any other subject if you have them.,SCHEDULE OF MESSAGES,[16.] Q. When is the budget going up?,THE PRESIDENT. On the 24th, on Tuesday. By law it is due there the 25th.,The Economic Message we would expect the 26th, unless something unforeseen develops. We will try to brief you on Monday afternoon. You will have Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning before it goes up at noon.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan to tie your supplemental in with your Vietnam message, and if so, can you say when that is coming up?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have a schedule on messages. We won't have until they are ready to go. Often after the recommendations get here there have to be changes.,I think it is bad to schedule or promise something and then miss it. We will give you advance notice. We will brief you just as soon as they are available.,Speculations and predictions on them do not get us anywhere. We are working on a number of messages. We are working around the clock.,Q. How about putting those together? Can you say whether you plan to do that, the supplemental and the Vietnam message?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we will have some reference to the amount of money. One of them will be a statement of the situation. The other will be the amount of money.,You pretty well know how much money we will need. We have given you that figure exactly.,MR. SCHULTZE. In expenditure terms, it is $9.6 billion. I believe that is right.,THE PRESIDENT. That is Secretary McNamara's figure, $9.4 billion.,CONGRESSIONAL REACTION TO PROPOSED,TAX INCREASE,[17.] Q. Have you had any reading yet from people in the House particularly, on when and whether you are going to get the tax increase you asked for?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think anyone will know that until the bill comes to us. I would think that they would have their own views, and make their own contributions. We expect them to. It is a fine committee.,Last year, we asked them for a tax bill and to restore some excise taxes and accelerate some payments. We had nothing that was urgent on the agenda that had been scheduled. They were very cooperative, as were Senator Long and Senator Williams in the Senate?3,3 Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator John J. Williams of Delaware, ranking Republican member of the Committee.,We received it here and signed it on March 15th. We took about $11 billion out of the economy last year. We are asking them to take out about $4 billion this year. We did it by accelerated payments and excise taxes.,In September, we asked for the investment credit and the accelerated depreciation and changes in certain corporate rates. We got it before the Congress adjourned. So they were very cooperative.,Now, we do have something that has a high priority. We have a debt limit. We are running very close to it. The Congress cut our figure last year and reduced it by $2 billion, as you recall. So we must have hearings on that.,We must get action on that in the Congress if we are to pay our bills and not violate the law.,Before it was determined what our budget would be, or what our tax situation would be, we committed ourselves to the social security program. When we talked to Chairman Mills and others, they agreed that early in the session when we got the debt limit out of the way we would take up social security.,I made a speech in Baltimore, 4 as you may remember, and outlined some objectives we had. That will take some time. How long, I don't know.,4 See 1966 volume, this series, Book II, Item 509,,I reviewed this schedule with Mr. Mills on December 12th. I asked him to come to the ranch, but he had a family situation. Some of the other leaders came. Senator Mansfield, Mr. Boggs, and others came, as did Senator Dirksen. 5,5 Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Majority Leader of the Senate, Representative Hale Boggs of Louisiana, Majority Whip of the House of Representatives, and Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Minority Leader of the Senate.,Mr. Mills could not come on that occasion, so we came back. I asked Mr. Mills to come to Washington. He met with us at some length on December 12th. We reviewed the various alternatives following the debt limit and social security, if we sent up a tax measure, and the various percentages that he would consider and so forth.,Then on December 13th, we met from 2:30 until about 5:30. We spent all afternoon with the Acting Secretary of the Treasury 6 and the Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Califano,7 and the Director of the Budget, Mr. Schultze.,6 Under Secretary Joseph W. Barr, who was Acting Secretary during Mr. Fowler's attendance at the NATO meeting in Paris, December 12-16, 1966.,7 Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,We reviewed this with him then. We received his ideas and his general impressions. We had Senator Long here. We asked him to come from Louisiana. We sent them both back that night by plane. They left here about 6:30 after reviewing the possibilities.,Then Secretary Fowler came back from Europe. We had the Secretary of the Treasury and Mr. McNamara, the Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Commerce, and the Council of Economic Advisers together. They had a series of meetings and made their recommendations to me.,I considered those recommendations. Then I exchanged views with each of these executive people before I wrote my message.,Now, no one wants a tax bill unless it is in the national interest. We think it is. We may not be persuasive but we are going to give our views and we are going to respect theirs. We believe if we have a tax bill that we will have an easier money situation.,So we are not asking too much. We hope that this will reduce the deficit. We have had deficits in other wars--rather substantial ones--in Korea, and extremely substantial ones in World War II.,We just think that while we have 2,900,000 new jobs, with very high employment and very high wages, it is time to defer some of this.,FEDERAL RESERVE ACTION,[18.] Q. You mentioned easier money. What do you hope the Federal Reserve will do in the face of this tax increase?,THE PRESIDENT. We think that the Federal Reserve has been cooperating and working very well. We are very glad to see the 90-day bill rate down. It is 4.60 or 4.70 compared to almost 6 percent at one time.,Since we are asking for a tax increase, and since we are trying to exercise prudence, such as withholding these things we have here today, and applying some restraints ourselves, Mr. Martin 8 and his colleagues have been very cooperative. They work with us very closely. We don't always agree on everything in the Government, even among the Cabinet members.,8 William McChesney Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.,As all of you know, we hoped we would all agree before the decision of the Federal Reserve last December. We didn't. In the light of all that has happened, I think that the Government is in pretty general agree. ment. I think Mr. Martin favors a tax increase. He recommended it to me. The Secretary of the Treasury recommended it. The Chairman of the Economic Advisers recommended it. The Secretary of Defense recommended it. The Secretary of Labor recommended it. The Secretary of Commerce recommended it.,They reviewed it from all possible angles. None of us really wanted it. But we didn't think it was too much to ask.,The gross national product has been going up. We think tax repeal contributed to that and brought about good conditions. Now we think we ought to adjust ourselves and try to pay for some of these things.,WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ACTION,[19.] Q. Is the Ways and Means Committee going ahead with social security ahead of the tax bill?,THE PRESIDENT. They have not told me. That was their plan, though, before we ever decided on a tax item. I think the best announcement on that would be from Mr. Mills.,Q. You wouldn't object to that?,THE PRESIDENT. That is their program. That is what we agreed to. It is not for me to set their agenda. I know from my 30 years there that I would get in trouble if I started to try to list the priorities under which they should proceed.,It was their plan. It was agreeable to the administration before we ever made a tax recommendation, for them to take up the debt limit and then social security. We decided back in September that we would have these meetings before Congress returned and try to explore the desirability of a tax increase. If one were decided upon, I would recommend it. That is what we did.,DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET,[20.] Q. Can you say what the Defense Department budget will be?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but I think it is just as well we wait. It is up approximately $5 billion. It will be in the neighborhood of $73 billion-plus. However, you have to give me a few hundred million leeway on that. It has already gone to the printer. k can't be changed.,Miss Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-12-31","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,PEACE TALKS,[1.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask a two-part question with respect to negotiations. First, have you any response to the new British proposal on peace talks,1 and, second, have you heard from Secretary General U Thant with respect to your own proposals along that line?,THE PRESIDENT. We have heard from the British. We are delighted to have their views and their suggestions.,1Press reports stated that British Foreign Secretary George Brown had proposed that representatives of the three countries meet in any suitable British territory to arrange a cessation of hostilities.,We are very agreeable and rather anxious to meet, as I have said over the past months, anywhere, any time that Hanoi is willing to come to a conference table.,We appreciate the interest of all peace-loving nations in arranging a cease-fire, in attempting to bring the disputing parties together, and in an effort to work out a conference where various views can be exchanged.,America is ready to designate her representative today, and will be glad to do so if the other parties do likewise.,On the Secretary General, we have encouraged him in every way we can to take leadership and initiative, and use the full influence and resources of the United Nations to bring about a stop of the violence on both sides, to bring an end to the total war by both sides. And any recommendations he makes, any suggestions he presents, will be very carefully considered and evaluated insofar as the United States is concerned.,We will be glad to meet anyone more than halfway, insofar as talking instead of fighting is concerned.,BOMBING TARGETS IN NORTH VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to the reports by the New York Times from North Vietnam about the results of our bombing there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have followed our activity in Vietnam very closely. I think the country knows--and I would like to repeat again--that it is the policy of this Government to bomb only military targets.,We realize that when you do that, inevitably and almost invariably there are casualties, there are losses of lives.,We regret to see those losses. We do everything we can to minimize them. But they do occur in North Vietnam as they do in South Vietnam.,There are thousands of civilians who have died this year in South Vietnam as a result of detonation of grenades and bombs. And every casualty is to be regretted.,But only military targets have been authorized. And I am informed that our men who are responsible for carrying out our orders have done their very best to execute those orders as given.,PROSPECTS FOR 1967; REVIEW OF 1966,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on this last day of the old year, what do you see ahead for the country in 1967?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that we will have a good year.,This year has brought us great satisfaction in many fields, and some disappointments in others. But on the whole I believe that generally there are more people working today than have ever worked before. They are making better wages than they have ever made before.,The farmer's income is almost at an all-time high, almost a net income of $5,000 per year.,On the domestic front we have made great advances in educating more children, in providing better schools, in improving their health, in making deep dents in reducing poverty.,In our foreign affairs, we have had some disappointments. We deeply regret that we had to send substantial forces to Vietnam in July of 1965. In the 18 months they have been there, although we think there has been a decided turn in the military situation, we have not been able to arrange a cease-fire or to bring the other side to the conference table, or to bring peace to the world.,We have diligently worked for 18 months in every way we know how, but we have not succeeded.\nThat is one of our major regrets.,We have done our best to hold NATO together, and we think we have had some success in that direction.,We think in Latin America things are on the upgrade.,We think in Asia, as a result of our Manila Conference and our other efforts in that direction, things are going as good as we expected.,We can point in Africa to the African Development Bank. And while there are mixed situations in both Africa and the Middle East, we have done our best to live up to our responsibilities.,And we think generally speaking the American people have much to be thankful for. There are many challenges ahead. There are many problems yet unsolved. But in unity there is strength.,I believe that the new Congress and this administration will put the interest of the Nation first and do what we can to solve the problems that remain unsolved.,In short, I think we have had a generally good year. I think most Americans believe that they have done reasonably well this year.,We all deeply regret that in 18 months we have not been able to bring peace to the world.,COMMUNIST CHINA'S FIFTH NUCLEAR\nEXPLOSION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, earlier this week Communist China exploded its fifth atomic device and the Atomic Energy Commission has evidence that they are working on a nuclear bomb. What do you believe these developments hold for the future peace of the world?,THE PRESIDENT. It is our hope that all the nations of the world could reach some agreement in the field of nonproliferation. In recent weeks I have felt encouraged about the discussions that have taken place. I wish that it were possible to say to the American people and to the world that all the nations of the world could reach agreement in this field.,As yet we have not been able to bring that about. And even when we bring it about, we do not know that all nations will agree. We are working to that end. We think it is a desirable objective. We will hope for the best.,PROSPECTS FOR THE ECONOMY\nDURING 1967,[5.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday the stock market closed without making its traditional yearend rally, and leading economists and businessmen have mixed views about the performance expected of the economy in 1967. Could you give us your assessment of what you expect of the economy next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very difficult to see economic indicators 12 months in advance and conclude just what will happen. But I believe we will have a good year in 1967.,I believe we will have good employment, good wages, good profits. And I do not see anything that would make me believe at this stage that we are going to be disappointed in those predictions.,POSSIBLE TAX INCREASE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, this is a two-part question: One, have you made a decision on the possibility of a tax increase in 1967?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. The other is do you think it was a mistake not to ask for a tax increase this year?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no to both questions.,I presume you know we got two increases this year in taxes. We took from the economy through administrative and legislative action several billions of dollars.,We think we took an adequate amount from the economy.,We estimated our deficit for this year at $6 billion 4 million at the beginning of the year, and it turned out to be $2 billion 3 million.,We passed, and I signed on March 15, the first tax measure which reinstituted some excise taxes, accelerated the payment of others, increased the withholdings, both by administrative and legislative action.,In September we submitted another program that involved the investment credit provision, and, by suspending that, increasing our tax revenues a very minimal amount.2,2For statements by the President upon signing the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 and the suspension of investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation allowances, see Items 132 and 596.,Primarily that measure was passed in order to cool the economy. Most of the economists felt that was desirable and the Congress agreed.,I do not believe that we could have passed any more tax measures than we passed. I think on the two tax measures passed it was desirable that we did so.,In March I met with leaders of business in the country, dozens of them. I consulted with leading economists. I asked them at the White House in March how many of them favored a tax increase and there wasn't a single hand that went up.,I read in the papers in retrospect some people feel very strongly there should have been another tax increase.,But in the light of the developments of the economy at this moment, I do not think so.,BOMBING TARGETS IN NORTH VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in his reports from North Vietnam, Mr. Salisbury,3 of the Times, spoke of heavy destruction in residential areas around two light industries there, a rice mill and a textile plant. Sir, I don't believe that these industries fall within the categories of target objectives previously announced by the Defense Department. Has there been a change in tactics to include such targets or has there been some sort of mistake?,3 Harrison Salisbury, Assistant Managing Editor of the New York Times.,THE PRESIDENT. None whatever. There has been no change. So far as the evidence that we have at this time there has been no mistake. I can only repeat to you what I have said before, and what has been said by other departments of the Government. Our orders are to bomb only military targets. Those are the only orders we have issued. We believe that our men have carried out those orders to the very best of their ability.,There will be civilian casualties in connection with the bombing of military targets. There are civilian casualties taking place every day--some this morning--in South Vietnam. I am concerned with casualties in both South Vietnam and North Vietnam. And I wish that all of our people would be equally as concerned.,I think that the quicker we can have a peace conference, the quicker we can arrange a true cease-fire, the quicker we can stop this total war on both sides, the better off all of our people will be.,But as long as it goes on, civilians are going to be killed, casualties will occur. And I regret every single casualty in both areas.,LENGTH OF THE WAR,[8.] Q. Mr. President, General Westmoreland said this week that he estimated the war would last several years. Does this change our strategy or administration planning on the war?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we are making the plans that we believe are in the best interest of this country. I don't think anyone can say with any precision when the peace conference will come, when a truce can be arranged, when a cease-fire can be agreed upon, when agreement can be reached between nations.,We are preparing our people to protect our national interest and our agreements and our commitments. lust how long they will be required to do so, I am not able to predict. If I did predict, I would have no doubt but what I would live to regret it.,EFFECT OF WAR ON DOMESTIC PROGRAMS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you began this year telling the country that it should be able to afford both the military effort in Vietnam and the necessary welfare reform measures at home. Some people insist that the war took too much of your budget. Even more people are suggesting that the war will definitely interfere with the things that need to be done in the coming year.,Although you are still weighing some of those decisions, what is the general outlook? Is the Nation going to be able to afford what you think ought to be done at home?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think the Nation can afford to continue as we have to fight wars on both fronts.,I don't think there is anyone who feels that we shouldn't supply our men with what they need. I would differ with you in that respect.,Second, I think there are those who feel that as long as we are in Vietnam, that we should reduce our expenditures every possible way here at home.,I feel that we ought to take all the water that we can out of the budget. And I have spent several weeks trying to do that.,But I am not one who feels, as I said last January and as I will say again next January, that we must neglect the health and the education of our children; that we can overlook the needs of our cities; that we must bring progress to a stop.,I think that we must strengthen our people. We must continue our efforts to reduce poverty. We must continue the war against our ancient enemies just as we are continuing it in South Vietnam--until aggression ceases; and until we can provide each child with all the education that he can take; until we can see that our families have a decent income; until we can secure the measures that are necessary to improve our cities, to curb pollution, to reduce poverty.,I think this Nation with a gross national product of some $700 to $800 billion can afford what it needs to spend. And I shall so recommend.,The exact amounts I do not know. This year's budget was increased some because of increased needs in Vietnam.,In 18 months we have sent several hundred thousand men there. Our budget this year will be somewhere between $125 and $130 billion.,We cannot predict what our budget will be next year. But as has been stated by reliable authorities, and as has been written on good authority, the general figure has been between $135 and $140 billion. Some said between $137 and $140 billion--it is highly speculative, allowing some $2 or $3 billion one way or the other.,A great many of those decisions have not yet been made. There are several appeals pending from the military. There are several important decisions that have not yet been made in the field of health, education, and poverty.,I expect to return to Washington early next week to conclude the meetings in that regard, and to have my recommendations ready for the Congress at as early a date as possible.,In short, I think we can, I think we must, I think we will continue to do what is necessary at home and send our men abroad what they need to do their job.,CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of talk lately about your image. Some writers discuss what they call a credibility gap. The Harris and Gallup polls have indicated performance ratings at the lowest point since you became President. And there has been some unrest in the Democratic Party among the Governors.,Do you feel you have been doing things wrong? What do you attribute all of this to?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would not want to make an indictment or review all of your contributions to this matter, or all the reasons and motivations of the various people who feel that mistakes have been made.,In my own judgment, we have done the best we could. We have worked at our job. We have made the decisions that we thought ought to be made.,We realize that we have made some mistakes, although I know of no major decision that I have made that I would strike from the statute books tomorrow or would rewrite.,I think that some of the decisions have not been popular.,I think that there has been criticism of the administration.,And I regret all of that. I would hope that the Nation would see things pretty much alike in the days to come.,All I can say is I am going to do the best I can to make the proper decisions, those that are in the best interests of the country.,And then I think if you do what is best for the country, the country will do what is best for us.,POSSIBLE TAX INCREASE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what the chief factors are that you are now weighing in making your tax decision, and when such a decision might come.,THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to decide how much money we will spend next year in the military and civilian fields.,We are trying to study developments in the economy.,We are trying to determine the extent of our deficit.,We are trying to anticipate, as far ahead as we can, economic indicators.,We will bring all of these people together, the Treasury, the economic advisers, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, the congressional leadership, and then attempt to make the recommendation that we think is justified.,We are working very hard on it but we haven't made a decision. We are not ready to announce one, or make a recommendation today.,THE SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT,[12.] Q. Mr. President, when do you expect to announce a decision on the supersonic transport?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have any definite date. The advisory committee that I have appointed has given great consideration to this. General McKee 4 will have an announcement in connection with it shortly. Just when the decision to move ahead will come on the part of the executive, and the legislative, I am unable to predict at this moment.,4 Gen. William F. McKee, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. The President's Advisory Committee on Supersonic Transport was established by Executive Order 11149 of April 1, 1964 (29 F.R. 4765; 3 CFR, 1964 Supp., p. 129).,It is still a matter that is receiving top consideration in the administration. And of course, after we make our study and our recommendations, I am sure the Congress will give it very prompt consideration and high level consideration.,But until we make ours and they conclude, we won't know definitely what will happen.,PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,[13.] Q. Mr. President, would we consider dealing directly with the Vietcong in negotiating an end of the war, which U Thant seems to think is very necessary and also stopping the bombing in the North sort of as a forerunner to peace negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. We will be very glad to do more than our 'part in meeting Hanoi halfway in any possible cease-fire, or truce, or peace conference negotiations.,I would be very interested in what their response is and what they would be agreeable to before irrevocably committing this country.,If you can look at all the decisions they make and their reactions, I think we would better be able to determine our own.,I have said on a number of occasions that we are ready to talk, any time and anywhere, that the Vietcong will have no difficulty in making their views known to us.,But all the questions turn on when are we willing to do it, and are we willing to do it. The answer to those questions is a strong \"yes.\" But up to this moment we have heard nothing from the other side.,You just can't have a one-sided peace conference, or a one-sided cessation of hostilities, or ask our own boys not to defend themselves, or to tie their hands behind them, unless the other side is willing to reciprocate.,Now, I assure you that we are willing to meet them more than halfway, if there is any indication of movement on their part.,SIZE OF DEFICIT,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in making your budget decisions, do you expect the deficit to be as low as it was this year?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Alvin Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-12-21","text":"MEETING WITH NINE DEMOCRATIC\nGOVERNORS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Governor Harold Hughes, who is chairman of the Democratic Governors group that met at White Sulphur the other afternoon, called the White House and talked to my appointments secretary. He asked that an appointment be arranged with the Democratic Governors at as early a date as possible.,We communicated with him that we would be glad to meet him here or in Washington at a mutually agreeable time.\nToday was agreed upon. The Governors, 9 of them from that 18-man group that met in West Virginia 1--there is a total of 24 Democratic Governors--came here today and discussed generally their meeting in West Virginia and all problems that they felt were worthy of attention between the President and the Governors.,1 At White Sulphur Springs, December 16-17, 1966.,George Christian 2 asked if the Governors would be glad to meet with the press before they left. Some of them needed to leave from here and some of them needed to go back for other engagements in Austin. We decided that probably it would be better for them and for you if we could meet at this central location.,2 An assistant press secretary.,Governor Hughes is here to speak to you. I will be glad to speak to you and answer any questions that you may care to have answered.,We started our meeting at 11:30 or shortly thereafter. Most of them arrived around 11. By the time we got in and got located it was 11:30.,We ran to lunch, a little after 1. We had our lunch with Secretary McNamara and some of the other men who are here on other business.,The Secretary returned to Washington, and some of the other gentlemen are still here. They will report to you after today, after you get through with this.,The Governors have engagements. Some of them had to leave at 2 and some had to leave at 3. But they did want to see you.,I now take a great deal of pleasure in presenting Governor Harold Hughes of Iowa, the chairman and spokesman for the Governors.,GOVERNOR HUGHES' SUMMARY,GOVERNOR HUGHES. Mr. President and Governor Bryant,3 my colleagues:,[2.] I wish to preface the statement I make here regarding the meeting that was held today by a reiteration of some comments I made at White Sulphur Springs.,3 Farris Bryant, Director of the Office of Emergency Planning and former Governor of Florida.,Number one is the fact that it was the intention of the Governors assembled there, and I am confident that I say this with the complete support of those who are here and those who were there, that we were primarily interested in the best job that we could do in representing our party in our respective States and as collective Governors in the United States; that we intended to be in complete and full support of the President of the United States. We had very candidly and frankly discussed in that particular meeting some of the problems that existed, and we presented those views here today.,The President gave us every opportunity to discuss every point that was made during the discussions at White Sulphur Springs.,The communication was very open and very frank, and the problems that each Governor felt that existed in his particular State he was given the opportunity to present.,We feel, as a group of Governors, that we have a great deal that we must do together in the Nation collectively as Democratic Governors.,Number one, we feel that we should and will meet in the future with more frequency, we should and will have better communication through Farris Bryant--Governor Bryant, who has been our medium of communication to use whenever we saw fit. I think I speak for all of these men in saying that we have not used this frequency of exchange to the fullest that we should have.,We had an opportunity to very thoroughly discuss any problem that we thought was existent in our State, whether it was a problem within a department of the Federal Government, whether it was a problem existent within the White House, or whether it was a problem that was relative to political problems within our respective States.,I think this very adequately covers the general rounds of discussions. We are reinforced in our opinions that we leave here in complete support of the policies, the principles, and the precepts as set forth by the President of the United States and as the leader of the free world; that these were never in question; that we did have some serious problems with some of the adoptions of many of the Federal programs in some of the respective States of individual Governors.,These differ from State to State and from region to region across the country of the States that we represent.,We discussed in some depth the national political committee. It is our responsibility, and we accept that responsibility, that if we want change in our representation on the national committee we have the opportunity and can bring it about within our individual States. This is the direction we should work in, in accepting our own responsibility.,We feel that we are starting now to build, we hope, in our respective States, our party for the campaign year of 1968, and that by working together and cooperating together we can be of more general support to the President, to the party, and to the Nation, and thereby to the free world.,I think basically these are the general areas of discussion. There was a free exchange both ways, no lack of communication, and I think the meeting, as such, cleared the air for all of us as Governors, and also gave the President an opportunity to express his views to us in all of the areas of discussion.,We were absolutely not restricted in any area of communication relative to any department of government, political or otherwise, that we wished to bring up and to point out.\nThank you very much.,QUESTIONS TO GOVERNOR HUGHES,WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS MEETING,[3.] Q. Governor Hughes, do you feel that the Governors and the President are more in tune with each other than you were in White Sulphur Springs?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. I am sure the Governors feel that they now understand clearly their channels of communication. I am sure they understand, and I speak only for myself, that there has never been a time in the past when I wanted to talk to a member of the White House staff or to the President himself that it was ever denied to me; that we did not take the opportunity of the communication that was available to us in the past.,I know that I didn't personally, and I observed this among the other Governors, that we had not expressed as freely our opinions as we should have in all probability.,Q. Governor, would you hold this lack of communication that you mentioned responsible for some of the rather strong statements about the President that came out of the White Sulphur Springs conference?\nGOVERNOR HUGHES. In all probability, yes.,REORGANIZATION IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL\nCOMMITTEE,[4.] Q. Governor, did you talk about a reorganization of the national committee with the President?\nGOVERNOR HUGHES. It was discussed, yes.,Q. Can you tell us anything about that discussion?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. The basic discussion was to the effect that we hold the key in our own hands as Governors to change whatever national committee people we see fit in our respective States and to communicate these actions, through meetings with the national committee and to the national chairman as we see fit.,STATES ' VIEWS ON THE PACE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS,[5.] Q. Sir, is it still the feeling of the Governors, either individually or collectively in any way, that the administration has been moving too fast in its programs and that the voters more or less felt this in their reaction at the polls in November?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. We did not discuss that collectively here this morning. I think the feeling probably would still exist, that the States are having and have been having some difficulty in tooling up their State machinery to cope with and to carry out the full intent of the Federal programs.,There was an opportunity to discuss with some of the Federal departments here this morning some of the existent problems in the respective States. I had no particular problem for my own State that I wanted to discuss with the people present here this morning. But some of the Governors did, and this opportunity was presented to do so.,I think there is a clear understanding that these men at the Washington level are readily available for communication with any Governor at any time when they are reachable and when common ground exists for discussion with the problem.,LEADERSHIP IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL\nCOMMITTEE,[6.] Q. Governor, in addition to the changes within the States, was there any discussion at the meeting today about changes that might be desirable on the part of the Governors, such as leadership in the national committee?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. Yes, there was some discussion about this. It was the general feeling of the Governors that we should express our feelings to the national committee and that by doing so we would discuss the subject at the next general meeting we have when we hope to get all of the Democratic Governors of the United States together, using this vehicle that we can communicate and express our feelings to and through our national committee organization.,1966 ELECTION RESULTS,[7.] Q. Governor, reports from White Sulphur Springs talked of the unpopularity of the Johnson administration being a heavy factor in the 1966 election results. Was that discussed?\nGOVERNOR HUGHES. All factors were discussed this morning.,Q. Did that include the President running again in 1968?,GOVERNOR HUGHES. No, ma'am, that was not discussed this morning.,IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS,[8.] Q. Governor, when you were talking and discussing State programs, did that include the impact that the reduction in Federal programs will have, like highways and whatnot? Did that come up again, as it did in September,4 today?\nGOVERNOR HUGHES. Do you mean the Executive order--,4Reductions in certain programs of Federal financial aid to States, including highway programs, were discussed by Budget Director Charles L. Schultze following the President's news conference of September 22 and by the President during his news conferences of September 29 and 30 following meetings with the Governors (see Items 477, 492, 494).,Q. Cutting down the programing?\nGOVERNOR HUGHES. Not as a general point of discussion this morning, though it was broadly hit as a problem that existed in the States. However, I would point out, as I pointed out at the National Governors Conference, that the President did solicit each Governor of the United States to cut back his own capital spending programs within the individual States of our Nation to assist in the economic problem that existed at that time.,I questioned Governors at the Midwest Governors Conference as to how many complied with that request and did not get an affirmative answer from anyone. Therefore, I recommended to them, myself, that in view of the fact that they had failed to take action at the President's request, that certainly it was improper to take any action respective to an Executive order issued by him in the interest of the Nation and the national\neconomy.,I think that is all, gentlemen. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Do any other Governors desire to make a statement? I am sure the press will be glad to hear them.,GOVERNOR HUGHES. Are there any of the Governors who have a desire to express themselves in addition to my comments? If you do, the President certainly wishes you to have the opportunity. If not, those are the basic points.,THE PRESIDENT'S SUMMARY,TTHE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, I have very little to add to what Governor Hughes said.,The subjects that we discussed are these, primarily:,[9.] First, the impact of many Federal programs and the State machinery to cope with them, with the problems placed upon the States by the passage of various legislation.,[10.] Second, we discussed at some length the Democratic National Committee. The Governors gave me their views in connection with that.,[11.] We discussed the poverty program and its operation with regard to patronage personnel in some instances.\nWe discussed the Medicaid program.\nWe discussed patronage generally.,We talked about some of the various educational programs, and the difficulty the State had in tooling up the State machinery to cope with these programs.,I, myself, have had some question about the States' ability and the cities' ability in some instances, to bear their part of the burden or their part of the administration.,I think out of this meeting today the administrators should review with their own staffs these various programs and see if it is possible in any way to relieve the States of any of the burdens of administration, matching, or any of those things.,I will bear that in mind in my recommendations in the State of the Union Message.,There was an expression of viewpoint on specific programs--specifically the schools, the guidelines, the personnel engaged in the administration of them, sometimes what Governors termed the arbitrary position of certain Federal employees operating under Mr. Gardner.5,5Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner.,Mr. Gardner happens to be here. I am sure he will be glad to take any questions you may want to ask him.,He explained to the Governors that he was trying to keep in as close communication as he could--he was doing that personally-and that he would try to correct any mistakes that are made.,We are very human. We do make mistake. We do make errors. Where other people make them for us, we will correct them. Where we make them ourselves, we will correct them, if they are pointed out to us.,I am sure Mr. Gardner will be glad to take any of your questions or to discuss anything you want to.\nI am certainly glad to talk to you.,I will review with the Cabinet the suggestions made by the Governors and see that each one is given thorough and sympathetic consideration.,PREVIOUS MEETINGS WITH GOVERNORS,[12.] This is the fourth time I have met with the Governors this year. I have invited all Governors three times to various meetings. A good many of them have not been able to attend.,This group today is a representative group, I think, of the Democratic Governors that have met. I have never invited them as Democrats or Republicans as a general basis.,We have had some 600 conversations or meetings with Governors since I became President 3 years ago. We have had over 400 meetings personally and about 200 conversations by telephone and otherwise.,OFF-YEAR ELECTIONS,[13.] We discussed the effect of off-year elections--congressional elections.,I pointed up to them what I thought was a pretty generally known fact: That where a presidential election was heavily carried, as they have been four times in this century, the off-year election had a swingback, as I have pointed out to you.,Wilson had that situation when he gained 68 seats in 1912 and lost 59 in 1914.,Eisenhower had that situation when he had a very overwhelming victory in 1956 and lost 47 House seats and 17 Senators in 1958.,Roosevelt had that situation when he lost 71 seats following his great victory in which he carried every State but Maine and Vermont.,Harding had that situation where in 1920 he gained 63 seats and in 1922 he lost 75.,We were very happy that we kept about half of the seats--the freshman seats--that we gained from Republican districts, but we were very unhappy that we lost any.,We hope that as a result of meetings like this and others that we will have, that if there is anything in communication, or if Presidents and Governors can affect the votes of people in congressional elections or others, that we will be able to do so. That is all I have to say.\nI will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT\nDEMOCRATIC LOSSES IN 1966,[14.] Q. Mr. President, was there any agreement today that it was an anti-administration vote in the country that was responsible in large part for Democratic losses? That is, was there a feeling among the conferees this morning that there were substantive matters involved that helped account for the losses?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would say in answer--and the Governors can speak for themselves--there was no agreement reached along that line.,Q. Mr. President, do you feel that whatever rift there might have been between the Governors and yourself has been repaired today?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the principal rifts probably do not exist, so far as we as personalities are concerned. I think we do have different viewpoints on different programs.,I think Governor Hughes made it dear that some people are paid to provoke fights and some are paid to prevent them. Our job is to prevent them.,COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNORS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, your long list of statistics kind of indicated you think there has been a lot of communication with the Governors. Is that true? You don't think there has been a lack of communication?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not been conscious of any. Governor Ellington 6 was called to Washington to maintain liaison with the Governors. I think the record will show that he had very close contact with them at their meetings and at the White House at various times.,6 Buford Ellington served as Governor of Tennessee from 1959 to 1963, then as Director of the Office of Emergency Planning from March 4, 1965, to March 23, 1966, when he resigned to run for a second term as Governor.,He left, incidentally, to run for Governor. He was succeeded by a former Governor, Farris Bryant.,We have made clear to all Governors, Republicans and Democrats, that Governor Bryant is available every hour of the day or night to listen to their problems and to work with them to try to find a solution so far as we were capable of it. Governor Bryant renewed that desire today.,I think they all knew it, but we certainly have brought it to their attention again.,CHANGES IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,[16.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us some idea of any changes you might be planning in the national committee?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that will be a matter for the committee to decide.,1968 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,[17.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the speculation that you may not run again in 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel about that like I do most speculation. I have other things to do.,FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS IN STATES,[18.] Q. Mr. President, would you elaborate, please, on your discussion with the Governors on patronage, poverty, and the Medicaid programs?,THE PRESIDENT. There was just some disappointment and dissatisfaction expressed about appointments made at the Federal level in some instances. It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of a Governor of a State feeling that someone was appointed that a Senator recommended that shouldn't have been appointed.,That has been true ever since the Union was formed, so far as I am aware.,I don't know when I was Senator that the Governors approved my appointments. I don't always approve all of theirs.,I am not talking about you, Governor. I do approve most of yours. In this instance, the disappointment was expressed at some appointments made by the Federal people in States that were not pleasing to the Governors.,WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS DISCUSSIONS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, during your meeting with the Governors today, were there perhaps any apologies or regrets expressed in some of the things that were said at White Sulphur Springs, perhaps a little hastily?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Nothing like that?,THE PRESIDENT. No apologies were given and none were expected. None were necessary.,GOVERNORS' VIEWS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS,[20.] Q. Mr. President, did you get the impression that there was anything structurally wrong with any of your major programs or that these are largely personalities?,THE PRESIDENT. I have the impression that not all the programs I favor or that are contained in the Democratic platform are favored by all the Governors.,They have made that abundantly clear in their respective States.,I made it abundantly clear that I ran on a platform that contained my commitments; that I expected to carry them out to the extent of my ability; that I appreciated their cooperation to the extent that they could in good conscience give it to me.,I can't always approve everything that is in one of their platforms at the State level, and I am sure they don't approve everything in my platform. But my problem is to try to carry out my platform. That is what we are doing.,1968 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,[21.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to clear up any of this speculation about 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have expressed myself on speculation. I don't think I could clear it up, as a matter of fact. That seems to be an occupation.,Q. I wonder if you could make it more direct. Do you intend now to run in 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. I will cross that bridge when I get to it. This is not 1968.,THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,[22.] Q. Mr. President, does General Clark's 7 presence here today indicate that we might anticipate an announcement concerning the Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not at all. When I have an announcement, as I said, you will be the first to know it.,7 Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark.,APPRAISAL OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY,[23.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your own appraisal of the state of the Democratic Party today as it looks forward to 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Democratic Party is the party of the people. It is very healthy and it is very virile. It has had 3 years since its last convention--we are going into our third year--of very successful performance. We have carried out a large part of our platform which the people overwhelmingly endorsed by one of the highest popular votes in history. We have some weaknesses. We have lost some scats, as I think could be expected. I don't know of any other party that I would want to trade places with.,GOVERNORS' VIEWS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS,[24.] Q. Mr. President, you have said a couple of times that there were some differences on programs or differences of views on programs between you and the Governors. I wonder if you could tell us briefly--,THE PRESIDENT. I will just have to let you do that. I don't want to speak for the Governors. I think you are familiar with the Governors present and I think you can examine the programs that have been very controversial.,You will find that some of them have not supported the civil rights program. Some of them have not supported the Medicare prod gram. Some of them have not supported the education program, various aspects of it. Some of them have had grave questions about the poverty program and its administration.,I don't know that any of them here--I don't believe any of them here have expressed any strong differences about Vietnam. We have met with them several times and we have had very solid support.,I think that after we passed these programs that some Governors opposed before they were passed, these Governors have tried to help us put them into effect. I think they have been disappointed on occasions in decisions that were made--in guidelines, in administration, or in personalities that they had to deal with.,But I think you can look at the record of each Governor and the position he has taken, his platform in his State, and get a much better position of it.,I just know that a good deal of our time was taken up with guidelines, some of it with poverty, some of it with health problems.,I think we all have the same overall objective: the greatest good for the greatest number.,But people in different levels in the city, the State, or the Federal Government do have different approaches.,We Democrats have never been known for suppressing our differences. We have always found you people willing partners to cooperate in advertising them.,MEMBERSHIP OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL\nCOMMITTEE,[25.] Q. Mr. President, is there any way to change the membership of the national committee of the State--,THE PRESIDENT. I am not an expert in that. You fellows are interested in that. You work on it.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-12-06","text":"[Held with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara],THE PRESIDENT. There are two or three brief announcements before we get into the subject of today's meeting.,MEETING WITH EUGENE BLACK,[1.] First, I plan to see Mr. Eugene Black some time either this week or in the early part of next week. 1,I expect I will do it in Washington. As soon as the date is clear, I will inform you.,1Eugene R. Black, adviser to the President on Southeast Asian social and economic development and former president of the World Bank. On December 16, 1966, the White House announced that Mr. Black, following a tour of Asia, had reported that the outlook for the Vietnamese economy was highly favorable and that \"even in the midst of war the foundations of future economic progress are being laid in Vietnam\" (2 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 1799).,LATIN AMERICA,[2.] Last weekend I assured Secretary Gordon and Ambassador Linowitz 2 that I wanted to see them as soon as they returned from the trip they are making in this hemisphere. We talked about developments in Latin America.,2Lincoln Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress, and Ambassador Sol M. Linowitz, U.S. Representative to the Council of the Organization of American States and Representative to the Inter-American Commission, Alliance for Progress.,As you know, Ambassador Linowitz recently visited Costa Rica where he met informally with the foreign ministers of the Central American countries.\nAssistant Secretary Gordon and Ambassador Linowitz will be traveling to South America between now and December 18 to consult with leaders on the Alliance for Progress, and the proposed meeting of Presidents of the American Republics.,They will have a stay of some length in Mexico and visit with the President of Mexico.,I discussed that with the President of Mexico and asked that he see them upon their return from South America. Then they will either come to the ranch or report to me in Washington.,FUNDS FOR RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGES,[3] The Federal Home Loan Bank Board has told me that it has reviewed its financial position and has determined that the home loan banks can increase their lending to member savings and loan associations and savings banks by $500 million over the next few months for investment in residential mortgages.,As you know, we released $250 million for special assistance in the purchase of mortgages the other day.,These additional Home Loan Bank Board funds will help to case the shortage of money for investment in home mortgages that has depressed the housing and construction industry in recent months.,The home builders have been especially eager to see some step along this line taken.,I am informed that a large part of the availability of funds reflects the improved flow of savings in Federal Home Loan Bank member institutions as a result of the better competitive environment following the establishment of new interest and dividend rate controls. This was the result of legislation we recommended and Congress passed at the conclusion of the last session.3,3 See Item 473.,The Federal Home Loan Bank Board has scheduled a meeting for this Friday, December 9th, with its 12 regional bank presidents and their credit offices to give effect to this program.,REVIEW OF DEFENSE BUDGET,[4.] We met sometime after 9 o'clock this morning with Secretary McNamara, Under Secretary Vance, Mr. Rostow, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Chief of each Service.,We reviewed the anticipated expenditures in Vietnam and in the Department of Defense for the balance of this year; that is, from December through June 30.,We are generally agreed on the best estimates that can be made at this time. We do not think they will be changed materially between now and my State of the Union Message.,We expect to submit a supplemental budget, as we have stated on many other occasions, as soon as the Congress gets back. The precise amount will be given in the State of the Union Message, but it now appears that it will be somewhere between $9 billion and $10 billion additional for fiscal 1967 in expenditures. That will give us a defense budget of somewhere between $67 billion and $68 billion for this entire fiscal year.,As you know, when we submitted the budget, we stated that if hostilities had not concluded in Vietnam we would have to submit a supplemental, and we would do so. Based upon the Chiefs' recommendations, supported by Under Secretary Vance and Secretary McNamara, that supplemental will be transmitted to the Congress in the amount of the best estimate we can give now of somewhere between $9 billion and $10 billion. It will be perfected throughout this month, and any adjustments that can be made will be made. But we think that is a safe and reasonably accurate figure.,We reviewed the plans for the fiscal 1968 Defense budget, and the recommendations made by the individual Services. We had each Chief comment on those recommendations, particularly where there was any difference of opinion between them and the Secretary of Defense.,We found, generally speaking, that the leaders--that is, the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Chiefs--were in general agreement. There are a few specific items that are yet to be resolved.,They spoke with frankness and candor, giving me their view-point. We will be reviewing this data from now until the budget goes up.,This represents the fifth meeting, I believe, that I have had with Secretary McNamara. We will have other meetings before he leaves for the NATO meeting, and after his return.,The Chiefs have returned to Washington. I expect to be conferring further with General Wheeler and the individual Chiefs before the budget is finally transmitted.,We made substantial progress today. Mr. McNamara, Mr. Vance, and Mr. Rostow made valuable contributions to my understanding of the needs for the balance of this year and next year.,If you have any questions of any of us, we will be glad to take them.,QUESTIONS\n1968 DEFENSE BUDGET,[5.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us at this time or give us some indication as to what the level of the Defense budget for fiscal 1968 might be?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan to use the same technique as this year; that is, to count on a supplemental if the war is not finished, or do you anticipate that it will continue through fiscal 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think we will review every request on the basis of a full year's operation and ask for all the funds that the Chiefs, the Secretary, and the President agree will be needed without a supplemental.,TAX INCREASE DECISION,[6.] Q. Mr. President, now that you have the Defense spending figure for fiscal 1967 and also the investment plan survey by the Commerce Department, does that give you any more help in deciding whether you have to seek a tax increase next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think your question answers itself. The answer is yes. It gives me help. If you are trying to find out if a decision has been made, it has not been.,Q. Does it make it more or less likely?,THE PRESIDENT. I will not go into that speculation until we make the decision. People might get the wrong impression.,I haven't made a decision. I don't want to convey the impression that I have.,QUESTIONS TO SECRETARY MCNAMARA,Q. Mr. President, is Mr. McNamara open to questions?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, and Mr. Vance and Mr. Rostow.,MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTH VIETNAM,[7.] Q. There are wire reports from Vietnam that we bombed three targets in North Vietnam since last Friday that we had not bombed before. Is this part of a new program that we decided upon?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No. These targets are part of the same target system that our military efforts have been directed against for over a year, the lines of communication and the supporting facilities supporting the flow of men and materiel from North Vietnam to South Vietnam.,The targets you referred to were petroleum depots, which are the foundation of the movement of men and materiel to the south; a vehicle park; a vehicle maintenance depot, which was a storehouse for the trucks used in those movements, the Army trucks used in those movements; and railroad yards through which the materiels were flowing.,Q. Mr. Secretary, is the apparent intensification of the air war posing any policy problems for us, that is, striking at the airfields in North Vietnam?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, I don't think it is fair to characterize it as an intensification. There was some very bad weather for an extended period of time, and the result was that there was a very substantial decrease in the number of sorties. Then all of a sudden the weather broke and an increase compared to the recent past. I think that is what has given the appearance of an intensification, whereas there was no intensification.,Q. No, sir. I meant by them--\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. I understand what you meant. The point is that the number of sorties that had been operated for a period of weeks had been low, and, hence, the MIG response had been, in a sense, low. Then as the weather cleared and the sorties reverted back to a normal level, the MIG response reverted back to the levels that we had experienced in prior periods.,Q. Then you don't regard our plane losses as unusual or abnormal?,SECRETARY McNAMARA. No. They fluctuate day by day. The plane losses for a period of 4 weeks, for example, in relation to the number of sorties I think would be substantially the same as we have experienced in prior periods.,WEAPONS SYSTEM PROPOSALS,[8.] Q. Secretary McNamara, can you give any information on what has been decided on the Poseidon? Will we go into that program, the antimissile? Will it be advanced to the next level of development, and on the manned bomber?\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. As the President mentioned, he is considering a number of specific weapons system proposals for fiscal 1968. No final decision has been made on several of these. Therefore, it is inappropriate, I think, to speak of any particular system at this time.,COST OF VIETNAM WAR,[9.] Q. Mr. Secretary, could you give us an estimate of the monthly cost of the war in Vietnam now with this supplemental figure?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No. It is very difficult to give monthly figures. The President has referred to them in the past and I have nothing to add to what he has said.,Q. Do you see a leveling off of the cost of the war in the year ahead?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. I think there will be a leveling off in the rate of buildup, if you want to call it that.,I have spoken before, after discussions with the President on the fiscal 1967 supplement and the fiscal 1968 budget, about the leveling off that we see in the buildup rate, both in Vietnam and in our total force.,In that sense, therefore, I believe there will be a leveling off toward the end of the fiscal year in the rate of expenditure associated with the Vietnamese operations.,Q. And fiscal 1968, Mr. Secretary?\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. And fiscal 1967, in the rate of expenditures associated with the Vietnamese operations.,THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENDATION OF THE\nJOINT CHIEFS AND THE DEFENSE SECRETARIES,[10.] THE PRESIDENT. Before we ended, I commended the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary and Under Secretary for the performance of their men in Vietnam.,I commended them for the economy and efficiency with which the Department was operating in that theater.,I did that based upon reports that I received from our people in the field; in particular, General Westmoreland, who has assured me that in all of his experience in the military field he has never observed an army that was provided for better, that was better trained, that had better equipment, and had it when it needed it, where it needed it.,I attribute a good deal of that to the civilian management of Secretary McNamara and Under Secretary Vance, and the Service Secretaries, and also to the very outstanding administration of the Chiefs themselves.,We went into some detail during the lunch hour on problems of administration. You and the country ought to know that I think we have a very high caliber of men in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have done an exceptionally good job, particularly from the standpoint of efficient administration and economy.,THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW OF THE OUTLOOK\nFOR 1967,[11.] Q. Mr. President, some time ago I believe you were quoted as saying you could see the light at the end of the tunnel. I may be paraphrasing it.,Does that light look stronger to you now and do you see it coming out of the tunnel in 1967?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not speculate on that.,FURTHER QUESTIONS TO SECRETARY\nMcNAMARA,1968 DEFENSE BUDGET,[12.] Q. Mr. Secretary, does it appear now that the Defense budget for the next fiscal year will be higher than this year's, counting in what you will request in the supplemental?\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. As the President indicated, the total for fiscal 1968 has not been determined. I do not want to talk in numerical terms.,I will simply tell you that as best we can see it now, the total Defense budget for fiscal 1968 will not take a significantly different part of the total national income than it did in fiscal years 1961, 1962, and 1963.,Q. What were those figures?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. About 8.9 percent.,Q. Of the gross national product?\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. Yes.,SUPPLIES TO THE VIETCONG,[13.] Q. Do you see any slowing down of supplies to the Vietcong? There have been reports that the Red Chinese are stopping Soviet supplies from moving over the mainland.,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. I have seen the reports. But we have no way of knowing what Soviet supplies are moving through Red China.,AIR LOSSES,[14.] Q. Mr. Secretary, these air losses in the last few days, are they due almost entirely to MIG's, and, if so, do we know who is flying the MIG's?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, the number of losses to MIG's is very small.,My recollection is--check me on this-that one aircraft has been lost to MIG's in the past 2 weeks.\nUNDER SECRETARY VANCE, That is correct.,Q. Are these mostly SAM's?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, they are mostly ground antiaircraft caused.,Q. Are they conventional?\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. Yes.,ESTIMATES OF SOVIET STRENGTH AND OBJECTIVES\nOF U.S. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCE,[15.] Q. Mr. Secretary, is that a paper in your hand that you would like to read to us?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No. I anticipated a question, as a matter of fact, and since it has not come, I wasn't going to volunteer the answer.,Now that you raise the possibility, let me mention one matter that did come up that we have been queried on in the Pentagon. I thought you might possibly ask it here.,Since it was a major point of discussion with the President, I was prepared to respond to any question that came on it. It is an important matter.,I dictated a statement following our discussion this morning, which I think perhaps Mr. Christian 4 can have reproduced by the time we leave here, on this matter.,4 George Christian, an assistant press secretary.,This is the question of the changes in the Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile. There has been some speculation on those systems.,These, of course, are one of the factors that we consider in developing our own strategic nuclear force. Each year we review the latest intelligence estimates on this subject.,We have done so again this year. I would like to comment on these estimates to you.,In order to put them in perspective, I would like to tell you something about the objectives of our strategic nuclear force, last year's estimates of the Soviet force, the way those estimates have changed, and the effect, if any, that that will have on our force planning.,I am going to refer to a set of notes here that, as I say, I dictated. I think by the time you leave, Mr. Christian can make a set of them available to you.,The objectives for our strategic nuclear forces are two. These are the same objectives we have had in recent past years. They are the objectives we will have as a foundation for the force planning in fiscal 1968.,First, to deter a deliberate nuclear attack upon this country and its allies, and to accomplish this deterrence by maintaining a clear and convincing capability to absorb a first strike against us and survive with sufficient power to literally destroy the attacker, either a single attacker or any combination of aggressors.,That is the first objective. It is by far the most important one and the one we must absolutely meet without any question, regardless of cost.,The second objective, of course, is that in the event deterrence fails in the event of an attack on this Nation, to limit the damage to our people and our resources, and the people and the resources of our allies.,The deterrent portion of our force is called our \"assured destruction force,\" or our assured destruction capability, and the remaining force.,That required to reduce the weight of an enemy attack or to reduce the losses associated with one is called the \"damage limiting force.\",The national intelligence estimates which are prepared annually and revised more frequently, if necessary, of the Soviet forces are one of several factors we examine in determining our own force structure.,In my statement to the Congress last February--and, as a matter of fact, in the unclassified edition of that statement which ran to something on the order of 200 pages--I emphasized that our estimates of Soviet strength, Soviet nuclear strength, in the years immediately ahead were, of course, much more certain than our long-range estimates.,Specifically, I said this--and I am going to read you a paragraph of the material that was presented to Congress last February and that was made public at that time:,\"In order to assess the capabilities of our general nuclear war forces over the next several years we must take into account the size and character of the forces the Soviets are likely to have for the same period.,\"While we are reasonably certain of our estimates for the near future, our estimates for the latter part of the decade, the decade of the 1960's, and the early part of the decade of the 1970's, are subject to great uncertainties.,\"As I pointed out in the past, such projections are at best only informed estimates, particularly since they deal with the period beyond the production and deployment lead times of the weapon systems involved.\",Then I went on to point out that we planned our offensive force of missiles and bombers to hedge against the several different contingencies, including two possibilities in particular:,First, that a Soviet ballistic missile defense might be greater than expected by the intelligence estimates; and, secondly, that the Soviets might embark upon any one of several possible offensive buildups, including variations in their targeting doctrine, variations in the technological sophistication of their weapons systems, and variations in the speed of deployment of those systems.,I told Congress, and again I am quoting from the material we presented last February to the Congress which was made public at that time, that: \"We have given special attention to an analysis of Soviet threats over and above those projected in the latest national intelligence estimates.,\"We have done so because an assured destruction capability, a capability to survive the first strike and survive with sufficient power to destroy the attacker, is the vital first objective which must be met in full, regardless of the cost, under all foreseeable circumstances and regardless of any difficulties involved.\",I added that after giving this special attention to an analysis of Soviet threats beyond those projected in the intelligence estimates, we had decided to accelerate the developments of the Poseidon missile. Now, that is a development of last year and does not relate to any action we may take in fiscal 1968.,Further, we have decided to move ahead on new penetration aids to insure greater capability for penetrating any defenses that might be put in place.,Thirdly, we have decided to complete the development of and to produce and deploy Minuteman III, which, although it bears the same name as Minuteman II and I, has a much greater operational capability.,We took those three steps not based upon the national intelligence estimates of what the Soviets would have in the future, but based upon the recognition that possibly the Soviets would develop a force in excess of those national intelligence estimates.,We have said repeatedly in the past that the United States has an intercontinental ballistic missile force three to four times that of the Soviet Union. That is still true today.,Our short-range intelligence estimates of the Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile force have been remarkably accurate. Evidence indicates that the Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile strength today is almost exactly--I mean within a few missiles, five to ten missiles, of what our intelligence people predicted it would be a year ago.,We also believe that last year's intelligence estimates--1965--of the intercontinental ballistic missile force which the Soviet Union will have a year hence will be accurate.,Our latest information confirms these estimates of last year for mid-1967.,Additionally, we now have evidence indicating that we were very wise to plan our intercontinental ballistic missile program on the assumption that the national intelligence estimates for the future beyond mid-1967 might be low, and despite the lack of any solid proof a year ago that the Soviets might decide to step up the pace of their intercontinental ballistic missile deployment. We think they are doing that now. We think they have been doing it for the past year. Evidence, therefore, now suggests that in mid-1968 there will be more Soviet ICBM's than were predicted a year ago in the national intelligence estimates.,I want to emphasize that we had anticipated that development in our planning, and this new intelligence estimate, therefore, has no impact, no basic impact, on our offensive strategic force requirements.,In summary, therefore, I think these three major points should be clearly understood by the American public:,First, even if the new intelligence estimates for mid-1968 prove accurate, the United States, without taking any actions beyond those already planned and already financed in the fiscal 1967 program, will continue to have a substantial quantitative and qualitative lead over the Soviet Union in intercontinental ballistic missiles at that time.,Secondly, that the United States has as many intercontinental ballistic missiles today as the latest intelligence estimate prepared within the last 3 or 4 weeks gives the Soviet Union several years hence.,Thirdly, that our strategic forces have today, and they will continue to have in the future, the capability of absorbing a deliberate first strike against this Nation and surviving with the sufficient strength to retaliate in such a way as to inflict unacceptable damage upon the aggressor or any combination of aggressors.,This is the foundation of the deterrent power on which our national security depends.,I have gone to some length to discuss this matter because the power of our strategic missile force and the associated bomber force, the power of that force to survive a strike and to survive with sufficient capability to destroy the attacker, is the deterrent of an attack on this Nation, is the foundation of our security, and has the first claim on our resources, regardless of the amount required.,That is the policy we have followed in 1967; that is the policy we are following in developing the 1968 program.,I apologize, Mr. President, for taking this much time.,NIKE X,[16.] Q. There is apparently going to be considerable pressure in the new Congress to go ahead with Nike X because of the advance in the Soviet antimissile system.,Has your position changed any about the Nike X?,SECRETARY MCNAMRA. As I said earlier, I don't want to comment on any specific weapons systems for 1968.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[17.] Q. Mr. President, how are you feeling, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Fine.,THE DEFENSE BUDGET,[18.] Q. Will the supplemental be just to fund the day-to-day cost of the war? Is there something new?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. The supplement to the fiscal 1967 budget will be related solely to the funding and financing of operations in Vietnam.,Q. Mr. Secretary, what was the original budget figure?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. $58.5 billion, if I recall the figure correctly, for fiscal 1967.,MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE FUNDS,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the $500 million that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board said it could make available, is this coming from the same source as the $250 million?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The $250 million will be used in the same field.,They are from different sources. One is from an appropriation of Congress. The other is from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.,It makes a total of $750 million available in this field thus far--these two announcements,,Q. Are there any plans to release the other $750 million that Congress appropriated?,THE PRESIDENT. Why don't you write a story on this $500 million, and not overdo it today, and we will see.,The answer is no, we have no plans at this time.,QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARY'S STATEMENT,[20.] Q. Mr. Secretary, the statement that you read really touched on most of the points that are made against advancing the antimissile missile program. Is that not so?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No. The statement I read had to do with the Soviet offensive force and the degree to which that offensive force might knock out our bombers or our missiles before they had an opportunity to retaliate in response to an attack on us, and, therefore, the need for possible additions to that force. What I said was that last year, as always, we made a prediction of Soviet forces in the future.,The national intelligence estimate is the basis for that. We use that as the foundation of our force planning.,However, last year, recognizing that the Soviets might produce and deploy missiles in excess of the number included in the national intelligence estimate, we took account of that and actually expanded the fiscal 1967 budget to finance these three additional actions, the development of the Poseidon, the additional penetration aids, and the deployment of Minuteman III, in order to take account of this bare possibility that they would go above the national intelligence estimate.,They appear to have done so. Frankly, the amount by which they have accelerated has not been as great as we took account of in this greater than expected case.,It does not relate to antiballistic missiles, however.,Q. There have been a lot of stories on \"we won't if you don't.\" Do you have any reason why the Soviet Union is now beginning,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, I can't explain their actions.,AUDITING OF VIETNAM CONSTRUCTION\nCONTRACTS,[21.] Q. Sir, there have been comments in Congress, notably by the Morse subcommittee, that there has been insufficient financial surveillance over some of the Defense construction contracts in Vietnam. Could you comment?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. We have an auditing system at work. It has been at work since the construction started. The audits on the whole have been comprehensive. I think they have shown, as you might expect, that in the rush of putting in place the tremendous infrastructure that we have--wharves, ports, depots, air bases-there has been some waste, but, on the whole, I am pleased with the performance of our civilian contractors and our military construction battalions.,I think that the program is .properly controlled.,VIETNAM COSTS,[22.] Q. Mr. Secretary, how much of the $58.5 billion do you attribute directly to Vietnam?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. I have nothing more to add on the cost of the military operation in Vietnam than what the President has said previously.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-12-02","text":"[Held with Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, and Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistant to the President],THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Mr. Ackley came into the office a little after 9 o'clock, and I arrived a little before 9 o'clock.,We have been reviewing some of the Council's evaluations during the morning, and will be doing so during the day.,Mr. Califano brought some matters down to discuss with me and for me to act upon.,I will ask George Christian to prepare the necessary releases.,RELEASE OF COPPER FROM NATIONAL\nSTOCKPILE,[2.] I am authorizing the release of 150,000 tons of copper to be allocated solely to the defense and defense-supporting users. We will plan to distribute more of it in the early part of the year than in the latter part of the year.,The set-aside levels for the first and second quarters have been tentatively agreed upon.,The Attorney General has given me an opinion that I am acting on under the authority contained in section 5 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.,The release is based upon the recommendations of Mr. Ackley, as Chairman of the Council, Mr. McNamara, Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Connor, Mr. Fowler, and Mr. Bryant of the Office of Emergency Planning.\nThe details will be made available to you. 1,1 See Item 636.,REPORT OF PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE\nPATENT SYSTEM,[3.] I am today also releasing the report of the Presidential Commission on Patent Policy. It is a result of more than a year's study. The Commission was appointed on July 23, 1965.,I asked them to determine how well the patent system currently serves our national needs and international goals, and, secondly, to devise possible improvements and recommend any changes required to strengthen the entire system.,This has been a very fine and constructive commission. I am turning over their report to the Secretary of Commerce, the Acting Attorney General, and my Science Adviser, Dr. Hornig.,In releasing the report, I want to commend it to the attention of all interested Americans. I want to especially express my appreciation to the cochairmen, Dr. Harry Huntt Ransom, chancellor of the University of Texas, and Judge Simon H. Rifkind, of New York, and the other gentlemen who gave so generously of their time.,They are listed in the release that will be available to you. 2,2 See Item 637.,QUESTIONS,[4.] I will be glad to take any questions that you may have to ask. Then Mr. Ackley and Mr. Califano will be glad to explain anything to you that you may want them to elaborate upon.,GOVERNMENT INCOME,[5.] Q. Mr. President, what is the Council's evaluation of Government income for this fiscal year?,THE PRESIDENT. The Council is following the gross national product figures and the figures that they report to me now are generally the figures that have been made available to you.,At this stage of the game, it looks like something in the neighborhood of $117 billion, but there are still 7 months yet to go.,We must say that that is speculative and a guess at the best. If it is up or down, as it will be, no one can guess on what 65 million workers are going to pay in 7 months ahead of the time that it is all in.,That seems to be the best prudent guess of the fiscal experts, which includes the Council.,NATIONAL INCOME BUDGET,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any estimate on the deficit or surplus in the national income budget?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The economists give a great deal of attention to that budget, I think much more to that than they do to the administrative budget, because that determines how much comes out of the economic bloodstream and how much goes into it.,I think their present estimates are that this year it will be very close to a balance, perhaps a billion or two off.,Q. Sir, would that be a deficit or a surplus?,THE PRESIDENT. I say a balance. I would think if you are dealing with $140 billion-odd, you are getting into a pretty close range. I would say there has been a surplus up until now, but we would expect at the end of the year it would be reasonably close to balance.,RELEASE OF COPPER AND THE PRICE SITUATION\nIN METALS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, this is probably covered in the release we will get, but is the release of this copper connected in any way with the price situation in metals?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We don't discuss price. We make available this copper. We want to keep these commodities that are extensively used in war products at as low a price as possible.,We regret there has been an increase in some of them. But due to the copper supply situation and due to the restraints that have been placed on certain production, and our inability to substantially increase our own production above what we have tried to get, they have felt that this was the wise and prudent thing because of the needs of the defense users.,DECISIONS ON BUDGET AND TAX INCREASE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, did Mr. Ackley bring you down any definitive figures that will help you make a decision on the budget, tax increase, et cetera?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but they all may change tomorrow. These things do change in our society.,He reviewed with me in some detail some of the things that I mentioned to some of you I had seen. The employment figures are released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show that there are almost 65 million people working in nonfarm jobs.,They show that employment is up 2.9 million this year.,They show that unemployment is down to 1.7 percent for married persons, and there have been reductions in teenage and nonwhite unemployment.,They show that the average manufacturing weekly wage is about $114--$113.98 or $113.99, I believe.,All of those things have a bearing on what we are guessing our revenue will be and what we are guessing our gross national product will be.,You can imagine the shock that would come to the UP if you put a lead on that 2.9 million people lost their jobs this year.,But if you do, and I assume you will, write that 2.9 million more men are working today and have new jobs. I hope that shocks them, too, because that is good news and that is something they are glad to hear.,We hope that every person that can have a job, who needs one, gets one. That is the goal we are working toward.,They do give us problems. You have problems in whatever you do, whether you have unemployment or full employment. We like the problems we have now that we are discussing this morning much more than we do those we would discuss if we had a depression.,THE ECONOMY GENERALLY,[9.] Q. Mr. President, on the basis of these figures, how does the economy look, generally?,THE PRESIDENT. I just told you. It is $114 a weekly wage, 2.9 million people working this year that were not working last year, roughly 65 million working on nonfarm jobs. It is very healthy and very strong.,PRESSURES ON THE ECONOMY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you and your advisers working with any estimate yet of the overall pressure on the economy next year? That is, the overheating. Could you tell us about what your estimates are?,THE PRESIDENT. We are working with it every day but we don't have our estimates at hand.,We have the plant investment figures which are a factor to be taken into consideration. They will be announced a little later.\nWe discussed them this morning.,Q. They are ready?,THE PRESIDENT. They are, yes.,They are down, as expected. They may be announced in time for your deadline.,A NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you think we could expect an announcement shortly on a new Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,THE ECONOMY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, are there any signs at the present that the overheating of the economy is lessening which raises the possibility of a tax increase, if one should be put into effect, which might have an adverse effect on the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. We have to weigh all the factors before reaching a decision like that. I do not want to evaluate them now. I don't want to mislead any of you.,I recall one time when I told you three or four factors that had to be considered. I received a nice big lead that said the intimation was very strong that a tax increase would be forthcoming promptly.,So I do not think we had better go into that. We will make the decision. We will weigh these things carefully.,There are a good many things we have to look at. We have time to do it. We will use that time.,Then we will be making a guess. But we do not want to guess until we have more information.,EASING CREDIT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility that the Federal Reserve Bank or any other Government agency can do anything more to ease credit right now?,THE PRESIDENT. There is always the possibility, surely. The answer is yes.,Q. Is there anything in the works?,THE PRESIDENT. You will have to ask the Federal Reserve about their operations.,THE MEXICAN TRIP,[14.] Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to say now who might be going to Mexico with you tomorrow?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. George 2a will give that to you.,2a George Christian, an assistant press secretary.,I have said it a time or two. Secretary Rusk will be going. You have the names of the others: Assistant Secretary Lincoln Gordon, and the Members of Congress who are on the border of Mexico who represent our areas.,Senator Tower, Senator Yarborough, and the Governor have been invited. They can give you the tabulations on those who have accepted. There will also be Congressman Pickle, who represents this district, plus the Congressmen on the Rio Grande, Mrs. Johnson, and staff people. Ambassador Linowitz of the OAS is coming down to make a report to me and will go with me.,I believe he is coming tonight with Mrs. Johnson.,Q. Mr. President, is there some prohibition against the President of Mexico crossing the border without the consent of Congress that will bar his coming over?,THE PRESIDENT. ] don't know whether it will bar it. I will answer your question as to the last part of it.,I think the President has to have the consent of the Congress to leave the country. I don't know what he has done about it. I don't know what his plans are. I do not need consent. I plan to go into Mexico and I look forward with great pleasure to making the trip.,Q. Mr. President, will there be an occasion for you to make a speech of some kind there?,THE PRESIDENT. It will not be a very long one. You do not need to be troubled about it.,Q. I was hoping we could have an advance text before we leave in the morning.,THE PRESIDENT. If you will take it and say that this is my speech and use it and stand on it without writing two paragraphs that this is the text which I released, which I did not deliver. I cannot guess whether I will deliver it or not. I have one prepared and I will give it to you.,Q. That is fine.,RELEASE OF COPPER,[15.] Q. Mr. President, I did not understand how many tons of copper you mentioned. Was it 150,000 tons?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. They will give you the release. Can you hold that a moment?,Q. Surely, Mr. President.,FURTHER TALKS WITH MR. ACKLEY,[16.] Q. Do you expect to see Mr. Ackley down here again soon, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I expect him to be in and out wherever I am.,Q. Is there any kind of a December 10--I know you do not like the word \"deadline\"--,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no, again.,Q. He recommended, when you were in the hospital, that you come to some sort of a decision by December 10, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. He makes a lot of recommendations. But I have answered your question.,ROLE OF BUDGETS IN DETERMINING TAXES,[17.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the national income budget, does it play a larger role in determining the tax question than the administrative budget? How do they stack together?,THE PRESIDENT. The economists tell me that they give much more weight to the income account budget than they do the administrative budget because it reflects a much more accurate figure of the economy. I have to give considerable attention to all three of them.,Have you any other questions of me? Does anyone have any other questions?,Gardner, do you want to state what you have been doing? And take any questions?,MR. ACKLEY'S COMMENTS ON THE ECONOMY,[18.] MR. ACKLEY. Very briefly, the President asked me to come down to review some of the more recent economic news, and I did. I told him what had been going on in the economy, not that he did not follow it about as closely as I did.,But I gave him my views about it. We talked about various problems that are present and pending, problems that the President described as the pleasant problems of a prosperous economy; and about the decisions that have to be made.\nThat is about all I need to say.,Q. Mr. Ackley, what sort of GNP do you project for this year?,MR. ACKLEY. You will find that in our Council Economic Report. For which year?,Q. For 1967.,MR. ACKLEY. We will give that to you about the 20th of January.,Q. Did you bring any new information which throws light on the fiscal and monetary situation as the President approaches his decision?,MR. ACKLEY. I think every piece of information is relevant. The employment numbers that were released at 11 o'clock today are certainly very relevant as showing where the economy stands now.,The plant and equipment figures that I brought down and discussed with the President also are obviously very relevant.,New numbers come in almost every day which add one little bit of information that is helpful in assessing where we are and where we are going.,Q. Mr. Ackley, how would you sum up the outlook for the economy in the 1967 calendar year in terms of prosperity continuing? Will there be a slowdown? Is there a chance of a recession?,MR. ACKLEY. I would summarize it in very general terms. Of course, prosperity will continue. We will have an expanding economy.,No one can ever say that a recession is absolutely out of the question. I don't think anyone has yet been able to do that.,I certainly see no reasonable prospect of recession. We are hoping the growth of the economy will continue to be along the moderate course that it has been ever since early this year.,If it is, it will be a very rewarding kind of an economy in terms of sustaining jobs and incomes.,We are also hoping and looking for movement back toward price stability with less of an advance in prices than we have had in 1966.,Q. Mr. Ackley, what plant equipment figures are you talking about that you brought down? Are these projections for next year?,MR. ACKLEY. These are the results of the Commerce Department-SEC Survey of Investment Intentions by Business Firms.,Q. What do those figures say and what do they indicate to you?,MR. ACKLEY. Unfortunately, they are not yet released. I do not want to speak about them.,Q. They are only for the first quarter?\nMR. ACKLEY. No. They will be for the first and the second quarters of 1967, plus the preliminary estimate for the fourth quarter and a revision for the quarter just past.,Q. They are pretty early, are they not?,MR. ACKLEY. This is about the time when these figures come out. A year ago they came out at about just this time. They were rather startling figures.,Q. Could you, without violating the release, say whether they serve to whip up or to calm any concern about an overheated economy?,MR. ACKLEY. I would rather not comment on the figures at all before they are released.,Q. Mr. Ackley, you said you talked about various problems. Is there anything more specific you can give us on that? What problems?,MR. ACKLEY. Prices, wages, the balance of payments, jobs, and the budget--they are all problems.,THE PRESIDENT. We have talked, since he came, to the Director of the Budget, to the Secretary of Defense, and to the Director of the Budget the second time. We will be doing that.,This is not an attempt to build up anything. It is just an activity report.,Q. Mr. Ackley, you said you were looking for and hoping for more price stability in the next year. Just taking the second part, hoping for, what reason do you have to hope for more price stability? What indicators are there in the economy?,MR. ACKLEY. I think there are several things that are very relevant there.,In the first place, we don't expect a repetition of the large increase in farm and food prices that we had this year.,In the second place, the growth of the economy at a moderate balanced rate will not require the large additions to employment, as large as we had going in 1965 to 1966, when we pulled into the labor force large numbers of teenagers, women, and unskilled workers.,It ought to be a more balanced, moderate kind of a growth that will not create the same kind of bottlenecks and pressures that had contributed to rising prices in some sectors this past year.,THE PRESIDENT. Are there any other questions?,Q. Do you care to comment on Mr. Heller's 3 proposal of a surtax of something like 5 or 6 percent?\nMR. ACKLEY. No, I don't think so.,THE PRESIDENT. If there are no other questions, Joe Califano can discuss with any of you who have an interest the 150,000-ton copper allotment and the first and second quarter percentage distribution, answering any other questions you may want to ask.,3 Walter W. Heller, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, January 1961-November 1964.,FEDERAL TAX SHARING WITH STATES,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the House Republicans have said that their big legislative goal of 1967 is sharing of Federal tax revenues with the States. Do you care to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,MR. CALIFANO'S COMMENTS ON DISPOSAL\nOF COPPER,[20.] MR. CALIFANO. The figure I think you asked for, which the President just gave, is 150,000 tons which comes out of the stockpile.,The set-aside figures for the first quarter are 26 percent of the average quarterly copper supply in 1965, and 29 percent of the average quarterly copper supply in 1965 is the set-aside figure for the second quarter. This is roughly 10 percent of the copper supply in 1967.,Q. What do you mean by \"set-aside figures\"? Is that to be added to the stockpile?,MR. CALIFANO. These are percentages that the Secretary of Commerce determines shall be used for defense purposes, by defense users, just as 150,000 tons is a release for defense users and defense-supporting users.,Q. Mr. Califano, where will that leave the stockpile?,MR. CALIFANO. The stockpile was at 409,000 tons before the release. It leaves it at 259,000 tons.,Q. Is part of this disposal aimed at keeping the price down, or is it entirely just to satisfy defense needs?,MR. CALIFANO. It has nothing to do with that.,THE PRESIDENT. It could affect it, but that is not the purpose of it. Don't let them get you hung on that.,MR. CALIFANO. I might add in connection with the size of the stockpile that you will all recall that the President ordered, last March, the General Services Administrator, Lawson Knott, to set up a program to expand copper production.,Mr. Knott has reported to the President that beginning in 1968 and continuing through 1971, this program will bring in a total of about 200,000 tons of additional copper, and that starting in 1972 it will bring in 200,000 tons each year? 4,4 The President's memorandum of March 29 to the Director, Office of Emergency Planning (see note to Item 636) was also transmitted to the Administrator of General Services.,THE PRESIDENT. Are there any other questions?\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] There are two statements that will be made available to you. We won't take all of your time by going through both of them. You can consider that I read each line and each word, it is mine, and I stated it at the press conference, if you choose.,They involve, first, the budget cutbacks, postponements, deferments, et cetera, and a proposed visit to Mexico on Saturday of this week.,FEDERAL BUDGET CUTBACKS 1,[2.] On the budget cutbacks, I have told you heretofore that in the last month, since returning from Asia and since Congress sent me the appropriation bills in the last 4 weeks, my advisers and I have analyzed the 1,250 appropriations and the 2,500 programs. We have now concluded the first review.,1 For complete text, see Item 631.,There will be periodic reviews from time to time, and continuing ones. I emphasize that, not only for your benefit and the country's, but for the Cabinet members and agency heads.,On the basis of this review, I have approved the recommendations of the Cabinet and the agency heads for a fiscal 1967 budgetary cutback of $5 billion 300 million in Federal programs--emphasizing and capitalizing \"Programs.\",With this approved reduction, we then plan to achieve a $3 billion-plus cut in Federal spending for the next 7 months of this fiscal year.,I reviewed yesterday some 25 separate statements that I made last year, since the first of the year, stressing the need for reducing low-priority items and less essential Federal spending.,I met innumerable times with Members of the House and Senate and the leadership, the members of the Appropriations Committees, and had Cabinet officers such as the Secretary of the Treasury do likewise.,The Congress was urged, as you will remember, to keep its appropriations within the limits of the administration's budget, which was a little under $113 billion. Despite these urgings, Congress added $3 billion 200 million in new obligational authority, and something over $2 billion 500 million in expenditures this year.,These increases have been a major factor in the decision approved today. We have taken this action only after careful deliberation and discussion with the wisest and the most experienced advisers that are available to a President.,My economic advisers--the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the President's Council and the other members of the Council, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget--recommend these reductions that are being made. These reductions generally are fully endorsed by the Cabinet and the agency heads involved. From time to time they will be adjusting their expenditures within the department to cover their overall target goal and their commitment to US.,In addition, we have discussed this with 34 key members of the House and Senate, including the leaders of both parties, and the Members of the Appropriations Committees.,They, too, believe that reductions are prudent and are necessary for our national well-being. We took a chart of something with 34 names on it, with all of the principal members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and got their suggestions on specific reductions and they were considered.,The largest portion of the Federal budget involves national defense and expenditures over which we have little control, such as interest on the public debt, veterans' assistance payments, agricultural price supports, and payments on prior contracts entered into. These reductions that we are making, therefore, come from the $29 billion of the 1967 Federal budget over which we have some control and from the highway construction program.,There will be some adjustments, some additions, and some deletions of individual items that we anticipate cutting as we get down to it, and issue the order.,You are probably familiar generally with the $1 billion 100 million order already on highway construction. I will give you a general list of other items and amounts as I reviewed it the other night. I will give you the amounts today.,Our economy, we believe, is strong. In the last 5 1/2 years our economic growth has brought us abundance far beyond our expectations.,But there are pressures in the economy which burden our continued growth. Inflation is the cruelest and most capricious burden of all. It strikes hardest at the poor, the old, and the middle-class families. It erodes the hard-earned savings of every citizen. It saps the strength of American industry and its competitiveness.,Last January 19th I recommended a special program to take several billion dollars out of our economy through a series of revenue measures. On March 15, the deadline I had stated, the Congress responded by enacting these proposals.,Some 6 months later, on September 8, 1966, I again outlined a further program to help fight inflation. Within 6 weeks the Congress responded by suspending the 7 percent investment tax credit and the use of accelerated depreciation on buildings. Our proposals were approved by the overwhelming votes of members of both parties.,Today, with the $5.3 billion reduction in Federal programs, we have taken another step to protect and to preserve our prosperity. By that action, we will stretch out and postpone, withhold and defer the less essential items of our programs--the low-priority ones. Nor will we stop there.,We are going to continue from day to day, week to week, to review and study all of our programs and to make further reductions where possible. I welcome suggestions for additional reductions from the Cabinet, from the Congress, the country--and you, if you have any.,I have asked the Cabinet officers to continue to comb through their budgets and to eliminate any further unnecessary items that they can detect in the days ahead.,I have asked Secretary McNamara to review again every aspect of the Defense budget to see where expenditures might be reduced.,Let me make clear one point: We have not forgotten that behind all of the dollar signs and behind all of the contracts, and all of the project grants, there are people. It would be shortsighted to shortchange the young or the needy, the ill or the old. We have not done that.,We would rather postpone the construction of some office buildings and stretch out the completion of some modern highways than to bring to a stop the momentum of our great programs for the people that hold out a promise of hope and opportunity, education and health, to so many.,Our economy at its root is people. When our people are at work and purposeful, our economy is healthy and stable. When our dollar is sound, our Nation is strong.\nWe have strengthened our Nation today. We appeal to every good American to do all that he can to help us.,INSPECTION OF AMISTAD DAM SITE WITH\nPRESIDENT DIAZ ORDAZ 2,[3.] On another subject, President Diaz Ordaz of Mexico has asked me to join him on Saturday for a joint inspection of the Amistad Dam construction site on the Rio Grande.,2 The President read the full text of this statement as released by the White House Press Office.,I will be accompanied by Mrs. Johnson, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador Fulton Freeman, Joseph Friedkin, Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, Governor and Mrs. John Connally, members of the Texas delegation who are able to accept, and other appropriate officials.,Some of you may know that Amistad Dam is the second major international storage dam to be built by our two Governments on the Rio Grande pursuant to the 1944 water treaty.,I had an extensive discussion with President Lopez Matcos in 1958 when I was Senate majority leader, involving this dam and the recreational grounds in that area at about the time we received our first appropriation for it.,The dam will prevent floods that originate in rivers on both sides of the boundary from causing loss of life and property damage such as occurred in 1954 and 1958. It will also assist in water conservation over potential power generation. It will enable the two Governments for the first time to control the waters of the Rio Grande throughout its international section.,QUESTIONS,BREAKDOWN OF PROGRAM CUTS,[4.] Q. Are we going to get a breakdown of where the program cuts are?,THE PRESIDENT. You have been given the total. We will give you a general summary. There will be adjustments, as I said, from time to time. I will give you the present decision. We hope that we can increase them. There may be transfers or changes within the departments, depending on what the States spend and what they don't, the reallocations, and so forth.,I will give you the program reduction first and the consequent expenditures second.,In highway construction it will be $1.1 billion in the Federal program.,In housing and urban development it will be in the neighborhood of $1 billion.,We have 1987 million in Federal programs. We believe we can produce an expenditure reduction of about $546 million. That will mostly be in the field of the add-ons of the Congress. We released $250 million but we had $1 billion.,In the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare we will have about $530 million in programs, and about $275 million in expenditure reductions. That will be in the delayed start of a good deal of construction and the transfer of certain allocations that are unspent in certain areas.,We don't want to stimulate them to spending in order to be sure that they are not transferred. For that reason, I do not want to go into any great detail on that.,We are going to meet this goal of $530 million. You can say that.,Q. Is that school construction that you referred to?,THE PRESIDENT. No. This is health, education, and welfare. It may involve some of the funds that are not used. It will involve construction of certain buildings in certain areas.,In the Corps of Engineers we will have a $436 million reduction, with $60 million in expenditures. That will be deferring some contracts and program reductions. Some of them are not really ready to advertise, where funds have been provided, and there are some that we will postpone advertising. It will effect a small reduction of $60 million.,In the Department of Agriculture program reductions will be in excess of $400 million and about $350 million in expenditure reduction.,That will involve some of the add-ons the Congress made, on loans to farmers and farm areas.,The Department of the Interior will have an across-the-board $206 million in program reduction and $110 million in expenditure reduction.,In the General Services Administration it will be a little over $100 million in program reduction, and there will be a reduction of about $30 million in expenditures. That will be primarily in warehouse buildings and public buildings. It will be delaying the start, stretching them out, and postponing their construction.,The Agency for International Development has taken a $400 million reduction in their budget already. We asked them to take another $25 million in program reductions and $10 million in expenditure reduction.,The Department of Commerce will have $65 million in program reduction and $12 million in reduction of expenditures.,In the Federal Aviation Agency we will have a program reduction of about $35 million. It will be primarily equipment and electronic devices and things of that kind. In the Small Business Administration, loans through different agencies will be reduced about $50-odd million and about $30 million in expenditure reductions.,The Department of Labor will be $25 million in programs and $25 million in expenditures.,The Department of the Treasury will be $20 million in programs and Six million in expenditures.,Veterans Administration will be $15 million in programs and $7 million in expenditures.,You can't change the payments, but you can change some of the administration.,In NASA there will be a $60 million program reduction. This will require some contract cancellations. They will be specifically brought to your attention as those things take place. About $30 million in expenditures is involved.,In the Office of Economic Opportunity there is about a $32 million program reduction. We will defer expenditures over $100 million. That is because we do make now an allocation on a 12-month basis. In this tense period, we will make them on a shorter basis--sometimes 6 months, so you don't have the funds stretched out.,Additional savings to help meet pay raise costs will be about $190 million. We put certain ceilings on agencies.,That will amount to about $3.3 billion in program reduction, and about $2.9 billion plus in expenditure reduction.,Then we have about $900 million in program deferral and about $600 million in expenditure reduction in several items. They are military construction, defense procurement authorizations.,Allied health professional personnel will be $21 million in programs and $10 million in expenditures.,Elementary and secondary education will be $530 million in program reductions and $395 million in expenditures.,I touched on that a moment ago, but this is largely increased congressional authorizations which we do not plan to fund. That should not be alarming to you because a good many of the Congressmen expected us to send up a supplementary after the authorization went to us. We didn't do it, so they are aware of that already, particularly in the education field.,In higher education facilities there is $22 million in deferral and $3 million in reduction.,Highway safety is $10 million deferral and $3 million in expenditures.,Water pollution is $12 million in deferral and $28 million in expenditure reduction.,A group including the Coast Guard and the National Air Museum, aid to libraries, food for peace, and so on, run about $225 million in programs and $125 million in reductions. That roughly is $900 million deferrals and $600 million-plus in reductions.,TAX DECISION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, what does this do to the prospects of a tax change?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there is not a thing in the world we can tell you about that until we have the figures. This somewhat offsets the add-ons of the Congress.,Q. When do you think you will have that figure?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope around the end of the year. We can never be exactly positive when we are projecting 18 months ahead, but we will have better information because the Joint Chiefs are working very diligently on each of the service budgets, and particularly the Vietnam budget, both for the supplemental and for the yearend. I hope to see them around the middle of the month.,I am asking for a revenue estimate from time to time through Internal Revenue and through the Treasury, and through various sources there. I am going to see the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers perhaps this week.,No decision has been made. No decision will be made until we have all of the facts. Guesses will be made from time to time. That is a democratic privilege. But at best, they are guesses.,Q. Do you put Hale Boggs 3 in the guessing category?,THE PRESIDENT. I think he puts himself there. I think that was his language.,3On November 27, 1966, Representative Hale Boggs of Louisiana was interviewed on the Columbia Broadcasting System's television-radio program \"Face the Nation.\" During the program Mr. Boggs stated that he felt a $10-15 billion tax increase was an economic necessity but added that he had no information on the President's tax intentions.,Q. Mr. President, you say you don't think you will be able to tell until around the turn of the year. Does this mean that you do not expect to announce your decision on this question in the month of December?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not want to forecast that.,REDUCTION IN FEDERAL PAYROLL,[6.] Q. Would any of these program cutbacks involve a reduction in Federal payroll?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would think so.,Q. There will be a reduction as a result?,THE PRESIDENT. You asked would any of these dollars involve a salary reduction, and the answer is yes.,Q. There will be fewer Federal employees?,THE PRESIDENT. Not necessarily. There may be, as a result of these, but then it may go up from time to time. We have put pretty strong ceilings on all of the departments already.,EFFECT OF BUDGET CUTS ON SPACE PROGRAMS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, will the changes in the NASA budget cause any postponement of any target dates for any of the space programs?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't think so. The general picture is a very tight one in that budget of theirs. We have our hopes and our plans. We realize it is conceivable they will have slip-ups. We don't want our credibility attacked if they do, because we realize that possibility. But $30 million out of some several billion dollars wouldn't cause a change in the target date of the moon schedule, if you are talking about that.,It will require some adjustment in some contracts that we entered into, maybe with some schools and others that will require adjusting.,FEDERAL WAGE BOARD RECOMMENDATION,[8.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us your reaction to the recommendation from the Federal Wage Board for a 4 1/2 percent wage increase for the so-called blue-collar workers of the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't made a detailed analysis of that. The Civil Service Commission has received it. They have informed me of some of the recommendations made. They are presently evaluating those with the Council of Economic Advisers. It will be one of the matters that will be discussed when Mr. Ackley comes down.,WIRETAPPING,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report that the Federal Crime Commission is going to come out with a recommendation that wiretapping be legalized. Could you support that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that report is premature. I have no such information that they are going to make any such recommendation.,Any recommendation they make to the President will be carefully considered. It would be better to announce the decision when their recommendation has been made and I have had a chance to study it.,AMISTAD DAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, is the Amistad Dam now nearly completed?,THE PRESIDENT. It is in its second phase. It began in 1965. Bill 4 will give you the estimated completion date. I believe both countries have their contractors. They are now at work on the phase the Mexican contractor is building. The President of Mexico discussed with me the possibility of going out and observing their work. We will spend about 4 hours reviewing their progress.,4 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,Q. Is that the park you discussed with the President of Mexico, the international park that was started?,THE PRESIDENT. We hope we can have an intensive development of both areas by both countries in the area of the dam. We expect to have a rather large national park on our side of the dam. We hope there can be an invitation to all of the country and the world to come and visit it. We think it will be developed into a very attractive area.,Q. Will you actually be in Mexico, on both sides of the river?,THE PRESIDENT. On the other side I will be in Mexico, and on this side I will be in this country.,Q. You intend to cross the river?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,TRUCE IN VIETNAM,[11..] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us if the troops in Vietnam are going to get a truce over Christmas and New Year's?,THE PRESIDENT. I have read what has been said in the briefings. That is where I will leave it now. As soon as we have any information, we will make it available to you. I would expect that, though, at an early date--perhaps sometime in the next few hours, but certainly before you go to Mexico, so you will be free to think about other matters.,Q. Does that mean today, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not know. If I had known it would be today, I would have said today.,Q. A few hours is pretty quick.,THE PRESIDENT. I understand it is open to criticism.,Q. I don't mean it is open to criticism. It is open to the opening of that door.,THE PRESIDENT. Maybe it would be better to put it in the next few hours or days, prior to your leaving for Mexico. We will have some further announcement on that.,It is now being carefully discussed. As you know, the South Vietnamese Government has hundreds of thousands of men involved, too. Views are being exchanged, and as soon as a decision has been made, you will be very promptly notified.,Q. Are you discussing the idea that perhaps this may lead--,THE PRESIDENT. I won't go into what we are discussing.,MESSAGE TO PRIME MINISTER HOLT OF\nAUSTRALIA,[12.] Q. Did you send congratulations to Harold Holt?,THE PRESIDENT. We send wires to the heads of government and to Prime Ministers who have elections and who are successful. We even send them to members of the opposition party, sometimes, in this country.,Q. Well, in this case, this opposition leader says it is meddling in their elections.,THE PRESIDENT. We just send the wires.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[13.] Q. How do you feel, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Fine.,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS AND ACTIVITIES,[14.] Q. Do you feel you will be here for the rest of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not a man of an evening nature these days. I will be here for a good part of the afternoon. Then I will be going back to the ranch, and I will be coming back.,Q. Could you tell us generally, Mr. President, just, so to speak, in honor of the occasion of using this new office, what you were working on today?,THE PRESIDENT. I signed a good deal of correspondence, and there are several matters here. I have a matter from the Civil Service Commission. Here are some matters left with me by the leadership.,This is a review of the Presidential statements in connection with low priority items, and the congressional statements in connection with the same thing.,Here are some matters from Ambassador Goldberg that I have not had a chance to read and digest and get to the bottom of. Here is a memorandum from the Democratic National Committee, and a note from Mr. Cater 5 that I have not read, involving communication satellites and international education.,5 S. Douglass Cater, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,Here are some members to be appointed to the Commission on Health and Manpower, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.,There are various reports on prices. These are cattle and hog and wheat and potato prices, and the prices of international raw materials.,Q. How are the cattle prices? Are they pretty good?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not had a chance to read them, but it does not give the actual price. It says that cattle, hogs, and wheat were up a little.,Q. We know a Texas rancher who has cattle. That is why I wanted to ask the question.,THE PRESIDENT. We don't sell cattle for meat. We sell cattle for breeding purposes, so that the price does not affect that at all. I won't take your time to give you a rundown on the cattle we raise.,Q. While we are on that subject, how many cattle do you have at the present time?,THE PRESIDENT. It is a pure guess, and I do not want to be held to it, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100. There are mother cows, and some of them have calves and some of them do not have.,Q. Stuart Long 6 has been bragging about a bull that he has, which he is very proud of.,THE PRESIDENT. Most men are proud of their bulls.,6 Stuart Long, founder and manager of Long News Service in Austin, Texas.,I also have a communication on the Asian Bank meeting, and here is a detailed report from Mr. Black.7 He will be here later in the month.,7 See Item 642[1].,There are appointments to other commissions, and there are a good many appointments involved here. Here are the November economic indicators. I also have some FBI reports.,USE OF OFFICE IN FEDERAL BUILDING,[15.] Q. Is this the first time you ever have used your office here?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it is in constant use. I have been here several times. We have some things that we keep here, and I have been here four or five times.,DEFERMENT OF EXPENDITURES,[16.] Q. In the 1940's and 1950's, when the President would sometimes refuse to spend money that was appropriated by Congress, they would call that impounding of funds. Is this similar to that, or does the fact that the congressional leaders have been consulted on this and have agreed to it, make it in a different category from the impounding of funds?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall, it makes it different from what was done then. I don't say it would be a different category. Here we have a good deal of deferment of contracts, but in line with Senator Dirksen's motion last year it does not mean that there is a cancellation of the funds or the expenditure.,Here we have an authorization, but the Executive is not asking to fund that. Here we have a postponement, we will say, maybe from January to March--a stretch-out.,I am not familiar with all of the details that may be involved in those questions in 1940 or 1950, the two decades there, but I would say this: It is a combination of not asking for funds that were authorized, and not spending funds in some instances which were appropriated.,Generally speaking, it is deferring expenditures and postponing expenditures, and stretching out expenditures, so that we do not shove them all into a period of 7 months and continue to put gasoline on this fire.,SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you have anything to say about the current flare-up in the Middle East between Egypt and Israel, and that whole area?,THE PRESIDENT. We are concerned about it, and we are in very dose touch with it. We are doing everything we can to make a constructive contribution.,REACTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP\nTO CUTBACKS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, did the congressional leadership approve the cuts in general terms or specific terms?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not ask for their approval. I reviewed the situation with them, and I received their suggestions. I would not want to say anything that would permit you to develop or provoke a fight. I will leave it where it is, and we are doing very well on it now.,All of them have advocated the withholding, and motions have been offered to that effect, and this has been recommended very strongly by dozens and dozens of Congressmen and Senators.,We do not always at all times agree on what is nonessential. There is a general difference of opinion on that. It is nonessential until it affects you, and then it is essential.,I reviewed this with them, and there have been some adjustments and changes. Generally, they are the figures that I reviewed with you, and they understand them. I do not want to speak for them, or commit them. They spoke for themselves the other evening.,This is something that we have tried to do all year administratively. If you will recall, at one time it appeared that there could be an add-on of up to $7 billion or $8 billion. Because of these statements, and because of contact with the individual members, we kept that down to where it is a little over $3 billion on authorizations, and about $2 1/2 billion on expenditures.,This will move it down $5 billion more on programs, and over $3 billion in expenditures, if we are able to do it in 7 months as we anticipate.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-25","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S REVIEW OF HIS MEETING\nWITH THE LEADERSHIP,THE PRESIDENT. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.,[1.] I have had the pleasure the latter part of this afternoon of visiting with these gentlemen here with me this evening, the Vice President and the leadership of the Congress.,Earlier today I met with Secretary Weaver and Mr. Schultze. I think Mr. Moyers 1 gave you a report on that, but we would be glad to take any questions you may have if you care to make any inquiries in connection with their presence here.,1 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,Today I reviewed with the leadership the military situation in Vietnam and the most recent reports from General Westmoreland and General Wheeler.,I reviewed the diplomatic situation as reported in the weekly report from Ambassador Lodge.,I presented a report from the economic advisers to the leadership. We had a general discussion about the economy.,We reviewed the congressional increases in the 1967 budget recommendation. The NOA is about $3 billion 202 million and the expenditures are between $2 1/2 and $3 billion.,I discussed in very general terms with the Director of the Budget this morning the possibilities of certain deferrals, postponements, stretch-outs, and reductions in both program reductions and expenditure reductions for this fiscal year which ends June 30, 1967.,As you recall, back in early September I stated it would be our purpose to effect Federal program reductions in the area of $3 billion. I outlined what some of our hopes were in the field of housing and urban development, health, education, and welfare, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the General Services Administration, Atomic Energy Commission, AID, the Department of Commerce, the Federal Aviation Agency, Small Business, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, Veterans Administration, NASA, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and others with the leadership, and discussed the specific possibilities of program reduction with them.,The exact amounts of the funds authorized by Congress for which we do not plan to request appropriations this year was also reviewed in some detail. The Congress authorized almost $1 billion that we planned to have a program deferral on. We will have an expenditure reduction on that congressional authorization in excess of probably half a billion dollars. Our goal is to have in excess of $3 billion of program reductions.,Mr. Schultze is returning to Washington tonight after reviewing this matter with me in some detail today. He will meet with the individual Cabinet members and perhaps collectively with them the early part of the week, and will submit to me further recommendations. At that time I will take prompt action.\nI think that pretty well covers it.,We also reviewed with the leadership some specific items, such as impacted areas in the education appropriations, school lunch and milk increases that were put in over the President's recommendations. I received their advice and suggestions in connection with some of these matters.,Generally, I thought it was a very pleasant afternoon. I believe it was a fruitful one.,Because some of the gentlemen concerned felt that they had to return to Washington this evening, we thought that if you were to see them, we would have to ask your presence here even at this late hour.,Secretary Weaver has talked to me today about the possibility of providing some special assistance funds to help the homebuilding industry. He is going to return and make certain studies and report back to me over the weekend. We will take some action probably early in the week in that connection.,I think that is all that has happened today. I will be glad to take your questions, or if you prefer, I will give you a chance to hear from each individual present and let them make any comments they want to. Then you can ask questions of anybody you choose.,Senator Dirksen or Senator Mansfield, would you like to say something?\nSENATOR MANSFIELD. You have covered it pretty well.,SENATOR DIRKSEN. I have nothing to add.,QUESTIONS,REPUBLICAN SUPPORT,[2.] Q. Did you ask the Republican leadership to support your Great Society program next year?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not as such. I discussed with them primarily today not what we would recommend in the State of the Union Message next year, but what we would recommend in the way of reductions as promised in our September message.,EFFECT OF THE TIGHT MONEY SITUATION,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Schultze mentioned earlier today a prospective increase of $4 1/2 billion to $5 billion as the level of Federal expenditures due to this tight money situation. I had understood you mentioned that before, but how does this figure in now with your $3 billion? Wouldn't that throw things out of whack, so to speak?,THE PRESIDENT. They are two different items--just as Vietnam is different from the AID bill. What we are doing now is reviewing the entire budget to see what we can defer. We cannot defer our interest payments. We are having to defer some of our sales of Government securities. We do not know to what extent we will have to defer them. If the money market indicates that we can sell some of them, of course, we will do that.,Up to the moment, because of anticipated sales that we have not made due to the monetary situation, and because of rising interest costs on the Federal debt, there will be an item of $4 1/2 billion or $5 billion that has occurred since the monetary change.,What we are doing here is to comb every item we can to see what we can postpone, what we can defer, what we can reduce, what we can set back. Those are not only the items we listed today, but there are many other items that may come up. We will be constantly reviewing them. We will set them aside if we think they can be done better tomorrow than they can today in the light of the war situation and in the light of the other demands being made on the Government.,BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP AT THE RANCH,[4.] Q. Mr. President, is this the first time you have had bipartisan leadership of the Congress here at the ranch?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,POSSIBILITY OF A TAX INCREASE,[5.] Q. In the review of the economic situation, did you discuss the possibility of a tax increase with the congressional leadership?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. I think we know what your views are. I was wondering if you could summarize or they could tell us what their views were on it, the Republicans and the Democrats?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe they expressed their views. It was not the basis of the meeting today at all. It is purely a matter incidental to this.,As we have told you, and as you observed, there will be a lot of discussion about it. But there won't be any decisions until the facts are in and we have the figures upon which decisions can be made. They can't be made in November.,BUDGET GOAL,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you have a budget goal at this stage of the game?,THE PRESIDENT. No. There is the $3 billion reduction. That is all.,Q. I mean for the coming budget recommendation. Is it under $100 billion? You aren't going back to that?,THE PRESIDENT. We never did go back to that. I don't want to claim credit for some of your thoughts.,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how close you are to this goal of the $3 billion reduction?,THE PRESIDENT. We think we are going to make it.,Q. Will you be over or under?,THE PRESIDENT. We think it will be decided the early part of the week. It is our judgment that the program reductions will be $3 billion or better, and I think probably substantially more. We hope so. The expenditures will be a lesser figure, of course.,CONGRESSMAN FORD'S VIEWS ON A TAX INCREASE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, could we ask Mr. Ford if he still feels, after this meeting, and hearing the reports from your economic advisers, that a tax boost in January would push the country into a recession?,THE PRESIDENT. If Mr. Ford desires to answer that question, or comment on it, he\ncan.,CONGRESSMAN FORD. I think my views are still much the same as they were. Until we have an opportunity to get more information, there is still no firm decision.,THE BUDGET OUTLOOK FOR 1968,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you say that at this point, all things considered, a bigger budget and a deficit are inescapable for fiscal 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't say that you could be that prophetic unless you have considered the requests of the departments. They haven't come to us yet. We know generally the military requests, or the range in which they are being considered. But they haven't been decided.,I will meet with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the other Chiefs of Staff probably the first 10 or 12 days in December. That is half of the budget. Until that is decided, you can't determine what the whole goal will be.,We do know that we estimated early in the year, before we had the monetary change, with its increases, that we would have expenditures of approximately $113 billion this year. We do know that we will have a supplemental. We don't have that figure. We won't have it for several weeks. It will be in the neighborhood of somewhere between $5 billion and $15 billion.,When you take the monetary change, you take the supplemental, and you take the $113 billion, you can have a general idea that the budget is going to be much more than it was in January.,We also know our revenues are more, but I have reviewed all of that with you before. Until we get the departmental recommendations, we just don't know. We don't have them. They are going over them. I have had four meetings with Mr. McNamara, but they haven't gotten down to finalizing them. We will be doing that right up to the State of the Union Message.,THE MILITARY SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us the high points of your appraisal of the military situation in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there is nothing startling. It is just an up-to-date report. I think generally it is classified information that we review with the leadership from time to time. I think some of the conclusions can be given to you.,The summary is that the military operations continue to be successful. Our forces maintain the initiative. Our losses are light. U.S. forces are now engaged in x number of operations of battalion or larger size. There were contacts yesterday. The enemy made certain attacks.,First you analyze where our forces are engaged, what they are doing, what the enemy is doing, what the results have been, what the losses have been. The summary is that the operation generally continues to be successful. Our forces maintain the initiative. The losses as of this report are light.,EXTENT OF REPUBLICAN SUPPORT,[10.] Q. Mr. President, is one of the reasons that you asked the Republican leadership to come here today because you will need Republican support in your next Congress to get some of your program through?,THE PRESIDENT. That is one reason why I meet with the leadership at all times.,Q. Excuse me, sir, but did you ask the Republican leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. The first day I met them, and I am very appreciative for such support as I have received. I think, generally speaking, they have always given it to me when they could in good conscience. I expect them to do it in the future.,It is not a matter of personal support for me, or individual support. If it were, I am sure I would have it more than I do, because we have been good friends through the years.,But this is a question of what best serves the Nation. Men differ about that sometimes. The purpose of this meeting is to try to bring those differences to a minimum and to get their suggestions before decisions are made.,You have heard a lot about folks saying, \"If they want me in on the landing, I want to be in on the takeoff.\" Well, this is the takeoff.,VALUE OF THE MEETING WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP,[11.] Q. Mr. President, could you explain why you think this meeting was fruitful?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because we discussed with them the whole area of the subject that all of the leadership has been very insistent that the administration consider all year; namely, the reduction of all possible nonessential expenditures and the deferring and postponing of any expenditures that could await the settlement of the conflict in Vietnam.,Senator Mansfield, the Speaker, Congressman Albert, and Mr. Boggs have in many meetings said that they hoped we would review each appropriation bill as it came to us. Senator Dirksen offered amendments throughout the year. Congressman Ford offered a number of motions that would put his views into effect on reducing expenditures they thought could be reduced.,Before I took this action, I asked them to come here. I told them certain plans that we had in connection with the $3 billion program and asked for their suggestions or their criticisms. We have exchanged viewpoints back and forth since 12:30.,TOUR OF THE RANCH,[12.] Q. In your discussions, sir, did you break away long enough to take the leadership on a tour of your ranch?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We didn't break away. We took the two together.,SENATOR DIRKSEN'S IMPRESSIONS,[13.] Q. Since this is Mr. Dirksen's first trip to the ranch, I believe, I wonder if it would be possible for him to give us some of his impressions?,THE PRESIDENT. They are going to insist upon a performance of Senator Dirksen. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.,SENATOR DIRKSEN. Well, long ago our distinguished President invited me to come here. On that occasion, he said, \"If you will come, I will give you a bull calf.\" Perhaps I should not tell this.,But on other occasions he invited me, and I said, \"You never did give me that bull calf.\"\nHe said, \"You come, and I will give him to you.\",I said, \"I have no place to keep him; so you slaughter him, get the best butcher in Johnson City to do the job, and when I get him in my refrigerator, I will come down and see you.\",I still haven't gotten the calf, either iced or hot. But I am here, and I am delighted. So maybe I will modify that request a little bit. If he will get me that ten-prong buck Clarence that eats cigarettes and does not care whether they are filtered or not, and cuts him up so that I get him in my freezer, I will call it square.,It has been a delightful occasion to be here and to enjoy the clean, cool air, to see such a sample of wildlife in Texas--buffalo and deer, and some kind of goat or sheep, and wild turkeys that look for all of the world as if they would qualify for any store on Thanksgiving Day.,So for me it has been a most enjoyable outdoor occasion. I have enjoyed it to the full, and I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to come and see this section of Texas--but, very particularly, to see the LBJ Ranch; and more especially, to see the distinguished President and his very gracious and very lovable spouse, Lady Bird.,Q. Senator Dirksen, you announced a few days ago that you might submit an alternative budget if the President's did not meet your satisfaction. What are your thoughts on that right now?,SENATOR DIRKSEN. If you did not know, that is John Averell of the Los Angeles Times. You probably know it. He is one of my nemeses in Washington. [Laughter],Well, the fact of the matter is, John, if you listened very carefully to the President, you would have heard him say that in addition to the things that we discussed today, and the nonfinalized conclusions that we reached, the matter was open for any other suggestions that anyone might make.,So it could well be that somebody, when the time comes, would in the Congress make other suggestions. That does not come particularly as a legislative budget, but as a postscript to what we discussed today.,When I discussed this question of the legislative budget, I think that I was careful to cite the fact that we could not quite make that operate because at the first meeting we had of the 107 Members of the House and Senate, representing both the money committees and the appropriations committees, it was unwieldy.,As I recall, we made Senator Taft 2 the chairman of the meeting, but we were up against a peculiar deadline in the statute itself that you simply could not meet. I am not so sure that the eye difficulty I developed in those days did not stem from the 18 or 20 hours a day I spent on the fine print of the budget.,2 Robert A. Taft, Senator from Ohio 1939-1953.,It is still a very enticing thing to think about. I am not so sure but that perhaps the language of the statute can be dressed up, and made practical, and to that I will give some attention.,Q. Senator Dirksen, could you or Mr. Ford tell us if you are now generally happy with the effort the President is making to cut nonessential spending?,SENATOR DIRKSEN. Any effort in that direction, and particularly when it is substantial, ought to make anybody who embraces a reasonably moderate or conservative view quite happy, as you know. Now, we are not precluded one moment from looking at others items in the budget. There might be as many as 2,500, but I am not insensible to the fact that you can take literally hundreds of those and never quite effectuate a real economy or a real saving. But moving in that direction certainly does make us happy. It will have a very definite impact on the inflationary picture that obtains to some extent in the country.,Now, my good friend and associate, Congressman Ford, can speak for himself on that subject, so I will ask him to come up on the podium.,CONGRESSMAN FORD'S COMMENTS,[14.] CONGRESSMAN FORD. Well, I have found that the meeting here today was extremely productive. It was extremely pleasant. I am in accord with the aims and objectives that were discussed, that will be finalized between now and the first part of the week. It seems to me that we are moving exactly in the right direction.,SENATOR MANSFIELD'S COMMENTS,[15.] SENATOR MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to go on record as being in accord with what you have said, with what the distinguished Minority Leader has said, and what the distinguished Minority Leader of the House, Mr. Ford, has said.,This is about the 57th or 58th meeting of the bipartisan leadership with the President in his 3 years in office. So it is nothing unusual to meet and discuss matters, as we did this time, having to do with reduction in nonessential expenditures.,I agree with the President and my colleagues that the meeting was most worthwhile. It was a give-and-take meeting. We advanced our ideas, the President advanced his, and we hope out of this meeting will come, with bipartisan support, a substantial reduction in nonessential expenditures to the end that those expenditures which are necessary will be forthcoming, and those which can be postponed, canceled, or set aside for the time being can be so put into effect.,Q. Senator Mansfield, would you take a question, please?\nSENATOR MANSFIELD. Yes.,Q. We were told earlier today by the White House Press Secretary that you were coming down here to discuss in addition to these reductions, the talks on the legislative program for next year, and also the legislative outlook. Was that discussed?,SENATOR MANSFIELD. Just briefly. And incidentally, we became so interested in trying to bring about ideas, or to advance ideas relative to reductions in expenditures, that we just touched on that in passing.,THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS ON BUDGET\nPREPARATIONS,[16.] THE PRESIDENT. Are there any other questions?,We will not be able to review next year's program, except as it pertains to these items I reviewed with you, until we make it up. We will be doing that right up to the hour when we deliver the State of the Union Message.,Between now and January here--and if I am in Washington any, in Washington, too-most of my time will be spent in making up the budget. In making that up, you make up your program, which will be outlined in the State of the Union Message.,So far as the budget this year is concerned, and the effect it will have on next year's budget, we went into it in discussions which ranged, I would say, 3 or 4 hours. Actually we spent the entire day on it. We are in general agreement.,All of these expenditures are very essential to some groups, and very desirable to some groups. What we have done is try to take the items that we think are in the lower priority group and hold them back and defer them and postpone them until other higher priority items are taken care of.,That has been the desire of the administration, and the desire of both sides of the aisle, as expressed many, many times.,I committed myself in September to do that if they would give me the tax bill, the investment credit bill, just as soon as the appropriation bills came to me and we could conclude our study. We are about to conclude it. We expect to have an announcement for you after Mr. Schultze returns in the next few days.3,3 See Item 631.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[17.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel today? Does talking make your throat hurt very much?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I feel fine.\nReporter: Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-13","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS TO UNDERGO\nSURGERY,[1.] I told Mr. Christian 1 that I would be available to answer any problems you had or any questions that may have arisen since I last saw you, and that we would try to have our plans more definite today than they had been in the recent week.,1 George Christian, an assistant press secretary.,We will leave San Antonio tomorrow morning, midmorning, 9 or 10 o'clock. Mrs. Johnson has an engagement in Washington at 3 o'clock. We will be there ahead of that time.,We plan to go into Bethesda Naval Hospital Tuesday afternoon, will spend the afternoon and evening there and will undergo surgery early Wednesday morning.,It is anticipated that we will have an anesthetic and the operations will take perhaps less than an hour. Within an hour we will be out from under the influence of the anesthetic.,I have talked to the Vice President. As you know from last October, the agreement that was in existence between President Kennedy and myself, and President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon, will be in effect during that period.,We expect that we will be in the hospital for a very few days and then we will be returning to Texas. I am hopeful that I can spend a good portion of my time on the Budget between now and the first of the year, and the State of the Union Message. Except for some time in December when we have some previous engagements in Washington, we will spend a good deal of our time here.,So you and your families may make plans, if you care to.,ACTION ON CONGRESSIONAL BILLS,[2.] I have some veto messages and signature messages. I will ask--so it won't take time from the questions--I will ask Mr. Christian to give them to you at the end of the meeting.\nWe are vetoing the D.C. crime bill.,We are signing the police and teachers' increase bill.\nWe are signing the investment tax bill. There are other bills that I now have under consideration that we will act on between now and tomorrow night.,That is one reason for our uncertainty about just the moment we would leave here and go into the hospital, because we are very anxious to get these things out of the way.,We do have a deadline on them--most of them are Sunday and Monday.,APPOINTMENTS,[3.] I have some appointments to announce; Mr. Christian will give them to you, such as the Deputy for the Small Business Administration.\"2\nI will be glad for any questions now.,2 See Item 613.,QUESTIONS,TRANSITION IN THE WEST GERMAN\nGOVERNMENT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, perhaps it is too early to ask you this, but do you have any opinions at the moment on the forthcoming transition in the West German Government and how relations with the United States will be involved?,THE PRESIDENT. I would anticipate that we will continue to have very excellent relations with the German Government and with the German people.,They do have decisions to make, as do all countries, about the leadership and their government. We just finished making some decisions ourselves in the last few weeks. I trust that we will be patient and let them make their decisions.,I am sure whatever their decisions are, we will be able to maintain very good relations with the people of Germany.,INVESTORS' TAX CREDIT BILL,[5.] Q. Mr. President, on the investors' tax credit bill, what do you think, personally, sir, about the political provisions in that measure, the presidential campaign provision?\nTHE PRESIDENT. I have a statement in some detail on that matter. I will be glad to record it for you if you like at the conclusion of the conference.3,3 See Item 612.,I agree with it. I made a statement on it. I think there is much work to be done in that field yet. I submitted my recommendations in the last session of Congress.4,4 See Item 241.,But I think this is a step forward. I have approved the bill with that in mind.,EFFECT OF ELECTIONS ON GREAT SOCIETY\nPROGRAMS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the other day you were asked whether you thought the outcome of the elections would have any deterrent effect on your plans for the Great Society. At that time, you said you weren't sure or you did not exactly know how it would go. Have you had any further chance to think that through?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think we are ever positive on any measure as to what is going to happen to it, but I have the feeling that the majority that the Democrats have in the House and Senate, together with the election of a good many moderate Republicans, would indicate that the program that we recommend will receive very fair and sympathetic consideration.,I have reviewed in the last few days the votes taken upon some of the substance of the Great Society programs since 1963, and our majority in the next Congress will not be unlike that one in 1963 and 1964.,We have about the same number in both the House and the Senate. I believe they had 256 and we will have 247 or 248.\nIn the Senate, it is 67 and 64.,So I would anticipate that we will be very careful in our preparation of our recommendations and we will try to enlist the support of both parties.,I think they will be generally supported by both parties.,Of course, there will be members of both parties that will oppose them. I don't anticipate any great trouble.,I think there is a misconception in the country that all the bills that we have passed have been the sole product of just the President and the Democratic Party. That is not true.,Most of the key measures have received some support from progressive and moderate Republicans, and all Republicans in some instances.,I think, beginning with the Appalachia bill that we passed in the first session of the 89th, one of the early measures, we had 25 Republicans on that bill in the House.,On the water pollution bill we got 135 Republicans.,On the Medicare bill we got 65 Republicans.,On the Department of Housing and Urban Development we only got 9. That would give us a problem if our own people did not unite.,On the elementary and secondary education bill we got 35.\nOn the housing bill we got 26.\nOn higher education we got 113.\nOn the voting rights--the civil rights-bill we got 115.\nOn the poverty bill we got 24.\nOn regional development we got 31.,On manpower development we got 129.\nOn highway beauty we got 26.\nOn the Department of Transportation we got 101.\nOn truth-in-packaging, 103 Republicans.\nOn funds for rent supplements, 45 Republicans.\nOn water pollution, 81.,On minimum wage, 89; urban transit, 36; demonstration cities, 16; auto safety, 121 (I think I gave you urban mass transportation); allied health professions training, 120; the education funds, 47.,Those are some of the key measures. It shows you that, generally speaking, from 15 to maybe 115 Republicans in the House voted for our measures. We hope that there will not be any substantial defections.,Since 1890 the average President has had about 54 percent of the House and 55 percent of the Senate. Next year we will have 57 and 64. Compared to 54, 64 is a pretty good number and 55 compared to 57.,So we are not overly optimistic. We will have difficulty in preparing the new programs we have. I anticipate that our big problem is to get good administration, get the programs we have already passed funded, and try to get them organized and executed in the proper manner.,Any new program brings a lot of problems: personnel, funding, appropriations, and so forth. The bulk of our platform, as you know, has already been enacted. That is not to say that we will not have other measures. But it is to say that our principal effort will have to be in that field.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[7.] Q. Mr. President, on the inevitable health question, how are you feeling and what are your thoughts today about facing surgery this week?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wish I did not have to do it. I feel fine. I think that the operations are relatively minor. I think you never want to go to a hospital for any reason, but under the circumstances I can be very pleased that they are such as they are--have good doctors, good hospital, good staff, good people around me.,So I think if you have to be in the hospital, the circumstances are about as well as they could be.,The Congress is out of session and now is a good time for it.,I feel very good. I have had some rest and relaxation here this week. We have turned out a lot of work. We think by Monday morning we will be practically caught up.,THE INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC\nSITUATIONS,[8.] We are very happy and encouraged by our trip to Asia. I think it is a signal to the regional unity in that part of the world and of increased attention to that area which is populated by two-thirds of human life.,I have reviewed a report on Latin America and the Alliance for Progress and I think we are moving forward. There is increased growth taking place in that area and in our own hemisphere, which pleases us very much.,With the uncertainties that we faced in Europe, 14 of the NATO countries have come together in agreement. We are moving forward.,Mr. McCloy 5 is now meeting with the British and the Germans. Those talks are going very well.,5 John J. McCloy, U.S. Representative to the trilateral meetings held by the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United Kingdom.,We are increasingly interested in the the African Continent and the Middle East. Our reports give us a reason to believe that things are going as well as could be expected.,The economic conditions in our own country are always a matter of concern to the individual. We have more people working today than we have ever had in our history.,They are making more money. They are living better. They are eating better food, wearing more clothes and better clothes. They have better housing.,So as we approach the Thanksgiving period, I think domestically we have a great deal to be thankful for.,From the international standpoint, I think that we have very serious problems, but we are facing up to them. Our people are reasonably united in connection with them. A great deal of our thought and attention goes to our men in Vietnam and the success of their efforts there.,We have been heartened by their achievements of the last year. We hope, work, and pray for peace every day. We will continue to seek it and search for it in every possible way.,Ambassador Harriman's report 6 is not anything to be jubilant about, but I don't think we should be discouraged. We were encouraged by what he had to say.,6 For Ambassador Harriman's review of his trip to 11 Asian countries, see Item 607.,From what we hear from Mr. Bundy 7 we are pleased, and we think that the people of the world understand what we are working toward.,7 William P. Bundy, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.,I expect to ask Secretary Rusk to go back through Asia on his way to NATO, to follow up on Mr. Harriman's and Mr. Bundy's discussions, to meet with some of the leaders there again, so we can be sure we haven't lost interest in any part of the world.,He will be spending some time with the NATO representatives in early December. Before that, he will bring them a fresh report from Asia.,I know there are some who feel that maybe we are concentrating too much attention on Vietnam, or on the Pacific, or on the Asian area.,We don't think so. We have deep and genuine interest in the peoples of the world, wherever they may live.,Just as Mr. McCloy is working on our European problem now very diligently and effectively, I have spent some time in the Pacific-Asia theater. Secretary Rusk is now going to the NATO meeting, as Mr. Harriman has just returned from briefing all those countries.,I expect to be going to Europe in the spring, myself.,This is not going to be unbalanced. We are going to continue our concern with human beings wherever they are.,Most of our ancestors came from the European area and we feel very attached to them. We will never lose interest there. But that is not to say that that will be our sole interest.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO EUROPE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us a little bit more about this European trip, such as what countries you might have in mind at the moment?,THE PRESIDENT. I announced some weeks ago that I would be going to Germany in the spring. I wouldn't go beyond that at this date.,That is not new. That is an old announcement.,ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS CONFERENCE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, at one time the White House said you might be going to Latin America before the end of this year. Is that still in the cards?,THE PRESIDENT. We expect to have a conference of the Presidents of the Alliance for Progress countries.,We are preparing the necessary work for that conference. I would anticipate it would be some time in the early part of the year.8,8 The American Chiefs of State met in Punta del Este, Uruguay, April 11-14, 1967.,Of course, I will be going if that is agreed upon and if all the nations are able to arrange their affairs so the conference can come off.,Q. The thinking is Latin America rather than Washington, is it not, for the site of the conference?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,NEED FOR TAX INCREASE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, what are your current thoughts about whether or not a tax increase may be necessary next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Just what they have been. We are trying to carefully evaluate the picture, study it, see what is required. Whatever is required we will recommend.,But until we have our Defense figures in better shape than they are now, until we get a little better look at the economy, at the revenues that we can expect for the next 6 months, we don't want to fire in the dark or jump in the dark.,I don't think there is any decision that can be reached that would be prudent right now. We do expect one before the first of the year. That is, we expect a decision.,NORTH VIETNAMESE AND CHINESE VIEWS OF\nTHE ELECTION,[12.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any reading, sir, on how the North Vietnamese and Chinese may have interpreted our election results?,THE PRESIDENT. None other than what you have seen.,THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AT THE STATE LEVEL,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the Republicans, particularly Mr. Bliss,9 seem as happy with how the Republicans did on the State level and in the State legislatures, the gubernatorial contests, as they were with their gains in the Congress.,9Ray Bliss, Chairman of the Republican National Committee.,I wonder if you could address yourself to the strength of the Democratic Party on the State level and to the fact that there is now an even split among the Governors of the States, Democrats and Republicans.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that will be a healthy situation and will bring out the best that is in both parties.,I think we all believe in the two-party system.,I always think that after an election our mettle is tested. We have to look at our weaknesses and try to patch them up, try to develop our strengths.,I think the Democratic Party in the period ahead will be more united. I think the Republican Party has received encouragement that will be good for it.,It ought to produce for the American people the best government of which we are capable. At least I hope it does.,I have generally believed throughout my political lifetime that the Democrats were a little better for the country than the Republicans. Most of the Republicans don't agree with that most of the time.,Some of these changes will bring into office new men. We will have to see how they perform under the circumstances confronting them.,But I am an optimist. I don't think the country is going to the dogs. I think each year we become more mature and more experienced, perhaps more progressive.,We will move forward regardless of a change here or there.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S REVIEW OF HIS ACTIVITIES,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] George Christian will have for you later in the afternoon a memorandum that I signed, directed to the Secretary of Defense and the Acting Attorney General, the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HEW, Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning.1 The subjects are the basis of creative federalism and cooperation, asking them to work with the Bureau of the Budget and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Our objectives are to make certain that vital new Federal assistance programs are made workable, that we take steps to afford the representatives of the States and local governments the opportunity to advise and consult in the development and execution of programs which vitally affect them.1 See Item 606.,This is in connection with Senator Muskie's commission 2 and my determination to try to see that each agency of Government consults with local officials, mayors, and State officials. We will coordinate this through the Vice President and Governor Bryant?3,2 Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.3 Farris Bryant, Director of the Office of Emergency Planning and former Governor of Florida.,Mr. Bob Kintner 4 came down today and brought with him reports from various independent agencies of the Government: the OEO, the FAA, the Economic Advisers, Federal Reserve, Space Administration and Council, USIA, which I briefly reviewed; also a report from Mr. Bunker 5 on the preliminary conference he had had in connection with the desalting plans in Israel; also a review Mr. Bunker sent to me, a report, in connection with the Dominican Republic; a report from the Defense agency, the Veterans Administration, Commerce, and the Post Office, on their activities for the last several days.,4 Robert E. Kintner, Special Assistant to the President.,5 Ellsworth Bunker, U.S. Ambassador at Large and former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States.,I have also today gone over some of the subjects that various task forces and officials in the Federal Government are exploring preparatory to the State of the Union Message. These range over a very wide field, primarily the cities, education, intergovernment personnel, urban employment opportunities, older Americans, Government organization, child development, nursing homes for the elderly, career advancement, accident prevention, protection for the public, law enforcement, administration of justice, juvenile delinquency, narcotics, foreign aid, international cooperation, foreign trade, income maintenance, migratory and other farm workers, benefits for servicemen, electric power, natural resources, energy resources, resources and recreation, pipeline safety, meat and .poultry inspection, District of Columbia programs, draft, oceanography, and so forth.,These are all at very tentative stages, but they are subjects being explored carefully with a view of submitting any recommendations that may develop to the Congress.,[2.] Ambassador Harriman went with me, as you know, to the Manila Conference. Following that Conference, I asked him to visit some dozen countries in the Pacific area and then come back by Europe, to report to those countries--the heads of the governments-the developments at Manila, the success of that exchange; to ask them for their views; to urge them to make any suggestions or recommendations they have that they thought might lead to taking the differences from the battlefield to the conference table; asking them to give us any suggestions they might have for peace.,The Ambassador visited the Philippines, Ceylon, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Italy, France, Bonn, Britain, and Morocco.,He has come back and he has given me in the last hour or so a rather full report on the individual conversations he had with the various heads of state in each country, except Paris, where he saw Couve de Murville, the Foreign Minister.,In all others he saw the heads of state. He will give me a somewhat more detailed report in writing a little later.,The Secretary of State, Ambassador Goldberg, and I will review it at the appropriate time.,I think Mr. Christian has gone over with you today the conversations I have had on the phone--not any particular news value in them.,I was told you wanted to see Ambassador Harriman. I don't know what he has to tell you, but I will be glad for him to say anything to you that he said to me, that would be helpful, and answer any questions, as I will be glad to do after he talks to you.,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN'S REPORT ON\nHIS TRIP,[3.] AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN. As the President said, I went to 11 countries since Manila. As the President requested me to, I reported on the developments in Manila, Vietnam, and other aspects of the situation in the Far East and also discussed the matters which interested each country the most.,I found a very general appreciation of the value of the Manila Conference and new conceptions of the seven countries that sat down together. The President with six Asian countries sitting there as equals made a deep impression among the Asians.,Then the limited objectives were outlined--the willingness to come to a peaceful negotiation and the taking out of troops, with the mention of 6 months, although it was not clear when the period would begin.,It indicated definitely, and they all accepted, that the President intended to take out our troops and the other countries involved.,The fact that the seven countries spoke, although some of the statements had been made before, carried much more meaning because it was a commitment among the seven. The position of the South Vietnamese Government has been strengthened materially, I found, by the September 11 elections and also by their agreement to carry forward this process of constitutional elections.,Each one of the countries wants to see peace--a peaceful settlement. In almost every case, they recognize the need to stop aggression. There are different points of view on it, but I think it is fair to say that no country wants to see aggression succeed. They want to do everything they can. Some are able to do more than others.,In the Asian countries they were interested in the President speaking about the possibility of regional development and our assistance to Asian initiative after the end of hostilities.,In Europe they had been concerned that we were getting too interested in the Far East and would neglect our commitments to NATO.,I was able to reassure them--to the press particularly, and the television. The people are more concerned, I think, than the more thoughtful ministers. In almost every case I saw the heads of governments and the principal ministers involved.,Each country had some idea about the development of some initiative on their part. Most of them are quiet. Most of them thought that the less said about their negotiations or their discussions, the better. Each one is trying in his own way to do something, whether it be directly to Hanoi or whether it be through some other channel.,The most promising or the most immediate discussion will take place when the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. George Brown, goes to the Soviet Union on November 21 to talk to the Soviet leaders, among other things, about Vietnam.,The British have a special responsibility with the Soviet Union as cochairmen of the Geneva conference. The meeting of those two governments is a very important event. We are hopeful that something may come of it. It is impossible to predict, but at least the Soviet Union has considerable influence in Hanoi.,I found that in almost every case the leaders of the governments felt that the spectacle of the confusion that exists in Peking now and in Red China was reducing China's influence and it gave a better opportunity for a quieter attitude.,As the President has said, and I found it confirmed everywhere, every country in the world, with the exception of Red China and Hanoi, wants to see peace. That consensus, the pressure of world opinion, I think, gives us a right to have some encouragement.,Each of the individual countries, of course, has its problems, and they are naturally interested in talking about them. They are grateful for the position the United States is taking in almost every case, and are appreciative of the assistance that is given them, and are grateful for the initiative that President Johnson on a number of occasions has taken.,Are there any questions any of you would like to ask?,QUESTIONS,THE POPE'S CALL FOR A CHRISTMAS TRUCE,[4.] Q. Mr. Ambassador, did you discuss the possibility of a Christmas truce and the possibility of suspending American bombing of North Vietnam as the Pope has suggested he might call for? What is the position on the Pope's call for a suspension of our bombing and a Christmas truce?,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN. I left out the fact that I had an audience with the Pope. He has since announced, today, that he is going to ask, as he did last year, for a cease-fire which, of course, would stop the fighting, which, of course, would include the end of the bombing. He hoped it would be longer than the 48 hours which was all that occurred last year. He naturally hopes the bombing, as well, will stop.,The subject of bombing did come up. Some of the countries believed it would be desirable for the United States to suggest that we stop, and they indicate some constructive action would be taken by the other side. I had to point out to them that the President stopped for twice as long last year as anyone had suggested. The only answer from Hanoi had been to push further supplies, to repair roads, to take advantage of the pause, in order to reinforce their troops. I made it also quite plain to the heads of governments and publicly that it was not of value to peace to propose, as General de Gaulle did at Phnom Penh, that the United States take unilateral action. I expressed the personal opinion that that put off the day of peace and added to Hanoi's intransigence, thinking that if they held out, world opinion would force us to take action.,I believe that most of the countries thoroughly understand the President's position and would like to see Hanoi take some reciprocal steps, which, as the President indicated, could be done formally or informally, publicly or privately. In talking it out with the different governments and also with the public I think a more balanced impression has been given.,But the subject of bombing constantly comes up. It is one in which there is propaganda coming from the Communist side, particularly from the Eastern European countries, that if the United States would only stop bombing, something would happen. It is quite clear that it is essential that Hanoi indicate what that is in advance.,U.S. PRESTIGE IN EUROPE,[5.] Q. Mr. Harriman, shortly before the election the Republicans released a poll that they said showed our prestige in Europe was dropping considerably. Did you find that to be the case?,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN. No, I did not find that our prestige in Europe had dropped at all. I found there was some concern with De Gaulle's action in dropping out of the Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty that it would lead to a new situation.,They wanted to be quite sure that because of our involvement in Vietnam we had not lost interest.,But as far as the United States' prestige is concerned, there is no question about its prestige and the fact that President Johnson has taken such leadership in the development of a new sense of unity, not only in the defense, but also in the development through NATO of better relations between East and West, which is having a deep impression.,HANOI,[6.] Q. Mr. Ambassador, do you see or hear any new signals from Hanoi?\nAMBASSADOR HARRIMAN. There are no new signals from Hanoi. It is encouraging, as I said, that the Soviet Union is ready to talk about it.,They haven't indicated they are ready to do anything.,It is encouraging that all of the Eastern European countries indicate that they are talking to Hanoi. There are third-hand conversations which appear to indicate that Hanoi is willing to talk, provided we do certain things.,I am going to be quite frank in saying that there is no specific discussion going on at the present time.,PARIS DISCUSSIONS,[7.] Q. Sir, did you ask to see Mr. de Gaulle? Is there any significance in your not seeing him but all the others?,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN. I saw the heads of governments in all other countries. But I went to Paris primarily to meet with the NATO Council, whom I talked to as a group, the 15 members, including our own. I did not ask to see General de Gaulle. But I saw M. Couve de Murville, who is the foreign minister. I paid him a courtesy call.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.,THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS ON THE MISSION\nAND ON CABINET REPORTS,[8.] THE PRESIDENT, I want to express my very deep appreciation for the excellent job Ambassador Harriman has done, He is one of our most experienced and most astute diplomats.,He always turns in a most creditable performance. I have enjoyed his oral report and I will look forward to reviewing his written position when it is developed.,I think I have nothing further to say, other than I am following the Government hour by hour here just as if I were in Washington.,I have now received either oral reports from each Cabinet officer or written reports in some detail.,Today I talked at length to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense.,I had met with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before.,I had a rather full report from the Secretary of Labor. As you know, we had the Secretary of Transportation-designate down here.,We have also had a report from the Secretary of Commerce.\nWe have reviewed them.,We will have a quiet weekend and I will see you at church Sunday.,If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them.,QUESTIONS,[9.] Q. How are you feeling, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Fine.,Q. That covers that.,SENATOR MANSFIELD'S PROPOSAL FOR SECURITY\nCOUNCIL ACTION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, when you talked to Senator Mansfield today, did you discuss his proposal relative to the Security Council?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I told him that I had heard his suggestion that the Security Council should try to deal with this subject.,We have taken that position for some time. I would like for him to talk to Ambassador Goldberg.,I did talk to Ambassador Goldberg and the Secretary of State subsequently.,Senator Mansfield is going to Florida. At an appropriate time, I hope he can exchange viewpoints with Ambassador Goldberg.,We have recommended, as you know, on a number of occasions, that the Security Council give consideration to this subject.,Our adversaries in the matter are not very willing to come into the Security Council and discuss it.,I think it is very clear that while we do our recommending, we have to find some way to get them to come in there, and also to get the members of the Security Council to be willing to do it.,We are always glad to have Senator Mansfield's suggestions. They are generally very worthy ones. We will explore them in some detail.,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN'S TRIP,[11.] Q. Ambassador Harriman described his trip as being somewhat encouraging. I am wondering if you, too, are encouraged by what he told you about the trip.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have heard what he said and have observed it. I will consider it. I think that is about the extent of it.,I have been with him for the last hour or so. I thought his discussions were very interesting.,MR. BUNDY'S REPORT,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you sent Mr. Bundy 6 to some other countries. Has he reported?,THE PRESIDENT. Only the cables that come in from day to day. I have not had an oral report. He is not ready for that yet. There is not anything I have to say on that.,6 William P. Bundy, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.,LEGISLATION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned a while ago, in speaking of reports, you had reviewed some concerning the District of Columbia. Could you give us any detail at all about those?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is just the recommendations that we will make in connection with legislation for the District in our State of the Union Message.,We do have some legislation affecting the District now on my desk, and various reports from various departments that I am evaluating, but I have not reached a decision on it yet.,FOREIGN INVESTOR'S TAX BILL,[14.] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision on the foreign investors: tax bill? There have been some reports that you might pocket veto it.,THE PRESIDENT. When we act on these bills, we simultaneously, with the signature, transmit it to George Christian. Does that answer your question?,REACTION TO A CEASE-FIRE APPEAL FROM THE\nPOPE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, based on Ambassador Harriman's report, can you give any idea of what our reaction to an appeal from the Pope for a cease-fire would be?,THE PRESIDENT. Without responding directly to your question, I think I indicated our general attitude in my press conference the other day.,We are very anxious to always give consideration, and as sympathetic as possible, to any suggestion that the Pope makes, as we did last year.,But we are also very anxious to have other people do likewise.,We will carefully scrutinize any suggestions His Holiness makes and take appropriate action. Whatever is in the best interests of this country we will do.,ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SITUATION,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be some inconsistency in our hopes and the Soviet Union's hopes that we might be reaching some agreement in the nonproliferation area.,I wondered if there is any inconsistency with that optimism and Secretary McNamara's report yesterday about the antiballistic missile situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't think so.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I will be glad to take some questions. I would like to ask the network people or the broadcasting people if they want to originate some back there in the back. Then I will meet with all of you for extended visits, such visits as you want.,QUESTIONS,EFFECTS OF THE ELECTION,[1.] Q. Mr. President, now that you have had a chance to further evaluate the election returns, how do you see the chances of keeping your Great Society legislation going forward in the Congress next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it will be more difficult for any new legislation we might propose.,I think it is very clear that a House with 295 to 300 Democrats is more likely to approve Democratic recommendations than a House with 245 to 250.,While I don't think it would make any great difference in the Senate, you do have a Senate that is reduced from 67 to 64.,I told Mr. Christian 1 when he asked me yesterday about the election, that I thought we lost more seats in the Senate than we had anticipated.,1 George Christian, an assistant press secretary.,Very frankly, I don't like to ever recommend that we lose any, but I had anticipated a loss of not over one in the Senate, and we lost three, although only one was an incumbent-Senator Douglas. 2,2 Paul H. Douglas, Democratic Senator from Illinois.,The Oregon seat was a replacement for Senator Neuberger. The Tennessee seat was a replacement for Senator Bass.3,3 Senator Maurine B. Neuberger of Oregon, who did not enter the Oregon primary election, and Senator Ross Bass of Tennessee, who was defeated in the Tennessee primary election by Governor Frank Clement.,We thought that we would lose one. We lost three. It is pretty difficult to guess when they are voting on 435 people in 50 States what the result will be. But the number of losses in the House somewhat exceeded what our better people who had reports on it would indicate, although I was clear to point out that they received the reports from the candidates themselves.,The margin was some 5 to 10 more than the total amount that we had anticipated, as I told you in a press conference the other day and as I told you at Johnson City.,THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM,[2.] There are some things that I think we ought to observe: First, as a good American, I think we are all glad to see a healthy and competent existence of the two-party system. I think there is no question but what the other party strengthened its position.,Second, I believe--as the leadership of the Republican Party, President Eisenhower, Senator Dirksen, and others believe--that it will not in any way change our course of action in connection with security matters.,I have had rather good cooperation from the opposition party, as I have stated on a good many occasions, on all matters affecting the security of this Nation, and I expect to continue to have that.,Third, while you regret to see some effective Congressmen--and certainly Senator Douglas, an effective Senator--leave Washington, not many Presidents have been President for very long with 248, 249, or 250 Members of the House, and 64 Members of the Senate.,As I said to Mrs. Johnson last night, it just looks like we will have to get by with a 248 margin, which will be some 63 margin, and in the Senate almost two to one.,I hope what we propose will be sufficiently meritorious to command a majority vote.,Now, the most effective Democratic operation that I experienced in the days I served there was when we only had a one man margin in the Senate. There were less absentees and more people there.,Of course, anyone would rather have 67 on his side than 64. But I would rather have 64 than 36. I would rather have 248 than 185.,I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you that I am sorry we lost any Democratic seats. But I would also tell you that over a period of years the American people have a way, I guess, of balancing things.,When the pendulum swings one way as it did in 1964 pretty strongly, it has a tendency to swing back and somewhat balance it, as it did in 1936 when we had an unprecedented majority of Democrats, and in 1938 it swung back.,So while we were disappointed to see some of our friends lose, I can't think a President should be too unhappy after he has had the results that we have had in 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966. We have had a reasonably good time to make our recommendations and to get most of them acted upon.,It may be pertinent to observe that when I became President in 1963 we had about 256 Members of the House. We will probably have five, six, or seven less now.,We had a reasonably good program, as you will remember, in 1963 and 1964.,I would expect that we will have our recommendations favorably acted upon in most instances, where they are deserving.,I would like to point out one other thing, that on most of the roll calls on passage of what you would call Great Society bills, we had a good many members of the other party. I expect, if our recommendations are meritorious, that they will command support from some of them in the days ahead.,FACTOR OF THE BACKLASH IN THE ELECTION,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on Sunday you made an appeal for the voters to repudiate the \"white backlash\" in the election. Could you tell us to what extent you think the backlash did play a part in the voting?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a little bit difficult to appraise. I don't think I am really in a position to be an authority on just what the result of my appeal was, or the expression of the voters were in each of the States.,I just don't have the answer to it. I don't know.,I would think that you could look at the States where you had some problems of that kind and see the actions taken. Without getting specific, I think it did play some part, but I wouldn't say that it was the only factor at all.,There were a good many factors, if you will look over the list. I think it is only fair to say that the substantial reductions of Democratic Congressmen occurred in States where they had a popular leader of the Republican Party.,In Ohio, Governor Rhodes had a great majority and has been a very effective leader of the Republican Party, a very popular one, and very cooperative with our administration and with me personally. He made the motion, you will remember, on Vietnam at the Governors' Conference, and things of that kind.\nWe lost five seats there because he ran hundreds of thousands ahead of his opponent.,The same thing was true in California where we lost, I believe, three seats because Governor Reagan had a substantial majority in his election.,In Michigan, Governor Romney got almost 60 percent of the votes.,What happened in the States this time was what happened in the Nation in 1964: When the head of the ticket has a commanding lead, the other men on the ticket sometimes benefit from it.\nI am not commenting on the quality of the five Republicans elected, but I don't think they were hurt by the fact that Governor Romney had a 59 or 60 percent vote.,So Reagan, Rhodes, and Romney account for 25 or 30 percent of the total.,In other instances you had vacancies and you had men dying before their election. You had men after they had gotten their nomination not running it out--things of that kind, one or two.,In our State we lost two; in Virginia we lost two; in Wisconsin we lost two.,But as I have observed to you before, the Christian Science Monitor was the first that made a study of this question.,Saville Davis 4 came to my office and brought me the results of some of their studies. He carried them back to 1890. They showed an average of 41 per year.,4 Saville R. Davis, chief of the Washington news bureau of the Christian Science Monitor.,Some of the high years were with President Roosevelt, when he carried every State of the Union, except Maine and Vermont, in 1936. I believe he lost 86 seats in 1938. That was about the time I came into Congress. I remember that very clearly.,On other occasions they have lost 60. President Eisenhower served only 2 years before he lost the Congress entirely.,As a matter of fact, a fellow working for me the other morning, after listening the night before, thought we had lost the Congress entirely. As a matter of fact, he thought all Democrats were gone.,I asked him what he thought about the election, and he said, \"I am sure sorry to see them take the House of Representatives and the Senate.\",Well, we still have 248 or 250 Members. That is something to bear in mind. They may have to be a little closer knit. They may have to have fewer absentees and things.\nBut a President that can't lead with a 250- 85 would have his problems with 260 or 270. I am hopeful that most of our legislation that we recommended has been acted upon reasonably bipartisan. I have no reason to think it won't be next year.,THE PRESIDENT'S SURGERY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything further you can tell us at this time about when and where your surgery will take place?,THE PRESIDENT. No. It will take place next week. So you don't have to worry about this week.,As to where, the doctors have not decided yet. We have several doctors living in various places who will need to be there. Dr. Burkley 5 is now conferring with them and talking to them, trying to get their schedules on a date that they can agree on, sometime, we hope, in less than the 15- to 20-day period that we originally thought. Just what day it will be, we don't know.,5Vice Adm. George G. Burkley, Physician to the President.,I think you can be comfortable over the weekend here, at least through Sunday. But we don't know whether you will be busy at a hospital in the early part of the week right now or not. Just as soon as we do, we will tell you. We will give you ample notice.6,6The final arrangements were announced by the President on November 13 (see Item 610 [1] ).,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[5.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us something about your physical comfort now? Are you feeling well?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I feel fine. I still have the same problems. This would just be a repeat. If you look at the last transcript, we have a little huskiness in the voice, as you may be able to observe, and we have a little pulling through the side--there's protrusion. It is actually a pull on the inner wall where the incision was made. It is like you have a little weight on your arm. In carrying it around, it pulls on you, and sometimes when you get up it bothers you.,I have not been wearing a back brace for the last 2 or 3 days. It is a little more comfortable. I forgot to put it on. If I had known you were going to be here on this occasion this morning, I would have dressed for it.,But it is more comfortable when you don't wear it.,FUTURE OF THE GREAT SOCIETY PROGRAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in terms of your Great Society program, when the 90th Congress meets, do you think you will have a lot of new programs, or are you looking to the future with plans of adding on and expanding the programs that you have had in the last couple of years?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have recommendations in our State of the Union Message that will expand and enlarge some of the recommendations we have previously made.,Unquestionably some of them will be new recommendations. I think my principal job right at the moment is to try to find a way to fund the programs we have authorized.,As I said to you in Fredericksburg the other day, we have authorized some 40 new health and education programs. We have quite a problem in funding that many.,We will not fund most of the programs at the amount authorized because we are very anxious to begin slowly and carefully, and form the proper kind of organization before we go the limit, as already approved by the Congress.,I would think that the recommendations this year will be less than the ones last year, as the ones last year were less than the year before.,But we will have new recommendations. We will be briefing the Members of Congress on them from time to time.,I hope to have a chance to visit with most of the new Members in the early days of the session, certainly with the leadership of both parties.,I don't anticipate that we are going to have any great trouble. A 65 majority in the House and a 30 majority in the Senate is a reasonable working majority.,As I told you, in 6 of the 8 years the Republicans served, they had a minority in both Houses--the Speaker and all the organization and committee chairmen.,So while I must be frank, I would have liked to have seen every Democrat elected, but we only lost one incumbent in the Senate. I expect the Senate will get along reasonably well with 64 instead of 67.,I hope the House will be able to. We lost two committee chairmen. We will have a freshman Republican succeeding Judge Smith and a freshman Republican succeeding Mr. Cooley.7,7 Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia and Representative Harold D. Cooley of North Carolina.,But I believe with 250 Members, Speaker McCormack, Mr. Albert, and Mr. Boggs 8 will be able to get adequate and fair consideration for the President's recommendations. I think they will be duly acted upon.,8 Representative John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, Speaker of the House, Representative Carl Albert of Oklahoma, Majority Leader of the House, and Representative Hale Boggs of Louisiana, Majority Whip of the House.,AMERICAN FORCES AND THE MEKONG DELTA,[7.] Q. Mr. President, this is not a military question. Would you comment on the reports that American forces may move into the Delta?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have anything to speculate on about when, what, or where our forces might move.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENTS,I have some announcements to make to you this morning. There will be other releases available through Mr. Christian 1 as a result of some of our labors yesterday and last evening.,1 George Christian, an assistant press secretary.,We will be processing something like 100 bills in the next few days. We will give you information on them as soon as we can.,We have no desire to rush you or snow you, but I guess you do want to know what is happening.,We do want to get through with the examination of these measures and take action on them as soon as we can.,[2.] I shall be seeing some of you in San Antonio tomorrow. I plan to come in during the afternoon and submit to some preparatory examinations prior to the surgery that will take place in the next few days.,We will also look at the facilities at Brooke Hospital and consult with the doctors while we're there, before we make a decision where the operations will take place.2,2 The final arrangements were announced by the President on November 13 (see Item 610 [1]).,We would like for them to take place here if that is possible, and we would like to advance the date as much as we can. Now that we know it is going to be necessary, I guess the quicker you get it over with the better.,I would hope that the doctors could agree to an operation somewhat earlier than we originally expected.,[3.] I am expecting Mr. Komer, my special assistant in connection with Vietnam, to arrive late today or early tomorrow morning.,He will follow through with the conversations and recommendations as a result of his most recent visit to Vietnam and the preliminary discussions we had with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense earlier in the week.,[4.] I expect Ambassador Goldberg to arrive at the ranch sometime before I leave for San Antonio tomorrow. I hope to have some extended discussions with him. Perhaps he will fly into San Antonio with me. If not, I will try to give you a summary of the results of our conversation.3,3 On November 7, the White House made public a report to the President from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Arthur J. Goldberg (2 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 1670).,ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,[5.] I have a statement in connection with the announcement of the appointment of the Secretary of Transportation, which I will present to you at the request of the radio and television people. I will read it and there will be copies available to all of you, from Mr. Christian's office.,On October 15, I signed the Department of Transportation bill, which established that Department. At that time, I remarked that the problems of untangling, coordinating, and building a national transportation system worthy of America was a monumental task.,I said, \"Because the job is great, I intend to appoint a strong man to fill it. The new Secretary will be my principal adviser and my strong right arm on all matters affecting transportation in the United States. I hope he will be the best equipped man in this country to give leadership to the country, to the President, to the Cabinet, and to the Congress.\",Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to announce that I believe that man described above is Mr. Alan Boyd, the present Under Secretary of Commerce. It is my intention to nominate Mr. Boyd as Secretary of Transportation as soon as Congress convenes in January.,Mr. Boyd has broader experience in the field of transportation than any other individual that I have been able to observe within or without the Federal Government. He came to Washington to serve President Kennedy as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1961. In 1965 I appointed him Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. Prior to his Federal service, Mr. Boyd was chairman of the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. Before that, he was general counsel of the Florida Turnpike Authority. He is intimately familiar with all modes of transportation, at all levels of government.,As Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, Mr. Boyd has been charged with the overall responsibility for the basic transportation of the Federal Government.,He was a member of the task force which recommended to me the establishment of a Department of Transportation. He has worked with the Members of Congress on the legislation establishing the Department. It was under his leadership and by his guidance that this legislation was enacted.,This will be the fourth largest department in the entire Federal Government. It brings together for the first time 31 agencies and their bureaus, nearly 100,000 employees, and almost $6 billion in Federal funds now devoted to transportation. The activities of these transportation agencies, programs, and experts must now be consolidated, coordinated, and given imaginative, aggressive leadership.,To assist the Secretary of Transportation in this enormous undertaking, 25 Presidential appointees are provided for in the act establishing the Department. I have reviewed with Mr. Boyd overnight and this morning the selection of these 25 men. I have asked him to proceed to carefully comb the Federal Government to obtain the best qualified men available and to go outside the Government to enlist the services of any of those that he thinks would be particularly suited for this field. I have told him to use only one yardstick: that is, character, integrity, and competence. He will be doing that, I am sure, with due consideration to geographical areas and to people's particular background in the field of transportation.,Secretary Gardner reviewed with him some of the important decisions he had made in the field of personnel in the reorganization of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department.,I expect that Mr. Boyd and Mr. Macy 4 will submit to me at as early a date as possible, and hopefully before Congress gets back, an eligible list of the suitable candidates.,4 John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission.,Transportation is this Nation's biggest industry. It accounts for $1 out of every $5 in the American economy. It employs more than 2 1/2 million people. To insure that this great industry serves the needs of our people, satisfies the demands of our expanding economy, we will look to the Secretary of Transportation.,The Congress has conferred upon him responsibility to provide leadership in transportation matters: in the development of national transportation policies and programs, in the advancement of transportation technology and the promotion of safety, in all modes of transportation.,The President looks to him, as does his country, for the leadership and guidance that are essential to build a nation and maintain the type of national transportation system that this country deserves and must have.,I want to introduce to you now Mr. Boyd and his charming wife.,SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN,[6.] This morning I signed some private bills which point to the need for amendments to the Social Security Act.,A copy of my signing statement will be made available by Mr. Christian.,DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,[7.] Secretary Gardner flew down to visit me yesterday afternoon and we spent some time reviewing various plans and proposals in the area of health, education, and welfare.,This is one of my favorite subjects and I asked the Secretary to join us here today.,As I have told you, other Cabinet officers will be coming prior to the operation this week.,As you know, the HEW is the second largest department in the entire Federal Government.,Within the past 2 years, HEW has launched more than forty programs in education and health alone. This is a considerable number of new programs for any department.,At my request, Secretary Gardner has been reviewing ways to streamline the Department and to make it more modern and efficient, and economical in its operation.,Dr. Gardner has submitted to me some very far-reaching proposals for major reorganizations of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department. In general, I believe they are worthy of very serious consideration. I have asked Director Schultze of the Budget Bureau and members of my White House staff to join the Secretary in giving these most careful study.,Last Friday I met with members of Secretary Gardner's task force on nursing homes that I asked to be set up some time ago. I asked him to develop a radical new program for care of the elderly and to call on the best architects available in America to create designs for these homes.,The Secretary expects this task force to work out a plan involving Federal, State, and local participation, along with private enterprise, to provide much better care for our senior citizens.,We want the nursing home to be a place of comfort and not a prison for the old.,We reviewed my directive to give top priority in Federal programs for producing health workers.5 The Secretary predicts that total training and retraining in these vital occupations will almost double during this coming year.,5 See Item 490.,The Secretary gave me an excellent report on the launching of the teaching corps last night.,He believes it has already proven its value in getting dedicated young teachers to go into the slum schools. He recommends that we triple the size of the Teacher Corps in the next year.,The Secretary brought me some bad news as well as good. He estimates one million students will drop out of school this year; 3 out of 10 will not finish high school. Eleven million American adults have not completed sixth grade education. Three million are totally illiterate. It costs us about $37 billion a year in lost earning capacity.,So I urge the parents of America to help us stop this. I urge the students to get more education and to stay in school. And I warn the educators and religious leaders of America of their need to modernize and improve programs to appeal to our young people. Otherwise, delinquency and crime will continue to increase.,Dr. Gardner reported that the United States ranks 11th among the nations in infant mortality. This is a record that we do not want to keep very long.,He also gave me some grim facts about the health hazards caused by the contamination of our environment.,ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF THE HEART INSTITUTE,[8.] Finally, I reviewed with the Secretary his recommendation for the new Director of the Heart Institute. I told him I wanted an outstanding cardiologist who has not forgotten that the object of health research is to help people.,Dr. Gardner assured me that he has just that kind of a man.,I am happy this morning to announce the appointment of Dr. Donald S. Frederickson, who was formerly Clinical Director of the Heart Institute. His biography will be made available to you through Mr. Christian.,Now I would like to present to you Secretary Gardner.,Since he is a Republican, maybe he can discuss some of his plans without being accused of playing politics.,I assure you the fact that the first two Cabinet officers are Republicans is purely coincidental.,REMARKS OF SECRETARY GARDNER,[9.] SECRETARY GARDNER. The President and I talked about a great many things. I will just touch on five of them that I think may be of particular interest to you.,SOCIAL SECURITY,First, social security. On October 12th, the President announced, as a minimum program for improvements in social security cash benefits: an average increase of 10 percent, a minimum benefit of $100 for those with 25 years coverage under the program, and changes in the retirement test to allow older persons who work to have more total income.,The President said at Baltimore6 that the average increase might be even higher than 10 percent, perhaps 12 percent, perhaps 14 percent. That was really the basis of our conversation.,6 See Item 509.,We discussed the various alternatives for reaching these figures; the means of financing them. And since we have not yet completed all of the staff work, we are not prepared to make any announcement today on that.,HEALTH MANPOWER,[10.] The second subject is health manpower. There isn't any other problem which is a more serious barrier to the achievement of the health goals of the American people than the serious shortages in health manpower. This is not a new problem. We have had it for 20 years. The Government is already doing a great deal to train doctors, dentists, nurses.,One of the most serious shortages is in the nursing field. One of the most hopeful things that we can do is to bring back into the field people who have practiced, have been trained, and are now out of the field.,There are 300,000 nurses still licensed but not working today. We have set as this year's goal bringing back 10 percent of these, giving them refresher courses, which will enable them to practice.,Last year, we gave refresher courses to 1,000. This year we are shooting for 30,000. If we achieve that, it will be the equivalent of a whole year's graduating class of nurses. We hope to do the same with medical technologists on a smaller scale.,We have to train more subprofessionals in the health fields if we are going to do the job that the American people want us to do.,On September 29 the President wrote to the Department of Labor, the Veterans Administration, and HEW, and told us to get busy on this. We are getting busy.,Secretary Wirtz and I plan to produce twice as many health workers in these categories as last year. These are practical nurses, nurses aides, laboratory assistants, and workers at that level.,MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH,[11.] Third, maternal and child health. The President already alluded to the shocking figures here. We think of ourselves as an enlightened nation. Most Americans, if asked, would surely say that we provide the best health care in the world, or very near the best. You might think, then, that we would rank lowest in infant mortality. But, as the President pointed out, we rank 11th. By the standards of the most advanced country in terms of infant mortality, we lose 40,000 more babies each year than we should.,To me, and to the President, that is a shocking fact and we intend to do something about it.,Infant mortality is only the beginning of the problem. There are more than 1 million children who need eye glasses, who can't afford them. There is an urgent need for dental care among all children of lowincome families. Many children suffer from chronic diseases or handicapping conditions of various sorts, which either go untreated altogether, or are treated so late that the condition is far worse and more irreparable than it might have been.,I am going to recommend legislation-and I have discussed this with the President for a new program of grants to experiment with new ways of providing children with health services, new ways of training child health workers. At the same time, we are going to work toward a program of early case finding, early diagnosis, and early treatment which will get at these conditions before they do become irreparable.,THE TEACHER CORPS,[12.] Fourth, the Teacher Corps. One-fifth of the children of this Nation are not receiving the education that they should have. One of the reasons is clearly the teacher shortage. The Teacher Corps sends its members into those communities where the need is greatest. They work on the local level, under local control, and only where they have been invited. Many communities have invited them--far more than we can serve.,The Teacher Corps now has 1,250 members. I have recommended to the President that we triple that next summer.,There are great numbers of able young people across the country who are eager to serve. I said that we had filled 1,250 slots. We had 12,000 applications.,And the communities are eager to have them. In short, there is a grave need. They are a dedicated young people, eager to serve, and the Teacher Corps is an ideal device for bringing those two together.,THE REORGANIZATION OF HEW,[13.] Finally, I will mention the subject of reorganization. I have proposed to the President a major and far-reaching reorganization of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Specifically, I have proposed the establishment of three sub-Cabinet departments, each headed by a secretary and each responsible to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare: a Department of Health, a Department of Education, and a Department of Individual and Family Services, which would include both social security and welfare, and perhaps other programs.,This will reduce the number of line agencies reporting to the Secretary from eight to three. It will give each of the three primary program fields a stronger national voice and greater prominence, and, at the same time, it will keep the three fields closely related under one management and in a position where they can work very closely.,We have discovered there isn't any other way to get at the complex problems of poverty, the problems of the cities, and the other complex problems that face us today, without interrelation of these three fields.,We owe it to the taxpayers, and the President feels this very strongly, to adopt the most efficient and effective forms of organization to do the job. Nothing has occupied my time more fully since I have been Secretary.,Only sound and modern management of this Department will insure that the taxpayers' dollar appropriated for education will finally bring about some improvement in the American schools.,Thank you very much.,QUESTIONS,[14.] THE PRESIDENT. If you have any questions of Mr. Gardner, I am sure he will be glad to answer them, or if you have anything on your mind that you would like for me to comment upon I will be glad to do it.,MR. BOYD'S APPOINTMENT,Q. Mr. President, do you intend to give Mr. Boyd a recess appointment?,THE PRESIDENT. I intend to nominate him when Congress gets back in January, as I did in the case of Secretary Weaver and Others.,Q. You will wait until then for the Department to begin formally functioning?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the statute provides that.,FACTOR OF THE BACKLASH IN THE CAMPAIGN,[15.] Q. Mr. President, with respect to the others, I hope you won't mind a question about the campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. No, not a bit.,Q. Could you give us your judgment on how big a factor the backlash is in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I will give you a statement at the conclusion of these questions on the backlash, if that is agreeable. If there are any other questions, I will take them first.,Q. That is agreeable, sir.,THE PRESIDENTS COMMENTS ON MR. NIXON,[16.] Q. Mr. President, if I might also change the subject slightly, the Republicans are making or trying to make very much out of your comments on Mr. Nixon the other day. Do you think there is any need or desire for clarification of what you said?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. I responded to your question the other day about the terms of the Manila Agreement.7,7 See Item 577 [15].,The response, I think, covered two points: One, the provisions of the Manila Agreement; and, second, my opinion that the person who prompted the question and the criticism of the leaders who participated in that agreement, particularly the leaders of South Vietnam who signed it, and the other signatories, did not base it upon knowledge and information from the diplomatic front, the Secretary of State, or any who participated in the Conference, or from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or from the National Security Council, but simply based it upon a political campaign speech.,I don't care--and I don't think the people would want us to--to. involve their men or involve this question in the campaign. I don't intend to.,I pointed out very clearly what the Conference provided: unanimous agreement by all nations. I thought that the criticism of it was not based upon fact but fantasy; not based upon merit but upon politics.,PLANS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S SURGERY,[17.] Q. Mr. President, sir, if it turns out--,THE PRESIDENT. That \"sir\" kind of disarms me. Go ahead. I hope it's a friendly question.,Q. It is.,If it turns out that the facilities at Brooke do prove adequate and you can have your operations there, could you be a little more specific? Would it come in the next few days?,THE PRESIDENT. That will depend upon the doctors. Mrs. Johnson and I have talked it over. And she is very persuasive. We want to get it over with as soon as we can. We see no reason to delay when you have this thing to face up to.,As soon as they can make the necessary tests, laboratory examinations and others, we hope we can do it.,I would like for it to occur certainly this week or the early part of next week. The doctors have indicated in their conference with you it would be 2 weeks, 15 days, something like that.,We are going to try to expedite them.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[18.] Q. Secondly, sir, since your health is in the news these days, I wonder if you would just tell us how you feel.,THE PRESIDENT. I feel fine. I have a huskiness in my voice which you can observe, as a result of this growth or polyp, or whatever they call it.,I have a little strain and pulling on my side. I don't want to get into too much detail about that for fear it might arouse your sensibilities, or it might not be considered in good taste. But it is enough that I am conscious of the fact that I have problems there.,I am not in any pain of a serious nature, but it is something that I want to get over. As long as you have a kind of curtain hanging over you, not knowing what is in your throat, what is going to be the result of it, the best way to do is to just hit the cold water. And that is what I want to do, as soon as the doctors will let me.,That is why we are scheduling this afternoon a meeting tomorrow to make some preparatory examinations and have those results submitted to the Mayo Clinic people. Dr. Burkley 8 came in last night.,8 Vice Adm. George G. Burkley, Physician to the President.,Then we hope that their decision will be favorable and we can move ahead rather quickly.,I would say that I believe we will considerably advance the date, not through any emergency but just because I want to get the answer, get it behind me, and get on to my work.,It will be necessary to get some of these bills out of the way. I will try to do that today, tomorrow, and the next day. I hope you don't think we have a limited time to sign them and to analyze them. Each one has to be considered by the Budget and the various departments concerned. But we will be signing hundreds.,Those of you who are not in good physical condition better go back and rest up and be prepared for these announcements, or get some extra help in here.,I just observed the other morning on television that some of our associates on the trip, at least part of the trip, who visited one or two places with us spend most of their time talking about their physical condition instead of the Manila Conference. I don't want that to get involved here.,The people are interested in what happens to all of these bills, the legislation, and so forth. So I hope you all get your comforts taken care of and report what we hand to you.,ELECTION FORECAST,[19.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us your forecast on the election Tuesday?,THE PRESIDENT. I really don't know much more than you do. I have asked the Postmaster General to come down. I don't know just when he will be here. I thought I would get him to bring me up to date on what the Members of Congress tell him.,I have the impression from what he briefly said to me, when we were in a signing ceremony the other morning, that he anticipates there will be no substantial change at all in the Senate.,We may actually gain, make a gain, in the Senate.,He anticipates that whatever loss there is in the House will be much smaller than the average loss. He thinks, because of the very fine record that the 89th Congress has made, that most of these political gestures made in the last few days of the campaign by people who are trying to gain some seats will not pay off at the polls on Tuesday.,But I don't know what they will show. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether you make a prediction of 5, 10, 15, or 20 in these matters, unless there is some change in overall policy, and I don't anticipate that. I think the Democrats will have a good, healthy, substantial majority in the House of Representatives because the American people approve of the fine work of this Congress.,I think we will change some Republican seats. Some of them are going to lose. But I don't think it will be because they supported our program; it will be because of other reasons and because they didn't support it.,And I think some Democrats will lose for the same reason.,But I don't expect any great swing. I expect us really to hold our own or pick up seats in the Senate. If we do suffer any losses in the House they will be minimal and I think below the average since 1890. That is 40-some-odd--41, I think.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Does anyone have any questions of Secretary Gardner?,STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE \"WHITE BACKLASH\",[20.] Q. Mr. President, you won't forget that statement, will you?,THE PRESIDENT. I will do it right now. Thank you.,I can think of nothing more dangerous, more divisive, or more self-destructive than the effort to prey on what is called \"white backlash.\",I thought it was a mistake to pump this issue up in the 1964 campaign, and I do not think it served the purpose of those who did.,I think it is dangerous because it threatens to vest power in the hands of second-rate men whose only qualification is their ability to pander to other men's fears.,I think it divides this Nation at a very critical time--and therefore it weakens us as a united country.,I think that the so-called \"white backlash\" is destructive, not only of the interests of Negro Americans, but of all those who stand to gain from humane and far-sighted government. And those that stand to gain from humane and far-sighted government is everybody.,Nevertheless, there are those who try to stimulate suspicion into hatred, and to make fear and frustration their springboard into public office. Many of them do it openly. Some let their henchmen do it for them. Their responsibility is the same.,Americans are rightly concerned about the civil disorders that have taken place in some of our cities. The leaders of those disorders are just as bigoted in their own way as those who now seek to exploit \"white backlash.\" It is our public duty to prosecute them when they endanger the lives and the property of innocent people--Negro or white.,But the answer to their bigotry is not more bigotry in return. We will solve nothing by resorting to racism. Racism--whether it comes packaged in the Nazi's brown shirt or a three-button suit--destroys the moral fiber of a nation. It poisons public life.,So I would urge every American to ask himself before he goes to the polls on Tuesday: Do I want to cast my vote on the basis of fear? Do I want to follow the merchants of bigotry? Do I want to repudiate good men--Democrats and Republicans alike-who have given us Medicare, a great education program, a higher minimum wage, new parks and playgrounds, protection for the consumer, the hope for cleaning out our slums and rivers and the air we breathe?,I don't believe our people will want to be misled from these important subjects, and will want to do that. I believe they want to move forward in confidence--not backward in fear, hate, and by prejudice and the night riders.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-05","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,[1.] I am delighted to welcome you here this morning, to give you a brief report on what has happened.,We came in late yesterday and drove around and looked over the ranch some. I went to bed early and slept until 8:20 this morning.,Mr. McNamara came in a little after 9:30, and I received a somewhat detailed report on several items from him which he will sum up for you and take any questions you may care to ask.,I signed a number of bills today prior to his arrival, and have had a conversation with the Director of the Budget 1 in connection with some points I discussed with Mr. McNamara.,1 Charles L. Schultze, Director of the Bureau of the Budget.,I had an extended visit with Carl Albert, the majority leader, about the Manila Conference and our Pacific-Asia trip, and also the legislative program for next year.,I think that is a fair assessment of what has gone on since I saw you yesterday.\nNow I present to you Mr. McNamara.,SECRETARY MCNAMARA'S REMARKS ON THE DEFENSE PROGRAM AND VIETNAM,[2.] SECRETARY MCNAMARA. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,Yesterday, in a brief meeting I began to review with the President some of the matters relating to the fiscal 1968 Defense program, and we continued our discussion of that subject this morning.,As a foundation for decisions relating to the fiscal 1968 Defense budget, the President and I have been talking about the situation in Vietnam, discussing his impressions of the Far Eastern trip and my observations from my own recent trip.,We talked about the situation as it is today, as it looks for the months ahead, and this in comparison to what it was about a year ago.,You will recall that the military outlook was very dark, indeed, in the summer of 1965. The Vietcong and main force units of the North Vietnamese army that had infiltrated into the South were overpowering and were then destroying the military forces of South Vietnam.,As a matter of fact, many of the individual battalions of the South Vietnamese forces were decimated.,There was a very great fear then, shared by us, that the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were determined to cut the country in two at its narrow waist, and, furthermore, that they had the ability to do so.,To prevent that disaster, the United States put into South Vietnam over 100,000 men in about 120 days. The potential disaster was averted. Our forces began to bring a grave military situation under control.,Of course, since that time the scene has changed dramatically.,Whereas the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong forces were approaching possible victory some 15 months ago, I think it is clear to all that today a military victory is beyond their grasp.,One year ago we were in the midst of a very rapid troop expansion in South Vietnam. Today, a slowdown in our rate of troop deployment to that country is planned.,Looking ahead to 1967, particularly to matters that will influence our Defense program and our Defense budget for the next fiscal year, I think that barring unforeseen contingencies these major points seem clear:,First, draft calls for 1967 will be lower than for 1966. It is apparent that the total number of men to be drafted in the next 4 months--December, January, February, and March which is our planning period, will be significantly smaller than the number of men drafted in the 4 months of August, September, October, and the current month of November.,As a matter of fact, during the current 4-month period, August through November, we will draft about 161,000 men, and I would expect that the number to be drafted in the next 4 months will approximate half of that total.,The inductions in August, September, October, and November ranged between 37,000 and 50,000 a month, and I think that in the next 4 months they will average less than 25,000.,Secondly, I think it is clear that barring unforeseen emergencies, the increases in U.S. forces in South Vietnam in 1967 will be substantially less than this year. From January 1 to December 31 of this year, our forces in South Vietnam will increase by approximately 200,000 men. The increase next year will be nothing on that order.,Thirdly, here at home, as I have announced previously, we have already ordered a cut of $1 billion in the planned annual rate of production of air ordnance. Today I discussed with the President the probability of a second cut. Our inventories of ordnance are rising faster than we anticipated. As a matter of fact, we have today on the ground in Southeast Asia approximately 160,000 tons of air ordnance and we have an additional 140,000 tons in transit.,Fourthly, I expect that this same trend towards stabilization will govern our air operations, and the deployments of air units to South Vietnam, and the level of our air activities. We have been flying, for example, more than 25,000 attack sorties a month. No sharp increases in that level of air activity are planned for the future.,Now, having said this, I want to emphasize that we do face a stubborn enemy. As a matter of fact, on the way down here today in the airplane, I read the most recent report of the interrogations of enemy prisoners, the North Vietnamese-Vietcong prisoners, that were captured during the period of June through September. This report showed that the morale of the North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam and the morale of the Vietcong soldiers in South Vietnam is being affected by the air and ground operations carried out against them by the United States, the South Vietnamese, and the other free world forces.,Their sanctuaries which once existed deep in the jungle are no longer free from attack. Food for the enemy is a problem, an increasing problem. It is no longer plentiful. His medical supplies are often short. Disease, particularly malaria, is affecting his troops and at times rendering entire units ineffective.,Our field commanders report that enemy deaths in combat are averaging more than 1,000 men a week. To this number, of course, must be added the number captured-and the number captured in the last 4 weeks has been very high, indeed, something on the order of 2,100. That is almost a third of the total number of enemy captured during 1965. And to this number, of course, must be added those who are wounded and those who are immobilized or die because of disease.,The monsoon offensive that we anticipated during the months of the monsoon, May through October, has been thwarted.,More recently, despite the heavy infiltration across the demilitarized zone in the northern part of South Vietnam, and the enemy's clear intention to conduct a major offensive operation across that zone and in the northeastern portion of the First Corps area, our own spoiling operations have prevented them from doing so. Nonetheless, the overall conclusion of this interrogation report drawn from the interrogations of June through September is that the North Vietnamese soldiers and the Vietcong soldiers, while clearly affected by the pressures being brought to bear upon them, are fighting on stubbornly and from all indications will continue to fight on stubbornly.,They continue to infiltrate from the North to the South in large numbers, and they continue to bring in not only individuals by those infiltration routes but entire units, regiments of the North Vietnamese army, as well.,There is no question, however, that the military victory which the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong sought in the summer of 1965 is now beyond their grasp. This, then, permits another major change in the year ahead.,As all of you are aware, I think, progress has been very slow in rural reconstruction, a most important program in South Vietnam. I think we all agree that this program demands additional attention from the Government of South Vietnam and from the free world forces during the forthcoming year. Fortunately, the military situation has now improved to the point so that additional emphasis can be placed upon this job of providing security to the countryside, security to the people in the villages and hamlets spread all over the country.,There is sufficient military power in the field today to permit the South Vietnamese to shift more of their regular military forces to the reconstruction effort, and this they plan to do.,And, finally, I commented to the President upon the most vivid impression I brought back from South Vietnam, and that is of the very high morale and very high effectiveness of all elements of the U.S. Armed Forces there. General Westmoreland has said that they are the best armed forces that he has ever seen in uniform, that they have the highest morale and the highest efficiency that he has ever observed in combat troops.,Perhaps this is a natural reaction from a commander of a military force. But it is not only one man's opinion; it is the universal opinion of all who have visited our troops in that country. I think in part it is a function of the fact that we are limiting their combat tour in a way that has never been done before in any major conflict.,As you know, the combat tour at present is limited to 12 months. We propose to keep it so. We will have brought back as a result of that limited tour about 250,000 men by the end of next month. We believe we can continue to limit the tour to 12 months, as far ahead as we can see, and do so without calling up Reserves.,Now I will be very happy to take your questions.,QUESTIONS,NEED FOR A TAX INCREASE,[3.] Q. Mr. Secretary, the President said yesterday that a decision on a tax increase would come after figures are in on a supplemental appropriation. In view of the figures you have given us today, can you give us any idea of what your thinking would be on the subject?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, I can't give you any idea of the total Defense budget for fiscal 1968 or the amount of any supplemental that may be requested. We are in the process of developing both the supplemental and the Defense budget. It was in connection with that that, as I say, I met with the President today. It will be several weeks before I can present to him a recommendation for fiscal 1968 Defense budget.,With respect to the supplemental, I should call your attention to the foundation of the fiscal 1967 Defense budget. At the time we presented it to the Congress, the President stated, and I repeated it in many visits with Members of Congress and in appearances before congressional committees, that the budget was based on the assumption that military operations would be financed through June 30, 1967. This was a conservative fiscal assumption.,It is an assumption which permits us to utilize the funds most efficiently to avoid waste and undue expenditures and avoid buying ahead of the time when we need to buy. But I think it is becoming clear now that that assumption needs to be changed. We need to look ahead to the possibility of financing operations beyond June 30, 1967.,As we reported to the Congress earlier this year, that would require a Supplement. I think it is very clear a supplement will be necessary and will be recommended in January. We will be developing the specific amount and discussing it and recommending it to the President in the next several weeks.,THE PRESIDENT. If I might mention it, some of the figures we discussed this morning may be of interest to you.,Our revenue estimates now indicate that we will take in this year an increase of about $5 billion, $6 billion, or $7 billion over what we planned in the budget. In other words, our revenue would be up from $111 billion to $116 or above. It could be off a billion dollars, or 2 billion. That may be a conservative estimate.\nWe will take in $5 billion, $6 billion, or $7 billion more than we estimated we would take in.,Our failure to sell securities, our withdrawing them from the market, plus the extra cost of the interest rates, will cost us about $4.5 billion of that revenue. Then we will have to take the congressional add-ons. We will pare those as much as we can. We are in the process of doing that now.,We will have, as I indicated yesterday, more in increased revenue than we will have in increased expenditures. In other words, we will have an increase of both, increased expenditures, because we are not selling the $3.5 billion of securities, and because of the extra interest rates. That figure will be about $4.5 billion.,We will have increased revenues that will more than cover it--$5 billion, $6 billion, or $7 billion.,Then, when we get the figures on the supplemental for the military, we can give you a better picture. But we will not get those for several weeks yet.,PREDICTION FOR MILITARY VICTORY,[4.] Q. Mr. Secretary, you said that the Vietcong victory is not within their grasp. Is a military victory within our grasp in Vietnam, and can you give us any kind of an idea what you think the time element might be?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No. I, as you know, have not proven to be the most reliable forecaster in the past, and I don't wish to run the risk of proving unreliable in the future. So I won't have any predictions of what lies ahead.,U.S. TROOP REQUIREMENTS,[5.] Q. Mr. Secretary, you stated that the troop increase in calendar 1966, I believe, would approximate 200,000 men.\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. Yes.,Q. But you didn't give us a figure for 1967.\nSECRETARY MCNAMARA. Intentionally so.,Q. Would you do that, please?\nSECRETARY McNAMARA. No, I couldn't give you an estimate for 1967. We don't have detailed plans. But I can tell you that the increase for 1967 will be substantially less than the 200,000 increase between January 1 and December 31 of this year.,Q. Mr. Secretary, could you tell us what that 200,000 increase will bring our force level to?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. Well, we had about 182,000 men in South Vietnam at the beginning of the year, and if the amount added this year exactly equaled 200,000, and it will be somewhat above or below that, it would bring the total at the end of this year to about 385,000.,EFFECT OF AIR ORDNANCE CUTBACK,[6.] Q. Mr. Secretary, as you speak of the cutback in ordnance required for Air Force activities, how could we compare our situation today with a few years ago? If we should be successful in achieving peace in a relatively short time, 2 or 3 months, what would be the Department of Defense position with materiel on hand? Would we have a huge surplus, such as we had after Korea?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. Well, I think your question relates to the impact of peace on our economy. We have been very conscious of that in planning the buildup of our forces. As I mentioned to you a few moments ago, General Westmoreland has said he has never seen or heard of a military force in history that is as well equipped or as effective as we have.,We have that there, and we achieved this level of effectiveness without material allocations, without wage controls, without price controls, and with the Defense budget which, in terms of gross national product, is lower today, lower in 1966, than it was in 4 of the past 5 years.,I hope we are doing it, and I believe we are doing it, without piling up the tremendous surpluses with which we have entered peace after World War II and Korea.,After Korea, for example, there was a surplus of over $12 billion of military equipment on hand. That required an immediate termination of production, with very serious and adverse effects on employment in the areas in which defense production had been heavily concentrated.,This time we have planned both to hold to a minimum the burden on our society during the period of military operations, and also soften the impact of the termination of such operations by providing for a continuation of production to build up inventories after the introduction of peace.,So the specific answer to your question is, I think, that you will not see a sharp, dramatic, drastic termination of defense production, with all the adverse effects that that has on individuals and localities.,EFFECTS OF BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM,[7.] Q. Mr. Secretary, how effective has been the bombing of North Vietnam on the morale and on the military objectives?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. I think you have to, in answering that question, remember the three objectives that we had when we started bombing.,The first was to increase the morale of the South Vietnamese military forces and civilian population. The bombing started in February 1965. That nation was under intense pressure from the North at that time. This was a major act by the United States indicating to them that they could expect continued support from this country. Surely we have achieved that objective.,A second objective was to reduce the flow of men and equipment from the North to the South and/or to increase the cost of that infiltration of men and equipment from the North to the South.,Very clearly we have increased the cost. How much we have reduced the flow, we cannot say. But it is very clear that North Vietnam has diverted about 300,000 men from other activities in their society to the repair of the lines of communication over which they are infiltrating men and equipment from the North, and which lines of communication have been the primary targets of our bombing in the North.,The third objective, of course, was to make clear to the political leaders and the people of the North that as long as they continued to seek to subvert and destroy the independence of the people of the South, that they would pay a price in the North.,I think it is very clear they are paying a price.,We never intended, and we don't believe now, that the bombing of the North will, by itself, lead to a termination of the activity in the South.,LEVEL OF AIR ACTIVITY,[8.] Q. Mr. Secretary, on the same general subject, in your discussion of the level of air activity, you mentioned sorties, but you gave no estimate of the level of bombing activity in 1967. Could you do so? There have been some recent reports.,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. Well, I mentioned that we have been flying somewhat more than 25,000 attack sorties a month, and that I didn't anticipate any significant increase in that level.,I think that that is a fair measure of the bombing activity. The attack sorties are the vehicles by which the bombing is carried out.,EFFECT OF ORDNANCE CUTBACKS,[9.] Q. Mr. Secretary, is it the administration's hope that the announcement of these cutbacks will have a diplomatic effect?,SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No, it is simply a statement of reality. The cutbacks will take place and I think it is information that you and our public will find of interest.,It is particularly information that bears on the future of our economy and the transition from war to peace.\nREPORTER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.,THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS,[10.] THE PRESIDENT. On this point, we will have these items costed out. In preparing our budget, it is necessary to review some of these matters that Secretary McNamara has reviewed with us this morning. We will have that taking place from now to January 1.,The latter part of November and December will be taken up mostly with the Budget people. But before that, we will have a series of proposals by Cabinet officers. Following these proposals, the President will pass on them and then the Budget will cost them out and they will go into the State of the Union Message.,Mr. McNamara's proposals this morning indicated a lower draft call, lower ammunition production, lower assignments overseas for next year. There will be other adjustments that will be made. When these are processed and costed out, we will arrive at the figure for the budget that will go up in January.,Arriving this afternoon will be Mr. Cater, of the White House staff, and Mr. John Gardner. They will review the education, health, and social security proposals that they care to have considered for next year.,Some of them we can afford, and some of them we cannot. We will look at them, analyze them, consider them, and have the Budget cost them out.\nWe expect Mr. Cater and Secretary Gardner to stay overnight. They will be returning to Washington tomorrow.,[11.] Secretary McNamara talked to you about the reconstruction work that we are doing in the pacification field. We went into great detail with the South Vietnamese, General Westmoreland, and Ambassador Lodge, at the Manila Conference.,Following that Conference, my assistant, Mr. Komer, went with them back to South Vietnam. He spent several days there. He made a brief report yesterday morning on the plans that we have in that field for the days ahead. Secretary McNamara carried through on some of it today.,I will ask Mr. Komer to come down late Sunday or Monday to go over that entire proposal 2 and we will try to have that costed out for the next few months.,2 A summary of Robert W. Komer's report to the President was released on November 7 (2 Weekly Comp. Pros. Docs., p. 1673). See also note to Item 521.,That is about as far as we can see ahead now. I do not know that Secretary Gardner's proposals or Mr. Komer's proposals will have any interest, or whether you want to come out here for them or not. They will come by Jetstar to the ranch. I will keep Mr. Christian 3 advised.\nThat is all. Thank you very much.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,3 George Christian, an assistant press secretary."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH DURING THE\nASIAN TRIP,[1.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the report you gave us on your health yesterday, could you tell us whether your doctors at any point advised you not to go on your Asian trip or to cut down on your rather strenuous pace while you were over there?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they never, at any time, considered doing it. I think the best indication of my general physical condition is that notwithstanding the minor problems I have with my throat and with the little stitching they need to do, the repair work, is that even though I had both of those problems, I did make the Asian trip.,I didn't get weary. I didn't stay tired, and I got plenty of rest throughout.,I had the advantage that some of those who accompanied me did not. For instance, from Korea to Alaska, I could sleep 6 hours in a bed that was as comfortable as a hotel room.,From Alaska to Washington, I could rest 5 or 6 hours--and you had to sit up in a chair.,Most of this weariness, I think, was some of you engaging in introspection after you got home.,EFFECT OF THE ELECTIONS ON THE VIETNAM SITUATION,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in your estimation, will the outcome of the elections have any influence on the Communist willingness, or attitude, toward continuing the war in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not a good judge of just what the Communists' reaction will be. I think, in the past, that some foreign nations have misunderstood the American system. I hope they will be very careful not to make any mistakes of judgment about this election.,I see no reason why the election should greatly affect any decision they might make.,The President is not a candidate in this election. I cannot conceive, if the people go out and vote, that the decision of the election could in any way change the Government's policies.,There is no one that I know of that thinks there is going to be any great change in the Senate. Although my delightful friend, Senator Dirksen, optimistic as he is, feels that there may be at least a gain of 75, I notice the chronic campaigners, like Vice President Nixon, have begun to hedge and pull in their horns.,I would doubt that there is going to be any substantial change. But I could point out that with the House of Representatives now at 295 to 140, there could be a change of 40 or 50, as there has been on an average since 1890, and not adversely affect the Government program.,I don't think it is going to affect the Vietnam situation in any event. They may talk, and argue, and fight, and criticize, and play politics, from time to time, but when they call the vote on supporting the men-the defense bill--in the Senate it will be 83 to 2, and in the House it will be 410 to 5. Everybody can understand that.,SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAR EAST TRIP,[3.] Q. Mr. President, what do you consider to be the most significant outcome of your Far East trip?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it served several good purposes. First, I think it was highly successful. I think it demonstrated to all the world that the seven participating nations were united--united in their determination to support the men at the fighting front; united in their determination to preserve the integrity of territorial boundaries; united in their determination to develop a new Asia with prosperity and plenty; united in their determination to walk the last mile, to go to any corner, any time, meet with any government, to try to further the search for peace.,Several nations on their own have already communicated the communiqué and the results of that conference to other nonaligned, neutral nations. Mr. Harriman,1 as my representative, has visited several important capitals. Mr. Bundy 2 is presently visiting important capitals. Mr. Eugene Black3 is following our tracks through Asia and following up on some of the economic programs.,1 W. Averell Harriman, U.S. Ambassador at Large.,2 William P. Bundy, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.,3 Eugene R. Black, adviser to the President on Southeast Asian social and economic development.,I think that it put the spotlight of the world on a very neglected part of the world.,I think that we realize that two out of every three people living today live in that area.,The problems are there and we faced up to those problems and presented some solutions. And I think in due time you will see that they will be effective.,THE PRESIDENT'S SURGERY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel personally as you approach these two operations, both physically and mentally? For instance, does your throat hurt you when you talk? Do you have any feeling of dread about going under surgery again?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't recommend them. I don't favor them. I don't think it ought to be a part of your vacation. But those things come to you and you have to face up to them.,I think I am very fortunate that I have a job that I can kind of regulate myself; that I have a lot of good help; that I have the finest doctors and the best hospital facilities in the country.,And actually, after all, it is not anything to make a great show over. They are relatively minor. Most of the people in this room have suffered considerably more serious problems than I will face with getting a little polyp out of my throat.,I don't think it is going to be necessary that I use my throat, anyway, in the next few days.,ADDITIONAL MANPOWER FROM VIETNAM\nALLIES,[5.] Q. Sir, as a result of your talks with the leaders of our allies in Vietnam, would you anticipate that more manpower will be forthcoming from them in the near future for that war?,THE PRESIDENT. General Westmoreland made it clear that we would need additional manpower. All the participants in the conference heard his presentation. When, and, as, and if he asks for additional manpower, we will supply it, and I think that every nation involved would do what they thought was desirable and necessary to support the men that they have protecting the territorial integrity of that area.,I think it is bad for you to speculate in \"Andrew H. Brown\" figures about how many hundreds of thousands are going to be needed when General Westmoreland himself doesn't know. But I think suffice to say, without involving any credibility, that whatever is needed is going to be done. We are not going to leave those men there asking for support and not give it to them.,I think that we have reasonable strength there now. I think we will add to it from time to time. I would hope, of course, that the adversary would see the utter futility of continuing this confrontation and would agree to go from the battlefield to the conference room.,But until he does, the men there are going to give a good account of themselves. General Westmoreland said no commander in chief ever commanded a more proficient or competent group of men. If they need some more to help them, they will be sent.,SOVIET ATTITUDE TOWARD VIETNAM FIGHTING,[6.] Q. Mr. President, on that point you said recently that only two nations want the fighting continued. Does this mean the United States has had some positive indication from the Soviet Union that it would like to see the fighting stopped?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I believe most of the nations of the world would like to see the fighting stopped. I just can't conceive of any nation enjoying what is going on. And I think most of them can realize the danger of continuing this unpleasantness.,I don't know that many nations have much power to do anything about it.,I know we want it stopped. We would like to stop it tomorrow. We would like to stop it today. We would like to stop it this minute.,We will do anything we can, with honor, to stop it. We seek peace. We search for peace. We are willing to do anything we can to get peace except surrender. We are not asking any unconditional surrender on the part of the adversary. We are just saying to them, \"Come in the room and let's reason together. Let's talk out our difficulties.\" They refuse to do that.,Now I don't know why they refuse to do it. I think that as time goes on and they see that that is the better course, I hope they will do it. And when they do, they will find us a willing participant in any meeting that can be agreed upon.,Q. Could you be more specific, sir, about the Soviet position?,THE PRESIDENT. I said that I thought every nation, except our adversaries, would like to see the fighting stopped. I am not a spokesman for the Soviet Union. I cannot speak for Mr. Brezhnev, or Mr. Kosygin, or Mr. Gromyko,4 but I have every reason to believe that they would like to see the fighting stopped as much as we would like to see it stopped. I think everybody else in the world would like to see it stopped.,4Leonid I. Brezhnev, General Secretary, Central Committee, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Aleksei N. Kosygin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Soviet Union, and Andrei A. Gromyko, Soviet Foreign Minister.,Perhaps the North Vietnamese would like to see it stopped but our communication is bad and at least up to this time we have been unable to convince them that the way to stop it is to come to the conference room.,Now we don't know why. We wish we did know why. We would go more than halfway if we just knew which way to go.,Mr. Harriman is going one way now. Mr. Bundy is going another way now. Mr. Black is going another way. Mr. Rusk will be going to the NATO meeting. I asked him to go back through Asia on his way there, the other way around.,But until we can reason this thing out, we must maintain the strength to defend our men and to defend territorial integrity of the boundaries of our allies. We intend to do that.,THE POPE'S PROPOSAL FOR A TRUCE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the Pope is reported to be mounting a drive for another Christmas truce, accompanied by another pause in the bombing. Would our Government be receptive to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to speculate. I don't know what proposals His Holiness might make. Whatever proposals he made would be very seriously considered, evaluated. I can't conceive of anyone feeling that one side ought to stop bombing and the other side ought to continue it.,I would hope that all this talk about stopping the bombing would have some reference to the bombing that they did on Independence Day when General Westmoreland, day before yesterday, intended to go out to a ceremony they were having and they tried to bomb the place where he was supposed to sit.,I would hope that some of this \"stopping the bombing\" agitation would be directed to the folks that throw the bombs at our Embassy in Saigon. We have never bombed the North Vietnamese Embassy. We have never bombed their population.,Sure, we try to hit a military target, a petroleum target, or an electric plant. But here they come in and try to bomb the seats where our Ambassador will sit, where the head of state will sit, where our general, commanding our forces, will be.,If they want us to stop bombing, we ought to see what they are willing to stop. We will be glad to carefully consider anyone's proposals that represent two-way streets.,We don't want to talk about just half of it, though.,THE SITUATION IN KOREA,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the North Korean attack on an American patrol in Korea, could you assess for us the situation at the 38th parallel today?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had some increased incidents there, of late. We are filing a very strong protest for this totally unjustified murder of six of our men.,We will make the strongest representations. We would hope that it is not indicative of any continued desire on the part of the North Koreans to violate the terms of the armistice.,Certainly the United States of America does not plan to violate the terms of that armistice and we hope they won't either.,CAMPAIGN PLANS,[9.] Q. Does the cancellation of your big campaign trip mean that you do not intend to do anything to help Democratic candidates before election, such as one little speech in Texas, or maybe a TV pep talk before election?,THE PRESIDENT. First, we don't have any plans, so when you don't have plans, you don't cancel plans.,We get invited to come to most of the States. In the last 6 weeks we have been invited to 47 of the States by the candidates for Governor, or the Senate, or the Congress.,We have been invited on nonpolitical invitations to the other three States, I might\nsay.,But we have not accepted those invitations. We do contact the local people who extend them. We do investigate in some instances going there, and we do express the hope that we can go.,But until it is firm, until we know we can, we do not say, \"We accept,\" and schedule it.,The people of this country ought to know that all these canceled plans primarily involve the imagination of people who phrase sentences and write columns, and have to report what they hope or what they imagine.,We have no plans for any political speeches between now and the election. We know of no requirement that we forgo them. I just don't think they are necessary.,I have had a very active year, and I would hope I could spend a relatively quiet weekend and go vote on Tuesday morning. I hope every American will go vote on Tuesday morning.,If they do, I have not the slightest doubt but what their good judgment will prevail and the best interests of our country will be served. But I have no plans to make any speeches. I have not canceled any plans that I had agreed to, although I did express the hope early in the year that I could visit as many States as possible. I visited approximately 30 this year, which set some kind of a record, itself.,If I do schedule anything between now and next Tuesday, I would feel perfectly at liberty to do so, and if I did, I would give you due and adequate notice.,ECONOMIC TRENDS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us your estimate of whether the inflationary pressures on the economy are easing up or increasing at the present time?,THE PRESIDENT. There has been a very healthy movement toward price stability in recent weeks on the economic front. I wouldn't say in the newspapers or the radio and television, but the statistics would indicate that.,The Department of Labor this morning released the wholesale price index in October. From February through October, that's roughly 10 months, we have had only a gain of .8 percent.,The index released shows that we had a decline of .6 of a percent from September. It brought the average level of prices back below any month since June.,So I think that is a very healthy movement. I want to reiterate that while we have had some gain, some increases in prices, that that has been brought about by increases in wages that we thought were very desirable in the low earnings group.,The lowest paid people in this country got some increases--the hospital workers, the bus drivers, the lower-paid group. That did bring up prices some. You can't do it without it.,But prices have increased less in the 6 years of the Kennedy-Johnson administration, with Vietnam on and all the pressures that it brings, than they did the previous 6 years in the Eisenhower administration.,The wages have increased much more and you have more money to pay the increased prices with than you did in the previous 6 years.,So I don't think anybody can make much out of that. All you have to do is say, \"Well, now, if you are worried about inflation, you are an expert on it, because you had a much better record in that field than we have.\" 5,5On November 6, the White House made public a report to the President by the Council of Economic Advisers on recent economic trends. The report noted that \"the developments of recent weeks demonstrate that the economy continues to move ahead at a healthy pace, fortunately less rapid than the somewhat hectic pace of last fall and winter. This more moderate growth shows that public and private policies have been working effectively to achieve a sound and sustainable rate of expansion. The benefits are clearly reflected in an improved price record.\" The full text of the report is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 2, p. 1628).,THE WARREN COMMISSION,[11.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, an aura of mystery has developed around the assassination of President Kennedy. I am thinking of two or three books that were written, and some lawyers and others casting doubts on the works of the Warren Commission.,The case, as I understand it, was based on the alleged mysterious disappearance of photos, X-rays, and so forth.,Now the Justice Department discloses that the Kennedy family had these documents and they have now been turned over to the National Archives.,I wonder why that was not disclosed before, and also why this material is still not available to competent non-Government investigators?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I think it has been available to the Warren Commission any time it wanted to see it. Second, I think it is available to any official body now. Third, I think that every American can understand the reasons why we wouldn't want to have the garments, and the records, and everything paraded out in every sewing circle in the country to be exploited and used without serving any good or official purpose.,It is my understanding--all of this took place while I was away--that most of this has been over in the Archives stored all the -time. It has always been available to the Warren Commission and the Government, the Justice Department, the FBI. The late, beloved President's brother was Attorney General during the period the Warren Commission was studying this thing and I certainly would think he would have a very thorough interest in seeing that the truth was made evident. I believe he did have. I think that he, the FBI, and the entire Government made available everything that the Commission wanted. I think they made a very thorough study. I know of no evidence that would in any way cause any reasonable person to have a doubt about the Warren Commission.,But if there is any evidence and it is brought forth, I am sure that the Commission and the appropriate authorities will take action that may be justified.,EQUAL TREATMENT FOR SPANISH-SPEAKING\nAMERICANS,[12.] Q. Sir, I know you have been interested in doing something for the Spanish speaking people of the country, but would you fill us in on your plans, somewhat?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have been interested in seeing that the Spanish-speaking people of the country were treated equally ever since I have been in public life.,I have had very excellent cooperation from them. I have appointed a good many of them to very high places in the Government. I have done what I could to improve their economic conditions by passage of legislation I thought would be helpful.,I have tried to do what I could to provide equality of opportunity in employment, in education, in health, and in other Government programs.\nAs long as I am in this of[ice, I will try to see that all Americans are treated equally. I have a very special fondness for the Spanish Americans, because I grew up with them. I learned to speak their language as a child. I went to school with them. I taught them. I have been getting them to vote for me for 30 years.,THE GOVERNORSHIP IN CALIFORNIA,[13.] Q. Last week, Senator Barry Goldwater predicted that Ronald Reagan would win the Governor's seat in California by either a minor or a major landslide.,Would you care to give us your assessment of the Governor's race in that State?,THE PRESIDENT. I would just express the hope that there has been no improvement in Senator Goldwater's judgment since his predictions of 1964.,When I see these predictions about elections, I would commend to all of your attention, before you use the people's airwaves and the advertisers' columns, that you review their predictions 2 years ago and 4 years ago, and see just how accurate they were. I did that the other day.,I went back to the predictions of how many seats they were going to gain in 1964-instead of gaining, they lost--how many seats they were going to gain in 1962, and what was going to happen in 1960.,I just hope that the predictions of Senator Goldwater, Senator Dirksen, and of ex-Vice President Nixon are as accurate this year as they were then.,I found them very undependable as prophets, although they are fine individuals.,PROSPECTS OF A TAX INCREASE,[14.] Q. Sir, can you evaluate the prospects for a tax increase in view of the price developments that you announced earlier?,THE PRESIDENT. We have the appropriation bills being evaluated at the moment. There are 1,250 separate appropriations. They will cover 2,500 various items and fields.,We are going to withhold as many of those appropriations as we feel we can in the national interest.,We hope to announce those some time between now and the end of the month, or the early part of next month.,During that same time, Mr. McNamara has his fine-toothed comb in reviewing every request of the military, to see how much we can forgo of the requests they have made. When we get that request, as we hope to before the Congress gets back here, we will then look at the revenue figure.,There are indications now that we have a great increase in revenue. If we did not have to have a substantial supplemental--I think we will have to have a substantial supplemental--I don't think we would need any tax increase at all.,But our tax increase will be determined largely by how much I can cut out of the appropriations the Congress made, and how much our men at the fighting front will require in the way of equipment and support for the rest of this year.,I will know that some time the early part of next month. And as soon as I know that, I will make appropriate studies and recommendations which will be available for the Congress when they come back.,MR. NIXON'S COMMENTS ON THE MANILA\nCOMMUNIQUÉ,[15.] Q. Mr. President, since the Manila meeting there has been some uncertainty as to how to interpret the withdrawal terms that were included in the communique.6,6 See Item 549.,Yesterday, for example, Mr. Nixon said that it appeared that you had proposed, or the seven powers had proposed, getting out in a way that would leave South Vietnam to the mercy of the Vietcong.\nCould you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to comment on the communiqué. I do not want to get into a debate on a foreign policy meeting in Manila with a chronic campaigner like Mr. Nixon.,It is his problem to find fault with his country and with his Government during a period of October every 2 years.,If you will look back over his record, you will find that to be true.,He never did really recognize and realize what was going on when he had an official position in the Government. You remember what President Eisenhower said, that if you would give him a week or so he would figure out what he was doing.,Since then he has made a temporary stand in California, and you saw what action the people took out there. Then he crossed the country to New York. Then he went back to San Francisco, hoping that he would be in the wings, available if Goldwater stumbled. But Goldwater didn't stumble.,Now he is out talking about a conference that obviously he is not well prepared on or informed about.,You can read the communiqué. I think it is very clear that the seven participants in that conference felt that they wanted the entire world to know that if infiltration would cease, if the aggression would cease, if the violence would cease from the standpoint of our adversary, the allies would gladly reciprocate by withdrawing their troops, and that they would withdraw them in a period of not to exceed 6 months.,Most of the nations, if not some of our own citizens, most of the countries, know that we do not plan to occupy Vietnam or dominate it, or try to determine its official life once the aggression and the infiltration and the violence there ceases.,But some of them can't understand, because I guess they wouldn't make huge investments and walk off and leave them, how we could do that.,We have explained that we would pull out just as soon as the infiltration, the aggression, and the violence ceases. We made that statement and we set a time limit on it.,Why would we want to stay there if there was no aggression, if there was no infiltration and the violence ceased? We wouldn't want to stay there as tourists. We wouldn't want to keep 400,000 men there just to march up and down the runways at Cam Ranh Bay.,But we felt if we stated it again and each of us subscribed to it, including the Government of South Vietnam, that they would ask us and ask all the other allies to withdraw their forces, if the other side withdrew theirs, the infiltration ceased, the violence ceased, that it would probably clarify our position.,We think we did that, until some of the politicians got mixed up in it and started trying not to clarify it but to confuse it.,It shouldn't be confused. Every participant in that conference, acting on good faith, with the best of motives, wanted to say to North Vietnam and every other nation in the world that we intend to stay there only so long as our presence is necessary to protect the territorial integrity of South Vietnam, to see that the violence there ceases, and the infiltration and the aggression ceases.,They know that and we ought not try to confuse it here and we ought not try to get it mixed up in a political campaign here.,Attempts to do that will cause people to lose votes instead of gaining them. And we ought not have men killed because we try to fuzz up something.,Our position is clear. We don't want to occupy that country. We didn't want to occupy the Dominican Republic. We went in there because our people were being shot at, because aggressive forces wanted to establish a form of government that was not in keeping with the will of the majority of the people of that country.,Once we were able to let the people have a free election, supervised election, let the majority speak its will, we pulled our troops out and came home.,That is what we will do in South Vietnam. When the aggression, infiltration, and violence ceases, not a nation there wants to keep occupying troops in South Vietnam.,Mr. Nixon doesn't serve his country well by trying to leave that kind of impression in the hope that he can pick up a precinct or two, or a ward or two.,AN ALL-ASIAN CONFERENCE,[16.] Q. In that connection, President Marcos of the Philippines has called for an all-Asian conference. Do you see that this might carry on the work that was begun at Manila?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that Asians who have the same interests, the same problems, not only have the right, but the duty, to take such initiatives as they may think are desirable.,That is a matter for them to decide. I think it is one thing to decide which Asians are going to participate in that conference, where it is going to be, what kind of a conference, what governments are going to be invited.,We have encouraged regional meetings. It is not a matter for us to decide; it is a matter for Asia. But the policy of the United States Government is to encourage the people who believe in freedom in Asia to get together and to talk out their problems, and to try to find solutions for them.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-11-03","text":"THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO UNDERGO SURGERY,THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,I wanted you to know that my doctors have recommended that I undergo surgery to repair a defect at the site of the incision made during the gallbladder operation a year ago.,About 6 months ago a small bulge began to appear in the region of the scar on the right side of my abdomen. Although it would disappear from time to time, I experienced a continuing soreness and a drawing, pulling sensation. The protrusion has enlarged recently and the soreness has recurred, and the doctors have therefore recommended surgery.,After final discussions with Dr. Burkley in Seoul, Korea, on Tuesday, I accepted his recommendation that the operation take place within 15 or 18 days from now.,The doctors also intend at that time to remove a small polyp from my throat.,They have recommended that I begin a reduced schedule of activity in preparation for the operation. I intend to leave tomorrow for Texas.,I would expect to put in a rather heavy day tomorrow on desk work and bills and leave sometime in the afternoon.,Mr. Moyers1 is here with the doctors who will take part in the operation, and who have participated in the diagnosis.,1 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,They will come in and be glad to answer any questions you may have to ask. They will be Dr. Burkley; Dr. James Cain of Mayo's; Dr. Devine, the throat man from Mayo's; and Dr. Gould, the throat specialist from New York who has been treating me.,INTRODUCTION OF PRESIDENT'S PHYSICIANS,MR. MOYERS. The President will go back to his office and I will bring the doctors in. We will have a session with them before anyone leaves.,These will all be in the material you will receive as you leave here, but Dr. James Cain is to my far left. Dr. Cain is a longtime personal physician to the President's family.,Next on my left is Adm. George Burkley, Physician to the President.,On my right is Dr. W. James Gould, director of otolaryngology at the Lenox Hill Hospital.,You will have biographical sketches of the doctors.,Dr. Hallenbeck is not here. He is the surgeon who performed the operation last year, and will again be the principal surgeon.,Dr. Kenneth D. Devine is to my right. He is a member of the section of plastic surgery of the Mayo Clinic.,Dr. Hallenbeck is head of a section on general surgery and head of the section of surgical research of the Mayo Clinic.,Dr. Burkley has a statement, a copy of which will also be in the material you receive as you leave here.,STATEMENT ON THE PRESIDENT'S CONDITION,DR. BURKLEY. At the time of the President's gallbladder surgery, drains were placed in the abdominal wall about I inch from the end of the incision on the right side. This is routine procedure in such surgery.,Following removal of the drains, the wound appeared to heal completely. On several occasions, a drawing pain was noticed in the region of the scar localized where the drains had been removed. In April 1966 a small protrusion was noted.,There has been a continuing soreness and a drawing sensation in this area. The protrusion has enlarged somewhat in the last 3 weeks and is now approximately the size of a silver dollar. It is reducible when the President is either lying down or wearing a back brace.,Since there has been some recent enlargement of the protrusion and recurrent soreness, surgical repair is therefore advisable.,In August, a small polyp in the region of the right vocal cord of the President's throat was noted. This cleared up from time to time. This polyp was again noted just prior to the Asia trip and Dr. W. J. Gould of New York City and Dr. Kenneth Devine of the Mayo Clinic recommended that it be removed. At the time the abdominal wall is repaired, the polyp will be removed from the throat.,There is no indication of any serious problem in either instance, and his general health continues to be excellent.,QUESTIONS,Q. What is the nature of the protrusion?\nDR. BURKLEY. As the word itself implies, it is just as you look at something, there is a little hump, that is what the connotation is.,Q. Doctor, could you define a polyp for us?,DR. GOULD. The polyp is a soft tissue protrusion, that is like a grape, actually.,Q. Like what?\nDR. GOULD. A small grape.,Q. What would cause it?,DR. GOULD. In this instance, excess voice usage.,Q. What would be the size of the polyp, sir?\nDR. GOULD. Three millimeters, subcortical.,Q. That might be an explanation for hoarseness from time to time?\nDR. GOULD. Yes.,Q. How do you characterize it--a minor surgery?,DR. GOULD. Any surgery is a surgical procedure and minor or major, according to the individual. It is a small amount of tissue. I will put it that way.,Q. Would this polyp be tested for a malignancy?\nDR. GOULD. Yes.,Q. Dr. Burkley, do you expect the surgery, the operation, to be held in Bethesda Naval Hospital?,DR. BURKLEY. The decision on where the surgery is to be performed has not been decided, it has not been made.,Q. What is the size of the protrusion?,DR. CAIN. I think that you ought to be sure you understand this pretty well. There is a small defect at the end of the scar, as Dr. Burkley mentioned, where the drains were removed. This is about the size of the end of your finger, perhaps, the area there.,Then, out from this, there is a protrusion about the size of a silver dollar, or maybe a golf ball. Let me show you here. It is something kind of this way.,Say there is a hole there, and the protrusion is something like that [illustrating], and when he lies down, it goes back in.,Q. What caused this, doctor?,DR. CAIN. Well, it is a weakness in the wall there at the area where these drains were in, and the muscles have spread apart just a small amount there.,Q. Do they call this an incisional hernia?,DR. CAIN. That would be a proper name for it.,Q. How do you repair it?\nDR. CAIN. It is very simple in that you can make an incision over it and pull the muscles together and close it.,Q. Is this a frequent development?,DR. CAIN. It is a frequent development. It is reasonably frequent. You hope it won't happen, but it happens often enough that I think you would say it was frequent.,Q. What do you think causes it beyond that?,DR. BURKLEY. Well, the drainage area doesn't have the same opportunity to heal as when the whole thing is tied tightly, and that sometimes makes that area a little weaker and more apt to occur in that area.,Q. Do either of these two procedures that you describe present problems normally, with the average patients?,DR. BURKLEY. No, there is no particular problem.,Q. Is it the plan that the President will remain at the ranch until the operation?,MR. MOYERS. That hasn't been definitely decided.,DR. BURKLEY. It is recommended that the President have approximately 2 weeks' rest, at least 2 weeks' rest before any procedures are attempted.,Q. What effect does the removal of the polyp have upon the speaking after the operation? That is, for any period of time, will it be difficult to speak?,DR. GOULD. There will be hoarseness for 2 or 3 weeks, due to local tissue swelling, but there should be no permanent effect upon speech.,Q. How long would he ordinarily be hospitalized for this procedure?\nDR. GOULD. Overnight for the polyp.\nDR. CAIN. He will be in the hospital for several days all together, with this, but he will be in good shape as soon as he is out from under any anesthesia that he is given, and it will be a very minor disability from that standpoint.,Q. Will both operations be done at the same time and under the same anesthesia?\nMR. MOYERS. Yes.,Q. Would it require as much anesthesia as in the last operation?\nMR. MOYERS. No.,Q. How long is the operation?,MR. MOYERS. Probably less than an hour for both things, from beginning to end.,Q. Are these things of an emergency nature, that they have to be done?,DR. CAIN. No, these things are things that we have recognized, actually, as Dr. Burkley mentioned, for some time. Many people have these, and ordinarily, or often, you can do nothing about them. But during this trip, as some of you know, he was quite active in doing an awful lot of standing and walking and so forth, and this seemed to be enlarging very slightly.,Dr. Burkley, at that time, I think, decided that he thought we ought to go ahead and repair these.,While doing it, we decided we would take care of both things at the same time and get it done.,Q. Could it have waited until next week?\nDR. CAIN. Well, once the decision is made, I think you ought to go ahead and get it done. This is the thing.,I do think that extra working and exercise, and so forth, adds to the enlargement a little bit.,Q. Did the President ask if it could be delayed any?,DR. CAIN. He asked our advice about whether it should be delayed, and Dr. Burkley and I certainly concur that, for many reasons, one, because of the fatigue of this trip, and so forth, and getting ready for this operable procedure, I thought that he ought to take some time off. I hope he will.,Q. You don't describe this in the nature of an emergency?,DR. CAIN. It is not an emergency in that way.,Q. Did the doctors recommend against a weekend political trip with all of its talking?,DR. BURKLEY. I recommended that the President, inasmuch as this was indicated, or this surgery was indicated, have it done at an early date. On the basis of that, I recommended that he have a period of rest of approximately 2 weeks beforehand.,I feel that that indicates against a weekend trip, as you mentioned.,Q. Did this Asian trip aggravate the situation at all, Doctor?\nDR. BURKLEY. I beg your pardon?,Q. Did the trip to the Far East aggravate this?,DR. BURKLEY. It aggravated it, but the symptoms were there. There was a slight increase, and we noted a slight increase in the size of the protrusion during that trip.,Therefore, I would think that there was some effect from the strenuous trip.,Q. Did it cause him great pain during the trip?,DR. BURKLEY. Not great pain, but just stress, a little disturbance there, and a pulling sensation, and a drawing sensation in the area.,Q. You mentioned he was wearing a back brace. Has the President worn a back brace very often?,DR. BURKLEY. He has been wearing it quite regularly, since this protrusion was noted. It was noted in April.,MR. MOYERS. The protrusion was noted in April, and the polyp was noted in August.,Q. Dr. Gould, is a polyp like this generally malignant or generally not malignant?,DR. GOULD. It is not generally, but it will be tested, regardless.,Q. Will anyone fill in for the period when the President is under anesthesia?\nMR. MOYERS. I don't believe so.,Q. Would it be fair to say that further effort on the President's part would further aggravate his condition?,DR. BURKLEY. It is my opinion that inasmuch as he has noted some change in it during this Asian trip, that it would be advisable not to do a similar trip until the repair is accomplished.,MR. MOYERS. Let me make certain that you understand the material in the package. You will get the biographical sketches of the men who are here--Dr. Burkley, Dr. Devine, Dr. Cain, and Dr. Gould. You will also get a biographical sketch on Dr. Hallenbeck, who is not here, but who will again perform the surgery.,You will also get a biographical sketch on Dr. Edward Paul Didier, consultant in anesthesiology in the Mayo Clinic, and instructor in anesthesiology in the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, who was the President's anesthetist last fall.,There is also a biography of Dr. J. Willis Hurst, professor and chairman of the Department of Medicine, of the Emory University School of Medicine, and continuing consultant to the President.,Also there will be a sketch on Dr. Lay M. Fox, the White House physician.,Those of you who wish to may leave at this point.,Q. What is the President's weight? Can we get some vital statistics on the President, like what does he weigh?,DR. BURKLEY. He weighs somewhat over 200 pounds.,Q. Somewhat over?,DR. BURKLEY. He contemplates a diet program during this period prior to the surgery.,Q. Do you want him below 200 pounds?\nDR. BURKLEY. We would like to have him around the same weight as he had at the time of the other surgery.,Q. Which was what?,DR. BURKLEY. Around 198 or 196, I think, but he may not lose that much. He is a tall man, and actually a lot of men smaller than he is weigh around 200 or 210, and think nothing of it. If he gets down to that, he is really doing very well.,Q. How much over 200 is he?,DR. BURKLEY. I don't know exactly. He had been ranging around between 200 and 215. I don't know exactly what his weight has been the last few days or weeks.\nMR. MOYERS. Thank you, gentlemen."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-10-13","text":"OPENING STATEMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS,THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the White House.,THE SOUTHEAST ASIA TRIP AND THE MANILA\nCONFERENCE,[1.] The mission to the Manila Conference and the trip to the six Asian countries is now shaping up. While there will be, as you know, some changes and additions to our itinerary, as there always are in schedules of this kind, much of it is available now. The Press Secretary will make the itinerary available to you at the door if you so desire it.,We think this is going to be a very exciting, challenging, and demanding trip. Mrs. Johnson and I are looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to returning the visits to these seven countries--of their leaders who have visited us in the last several months.,We realize that we shall be seeing an emerging Asia. The trip has many facets. Primarily, as you know, it is a mission to the Manila Conference. This is timely for many reasons, which I will not elaborate now, but will discuss later.,We shall visit six nations. I am anxious to see firsthand the proud achievements of those countries, which their leaders have told me about as they visited the White House in recent months.,For me, the trip to Australia, especially, and New Zealand, has an added dimension. It is somewhat a sentimental journey to places that are vivid in my memories from World War II days. Twenty-four years ago I was there as a very low-ranking set of eyes and ears for another President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. During the period that I spent there, brief as it was, I came to know and to love those people and to appreciate their courage and their pioneer spirit. So I look forward very much to seeing them again.,During the trip, I shall be meeting with government leaders and other officials. But I am very eager to see as many of the people of those countries as possible, and as much of their countryside and their cities as possible.,In Asia, over the last year, I have felt that there is an encouraging mood of new confidence in that part of the world. And I think also in this country there is a new interest in that part of the world, because our people are awakening to the fact that a very large majority of the people of the world live in that area of the world.,There we find the life expectancy is short. The per capita income is low. There is great opportunity to really work with our fellow human beings to give them better living and a better way of life and better opportunities that we have had here.,Regional enterprise is developing there. They take great pride in the new Asian Development Bank that I first suggested at Baltimore a few months ago.1 The people of Asia are thinking and, I think, working not only to hasten their own national development, but to find ways to work with other nations. I want to see for myself as much of their achievement as is possible for me to see in the limited time that we have allotted.,1 See 1965 volume, this series, Book I, Item 172.,Too, I think this is a good time for the Manila Conference. You will recall that when we were in Honolulu last February, we agreed to meet again in 6 months or so to take stock and to look at the results that flowed from that meeting.,Much has happened in those 6 months. I will not try to take your time to relate it all today, but I think it is significant to point out that the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong monsoon offensive, that gave us concern, failed.,The Government of Vietnam made good its commitment to take action on the inflationary front, to devalue, to make arrangements where we could improve the efficiency of the port, the supplies we were sending there and, very important, made good its commitment to hold a free election for members of the Constituent Assembly.,There was great doubt in this country and other places in the world of the extent of the participation that would take place in that election by the peoples themselves. The terrorists did everything they could to keep the election from being held and to inculcate fear in the people so they would not go and vote.,Although we have an election coming up, a congressional election where we normally, off-years, vote less than 40 percent of our eligible people, only 50 percent in a personality presidential election, nevertheless these people, under fire, in the face of hand grenades and threats and terrorism, voted more than 80 percent.,That was a blow that caused the aggressor to suffer great loss of face throughout the world, because 80 percent of the people eligible to vote went to the polling places notwithstanding this terror, and demonstrated to the entire world their desire to have the privilege of self-determination.,The foundations have been laid and progress begun in the field for the Vietnamese \"revolutionary development.\" And, as you know, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Secretary of Agriculture have done a great deal of work before Honolulu and following it, in the field of education, health, agriculture, and the bringing of security to the countryside.,The defections from the enemy forces so far this year far exceed the defections last year. That was a matter that we gave special attention to at Honolulu.,Meanwhile, on the world scene, our position on a peaceful settlement is now I think much better understood than in the past.,In recent weeks I have talked to most of the leaders from that part of the world. And I find from them that they realize that it is not the United States of America who refuses to come to the conference table. That, in fact, there are only two governments in the world that now appear opposed to ending the war and achieving the peace. I would hope that those who make very special pleas for peace would direct their efforts to those two governments, because they have no problem so far as the United States Government is concerned.,Therefore, I was very happy to respond to the pleas that had been made by President Marcos and earlier by President Park2 and by the representatives of Thailand to agree to come and meet with them.,2Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Republic of the Philippines, and Chung Hee Park, President of the Republic of Korea.,I am not unaware that some of you have found fault with my acceptance of that engagement at this time of the year. I would much prefer to have gone after my Congress had gone home--November 15th--and so suggested.,But they have an election also in Australia on November 26th, and one in New Zealand late in November. And it happens in those countries the Prime Minister is a candidate this year and running himself. They felt that I could more appropriately be away, I am sure, at least the leadership did, when I wasn't a candidate when we were having an election than they could when they were both candidates.,So we didn't feel we should wait until next year. We couldn't have it in November because of these elections. I have been criticized some for accepting. I only wonder what would have been said about me if I had said no, I refuse to come and talk to our allies about our problems or our program.,ITINERARY OF TRIP,[2.] On our travel plans, we will have arrival and departure times for each city available to you soon. Mrs. Johnson and I are looking forward eagerly to the trip. we shall be leaving Washington from Dulles Airport at 9 a.m. Monday morning. We will fly nonstop to Honolulu, Hawaii. We are going to have a very busy schedule there. That is one of my favorite States in the Union and I contributed something to bringing it into the Union.,We shall participate in a ceremony and have a stay there overnight. We are going to be up at sunrise Tuesday. We will stop for an afternoon visit in the Fiji Islands where I spent several miserable days in a hospital in World War II, in a New Zealand military hospital, incidentally.,Then we will go to New Zealand that afternoon. That will be a long day's journey. We will be crossing a lot of the Pacific and the international dateline and the time change will mean that we will virtually lose Wednesday. I am very glad it is not Sunday so some of you won't have to miss church.,We will be in New Zealand on Wednesday and Thursday, next week, and then we will go on to Australia and very happily enjoy our visit there, I hope, from Thursday afternoon through Sunday.,We shall provide times and places for you when you leave this afternoon. To show you, we will visit Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Townsville before leaving Sunday, October 23, for Manila.,I will be at the Manila Conference, as you know. It is planned for Monday and Tuesday. I will be there until Wednesday. We shall leave the Philippines on early Thursday morning en route to Thailand. We will have 2 days in Thailand, 2 in Malaysia, plus 2 in Korea. We will return to Washington via Alaska--another favorite State of mine I have not had a chance to visit since it came into the Union. I was there during the war period for a brief time.,We want and we hope now to be back home at 9 p.m. on Wednesday, November 2d. I would not want to be held definitely to those hours, but that is our hope, and our plan, for your information and your planning.,DESALINATION PROTECT IN ISRAEL,[3.] I have asked, now on another subject, Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, as one of his assignments in the new post as Ambassador at Large, to begin to review proposals which have been made for a desalting electric power project in Israel.,In making this review, Ambassador Bunker will give careful study to the proposals in relation to all aspects of Israel's water problem.,Ambassador Bunker, as you know, has had a very long and distinguished record in the service of our country. He has most recently done some outstanding work in the Dominican Republic as our representative to the Council of the Organization of American States. And except for his work there I shudder to think of the situation that would confront us now.,I am especially pleased that Ambassador Bunker has agreed as one of his new duties to work on this complex subject of desalting, which holds so much hope for the future of mankind, and which I am determined to have a substantial breakthrough on during my term of office if that is at all possible.,From the beginning, the United States and Israel have viewed these explorations of world-wide cooperation with great pleasure.\nWe want to do what we can to solve the problem of scarcity of water. Some of you may recall that I said in my speech to the friends of the Weizmann Institute in New York 3 that the knowledge and experience obtained from all of our programs in this field will, of course, be made available to all other countries.,3See 1963-64 volume, this series, Book I, Item 175.,I have repeatedly said that the United States is equally ready to cooperate with other countries in solving water problems.,The International Atomic Energy Agency has participated in the U.S. Israeli studies.,APPOINTMENT TO CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,[4.] Another point of note that you may care to observe--I sent the nomination for reappointment of Mr. Robert Murphy of Rhode Island to the Civil Aeronautics Board today.,MEETING WITH PRINCE SOUVANNA PHOUMA,[5.] I regret I was delayed in returning. I just got in a few moments ago. I haven't had my lunch.,We had a very productive visit with the Premier of Laos this morning--somewhat longer than I had anticipated.\nI had a stopover in Delaware.,SOCIAL SECURITY PROPOSALS,[6.] I am quite pleased with the apparent tremendous response to the proposals I made in Baltimore yesterday to increase social security benefits and to extend Medicare to the disabled.,I have had, as you know, as I stated last April, my top advisers in the Government working on improving a system for almost 6 months. And my speech yesterday reflected some of our thinking in that field.,I was particularly pleased to observe from the ticker today the really historic move on the part of my friends, the Republicans, in the Congress, to support social security legislation.,I didn't have time to check all the record but in the first social security bill, 99 percent of the Republican Party voted to recommit the social security bill on the grounds it was socialism.,And only a few months ago, 93 percent of them voted to kill Medicare--another very important part of social security.,So now they seem to be in a big hurry to pass a bill as soon as they can. We welcome them to the vineyard. We're glad they have religion. I'll have our people work through the nights, if they care to act on it before going home. I will not insist on that, but I would welcome it. If they care to come back after the election, those of them that are coming back, I will be glad to have them act on it then.,I just refreshed my memory. I read what our dear friend, our late beloved Mr. Kaltenborn,4 and our friend, the news analyst, Mr. Harkness, 5 said on the night of the election in 1948 about President Truman and how the President finally--after he heard that broadcast at 4 o'clock that said he is leading by a million but that can't be true, and he is leading by 2 million but that can't be true, and finally at five o'clock he heard it the last time--he said: \"Well, I don't know about the polls, I don't know about the predictions, and I don't know about the columnists or the news analysts, but, boys, it looks like we are elected and we better get up and put on our clothes and get busy.\",4H. V. Kaltenborn, news commentator.,5Richard Harkness of NBC News.,THE 89TH CONGRESS,[7.] From what I have seen in the country, I think we are going to have the best Congress in the history of this Nation when we finish our record this session.,The 89th Congress, my prediction is, historians will record as the great Congress. I would believe that the American people will realize what they have done in food, in education, in health, in conservation, in beautification, in recreation and the other things for our people and our leadership in the world and they will take appropriate action.,QUESTIONS,Now I am ready for any questions.,RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION,[8.] Q. Do you see any brighter hopes now for improved relations with the Soviet Union, especially after your talk the other day with Mr. Gromyko? 6,THE PRESIDENT. I am an optimist. I see no reason for the American people to fear the Russian people. I want and have wanted from the day I took the oath as President to be friendly with all of the peoples of the world.,6Andrei A. Gromyko, Soviet Foreign Minister.,I thought that we had made considerable headway in the first few months in the exchange of correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev. But after there was a change in government, and after the very regretful developments in Vietnam and the aggression that took place there that we were committed to resist, there seemed to be a cooling of relations.,I have said nothing or done nothing to contribute to that cooling. On the other hand, I have done everything I could, with dignity and with judgment, to promote friendship with the Soviet people.,We have signed a cultural agreement, notwithstanding the fact that our \"Hello Dolly I\" show had been turned back just a few weeks before without justification, in the light of our agreement that then existed.,We have just completed an air agreement. We are working very hard to get the Congress to enact the consular agreement that we have presented to them, that have been renegotiating with the Russians. We are working hard on a space agreement which I proposed several months ago.,We have hopes that we can find some language that will protect the national interests of both countries and permit us to enter into the thing that I think we need most to do: that is, a nonproliferation agreement.,I spent almost 2 hours with Mr. Gromyko. I thought he was helpful. I thought it was fruitful. I believe it will be productive.,I don't want to get your hopes up. And I am not a prophet. I don't want to prognosticate. But I feel good about our meeting. I said to him that we would welcome a visit by the leadership of his country to this country; that we welcomed his people coming here in the exchange programs; and we wanted to know them better. And we hoped that they would know us better because we were the two great powers in the world. I think all of the other nations look to us to keep the peace of the world, so it is important that we understand each other and that we have proper respect for each other.,STATEMENTS IN THE SENATE ON VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, a couple of items came up in the Senate today. Senator Thurmond says we could win the war in Vietnam in 90 days if we wanted to. And then Senator Stennis cut loose with a rather extensive speech in which he was highly critical of our manpower and materiel procurement programs concerning Vietnam.,Senator Stennis said that he believes that the funding of the war inevitably will involve higher taxes. How do you feel about these statements from these two gentlemen today?,THE PRESIDENT. NT. Well, I welcome their statements and their recommendations on military strategy. The Senate has always participated in the international developments of our country and have made great contributions to the victories that we have achieved from a military standpoint throughout the years.,From the earliest days of this Republic, Senators have expressed themselves forcibly, eloquently--in most instances wisely. But while we always consider and evaluate and carefully look at what they suggest and take it into consideration, we don't always find that in the judgment of our more professional military leaders that this is always the wisest military judgment.,Senator Thurmond is also General Thurmond. And he has a good deal of experience in this field. I haven't read what he said, but I will read it.,Senator Stennis is a very sincere man. I know he wants to do what is best for his country and he thinks this is best.,But I also have to consider what General Wheeler thinks is best. And I have to consider what General Johnson, Chief of Staff of the Army, thinks is best; and General Greene, Chief of Staff of the Marines; Admiral McDonald, Chief of Naval Operations; and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.,I don't think this would apply completely here, but I recall what Mr. Rayburn said one time when I was suggesting to him a course of military action that was not completely being followed by President Eisenhower, who was then in the White House. He said to me, \"Lyndon, if these people in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a man of General Eisenhower's military experience do not know more about this than us civilian legislators, then we have been wasting a lot of money on West Point all of these years.\",So what I would say, Mr. Smith,7 in summary, to your question: I welcome the comments and the military suggestions from Senators from day to day. We will carefully consider them and then consider the Security Council, consider the Joint Chiefs of Staff's recommendation, and do what we think is in the national interest.,7Merriman Smith of United Press International.,All of us have the same purpose. We all want to win this war--not in 90 days, but in 9 days, or 9 hours, or 9 minutes, if we can. But I am not sure that everybody has all the information on this subject that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has.,You will recall Senator Borah was somewhat guilty of harassing another President at another period. At one time he said he had better information than the President. Well, in light of the developments a little bit later, that statement didn't stand up very well.,A BOMBING PAUSE IN VIETNAM,[10.] Q. Mr. President, a number of authorities have suggested that another pause in the bombing would bring about a good atmosphere for your trip. Could you discuss the pros and cons of another pause?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Ray,8 I don't think I would like to discuss our strategy, the pros and the cons. I would observe this: that we have had two pauses. It is about the same people, the same sources, who suggested the second pause. They asked for 12 days, and then 20, and it went 37 days that our boys sat there and watched the enemy.,8 Raymond L. Scherer of NBC News.,He didn't pause. He kept up his bombing. He threw his hand grenades. He lobbed his mortars into our troop encampments and killed our Marines, our airmen, our Army soldiers.,I would be very interested at this moment in a pause if I could have any assurance that it would be reciprocated and the other people would pause.,I don't quite understand, though, why you want me to have our Marines and our airmen pause and put their hands behind their backs while the other people don't pause, and continue to shoot at them.,After all, those are our men. And if they will pause--the aggressor will pause--we will pause immediately. If they will withdraw, we will withdraw immediately. We will lay on the table tomorrow a schedule to move out of South Vietnam, to come home, to leave no troops in that area, to give up our bases--provided they will lay on the table their schedule for withdrawal, and their schedule to get their people to quit the killing and the murdering that is going on.,Now if it develops that there is any hope that would flow from another pause, we always keep an open mind. We will make additional sacrifices if we need to. But I see nothing on the horizon at this moment that would justify my asking all 300,000 or 400,000 Americans to stand there with their hands in their pockets because someone here suggested they pause, unless their enemy would pause.,TALK WITH SOUVANNA PHOUMA,[11.] Q. Mr. President, would you summarize for us your talk with the Prime Minister of Laos this morning, especially in regard to a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam war?,THE PRESIDENT. I did that earlier today in a news conference. I don't want to be repetitive.,I asked the Premier for his suggestions on any proposals that he had and any courses that he thought we ought to consider.,He made some helpful suggestions which I will repeat to the Secretary of State, and to Mr. Katzenbach, the Under Secretary, when he gets back.,We have received very helpful suggestions from a good many leaders from that area. We met just a short time ago with the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia; some several months ago with the Prime Minister of New Zealand; just recently with a leader of the Indonesian Government; with the leader of the Malaysian Government; with the President of the Philippines; and the President of Korea.,All of those people have interests there, have deep concerns there. Most of them have men there. We exchanged rather detailed viewpoints. They are helpful. We will have to see what comes of them.,I thought that the meeting this morning indicated that the people of Laos are determined to have their freedom. They do not want to be gobbled up by force. They are extremely grateful, that little country with so few people, operating under great difficulties-they are very appreciative for what the American people have done to permit them to have a modicum of freedom that might not be present except for our agreements and our arrangements.,CAMPAIGNING AFTER ASIAN TRIP,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there will be one week before election day after you return from your trip. Are you considering campaigning during that period in crucial States to which you have not yet gone, like Massachusetts and California?,THE PRESIDENT. Max Frankel 9 is probably a better authority on that than I am. We don't have any more plans at this moment. That is not to say that we won't speak somewhere this weekend. We have to look at our schedule and if I could be away from Washington on Saturday or Sunday this weekend--I always get refreshed and I gain strength from going out to see the people without going through middlemen.,9Reporter for the New York Times.,I don't always find the same conclusions that the middlemen do. So I want very much to go to every State that I can go to. I think we will shortly have been in 30 this year. I do plan to be in Hawaii and Alaska. I would hope that I could go to many other States. But that depends entirely on the White House business. That will come first.,If I can do my job here and have any time available to go out and correct some misapprehensions that some people may have in any places about the Congress, I would be glad to do that and make any contributions I can to this wonderful 89th Congress.,MILITARY COMMITMENT OF ASIAN NATIONS IN\nVIETNAM,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you foresee or hope that as a result of the Manila Conference and your travels to the Far East and the Pacific that the nations, the other nations, participating in the Conference, will increase their direct military commitments in the Vietnam war?,THE PRESIDENT. That is not a subject of the Conference. As you must know, the Korean people have a larger percentage of their total population in South Vietnam now than we do.,The Philippine people have just recently made a commitment. The Australians have commitments there.,We are very proud of the great service all these people are rendering. The New Zealandors are there. We have help in one form or another from other nations involved in the Conference.,Our purpose in going there is to review what commitments we entered into 6 months ago, to observe the progress that has been made, to try to do other planning in the economic and political fields.,We will have a military briefing, but the military plans will not be a part of this Conference and we are not going there to lay any strategic plans or programs.,I would caution all of you not to get yourself out on a limb in that regard.,This is a follow-up of our program to wage not only a defense against aggression there, but to also try to build a stronger and a more socially conscious and better economic base in South Vietnam for the poor people of that area.,THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ROUTINE\nDURING TRIPS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, this is a little bit of a personal matter, but I think there is some--,THE PRESIDENT. Do you want to go into it here?,Q. Yes. I think so. I think we have asked questions like this of other Presidents.,When you take a trip of this scope, 20,000 or 25,000 miles, could you tell us a little bit of your personal routine, how you manage to relax, what you do to protect your health? What is involved in a trip like this? I think the public has no idea.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any trouble relaxing.,One of my schoolmates once said to me that he knew that one man in the world would never commit suicide and that was Lyndon Johnson because he would go to sleep thinking about it.,I don't have any problem relaxing. I am treated better than most people who work in this country.,I get up early and work until 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon and then I take 2 hours off and have a wonderful shower and shave, and go to bed and sleep 2 hours while the rest of you people are trying to fight the traffic and get home. Then I go back at 5 o'clock refreshed and work until late in the evening.,These experiences are exciting and stimulating. I am going to be in the house of my friends, and I do always relax a little better when I am in friendly company.,THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the textile industry is very alarmed--,THE PRESIDENT. What industry is alarmed?,Q. The textile industry, the domestic textile industry. It is very alarmed by the rapid increase in imports of woolen and manmade textile products. The industry seems to think your personal intervention is needed to secure relief.,What, if anything, can you do, and what relief is available to the industry?,THE PRESIDENT. I have met with the representatives of the textile mills on a good many occasions, and the textile workers, and their Congressmen and Senators who are interested in that subject.,We have explored various ways and means and have made proposals to other countries that have been helpful. We have passed legislation. The cotton bill was a great help to the entire textile industry. Anything that alarms them concerns me.,While I don't have a specific response to what I can do tomorrow in this field, I will have my people work on it and take such action that I think might be indicated.,WHY FORMOSA IS NOT ON ITINERARY,[16.] Q. Sir, you seem to be passing by this time your old friends at Formosa. I wonder if there is anything significant in that and if, perhaps, you are satisfied with the contributions that they may be making to our struggle in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not passing anyone by, Mrs. McClendon. 10 We have 120 nations in the world and you can't go see all 120 of them on one trip. We are going to visit six or seven, and that is going to be 25,000 or 30,000 miles.,10 Mrs. Sarah McClendon, representative of Texas newspapers.,I have recently been in personal communication with Madame Chiang Kai-shek. We have talked. She has visited here, as you know.,We hear their viewpoint every few days. They do not have troops committed in this area. They don't have the obligations and responsibilities and the commitments that the other nations that we are visiting do. I thought nearly everybody understood that.,VISITS BY SOVIET LEADERS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do we understand from your response to the first question that you have extended an invitation to Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Brezhnev, through Mr. Gromyko, and if that is the case, is there any date set for it? Is it a formal invitation?,THE PRESIDENT. We did that some time ago, Mr. Deakin.11 Maybe you overlooked it. We expressed publicly our desire, and privately our desire, to welcome any officials of the Soviet Union at any time that they saw fit to come here.,11 James Deakin of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.,We would welcome an exchange not only at the artistic level, or at the governmental level, but at the very highest levels. We have that going on in a good many fields now.,If they chose to, and if they had a desire to come and see our country, we would welcome them. That is not anything new. That has been my policy ever since we have been in the administration.,ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINTMENT?,[18.] Q. This worked once about a Cabinet appointment. Do you have any news on an Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have given a good deal of thought to it, but I guess you wouldn't feel it was appropriate for me to announce it publicly here at a conference like this. [Laughter],If the New York Times will be content to give me a little more time on it, I will have a mimeographed, full statement for you and we will give it to you in a handout sometime.,THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT OF HIS\nVISITS TO THE STATES,[19.] Q. You have returned from New York and Delaware invigorated today. Was there something in the political wind you saw up there that you could tell us about? You were a little partisan in some of your remarks.,THE PRESIDENT. I found the same thing in New York and Delaware as in the rest of the country. Those of us who sit here in Washington watch what three networks put on the air, and what three men decide you can observe from Vietnam and all of the international incidents. When we read six or seven columnists, and two or three or four newspapers, sometimes we don't get it firsthand and sometimes there is a little personal equation that gets into it, and sometimes personal opinions substitute for facts.,I think it is good to get out and see the people and talk to them. I am convinced that the complainers in this country, the critics in this country, the prophets of doom in this country, and the theorists in this country are very, very much in the minority.,In my travels in over 30 States, I have never said \"You never had it so good.\" That is an expression of what people concluded I said.,But I have said this: Since the Democrats came into office, 10 million more people are working, and they have a 21 percent increase, after allowing for the higher prices, in their income. If people are drawing more money, and more of them are working, and you have higher wages and higher profits, then you are going to have higher prices.,But I would much rather, and I think every American would rather, pay a little more for something they have to have but have a lot more in their pocket to pay for it with. We want to keep prices as low as we can, but I have seen on the faces of the people of this country a happiness, a pleasure, and a satisfaction that is not always reflected in what I read.,I might be like Uncle Ezra, you know. The doctor told him he had to quit drinking if he would improve his hearing. When he went back, the doctor said, \"Well, are you still drinking?\" He said, \"Yes.\" The doctor said, \"I told you you would have to quit it to improve your hearing.\" He said, \"Well, Doctor, I like what I drink so much better than what I hear that I just didn't take your prescription!\",Now, to be perfectly frank with you, when I get out and see the people, whether those people are in Ohio, or Michigan, or New York, or even in little Delaware, I like what I see and what I hear so much better than what I read that it may reflect itself.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-10-13","text":"[Prince Souvanna Phouma, Prime Minister of Laos, participated in the news conference.],THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I thought I would give you a fill-in before you had to leave. The Prime Minister and I met at 9:30 and we will continue with our discussion into the next hour. We have been here about 50 minutes but they told me that some of you would need to have portions of our discussion as soon as possible because of travel arrangements and your deadline this afternoon.,The Prime Minister will be glad to summarize very briefly his viewpoint on the matter and I will do likewise. I won't give you any extended remarks about it but if you will be decent about it I will be glad to answer any questions.,Q. Would you give us the substance of your conversation?,THE PRESIDENT. The Prime Minister will give you a brief statement and review whatever he may choose to say.,THE PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT,[2.] THE PRESIDENT. I am deeply honored to have been received today by President Johnson. This is our first meeting since President Johnson became President. I had had the honor to meet with him when he was here on the occasion of the state visit of His Majesty the King of Laos to the United States.,Reviewing our conversation, we have exchanged a number of viewpoints on the situation in Southeast Asia. Our conversation has been extremely cordial and I am very happy to note that President Johnson is very fully informed about what goes on in Indochina and what goes on in my own country.,Together we have tried to find possibilities to bring peace back to that part of the world. I believe personally that the settlement of the present problem cannot be brought about by force of arms and that we must come as soon as possible to a conference, international in character, along the lines of the Geneva Conference of 1954, perhaps with a much broader membership.,We have also discussed the recent tragedy we have sustained in Laos with the floods of the Mekong River and the great devastation it has brought to the country.,I am happy to hear that the Government of the United States is ready to assist us in recovering from the damage of the destruction.,I should now like to leave it to the President to give you any additional firsthand information.,THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT,[3.] THE PRESIDENT. My part of the discussion consisted of expressing regret that I did not get to see the Premier last year when we had a tentative arrangement to meet. Because of my illness I had to forgo that pleasure.,Second, I asked him for a rather full report on the flood damage as a result of the Mekong disasters. He went into some detail of the loss of life--something in excess of 100--and the loss of values of the crops-something in excess of $5 million. It was the worst flood disaster in 40 years in that country. I asked for his views on how he thought we could achieve peace in Southeast Asia and he is in the process of giving me his views at some length in the light of what is taking place there.,He has discussed the general picture in Indochina--that whole part of the world. I emphasized to the Premier the desire for the people of the United States to have a positive, affirmative policy. We do not seek to conquer anyone. We are not bent on conquest. We do not want to dominate any people. We have no desire for any American presence in that area any longer than is necessary to resist aggression. We have no desire to maintain any bases. We have stated and restated and restated our desire to transfer the activity from the battlefield to the conference table.,I reviewed generally our objectives and our hopes for the Manila Conference and asked for his views on any suggestion he might have that he would wish me to consider. I pointed out to him that it must be obvious to the aggressors that they cannot succeed. And it must be equally obvious that we have no desire and no intention to impose our will upon their people or to change their form of government or even their way of life; but that Ho Chi Minh and the people of Hanoi have absolute, complete, and full responsibility for carrying on the war every day that it is carried on; that we were willing to stop yesterday and go to the peace table.,I further pointed out that we hope that all the nations of the world will realize this and all of this country realize it.,I told him that those who desire peace in the world do not need to exercise any influence on us to get us to have unconditional discussion. So if they can divert their talents and energies to the aggressors and Mr. Ho Chi Minh--if they have any influence with him, maybe they can contribute to advancing the cause of peace to which all of the American people have so fully dedicated themselves.,The fact that we love peace and hate war doesn't mean for a moment that we are going to break our commitments or retreat in the face of aggression. We think the world must know that aggression will not succeed in Indochina, in that area of the world, and that it is not our desire or our intent to impose our political views on any people.,It is in the interest of every American family that aggression not succeed, that the United States' word be kept, that our commitments be fulfilled, and that the people of the world not misinterpret the raucous and rasping voices in various quarters as indicating (a) either we want to dominate the area or (b) that we will get tired.,As in the Dominican Republic, we are not going to let might make right and let the aggressor impose his will on liberty-loving people. But as soon as the people have a right to self-determination and they make that determination under a supervised election or honest, proper procedures, we will act promptly in accordance with our statements. I have assured the Premier we have no desire to expand the conflict in Vietnam. We hope to work positively with all nations toward stability in Southeast Asia.,I summarized briefly my hopes in the seven-nation conference coming up. I pointed out to the Premier that I welcomed his visit and this opportunity to talk with him. In the last several weeks I have been busily engaged with reviewing with all of the leaders in that area: President Park of Korea, representatives of Malaysia, representatives of Burma, Ne Win, President Marcos, Prime Minister Holt, Prime Minister Holyoake. I discussed these problems at some length with the Prime Minister of India and with the President of Pakistan. Most of these people have come to Washington and most of them have come in very recent days. I have a general view of their attitude and their hopes and there is no substantial disagreement among us.,So far as the desire for peace is concerned, we believe that the peoples involved should be allowed to determine for themselves the type of government they should have.,I think we discussed some other technical, detailed problems about aid from other countries and about other matters affecting the internal affairs of this Government. But that is about the complete summary.,I think I will take any questions you may have.,QUESTIONS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, did the Prime Minister describe to you how serious he regards the Pathet Lao threat now?,THE PRESIDENT. No.\nAny other questions?,[5.] Q. Mr. President, was there any suggestion of expanding the Manila Conference by bringing the neutralist countries in?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, did the Prime Minister suggest or ask for another bombing pause in North Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, do I understand an indication that you suggested that he use some influence on Ho Chi Minh?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I said that we would invite that from all peoples everywhere; that we have made our case very clear and that none of you--and I say speaking of \"you,\" the three billion people of the world--need have any doubt about this country's desire to go from the battlefield to the conference table.,Now the question is to produce the other party. I just stated that as a policy of this Government. We invite peaceful efforts in that direction from any and all.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, did you receive any invitation to visit Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, did you discuss the military situation in Laos; the Ho Chi Minh Trail?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Did you discuss the internal political situation in Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. No.\nYou might add that we have met with the representatives of that Thai Government, the Deputy Prime Minister and others from the Australian Government in recent days.,George1 will give you the names and a list as soon as we get back to Washington.,1George Christian, an assistant press secretary.,Q. Mr. President, are these all in preparation for the Manila Conference?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they are all a part of the general search for peace and the study of the situation in the area which would be very useful. But the visits were not scheduled because of it. Some of them have taken place before we were invited. Some of them have been taking place after. As I have said to you we are glad to attend the conference. It is a problem for us.,We prefer to go in the middle of November after the Congress is out and after we have our problems adjusted here at home, but they have an election there November 26 and they just couldn't come. Of course, we have a problem of accepting because we always have some of you that can find something questionable about doing it. But think about the problem we would have if we had refused--probably from the same sources.\nReporter: Thank you."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-10-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,PERSONNEL CHANGES IN THE EXECUTIVE\nBRANCH,[1.] I intend to nominate Mr. Llewellyn Thompson to be the United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Because of the importance of our relations with the Soviet Union at this time, I am asking Mr. Thompson to return to a post that he has held already, and that he served for a longer period of time than any American Ambassador in this Nation's history.,To succeed him as Ambassador at Large, I will appoint one of our most distinguished and experienced diplomats, Mr. Ellsworth Bunker, who served us with such great distinction in the Dominican Republic and who is presently Ambassador to the Organization of American States.,To serve as my representative to the Organization of American States with the rank of Ambassador, I intend to nominate Mr. Sol M. Linowitz, the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of Xerox International, Inc.,Mr. Linowitz is a noted American with a long interest in foreign policy. He will also serve as United States Representative on the Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress, replacing Mr. Rostow.1,1Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the President.,He will work closely with Secretary Rusk and Secretary Gordon,2 and with me in the formulation of our Latin American policies.,2Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, and Lincoln Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress.,I have accepted today with great regret the resignation of Eugene P. Foley as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. Mr. Foley is returning to private life and will be succeeded by Mr. Ross D. Davis. Mr. Davis is presently the Administrator of the Economic Development Administration.,MANILA CONFERENCE,[2.] As you know, the United States has agreed to attend the conference in Manila on October 24th and 25th. This will bring together the countries that are most directly helping the South Vietnamese to resist aggression and to build a free nation.,The Philippines, Korea, and Thailand extended the invitation which has been accepted now by South Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.,The details of the meeting--including the agenda--are now being worked out in consultation among all the participants. President Marcos of the Philippines has already indicated the scope of the conference, and we expect:\n--to review the military progress being made in the field;\n--to hear the South Vietnamese plans for further evolution toward representative government, accelerated security of the countryside, and a strengthened economy while curbing inflation;\n--to examine how the other nations present can best support all these efforts; and\n--to explore the prospects for peaceful settlement of the Vietnamese conflict, in the light of all the proposals.,Much of this effort is consistent with the work at Honolulu in February which I considered highly successful. At that meeting the Government of South Vietnam reinforced its determination:\n--to move toward a democratic constitution and an elected government;\n--to take concrete steps to combat inflation;\n--to invite Vietcong to join them through the Open Arms program; and\n--to multiply efforts in health, education, and agriculture, especially in the countryside.,Each of these steps, as you know., has produced results since our meeting in Honolulu in February. And we are very hopeful that they will receive increased support in our discussions in Manila.,Once aggression has been defeated, a common dedication will also be necessary for the rehabilitation and the development of Vietnam.,Finally, I have agreed to speak to the National Conference of Editorial Writers in New York City tomorrow on our European policy.,Now I will be glad to take any questions that you may have to ask.,QUESTIONS,GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES IN THE SOUTH,[3.] Q. As titular head of the Democratic Party, how do you feel about the candidacy, the gubernatorial candidacy, of several Democrats in the South who are avowed segregationists?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very evident that some of these candidates to whom you refer differ with certain of my policies that deal with equal rights and equal treatment for all of our citizens.,These gubernatorial candidates that you refer to have not asked me to support them and I have no plans to do so. I doubt that the President should get into every race in every State.,VISIT TO VIETNAM?,[4.] Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility you might visit South Vietnam while you are in the Far East?,THE PRESIDENT. No consideration has been given at this time to any such program or any such visit.,OUTLOOK FOR PEACE,[5.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us if events of the past few days, including your order to stop bombing part of the DMZ, have moved us any closer to peace?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think Mr. Moyers 3 covered that in his press conference yesterday. We are, of course, hopeful that any action we could take would be reciprocated and would lead in that direction. But there is nothing that I could say that would be encouraging to you along that line as a result of that action.,3 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President,CAMPAIGN ISSUES,[6.] Q. Mr. President, a lot of observers are observing that apprehension over the economy and the so-called race question are far outdistancing Vietnam as issues in this political campaign.,What is your assessment of these and other issues and would you assess for us not your administration's, but the Republican opposition's handling of these issues?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that every person will draw his own conclusions about the section of the country he is in and the local issues that may exist. I have no doubt but what our full employment program, our Vietnam engagement, our domestic problems--including our civil rights problems-will all play a part in some of the campaigns. I think it will differ from place to place and candidate to candidate.,I think the 89th Congress, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans, but predominantly Democrats, has been a very effective and productive Congress in the field of education. It has passed 18 far-reaching educational measures, 24 health measures. It has passed more educational measures-this Congress--than all the other 88 Congresses combined. I believe that most of the Members of that Congress will return home with a very fine record to support them. And I think that most of them will be reelected.,THE STOCK MARKET,[7.] Q. Mr. President, the stock market today reached its low for the year. I wonder if you could give us your reaction to the rather steady decline of the market in recent months?,THE PRESIDENT. I think a good many things have a bearing on market fluctuations. I think the high interest rates, I think the attractiveness of other securities, I think some of the uncertainties that exist concerning how much money the Government itself will be spending next year, I think the questions of doubt about our tax policy--all of those are given weight, too. But I think most of the people in this country feel like 1966 has been a very good year. There has never been a better one. And I believe that 1967 will be equally as good.,RESUMPTION OF AID TO INDONESIA,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the United States has recently resumed its assistance to Indonesia. Would you tell us what your considerations were in taking this action?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We think the leaders of that country are doing their best to build a stable government. We think that is very important to the people of this world. We felt ourselves in a position to be helpful. The need was great. We carefully evaluated the requests and decided it would be in the best interests of our own people, as well as the people of Indonesia, to extend the assistance we did. I am glad that we have taken that action.,THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES BILL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, Monday the House is scheduled to vote on the demonstration cities bill. Title II of that bill, which you are urging Members, I understand, to vote for, provides incentives or, rather, bribes to local communities to do away with their own school systems, to have open housing, and to create educational parks where there would be 25,000 or 35,000 children going to school. This would require busing of children long distances and would also bring about a system to correct racial imbalance.,Now you are a former schoolteacher. I wonder if you would tell us why you think doing away with the local school systems, as has been admitted by educators in your administration would happen--I wonder why you think this would be better?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I would not concur with your legal analysis of the bill. Second, I am glad of the opportunity that you have given me to state that I believe there is no domestic problem that is more critical than the problem of rebuilding our cities and giving our people who live in the cities opportunities to develop as healthy, educated, productive citizens of our society-citizens who have the ability to get and to hold jobs, and to take pride in the place in which they live.,In order to try to get at the root cause of the problems of the cities, I asked a task force of bipartisan leaders of this Nation to make a careful study of this measure. Their recommendations are contained in the demonstration cities bill.,Hearings have already been held. The Senate carefully and thoroughly debated the measure and passed it by an overwhelming majority. I do not think they gave to it either the interpretation that you place upon it or the fears that you express.,I do hope that the House will take prompt and favorable action early next week.,As I said in the beginning, and as I would repeat again, I think it is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the good of all American mankind that we can act upon this session.4,4 The demonstration cities bill was approved by the President on November 3, 1966 (see Item 574).,EFFECT OF VIETNAM SPENDING ON GREAT\nSOCIETY PROGRAMS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, some of your political opposition is saying that the Great Society is suffering badly because of preoccupation with and spending for Vietnam. What is your reaction to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the record speaks for itself. We have recommended approximately 90 bills to this session of Congress, after having the most productive session, the last session, in our history.,We have passed through both Houses about 75 of those 90 bills. I would suspect in the next 10 days we can pass another 10. When you pass 85 bills out of 90 recommended, I think that is a pretty good box score.,We passed two measures through the House that had a majority for them in the Senate, but we could not get them voted on-14(b) and the civil rights bill.,We regret that, but there will be other days, and I am sure that in due time a majority will prevail. I think all in all we have a very outstanding record this year. I am very proud of it. I think every Member of Congress of both parties can take pride in it.,THE PACIFIC--ASIAN TOUR,[11.] Q. Mr. President, some of your critics also are saying that your trip is motivated largely by political considerations. Would you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. I just think you'd have to evaluate the critics and judge the circumstances and draw your own conclusions. And I wouldn't want anyway to spend all afternoon talking about my critics.,RESPECT FOR LAW AND ORDER,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican Coordinating Committee, including President Eisenhower, recently said that public order, that is, both crime in the streets and riots, was a problem of greatest concern to the people of this country.,They also charged that the Johnson-Humphrey administration has done nothing of substance to date to deal with this problem. I think that is the way they said it.,I wonder if you could answer this charge and, two, if you could assess what you think conditions are in this country concerning public order?,THE PRESIDENT. As I have said in Rhode Island, Indianapolis, and before the Methodist bishops in the White House last week, every citizen in this land must be concerned with law and order. The voice of reason must drown out the voice of violence.,We have had very serious problems because of the conditions in our cities, the problems that exist there, and the protests made by our citizens.,I hope that we can keep violence out of the picture. I have done everything that I know how, in cooperation with the mayors, the chief executives of the cities, and the chief executives of the States concerned.,We are very conscious of the problem. We are very concerned about it. We are very determined to do everything within our prerogatives to see that reason prevails over violence, and that law and order always prevails.,We think that the protesters themselves have the most to lose by disapproval of some of the actions that have taken place. And while we are not oblivious to the problems that bring forth the protests, we are concerned that they be protests without violence and within law and within order.,THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS FIELD,[13.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in a broader context on civil rights, there seems to be a dispute developing between those who feel that the Federal Government should merely strike down legal barriers to equality and those who feel that the Government should play a more positive role in encouraging integration in various facets of life.\nI wonder if we could get your thinking on these two and where you stand on that argument?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think the Federal Government must be a leader in this field and I have--the 3 years I have been President-tried, by word and action, to do everything I could to bring about equality among the races in this country and to see that the Brown decision affecting the integration of our schools was carried forward expeditiously and in accordance with the law--to see that the civil rights acts passed in the late fifties and sixties and more recently in my administration were carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress; that the law was fully adhered to and fully enforced at all times.,I realize that in some instances there has been some harassment, some mistakes perhaps have been made, some people have been enthusiastic, and differences have developed.,But where those mistakes have been made, I think Mr. Gardner and the Commissioner of Education 5 have been willing to always listen to any protests that might come, and to carry out the law as Congress intended it should be.,5John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and Harold Howe II, Commissioner of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.,That will be the policy of our administration: to continue to promote and to expedite the observance of the law of the land, and to see that all citizens of this country are treated equally without discrimination.,VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Former President Eisenhower has said that we should use whatever is necessary, not excluding nuclear weapons, to end the fighting in Vietnam. What do you think of such a proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. Without passing on the accuracy of your quotation of President Eisenhower, I would say it is the policy of this Government to exercise the best judgment of which we are capable in an attempt to provide the maximum deterrence with a minimum involvement. The easiest thing we could do is get in a larger war with other nations.,We are constantly concerned with the dangers of that. At the same time, we have no desire to capitulate or to retreat. So it has been the policy of your present administration to provide the strength that General Westmoreland felt was necessary: to prevent the aggressor from succeeding without attempting to either conquer or to invade or to destroy North Vietnam.,Our purpose is a limited one and that is to permit self-determination for the people of South Vietnam. We are going to be concerned with any effort that might take on more far-reaching objectives or implications.,THE MANILA CONFERENCE,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to take along a bipartisan congressional delegation to Manila?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not gone into that in any detail at this time. If any plans develop along that line I will announce them and give you information on them. I have nothing on it now.,OUTLOOK FOR PEACE,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the Vietcong has recently modified two of its preconditions for peace, namely, they no longer seem to be demanding that we withdraw before negotiations and they no longer seem to be asking that they be the sole representatives of the South Vietnamese people.,Do you feel these changes have brought any significant contribution toward peace?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have not seen any developments in the recent weeks that would cause me to hold out hope or to give you any real justification for encouragement.,We pursue every indication that we have that might offer any possibilities. We always have an open mind. And we are very anxious to find any basis for negotiation that would lead to an honorable peace. But I cannot in frankness be encouraging to you as a result of any specific action of recent weeks.,THE PACIFIC-ASIA-TOUR,[17.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us your hopes of what the results will be of this extensive tour of the Pacific and Asia that you are going to undertake later this month?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to get your hopes up and have you disappointed because we didn't achieve everything that I would like to see achieved.,I have a great many objectives and hopes for the people of that area of the world. Two-thirds of humankind lives in Asia. And we all know, I think, that their problems are very serious. Their life expectancy is very short, comparatively speaking. Their per capita income is very low.\nIn Vietnam now we have the march of the aggressor's heel stomping on the boundaries of freedom-loving people.,We have the problems of men being killed there every day in an attempt to establish their right to self-determination.,So I would hope that those nations who are committed against aggression in South Vietnam could have a complete review of the military effort being made, and the results of that effort, together with any analysis that our leaders might care to make.,I would think the political and the economic problems of that area of the world would also be a very important subject for discussion.,I think that we should thoroughly explore each leader's ideas about how an honorable peace can be reached, and what course reconstruction efforts following the peace could very properly take, and how we could participate in those efforts.,I would expect, if afforded the opportunity, to be called upon to review some of our thoughts about reconstruction; about the developments resulting from the elections in South Vietnam, and the political developments to be expected there.,I think generally speaking it will give an opportunity for the leaders of the men who are committed to battle in Vietnam to meet and explore ways of finding peace; for bringing an end to the conflict; for making that area of the world prosperous and peaceful in the years to come.,The invitation, as you know, was extended by other countries. I am sure that they will have some specific plans to suggest.,I want to be a good listener as well as an active participant.,MRS. JOHNSON'S PLANS FOR THE TOUR,[18.] I neglected to mention that Mrs. Johnson will accompany me on my trip. She will join me in most of my official schedule. During the conferences, as time permits, she will visit various projects and historic sites to gather ideas for use by her National Committee for a More Beautiful Capital and similar civic groups throughout the country.,THE ITINERARY FOR THE TOUR,[19.] Q. Will you give us your itinerary, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that will be available for you at the door. We will leave Washington October 17th. We will return via Alaska, arriving here sometime in the early part of November, November 2d or 3d.,Our first stop will be Honolulu. We will go nonstop from Washington to Honolulu. We will have some refueling stops en route, but our next stop will be New Zealand.,As you know--and this has been announced several times since I became President--I have wanted very much to return to the scenes of my \"young-man days\" and go back to New Zealand and Australia where I spent some time in the early forties. So I will be visiting New Zealand on October 19th for 2 days; Australia, October 21st and 22d; Manila for the conference the 23d through the 27th; Thailand from October 27th through the 30th; Malaysia, October 30th and 31st; Korea, October 31st through November 2d, and then we will return to the United States.,TAX INCREASE,[20.] Q. Mr. President, at one of your recent meetings with the Governors, sir, Governor Scranton 6 emerged and indicated that he felt you would have to ask for a tax increase next year. Could you give us your assessment of that situation now?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't add anything to the statements that I made in my message to Congress. I have succinctly summarized it. The situation today is the same as then. We are waiting to know how much the Congress will let us spend this coming fiscal year.,6Governor William W. Scranton of Pennsylvania.,There are 8 of the 15 appropriation bills that have not yet passed. Until they pass, we do not know what the bill will be. You can't reduce a bill that you haven't received. As soon as they are passed, we will immediately review those bills, determine how much they can be reduced, and then make a calculation of our revenue.,In the meantime, I am asking Secretary McNamara to make a careful review of our proposed expenditures--first, the expenditures that have already taken place for the first quarter from June through September. He will be visiting with Admiral Sharp 7 in Honolulu. He will leave Saturday night for a visit with General Westmoreland.,7Adm. U. S. Grant Sharp, Jr., Commander of U.S. Forces in the Pacific.,I hope by the time that he gets back the Congress will have sent me some of these measures so we can determine how much we can spend, what our revenues will be, what the Vietnam supplemental will be. Then we will try to make recommendations that will see that our provision is made for revenue to meet whatever deficits we have, if that is possible. I think that we cannot do this until we receive these bills and these estimates.,We all should bear in mind, however, when the Congress votes add-ons to the remaining eight bills, it must be borne in mind that each vote to increase is likely to be a vote to increase the revenue later.,I will be specific with you just as soon as those bills get here and we analyze them. We hope we would be able to analyze them so that by the time I would have to act on them I could get some rough estimates.,I am going to take whatever action is necessary to see that we have a sound fiscal policy. But I can't take that action until the appropriation bills are voted upon and it is determined.,For instance, yesterday in the Senate the committee reported a bill that provided three-fourths of a billion dollars more than the Senate ultimately voted. So if we had calculated before the vote was taken, we would have been $750 million off.,We will take prompt action as soon as the Congress makes its recommendations and as soon as I can ascertain from the military what their best guess is as to the expenditures for the immediate future.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-09-30","text":"RESUME OF MEETING WITH THE GOVERNORS\nOF 11 STATES,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Those present at the luncheon were Governor Rockefeller of New York, Governor Tawes of Maryland, Governor Johnson of Mississippi, Governor Chafee of Rhode Island, Governor Philip Hoff of Vermont, Governor Goddard of Arizona, Governor Boe of South Dakota, Governor Clement of Tennessee, Governor Avery of Kansas, Governor Burns of Florida, and Governor Egan of Alaska.,We followed the same procedure today as we did in the other two meetings, generally. I won't go into any great detail.,I will take any questions you may want on it. I will try to summarize the highpoints.,We reviewed a summary of my statement to the other Governors on crime,1 a copy of which you were given yesterday and which each Governor will be given today, in which I reiterated the desire for the President to have each Governor have representatives come to our meeting in Washington for a major conference in October.21See Item 491.,2For the President's remarks to the delegates to the Conference of State Committees on Criminal Administration, delivered on October 15, 1966, see Item 526.,I went over with them the work of our National Crime Commission and the fact that 20 Governors have already acted in creating State crime commissions.,The cost of crime in the country and the increase in crime among young people under 18 is up 50 percent since 1960. There are certain highlights which are available in the statement and in the brief summary of it.,Second, we reviewed the economic situation. Mr. Ackley 3 took some questions. Mr. Schultze 4 took some questions. I took some questions.,3Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers.,4Charles L. Schultze, Director, Bureau of the Budget.,Generally we talked about the need for restraint. We pointed out the strength and health of our economy. We have 10 million more jobs than in 1961. We have had 67 months of expansion. We have the problems of strength. We had inflationary pressures.,We had a gross national product growing at 5.5 percent a year for the last 5 ½years.,We have the problem of consumer prices being up 3 1/2 percent and wholesale prices up 3.9 percent. Much of the rise has gone to lift incomes of farmers and low-paid workers. Even so, with less price increase, there has been much more income increase in the past 5 years than in the previous 5 1/2 years.,We reviewed the budget for this year of $112 billion. Revenue for this year, as we estimated, would show us a deficit of $1.9 billion if those figures held up.,But we pointed up the possibility that Congress would increase our budget in the domestic field by some billions of dollars. We didn't know how.,The House this morning, I am sure, did not feel it would be substantial. The Budget Director thinks it could be up as high as $7 billion or $8 billion in authorizations and appropriations.,In addition to that, we will very likely have increased expenditures in Vietnam. We will make estimates on those. They are now being reviewed. At the end of the quarter, we will have a quarterly revenue estimate and we project it for the end of the year.,When we get our appropriations bills we will try to reduce those by at least a minimum of $3 billion. Of course, that will largely be over what the regular budget has been increased.,We do not expect it to be under the $112 billion. We expect it to be over. We will take at least $3 billion withholding and postponement out of it, and then we will look at our revenue and see what our expenditures will be and see what we need to do.,We will make adjustments and recommendations accordingly. When we make these reductions of $3 billion, or when we propose them, we will send to each of the Governors our thoughts in that field, as I stated to the Governors yesterday and in the previous meetings. There is a limited field in which you can reduce, but we will have each Cabinet officer try to pick out the low priority items.,We reviewed the Vietnam situation with the Governors. We talked about the diplomatic conversations taking place; the possibility of the meeting of the Manila Conference in late October, whenever the dates can be agreed upon; the desire to coordinate our efforts in Vietnam, and the meeting with the representatives of the allied powers associated with us there.,I reviewed with them off the record some conversations I had had with General Westmoreland and made brief reference to them, and with Admiral Sharp when he was here last week.,I didn't tell them anything new that you don't know, except that I thought our situation had improved there from a military standpoint as well as from the pacification standpoint. I believe it is getting better each day.,We are giving General Westmoreland's requests careful consideration and acting on them promptly, and we will give him whatever men he needs. He was unable to project the amount at this time. He will ask for them as he needs them. He stated in an open press conference 10 days ago that he couldn't state at this time just how many he would need.,We asked the Governors to review any projects that they had in the offing at home of any proposed security sales. We told them what we were doing on the Federal level to try to reduce our security sales. We realized it would involve a tightening up on some of our loan programs that we have, but we don't want to put any more pressures on the securities market or on the economy than was absolutely necessary.,We asked them for no commitments and we received none. We had a free exchange of viewpoints. Each Governor talked about the work that was desirable in their State and the problem that they faced in their State.,I think it was generally agreed that these meetings that we hold two or three times a year are very useful meetings. There was no partisanship in evidence. There was nothing spectacular, I think, to report, or sensational.,You will have a chance to talk to each Governor and get his own viewpoint. If any of them have anything to say, I will be glad to have them say it. If you want to ask them any questions, I will be glad to have you ask them. If you have any you want to ask me, I will be glad to answer them.\nGovernor, have you anything to say?,COMMENTS BY THE GOVERNORS,[2.] GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER. As in previous occasions, Mr. President, it has been a very informative and helpful meeting to us as Governors. I know that all of us want to cooperate with you in your objectives to the fullest along the lines of the action being taken by the Federal Government.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Hoff?\nGOVERNOR HOFF. I would simply like to say that I think the inflationary pressures at work in our society affect all of us. I don't see how any American can avoid them. I admire the President in terms of his stand on them to date. I understand better now why certain measures cannot be taken until the actual appropriations have been made by this session of Congress.,I have admired the forthright way in which he approached it and the honesty with which he approached it. I came away happier about it, and certainly much better informed.,THE PRESIDENT. I pointed up today something that I don't want any of us to overlook. We have taken about $12 billion in taxes or administrative actions out of our economic bloodstream already this year.,On March 15th we signed a tax bill and in our Medicare program we took about $4 billion. So we have somewhere around $12 to $14 billion. It is $12 billion, anyway, that has been taken out in the form of revenues already this year.,The investment credit we expect to pass the House this week, maybe today. We hope to get action on it very soon up there.,The appropriations bills are coming along. I believe the House has acted already on several of the eight that we had. So we will be making our review shortly.,I impressed the Governors that we would forward to them from the Budget and from the White House, the Executive Office, at least, indications of the areas where reductions could be made.\nGovernor Clement?,GOVERNOR CLEMENT. I found the meeting most informative. The President and his staff were most gracious in answering our questions and furnishing us some very valuable information.,I was particularly interested in discussions about Vietnam. I found it, generally speaking, a very helpful session.,THE PRESIDENT. I wrote a letter the other day to a family up in New Jersey that had five sons in the Marine Corps. This week I got several letters, at least five, from over the country, of other families where they said they also had five sons in the various services. One of those letters came from Tennessee. I related it to the Governor.\nAnother one came from Rhode Island.\nGOVERNOR CHAFEE. Newport?,THE PRESIDENT. I will have Bill Moyers 5 give you those, any of you who are interested in those areas.\nGovernor Goddard?,5Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,GOVERNOR GODDARD. Mr. President, I would like to say on behalf of the people of Arizona we appreciate very much your communication with the States. It gives us a great deal of help in bringing us together with national policy.,I have a new finance commissioner in Arizona, the first budget executive that we have ever had. I intend to call him in and ask that our departments cooperate with your plan for helping to pull some of this consumer price hike increase off.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Boe?\nGOVERNOR BOE. Mr. President, I might say that so far as the State of South Dakota is concerned we certainly share with you and the other Governors the concern with respect to the matter of inflation. This is not to any extent a partisan matter whatsoever.,I think it was noted in this conference that there is a concern on the part of some Governors that when we take a good, hard look at the holdbacks that might be necessary in order to combat this inflation, that we should and we would hope that the Federal Government and the administration would take a good, hard look at the economic conditions of each respective State, inasmuch as they all vary so much.,South Dakota is an agricultural State, and We depend greatly on that. Therefore, a cutback in highway construction, in public construction, such as college buildings and so on, would seriously affect our economy and the ability to put our workmen to work and to take care of them, particularly over the winter months.,THE PRESIDENT. Or farm payments, agricultural payments.\nGovernor Tawes?,GOVERNOR TAWES. Mr. President, this has been a very informative session this morning, as our previous sessions with you have been.,I think it is a very excellent way to get the communications from the Capital of the Nation into the respective capitals of the States of the Nation.,We, of course, want to follow your pattern here that you have laid down this morning for combating the inflationary spiral that seems to be taking place. We in Maryland certainly will be using our best efforts to cooperate with you in every way we can.,I think the policy of cutting down on spending before the tax program is invoked is certainly my philosophy of meeting these problems.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Chafee?\nGOVERNOR CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think you pointed out to us the necessity that all of us should do everything we could to cooperate in this effort, to stop heaping fuel on the fires of inflation, and we certainly will try.,Furthermore, I would like to thank you for inviting us down here--this is the fourth time I have been down as Governor--and I do think it is wonderful the way you keep in touch with the States.,Frankly, I am making every effort to make it possible for me to be back after the first of the year for further meetings.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Egan?\nGOVERNOR EGAN. I can just echo what has already been said, Mr. President. I am very appreciative of having this opportunity to come here and have you and your people give us this rundown, a full-scale story of the steps you have already taken, the steps contemplated to combat the inflationary pressures.,I am also very happy that I had this opportunity to have been brought up to date on the measures taken in Vietnam, and the plans and hopes there.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Johnson?,GOVERNOR JOHNSON. I don't have any statement.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Burns?\nGOVERNOR BURNS. Mr. President, I am very much impressed with the grasp that the executive branch has with the economic picture. I am saying this for myself now: that I am afraid that we are dealing with an overgenerous Congress. I think the people of the United States are going to appreciate a voluntary cutback on the part of the executive branch, both at the Federal level and the State level.,I certainly pledge to you the cooperation of the officials of the State of Florida to your program.,THE PRESIDENT. Does any other Governor have a statement they wish to make or raise any question with me?\nIf not, we are open for questions.,QUESTIONS,AREAS OF POSSIBLE BUDGET REDUCTIONS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, did you indicate in any way how much of this $3 billion reduction you are aiming at would come from grants to the States?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't know until we get the bills, Ray.6 I wish I could tell you.,6Raymond L. Scherer, NBC News.,What we will do is get each bill and we will have the totals. Let us assume it is\n$3 billion above my budget. We don't know what it will be, but we will pick a hypothetical bill. We will send those to the various Cabinet officers and give them some indication of the amount in their bill that is reducible. They can't reduce salaries and can't reduce interest on the debt in the Treasury bill, things of that nature.,Then we will ask them to pick the low priority items and report back to us. We hope that they .will add up to more than $3 billion when they come back. If they don't we will have to go back.,We know those won't come from salaries. We know they won't come from interests on the public debt. We know they won't come from veterans' pensions. We know they won't come from social security. We know they won't come from Defense contracts. We know they won't come from insurance obligations that we have to our retirement plan.,We know a good many things won't come from projects that are being completed-that we can't halt. But each Cabinet officer will review them and just as soon as he can we will add them up, because we are anxious to see how we come out ourselves.,GOVERNORS' VIEWS ON FISCAL POLICY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, some of the Governors indicated that they felt that there should have been steps taken before now to deal with this problem of inflation.,Have they indicated to you or given any advice as to what they think should have been done?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no Governor has.,Q. That is, in the last three meetings you had.,THE PRESIDENT. I understand a Governor advised you all in front of television yesterday, but he didn't advise me in the meeting where he was about the necessity of a tax plan some time ago.,We will make our recommendations. We did on taxes last year and we passed a bill on March 15th and signed it.,We took a total of $12 billion in various legislative and administrative actions out of the economy. What will happen next year will have to wait until the appropriations come.\nBut the Governors did not make any specific recommendations. The answer to your question, sir, is no.,DESEGREGATION GUIDELINES,[5.] Q. At the Southern Governors' conference not long ago in Kentucky, one of the main issues was desegregation guidelines. We have several Southern Governors here today.,I wonder if that, as an active Federal-State issue, came up at all?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we didn't go into the guidelines at all.,Sorry to disappoint you, Pat.7 I wish I could have given you some details. We didn't discuss that today. We went into the four subjects that I outlined generally.,7Ernest B. (Pat) Furgurson of the Baltimore Sun.,MEDICAL AID FOR THE NEEDY,[6.] Q. Mr. President, one of the areas where apparently expenses may exceed the original predictions is that of medical aid to the needy in the individual States under title 19 of last year's law.8,8Social Security Amendments of 1965 (Public Law 89-97, 79 Stat. 286).,Is this a touchable or untouchable subject?,THE PRESIDENT. That was brought up today. The Ways and Means Committee now\nhas under consideration certain modifications of legislation. We don't know what action they will take.,Governor Rockefeller brought that to our attention and expressed his viewpoints today. We will follow on the legislature carefully and see what comes out on it.\nI am unable to predict right now because I have had no report other than what Governor Rockefeller gave me.,PUBLIC WORKS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, is it possible to get a half billion of this $3 billion out of public works?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no idea. I wouldn't want to speculate. I am sure if I speculated it would be, then it wouldn't be when you started getting it, Ray, because we don't know what the appropriations are going to be.,I think if we started making reductions down here before we get the appropriations, it would be very ill-advised. We might have a bunch of amendments on the floor that would be changing those things. We might be cutting something that really didn't exist.,I think if you can just wait a few more days until we get those bills, we will give you much more enlightenment.,CONGRESSMAN MAHON'S ESTIMATE OF VIETNAM\nCOSTS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Mahon of Texas, Appropriations Committee Chairman, recently estimated that you might have to ask for as much as $10 billion more in supplementals this year for Vietnam. Is Mr. Mahon pretty well informed on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with the basis of his statement. Mr. Mahon is a very able man.,Q. He is a pretty accurate man, would you say?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what the basis of it is. If your purpose is to get me to criticize Mr. Mahon--,Q. No, I just wondered if you would confirm his viewpoints.,THE PRESIDENT. I can't confirm it. I don't know myself, as I told you at some length, until we get the new estimates and see them--and it will be at best a guess then.,But we don't have it now and we don't know what we are going to get this year in the appropriations bills. It is still in conference. Mr. Mahon is a member of the conference committee.,REDUCTIONS IN STATE SPENDING,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in comparison with the $3 billion reduction you are seeking at the Federal level, have you mentioned any goal that you would like to see the Governors meet in terms of dollars?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it would be a great variance between the State of New York and the State of New Mexico or Arizona. This is not the purpose of getting the Governors to come in, to make a commitment to the President or the President to make a commitment to the Governors.,This is a regular meeting that we have once or twice or three times a year to go over with the Governors the principal problems that confront us all. One of them is Vietnam. One of them is inflation. One of them is restraints on our economy. One of them is crime. One of them is total employment and unemployment. Some of it is education.,We discussed all those things generally today as we usually do. The Governor of New York may be able to make an adjustment that the Governor of New Mexico can't, and vice versa. They would be in different fields.,If they have a general picture of our thinking, though, they will better understand our acts when we make our own reductions.\nI am not sure that they are all aware of the progress made in the Congress. I pointed out today that there had been substantial additions to the budget, and even though we are. cutting $3 billion, it is not $3 billion from the $112 billion I recommended. It will be $3 billion from the considerable increase that is added to the $112 billion.,As a matter of fact, I have already received between $2 billion and $3 billion in increases to the budget in the bills that have already come here. I am just pointing out to them in the days ahead we will indicate to them specific areas.,FURTHER QUESTION ON DESEGREGATION\nGUIDELINES,[10.] Q. In reference to Pat's question, Mr. President, I wonder if you could give us your views in light of the congressional discussions of the school guidelines and hospital desegregation, if you can give us your views on the adequacies of the existing guidelines,9 whether your policies will be modified?,THE PRESIDENT. My views are principally the views that have been stated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to you on a couple of occasions by Mr. Moyers in your press briefings, that it is our intention to execute and enforce the law as passed by the Congress and carry out the intention of the Congress.,We are doing that as interpreted by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Attorney General.,9The school guidelines of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, dated March 1966, are entitled \"Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Plans Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964\" (Government Printing Office, 10 pp.) and are printed in the Federal Register (31 F.R. 5623) and the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR, Part 181). The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also issued a 2-page list of nondiscrimination guidelines for hospitals in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.,There will be cases that people believe result in injustice. As they are brought to our attention, the Secretary will carefully review them, bearing in mind all the time that it is his job to execute and enforce the law as passed.,That is what I expect him to do and that is what he is trying his best to do. In other words, our problem is to enforce the law, carry it out as written, as we interpret it and as the Attorney General believes it to be, and to do it as efficiently as possible.,Although we are all humans and make mistakes, if mistakes are made we will try to listen to the complaints that are voiced, as I do every day, and then carry them out.,I do as little as I can to provoke disturbances and to start fights, and to create dissension among the public, generally.,MARYLAND PRIMARY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, did you deviate from the areas you mentioned long enough to discuss briefly with Governor Tawes the nomination of George Mahoney of Maryland? 10,THE PRESIDENT. No, we didn't discuss any politics at all.,10George P. Mahoney, running on an anti-open-housing stand, was nominated as the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the Maryland primary election of September 13, 1966.,GOVERNORS' COOPERATION ON ECONOMIC\nRECOMMENDATIONS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you said you asked for and got no commitments so far as spending cuts. Do you go away from the meeting with a feeling or impression of a general confidence that the Governors are prepared to make stretch-outs?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think you could assume from what the Governors had said, if you had heard what they have said, that they are going to be as cooperative as the circumstances will permit in connection with their own responsibilities. That is all we expect them to do.,We are not trying to dictate to them what they must do. We are indicating to them what we think our duty is so they may know, when we do not make some allocation to them, the reasons for it and they won't say it was done in secrecy and they never heard of it, and the press was not informed; that it was done in the back room or something.,APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATES,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned a figure awhile ago of an estimate by Mr. Schultze of $7 to $8 billion. Could you explain what that estimate is?,THE PRESIDENT. That is an estimate of the amount of authorizations and the appropriations that there is some indication in his judgment the Congress will act upon and send to the President.,The minimum figure he thinks will be between $2 and $3 billion and the maximum between $7 and $8 billion.,Q. Is that on top of the $113 billion figure?,THE PRESIDENT. $112.8 billion. In addition to my budget. That is over. That is exclusive of Vietnam.,Q. This is new obligational authority?,THE PRESIDENT. This is exclusive of Vietnam. It is both.,Q. Mr. President, occasionally when the Government--,THE PRESIDENT. Whatever the supplemental for Vietnam, it will be added to that.,EFFECT OF REDUCTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT,[14.] Q. Occasionally, when the Government does reduce expenditures there follows a depression in employment to some extent. Is this being taken into consideration?,Have any of the Governors expressed concern about the possible effect of reductions on employment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think we all are concerned with it. We are concerned with employment and unemployment. We talked about some areas where employment was up, and some areas where it was depressed, what the problems would be if it slackened off, how it would be desirable to have some projects available then, to work on that we wouldn't have if we acted on them all now.,We are trying to avoid the dip that might take place.,OUTLOOK FOR DEFENSE EFFORT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any hope that this defense effort might slack up in the next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we would hope that it would someday.,TAX INCREASE,[16.] Q. Mr. President, if that excess went up as high as $7 or $8 billion, from where you sit now, would you say that a tax increase would be inevitable?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say, let us see what happens and then we can act, if you can just hold back for a few more days.,Max Frankel, New York Times: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-09-29","text":"RESUME OF MEETING WITH THE GOVERNORS\nOF ELEVEN STATES,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Governor Moore of North Carolina and Governor Babcock of Montana were with us prior to our luncheon meeting as we visited in the Yellow Room.,They participated in the discussions during lunch, which has just been concluded, but they had engagements they had to keep. In order to meet their schedule they had to get to the airport, so they are not here.,Governor Love of Colorado is here with Governor Branigin of Indiana, Governor Reed of Maine, Governor Guy of North Dakota, Governor Rampton of Utah, Governor Rolvaag of Minnesota, Governor Campbell of New Mexico, Governor Bellmon of Oklahoma. and Governor Romney of Michigan.,We had participating with us Mr. Ackley of the Economic Council, Mr. Schultze of Budget, and Mr. Califano of my staff.\nI told the Governors that this was part of a policy that we established the first week I was in office of continuing an exchange of viewpoints between the President and the chief executives of each of the States. We have had a dozen or more meetings of this general nature in the last 3 years.,I had a meeting last week with a group of Governors, I had one today, and I will have one tomorrow.1 We reviewed the economic situation, the strength and health of the economy, the production, jobs, and incomes that are at record highs, the inflation problem, the consumer prices, the economic situation generally, and the need for restraint.,1For the President's news conference following a luncheon with a group of Governors on September 30, see Item 494.,I will not go into any more details on that, although if you have any questions on it I will be glad to answer them.,I pointed up we have 10 million more jobs than we had in 1961; the average per capita income is up 31 percent. I think you are familiar with all of the statistics.,I reviewed with them the Vietnam situation as it exists today. I gave them the background of the Manila Conference as it has been given to you. I discussed the diplomatic conversations that had been taking place at the United Nations and certain conversations that I have had with leaders such as Prime Minister Wilson, Chairman Ne Win from Burma, President Marcos, Chancellor Erhard, President Senghor, and others.,We discussed the various programs-military, political, pacification, agriculture, health, civil-political relationships, inflation, et cetera--in Vietnam. I gave them an up-to-date report as received from General Westmoreland and Mr. Lodge, included in a general paper that I had prepared for the meeting.,I reviewed in some detail with them a statement on the crime situation and thanked the Governors for their cooperation. I told them that I was pleased to observe that 20 Governors have already acted and 14 have indicated their intention to form a statewide crime committee. I invited each one of them to send a representative to Washington for a major conference in October2 to discuss ways of implementing the principal findings and recommendations of the Crime Commission.,2For the President's remarks to the Conference of State Committees on Criminal Administration on October 15, 1966' see Item 526.,I pointed out that this is an area in which the solution depends on cooperation from the officials of all 50 States, and also the President, Attorney General, and the FBI. The increase in crime is phenomenal. It is up some 50 percent since 1960. The arrest of persons under 18 increased nearly 50 percent since 1960. The cost of all crime in 1 year cannot be accurately estimated but the Attorney General estimates $27 billion.,I have a statement that I read to them-we discussed it in some detail--which will be made available to you when you leave, if you care to have it.3,3See Item 491.,I pointed up the problem that we had in our own Federal budget. I reviewed with them what I have reviewed with you before, namely, that we had eight appropriation bills that we were waiting to receive, that as they were received they would be dispatched promptly to the departments concerned.,I said that all 15 would be meticulously reviewed and the low-priority items would be selected for withholding, impounding, stretching out, postponing, or deferring; that we would point up to the Governors, as soon as we could, the areas of grants-in-aid to States. There are more than 100 of them now where we could hold down some of this expenditure to keep from overheating the economy any more than necessary and where they could withhold some.,I pointed out the logic behind the investment credit. I pointed up the fact that the Joint Economic Committee in the Congress recommended that we suspend the investment credit. The minority members, the Republican members of the Banking and Currency Committee, had made those recommendations. We had adopted them and the Ways and Means Committee had reported the bill, and we expected it to pass this week. We hoped it would pass in the House.4,4The bill suspending the investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation allowance was approved by the President on November 8, 1966 (see Item 596).,I told them when we got that bill, when we reviewed our appropriation bills and saw how we stood, we would then make an estimate of our revenue for this first quarter and make an estimate of our expenditures for the next year. Then we would try to collect whatever information we had on the military supplemental, the economic supplemental, and make available that information, together with our recommendations.,We told the Governors we were going to withhold placing on the market all the securities we could, exercise all the restraint we could in that respect, as well as all the restraint we could in spending and withholding expenditures.,We asked them to cooperate by doing likewise. They all agreed to cooperate. I asked no commitments. They made none, except I think it was the general expression of every Governor that he felt that in a time like this--a period of inflationary tendency and rising prices and a heated economy and the effort in Vietnam--that we should exercise all the restraint possible and that we could expect and would receive cooperation to the extent possible from every Governor present.,Have I overlooked anything, Governor Reed or Governor Romney or Governor Rolvaag?,GOVERNOR REED. I would say not, Mr. President. I thought it was an excellent meeting. This was the latest one you have given us the privilege of meeting with you in the Federal-State relationship. I personally felt it was very helpful. I am certain the Governors would cooperate insofar as possible in the various programs you will outline to us later in detail.,QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT. I will be glad to take any questions.,If any of the Governors want to make a statement they are free to do so, or they will take any questions.,RETURN OF FEDERAL REVENUES TO STATES,[2.] Q. Mr. President, did you discuss the Governors' proposal out of Los Angeles for greater return of Federal revenues to the State?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,DESEGREGATION GUIDELINES,[3.] Q. Did the subject of desegregation guidelines come up at all?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,HOPES FOR THE MANILA CONFERENCE,[4.] Q. Could you give us your hopes of Manila as you gave them to the Governors?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It is a repetition of what Mr. Moyers 5 already has told you, that the tentative date is in the area of October 20. We don't know yet. We have to get all of the nations together.,5Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,We will review with the leaders of the states our program in Vietnam. We will exchange views with President Park of Korea and President Marcos of the Philippines.,The Prime Minister of Australia and others have been very hopeful throughout the past several months that we could have a get-together among the allied interest in that area, exchange viewpoints and pursue solutions to the problems that we have.,They have suggested a place and a date that give problems to the various ones because of engagements that we have, the time of year, the Congress being in session.,But I think that it would be worked out sometime the latter part of October.,I know that one country this morning told me they had a problem with their parliament meeting in a couple of days and they didn't want to interfere with that. That was in the latter part of the month.,Then some of them have elections in the latter part of November and wanted to be sure we are going to get it over in time for them to get back.,But I expect it will be worked out in the next few days. A full agenda will be carefully prepared. We will be glad to participate and cooperate and to give any information we have to the other leaders of that Pacific area who are so concerned with the problems that exist for the area--as are we.,Q. Do you hope to expand the Manila meeting into state visits to other Pacific areas?,THE PRESIDENT. We didn't discuss that and I have no hopes or plans at this time.,For the 18th time I will repeat: Mr. Moyers will tell you as soon as I have made any plans.,AUTOMOBILE PRICES,[5.] Q. Mr. President, did you discuss with the Governors at all the impact of the auto price increases on the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, back to Vietnam, did you discuss whether there were any proposals in these latest reports from Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,COMMENT BY GOVERNOR ROMNEY,[7.] GOVERNOR ROMNEY. Mr. President, wouldn't it be accurate to say that--at least from my standpoint, I found very interesting what the President had to say on other subjects, but I think the only thing we really discussed extensively with you in terms of questioning and so on was the budget situation, the expenditure situation, the economic situation to some extent.,But we didn't get into any particular discussion of the other areas.,THE PRESIDENT. That is a correct statement.,I made a rather detailed statement on crime and on Vietnam, on inflation and on expenditures, and on taxes and the message I have sent to Congress on investment credit 6 and so forth.,6See Item 444.,But the questioning that took place and the exchange of viewpoints largely, I think, if not entirely, were confined to the Governors' questions about restraint, securities, grants-in-aid, withholdings, and things of that nature.,AREAS IN WHICH EXPENDITURES COULD BE\nDEFERRED,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in that connection, was there discussion of a cutback or a slowdown on the interstate highway program?,THE PRESIDENT. We discussed withholding a whole general area covered by all 15 appropriations bills. There is no specific item decided upon. It would be a mistake to conclude that the conference this morning was an action or decision meeting at all.,Q. Mr. President, did you urge the postponement of issuance of such things as turnpike bonds?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we didn't go into turnpikes specifically. We urged the withholding, postponement, restraining, and deferring of every expenditure that could possibly be deferred without greatly injuring the public interest.,THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO SPECULATE ON\nFISCAL MATTERS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, one of your guests last week at the Governors' meeting came away with an impression like an income tax increase was coming, and at least some figure which then caused us some confusion was mentioned about the Vietnam budget. Could we clear up the impressions at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I learned about that about 25 years ago. Bill White 7 used to represent the Associated Press long before he got demoted by going to the New York Times. He used to come in my office and he was always confused. By the time I got him unconfused I found a big story on the front page involving me that took me a week to get myself unconfused.,7William S. White of United Feature Syndicate, who was a correspondent for the Associated Press, 1926-1945, and served on the Washington staff of the New York Times, 1945-1958.,I can't speculate on people's impressions. I made it very clear today that we had reached no decision. I made that very clear to you. I don't need to spend time on somebody else's decision. As soon as we make a decision we are going to remember it. As soon as we have the facts to make it on we are going to make it. We cannot tell whether we will have $60 billion for Defense or $55 billion at this stage of the game.,We do not know whether the poverty program will be $1 billion 750 million in the House or $2 billion 75 million in the Senate committee--and you don't either. Nobody can tell. It is just sheer speculation. The President can't make a speculation without sufficient information, and certainly a Governor cannot when he is not familiar with what the committee is doing in the Congress today.,As soon as these bills are out, we are going to review them. We are going to look and see what our revenue is. We are getting estimates. I have an estimate in my pocket. It is a guess. I will have what we take in in July and August. I will have what we take in in August and September. Then we will project that for the full year. That gives us a total revenue. Then we will look at what they have proposed and how much we are required to spend that we can't avoid.,Then we will look at what is optional, then we will try to cut out $3 billion. I believe we can. When you subtract $3 billion from that amount, you see how that compares with your income. Then we will make a decision on what we will recommend at that time.,In the meantime anybody that gets an impression, intimation, hunch, dream, or a little marijuana is going to mislead somebody because I don't know myself. I don't think the Congress does. I asked Senator Mansfield if he thought the Senate would uphold the recommendations of the committee to the Health, Education, and Welfare bill. He said he thought so.,Senator Dirksen, I think, thought he could get a reduction on that. But that has gone to conference now. We know pretty well that that is going to be within a $100 million range because both Houses have passed it that way and we can add several hundred million to my budget in that item. We don't know what is going to happen in poverty or with the millions extra that haven't been authorized in HEW. It is complex with $113 billion. Nobody wants to play or keep it in doubt or speculate foolishly.,I don't know what the foreign aid appropriation is going to be. The committee made a reduction. I shouldn't be surprised if the Senate makes an adjustment upward or downward. And then the conference will do likewise. I don't believe that anyone understood today that we had made any decision or had any idea what decision would be made.,Is that true, Governors? Do any of you have any comment on it? If you have any impressions, give them here now.,COMMENTS BY THE GOVERNORS,[10.] GOVERNOR ROMNEY. The only impression I got was that you wanted us to go back and do the same thing in our States that you are doing in the Nation. That is the understanding I got.,THE PRESIDENT. That is right.,Q. Governor Romney, did you agree across the board with the things the President and his assistants told you on this economic subject?,GOVERNOR ROMNEY. The President requested us, as I understand it, to go back and review expenditures in our States with a view to seeing what we could postpone, what we could defer, what we could impound, what we could do, and exercise all the restraint possible.,As far as I am concerned I indicated that I was quite willing to go back and undertake to do that--considering the current overall economic picture.,THE PRESIDENT. Do any other Governors have anything you want to say?,GOVERNOR REED. I would mention again, I think it is commendable that the President has outlined to us generally what he intends to do to help restrain expenses. He is going to give us some guidelines that he would like to have us apply back at the State level. I think this is very important, because without that it would be difficult formulating budgets the next biennium. I think this will be very helpful. We are all looking forward to the receipt of that information.,THE PRESIDENT. There will be an item here and there where we are making an expenditure that a Governor thinks could be withheld. I have asked them to write me and point that up if they found in their judgment we could withhold or defer one. And I hope to get some help.,As a matter of fact, I have already gotten some help from some Governors at the meeting. We are not going to pinpoint them and get each one of them involved, but their suggestions have been helpful to me and the Budget Director will follow through.,GOVERNOR BELLMON. Mr. President, I believe it would be in order to mention that this would be an approach you have asked us to take rather than relying on controls to achieve the same ends.,THE PRESIDENT. We have hoped, as I have pointed out in periods past--when we have had our capacity pretty well used up; we have found credit controls, security controls and regulations of various kinds, laws of various kinds affecting economy all the way from the NRA to the NYA to the OPA--to keep those at a minimum.,We want to keep those at a minimum. We are giving everybody an opportunity to volunteer and to understand the picture. There is nothing partisan in it.,There hasn't been the slightest trace of partisanship in any meeting I have had with any Governors since I have been President. We have to have different views. We do come from different parties. We do have different recommendations to make. But the subjects we talk about have been above those things.,None of us want runaway inflation. All of us want peace. All of us want to bring an end to the war as early as possible. All of us want to keep expenditures as close to revenue as it is possible to get them.\nThese are the subjects we discussed.,Q. Mr. President, a number of the Governors, as you know, have election races in which they are greatly involved this year.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I didn't know they were. [Laughter],Q. Did any of them discuss with you the problem of promising greater improvements for the State and at the same time promising you to hold back on expenditures?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they didn't discuss that.,GOVERNOR ROLVAAG. I might say some of us have had elections.,Raymond L. Scherer, NBC News: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-09-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] We had a Cabinet meeting this morning. I reviewed with them the legislative program and the fiscal policy program that I think you are generally familiar with, but to remind you--,THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM,I outlined to them that the Senate committee had this morning voted unanimously to report out the transportation bill. That bill has passed the House. We would expect early action on it in the Senate.,The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee reported the truth-in-packing bill.,The House Banking and Currency Committee reported the savings and loan regulation bill, which we consider a very important item. It has passed the Senate. We want to take it up in the House as early as we can.,They are working on the tax bill, and we would hope for action during the day.\nThe Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Labor-HEW bill with an amount for our Teacher Corps in it, which is very important to us. We would hope for early action.\nSo much for the legislative program.,CONTROL OF EXPENDITURES AND BORROWING;\nFISCAL POLICY GENERALLY,[2.] I reviewed with the Cabinet the very vital importance of not only each Secretary, but each Under Secretary, Comptroller, Budget Officer, controlling all the expenditures he could and watching very carefully for any low priority items so that as these appropriations bills come to them they will be in a position to review them very--scrutinizingly.,I had an off-the-record meeting last week with the Cabinet, with all of the comptrollers, with all of the budget officers, and went into detail with them. This morning I reiterated what I had said and gave them some new directions in that respect so far as placing orders is concerned, so far as filling vacancies is concerned, so far as allowing overtime is concerned, so far as making purchases of new equipment is concerned, and matters of that kind.,As we say on the farm, \"Maybe we ought to try to get by with some baling wire, patch things up,\" to get by during this particular period when there is such pressure on our economy.,Second, I urged them to counsel with their affiliated agencies--the Secretary of Agriculture, for instance, with the Federal Land Bank, the Intermediate Credit Bank, Farm Credit Administration, REA, and others-to counsel with those agencies on the necessity of trying to keep their allocations at a minimum and still meet the needs; to ask them to bear in mind that we are going to have a good deal of rollover in securities. But we do not want to go on the securities market for any new money where it can be avoided.,We will have a rollover of some $47 billion-high $40 billions--$47 or $48 billion between now and the first of the year. There will be needs for new money that will run several additional billions. But we want to keep that at a very minimum because Governors are watching their bond programs, mayors are watching theirs, public agencies are watching theirs. We are trying to encourage private investors to watch theirs because the economy is running at a very high rate.,Unemployment has come down rather miraculously, and this is a very tight period. So I asked them to avoid overtime, to avoid procurement orders, to avoid floating new securities, and to encourage those associated with them to do likewise--if it is HUD, it may be with the mayors, the housing people, and others; if it is the Justice Department, it may be just talking to bond attorneys; if it is Agriculture, I have given you those agencies; if it is Commerce, it may be the cooperation you receive on roads and things of that nature in their field, particularly with the business field.,There was a general discussion along that line. Now that is all known to you. I don't want to reiterate it. I will be glad to answer any questions on it. I have said to Bill that I don't care--I don't want you to feel I am giving you more information than you want to take. At the same time, it looks like when I talk with you after these Cabinet meetings, you say it is a snow job if I tell you what has happened. If I don't tell you, you say your feelings are hurt because you say we won't let you in on the knowledge.,I feel like Hobart Taylor's little boy 1 did one time when he was writing a paper for school. He told his daddy he was studying Finland and he said, \"Won't you help me get some material on Finland?\",1 Hobart Taylor III, son of Hobart Taylor, Jr., a Director of the Export-Import Bank of Washington.,And when he came home that night, Hobart stopped at the library and filled a briefcase full of material on Finland--all the pictures and the drawings and books, and everything. He gave them to his little boy, and his little boy looked at him. He said, \"Well, what do you think about it, son?\",His little boy said, \"Well, Daddy, that is really more information than I want on Finland.\",It may be that you have more information than you want this morning. But Mr. Schultze is prepared to review with you, to the extent that you may desire it, the information that he presented to the Cabinet that he thinks would be helpful to you. It involves, primarily, the very strong determination that this administration has, and has always had, to control expenditures very rigidly and to see that our estimates to the Congress held up just as nearly as we can make them do so.,RECENT BUDGET ESTIMATES,[3.] Each year our estimates on deficits have been less than we said they would be. That has happened for 3 years. Now, of course, we have great difficulty in light of the Vietnam expenditures and in light of the pressures from a burgeoning economy. Everybody has more income. Prices are higher, and so forth.,But he will relate that to you. Do you have the chart available here on our deficits?\nMR. SCHULTZE. Yes, sir.,[At this point a chart was displayed, with the following figures on budget deficits for three successive fiscal years],Fiscal year 1964: Billions,January 1963 estimate $11.9\nJanuary 1964 estimate 10.0\nActual deficit 8. 2,Fiscal year 1965:,January 1964 estimate 4.9\nJanuary 1965 estimate 6.3\nActual deficit 3.4,Fiscal year 1966:,January 1965 estimate 5.3\nJanuary 1966 estimate 6. 4\nActual deficit 2.3,THE PRESIDENT. I will leave you with that and go on to another appointment. But this story has never been covered. This is where the press--I don't think--has been credible. We have announced it, but it has never gotten over to the people.,I went around to 30 Congressmen the other night and asked them and didn't get an accurate guess from any of them. I don't get it from the newspapermen that I've talked to, whom I have asked.,When we came into office [pointing to the chart] this was the budget in January of 1963. I came in, in November. There was the deficit, just a little under the $12.4 billion that President Eisenhower had, which represented the high one in peacetime. By the end of the year, as a result of the practice of the Cabinet and the others through expenditure control and other things, it was $8.2 billion.,In fiscal 1965 we cut it pretty thin at $4.9 billion. We had some of our Vietnam move-up here. We closed down on everything and held it as much as we could. We wound up with $3.4 billion.,So we went from $11.9 billion to $10 billion to $8.2 billion, to $4.9 billion, to $6 billion, to $3.4 billion. This is actual. This is finished. This is fait accompli; this is not conversation.,This is $5.3 billion in 1966, that's our present fiscal year that just ended June 30th. It has moved up from January to $6.4. Of course, this is 18 months ahead of time. The end result is $2.3 billion.,You see some increase in Vietnam because we did take delivery on a good many items, $1 ½ billion worth, or else you couldn't have a balance here. We took delivery in the last few weeks of June on things that we could accelerate. We wanted to accelerate them for Vietnam, so we paid for $1½ billion out of that so that item could be balanced.,Now next year will be a different story. But there it is for 3 years. We are trying to add a fourth year without things being too bad. That is what we did in our Cabinet meeting.,I will take any questions on this or any other subject that you may have before Mr. Schultze goes ahead.,QUESTIONS,EXTENT OF REFINANCING BY THE GOVERNMENT,[4.] Q. Mr. President, you are going out of the securities market and going into the Treasury bill financing. Do you know roughly how much that is going to affect the deficit?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not doing that. That is a \"When are you going to stop beating your wife?\" question. We haven't stopped beating it; we never did start. We are not going out of the securities market. We are going to be in it to the tune of some $50-odd billion, a portion of which will be taken by trust funds, as they always have been.,Q. May I follow that up?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. When you mentioned $55 billion the other day, some of the Wall Street boys went to calculating and said that means you must be looking for about $8 billion in new money.,I gather from what you said this morning that is too high.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say several billion dollars--we can't tell. We are trying, as you see, to get each man to be as careful as he can on what money he has. But we would guess it is going to run somewhere above 50. It depends on how much new money we have to have.,The point I am making is I am talking to all of them to keep them at a minimum. If you tell your family you want to hold down expenses and not go to a show I think sometimes you mis-estimate a little.,So we can't be precise. Roughly we have a high 40 rollover and we have indications of demands for several additional billion, which, I would guess, would run somewhere in the five to seven or eight range.,But we are going to try to curtail those any way we can, and I think we will be rather effective with it.,Q. Just for clarity purposes, by \"rollover\" you mean refinancing?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,THE ATTORNEY GENERAL VACANCY,[5.] Q. Sir, are you considering the Secretary of Agriculture as a possible replacement for the Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us when you may make the announcement on the Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I will tell you the moment I know. But the thing you must understand is that we don't like to keep these things a secret. Just as soon as we make a decision, I will try to announce it to you. Don't let them go around. There are frequently personal reasons why a man has to check with his university to see if this can happen, and so forth.,But the day will come when regularly employed speculators will find out that their speculations are just pure speculation and nothing else, because we don't appoint men on that basis.,In the old days when you could leak that Mr. So-and-so was scheduled for an appointment, then if he was not appointed somebody would be criticized--they are gone. They have been since November 1963, at least. I don't know how long before that.,As Chuck 2 says, some Minnesota radio station says that the Attorney General has definitely been appointed. We haven't discussed it with the Secretary of Agriculture. We don't plan to.,2 Charles W. Bailey 2d, Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Des Moines Register and Tribune.,I am considering several different people for the Attorney Generalship. I have talked to Mr. Katzenbach about it and some others about it but no reporters. I would say, generally speaking, you can count their speculations as totally unreliable--uninformed.,Q. It was in the New York Times, too, Mr. President, this morning.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to pick out any individual paper, but I have observed it can be in error sometime. [Laughter],The point I want to make to you--when you see on the ticker that Oshkosh says that Bob Pierpoint may be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you don't necessarily need to give much credence to it, because the very fact that it is on there is the best indication that it is not likely to happen. [Laughter] Are there any other questions?,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Yes, sir.,Mr. President, I am glad I am not going to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.,AMBASSADOR GOLDBERG'S U.N. SPEECH,[6.] Q. Ambassador Goldberg 3 is making a very important speech before the United Nations today. We have not been able to read it all yet. But I wonder if you could tell us whether this is an offer to halt the bombing for a while, which we expect the Vietnamese will have to answer before there will be a pause, or whether the pause will depend on some other action?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would think that the best thing for you to do, Bob, is read the speech and make your own interpretations. I have read it. But I think until you have, that would be the best way to handle it.,3 Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,Q. Could I ask another question on it?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Does it represent an important new initiative on the part of this Government?,THE PRESIDENT. You will have to make that evaluation of it. I approve of what the Ambassador says. I think it is good for him to say it.,We are very anxious, as you well know, to do anything and everything we can through every forum we can, to try to promote peace in the world. I think that is what he is trying to do. He has my full approval and the Secretary of State's approval.\nAre there any other questions?\nReporter: Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-09-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I am glad to see you here.,POSSIBILITY OF TAX INCREASE,[1.] Q. Mr. President, you have said that when all of the bills are in from Congress you will know what the fiscal situation will be. You seem to be indicating that this may involve a tax increase. Is that so?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't indicated that. I have said that when the authorization bills are passed and the appropriations are made, we will then see how much we can adjust those measures--and we will carefully review them and arrive at the total that will be spent. Then we will calculate our revenues and we will do our best to bring them in line with our expenditures.,VIETNAM COSTS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, one of the factors that has been mentioned in trying to arrive at these final figures is how much more the war in Vietnam is going to cost. Could you tell us how you are going to arrive at that, and at what time you expect to be able to make that decision?,THE PRESIDENT. We have appropriated enough funds to run us through June of 1967, assuming that the war would be over at that time. We are carefully reviewing this each day. We are determining what our expenditures are there in the way of materiel, planes, helicopters, and men.,We will be making constant reviews of this every week and every month. I have been discussing it this morning with Admiral Sharp, who is commander in that area. I will be asking Secretary McNamara and his people for figures through the fall.,We can't tell now how much we are going to get from the Congress, because the Defense Department bill, in the nature of some $60 billion, has not been sent to us yet. After we get it we will see how much is for what purposes and make any adjustments we can. And then we hope to make the best estimates we can as to what additional moneys we will need, and so inform the Congress.,AUTOMOBILE PRICES,[3.] Q. Sir, when you signed the auto safety bill recently,1 you expressed the hope that the companies would absorb the cost of new safety devices. Ford came out yesterday with price increases and said that the new safety equipment was a substantial part of it. Could we get your comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I am having the Council of Economic Advisers study the statement that Ford released. They have not made a report to me yet. Naturally, I regret that it was necessary to have any increase in prices. I had hoped that these businessmen could have foregone the necessity of increasing prices.,1 See Item 449.,I asked that they do that. But they are free to make their own prices; and they did. We are now analyzing what effect it will have on the economy.,REPUBLICAN HOUSE LEADERSHIP DOCUMENT\nON VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican House leadership issued a lengthy document which, in effect, says the Vietnam war is Johnson's war and that you are not leveling with the American people on how far you intend to go. Could you comment on that report?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have made a comment on that report, and others like it, at one of my recent press conferences. You are going to hear a good many political partisan statements from some of the House Members between now and November. I don't think that you serve the Nation or the world by debating statements of that kind with these particular individuals.,PEACE PROPOSALS,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports now that the North Vietnamese may be interested in pursuing U Thant's proposals for peace. Would you tell us, sir, your reaction today to U Thant's proposals?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very anxious to pursue any proposal that would interest the North Vietnamese. We have no indication that they are interested in sitting down and talking. But we welcome any opportunity to do that as we have all along.,Q. Mr. President, in that connection, Pope Paul VI has proclaimed October as a month of prayer for peace. You have reiterated again your desire for unconditional peace talks.,Do you see any chance of these two proclamations coming together and leading to a bombing pause in October?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very happy to see the Pope take the interest that he has. I want to do anything I can to encourage that interest and to support him in any moves that he may make.,So far as the United States is concerned, and our allies are concerned, we are very anxious to participate in any negotiations that the aggressors are willing to participate in.,And I think that is the general feeling of all the nations of the world with the possible exception of two. We will do anything we can to encourage the Pope, to cooperate with him, to support negotiations.,THE PRESIDENT'S PRE-ELECTION TRAVEL PLANS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you still hope to visit most of the 50 States before the November election?,THE PRESIDENT. I would, of course, like to be in all of the States, all of the time. The implication of your question is that I have stated that I plan to.,I think I stated that at the rate we had visited other States and the time left for us, it was possible to go into all of those States. We have no plans to.,We want to visit every State that we can, whenever we can. But until we have the schedule clear here and I can be away from Washington, I am not going to firm up any engagements. When I do I will announce those engagements and go every place I can.,THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Dirksen said yesterday that you hadn't really tried very hard to persuade him to drop his opposition to the civil rights bill.\nWill you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't read Senator Dirksen's statement. I think the President's position in connection with that measure is abundantly clear. I have tried to persuade the Congress to embrace my viewpoint.,I am very happy that a majority of both Houses, in a democracy where majority rule should prevail, have supported the measure that we recommended.,And I believe in due time that measure will be again considered, favorably acted upon, and will become the law of the land. Justice to all of our citizens will not only be guaranteed but will prevail.,A BALANCED BUDGET?,[8.] Q. Mr. President, several times recently you talked about bringing expenditures in line with revenue. Are you planning on a balanced budget for 1967?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we will have to see what the Congress appropriates, what our review indicates. Of course, I can't tell at this time because I don't know whether there will be any add-ons to that budget or not. I don't know what the needs of Vietnam will be. It would be just sheer speculation that I think would have little value.,CHANCELLOR ERHARD'S VISIT,[9.] Q. Mr. President, a long list of petitioners, including some fairly prominent people, have expressed the fear that West Germany might get a finger on the nuclear trigger, as a result of your upcoming talks with Chancellor Erhard.\nWhat is your response to that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any such fear. I will have a full discussion with Chancellor Erhard on the problems of our respective countries. But I don't anticipate any agreement of the nature they fear being consummated.,VIETNAM WAR OUTLOOK,[10.] Q. Mr. President, could you please give us your assessment of the war in Vietnam, how it compares with the situation a year ago? And are there any chances of having it finished by June of 1967?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that I can add much to what you already know. And whatever I said I think would probably be held against me if I didn't just hit it on the nose.,I think you can observe from the papers each day what is happening. Admiral Sharp and General Westmoreland think that we are going about as they had expected. They are very pleased with the successes that our men have achieved out there.,They feel very good about the results they have been able to obtain. We have definite plans that we believe will be achieved. But just to say precisely what day these plans will be achieved is a very difficult thing in war.,I don't think any Commander in Chief has ever been able to do that. We seek peace. We would like to see the shooting stop tomorrow. We would like to talk this thing out instead of fight it out. But as I have said so many times: Unless the aggressor is willing to give up his aggression, and sit down and talk, we have no choice except to try to defend and to protect these libertyloving, free people. We are going to do that. And how long the aggressor will maintain his aggression will depend on his decision more than ours.,THE LATIN AMERICAN SUMMIT CONFERENCE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the Latin American nations which originated the idea seem to be getting together on plans for the summit conference which you expect to attend, I understand. I wonder if you could give us your idea of what accomplishments of such a meeting might be?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we are now working on the plans and proposals that are being formulated. They are not concrete yet. I think that when the heads of the nations come together it is always necessary to have an agenda and to have the matter pretty well planned out in advance. Our people are doing that now.,We think that there are a good many subjects that are deserving of consideration by the heads of state. They will, of course, be explored by the foreign ministers in their meeting, and later, if we think it desirable, by the heads of state. But we haven't reached the point yet where we could announce an agenda, or could even outline for you what proposals will be made by individual countries. This is being worked upon by the staffs and the foreign ministers and the state departments of the various nations.,THE VICE PRESIDENCY IN 1968,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there is a little debate here about what you meant the other evening when you said you wanted--,THE PRESIDENT. Who is debating? Now let me see--I want to know which side to get on.,Q. I will work up to that. The Vice President reported out there that you had mentioned to the labor leaders the other evening that as long as you were President you wanted him by your side. There has been some debate in the newspapers about whether that meant,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that I would get into that. I would just let you all go on and debate.,TIMING OF NEW RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS\nECONOMY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in speaking today and yesterday about new recommendations in terms of the economy to Congress, did you have in mind the hope that you would get something together before they go home for election, call them back after, or next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't have any timetable. I have in mind that as soon as we can get the authorization bills and as soon as the appropriations bills are available, they will be carefully reviewed. Then we will make our judgment and we will immediately submit it to the Congress.,Now, if you can tell me when those bills will be received and when the departments will be able to conclude their study of them, I can tell you it won't take me very long.,CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to submit a new civil rights bill to the next session of Congress, sir, and if so, will it contain an open housing provision?,THE PRESIDENT. I will tell you in my State of the Union Message our program for the next session of Congress. I think you can be reasonably sure if no action is concluded between now and the State of the Union Message that I will have recommendations in that field.,But I don't really know that we ought to try to spell them out this morning, because we will be working on that from now until January. We will spell out all of our recommendations for the 90th Congress in the January message.,Q. Mr. President, will the administration seek to salvage any of the other titles like Federal juries, or antiterrorism sections in this session of Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I don't know what the action of the Congress will be. I haven't reviewed that with the Attorney General or the leadership on the Hill. All I know is the vote that took place on cloture. And whether the Congress would be disposed to again consider civil rights, I don't know. You can get the answer to your question about the possibility of further moves in that direction more from the Congress.,VIETNAM WAR COSTS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, sir, we really have not been told how much the war in Vietnam is costing and how much it has been costing from day to day. This question has been put to Mr. McNamara 2 early in the year and he said it is almost impossible to tell, and lately U.S. officials again said that they couldn't quite tell us. Don't you think the American people ought to be told? And I am sure you know.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the Congress, through the Appropriations Committee and Authorizations Committee, have had very full details on our expenditures, in men, money, and materiel in Vietnam. I would commend to you some homework. Go read the hearings.,2 Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara.,ATTITUDE OF SOVIET UNION ON PEACE\nDISCUSSIONS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that there seemed to be an indication among all nations of a desire to seek a negotiated settlement or talk peace, except for two. Have you noticed any change of attitude on the part of the Soviet Union's willingness to aid in this process?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't noticed any change in attitude. I have felt all along that they would like to see negotiations and discussions rather than what is happening.,NOMINATIONS TO STATE DEPARTMENT\nVACANCIES,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there are a number of vacancies in the State Department. Can you give any indication of when those will be filled?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, one became vacant yesterday, the Under Secretary, Mr. Ball. And that will be filled as of right now with the Attorney General. Mr. Nicholas Katzenbach will resign and become the new Under Secretary, when confirmed by the Senate.,Q. Can you tell us who you are going to appoint Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't reached a decision on that yet. I am talking about the number of vacancies that Mr. Childs 3 referred to. Mr. Ball wrote me on the 17th, and I promptly responded and accepted his resignation. He has had a very outstanding career, and he will be available to work with us from time to time. We have known for some time that he wanted to leave in the fall. He established the date in his letter.,3 Marquis Childs of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.,I have asked the Attorney General to accept this post. He has agreed to do so. I have asked Mr. Eugene Rostow to also become Under Secretary of State in the position formerly occupied in this administration by Secretary Harriman and Secretary\nMann.,As you know, Mr. Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School. He and Mr. Katzenbach are both very interested in the international field.,Mr. Katzenbach was a professor of international history for a period of years. He has written in that field. He and Mr. Rostow will work very closely together as the Under Secretaries of the Department. Mr. Rostow only concluded his arrangements with Yale University last evening.,I am asking Mr. Foy Kohler to return from Moscow to succeed Mr. Alexis Johnson in the Deputy Under Secretary's place.,These nominations will go to the Senate very shortly.,Q. Mr. President, do you regard this as a promotion for Mr. Katzenbach?,THE PRESIDENT. I hadn't spent much time on what it was. It is a great opportunity to serve the country and the world.,Mr. Katzenbach is one of the most competent and selfless men I know. He said to me shortly after I became President that he would serve the President in any capacity where the President thought he could be useful.,And he's not concerned with title or with promotions or demotions. He is concerned with serving the interests of the Nation.,Q. Mr. President, do you have a replacement for Mr. Kohler in mind yet, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I'll have to talk to Mr. Childs and get this little State Department matter straightened out, and then we'll go into the Ambassadors later on. [Laughter],Q. Mr. President, does the fact that Ramsey Clark's 4 father is on the Supreme Court rule him out as Attorney General?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't get into that, I haven't made any decision on that, as I have said to you before.,4 Acting Attorney General.,PROSPECTS FOR A TREATY ON OUTER SPACE,[18.] Q. Sir, the prospects for a treaty on outer space, which appeared fairly bright a month ago, seem to be a little clouded by some recent Soviet-U.S. exchanges on particular provisions that remain to be negotiated.,Do you still feel hopeful that the treaty can be signed this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. I do.5,5 For the President's statement announcing agreement on the draft of an outer space treaty, see Item 643.,THE PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,[19.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what happened to your hopes announced last year for a new maritime policy. What recommendation can we expect, and when?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they kind of went astray in the House of Representatives in connection with the new Transportation Department.,We hope we will be able to get the Senate to act next week on the new Transportation Department.6 When we do, we will reconcile the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill. And I hope to be able to name a new Secretary of Transportation whose job it will be to develop such a policy.,6 The bill creating a Department of Transportation was approved by the President on October 15, 1966 (see Item 523).,THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDEPOSTS,[20.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to get any more recommendations from your Labor-Management Advisory Committee on guideposts,7 and do you plan to expand its work in any way?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that we will be conferring with labor-management people frequently from time to time.,7On August 18, 1966, the White House had made public a report on the wage-price guideposts by the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy, together with the names of the 21 Committee members (2 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs., p. 1087).,This is a very difficult problem when we have full employment. We know that when most people have jobs at good wages, we have problems with pricing.,The labor-management people are studying it. They are working on it. Individuals are making suggestions to me from time to time, and they have made some collectively.,We will look to them for their cooperation and I have no doubt but what we will get it.,I just hope that all the leaders of industry in this country and the leaders of labor in this country will not increase prices or increase wages beyond the increased productivity. Because when they do this it makes problems for the rest of the Nation.,We are trying to do our best to practice restraint.,Q. Will that, sir, be part of your discussions with Mr. Meany 8 later today?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We will discuss that along with a number of other matters.,8 George Meany, president of AFL-CIO.,FOCUSING ON \"WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE\",[21.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy of New York has suggested it is a mistake for you to dwell so much on the accomplishments of your administration and the prosperity of the country, and instead ought\nto focus more on the things that need to be done. Would you comment, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are trying to do that every day. We have submitted a program on things that need to be done-and we are doing them.,We have passed about 70 measures this year on things that need to be done. We have some 10 yet to be acted upon.,I agree we ought to have a program and that we ought to try to get it passed, if possible. I am rather pleased at the success that we have achieved so far. I am very grateful for the cooperation of all of the Members of the Congress.,Frank Cormier, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-09-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I thought you would like to have this veto message in the light of our message about which they are taking testimony in the Ways and Means Committee now, and our attempts to hold NOA [new obligational authority] and appropriations down in the Congress on most of the measures that are yet to be enacted.,I thought you would like to have available the veto message which I am sending to Congress now. I will read it briefly and Bill Moyers will get it to you when it is available.,[At this point the President read the text of the veto message printed as Item 453.1 He then resumed speaking.],1 The text of the veto message was also released by the White House in the form of a statement by the President. Excerpts from the message were read by the President for radio and television broadcast.,I will be glad to take any questions on this or anything else you may want to ask.,QUESTIONS,EARLIER VETO,Q. Sir, my memory is faulty. What was that earlier measure you sent back?,THE PRESIDENT. The escalation clause-the star route bill that had provided for an escalation clause when the cost of living went up over 1 percent.2,2 See Item 336.,Q. Those are contract groups, aren't they, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,VIETNAM ELECTION,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the Vietnam election?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked to Mr. Rostow yesterday at the White House before he made his statement.,First, we are very glad to see the election occur.\nSecond, from the reports we have, there are between 15 and 16 million people in South Vietnam and in the neighborhood of 7.5 million would be eligible to vote, something over 7 million. Over 5 million registered to vote and more than 4 million actually voted.,When we consider the votes that we have on constitutional amendments, or charter conventions, or even off-year elections, which run under 40 percent, and when you consider even the personality contests with the fights between the individuals, we are glad to see the reported number that did vote with the percentages up in the seventies or maybe eighties. I do not have the exact figure. But in our own presidential elections, the percentage of turnout is about 55 percent.,I think that is about all I have to say. I think there are about 400 to 500 reporters out there getting comments from local people who are much closer to the scene.,I would summarize it by saying we are glad the elections were held and we are glad the people participated. We think it is a good sign. We hope that they will go on and take additional steps.,REACTION TO THE MESSAGE ON FISCAL POLICY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any reaction since your message to the Congress on what you propose be done about the economy, from the public and business?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Have the comments been good, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Do you think the package will pass?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think it will.,POSSIBLE SAVINGS THROUGH REDUCTION OF LOW\nPRIORITY SPENDING,Q. Mr. President, on this impounding that you spoke of in your message, funds for these various appropriation bills, is there a relatively wide range of accounts that you can impound in?,THE PRESIDENT. About $30 billion in NOA and about $23 billion appropriations, out of the $113 billion. Assuming they add $10 billion, or $12 billion, I would assume it to be $120 billion.,They have added $2,175 million net NOA thus far in bills they have already sent. About $500 million was the pay increase that they started in July instead of January, and about $318 million for the servicemen, unanimously passed. About $610 million was mortgage credit; $226 million was Federal aid to highways, a part of the trust fund.,On highway safety we did not get the auto tax, but that will be about $115 million net. This insurance bill is $90 million net.,We have had a good many that have passed.,On the Defense bill, Mr. Mahon 3 says it will add about $378 million NOA. It has passed both Houses, but our figures differ some from theirs. Some things we count here in the Budget Bureau they don't count. For example, they do not count loans--as in Agriculture where they are permitted to make loans. They do not count the money. But we have to get the money.,3 Representative George H. Mahon of Texas, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.,If the Congress can expedite legislation for both authorizations and appropriations, it will be very helpful.,The number that Mr. Mahon points out to me in antipoverty, elementary and secondary education, grants for developing institutions, higher education construction, public libraries, is about $4 billion.,He says, \"We would like authorizations for them and we omitted the following budget items.\" So I have $4 billion budgeted not in the bill that they did pass because they don't have authorizations.,It is pretty difficult for us to tell here, as I said the other day, how much it is going to cost the Government until they tell you how much they allow you to spend. Then we will try to reduce that any way we can. Then, if there is a deficit, we will make other recommendations.,PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS\nBILL,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you hope for passage of the civil rights bill this session?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Are you optimistic, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have some problems in the Senate that appear to be very serious, but we will do everything we can to get the measure passed.,Q. Have you discussed with Senator Dirksen that point, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. He seems to be the key man.,THE PRESIDENT. I think he feels very strongly on some provisions of the bill. I don't know what his final course of action may be, but I would hope that he could be helpful. I think a good deal depends on his willingness to support it. I gather from what I have seen of late in the newspapers that he has some very serious reservations.,I would hope that we could find some way to get his support because I think whether it passes or fails will depend largely upon what the minority leader does about it.,FURTHER QUESTION ON VIETNAM ELECTION,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe the turnout of voters in South Vietnam--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I will go any further than I have already gone on that, Mr. Scali.4,That is about all I am going to say.,4 John Scali of ABC News.,Those correspondents out there can give you all the information. I don't want to be misunderstood or misquoted.\nI will say I am glad they voted.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-09-08","text":"STATEMENT ON THE MESSAGE ON FISCAL\nPOLICY,THE PRESIDENT. I have conferred with the leadership during the last few days, and as recently as the hour. I am sending to the Congress this afternoon a message on fiscal policy. That message is or will be available to you.1,1See Item 444.,I will be glad to summarize briefly the recommendations we are making there and take any questions on that or on any other subject that may interest you.,ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION,[1.] First, we state to the Congress that the administration is doing three things:,Review of Appropriation Bills and Spending,First, we are reviewing very carefully at the present time the appropriation bills that have reached us. There are some three or four of them that are being examined. There are some eight appropriation bills that have not yet cleared through the Congress. We do not know what they will contain.,We are asking the executive branch to carefully review their appropriations that have been received and make recommendations as to the low priority items that can be eliminated. We have given them target goals, as you will observe in the message.,When and as we receive the other eight appropriation bills, we will go through the same procedure.,We are hoping that in light of this message, and the prudent attention and consideration that the Congress will be giving the remaining eight bills, that they will be somewhere in reasonable proximity to the budget and the request that I made earlier, namely, a budget of $112 billion 800 million.,But until they reach me, I have no way of knowing how much the cost of government is likely to be next year. When they do reach me, we will review them and see how much we can eliminate and see where that leaves us.,Then we will ask General Westmoreland, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr. McNamara to carefully review the situation at that time and to make any recommendations they may feel are required along the line of a supplemental. I am informed that they will try to make some estimates when we call upon them after we get the remaining appropriation bills.,Now, in the meantime, we are going to reduce all we can as the appropriation bills get to us by impounding, by postponing, by stretching out, by every legitimate means available to us, the low priority items.,Sale of Government Securities,[2.] Second, we are asking the Secretary of the Treasury to ask each agency with which the Government is affiliated to present to him, and the Secretary will present to me, any securities that they anticipate selling between now and the first of the year.,That will be Import-Export, Federal Land Bank, Federal Home Loan Bank participations, and other items of that nature, so that we can coordinate those sales and attempt to eliminate from the market as much of the Federal demand as possible.,The Secretary will give you the details of that in the next day or two.,Interest Rates,[3.] Third, we are asking the Federal Reserve and the large commercial banks, in the light of the action we are taking, to slow down the Federal Government's demand and prune our appropriations and adopt sound fiscal policy, to see if they can't use their good offices to help us lower interest rates, and to handle the credit situation that confronts them.,So there will be three things: the Federal Reserve, the sale of Government securities, and the withholding of appropriations which the administration has undertaken.,SUSPENSION OF INVESTMENT CREDIT AND\nACCELERATED DEPRECIATION PROVISIONS,[4.] There will be two things we ask of the Congress: first, to make inoperative the investment credit provision of the law that pays 7 percent on purchases of equipment and investments.,Second, to suspend and make inoperative for a period of 16 months the accelerated depreciation provided by law.,We do not anticipate that either of these measures will bring great revenue to the Treasury. But we do have an accelerated boom that we think could be held back and cooled off if we said to the people now purchasing equipment and getting a bonus to do it, when we would prefer they not add to the increase in the backlog of orders (some machine tools have a backlog of as much as 15 months, the average is 10 months): \"We won't give you a bonus to do what we don't want you to do. But if you will withhold your orders and can withhold them until January 1968, then the investment credit will be operative again and you can get it.\",SOME EXAMPLES OF CURRENT ECONOMIC\nPRESSURES,[5.] Just to give you background before your questions, some of the illustrations of what happens here are: Our plant and equipment investments are up 17 percent this year over last year. We have a survey this week from Commerce and the SEC showing that there is no weakening in the investment boom despite the tight money and despite the discouraging stock market.,It was anticipated that if money became tight and they raised the rate, people would be reluctant to borrow it. But it not only hasn't cooled off, it is up about $100 million.,Last week's NICB survey showed capital appropriations still rising, with the second quarter up 10 percent over the first.\nThe order backlog for machinery is up 29 percent in the last 12 months. The backlog of machine tool orders is now 10 months.,The unemployment rate in machinery industry is an amazingly low 1.9 percent.\nThe average workweek in machinery is 44 hours--the longest of any manufacturing industry.,The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports persistent and intensifying labor shortages in the machinery industry.,Press reports on bonuses given to workers who recruit new machinists; guarantees of 8 overtime hours a week; women recruited for traditionally male jobs.,And the prices of metalworking machinery are rising at a 7 percent annual rate in 1966.,The pressure on the credit market, the net external funds raised by the corporate sector, is up 26 percent in the first half of 1966 versus 1965.,The net corporate bond issues are up 82 percent in the same period. The bank loans to business are up 22 percent in the first 7 months. These funds are diverted from mortgage and homebuilding and are going into bank loans.,The effects of the suspension will be mostly to reduce order backlogs and price pressures, rather than real growth capacity. There are plenty of incentives to continue desirable investments. Reduction in pressures on existing capacity will far outweigh any slowing of capacity.,THE INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS,[6.] The effect on the balance of payments from '62 through '64 of the investment tax credit obviously helped the balance of payments, but it is now hurting.\nIn the first half of 1966 the imports of capital equipment were up 44 percent, with imports of metalworking machinery up 89 percent. Because of the great backlog here, we are importing them and they are taking our dollars there.,Imports of textile machinery are up 71 percent. The excess demand for machinery is also affecting exports. So far this year the foreign orders for U.S. machine tools are up 39 percent. Although foreign orders are up 39 percent, foreign shipments are down 17 percent because the export orders went to the bottom of the pile because of the great domestic demand for them.,So it is our view and our hope that this will cool that situation and be helpful.,SUSPENSION OF ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION\nPROVISION,[7.] As to the accelerated depreciation on structures, the same general reasons apply to it as apply to the investment credit. The additional special reasons include release of funds and resources for housing. If funds are not going into big buildings, if insurance companies do not lend for these big buildings, they can lend for more needed housing.,The price of nonresidential construction rose 3 7/10 percent in 1965. It is now at an annual rate of 4.7. This is putting great pressure on material prices, the current rises in cement and copper and other things. It also adds pressure on construction wages.,We will ask the Congress--and I am informed that they will give the matter prompt consideration--to give us legislation in two fields: to suspend the investment credit and the accelerated depreciation. We will take the other three steps ourselves.,QUESTIONS,INSTALLMENT PURCHASES; CONSUMER CREDIT,[8.] Q. Mr. President, we have just had an opportunity to skim through your message. I wonder, sir, if you have anything in here, or do you have any thoughts, on what to do about installment credit, consumer credit.,THE PRESIDENT. We have no recommendations in it. And we have nothing in the message which pertains to it.,POSSIBILITY OF TAX INCREASE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in your message to Congress you mentioned that further long-range actions may be necessary. Could that include raising corporation and personal income taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no idea how much it will take to operate the Government next year. We are taking in more money this year, at the present rate, than we are spending.,What happens from here on out will depend on two things primarily: one, the remaining eight appropriation bills; two, the Defense supplemental bill. We do not guess or speculate on that because if we went up to ask for any additional tax measure of any kind, the first thing the chairman tells me he will ask me is, \"How much do you want? What do you want it for?\" He said, \"How can you tell that until you get your appropriation bills telling you how much it will be?\",TIMING OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON MESSAGE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect Chairman Mills2 to react sympathetically to this particular group of proposals?,THE PRESIDENT. I would suggest that you talk to Chairman Mills about his reaction. We have made our recommendations.,2Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.,Q. Sir, have you any assurances or understandings about the early holding of hearings by the Ways and Means Committee on this proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that they will get to it as soon as possible. I would think at an early date. But I would prefer those announcements to come from the Hill, for obvious reasons.,HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION ON FOREIGN AID\nAPPROPRIATIONS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee cut rather substantially the foreign aid appropriations. Would this be one of the appropriations that you prefer not to be cut?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen the action on foreign aid. And we do not refer to it specifically in this message.,I would have to study it. I think it would be premature to conclude what will be in that appropriation bill until it finishes in the Senate and in conference.,I frequently read where I am rebuffed on one vote, and they give me more than I asked for on the next one. So let us try to wait until that time.,LOW PRIORITY SPENDING,[12.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any idea of some of these low priority projects that you will consider cutting?,THE PRESIDENT. . No. We are having the appropriation bills examined now. As soon as we reach a decision they will be announced.,ANTICIPATED RESULTS OF THE PROPOSALS IN\nTHE MESSAGE,[13.] Q. Mr. President, is there any way that you can give us an idea of the specifics of what this action will take out of the economy in the way of dollars or percentages of increase?,THE PRESIDENT. That would depend entirely on the individual. Some fellows that are building a big plant will go on building it anyway. Others will say, \"Well, if I can postpone it a year I can get 7 percent, and I will wait.\",We know only this: that we will not be providing a bonus to someone to build something we don't want built.,Q. Mr. President, have you evaluated the possible political consequences of this action?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have been busy enough trying to get the recommendations up there. I would think that anything that is good for the country is good politically. And I believe this to be in the best interests of the country.,EXTENT OF TREASURY AUTHORITY WITHOUT\nCONGRESSIONAL ACTION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, does the Treasury have authority now to cut the depreciation allowances on its own motion without action by Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. They can make adjustments in accelerated depreciation. But the experts felt that to suspend it as we are doing we should have the authority of the Congress.,Q. Will the Treasury wait until Congress acts?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,THE STOCK MARKET,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your observations on what you think is specifically troubling the stock market?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,THE NEED FOR FURTHER ACTION,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you know when in calendar terms you will be able to tell whether further action is necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know that any further action will be necessary.,Q. When will you be able to decide?,THE PRESIDENT. If you tell me when the appropriation bills will come, it will be shortly thereafter. I don't think that the Members know themselves when they will get the appropriation bills.,A good many of the authorizations haven't passed yet. There are eight or nine of them that have yet to be acted on. Some measures like Defense have passed both Houses. But Senator Russell has one viewpoint on the National Guard and the Reserves and the House has another viewpoint.,When they resolve that difference, I guess your experience around town is probably as good as mine on when they will agree to that.,LOW PRIORITY SPENDING,[17.] Q. Mr. President, I believe you used the word \"impound\" a while ago. Could you tell me what specific bill you might have had in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. No--all of them, all of them, we want to withhold, or impound, or stretch out, or reserve. It doesn't necessarily mean we would let the whole appropriation lapse. We might not proceed to use the money when it became available until we could see further ahead. We want to relieve the pressure on the economy to every extent we can.,THE MEANING OF \"WHATEVER IS NECESSARY\",[18.] Q. Mr. President, you have used the phrase which has been repeated over and over again in regard to Vietnam, which has become a measure of your determination in the Vietnam war. You have used it in this message by saying: \"This administration is prepared to recommend whatever action is necessary to maintain stable growth,\" et cetera.,Does this represent a similar degree of determination on the domestic stability issue?,THE PRESIDENT. Ask your question again. I know what I said but I am not clear what you said. What question are you asking? [Laughter],Q. You have used that phrase \"whatever is necessary\" to carry on the war in Vietnam over and over again. It has become a measure of your determination to see the Vietnam war through to the necessary conclusion.,Now you have used that same phrase \"whatever is necessary\" to keep domestic stability in this message with respect to keeping the domestic economy stable.,My question was simply: Does this represent a similar degree of determination on the whole economy?,THE PRESIDENT. When I say \"whatever is necessary,\" I mean whatever is necessary. I mean it whether it is applied to Vietnam or to the domestic situation or to answering your question. [Laughter],SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS?,[19.] Q. Mr. President, have you discussed with the congressional leadership the prospect of a special session after the elections?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,TIMING OF A TAX INCREASE,[20.] Q. Mr. President, are you sorry, the way some economists say you should be, that you did not raise taxes last spring?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not aware of any economists who have said that to me.,REACTIONS TO THE PROPOSALS IN THE MESSAGE,[21.] Q. Mr. President, did you touch base with business and get businessmen's opinions before making this recommendation on investment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. As I have said, we have talked to the employers and employees, the business community and economists in and out of Government. We meet with them frequently. We talked to Congressmen and Senators, young ones, old ones; and to chairmen of the committees: Appropriations, Ways and Means, Finance; and the leadership.,I went around the table the other night with some 30 of them and asked each one what they found and what they would recommend. I let them play President for a while just like they were working for some newspaper. [Laughter],Q. Did you get any reluctance from the businessmen in discussing this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, yes, some of the businessmen opposed this. They want to get the 7 percent now. A good many of them recommended it. A good many of the labor people recommended it.,I think that there is very strong support for both proposals. I think all of them realize we have a big backlog, and that there is no reason to give a bonus to add to that backlog when that backlog is causing your problem.,We are short of labor, we are short of material, and we are short of the end product. We are importing and sending out our dollars to get that. We are paying our people 7 percent to send our dollars abroad.,We think that as to the things which could be withheld which were to their interest to withhold, they can get 7 percent on it next January and perhaps that would be an encouragement and incentive to them.,TERMINATION OF SUSPENSION IN JANUARY\n1968,[22.] Q. Mr. President, what are the factors that lead your advisers to think it would be all right to put this back on again in January of 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. We will take a look at it then. It is like setting a date for foreign aid to end. Some people think 5 years. Some people think 1 year. We felt the suspension could well be looked at again in January of 1968.,We have no arbitrary position in the matter. If the Congress wanted to extend it a few months, or move it up, it would be all right with us.,We are looking at this fiscal year and the year ahead. We would not fight about it. It was the date that seemed to most people to be a proper date to look at it.,Q. As you propose it, as the administration will propose the legislation, would it provide for the investment credit and the depreciation automatically to go back into effect in January of 1968?\nTHE PRESIDENT Yes. That is a very important point in connection with it. Some people do not want to repeal it and wouldn't vote to repeal it but they assured me that they felt that it could be made inoperative.,They believe very much in it. They know there are times when this bonus does its job. It did in the years 1964, 1965, and 1966, and it did it too well.,When the accelerator is down you want to get up to the limit of 60. You were going 40, and you got up to 60. It is now 70 and on the way to 80. So we said, \"Let's take the foot off the accelerator until it gets back down to 60 and we will look at it there in January of 1968.\",STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FOREIGN MINISTER\nCHEN YI,[23.] Q. Mr. President, on another matter, do you find any encouragement in the statement attributed to Chen Yi of Communist China, that neither China nor the United States is seeking a military confrontation, and, if there is any follow-up by the administration, can you tell us about it?,THE PRESIDENT. We always are glad when other nations feel that there is no reason for them to engage in a confrontation with us.,Each day we pursue with every means available to us suggestions and ideas and make proposals that are calculated to bring about better understanding and better relations with other nations.,We will continue to do that. We do do that. So the answer to both of your questions is \"yes.\",First, we are glad to see people feel that there is no reason why they should have a confrontation with us. Second, yes, we do explore every possibility that we are aware of and encourage everything that we think has any potential.,WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM EUROPE,[24.] Q. Mr. President, what are your feelings about the proposal in the Senate that it be the sense of the Senate that we withdraw some troops from Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. I think my administration's position has been made clear. I stated to Senator Mansfield and I have stated it publicly. My press secretary has, also. We told Senator Mansfield that there are going to be conversations with regard to NATO and its many problems, its strengths and its forces.,We think that the best course for the United States to follow would be for us in collaboration with our allies to first try to realize what strength is necessary, how to equitably apportion it, and to arrive at a joint agreement.,We do not think that this involved problem can be solved by Senate resolution. I already know the sense of the Senate, and certainly the sponsors, and I think of most Senators: that is, that we would like to have every boy home that we can possibly have home--that our security would permit us to have home.,It is not a question of desire. It is a question of necessity. We feel that this will be more wisely handled in the NATO discussions. Every step we take we want to take with the knowledge of our allies, and we would hope with their approval.,TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL IN VIETNAM,[25.] Q. Mr. President, President de Gaulle seems to feel that if the United States withdraws its forces from Vietnam, peace will come to Southeast Asia.\nCould you comment on his remarks?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have any information to that effect. No one has communicated any evidence to that effect to us.,I have made it clear, I think, time and time again, that we love peace, we want peace, we are willing to do anything we can to achieve peace, but that it is not a one-way street.,We are willing to lay on the table at any moment our schedule for withdrawal from Vietnam, if someone can also lay on the table their schedule of withdrawal--and if we can give the freedom-loving, liberty-loving people of Vietnam any assurance that they will not be murdered, assassinated, or killed either by infiltrators or assassins.,Our Secretary of State will meet any of them whenever they need to--tomorrow, next day, or next week. I will lay our schedule on the table any day that anyone will act upon it. But we cannot say to our men that we will strip you of all of your protection and say to our allies that we will afford you no assistance without some assurance from someone else.,The great problem here is, as Mr. Steinbeck,3 I think very properly, stated it in his communication with his Soviet friend, \"We are very anxious to talk about the war and peace, but let's not talk about half the war. Let's talk about all the war. Let's not talk about just what the United States is doing; let's talk about what the aggressor is doing.\",3John Steinbeck, American novelist.,We will lay on the table our plans to withdraw if they will lay on the table their plans to cease their aggression.,REPORT ON ATTITUDES ABROAD TO OUR ROLE IN\nVIETNAM,[26.] Q. Mr. President, the United States Information Agency, we understand, has prepared for you a rather extended report on attitudes abroad about Vietnam and our role in the Vietnam war. Is it your intention to make this public or make a partial report on it public?,THE PRESIDENT. Newspapermen frequently do this. They have information before the President. I don't have it. I don't know what the report contains. I would think that I would refer you to the United States Information Agency. Whatever they would recommend in the matter, I would be glad to consider.,I am not aware of the report. The man you probably got it from is more on his job for you than the man who is representing me over there, because I haven't seen it.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-08-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,THE PRESIDENT'S BIRTHDAY,[1.] Q. Sir, what have you been doing today?,THE PRESIDENT. I read the papers, some messages came in, I signed some bills, signed several congratulatory messages and letters of various kinds that came out of the White House, talked to Senator Dirksen 1 on the telephone--he called me--I got a report on the rain. I guess that is about it.1,1Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, minority leader of the Senate.,Q. Is this rain going to inhibit the rest of your birthday?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. We won't walk much while it is raining, but we will have a quite, relaxing, restful day as near as we can. We didn't plan any trips.,Q. How do you feel on your birthday, Mr. president? How is your health? Have you gained or lost weight since the first of the year, and that sort of thing?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel fine. I was a little tired when I came in last night, but I had a good rest during the day yesterday in between various meetings. I am not unusually tired. I doubt that I have ever been in better health. I feel good; I sleep well. I had a wonderful night's sleep last night.,I constantly have a problem with my weight. It is up and down. If I take two or three days on the road, I go down three or four pounds, then I come back up. But weight is no real problem. I haven't had to buy any new clothes. I am still wearing the same ranch clothes I have had all year.,I think I had the best night's sleep I have had in a long time. I don't know whether it was the activities of the day, the fresh air, or sleeping in a bed that you are used to.,Q. Mr. President, might it have been the crowds? We were expecting something not quite so enthusiastic as a result of the polls we have heard about. What did you think about them yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought they were good--enjoyed them very much. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that we wouldn't have good turnouts in any polls that I have read.,Q. Mr. President, do you have anything else to say today about the Governor of Oklahoma?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We appreciated very much his coming out to see us. We enjoyed our visit in Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma is one of the States with a great future.,It is moving forward rapidly, improving its transportation system, conserving its resources, developing its rivers and bringing deep water inland. And the economic development of Oklahoma--like a good many other States right now--is going by leaps and bounds.,Q. Did Senator Dirksen offer you any wisdom over the phone today, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I always enjoy my visits with Senator Dirksen. He passed on his birthday greetings. President Eisenhower had come to the White House personally on Thursday, and talked to me about our trip yesterday.,Senator Dirksen had read reports about it. We reminded him that Luci and Pat 2 had left Washington in company with the dog and had proceeded in the direction of Illinois; he at least had two or three extra constituents for a few days.,2 Mr. and Mrs. Patrick J. Nugent, the President's son-in-law and daughter, who were married in Washington on August 6, 1966.,He talked to Mrs. Johnson for awhile. They are both great gardeners and beautification experts.,That was about the extent of the conversation.,Q. Does Mrs. Johnson have a surprise party planned for you today?,MRS. JOHNSON. No, I wouldn't say it is a surprise. It will be very casual and homelike, with some good friends and family.,We will have barbecue, Western-style beans and birthday cake; hopefully, a ride around the ranch, if it clears off enough.,SOME BIRTHDAY REMINISCENCES,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel you have any special problems on this birthday, as far as the world and the Nation are concerned?,THE PRESIDENT. A President always has many problems. They change from day to day and week to week. Sure, we have problems, grave ones. But we have none that we don't feel confident that we can find the answer to.,The problems that we have--as I have said so frequently all year--are the problems that we have been fighting so hard to attain, namely, full employment, a high standard of living, and better housing.,We are now at a point that I have envisioned and sought all of my adult life--or even as a boy. My earliest memories were hearing my grandfather, who was a leading advocate in this part of the country for social justice, talk about the plight of the tenant farmer, the necessity for the worker to have the protection of bargaining, the need for improvement of our transportation to get the farmer out of the mud with blacktop roads, particularly the red schoolhouse and the tenant purchase program where a worker could attain something of his own. I tried to reflect that in my speech yesterday in Denver.,That was the philosophy handed down to me by my father, that he expressed all through his political life, and also my grandfather, my mother's father.,So, both of my grandfathers and my own father, in his political years, believed in this. And later, when I went to college, the president of my school was constantly preaching better schools, better roads, better living conditions, and better protection for our workers.,Then I went out and taught in a Mexican-American school and dealt with the underprivileged. Folks could stay in school sometimes only 3 or 4 months and then they would have to leave to go and pick the beets or stay in the cotton fields, and things of that kind.,I longed for the day when we could really do something about minimum wages, elementary and secondary education, higher education, and better health, because I saw the effects of the tapeworm and the malnutrition on the children that I worked with, both in the poor districts in Houston and in the Latin American area of South Texas.,I talked to Mr. David Dubinsky 3 this morning. He first excited me about the necessity of having an adequate minimum wage. We couldn't get a rule and couldn't get the bill up on the floor. We had to call a Democratic caucus and we had to really force the hand of the leadership.,3 Former president, International Ladies Garment Workers Union.,We had to almost take the leadership away from the leaders of our own party in the Congress. We had rules problems in those days like you do now in Judge Smith's 4 committee.,4 Representative Howard W, Smith of Virginia, Chairman of the House Rules Committee.,I remember Mr. Dubinsky got three of us from Texas to sign a petition to call a party caucus. That was, I guess, in 1938.,That was on a 25 cents an hour minimum wage, the first one in the Nation. And of the three, we were all threatened with political oblivion and defeat. Two of them were defeated in the next election in the primary of 1938--Maury Maverick of San Antonio and Congressman McFarlane of Wichita Falls. 5,5 F. Maury Maverick, Representative from Texas 1935-1939, and William D. McFarlane, Representative from Texas 1933-1939.,The minimum wage was 25 cents an hour. I don't know what happened to me except I didn't have an opponent. This was my first term and they thought it was kind of fair to give a fellow a second term.,Before then, I eagerly sought to work with president Roosevelt in the NYA 6 and I became State Director for the State of Texas.,6 National Youth Administration.,Smitty 7 asked a number of questions at the Press Office the other day on various birthdays that I had had. I thought about my NYA experiences and how we fought to get more children in elementary school in a work program very similar to what we are doing now in our poverty program; and how we tried to keep the children from dropping out of high school in 1934, 1935, and 1936.,7 Merriman Smith of United Press International.,We tried to have a college program where they could have a higher education. We tried to improve our health activities by training nurses in NYA, just as we are training them today. Here in this room, the first month I was President, we formulated the poverty program.,So through all these years I have sought, asked, and been given the opportunity to make some effort in the field of fighting a war on poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, disease, and for conserving our resources, beautifying our lands.,Our beautification program started when we built 400 highway parks in Texas. We put flowers in them and barbecue benches, and so forth, in the years 1935-36, 30 years ago.,But there is a difference between what a State NYA Director can do, to fight poverty and ugliness and to conserve resources as we did over here on this river in building our dams, and what a President can do. You have seen the ponds on all of these farms and the terracing that we have done. You know of the people that we have in our universities and in the Job Corps. In those days we had CCC 8 and NYA.,8 Civilian Conservation Corps.,Being President does make a difference. Thirty years has made a difference.,GREAT SOCIETY PROGRAMS,[3.] I looked at the record the other day. Some people argue about whether you should say that a grant for a hospital in a city is an urban expenditure. Well, whether it is or it isn't, you saw the one in Ellenville, number 6,647. 9,9 See Item 395.,We are building those hospitals and we are building those parks, we are adding those recreational areas and we are going into the slums, and we are today spending about twice as much--as I told President Eisenhower the day before yesterday--in this field than we were during the late fifties.,We are spending about a third more than we were just 2 1/2 years ago in the fields of education and health alone. In education we have increased our expenditure from $4 billion 800 million under President Kennedy to about $10.2 billion presently.,We have increased our health expenditure about $5 billion. The total appropriations this year for health and education, just those two fields, is $10 billion more than they were 2 1/2 years ago.,When you consider that figure relatively, that is twice as much as Mr. Hoover spent on the entire Federal budget.,So when I come home and Mrs. Davis, who runs the ranch for us, tells me that her little Negro daughter is a runner-up in the all-around best student in the Stonewall School, I get great satisfaction to see the progress that has been made.,She couldn't have been in the Stonewall School 30 years ago. She certainly wouldn't have been the runner-up, one of the two selected. And she wouldn't be looking forward to the day when that child could go to college.,When the chairman of the Texas Board of Regents told me yesterday that he just floated $4 million worth of a bond issue, because the buildings were bursting at the seams and they just had to have more facilities because so many more people were going to college, I thought of the nights that we worked all night long on payrolls for Texas colleges in order to keep NYA kids in school in 1935 and 1936.,Yesterday the Governor10 told me of the great advance that had taken place in our educational system in this State. He rode home with us last night. He expects to come back tonight, along with Melvin and Mrs. Winters, probably Judge and Mrs. Moursund, and maybe Judge Heath, a friend of ours who has an adjoining ranch and is chairman of the Board of Regents of the University.,10 John Connally, Governor of Texas.,We will sit around and count our blessings. But the blessing that I consider best is the opportunity that I have today--that I never had before--as leader of the people of this country in waging a war on the dreadful enemies of all mankind--disease, ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, ugliness, and so forth--and to wage it effectively.,The Congress has given me a good many of those, too. I'll be frank and candid-of course I am disappointed that we couldn't get the demonstration cities bill through just as I recommended it. That is human nature.,Most of you like to have your stories printed just as you write them. But we don't have that kind of system in Government. I can't resign, as you can, if your editor changes your story too much and inserts different facts.,We had a $2.3 billion bill for 6 years. Congress has said that we will give you in effect $1 billion for 3 years, that is close to what you recommended. If you do your first 3 years right, then we have no doubt but that we can move on.,So, I am grateful for that. It took me 20 months to get rent supplements--but I have it. We are on our way. That is something we haven't had in the last 30 years--the period I am talking about.,It has been a long, slow process to get our Teacher Corps so we can go into these areas. I know what we can do. We can get our civil rights bill, our housing, our demonstration cities, our urban renewal, our rent supplements, and our Teacher Corps.,DENVER,[4.] Look at what you saw in Denver yesterday. I told Senator Dirksen about that this morning. I said, \"When they ask you, 'How can these cities handle some of their problems?' the first thing I would say is, 'Go and see Denver.'\",You drove through the places where you would expect to see the ghettoes in Denver and you saw modest homes. I said to some of my people that it looked very much like my mother's home in Austin, Texas, a three-bedroom little home with one bath, with a beautiful lawn, small, attractive, with flowers growing in the windows, well kept with great pride, and happy people living in it.,It would have been difficult to believe that those were Negro homes, if you hadn't seen them standing there and if the Major and the Governor of two different parties hadn't told you that they had, in their judgment, the fairest housing bill of any State in the Union.,They had committees to control housing. The Scripps-Howard publisher and the Denver Post publisher, Mr. Hoyt,11 told me how hard they worked to have these committees go around and help with these problems, encouraging home ownership.,11 Palmer Hoyt, publisher of the Denver Post.,He told how the Negroes had taken really a disproportionate share of their income and put it into home purchase, because they had such pride in the place where they lived.,They had no problem with outsiders coming in and staging big marches and pickets with signs. Some people just felt Denver had to have one. So, some of them came in and urged one. They said it was the biggest flop of the year because these people have their homes and they are happy.,In some of the areas 70, 80, 90 percent of those homes we saw yesterday were inhabited by Negroes and by Mexicans and by people who had a part in home ownership.,My father supported Jim Ferguson for Governor in 1914. He was running for office on building more red schoolhouses, building better roads to our marketplaces and to our cities, and having a tenant purchase program where a tenant could go and buy his home. That is what caused me to put in my Denver speech yesterday that a man who is expected to cultivate, plant, grow, chop, and pick cotton--if he has a chance to get a part of that two bales--has a little better attitude and his work and production are a little bit better than if the landlord gets it all.,BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,[5.] You must remember that this is not exclusively a personal or a party achievement. I had almost a third of the Republican votes in the election. Dirksen said yesterday, \"Why did you take all of my Republican Senators off?\",I said, \"We believe in equal treatment. We had three Democratic Senators and three Republican Senators. We had Senator Church and two Democrats from Oklahoma. We had Senator Jordan and two Republicans from Colorado. The things we are doing, we are doing together.\",I was very pleased that in most of the places people identified themselves as Republicans. Officeholders, Governors, Congressmen, Senators, editors, and other people came up and were pleased with our approach to the peace problem in our reactor speech to the Soviet Union. They were pleased with what I said in Denver.,A man on the stage came up and spoke along this line. They are helping us with that.,The whole New England trip was dreamed up, planned, and envisioned by the dean of the Republicans in the Senate. We never got that over, apparently.,Senator Aiken asked us on the boat to come up and dedicate this project and see the Prime Minister. Then they urged us to come to upstate New York. That is not strictly a Democratic stronghold. We had, I believe, on that trip, four Republican Governors and two Democrats. Someone got the idea that we were using Republicans to elect Democrats.,I didn't see it that way because I didn't see that Governor Rockefeller contributed anything to the election of a Democrat. He participated in the discussions that both Democrats and Republicans are vitally interested in: pollution, rural development, and demonstration cities. So did Senator Javits. So did Senator Aiken. It was a Republican law. The Republicans picked up the law Senator Aiken had written. Our Budget Director vetoed it, was against it until I read on the ticker the UP story saying that the Budget Director had appeared against it.,I asked him, \"Why? That sounded like a pretty good bill to be for.\" We had an argument--and I won it. So, he went back and changed his testimony and testified that we would support the bill. We did.,The first grant went not to elect a Democratic Congressman. It went to a Republican Senator in a Republican State. We did have a Democratic Governor who appeared on the platform. We had a Republican Senator make a speech.,We carried it out just as Senator Aiken outlined it.,The only point I want to make is that these efforts that we are making toward peace, to deter aggression, to drive out poverty, disease, ignorance, illiteracy, ugliness, and waste of resources in the conservation field-I do not have a patent on them. Although they have occupied and been the dreams of my family and of me all of my adult life, they are not partisan.,I am seeing some of them come true because people of both parties supported me, believing that I wouldn't be deeply partisan. I don't think I have been. That is because the people of both parties are helping us today.,Senator Javits is just as enthusiastic about demonstration cities as I am. Senator Aiken is just as much of an enthusiast for a better rural life in rural communities as I am. As a matter of fact, they reported our food bill yesterday out of committee by 11 to 1, I believe.,Most of our votes have been nonpartisan. We do have some partisanship on motions to recommit. I have told you about that: where they can really get up and denounce the program and say it \"ought to be recommitted so that we could make it a little better.\" It's a delaying tactic.\nThat is human nature. I understand that. I am practical and I don't object to it--provided on final passage they vote for the program they denounced. And that has been happening reasonably well.,CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS,[6.] I had a list of our progress this week which we will get for you in a minute. We had a smashing victory last week in passing the demonstration cities bill. The head count showed 41 to 39. We passed it nearly 2 to 1, because some men came over we didn't expect.,This week we passed minimum wage. We now have over 50 bills that have come to the President. I signed the legislative appropriations bill this morning.,I have gone rather fully into responding to your question about why I am so pleased on my birthday. It is because I am seeing these dreams come true. They won't all come true today, this week, this month, or even during my administration.,But in terms of what President Kennedy said in his inaugural address,12 a good many folks in this country are asking not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country. And they are doing it for their country.,This week we had an expanded, enlarged, additional authority Peace Corps bill.,12 See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, John F. Kennedy, 1961,\" Item 1.,We had the criminal package bill on the obstruction of justice and witness immunity. That is very important. Former Attorney General Kennedy recommended that. Attorney General Katzenbach recommended that. I urged that upon the Congress, that somebody had to do something about it and we did something about it this week.,There is the minimum wage bill. I remember in President Eisenhower's administration we had a problem. He wanted only 90 cents. We recommended a dollar. Now it is $1.60. We are making progress.,That came about because I remember Mr. Dubinsky telling me about garment workers, working for 10 cents or 12 cents an hour. We had women shelling pecans in Texas, when I voted for the first minimum wage bill almost 30 years ago, at 8 cents an hour. They received 60 cents a day.,So I get great satisfaction from seeing those things going to the Congress and being passed. We had the food for freedom bill passed 11 to 1 out of the Agriculture Committee. That means that we can do something about poverty not only in this country--with our lunches and hot breakfasts and things of that kind--but in other countries, where we kept, for example, 35 million or 40 million people in India from starving.,It takes us back to the Hoover days when we went back to Belgium to help the distressed.,We have scheduled for full action: narcotics, Teacher Corps, Department of Transportation, poverty authorization, elementary and secondary education. All of those come up in the full committees next week.,ORIGINS OF MANY PROGRAMS UNDER FRANKLIN\nAND THEODORE ROOSEVELT,[7.] Someone said that a good many of these programs were begun under President Roosevelt's administration: education, poverty, NYA. That is true. A good many of them were also advocated by another Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt.,I am a great admirer of the contributions he made to the Nation as you can see reflected in our conservation program.,I was sent a copy of the New York Times, the front page, for the day I was born in 1908. We will show it to you later. You will see that the Presidents of that period and the President of today have a good many things in common--and we are getting some of them done now.,Before I take some more questions, I want to particularly thank all of you for the coverage yesterday--especially CBS, ABC, and NBC--for bringing the crowd, policy statements, peace appeals, and other things, live to the attention of the people.,We are not in any hurry. We want to take any questions that any of you want to ask.,FAMILY PLANS FOR THE BIRTHDAY,[8.] Q. May I ask Mrs. Johnson a question?,Will any of the immediate family be with you and the President today?\nMRS. JOHNSON. Lynda Bird will be here.,Q. Luci hasn't arrived yet?\nMRS. JOHNSON. No.,THE PRESIDENT. Luci was going to fly down. She called me. I said that it wasn't an act of prudence for newlyweds with limited economic resources, whose fathers are sending them through school and both of them going to school, to want to fly down for my birthday.,So, instead, they are driving across the country with the top down and with the dog. It is cheaper that way--and probably more enjoyable.,Q. Did you hear from her though?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,HEADLINES OF 1908,[9.] Here are some headlines from the New York Times of 1908. \"Roosevelt to Stop Big Man's Rascality--Instructs Farmers in Their Duties.\",Q. What was the first headline?,THE PRESIDENT. This is August 27, 1908. You can read it. I want to take your questions. You are not limited to 30 minutes. You can take whatever time you want, and any of you who are bored, you may leave.,I have done my work; signed the bills, letters, and messages and sent some congratulatory messages.,I am attempting to work out some details about President Marcos' visit. 13 I read a very good telegram from him this morning on the Asian thing.,13 See Items 458, 459, 461.,Bill 14 may want to give you the general part of it. I don't care to release the text, but he can give you the feel of the White House in this development about which I have heard from other leaders throughout the world and a good many of them from throughout this country.,14 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,DEMOCRATIC STATES CONVENTION IN OHIO,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to talk today to the Democratic Committee Conference? 15,THE PRESIDENT. They called me early this morning. I neglected to tell you. They sang \"Happy Birthday.\" They told me they had 1,200 delegates; had a united party. I congratulated them on that.,15 See Item 418.,Q. Who called and sang \"Happy Birthday\"?,THE PRESIDENT. The State Chairman of Ohio. They are having their convention there today. The leading Democrats of the State are there, 1,200 of them. They sang \"Happy Birthday\" to me over the phone. They gave a lot of applause when he asked,\n\"To whom am I speaking?\" I said, \"Lyndon Johnson.\"\nThe fellow acted a little nervous. I think he expected to go through two or three secretaries. I got on the red line probably by mistake. He didn't understand the ranch system. Sometimes I do answer the phone here.,Then they laughed and had fun out of that. Then he told me that they had a united party, 1,200 were there, the candidate for Governor, other leading Democratic congressional candidates.,They are very anxious for me to come and tour Ohio and visit with them. I told them I would between now and election. I told them not to be concerned with red ports about people not being united.,I said: \"The best proof of the pudding is in the eating. You don't have to have your copy desks take a sample of 200 or 300 or 400 people somewhere. You can just get out and take a sample yourselves.,\"I had a pretty good sample yesterday in Idaho which is not strictly a Democratic State; Colorado with two Republican Senators; and even last night in Oklahoma with a Republican Governor. The sample was pretty good. We will come and sample Ohio later in the year.\",WESTERN STATES DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE,[11.] Q. I didn't understand you, sir, on the situation with the western conference.,THE PRESIDENT. They are going to call this afternoon at 1:30.,THE PRESIDENT'S THINKING ON FOREIGN\nMATTERS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, a moment ago you used \"philosophy\" for your domestic ideas. You have been giving us your domestic philosophy.,Recently, you have been giving a number of foreign policy speeches looking far ahead, the two yesterday, the one on long-range China, the OAS speech, and so forth.,Do these add up to an effort on your part to lay down a basic philosophy for what might be called the next chapter ahead in world affairs?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I hadn't recognized them as being a new effort. What I said, really, yesterday at the reactor was what I said the first week I was President when I started writing to Mr. Khrushchev--as I tried to point out.,There have been some developments since then. I summarized them yesterday to try to keep them in perspective because I am afraid unless a President does go back and repeat and remind and point up those things, that you may get more concerned with when the airline strike is going to be over than you are with our relations with the Soviet Union.,The Denver speech was an elaboration, perhaps, and a freshening up of what I said in the speech I made as a young Congressman on the floor of the House on our relations with other nations when we had the Truman doctrine pending. At that time I said that we should have a domestic policy and people abroad should judge our foreign policy by what we are doing at home.,That is not anything revolutionary or new, but it does represent my philosophy-and I tried to state it. I thought that was a proper audience.,We are very proud of the fact that the largest support we have in the country is the young age group between 21 and 29. Our support there, according to all the samples or tests, is up in the high 60's.,I make it a point every week to have a series of contacts with them. They may be young teachers, Peace Corps groups, White House Scholars, Presidential Scholars, White House aides--some of the young groups.,I think I had two meetings last week with them. I purposely picked out the university for that purpose. I wanted to repeat it to some of them who may not have been thinking about what I was saying in 1964, or 1934, about my views on these subjects.,I think it is very important for the Communist Chinese, the Russians, the North Vietnamese to know this--as I tried to say in my press conference the other day.,We now have exhaustive studies going on as to how we can take these instruments that we have used to deter aggression in South Vietnam for peaceful purposes. That is what we are using that reactor out there for--the one we went to yesterday.,That is what we want to use Da Nang base for. We have men asking, \"What can we do when we have Da Nang air base available as an instrument for social justice and an increased standard of living?\",I read a long memorandum on that coming home on the plane last night. We are hopeful for the future and that was part of the purpose of the speech yesterday in Denver.,THE NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN\nNATIONS,[13.] Q. Your statement concerning the Soviet Union appeared to some of us as a restatement by you of the critical need for the two superpowers of the world to understand one another.,I wonder if you could say what made you feel that this was essential, or if you feel that there is really a hopeful prospect for this.,THE PRESIDENT. I have always felt it essential for all of them to understand it. I feel the same way about the Chinese on the mainland and the North Vietnamese. The purpose of the Baltimore speech 16 was so they could really understand what was in our heart.,16 Address \"Peace Without Conquest\" at Johns Hopkins University, April 7, 1965 (see 1965 volume, this series, Book I, Item 172).,That is a difficulty we have with the Communists when we try to get them to let newspapermen go into China. They refuse it and refuse to let us send them some of our exchange people. This even happens to the Soviet Union. They stop them in Tokyo.,That is notwithstanding the fact that I renewed the cultural exchange agreement.,That is why I suggested the space discussions. I went to the United Nations in Eisenhower's administration to make a similar suggestion. This year I thought maybe we could have a hope of a treaty with Russia. I made our proposal.,They came along some months later and made somewhat substantially the same proposal.,We do think that one of our great weaknesses in the world is the inadequate understanding. I think one of our problems is you don't understand my motivations and I don't understand yours, even though we work close together every day.,I think it is going to take a lot of explaining for the Russians to see what is truly in our hearts, because it is so different from what they really believe. The same thing is true of China and North Vietnam.,When they do understand, I don't think we will have as much trouble. So I am doing all I can to open up these things, to have newspaper people visit them. Look at some of the visas we have approved for people to go there.,We would like to see people go into Red China. We would like for some of them to come in here. I have gone into that in other areas. I tried to touch on that when I talked about our interests in the Pacific in my television speech that Mr. Fulbright 17 pointed out might have involved new commitments. It doesn't. We have no new commitments. We made that clear to him.,17 Senator J. W. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.,I have no desire to make any commitment by implication, or otherwise, without the approval of Congress--as I showed you before I sent the planes and Marines into North Vietnam. I got that resolution from the Congress on resisting aggression.,All I am saying is that we do have commitments and obligations out there already. I am trying to make those people see that we are not a big, bad wolf, who is going to eat them up.,We ought to find a better way in the world to live together, rather than just shooting off people's heads and cutting their throats.,PROBLEMS OF A PRESIDENT'S WIFE,[14.] Q. Mrs. Johnson, what are you going to have for dinner tonight?,Q. What did you give the President for his birthday, Mrs. Johnson?,MRS. JOHNSON. The present is not a secret, but it is not something that I am going to talk about.,As for what we are going to have for dinner, we are going to have barbecue, western-style beans--because they are expandable and, as you have heard, my husband has a habit of adding a few extra people--a couple of birthday cakes, and some homemade peach ice cream, which is one of our favorites here.,Q. What has your job been as a political wife over the last 30 years.,MRS. JOHNSON. That is a large question. I guess it has been sharing all of my husband's experiences and learning about our country.,If I may, I would like to add a sentence or two about what a trip like yesterday's means. I think it is something like this: You come back with an enormous appreciation of the lusty vitality of this country.,Did any of you ride in that helicopter over Idaho and look down? It looked like beautiful, lush, green patches and right next to it was a slot that looked like the landscape of the moon.,It was as if a giant pin had been drawn across the land dividing it. The difference was water. That is one of our big problems. It is far from solved, but as long as it is there waiting for you, anybody in public life can't help but just get excited about it and you are bound to be hopeful about man's ability.,Then you go to that reactor plant. It is very hard for me to understand anything about atomic science. But I can understand a light bulb. There you see the great possibilities for power that that opens up.,My husband has talked at length about what we saw in Denver, but something else was registering about every step of the way as we rode along several big boulevards with their gorgeous green median strips, bordered by great trees, and with brilliant flowers--all so well kept.,I was thinking that somebody loved this town and gave it a long lead time in planning it. Maybe they are not even around now, but their children are--just as ours will be 30 years from now for the plans that we need to make for the future of our cities.,You have no idea how delighted I was when we got out of the car and the first thing you (turning to the President) said to me was, \"Isn't this the prettiest city you ever saw?\",I was pleased you were thinking along the same lines, because what happens to our cities is at the top of the list of problems.,Q. Mrs. Johnson, are you planning any trips of your own this fall?,MRS. JOHNSON. I think mostly I will just go with him. I do have one or two that I want very much to take.,THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSING REMARKS,[15.] THE PRESIDENT. I would like to point out one thing that the publishers pointed out to me yesterday. They told me that when Denver was born there was no grass growing in the area, there was not a tree present. They said that all of that was manmade. Man brought in the grass, the trees, the water, the fertilizer that led to the beautiful scenery we saw.,That is what can be done with that kind of an area. We saw the same sort of thing in Idaho.,One of the deepest interests that I have had in the legislative field has been in the field of space, as you know. I had the Sputnik hearings, the investigation where we wrote the first space bill, the selection of the Administrator, and so forth. I never had a chance to go to Idaho.,I shall always be deeply in debt to Joe Martin.18 He appointed me as a member of the House on the Joint Atomic Energy Committee. I sat next to Senator Vandenberg all during my period of service on the committee. I remember how he presented his deepest thoughts on the effect of the atom on international relationships.,18 Representative Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts.,He was always making excellent doodles. When he would leave the room I would go over, pick them up, and put them in a little case. I have some of them framed now.,When I left the House to become a Senator, the first thing I shot for was the Atomic Energy Committee. When I became the leader I had to give it up. Senator Pastore didn't have a major committee and the only way to give him one was to give him one of my own. I did give up that one and now he is the ranking member of that committee.,I said in Idaho exactly what I said in Llano. We had a river washing any number of people into the Gulf. We put in six dams there. Now we have irrigation and beautiful crops, and a pretty recreation area where poor people can enjoy themselves.,I can remember in Llano when you could buy a thousand acres for $500. Recently I saw a green spot and asked how much it was worth. I was told $1,400 an acre. The same thing has happened here. The land has gone from $200 to $600 an acre. The reason is water. Man made the land in Llano 100 times more valuable, because of those dams.,Everybody in this country fought them. We had a big public investigation saying that I caused a manmade flood because we tried to build them. The power companies tried to keep us from building them.,Bob19 will remember, because in those days we had that Senate investigation. We saw what can be done. We had done it here and we are trying to do it in other places.,19 Robert E. Baskin of the Dallas Morning News.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-08-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. The Press Secretary tells me that some of you wanted to meet with me today. I am available for any questions you may want to ask.,THE VICE-PRESIDENCY IN 1968,[1.] Q. Mr. President, former Vice President Nixon said yesterday that he guessed that we might see a Johnson-Kennedy ticket in 1968, and that this might be some added insurance for you.,I was wondering if you could give us your estimate of Mr. Nixon's political perspicacity.,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the people of the country have a pretty good estimate of that. And I will just leave it at that.,THE COST OF LIVING,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the cost of living went up again in July and you are looking into rising medical costs. Now, I realize this is a repetitive line of questioning, but I wonder if you are considering any new steps in this direction other than examination of the situation.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We constantly review what is taking place, and the emphasis, and psychology, and factual information.,The increases from July last year to July this year were about 2 1/2 percent in the Consumer Price Index, compared to the average since World War II of about 2.6 percent per year, so they have been a little under it. With the rise yesterday, they will be approximately what the average has been since World War II, per year.,In some years, in the early 1960's, when we had a good deal of unemployment, and late 1950's, it was lower. In some years, like 1957, it was higher.,We are constantly receiving evaluations of these developments. We are concerned at the advance in physicians' fees and hospital costs, which were rather substantial the first 6 months of this year and were reflected in the estimate yesterday.,We are concerned with increased transportation costs, as reflected in the index yesterday.,We are very hopeful that we can appeal to those who set the standards on wages to keep their wage demands within reasonable bounds of productivity increases. We hope that those who determine profit margins will exercise self-restraint.,There is little I can add to what I said in my weekend statement on the economy. I recognize that when you have the full employment that we have, you are going to have problems with wages and prices. We are going to keep them in bounds as best we can. And as of now we think that record is reasonably good.,Prices have gone up roughly 10 percent since 1960. Wages have gone up roughly 17 percent during that same period. Profits have gone up 83 percent. So, as long as you can keep your wages and your profits up that much, you can understand that there will be some increase in prices.,Now, we are going to try to keep them all as stable as possible, but when you have wages rising, prices will rise--and they do rise over a period of 6 years, and they have risen over the last year--but comparably speaking, and relatively speaking, not as much as elsewhere.,I was talking to a distinguished leader of another country not long ago. He was rather hoping that he could keep his prices and wages and profits in line with ours. It may be that the Government will have to take other measures. But we are not ready to recommend them at this time. We are very anxious to see what the Congress does with the more than a dozen appropriation bills that are yet to be acted upon.,I can give you a little more information after we see whether they cut our budget or whether they add to our budget.,PARTY CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE AWARD OF\nGOVERNMENT CONTRACTS,[3.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in House debate on the appropriations for Project Mohole last week and again in a syndicated column in a morning paper here this morning, there have been suggestions that contributions to the President's Club of the Democratic Party may influence the award of Government contracts. Do you have any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they do not influence the award. And I think that you can expect to have periodic political charges of this kind until November. That has been my experience.,The Attorney General has instructions from the President to investigate every allegation that is made of impropriety and to take prompt action on any, where action is justified.,The Attorney General has a rather full statement on the various political charges that have been made. You will observe they usually come from the party that has been rather strongly rejected by the people and I guess they have to try to find an issue of some kind.,THE COST OF REBUILDING CITIES,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be an argument running over how much this country should spend to rebuild the cities. What do you think the country can afford?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we can afford whatever must be done. This administration has done more than any administration in the history of the country. I believe that the present expenditures in the cities would indicate that the Federal Government in the last 3 years has increased its expenditures about 33 1/3 percent, a third more than the previous administration.,And I believe the administration before that, Mr. Eisenhower's administration--we have practically doubled the expenditures in the cities that we were making then.,We have increased the expenditures since the Johnson administration from about onethird. So, we are going to concern ourselves deeply with the problem of the cities as evidenced by our recommendations of the demonstration cities bill, the new housing bill that we passed last year, the poverty bill, the rent supplement bill, the Teacher Corps bill.,No administration has ever, in its entirety, ever made as many recommendations, ever had as many of them adopted, or ever spent as much in the cities as this administration.,I don't want to get an exact figure, but I believe that we are spending about double what was spent in the Eisenhower administration and about 33 percent more than was spent in the Kennedy administration.,Q. Mr. President, would you consider the $50 billion over 10 years that Mayor Lindsay suggested for New York and the $250 billion that Mr. Cavanagh 1 suggested for all cities--are those figures realistic in any respect?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't examined their views on the matter. I am aware that some Federal funds that have been available to some of those cities, funds that haven't even been used, have been turned back because they were lacking in administrative procedures and so forth.,1 Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York City and Mayor Jerome P. Cavanagh of Detroit, Mich.,But the administration has made its recommendations. The Senate has acted upon those recommendations. They reduced our bill from about $2.3 billion to about $900 million and no amendments were offered to increase it when it was considered in the Senate.,We do hope that we can get some kind of a demonstration cities bill this year and we will make a very good beginning. Of course, we are sure that that will have to be increased from year to year. But the first step is to get the bill passed.2,2The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act (80 Stat. 1255) was approved on November 3 (see Item 574).,The bill that the administration recommended has been drastically reduced in the Senate.,VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you detect any change in the strategy of the enemy in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes. There are day-to-day changes that we observe. But I see no overall development that is worthy of particular significance at this time.,URBAN BACKLASH AND THE COMING ELECTIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in 1964 we asked you about backlash in the elections, and you correctly foresaw it wouldn't have any effect. Do you think it might be different this year in view of the problems in places like Chicago?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there are going to be a lot of the problems that exist in Chicago reflected in the elections, without any question. I think that the administration-Federal and State and city level--has to be constantly on the alert to do everything they can to face up to the modern-day problems and try to find solutions to them.,I see no evidence anywhere that there is any group that has a better answer to the problem than the one the administration has recommended from the Federal standpoint.,We have two parties in this country. I think that the administration program is pretty well known and, generally speaking, it is being supported by most of the members of our party and a substantial number of the members of the other party.,Now, there is really not anything else that I observe in competition to it. I don't know of any proposals that you would have to choose from where you would have an alternative to our recommendations.\nI have pointed out how we would try to deal with the cities through our poverty program, through our urban renewal program, through our housing program, through our supplemental rents, through our demonstration cities, through our 20 educational programs and our 20 health programs, and so forth.,I believe from the information I get that most of the people of the country are willing to try those programs, improve them, and to help us work them out. I made a trip into five States this last weekend. I discussed pollution, demonstration cities, rural problems, Vietnam, and others. I found a very helpful attitude on the part of the people. I was very well received. And I think that the people generally approve of what we are trying to do.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRAVEL PLANS,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Bellmon 3 of Oklahoma, to get back to politics for a minute, is described this morning in various dispatches as having wired you, advising you not to come into his State, on-his objection is against so-called nonpolitical trips in the political season. Is this sort of objection going to have any effect on your travel plans, or generally what do you think of this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it is not going to have any effect.,3Governor Henry Bellmon.,Q. Mr. President, are you going to west Texas to see the floods?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Sir, what are your travel plans for this weekend?,THE PRESIDENT. I plan to leave Friday morning and go to Idaho, from Idaho to Denver, from Denver to Oklahoma, and go home late Friday evening. And I expect to be at home at the ranch Saturday and Sunday observing the results of 58 years of very pleasant existence.,USIA BIOGRAPHICAL FILM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, recently aboard the - Sequoia you showed a USIA film to a group of officials, which was a biographical film. When I called U.S. Information Agency, the spokesman there refused to give the routine information like the cost of production and the content of the film. My question is, sir: Has there been any instruction from the White House to keep this information under wraps, and if not, could you give us the cost and the content of the film?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there have been no instructions. And I do not have the information, although I am sure it is publicly available to the appropriate committees. I have seen a story on it that has been published. If you will get out the clipsheets, I will ask Mr. Moyers 4 to try to help you if you need that information.,4Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,Q. Can we ask USIA to give us the information?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will give it to you if we have it available. I think it has been publicized. The USIA has made a number of films of that nature. I first knew of this film when I read it on the front page of the paper, so if you just read your papers I think you will have the information.,CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONSTRATIONS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the continuing violence in Chicago and the fears of more violence in Cicero this weekend, do you think that perhaps the civil rights demonstrations are becoming self-defeating and should be curtailed?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't have any comment on that in addition to what I said in Rhode Island the other day, and in New York the day before. I went into it rather fully, explained my viewpoint. And I would refer you to those statements.,POLL ON PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES FOR 1968,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Democrats would rather have Robert Kennedy as their 1968 presidential candidate than you, according to a recent poll of which I imagine you are aware, sir. But could you tell us, how do you explain this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have an explanation for it.,Q. Are you surprised, sir?,OUTLOOK FOR DEMOCRATS IN ELECTIONS,[II.] Q. Mr. President, a number of Democratic freshmen in Congress who came in in your election in 1964 have a lot of serious competition this year and there is a numbers game going on, of course, about how many seats the Democrats might lose and so forth.,Without playing a game, can you give us your assessment of the party's prospects in the congressional elections?,THE PRESIDENT. Since 1890, according to an article that I read the other day, from the Christian Science Monitor--it may be here now--there has been an average gain of 41 seats in off-year elections since 1890.,Now, I do not have the tabulation on each seat that will be up this year, and those that are marginal. But I do not have the feeling that there will be any substantial turnover in either the House or the Senate.,I have read the predictions made in the so-called numbers game that you refer to. Most of them come from the same old voices and the same old predictors that were predicting a substantial gain in 1964.,I have never seen them point to any specific district that they are going to take. I have been interested in having them point up where they are going to get 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 seats. They carefully stay away from that. The only test that we have really had that you could measure it by was in California in Congressman Baldwin's seat, the Republican that had held the seat for many years. He died and they had a special election.,That seat was taken by a Democrat. I think it would be unfair to assume because of that one instance the trend was toward the Democrats having captured a Republican seat?5,5Representative John F. Baldwin, Jr., a Republican, was elected in 1954 from the 14th Congressional District of California, which comprises Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay area. He died on March 9, 1966, and on June 7 the special election to fill his seat was won by Jerome R. Waldie, a Democrat.,But I do think you will find that there will be some seats like that that the Republicans lose and we will probably lose some. But I don't expect to see any unusual change from what you would expect normally in an election this year.,And I would be interested in anyone who would give me names and dates and specifics. I think that is an indication that they really don't believe what they are saying. I think in an election year 2 or 3 months before election you see a lot of people who try to create psychological situations and bandwagon approaches, and try to repeat a thing so many times that finally, folks begin to believe it. But the reports we get from the States that we visit, from the candidates that we talk to--we had a meeting of them recently--do not indicate that certainly there will be any change above the expected change in an off-year election.,Q. Would that mean 41 seats, sir? You cite the Christian Science Monitor. Would you accept that as a norm for this year?,THE PRESIDENT. No. No, I don't know of any. I would say the only election I know about is the California election. And if they can point up any others where they are going to take seats, I would be glad to. If I could, I would like to get you to point up that one.,THE OUTLOOK IN IOWA,Q. Mr. President, specifically on this same line, the Republicans have spoken very optimistically about those five freshman Democrats that you got from Iowa.,Do you have a reading on the Iowa situation?,THE PRESIDENT. There are five Democrats from Iowa, and I believe that all of them think that they will be reelected. I do not have any information to contradict that.,I had a very good reception in Iowa, and I have very good reports from Iowa. And there is not anything that I can see in the picture that would indicate that we are not going to have good results there.,AN ALL-ASIAN PEACE CONFERENCE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I just wondered if you would accept an all-Asian conference as a way of trying to settle the Vietnam war.,THE PRESIDENT. We have given our views on an all-Asian conference. I would not have anything to add to that.,Q. Mr. President, in that connection, Mr. Nixon said we ought to withdraw our offer to go to a Geneva conference, because it is a dead end street, and would be unacceptable to Asian nations.\nWould you comment on that suggestion?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am willing to go to a conference anywhere, where I think it would be helpful. I am not going to black out any place, although I think that you understand our picture in the world and in Asia well enough to understand that we would be very pleased to see an all-Asian conference, although we do not want to make it appear that we are trying to direct it or force it.,We think that there is nothing to be gained by our urging it from the housetops. We have made it clear that we would look with favor upon it. And we think it would be desirable. But we are not trying to \"hard sell\" it because it could have an opposite effect.,\"PERMANENT\" U.S. BASES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,[13.] Q. Mr. President, on Vietnam, the point is sometimes made both by the Communists and some people in this country that the United States is building a lot of permanent-type bases in both Vietnam, and now Thailand.,Despite the fact that you have said that we don't want permanent bases out there, they don't seem to believe this and cite it as an obstacle in negotiation. Is there anything you could say to further clarify that point?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I can understand their doubt. I have made it as clear as I know how to make it, that we do not intend to maintain any bases in South Vietnam or Thailand, that we have no desire to keep our men there.,We are ready to stop the moment they are willing to stop. I have even asked that we give thought to planning how we could convert these bases to useful civilian purposes, and we are giving study to that now.,You can't make a man believe something that he does not want to believe. But I believe, and I know, that this Government and this country has no desire to have permanent bases in South Vietnam. And once they stop trying to gobble up their neighbor, and we can have an agreement there, we will make it just as clear as we have in the Dominican Republic that we will come home.,ASIAN VISIT BY GENERAL EISENHOWER,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there was a wire report yesterday saying that at White House invitation, General Eisenhower had been invited to tour Southeast Asia. The people in Gettysburg refer us to the White House. Do you have any comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not aware of-we have not extended the invitation. That is the answer. Someone said that when the General was in the hospital that he visited with a representative of Thailand who happened also to be in the hospital. That became an official report. And that was the source of your news. I cannot confirm that But I have not extended to General Eisenhower any specific invitation to visit Thailand or any other place.,I am always anxious to see General Eisenhower, and to talk to him, and to receive his suggestions. But the first I knew of the story was when I saw it published.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH CAMBODIA,[15.] Q. In that connection, what is this Government doing to improve relations with Cambodia?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made it clear that in due time representatives of our Senate would be glad to again visit Cambodia, as Senator Mansfield and his group did last year, in an attempt to have a better understanding with that country. We would be very pleased to have Ambassador Harriman visit Cambodia at a date agreeable to Cambodia, and to our Government, and to Mr. Harriman. 6,6Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and U.S. Ambassador at Large W. Averell Harriman.,FEDERAL JUDGESHIP IN ILLINOIS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Douglas is up in arms over a report that Senator Dirksen 7 has been assured that the next Federal judgeship in Illinois will be filled on his recommendation. He threatens, if this is true, to invoke senatorial courtesy when the nomination comes up for confirmation. Could you perhaps clarify the matter by saying whether Senator Dirksen has received such a commitment?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not aware that Senator Douglas is up in arms, number one. Your report is the first information I have had. I am not aware of any commitment that has been made to either Senator in the matter.,7Senators Paul H. Douglas and Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois.,THE VICE-PRESIDENCY IN 1968,[17.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to the question about Mr. Nixon, can you give us an assessment of the role of the Vice President, Mr. Humphrey, and whether, if you are a candidate in 1968, you would like to have him on the ticket with you again?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that all of you know what I know, that the Vice President is a fine and excellent public servant and I would not--I am talking about Vice President Humphrey--I would not be guided in my view about the performance of Vice President Humphrey by either the wishes or the desires or the predictions of an ex-Vice President.,NOMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS;\nAMBASSADOR TO SWITZERLAND,[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any State Department appointments in the works today?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I am sending to the Senate the nomination of John S. Hayes as Ambassador to Switzerland. Mr. Hayes is associated with the Washington Post Company, Post-Newsweek radio-television stations here and in Jacksonville, Florida.,We have just received the agreement on it. And I will sign the nomination papers later today. That is the only one that I have in mind. We have one or two agreements out that have not come in which will complete all the ambassadorial vacancies. And there are fewer there than there have ever been before.,We have a vacancy in the Mann job, which we have tentatively selected a successor for, but they will probably be announced after it is determined when Mr. Johnson7a desires to--following his confirmation, after the Senate has acted, and when he desires to go to Tokyo. There will be several announcements there.,7a U. Alexis Johnson, nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to Japan. See also Item 474 [17].,We have only one vacancy at the moment. However, there will be three or four--the Mann vacancy and the Johnson vacancy, and other changes below the Secretary of State. When we can set those dates, which, I would suspect would be around in the fall sometime--I don't know when the Senate will act on the Johnson nomination, but it will be, I would guess, somewhere in the fall--we will make those announcements.8,8The President, in his news conference of September 21, announced appointments to fill the vacancies in question (see Item 474 [ 17] ).,RISING INTEREST RATES,[19.] Q. Mr. President, is the administration going to do anything about rising interest rates?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration wants as low interest rates as we possible can have. We have made some recommendations to the Congress. The Senate Banking Committee now has a bill that would direct and give authority to certain Federal agencies to set ceilings on certain monetary matters. We very strongly favor that bill.,So far as the administration itself telling a banker or a loan man how much he can charge, as you no doubt know, it has no such authority.,Acting upon the advice of a former President and Secretary of the Treasury, we created the Federal Reserve System and it is an independent board that has charge of the discount rate and thereby has some influence on interest rates. But the President, as such, or the administration, as such, cannot mash a button and tell people to charge more or charge less.,We would hope that, as Secretary of the Treasury Fowler has said a number of times, that the bankers would be very discerning in their loan grants and not make loans when we have a greater demand for loans than we have a supply of money to people, unless the loan had a demonstrable public interest and to exercise discretion in those loans.,Now other than that, we have no authority to say that this ceiling shall be 4 percent, or 5 percent, or 6 percent. There is legislation pending that would have some effect upon it.,If Congress saw fit to give the administration legislation in this field, why we would, of course, carefully review it and try to carry out the terms of the law.,Merriman Smith, United Press International. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-08-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have no announcements and no voluntaries. I just want to be available to you if you have any questions.,I said to some of the folks that were over while I was receiving some Ambassadors that I would meet with them a little later. I think they have all had time to get back here, some 20 or 25 minutes ago. So if you are ready and have any questions, I'll be glad to take them.,MILITARY SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, what can you tell us to sort of update the situation in Vietnam? We took some pretty bad losses there over the weekend in aircraft, and some of our ground troops have been in a pretty strong fight for the last couple of days. How do you appraise the military situation there now?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any change for the worse at all. Our plane losses are under those that we have estimated. Our helicopter losses are under those estimated.,You sometimes, as you know, have heavier losses than you expect, and sometimes much smaller. Weather, good luck on their part, bad luck on our part--lots of factors enter into those things.,But I wouldn't say that the losses are unexpected. As a matter of fact, I reviewed the situation with Secretary McNamara last night, and Secretary Rusk 1 and others. We are under our estimates on both helicopters and planes.,1Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, and Dean Rusk, Secretary of State.,THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES,[3.] Q. Mr. President, the Secretary of Commerce2 said yesterday that he thought it might be better now to measure the effect of wage and price increases on an individual. industry basis instead of on an across-the-board 3.2 percent basis. Does this reflect your thinking?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not so understand his statement. I think that what he said was that we all want an effective stabilization program--that we are going to do everything within the power of the leadership in Government to ask labor to stay within the guidelines and their productivity increases so we will not have to raise prices because of increased labor costs.,2 John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce.,Now that figure has changed some from time to time, and I don't know just how to dramatize it, as Smitty 3 advises me to do on these statistics. But the unit labor cost is now 99-something. So it is a little under 100.,3 Merriman Smith of United Press International.,We have been able to do that, keep those costs in line, reasonably well. There have been some that exceeded the suggested Government recommendations. The New York Transit, as you will all recall, was 5 percent-plus. The auto workers were 4½ percent-plus. I believe the lumbermen's was 5 percent, and others in that area.,Some have been lower. A good many industry prices have been rolled back. We have attempted, every time we could, to get labor to stay where they wouldn't raise prices because of increased labor costs, and to get industry not to raise prices, period.,Now in some instances they have announced them and then reconsidered. One company, I think, told us yesterday they had 300,000 different items. Some were being lowered. Some were being raised. A good many were changing without even the executives knowing it.,STEEL PRICE INCREASE,[4.] But in the recent steel increase, when the word reached us that there was a proposed increase, we asked them to discuss that with our people so (a) we could price it out and be familiar with it; and (b) that we could exercise or make any suggestions that we desired.,Some of those people talked to us. Others didn't. We regretted that all of them didn't talk to us. We regretted that there was an increase, any increase, in price, but there was.,And when asked by Secretary Connor, I think he took the position that any inflation or any increases are not to be desired, and any inflation is harmful. But the question of the degree and how do you measure it is there.,Now, there is about $18 billion worth of steel sales per year, 17.7, I believe. These increases will result in about $50 million extra revenue for the companies after taxes.,They felt they needed that $50 million. .We would hope that they could have avoided it. But they didn't agree. They made the decision. We urged them to reconsider that decision, but we have not been effective.4,4On August 4, 1966, the White House made Public a statement on the increase in steel prices by Gardner Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, in which he announced that after a price increase by Inland Steel Co. he had sent the following telegram to 12 steel companies: \"Onesteel producer is reported to have raised prices today on major steel products. May I urgently request that your company take no action prior to discussion with the Government. Appreciate courtesy of early reply.\",Mr. Ackley's statement pointed out that the Government's request had been ignored, and prices had been raised by four more companies. The statement concluded as follows:,\"In my view, the action of these companies can only be characterized as irresponsible. They were unwilling even to hear the Government state the public interest in this matter.,\"At this time, when Americans are fighting overseas, it is essential to maintain a stable economy. This means holding the line on prices and inflationary wage settlements. We have been urging voluntary cooperation and the good sense of labor and management. For this to be effective, it is necessary for those who have the power of wage and price decisions to be willing to discuss those decisions in advance, and to hear and understand the Government's position. Not to do so is deliberately to flout the public interest in cost-price stability at a critical time in our economic affairs.\",THE AIRLINES STRIKE,[5.] We did the same thing in the airline strike.5 We hoped that they would keep their increases as low as possible, but they could not be kept within 3.2. And we recommended, the leadership did, to the unions 4.3, and the union rejected that.,5 See [12.] below.,They are still trying to negotiate it out. That does not mean, though, that we do not desire a stable program, and that we are not going to try our best to have one. It may mean that we will study, as we do every week, and evaluate every possible way of handling these differences, and try to evolve any practical solution possible under our free enterprise, voluntary system to keep this program as stable as we can.,THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX,[6.] I have told you since 1960, with 1960 as 100, the United States Consumer Price Index has gone to 108. In Germany, it has gone to 117. They are a little over 200 percent more than we are and they have the best record.,The United Kingdom has gone to 121. France has gone to 122. Italy has gone to 129, Japan to 139.,So, I think it is good that you keep these things in perspective. And relatively speaking, some countries have--their cost of living has increased 500 percent more than ours. Now we wish it had not gone above 100. We think the 108 is undesirable.,And we think that if it goes up to 109, 110, 111, it is undesirable. We will do everything we can voluntarily to keep it below that.,The average increase since World War II has been 2.6 percent per year in the Consumer Price Index, 2.6 percent per year.,The increase for the last 12 months in this country has been 2.5 percent. The increase in the Consumer Cost Index, for instance, in 1957, was nearly 4 percent--3 point-plus in just the year 1957. The first year of the Korean war it was 10 percent, when you compare the situation then and the situation now.,I point those things out so that you can evaluate for yourself the extent of it and the effect of it. Our job is going to be to do everything we can to keep the economy as stable as we can. When we have full employment we always know that we have problems with prices and with wages.,LEGISLATION ON THE AIRLINES STANCE,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the continuing deadlock in the airline negotiations, do you wish the Congress to pass the resolution it now has before it?,THE PRESIDENT. Our position on that is very clear. It hasn't changed since Secretary Wirtz 6 enunciated it at the first hearing on 10 minutes' notice. He stated that we knew how to recommend legislation, and we did send up messages and letters from time to time. We had not sent any up in this instance. We did not desire to. We did not recommend legislation, period.,6W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor.,Now the Congress, from time to time, considers matters on its own motion and considers legislation. It is doing that, and it is a matter for them to decide. Our position is just as enunciated by Secretary Wirtz, at this time.,THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, does the administration still regard the figure 3.2 as valid still under the circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration feels that the 3.2 guidelines as interpreted by us with the flexibility that they have in cases of industries who have not had increases, and things of that nature, as of this moment is the best measuring stick that we have.,We recognize that in some cases it is difficult for certain union groups to feel that they are equitable. We realize that certain industry groups, such as the steel group, feel that certain obligations to them require them to make adjustments. Sometimes when they make an increase and it involves a larger part of their production than the decrease involves, we think that it is a mistake. But it still represents to us the best measuring stick we have.,It is not perfect. It is exceeded in sore instances. We are constantly searching for anything that seems to be fair and just. We have nothing better to suggest at the moment.,The Labor-Management Committee has been asked to consider every possible approach. They have heard businessmen's views on it. They have heard labor men's views on it, like we did back in OPA, and WPB, and those procedures, and they were constantly amending them. Industry committees were constantly changing them. So, we are asking industry to give their views, and labor to give their views. We have men like Mr. Murphy, of Campbell Soup Company, on that Board, Mr. Edgar Kaiser, Mr. George Meany, Mr. Walter Reuther.7 They are all on the Labor-Management Committee.,7 W. Beverley Murphy, president of Campbell Soup Co., Edgar F. Kaiser, chairman of Kaiser Steel Corp., George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, and Walter P. Reuther, president of the United Automobile Workers.,They have considered it, along with Secretary Connor--he referred to it yesterday-and Secretary Fowler. They have given thought to other approaches. I don't know that there will be anything to come out of that. I don't want to build it up, but I do say they are constantly assessing it, as is the administration, every day.,VIETCONG REPRESENTATION AT PEACE TALKS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, if I may go back to the Vietnam situation, could you talk to us a little about the peace front?,I am thinking specifically whether the administration has, in any way, changed its view on the presence at a truce table, if we ever get to one, of representatives of the Vietcong.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think I have a thing in the world to add to what I have already said on peace.,I think that any person who is really interested in the United States position knows it. And if they had as much information on the views of the others as they have on the United States, I think we would be closer toward peace.,We made clear during two pauses, during the visits of emissaries to more than 40 countries, during communications with over 100 nations, that we were willing to sit down at any time, at any place and discuss anything that had a reasonable chance of producing a settlement. We still stand ready to do that.,THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,[10.] Q. Mr. President, is the version of the civil rights bill, the housing section of the civil rights bill that emerged from the House Judiciary Committee, acceptable to you?,THE PRESIDENT. The House is considering that bill. And I think it is to be acted upon in the next day or two. The matter will then go to the Senate.,And while it is going through these adjustments and debate, I don't think there is anything I would want to contribute to it from this end of the line.,THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES,[11.] Q. Mr. President, is it fair to conclude from what you said about the 3.2 guidelines a moment ago that while you have nothing better to suggest at the moment, your mind is open to considering revision of that figure?,THE PRESIDENT. We are, and we have been, every week since I have been President, trying to find formulas and procedures that would be fair to the worker and the management. This seems to have been the procedure that up to now has done that, and still provided the best stabilization. Until we find something better, we will continue to follow it. We are constantly looking for something better.,THE AIRLINES STRIKE,[12.] Mr. President, on the airline strike, some of these airlines have different dates for negotiating--,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't hear you.,Q. Some of these airlines have different dates, as you know, for negotiating with the machinists. I think American Airlines' contract runs out at the end of July. My question is: Is it your intention to go ahead and exhaust all the emergency procedures that are at your disposal regardless of the action on Capitol Hill with regard to emergency airline strike legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be better to cross those bridges when I am faced with them, instead of this morning. I don't know what might develop in between.,And I am not sure that I follow the full import of your question. I wouldn't want to mislead you.,We were faced with the problem in the five airlines. We appointed the Board. The Board made its recommendations. We submitted the Board recommendations. They were unacceptable to Mr. Siemiller.8 They were upgraded some $7 or $8 million. And he did recommend them along to his workers. They were rejected.,8 P. L. Siemiller, president of the International Association of Machinists, which was involved in a labor dispute with five major airlines (see Items 256, 322, 360).,Now we are hopeful that once it is decided about the legislation we can negotiate an agreement between the workers and those five,,On American, we appointed a Board.9 That Board will make its recommendations. We will have to wait and see what happens there. On what happens down the road is a matter that will be met as it confronts us. I would not want to pass judgment before we get to it.,9 On July 27, 1966, the President issued Executive Order 11291 establishing an emergency board to investigate a labor dispute between American Airlines, Inc., and employees represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (2 Weekly Comp. Pres. Does., p. 1000; 31 F.R. 10175; 3 CFR, 1966 Comp., p. 134). The board was composed of John T. Dunlop, professor of economics at Harvard University, chairman, Bayless Manning, dean of the Stanford University School of Law, and J. Patterson Drew, Washington attorney.,On August 30, 1966, the White House announced that the board had submitted a 53-page, processed report to the President. The release stated that the board did not make specific recommendations on wage and other monetary items in the wage dispute because in its judgment such precise proposals would be a disruptive factor in the negotiations. Specific recommendations were included on such issues as work rules and grievance procedures, the release noted, and the public interest was stressed in the report (2 Weekly Comp. Pres. Does., p. 1184).,U.S. ECONOMIC STABILIZATION RECORD,[13.] Q. Mr. President, is it fair to say that the old system of economic management has broken down and we have got to find a new one? Is that a fair analysis?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I don't know what you mean by \"the old system.\" If you are talking about the guidelines, the answer is in the figures I think I have given you.,We have the best stabilization record of any industrial nation in the world. We have, comparably speaking, a much better record the last 12 months than we have had in the period when you had no guidelines--for instance, in 1957. We have a much better period than you did the first year of the Korean war.,I would say that in 6 years' time, to have an increase of 8 percent when the nearest one to you is 17 percent would show that it had done reasonably well. I would say that when the average increase in the last postwar period since World War II had been 2.6 and the increase this year is only 2.5, the last 12 months, that that would not indicate that the country was going to pot.,I think that we must constantly be concerned with every settlement and do everything we can to bring them in line. Sometimes when we do, people feel we do too much.,If we ask the aluminum people, or the steel people, or the molybdenum people, or the copper people to not make increases, folks feel that the Government shouldn't do that. If we ask the wage earners to take a 4.3 instead of a 5, 6, 7, or 8 percent raise, they think we shouldn't do that. But we have done it.,And I think the results have been better than they have been in any other country. They are not as good as we would like. We regret it is not a 100 percent batting record. But in the last 12 months it is 2.5 percent. The average since the war has been 2.6 percent. So we are under the average for all that period. We are under any other nation. The nearest one is 200 percent.,Great Britain and France are about 300 percent. Italy is about 400 percent. Japan is 500 percent.,So I don't know anybody who would want to move from here to go someplace to find where the cost of living is better.,FIREARMS CONTROL LEGISLATION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, have you any information on prospects for passage of the gun bill in this session of Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I presented my views the other day. I think they are well known. I have done it by message and I have done it by statement. Congress has a good many measures yet to consider.,We went over our program last night. We have signed some 50-odd bills of the some 80 or 90 that we expect. Some 15 or 20 of them have already passed the House, and some 10 or 15 passed the Senate that have not passed the House.,Our problem now is to get those two together. And we think we will have a very good record before the Congress adjourns. But just whether it will reach every bill that we want, of course, is always conjecture.,SOLUTIONS FOR URBAN PROBLEMS,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the problem of the cities, as is quite apparent, is a growing one. You said in Indianapolis that rioting in the streets is no way to make progress in civil rights.10 Yet rioting in the streets continues. Do you see any other moves that the Federal Government can take in this situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, a good many of them. We are trying to take some here in Washington. I asked them to take every step they could possibly take to find recreation, find employment, open the swimming pools, turn on the sprinklers, turn up new recreational areas here in the city of Washington. We have done the same thing with the mayors and with the Governors of the country in our meetings.,10See Item 347.,There are a good many things, though, that we can, and should, and must do in my judgment for the cities. We are now preparing for our budget for next year. We do plan to concentrate a good deal of our appropriations and our recommendations in this particular field.,The first thing they can do is provide a Teacher Corps, where we can have teachers in these areas that need help so much.,The second thing they can do is the new idea of rent supplements, which we think offers us the greatest opportunity since FHA was endorsed in this country to provide decent housing for poor people.,We have urged the Congress to adopt that principle, to embrace it. They have made a small appropriation, but we have another one pending in the Senate for the next year. And we have talked to some of the Senators. I met earlier this week with some of them and urged them to get action on the rent supplement.,On the Demonstration Cities bill, we recommended a program there that extended for several years. Some of the Senators felt it would be more acceptable and we could get it underway quicker if we moderated the program--instead of taking in several years, if we just made it smaller to begin with.,Mr. Califano 11 went up and conferred with the interested Senators, and we agreed on the kind of a bill that the Congress and the Executive would accept. They have reported that bill. We want to get a vote on the Demonstration Cities bill as soon as we can.,11Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,So the Teacher Corps, rent supplements, Demonstration Cities, plus anything and everything that we can do, is being considered. We are opening some of our Federal installations where we can to these families and these young people in crowded areas, for swimming pools and for playgrounds.,I have asked Secretary McNamara to review every facility. I have asked the Interior Department to do it. We think there is much to be done and very little time to do it, but we are getting ahead with the job as quickly as we can.,And I would hope before this Congress adjourns it would pass all three of those measures. We will have additional recommendations ready for the next session.,I am meeting with the Budget Director tonight at 6 o'clock to review those recommendations for the January budget of next year.,PLANS FOR FOREIGN VISITS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, are you giving any thought to the possibility of going out of the country this year, possibly to go into the Pacific area, such as Australia and New Zealand?,THE PRESIDENT. There are always possibilities that the President will travel, Smitty. You have been here longer than I have, and you know that.,I can't announce any plans at this time. I would not want to make a commitment to you that I wouldn't go. I have no plans. I am not working on any.,But I did indicate at Mexico City that the suggestion made by other leaders of the hemisphere that we have a meeting of the leaders was something that was worthy of consideration; and if a proper agenda could be worked out, if proper plans could be made for a conference, I thought a conference would be desirable.12,12 See Item 175.,Now if that happens, and those conditions are met, then, of course, I have indicated that I would be delighted to go. I have also indicated that I would like to visit other places. I have no plans to do so at the moment, but I would not want to indicate that I wouldn't go.,THE COST-OF-LIVING PROBLEM,[17.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to this question of inflation, out on the Midwest trip you were talking about the rise in personal income with 11 extra pay checks a year for families even after allowing for price increases.,How do you reconcile that with the figures from the Commerce Department that show that because of inflation, per capita buying power in 1958 prices actually is down from $2,287 to $2,277?,THE PRESIDENT. I would let you reconcile it. I haven't seen that. The statement that I made in my speech was an accurate one. I don't know about these figures. I would be glad to have someone go over them with you, but I don't have an answer to your question. I just don't know.,Q. Mr. President, along the same line, the labor unions seem to be saying that with the cost of living currently going up at an annual rate of 3 1/2 percent, they have to get increases at least that big just to stay even. How do you feel about that?,THE PRESIDENT. I can understand the views of the working people. I think we are all conscious when there are increases in the cost of living, and we are all concerned about them.,I think there are times when some of us have to understand that we can't have everything worked out just as we want them to be. That is certainly true so far as your President is concerned.,I have no magic and no wand that I can wave and say, \"This is just the way it should be.\" If I did, this curve that shows us at 108 would be at 100. But relatively speaking, I think that that tells a pretty good story. And that story I would like every American to know--it doesn't have any blood in it, and it is not as sensational, but it is better than any other country.,We have to constantly have as our goal a stable program to protect the dollar and try to keep wages and prices in line. There will be some months when it will go up more than others, but the record is this:,For 12 months it is 2 1/2 percent. There has been a 2.6 percent for every year since World War II. That is considerably less than some of those years, such as 1957, when you weren't too concerned with headlines every day on the thing. You had an increase of between 3 percent and 4 percent then.,And I think it is important for you and for the country to get this message: The Government is very concerned with an effective stabilization program. It is going to do everything that it can.\nLet me show you some headlines today:,\"Two in Cabinet back guidepost policy but ask revision.\"\n\"Wage-price guidelines may be eased.\",\"Government abandons wage-price guidelines.\",Now there are three different papers. I would say that the Government's position is that we are going to constantly reassess and reevaluate and try to find an effective formula. But until we do, we are going to urge upon labor and management to be as restrained as they possibly can be in this situation. Beyond that, we can't go any further.,If it gets to the point where they are not restrained and it appears that other measures are essential, of course, we will recommend them.,LYNDA BIRD JOHNSON'S EMPLOYMENT PLANS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report this morning from New York that your daughter Lynda Bird is job hunting in New York.,THE PRESIDENT. What about it?,Q. Is it true?,THE PRESIDENT. Lynda told me, I think yesterday, that she wanted to work this year and that she had been asked by three or four of her friends to come in for an interview. She is being interviewed this week and will be in the next several weeks, I think, preparatory to deciding what work she will do this year.,Q. Do you know what kind of work it would be?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it would be premature. I don't think she has decided, and I know that her employers have not. She has just told them that she would like to work there--work next year.,PRESS REPORTS ON FUTURE MILITARY NEEDS\nIN VIETNAM,[19.] Q. Mr. President, there were reports published this week about two studies.,THE PRESIDENT. What reports? Who published them? I want to see if it is worth my answer.,Q. The front page of the New York Times yesterday--and subsequent reports.,THE PRESIDENT. The Dale 13 story, are you talking about?,13 Edwin L. Dale, Jr., New York Times correspondent.,Q. No, the story on the reports, evidently out of Saigon, pointing to the need for our presence in Vietnam for 8 years, or with 750,000 troops for 4 years.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I saw that.,Q. Sir, do you consider that a realistic estimate of the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not been able to find any of those reports in the Government here. I read the reports. There were several deep, deep, deep backgrounders taking place out there by civilians and military people and different ones. I asked Secretary McNamara if he could confirm the existence of such a report. It was, I believe, alleged to be a Defense Department report. Is that correct?,Q. That is what the paper said, yes.,THE PRESIDENT. I called him and asked him. He said that he was not aware of it and he would check it and let me know. He came over last night and said he had not seen one. He was not aware that there was any Defense Department report; that he did not agree with the conclusions.,I have never seen it, or heard of it. The first I knew about it was yesterday morning.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-07-20","text":"WAR CRIMES TRIALS OF AMERICAN PRISONERS,[1.] Frank Cormier, Associated Press: Mr. President, what is your reaction to the talk from Hanoi about possible war crimes trials for American prisoners, and what might be the consequences of such an action?,THE PRESIDENT. We feel very strongly, Frank, that these men, who are military men, who are carrying out military assignments in line of duty against military targets, are not war criminals and should not be treated as such.,We are ready, whenever the Hanoi government is ready, to sit down at a conference table under the sponsorship of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to discuss ways in which the Geneva Conventions of 1949 can be given fuller and more complete application in Vietnam.,We think that the thought that these American boys have committed war crimes is deplorable and repulsive. Your Government has taken every step that it considers appropriate to see that proper representations on this subject have been made.,BOMBING IN NORTH VIETNAM,[2.] Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, again in connection with the war in Vietnam, there is a recurrence of requests or recommendations that the United States again halt the bombing of North Vietnam. These requests have come from everybody from the Indian Prime Minister to factions in this country. What is your reaction to this sort of urging?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has made clear to the Government of India and to all other governments that at any time the Government of North Vietnam is willing to sit down at the conference table and discuss ways and means of obtaining peace in the world, that on a few hours' notice the United States will be there.,My closest representative is ready and willing and anxious at any time to enter into those discussions.,I do not think that we should spend all of our time, though, examining what the Government of the United States might be willing to do without any regard to what the enemy might be willing to do.,We have stated again and again our desire to engage in unconditional discussions and I repeat them again today.,But we can't talk about just half the war. We should talk about all the war, and we have not the slightest indication that the other side is willing to make any concession, to take any action that would lead to the peace table.,And until there is some indication on their part, we, of course, would not expect to tie the hands of our men in Vietnam.,THE AIRLINE STRIKE,[3.] Garnett Homer, Washington Evening Star: Mr. President, do you contemplate any further action in the airline strike?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Secretary Wirtz has made a statement, a rather strong statement, within the hour in connection with that controversy. The President has followed the law. We have taken every legal step that we could. We appointed and convened a very fair and judicious Board of distinguished Americans who heard testimony that runs into the hundreds of pages, made proper recommendations and drew appropriate conclusions, and submitted them to the President.1,1 For the President's remarks in response to the Emergency Board report on the airlines labor dispute, see Item 256.,My advisers examined those recommendations, and I, as President of this country, urged both labor and management to follow the Board's recommendations.,The Board recommended that the airlines pay approximately an additional $76 million in increased wages and benefits.,After some consideration, the management agreed to the Board's recommendations, but the union representatives refused.,We have no legal remedies left to us in the Government. We have done all we can do under the law. We are continuing to persuade the management and labor people to continue their discussions. We are hopeful that they will continue those discussions and work around the clock, because the people of this country deserve to be served.,While we have no law that can force the men to go back to work, I think the patience of the American people is being tried. And although the Government has done everything it can do to keep the mail moving, to serve the needs of defense, the time has come when a settlement is indicated. We would hope that the parties would continue to bargain until a decision is reached.,EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS WITH HANOI,[4.] J. F. Ter Horst, Detroit News: Mr. President, would it be possible, or has any thought been given to the idea of a prisoner exchange with Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had no indication that the government of Hanoi is open to any of the appeals or any of the suggestions that we have made from time to time. We think that we have made very clear, through our emissaries and through governments who are talking to both parties, our desire to sit at the table and discuss any subject that the other side desires to discuss.,But we have received no response whatever that would indicate the willingness on the part of the other side to do this.,U.S. REACTION IN THE EVENT OF WAR CRIMES,TRIALS,[5.] John Steele, Time Magazine: Mr. President, your Ambassador to the United Nations and several other administration spokesmen have issued rather somber warnings about the course of the war in the event the prisoners are brought to trial. I wonder if you would care to inform us now what actions you might desire to take in the event that the trials do take place?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to go further on that, John, than I have gone. I think the people of this country and the peaceful people of the world would find this action very revolting and repulsive, and would react accordingly.,U.S, POLICY ON VIETNAM,,[6.] Edward P. Morgan, ABC News: Mr. President, two related questions on Vietnam, sir. Members of your administration in the past have said, in effect, that we were not seeking a military solution to the problem of Vietnam, but it has been widely interpreted that your Omaha and Des Moines speeches 2 changed that. Is that true?,2 See Items 311 and 312.,Secondly, what do you feel about the theory that every major military conflict has a point of no return, and when that is reached it is difficult, if not impossible, to control?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the answer to your first question is no. The Omaha and Des Moines speeches did not change the consistent policy of this country that we have followed ever since I became President.,Second, I think that the important thing for all of us to remember is that we are ready and willing now, and have been, without any limitation whatever, to discuss any subject with the enemy at any time that he is willing to discuss it. But, Ed, until he gives some indication that he will sit down and talk, I see nothing to be gained from these exploratory excursions.,EFFECT OF SLOGANS AND RACIAL DISTURBANCES\nON CIVIL RIGHTS,[7.] Marianne Means, King Features Syndicate: Mr. President, do you believe that such developments as the \"black power\" slogan and the disturbances in Chicago and Cleveland have created a new antagonism among whites that might hurt the civil rights movement?,THE PRESIDENT. I am very concerned about the conditions that exist in many of the large cities of this country during this summer. I have talked to the Governors on that subject this morning, and I have been in touch with a number of the mayors in most recent days.,As I said in the previous press conference,3 I am not interested in \"black power\" or \"white power.\" What I am concerned with is democratic power, with a small \"d.\",3 See Item 310 [17].,I believe that if we are not to lose a great many of the gains that we have made in recent years in treating people equally in this country, giving them equality in opportunity, equality in education, and equality in employment, then we must recognize that while there is a Negro minority of 10 percent in this country, there is a majority of 90 percent who are not Negroes.,But I believe most of those 90 percent have come around to the viewpoint of wanting to see equality and justice given their fellow citizens.,Now they want to see it done under the law and they want to see it done orderly. They want to see it done without violence. I hope that the lawfully constituted authorities of this country, as well as every citizen of this country, will obey the law, will not resort to violence, will do everything they can to cooperate with constituted authority to see that the evil conditions are remedied, that equality is given, and that progress is made. And I shah do everything within my power to see that that is done.,ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL AGITATORS,[8.] Sid Davis, Westinghouse Broadcasting: Mr. President, does the administration have any information that the current wave of riots are the work of professional agitators who want to foment trouble in our major cities?,THE PRESIDENT. Wherever there is trouble, there are always individuals to whom suspicion is attached. But I would not want to say that the protests and the demonstrations are inspired by foreign foes. I do say that on occasions where you find this trouble, you also find people who do not approve of our system, and who in some instances contribute to the violence that occurs.,THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH ON U.S. ASIAN POLICY,[9.] Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News: In your speech last week,4 you suggested a conciliatory attitude toward mainland China under certain conditions. Do you have in mind an administration initiative that would lead toward a two-China policy in the United Nations, or is the administration attitude toward Communist Chinese admission to the United Nations the same as it has been?,THE PRESIDENT. It is the same as it was in my speech. I spelled it out in somewhat substantial detail in that speech. I feel that we should do everything we can to increase our exchanges, to understand other people better, to have our scientists and our businessmen, our authors and our newspaper people exchange visits and exchange viewpoints.,4 For the President's remarks to the American Alumni Council on United States policy in Asia, see Item 325.,I would hope that as a result of tearing down these harriers that some day all people in this world would be willing to be guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, that all peoples would want to cease aggression and would try to live in peace and understanding with their neighbors.,So far as I am concerned, every day I am looking for new ways to understand the viewpoint of others. And I hope that at a not too distant date mainland China will be willing to open some of the barriers to these exchanges and be willing to perhaps come nearer to abiding by the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter.,THE SAIGON GOVERNMENT'S PEACE PROPOSALS,[10.] Forrest Boyd, Mutual Broadcasting System: Mr. President, to carry the discussion of Vietnam one step further, the Saigon government has said, I believe last night, that the bombing of North Vietnam would stop immediately and allied forces would be asked to withdraw from South Vietnam if Hanoi would meet certain conditions, including stopping fighting and withdrawing their forces.,Do you agree with this? Is this in line with our policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not examined that statement carefully. I heard it reported and I read a ticker item on it.,I look with favor upon the general suggestion made. There is nothing that we would welcome more than for Hanoi to be willing to stop its infiltration and stop trying to gobble up its neighbor; to permit those people to engage in self-determination and select their own government. We generally approve of the sentiment expressed in the Saigon statement as I interpreted it.,THE VIRGINIA PRIMARY ELECTIONS,[11.] Raymond L. Scherer, NBC News: Two old-timers in Congress went down in the Virginia primary.5 What do you see as the political significance of this?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't attach any particular significance to the defeat of a Member of the House or the Senate.,5Senator A. Willis Robertson and Representative Howard W. Smith were defeated in the Democratic primary election of July 12, 1966.,In this instance, I think it is a question of the people of the State being rather evenly divided in connection with the Senate race, and that frequently happens under our democratic system.,I know of no unusual significance that I would attach to it. I think each year you will see some of the candidates win and some lose.,TRADE AND OTHER CONTACTS WITH CHINA,[12.] Robert Pierpoint, CBS News: Under what conditions, Mr. President, would the administration consider reducing its trade barriers against Communist China?,THE PRESIDENT. I think until we can have more understanding of what China's plans are and China's hopes are, and what China expects to do in her own way in the future, we would not want to determine our complete course of conduct.,I think we have tried to lead the way by asking them to accept as visitors some of our people, some of our businessmen, and to discuss these problems with them.,We fervently hope, as I have said again and again and again, that all nations in the world will give up their thoughts of aggression and force, and will be willing to abide by the principles of the United Nations Charter.,Now until we see some evidence of the willingness of the various countries that may be involved to do that, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on what our action might be. We are hoping, we are working to the end that all nations embrace those principles.,I.EGISLATION TO CONTROL STRIKES,[13.] Ted Knap, Scripps-Howard: Mr. President, recalling your State of the Union6 promise to seek legislation to deal with strikes that threaten irreparable damage to the national interest, do you still plan to ask for such legislation, and might this include compulsory arbitration in something like the airline strike?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had administration people working on possible proposals to submit to the Congress that could be used in cases of emergencies that vitally affect the public interest.,6 See Item 6.,I must frankly say to you that up to this point we have been unsuccessful in getting legislation that the Secretary of Labor and the other members of my Cabinet felt acceptable, and that we felt would have any chance of passage in the Congress.,We are still searching for an answer. And we would like to find a solution that could be embraced by the administration, management, labor, and the Congress. But up to this point we have been quite unsuccess.,EFFECT OF HIGH INTEREST RATES,[14.] Mrs. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Mr. President, every State and every city almost is feeling this terrible tight money squeeze and lack of credit, particularly in the housing industry. Mr. Larry Blackmon, the head of the Home Builders,7 has called an emergency meeting for July 27. I wonder if you have any solution or any policy that will help us out?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have made suggestions to the Congress before they recessed. The Secretary of the Treasury met with the appropriate committees and recommended that they take certain action in connection with deposits of $10,000 or under, or $100,000 or under, by placing a maximum ceiling rate on the interest paid on those deposits.,7 Larry Blackmon, president of the National Association of Home Builders.,The administration thought that would be helpful. The Congress did not desire to act at that time.,They passed a resolution calling upon the Federal Reserve Board to take action in the matter. The Secretary of the Treasury went back to a committee of the Congress, and is working with them now. I discussed that subject last night. He hopes that we can obtain action through the Banking and Currency Committee of the House on legislation that will be helpful.,We are seriously concerned with the plight of the homebuilder. We are distressed at the increased costs that are involved in the high interest rates.,We had deep concerns last December when the increase was made by the Federal Reserve before the budget was submitted and without coordinating with the other fiscal agencies of the Government. But in the light of the situation as we see it now, the best thing that can be done is for Congress to act upon the legislation we have recommended-,We expect them to do that. And we will do everything we can to expedite it.8,8The bill to stimulate mortgage credit for residential construction was approved by the President on September 10, 1966 (see Item 451).,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PLANS,[15.] Robert G. Spivack, Publishers Newspaper Syndicate: Mr. President, I know you are concerned about Vietnam and with your many domestic problems. And I know there have been suggestions that you are not a very good politician, but this is a political year and I wonder what your plans are for participating in the campaign, particularly where Pat Brown 9 is concerned, or some of the other races that might be of interest.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Bob, I am inclined to agree with some of those people who think that I am not a very good politician some of the time. I am going to try to do my job as best I can.,9 Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown of California.,I do recognize this is election year. I will be called upon to visit various parts of the country. I expect to do so. I don't think that the people of California need any advice from me to know that Governor Brown has been a great Governor.,I expect to repeat that statement if given the opportunity between now and November, not only in California, but other places.,I think a part of the President's job is to go out into the country, to meet the people, to talk to them, to exchange viewpoints with them.,I plan to take Saturday off this weekend and to go into Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, and Indiana, and I will spend the weekend visiting with the people of those States.,I don't expect to do that every week, but as my duties here in the White House permit, I will take advantage of every opportunity to go out into the country and discuss our program, our convictions; tell them what we stand for, and ask for their support.,SUMMIT MEETING OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE\nLEADERS,[16.] Catherine Mackin, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, at your last press conference you expressed some satisfaction in the economic and political growth of South America.10 In view of this, I wonder if you can tell us what progress is being made toward the summit of Western Hemisphere leaders, and when that meeting will be held?,THE PRESIDENT. We do not have a date or a place. The leaders of the countries in the hemisphere are now very carefully considering the subjects for that conference. The staff work is being done on the subjects and the problems that the conference would deal with.,10 See Item 320 [1.],I am unable to, and I think the leaders of the hemisphere at this time are unable, to designate a time or place.,I discussed with the President-elect of Bolivia 11 today this conference, and we look forward with a great deal of interest, other countries being willing, to carrying out the suggestions originally made by a Latin American leader. But the time has not been set.,11 Gen. Rene Barrientos Ortuno, who took office as President of Bolivia on August 6, 1966.,We think it would be very fruitful and we would be glad to attend it, and we will, assuming time is given for proper preparation by the staff people.,TREATMENT OF AMERICAN PRISONERS,[17.] John Scull, ABC News: Mr. President, there have been an assortment of rumors from Communist sources during the past week which indicate that the North Vietnamese leaders may be planning to place American prisoners in factories, or, indeed, even in oil installations in an effort to force you to call off the attacks. What would your reaction be to any such move?,THE PRESIDENT. John, I have tried to give my viewpoint and the viewpoint of this Government on the men who have been captured. I would hope that they would receive humane treatment in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1949.,I believe that any other treatment accorded them would not be accepted by the civilized world. And I do not want to make any predictions or speculations about what will happen.,I have expressed my viewpoint on what should happen.,FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,[18.] Richard Wightman, Fairchild Newspapers: Mr. President, you recently said that freedom of information should never be restricted unless it affected national security. One of my papers, Women's Wear Daily, obtained from one of its own sources a news story about your daughter's wedding 12 and printed it.,12 The President's daughter Luci was to be married to Patrick J. Nugent on August 6, 1966, at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.,Because of this, the White House has withdrawn our press credentials to cover the wedding.,Don't you think in light of this that it rather goes against your own philosophy of press freedom?,THE PRESIDENT. I guess I would need a little more information before I got into a complete answer to your question.,The information I have indicated that in order to serve all the press, certain rules were laid down, and that the press, for their convenience, was asked to follow those rules so no one would have an advantage.,Because either some did not accept the rules or some did not follow them, some differences emerged. But if I could have your permission to just step aside on any of the detailed wedding arrangements, I would like very much to do so. Thank you very much.,THE SITUATION IN VIETNAM GENERALLY,[19.] Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Mr. President, would you give us your appraisal of how the Vietnam war is going, sir, particularly whether or not more manpower might be required there?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, more manpower will be required. We are working day and night on all four fronts.\nThe economic front--and the report this evening from Ambassador Lodge 13--indicates that there has been some improvement in prices and the economic situation there.,13Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,The diplomatic front--our representatives and the representatives of other nations are now exploring in other capitals, in many other places, the possibilities of trying to find a way to get to the peace table.,On the political front, plans are going forward for the election of the Constituent Assembly early in September, and numbers and numbers of candidates are filing for the places.,We are supplying such advice and counsel as we can in the hope that this will be an orderly democratic election where the majority of the people can freely express themselves, and select the leaders of their choice.,On the military front, our troops under General Westmoreland 14 are giving an excellent account of themselves. They are attempting to anticipate the enemy and doing everything they can to deter him from further aggression, from additional infiltration, and from the terror that he practices.,14Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,The results have been that the enemy has lost about 10 men for every loss the Americans have suffered.,I believe the record for the last 10 weeks shows that the enemy has lost in excess of 1,000 men each week. Our average has been something like 100. This week I believe it is less than 100, and I believe theirs is more than 1,200.,The mail that I get, some 50 or 60 letters from the battlefront each week, shows the morale is high, that the men are well trained, that they are well and adequately supplied, and properly led.,We ceased speculating a long time ago on how long this situation would endure. But I have said to you and to the American people time and again, and I repeat it today, that we shall persist.,We shall send General Westmoreland such men as he may require and request, and they will be amply supplied. I have no doubt but what they will give a good account of themselves.,Overall, I would say that the reports from the captured prisoners--and there have been about twice as many defectors so far this year as there were the same period last year, some 10,000 compared to 4,000--but the interviews from a sample of 150 this week indicate that about 15 to 20 percent of the men that have been captured show that they are boys from 12 to 16 years of age.,They show that a good many of their people take 3 months in the infiltration, walking down from North Vietnam, that a good many of them are suffering from malaria, and beriberi, and other diseases.,The men who conducted the bombings on the military targets, the oil supplies of Hanoi and Haiphong, did a very careful but very perfect job. They hit about 90 percent of the total capacity of that storage, and almost 70 percent of it was destroyed.,Our reports indicate that there were few civilian lives lost, if any. One estimate was that one civilian was killed, and he was the one that was at the alarm center.,We were very careful not to get out of the target area, in order not to affect civilian populations. But we are going, with our allies, to continue to do everything that we can to deter the aggressor and to go to the peace table at the earliest possible date.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-07-19","text":"IMPACT OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS\nADD-ONS ON THE BUDGET,THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Ladies and gentlemen, we had some meetings yesterday and today. We had some earlier in the week that may be of interest to you. I thought if you would like, I will review them very briefly with you.,Within the last week, I have talked to the Democratic leaders concerning the congressional add-ons to the authorization and appropriation bills recommended in the President's January budget. At their suggestion we had a bipartisan meeting yesterday afternoon and reviewed in some detail some of these specific add-ons and the potential add-ons.,At the suggestion of Senator Dirksen, Mr. Ford, Mr. Mansfield, the Speaker, and Mr. Albert,1 we asked the chairmen of the subcommittees on appropriations of the House and Senate, full committees of the House and Senate, the ranking minority members, and other members of the appropriations committees to come and meet with us this morning.,1Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Senate Minority Leader, Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, House Minority Leader, Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Senate Majority Leader, Representative John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Representative Carl Albert of Oklahoma, House Majority Leader.,I pointed up to them that we have had relatively few appropriations bills arrive at the White House. But up to this point the add-ons amounted to a little less than $1 billion. However, the budget statisticians and estimators indicated a potential add-on of between $5 billion and $6 billion to the President's budget, which would throw that budget somewhere up in the neighborhood close to $120 billion without any Vietnam supplemental.,If we carry on the war at the present rate that it is going--if the war goes beyond June 1967, as you have been told several times and Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara has testified before the committees--there will be a substantial supplemental for Vietnam. But we can say at this time, while last week we took steps to reduce what could be a potential reduction of $1 billion in air ordnance, this morning the Secretary had to take an increase in, we will say, 105 millimeter ammunition. While last week he might have found a reduction in some item, this week he will have increased petroleum charges because of the increased number of sorties. So we cannot tell about that at this stage.,We have ample funds to carry us through next spring--some date then. We have authority to use them. There is now $100 million available--somewhere in that neighborhood. We are looking at it very carefully. We won't know when we will make a request for additional funds for Vietnam. That will depend on developments, circumstances, and studies that are now being made.,We do know that the Congress is now acting on the appropriations bills. Other than the Defense Department, there are indications that there will be very excessive add-ons that will total between $5 billion and $6 billion.,COURSES OF ACTION TO PREVENT\nOVERHEATING THE ECONOMY,[2.] So I outlined to them the alternatives. I want to stress to you that is an alternative--I want to repeat--an alternative now in dealing with the economy that is heating up.,There are three real alternatives to deal with it, according to the economists. One is price and wage controls. Few, if any, recommend that alternative number one.,Number two, the alternative of reducing expenditures. The votes would indicate, from the increase in the pay scale yesterday that I signed, the military authorization that has been passed, the military appropriation bill up today, that there are going to be no reductions today. The Congress itself is voting those unanimously. Therefore, you have to look at the nonmilitary items.,In the budget estimates there are only $23 1/2 billion of items that are reducible. You take out the compensation, the social security, the contracts that already have been awarded, the civilian and military pay, the interest on the public debt, and those items, and you only have $23 1/2 billion that is reducible.,It appears that might be increased by some $5 billion or $6 billion. The HEW appropriation bill is about half a billion dollars as it passed the House. The Agriculture appropriation bill is a little under $100 million as it passed the House. Water pollution is a little under $276 million as it passed the House. Military medical benefits are $213 million.,There are indications that the inability to finance the sale of properties under HUD could run over half a billion dollars. The interest on the public debt would be up about $150 million over the estimate. The pay raise is about half a billion dollars.,So there are some of the items that I called to their attention and asked that they carefully review them.,So, alternative number one--controls-seems to have no support.,Alternative number two--reducing nondefense expenditures--is a matter we discussed with them, the possibility of doing that. They are going to evaluate that very carefully and see what the Congress can do, because if the Congress is unable to do that, that carries you to alternative number three. This would either mean a substantial deficit and deficit financing, which we would prefer not to have, or a tax bill.,THE NEED FOR RESTRAINT IN CONNECTION\nWITH APPROPRIATIONS INCREASES,[3.] Now, before we can determine whether we will have a deficit or a tax, we have to see what happens to their ability to restrain these add-ons. If we can stay within the budget, we would like to. We are going to make that attempt.,So the purpose of the meeting was to ask them to see what they could do to restrain them. I reported to them that for the third consecutive year our deficit, the 1966 deficit, was less than we anticipated. We anticipated that deficit would be $5 billion 300 million when it was submitted to Congress 18 months ago. That estimate was revised last January. It was estimated we would have a deficit of $6 billion 400 million.,Actually, we have reduced the nondefense expenditures this year by $600 million. We have substantially increased the military expenditures and the revenue. But the deficit that was estimated 18 months ago at $5.3 billion and 6 months ago at $6.4 billion, is today, at the end of the fiscal year, final, $2.3 billion--the lowest deficit in the last 3 years.,This marks the third straight year in which the actual deficit has been lower than what the President has predicted in his State of the Union Message.,I think it demonstrates that we are maintaining a very strong and healthy economy. For that reason, I want the Members to work with us to try to continue that strong and healthy economy and that is only possible if revenues can approximately match expenditures. In this year, our revenues have considerably exceeded our estimates. I am very proud of this fiscal achievement.,I hope Members of Congress will do what they can to be helpful. We will be in constant touch with them and make whatever decision is needed to be made down the road.,OTHER MATTERS DISCUSSED AT THE MEETINGS,[4.] I think, in summarizing, I would include other things that we talked about. I gave them the weekly report from Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland which comes to us. It is a secret report. It gives the developments from the military standpoint.,I reviewed with them the estimates on farm income that the Council had just reported to me. The revised data for the first quarter now shows that the realized gross income was $48.4 billion. That is up from the earlier estimate of $47 billion, up $1.4 billion.,Q. Is that at the annual rate, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. For the first quarter, that is, the farm income rose even higher than we had thought. The revised data for the first quarter showed realized gross income of $48.4 billion, up from the earlier estimate of $47 billion. It shows for the first half, as a whole, that the gross farm income was up 8.1 percent from 1965; up 28.1 percent from 1960; net farm income was up 10.2 percent from 1965, or 39.6 percent from 1960. Net per farm was up 13.6 percent from 1965 and up 67 percent from 1960.,We reviewed the price structure, the farm products, the processed foods, the industrials, Consumer Price Index, and so forth.,Q. Mr. President, were those figures of gross income up and so forth in billions or in percentages?,THE PRESIDENT. These are in percentages.,SUMMARY AND INVITATION TO QUESTIONS,[5.] So I want to emphasize what the meeting was about this morning. It dealt with two things, very simple: The add-ons that had been made up to now, which are short of a billion dollars, to the budget. The potential add-ons which could be between $5 billion and $6 billion, for nonmilitary-I mean non-Vietnam.,And those items I told you are education, health, agriculture, pollution, and general over and above the budget. That is it.,I will take your questions within a reasonable limit.,I gave you this briefing because I did conduct the meeting this morning myself. I thought I could give you a summary a little better directly than through somebody.,I have a Security Council meeting now. So you follow the questions and take a reasonable time.,QUESTIONS,MEETING ON BIPARTISAN LEADERS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, what specifically did you ask the bipartisan leaders, the group this morning, to do?,THE PRESIDENT. I asked the chairmen of the committees to meet with the chairmen of their subcommittees and their ranking minority members and scrutinize every proposed add-on to the budget.,Of course, the desirable thing would be to keep the budget to $113 billion. But we have already added a billion dollars, so we can't do that--through appropriations it is now $114 billion. But, in any event, I pointed up there has been a billion dollars added on.,The bill I signed yesterday was within our guidelines. We had hoped that this inflationary pressure would not hit us in July, but would hit us in January. This started the $500 million earlier than we had hoped. It has cost us. But that is already a fair accompli. There was one vote in the House against it and none in the Senate. Representative Fogarty voted against it.,I talked to the leadership about it. I think they would like to be helpful, but the sentiment was not there.,NEWS CONFERENCE PLANNED,[7.] Q. The North Vietnamese Ambassador to China said--,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to get in the war picture and Vietnam tomorrow, if I could. I have the Security Council waiting for me. I don't want to go into general questions.,Incidentally, if that meets with your pleasure, we will have a press conference at 4 o'clock tomorrow, if we can arrange for the East Room.2 You can have radio and television.,2See Item 338.,PROSPECT OF TAX INCREASE,[8.] Q. In the three alternatives, Mr. President, it seems to me unless we can keep the add-ons reasonable, there will have to be a tax increase.,THE PRESIDENT. No. There are three alternatives. The first one appears out. From there we don't know. I wouldn't make the mistake of saying the President intimated anything. I think it is a very serious error. We don't know. The President doesn't know. He would like to be positive this is the course. The first thing we are going to do is: We are going to see what can be done to reduce expenditures. Once we look at that and we look at the Vietnam expenditures, the thing will shape up a little better.,POTENTIAL APPROPRIATIONS ADD-ONS,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you listed some figures here, half a billion dollars HEW, $300 million, $276 million water pollution, and that kind of thing.,THE PRESIDENT. Those are founded figures.,Q. These are proposed add-ons?,THE PRESIDENT. These are add-ons that have passed the House or that have been in committee. They are the things that appear to the budget people as likely add-ons. These figures I believe are rounded, so I want to make that clear. I don't want to get my credibility involved here.,CONGRESSIONAL REACTION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, did you get any encouragement from the leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. I found every man present very cooperative and very anxious to work nonpartisanly to maintain a sound fiscal situation. They were very cooperative, helpful, and courteous. They made good suggestions. There are a lot of demands for these appropriations.,We know that for too long we have delayed educating our people. We know that for too long we have delayed facing up to our pollution problems. We know that for too long we have not faced up to our health dangers.,But we have made recommendations in the budget. We have gone just as far as we think we can go in the light of the economic situation as we see it. It is $113 billion. What we are talking about is not the $113 billion, because if we cut everything out of it that is not frozen, we couldn't cut but $23 billion. That is all you have to work with. What we are talking about is the potential $5 billion or $6 billion that is being considered.,Q. Mr. President, do you think it is fair to say that what you told these gentlemen adds up to saying if they don't cut back these add-ons--,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would stop you there. I wouldn't say I made any ultimatum to them at all. We haven't reached that point. What I said is, \"Fellows, you go and see if you really want to add to this $113 billion, and we hope that you won't. We recommend that you don't.\",But to trace it beyond that will get you in water over your head, because I don't know exactly how deep that water is myself until we can see what the add-ons are, until we see what the Vietnam expenditures are. I have seen the best intentioned people send the stock market down. I don't want to do that.,POSSIBILITY OF SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any possibility of a special session of Congress for a supplemental for Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. That hasn't been discussed with anyone. I haven't heard it mentioned.,PROBLEMS IN FORECASTING EXPENDITURES,[12.] Q. On the ammunition that Secretary McNamara is having to order as of today, does this wipe out the savings that he had?,THE PRESIDENT. I was trying to use that as an illustration to you. No, it won't. It is just one item out of hundreds that he deals with. I was trying to illustrate to you the problems of saying concretely what will happen a year from now. He knows what he plans for if the thing would be ended June 30th. We have asked for that. But if it is projected further, we don't know. That changes from day to day.,For instance, this January the best estimators we had thought it would be a $6.4 billion deficit. But it is now $2.3 billion, That is how much change there is. Thank goodness it is down. All three deficits have been down.,When we came in in November, following the budget that started in July under President Kennedy, we had an $11 billion. plus deficit estimated. The next budget was $5 billion-something, and we reduced that to $3 billion-something. This one was first estimated at $5.3 billion and revised to $8.4 billion. It has been reduced to $2.3 billion.,Next year is going to be the really tough year, because of these potential add-ons. The budget last year that went up was $99 billion-something. The Vietnam expenditures carried us to $106.9 billion, from $99 billion. The budget this year went up to $113 billion.,But these potentials look like it can run up to--we don't know. It depends on the Congress.,DEFICIT FOR 1967,[13.] Q. What is the deficit estimate for 1967?,THE PRESIDENT. It depends on Vietnam.,Q. What went up with your budget?,THE PRESIDENT. $1.8 billion.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-07-05","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen:,REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS\nIN VIETNAM,[1.] Governor John Reed of Maine, who is Chairman of the National Governors' Conference, has requested that I send a team of U.S. officials to brief the Governors on current developments in Vietnam. He sent me a wire last evening to which I have already responded.,I am asking Ambassador Averell Harriman, Gen. Andy Goodpaster of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr. Walt Rostow of the White House to go to Los Angeles for that purpose. They will stop here Wednesday for an overnight stay before going to Los Angeles.,I also asked General Goodpaster to talk to President Eisenhower and to give him a full report on current developments in Vietnam. He has just informed me that he has done that this afternoon.\nI am asking this team to report in detail to the Governors on the progress that is being made to achieve a better life among the South Vietnamese people. I consider this \"other war\" as crucial to the the future of South Vietnam and Southeast Asia as the military struggle.,Already American assistance has added some 600,000 acres of irrigated land to the agriculture of South Vietnam. It has vastly increased crop yields in that country.,Under new land reform measures, a half million acres of land are being sold now to small farmers on easy terms. Another 700,000 acres of State-owned land will soon be distributed, I am told, to landless refugees from areas that have been controlled by the Vietcong.,Fish production has been more than doubled in the past 5 years.,Almost 13,000 village health stations have been established and stocked with medicine from the United States.,We are helping to build a medical school which will graduate as many doctors every year as now serve the entire civilian population of that area of 14 million people.,Primary and secondary school enrollment in South Vietnam has increased five times. By 1968, 13,000 new village classrooms will have been built to provide for over three-quarters of a million young schoolchildren. We have helped to distribute 7 million textbooks in the .past 3 years and we are providing 1,700 new teachers every year.,More than 10,000 Vietnamese are now receiving vocational training as a result of the program we have laid out in that country.,I believe this is a good record. It's a record I would like the American people to know more about. I hope that they will study it, observe it, give us their suggestions in the days to come.,We have not waited for the fighting to end before we have the beginnings of the works of peace. We are even now attacking with all of our strength the basic problems in Vietnam--illiteracy, poverty, disease. It is these problems that bring on the wars. We must continue to press this battle forward, and we will do so.,Mr. Komer, my Special Assistant in charge of this work, has just returned from South Vietnam with this report that I have summarized briefly for you.,DISCUSSIONS WITH SECRETARY MCNAMARA\nAND CLARK CLIFFORD,[2.] I have asked Secretary McNamara to stop here tomorrow to discuss with me various matters prior to his meeting in Honolulu Friday with Admiral Sharp, Commander in Chief of the Pacific. During his 1-day meeting in Hawaii, Secretary McNamara will receive from Admiral Sharp a report on the program of military operations in Southeast Asia and will discuss logistical plans for future operations.,Mr. Clark Clifford, Chairman of the President's Advisory Board on Foreign Intelligence, will be coming to the ranch later today to review intelligence matters with me, and will stay overnight here at the ranch.,ANNOUNCEMENTS OF APPOINTMENTS,[3.] I am nominating Mr. Robert B. Bowie to be Counselor of the Department of State. Mr. Bowie is professor of international relations and director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. He has a distinguished record in the military service and in foreign policy and as a scholar in the field of international affairs. He will be a very valuable new member of the foreign policy advisers who serve the President and who serve this Nation.,[4.] Today I am nominating four new judges:,Donald P. Lay of Omaha, to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.\nWalter J. Cummings, Jr., of Chicago, to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit.\nThomas E. Fairchild, of Milwaukee, to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit.\nTheodore Cabot, of Fort Lauderdale, to be U.S. district judge for the southern district of Florida.,[5.] I am pleased also to make the following announcements of my intention to send these nominations to the Senate:,--Mr. Wilfred Johnson, of Richland, Washington, to be a member of the Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. Johnson has been general manager of General Electric's nuclear activities at Hanford, Washington. He has been strongly recommended by the members of the Commission and by members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the Congress.,--Mr. Paul Miller, president of the University of West Virginia, to be the new Assistant Secretary for Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.,--Mr. Frank DiLuzio, Director of the Office of Saline Water, to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior in charge of our very new and important water pollution program that is in that Department.,VICE PRESIDENT'S REPORT ON DOMINICAN\nREPUBLIC,[6.] I had the pleasure of visiting with the Vice President by telephone this morning and tie reported to me on his trip to the Dominican Republic where he represented our country at the inauguration of the new President that the people of that country have selected, Dr. Balaguer.1,1 Dr. Joaquin Balaguer took office as President of the Dominican Republic on July 1, 1966.,He had high praise for the people and the leaders of the Dominican Republic for their perseverance and faith during the past year of this great crisis. He said the recent elections represent not only a respect for constitutional government, but the desire of the Dominican people for peace and tranquility.,I asked the Vice President to discuss with Dr. Balaguer the economic assistance which the United States has been providing the Dominican Republic in the past, and to analyze the future needs of that economy. Dr. Balaguer and his government face staggering problems.,I think you would be interested in knowing that approximately 25 percent of the working force in the Dominican Republic is presently unemployed.,The Vice President reports that the Dominican Government is moving to face these problems forcefully, and he believes effectively.,I will discuss the Vice President's report with Secretary Rusk and other officials to make certain we are doing everything we can to assist the courageous people of the Dominican Republic. Mr. Rostow is already analyzing and evaluating the Vice President's report and will have recommendations for me when he arrives tomorrow.,They seem determined to make constitutional government work in the Dominican Republic and to improve the well-being of every citizen. I know that all Americans wish them well.,SECRETARY MCNAMARA'S REPORT ON\nBUILDUP OF FORCES IN VIETNAM,[7.] I have today received from Secretary McNamara an appraisal of the efficiency of the buildup of the United States forces in Vietnam. I am pleased, as his report indicates that he will attempt to reduce the planned rates of production substantially 90 to 180 days from now.,In the report to the President by Secretary McNamara he says:,\"Approximately 1 year ago the buildup of our forces in Vietnam was initiated at your direction. I believe it is timely,\" he says, \"to report to you the results of that action.,\"First, I would point out that never before in our history has it been possible to accomplish such a rapid and such an effective expansion of our Armed Forces without the need to mobilize the Reserve forces, and to call up the Reserves, to impose stringent economic controls and emergency controls on our economy, or to require involuntary extensions of active duty throughout the services.,\"As Commander in Chief, you have reason to be proud of the magnificent professional leadership which our men in Vietnam are receiving from General William C. Westmoreland, his officers, and his noncommissioned officers and men. This matchless leadership is paralleled by the fact that no military force has been so well supplied.,\"Despite the fact that we deployed a military force of more than 100,000 men within 120 days and sent them halfway around the world, we have been able to keep that force constantly supplied and equipped so that at all times they have been capable of bringing to bear their full power against the aggressor.,\"As General Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reported:,\"'There have been no shortages in supplies for the troops in Vietnam which have adversely affected combat operations or the health or welfare of our troops. No required air sorties have been canceled. As a matter of fact, the air support given our forces is without parallel in our history.',\"With ample inventory stocks still on hand, our production of ammunition and air ordnance this month will exceed our consumption this month.,\"Indeed,\" says Secretary McNamara, \"I believe it may very well prove desirable to reduce planned rates of production substantially. Such action would be in keeping with your insistence that the Department of Defense make certain that all military requirements are fulfilled, while achieving this objective with maximum economy for our taxpayers. By continuing to carefully adjust expenditures and production and by resisting the temptation to ask for more money and to spend more money than we need, I believe,\" says the Secretary, \"we can avoid the carryover that was represented by $12 billion of surplus and worthless materiel with which we concluded the Korean war.,\"Our buildup has been responsive. It has been forceful, and it has been effective.\",BUDGET DEFICIT,[8.] Just one brief note in conclusion: While final figures on the receipts and expenditures for fiscal 1966 which ended June 30th are not yet available, it is very clear to me this morning, after a conference with the Chairman of the President's Economic Advisers and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget,2 that the administrative budget deficit for this year will be very substantially below the $5.3 billion originally estimated in January 1965, and far below the $6.4 billion forecast this past January.,2 Gardner Ackley and Charles L. Schultze.,This marks the third straight year in which the actual deficit has been lower than what the President predicted. In fiscal 1964 the actual deficit was $3.7 billion below what the President promised the Congress in his estimate. In 1965 it was $1 1/2 billion below what the President had recommended in his estimate.,We will not know the final 1966 figures for several weeks, but it is already clear that the reduction in the deficit below our original estimate of 18 months ago will be greater than we achieved in 1965.,In the 10 years prior to fiscal 1964, the actual budget outcome averaged $2.9 billion worse than the original predicted figure.,I believe the fiscal outcome for the past year and for the previous years for which I am responsible demonstrates three things:,First, we have tried to make a realistic estimate of both our revenues and expenditures, and to be conservative and careful in those estimates.,Second, we have made an unremitting effort to hold our expenditures wherever possible at or below our initial estimates.,I am proud to tell you that I believe that will be done so far as domestic expenditures are concerned this year by several hundred millions of dollars.,Third, we have maintained the strength and health of our economy so that revenues each year have exceeded our estimates for that year, which the Budget Director tells me is somewhat unusual.,We are determined to maintain a sound and a healthy economy which will provide the revenues that we will need to meet our responsibilities in the years ahead.,Now I'll be glad to take your questions if you have any.,QUESTIONS,EFFECTS OF AIRSTRIKES IN NORTH VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the subject of Vietnam, what have been the effects of our intensified airstrikes on military targets in North Vietnam? What has been the effect on their rate of infiltration? In other words, what have been the noticeable results since we started hitting the oil tanks?,THE PRESIDENT. The evaluations that we have, and they are still coming in--we have new pictures that are being analyzed at this moment--the evaluations that we have indicate that about 86 percent of the known petroleum storage capacity in North Vietnam was hit the other evening in a very accurate target operation over the POL targets in the vicinity of Hanoi and Haiphong.,The latest estimate of the storage capacity actually destroyed that has come in from the field is 57 percent.,In other words, 86 percent of the storage was hit; 57 percent they estimate is destroyed.,I cannot embrace those figures because the pictures are not complete. But the general officers who have reviewed this told me this morning that they think both estimates are within reason, and they think it was a very successful operation.,I think that every general officer carrying responsibilities, either in Vietnam or in the Pentagon, as well as most of our career, experienced, diplomatic observers, think that this action at this time was required by the events of the time.,SELECTIVE SERVICE REVIEW,[10.] Q. Mr. President, last Saturday you ordered an exhaustive review of the Selective Service.3 On the basis of your conversations with your advisers, Congressmen, and what you have heard from the general public, what is your appraisal of the defects and shortcomings of the military draft as it is now administered?,THE PRESIDENT. We have developed the best system that we have known how to, in the light of our experiences.,3 See Item 315.,We have asked the Pentagon to review it from their standpoint, and they have done so. They are now presenting their views to the appropriate committees in the Congress.,I have asked some of our most distinguished citizens--Mr. Burke Marshall, former Assistant Attorney General; Mr. Thomas Gates, former Secretary of Defense under General Eisenhower; Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, former Director of the WACS and a Cabinet officer under General Eisenhower-and some of the best talent in this Nation to review all the alternatives available to a country which finds it necessary to draft its young men.,I don't want to prejudge that study. That study is in the process of being made. We will have a very competent staff. We expect to have some conclusions and some recommendations to present to the next session of Congress in ample time for them to carefully consider before the present draft law expires.,STATUS OF BUILDUP IN VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your statement at the beginning of the news conference, in which you talked about the successful military buildup, and also about the fact that we may be able to cut back some of our military production, would it be accurate for us, Mr. President, to analyze this as indicating that the major part of the buildup has now been accomplished in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't make such an evaluation.,I would say so far as ammunition is concerned the Secretary hopes that within 90 to 180 days he can make some recommendations. I think it is his feeling that those recommendations that he will make, which will have the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will result in the saving of several hundreds of millions of dollars over what the cost would be at the present rate.,That is not to indicate, though, that we will not call up additional men; that we will not train additional men; that we will not procure additional planes; that we will not procure additional helicopters; that we will not send additional people overseas--because we will do all of those things.,But we are watching it very carefully so we won't have a $12 billion holdover at the end of the difficulties in Vietnam.,LATIN AMERICA,[12.] Q. Mr. President, could you assess the prospects now for democracy and for continued economic and social growth in Latin America in view of the military takeover in Argentina and prior to that in Brazil?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We regret the action that took place in Argentina recently. We have had similar actions of that type in the last year, two or three instances. They are less in the last few months than they have been heretofore.,We are very encouraged by what has happened generally in Latin America. We are very proud of our record of growth there.,We are spending about a billion dollars, or a little in excess of a billion dollars, in our Alliance for Progress program in Latin America.,We find the per capita growth rate has jumped from 1 percent to in excess of 2 1/2 percent. That already equals and exceeds the goals that we had set for the Alliance for Progress.,Notwithstanding the grave predictions made and the discouragement that the Dominican people received from many quarters, they have had a peaceful election. A majority of the people have exercised their democratic right to select a government of their own choosing.\nThey have selected that government.\nThey have just finished a similar exercise in Guatemala, and some four or five additional Latin American nations.,THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW OF THE WORLD SITUATION GENERALLY,[13.] We would say, as we look around the world, at this hemisphere, Latin America, the prosperity, the democratic evolution that is taking place, when we look over Africa, look over Southeast Asia generally-with the exception of our problem in Vietnam--when we take a look at the Middle East and Western Europe, we have much to be thankful for, generally speaking, much to be encouraged about.,Now I find that true and that to be the judgment of most of our experienced career diplomats.,We think that on practically every continent--when you look back at Africa just a few months ago, at the serious problems we had in the Congo, and so forth, you look at the Dominican Republic, the Panama situation, the difficulties we had in Brazil, the problems in Chile--we have made great progress and generally speaking we are optimistic about most of the continents.,If we could only solve the problem in Vietnam, and we think we are on the way to doing that, we could have a world that is rather peaceful and generally prosperous.,PUBLIC OPINION POLLS,[14.] Q. Mr. President, surveys of every kind are being conducted about you. Some of them recently showed a drop in your performance rating. Today the Harris poll gave you high points for your Vietnam action. Last week a newspaper poll in California said that the California Democrats prefer Senator Robert Kennedy over you two-to-one.,How much are you influenced by these polls?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we all read them and are affected by them.,We of course would like for every poll to be of our liking. We like to feel that all of them are accurate. We have had a dozen polls, I guess, in the last week.,You don't read about the favorable ones, though, I've observed.,Mr. Gallup reported last week that we had gained 4 percent. Mr. Harris reports today that we have about 55 percent of the total in the country. Mr. Quayle has made a nationwide survey and he shows about 55 percent.,Now that's what you reported as a landslide during General Eisenhower's period.,Our poll in California shows a very healthy majority for approval of our record. We believe that it will show the same thing in Iowa.,Those are the only two polls that you have cited.,We have a number of them that come to us each day. If you are interested in them I will see that Mr. Moyers makes them available to you.,Maine shows 57-43 percent. That is unusual for a Democratic administration.,New Hampshire, 53-47; New Jersey, 7624; Michigan, 62-38. Although Governor Romney has a substantial majority of the Democrats favoring his record as Governor, we lead Governor Romney in his own State.,In Tennessee it is 61-39. That is considerably better than we were in 1964. Virginia is 53-47; Texas, 58-42.,We have a good many polls from all over the country. They are not disturbing to us. We think that a 55 percent rating in the country--that is the landslide that General Eisenhower defeated Mr. Adlai Stevenson by. So we are not upset.,We would all like to have as much approval as we can get. But we have to make our judgments and do what we think is right. Then we trust the judgment of the people at election time. I have not the slightest doubt but what they will exercise good judgment.,ASSESSMENT OF SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there have been many favorable comments lately in the press by military leaders on Vietnam. Could you give us your assessment of the situation as it is today?,THE PRESIDENT. I think our boys under General Westmoreland, his staff officers and the men they are leading, are doing an exceptionally fine job. I want to encourage them in every way I can. I want to support them in every way I can.,I am fearful that sometimes we do not give enough thought to those men as we sit here in the luxury of our front porch and our lawn, that we don't recognize the men that are dying for us out in the rice paddies.,I don't think you can speak too well of them. Their record has been outstanding. Their results are very good.,Our diplomatic reports indicate that the opposing forces no longer really expect a military victory in South Vietnam.,I am aware of the dangers of speculation. You don't pay me anything extra for it. So I am not going to guess for you.,Suffice it to say, I am proud of what the men are doing. If everyone in this country was working as hard to support the principles of democracy as the men in Vietnam are, I think we would have little to worry about.,PUBLIC REACTION TO VIETNAM BOMBINGS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about the public reaction as reflected in the telegrams and letters to you on your decision to bomb the Haiphong and Hanoi oil fields?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,First of all, all the Communist countries, generally speaking, opposed it rather vehemently. Some of them were rather vicious in their statements, and I think inaccurate, that we were bombing civilian targets and killing civilians.,We were very careful to select military targets that were not in the center of the area and to spare all civilians. We took every precaution available to us.,I cannot understand the thinking of any country or any people, or any person, that says we should sit by with our hands tied behind us while these men bring their mortars, their hand grenades and their bombs into our barracks and kill our Marines, attack our camps, murder the village chief, and that we should not do anything about it.,Now we have tried to make this difficult for them to continue at their present rate. We do not say it will stop the infiltration. We do not say that it will even reduce it.,But we do think it will make it more difficult for them, and we do think it will require them to assign additional people. We do think it will give them problems.,We have had a policy of measured response and gradually increased our strength from time to time. We plan to continue that.,Most of the Communist countries expressed disapproval. Most of the countries in the area involved, and all of the countries who have bodies there, who have men in uniform there, approved our action.,It is difficult for me to understand the response of some nation that is not involved, when a few years ago when their own security was at stake they needed American men and they wanted us to furnish American troops, not to be understanding of what we are trying to do to help others maintain their independence now.,I would say that we had very encouraging reports from a good many of our allies. We were disappointed in a few. We expected the regular Communist response, namely, that this would harden the opposition, and that it would not lead to negotiations; that we were killing civilians; and that we were not bombing military targets.,But all those things we considered in advance. And we think we pursued the right course.,Since you are talking about polls, I am informed today that the national polls show that 85 percent of the people of this country approved this position. I think we did the right thing at the right time. I hope that we can continue to be as successful in the days ahead in connection with General Westmoreland's operations as we were in this particular exercise.,PROGRESS TOWARD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY,[17.] Q. Mr. President, regarding racial incidents, sir, in various cities, what is your estimate of the immediate hazards in the situation, and do you have any advice for Americans in this connection?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are trying in every way we can to find employment for the unemployed in our cities. We are trying in every way we can to get people to quit practicing discrimination in our cities. We are trying to meet the poverty situation as we find it with the limited resources at our command.,We are not interested in black power and we are not interested in white power. But we are interested in American democratic power, with a small \"d.\" We believe that the citizen ought to be armed with the power to vote. We believe the citizen, regardless of his race or his religion or color, ought to be armed with the right to have a job at decent wages.,We believe that every citizen ought to have the right to have a decent home. We are doing everything we can, as quickly as we can, under our voters rights bill, under our civil rights bills, under our housing bills, under proposals we have made in cooperation with the mayors under the able leadership of the Vice President, to improve these terrible conditions that exist in the ghettos of this country.,Now we can't do it all overnight. We are much too late. But we have done more in the last 24 months than has been done in any similar 24-year period to face up to these conditions of health, education, poverty, and discrimination.,We are going to continue as long as I am President to do everything we can to see that all citizens are treated equally and have equal opportunities. When we achieve that, I think we will find a good deal of the solution to the problem which you mentioned.,PARIS REPORT ON HO CHI MINH STATEMENT,[18.] Q. Mr. President, a Paris magazine, a French magazine, reports that Ho Chi Minh told Red China and the Soviet Union if they didn't give more help he would have to come to terms with us next year. Have you anything on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't read the Paris magazines.,NUCLEAR WEAPON TREATY,[19.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess the chances now for a treaty banning the spread of nuclear weapons? Does your decision to bomb closer to Hanoi and Halphong in any way jeopardize that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we don't think so. We are doing everything we can to reach an agreement on such a treaty. We are very anxious to do it. We hope the Soviet Union will meet us and find an acceptable compromise in language which we can both live with.,They have some problems at the moment, but we are going to live up to the test ban treaty, religiously and scrupulously follow it. We are going to do everything within the power of our most imaginative people to find language which will bring the nuclear powers together in a treaty which will provide nonproliferation. We think it is one of the most important decisions of our time and we are going to do everything to bring people together on it.,THE PRESIDENT'S PLANS FOR 1966 AND 1968,[20.] Q. Sir, in light of these recently published polls, can you give us your thinking now about running again in 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think you will see a good deal of me this year. I have been in about 10 States in the last several weeks. I expect to get around the country and talk to the people about our problems and our programs.,But I have no announcements to make about my own future except to say I am going to do my dead-level best to serve all the people of this country.,Q. Mr. President, in light of the upcoming elections, do you plan to do much traveling between now and November?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a legislative program yet to be acted on. We have more than half of it already enacted. We had about 85 percent of it enacted last year. We hope to get a substantial part of it completed in the next few months.,As time permits, I will be traveling throughout the country. I have been in the States of New York, Illinois, Texas, Nebraska, Virginia, Maryland, Iowa, and New Jersey all in the last 3 or 4 weeks. At that rate, we could cover all 50 of them between now and, say, late October.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-06-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have some announcements and appointments, and some statements that I will review with you. The Press Office will have copies of these announcements available as soon after the meeting as possible. When I conclude, I will be glad to attempt to answer any questions that you may have.,HOUSING FOR THE POOR,[1.] Fifteen months ago, I urged the Congress to adopt a new concept in housing for our poor.1 I urged a program to make it economically possible for private enterprise for the first time to take a direct hand in meeting the housing needs of 7 million American families that are living now in substandard dwellings.,1 See 1965 volume, this series, Book I, Item 90 (P. 237).,Last year the Congress enacted the rent supplement program into law. Last month it appropriated the money to put that program into action.2,2The rent supplement program was enacted as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-117, 79 Stat. 451). Legislation appropriating funds for the program was approved by the President on May 13, 1966, and September 6, 1966 (see Items 223, 439).,Today we are ready to begin assigning the funds to the first projects. Secretary Weaver has set aside over $600,000 to provide for more than 1,000 units of modest but decent housing.,These projects are located in Boston, in Cleveland, in the Delta area of Mississippi, in New Orleans, in New York, in Omaha, in Pasco, Washington, in Philadelphia, in Providence, in Saginaw, Michigan, in San Antonio, and in the Watts area of Los Angeles.,The project in Providence climaxes a dream begun nearly a century ago. In 1883 a Dr. Chase Wiggins set up a trust to found the Building, Sanitary and Educational Association to build housing for the laboring classes. He stipulated, however, that the money could not be used until the trust reached $500,000.,That event has coincided with the inauguration of the rent supplement pro, gram--and the association will now sponsor its first housing.,In Omaha, Nebraska, an association for the blind was formed in 1946. Through contributions made to its White Cane Drive, it accumulated enough money to buy some land. Now, with the rent supplements, it can build on that land low cost housing for blind people with low incomes.,These examples are just a beginning. They should be a spur to further action.,All that remains is for the Senate to approve the regular appropriation bill to carry this program forward. Today I urge them once again to do so. This promise to our poor must be fulfilled and I believe it will be.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC\nNOMINATION OF JOHN HUGH CRIMMINS AS,AMBASSADOR,[2.] I want to announce that I intend to nominate John Hugh Crimmins of Maryland as United States Ambassador to the Dominican Republic. He will succeed W. Tapley Bennett, who has been assigned as Ambassador to Portugal.,Secretary Rusk, Assistant Secretary Gordon--he's Assistant Secretary for Latin America--and Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker3 each recommend Mr. Crimmins for this important post.3 Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, Lincoln Gordon, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs and U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress, and Ellsworth Bunker, U.S. Representative to the Council of the Organization of American States.,Mr. Crimmins is one of our outstanding career Foreign Service officers. He has had wide experience in Latin American affairs, particularly in the Caribbean area and in the economic field.,His recent assignments include duty in our Embassy in Rio de Janeiro. From late 1961 to February 1963 he served as Director of the Office of Caribbean and Mexican Affairs and then as Coordinator of Cuban Affairs until 1965.,Since January, Mr. Crimmins has served with distinction as Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires in Santo Domingo. He is proficient in Spanish and Portuguese. His demonstrated competence, experience, and language ability make him very well qualified for this special assignment.,This appointment continues our policy of rewarding those in our career service who have demonstrated their merit and their capacity to handle posts of the highest responsibility.,U.S. REPRESENTATION AT INAUGURATION,[3.] We have received a note from the Provisional Government of the Dominican Republic inviting the United States to send a special mission to the inauguration of President-elect Joaquin Balaguer on July 1. I have asked Vice President Humphrey to represent the United States on this important occasion--as it was my privilege to do at the inauguration of President Bosch4 in 1963.,4 Juan Bosch, former President of the Dominican Republic.,He will carry the best wishes of this country to the President-elect and the Dominican nation as they resume constitutional government and launch a new effort to seek economic prosperity and social justice under the Alliance for Progress.,The Dominican Republic deserves the salute of us all for the free and fair elections and the massive participation of the Dominican people in them.,The victory belongs to the Dominican people for making the electoral process an effective instrument for expressing their will. But it belongs also to the leaders of the Dominican Republic--to Provisional President Garcia-Godoy, Dr. Balaguer, Professor Bosch, Dr. Bonnelly5--for their leadership and their high sense of responsibility.,5 Rafael Bonnelly, former President of the Dominican Republic.,The Organization of American States can take great satisfaction over its helpful contribution. For the victory of the Dominican people is shared by all the peoples of this hemisphere.,The Dominican Government and the people know that they can count on the continued support of the Organization of American States. The United States, for its part, stands ready to cooperate in mutual efforts under the Alliance for Progress to advance the economic and social well-being of the Dominican people.,TRIBUTE TO AMBASSADOR ELLSWORTH BUNKER,[4.] Finally, I wish to say a few words about Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker. He belongs not only to the United States but to the hemisphere. He has rendered great service to both.,Wise in the ways of statecraft, unvacillating in his faith in the democratic process, tenacious in the pursuit of fair solutions, firm and patient in the face of adversity, respected by all for his integrity and impartiality-he has brought high honor to himself and his country and the Organization of American States which he represented.,OTHER PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS AND,NOMINATIONS,[5.] I have spent some time yesterday and today and preceding days on appointments. I am delighted to announce today that I expect to nominate for reappointment Gerald F. Tape of New York to be a member of the Atomic Energy Commission for a term of 5 years, expiring June 30, 1971.,I expect to nominate Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit, president of Texas Southern University, as a member of the Atomic Energy Commission, to succeed Mrs. Mary I. Bunting, for a term expiring June 30, 1970.,I expect to reappoint Rosel H. Hyde as a member of the Federal Communications Commission and to designate him as Commission Chairman. He is now a Republican appointee to that Commission.,I also intend to nominate Nicholas Johnson, present Federal Maritime Administrator, to fill the existing vacancy on the Federal Communications Commission created by the resignation of E. William Henry.,I intend to nominate Winthrop Knowlton to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs to replace Merlyn Trued, who has recently resigned.,I have today accepted with regret the resignation of Adm. William F. Raborn as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.,To replace Admiral Raborn, I am naming Richard McGarrah Helms, who is currently serving as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.,I also intend to appoint Mr. Henry D. Owen as the new Chairman of the Policy Planning Council replacing Mr. Rostow. Mr. Owen is currently Acting Chairman of the Policy Planning Council at the State Department.,U.S. REPRESENTATION AT GUATEMALAN,INAUGURATION,[6.] I have asked Governor John Connally6 to head our delegation to the inauguration of President-elect Mendez Montenegro June 28 to July 2.,6 Of Texas.,President-elect Montenegro has been the distinguished dean of the law school at San Carlos University. He leaves the classroom to assume the highest office of his country. The Guatemalan people, in reaffirming their faith in constitutional government through free and peaceful elections, have picked one of their most distinguished educators to guide their destiny for the next 4 years. I have asked Governor Connally and the delegation accompanying him to carry the best wishes of the United States Government and people to the Guatemalan nation for this historic occasion.,STATEMENT ON VIETNAM,[7.] In the past few weeks the battle in Vietnam has become more intense. The large forces infiltrated from the North into South Vietnam in recent months are now being engaged--sometimes at their initiative, sometime at ours. The forces of South Vietnam, the United States, and our allies have responded with skill, courage, and effectiveness.,During this period my advisers and I have--almost on a daily basis--continued closely to examine and to scrutinize what the aggressor has been doing and our own course of action.,We have examined the alternatives open to us--including all suggestions from those who have not shared our views.,In the light of the full information available to the President of the United States, we sincerely feel that the national interest requires that we persist in our present policy. That policy is to bring to bear the ground, naval, and air strength required to achieve our objective.,I must observe that this does not mean that we shall not increase our forces or our operations. It is not good national policy publicly to declare to those conducting aggression that there are particular limits on how we shall act to defeat that aggression.,But our objectives remain what they have been:\n--to guarantee that infiltration, subversion, and terror mounted and infiltrated from North Vietnam cannot swallow or conquer South Vietnam;\n--to permit the people of South Vietnam to select their own government and to build a way of life which conforms to their own traditions and desires.,In meeting this objective, we must also reassure the world that America's agreements, once they are made, are not broken.,We are not fighting to remain in South Vietnam, not to hold bases there, not to control the affairs of that people.,We are there to defeat aggression, to permit a young nation to develop its own destiny, to help its people rebuild and create a modern nation even before the guns go silent.,But to these limited objectives we are fully committed.\nWhat are our prospects?,I must frankly tell you that our intelligence indicates that the aggressor presently bases his hopes, we think, more on political differences in Saigon and Washington than on his military capacity in South Vietnam. While we have differences and divisions, I want our men in the field and our people at home to know that our course is resolute, that our conviction is firm, and we shall not be diverted from doing what is necessary in the Nation's interest and the cause of freedom.,By every evidence available to us, the majority of the people of South Vietnam seem determined to fight for the right to work out their own affairs. They want to go forward with economic reform, with greater social justice, and a constitutional government.,They must do this in the midst of a bitter and ugly war. Since January 1, 1966, we have lost 2,200 of our men; the South Vietnamese have lost 4,300 of their men; our allies have lost 250 of their men.,But the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese have lost three times our combined losses. They have lost 22,500 of their men.,Our attacks on military targets in North Vietnam have imposed a growing burden on those who support the insurgency in the South. We must continue to raise the cost of aggression at its source. And that is the sole purpose of our use of air strength against selected military targets.,In the South, I am encouraged that the Vietnamese are carrying forward the first steps in building a constitutional process. I discussed that at some length this week with Ambassador Porter, who was here in company with Mr. Komer.7,7William J. Porter, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam, and Robert W. Komer, Special Assistant to the President for Peaceful Reconstruction in Vietnam.,The rules for electing a constituent assembly on September 11 have now been formulated. We can expect continued ferment even after the elections are held. Rival political forces are contending for power. This is natural and this is inevitable at this point in the political life of a developing nation.,We shall continue to back the Vietnamese effort to achieve government by the consent of the people, even as they fight the war.,Economically, important steps are underway to control inflation. You will see announcements about them on the tickers today-to expand the flow of supplies to the people, to carry forward the Vietnamese program of revolutionary development.,Here in the United States I believe our people are determined to see this through. In recent primaries, not one candidate for Congress was able to make opposition to the resistance of aggression in South Vietnam a successful position. And more than 125 have now been passed upon by their constituencies. A minority of our people are willing to pull out. Another minority are prepared to see us use our total power. The rest of us, while we may debate this or that dimension of policy, are determined that this Nation honor its responsibility, and its commitment, to help Vietnam turn back aggression from the North.,We must go forward as nations and men have always gone forward in dark moments, confident that when they are right they will prevail. I am confident that we shall gain an honorable peace in South Vietnam.,There are, I believe, very few governments among the more than 120 in the world who do not wish to see an honorable peace at the earliest possible moment. To those few I would say this:\nThere is honor for all in making peace. Let the killing stop.,As the Government of Vietnam said in the Declaration of Honolulu,8 \"stop killing your brothers, sisters, their elders and their children --come and work through constitutional democracy to build together . . . a life of dignity, freedom and peace .... \"8 See Item 55.,Look about us in Asia.,Look at the vitality, the economic and social progress of the nine Asian and Pacific nations meeting in Korea.,Look at the new resolve in Indonesia to come to grips with their problems of economic and social development.,Look at the new determination of India and Pakistan to work for their people and to live in peace. Look at the new efforts of the people of Asia to come together and work together in peace.,Ask yourselves: What is the wave of the future?\nIs it aggression?\nIs it for one nation to conquer another?\nOr is it for us all to work together as brothers in growing more food, building more schools, providing better health to all of our people?,I genuinely and sincerely believe it is the latter.,I will be glad now to take questions from you for whatever period of time you feel desirable,QUESTIONS\nPOSSIBILITY OF TAX INCREASE,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some varying forecasts from members of the Cabinet, Secretary Fowler and Secretary Connor,9 as to the prospects of a tax increase. I am wondering if you could clear the situation up as of now?9 Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury, and John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce.,THE PRESIDENT. Twenty-five years ago I would have been concerned about what I have seen about the quotations from the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Treasury. But when I read their statements, I seem to detect that they are expressing in response to inquiries made of them their views about what may develop in this particular field.,I don't think any of us are in a position to state at this time, nor do I desire to speculate on what a decision might be. We are watching all the factors that must be considered, primarily the appropriations measures that are being guided through the Congress, the Government budget itself, and our expenditures in Vietnam, as well as the private factors in the economy.,When we have gone further along with our appropriation bills, and when we have seen evidences that we think justify a decision, I will announce one.,I have not interpreted what the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Treasury has said as being a positive statement of policy of this administration, but rather as their personal feelings, and perhaps a speculation.,As for me, I do not care to speculate and am not in a position to do so now, because the interpretation that would be placed on it might bring about some misunderstandings and misapprehensions. I think it is best to just wait until a decision is made--then announce it.,ON BOMBING HANOI,[9.] Q. Mr. President, would you please explain for us why it is wrong for us to bomb the capital in North Vietnam, and who has ordered this theory into the policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I would want to comment on the tactics or strategy at this point.,Q. Don't you think the people would understand better if you did?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have to be guided by my best judgment in the matter. I will have to do that.,STATEMENTS OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, on the march from Memphis to Jackson,10 some of the present leaders of that march have made statements that are considered quite inflammatory and alarming by a lot of people-such as seizing power and burning down courthouses. I wonder what your reaction is to that march?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen the statements that you refer to. I will take a look at them.10Civil rights march through the State of Mississippi, conducted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, for the purpose of encouraging Negroes to register to vote. The marchers reached Jackson, Miss., on June 26 and held a rally of 15,000 persons before the State Capitol.,WILLINGNESS OF HANOI TO NEGOTIATE,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there is a Canadian envoy now in Hanoi, and a French envoy is going there presumably to probe the North Vietnamese position on negotiations. Do you see anything in the situation now which would lend any credence to any disposition on the part of North Vietnam to negotiate?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no information that I could make available that would give you any encouragement.,POSSIBILITY OF A MEETING WITH GENERAL\nDE GAULLE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Mansfield,11 among others, proposes that a meeting between you and President de Gaulle12 might now be useful. Do you think such a meeting would be useful at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. I would of course be very happy to see General de Gaulle if he felt a visit would be useful. I am not familiar with any suggestion Senator Mansfield has made in that regard.,11Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, majority leader of the Senate.,12Gen. Charles de Gaulle, President of France. 13 On December 8, 1966, the President announced that an agreement had been reached between the United States and other member nations of the United Nations Outer Space Committee on a draft treaty to govern space exploration (see Item 643).,General de Gaulle would always be welcome. Our representatives are in constant touch with his government. And we feel no lack of communication.,RUSSIAN INTEREST IN A SPACE TREATY,[13.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us your reaction, sir, to renewed Russian interest in a space treaty, and whether you think that this might lead to other agreements with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. I did not hear you.,Q. Could you give us your reaction to this renewed Russian interest in a treaty on space and the moon, and whether you think that might lead to other agreements?,THE PRESIDENT. We welcome any indication from them at any time in matters of this nature. We have made our proposal. We are very hopeful that our proposal and theirs can be carefully considered--and will prove fruitful.13,13On December 8, 1966, the President announced that an agreement had been reached between the United States and other member nations of the United Nations Outer Space committee on a draft treaty to govern space exploration (see Item 643).,ADMIRAL RABORN'S RESIGNATION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to amplify on your brief announcement of Admiral Raborn's resignation? Is it health or other affairs?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Admiral Raborn had retired. I asked him upon the resignation of Mr. McCone to come here to serve for a period that would be agreeable to him, for such time as he might feel that he could do it. I told him at that time that Mr. Helms would be his Deputy Director and I would hope that Mr. Helms could succeed him at the end of his tour of duty.,He considered my request and although he had no desire to return to Washington, he agreed to come and serve for an indefinite period. He has done that; now he desires to return to California.,Mr. Helms is agreeable to accepting responsibilities heretofore administered by Admiral Raborn.,PROBLEMS OF THE PRESIDENCY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, what is the order of priority of your worries these days? Given the urgent demands of Vietnam, how do you fit in the concerns of NATO, civil rights, the congressional elections, and so forth?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they are all problems in the life of a President. He must try to give whatever time is necessary to each problem and to apply the best judgment that he can to it. That I try to do.,I have a great deal of assistance and a great many helpmates. I am very thankful for the quality of my advisers. I have never worked up any priority of worries.,We do have problems and concerns from day to day. But we have so much more to be grateful for and thankful for, and be encouraged about, than we do to worry about.,When I look about the world, I sometimes feel that conditions may be somewhat depressing to us here in the United States. I look at the problems of other leaders--I don't know of a single one whose situation I would trade for ours. I know of none that is not confronted with somewhat the same types of problems and the same types of worries and sometimes much more aggravating and much more serious than mine have been up to now.,PUBLIC OPINION POLLS,[ 16.] Q. Do the polls worry you?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We always would like to see what we do and what we say approved by our associates and by our constituency-but that is not always the case. When it is not, we regret it and take due notice of it and engage in proper introspection.,But polls vary from week to week and month to month. Those are things that we do not ignore, but they are not one of my burdens.,ON A POSSIBLE MEETING WITH COMMUNIST\nCHINA,[17.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Mansfield also suggested--urged a meeting between Secretary Rusk and the Foreign Minister of Communist China. Can you give us your reaction as to whether you think this would be useful?,THE PRESIDENT. I read Senator Mansfield's speech with a great deal of interest and pleasure. I asked Secretary Rusk to give the majority leader's observations very careful consideration. He is doing that.,I have not discussed in detail with Senator Mansfield any information he may have about the willingness of the Chinese Foreign Minister to meet with Secretary Rusk. But I think we have made it very clear that we will be delighted to review the Senator's views, any information he has, and give careful consideration to them.,VIETNAM WAR COSTS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, in January the administration's estimate for the cost of the war in Vietnam in fiscal 1967 was $10.5 billion. I wondered as the beginning of the fiscal year approaches if there has been any revision of that figure up or down?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the expenditures vary from month to month. You have high months and low months. The first several months they ran about as estimated. We had a month or two where they were high, and we had a month or two where they were less than expected.,We do not have any recent figures. We are trying to get as much information as we can as fast as we can this month. We would like to see the expenditure figure go up some because it would mean that we would get earlier deliveries and increase our effort.,But I am not in a position today to give you with any degree of accuracy what it will be. We have ample funds to take care of our needs. The Congress has provided generously for us, even more than I have asked in certain fields.,Perhaps early in July, the first 10 days, I can give you a little better figure on the fiscal year. It is not a great deal different, in my judgment, from what I have said before. We expect the deficit to be considerably less than we anticipated in January. That will be largely due to an increase in revenues. I would hope that some small part of it, a few hundred millions, could be the result of reduction in domestic expenditures or stretch-out in them.,My Budget Director constantly admonishes me not to give any hard and fast figure. In a budget of over $100 billion, with a 1 percent variance, it is very easy to be off a billion dollars. But I would say within that range that our deficit would probably be, instead of $6.4 billion as we predicted last January-it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 billion to $4 billion deficit.,That estimate could be off a few hundred million. But the deficit will be much less than we predicted in January, and we think, much less than we predicted 18 months ago. We are very pleased with the administrators of this administration for having always had less deficit than they predicted--which is quite unusual they tell me in budget history. In our 3 Johnson administration years we have had less deficit each year than we promised.,We could have some unusual emergency come up, but I don't think we will miss it much in the next 12 days of this month.,COMMENTS OF U.S. SENATORS ABROAD,[19.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us your thinking, sir, on the propriety of a United States Senator going abroad and making critical comments about the internal policy of another nation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that it would be a better policy to let the Senators judge the propriety of their own actions. It is not for the executive branch to be passing upon statements of Senators.,There are a great many statements made by the Senate that an Executive will approve of, and some maybe that he will disapprove of. But I don't think, as a general policy, it is wise for us to set up any censorship down here. I just have to leave it up to their judgment.,QUESTIONS ON THE VIETNAM STATEMENT,[20.] Q. Mr. President, you have today restated your determination to see the Vietnam war through. How can this point be made more clearly to Hanoi and the Vietcong? Isn't that the central problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that they take notice of our actions from time to time and I believe they do--of which the statement today is a part.,Q. Mr. President, in that connection, does the statement imply or mean that there may be a step-up in air strikes in North Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you just have to take the statement and read it. We will stand on it. I would not want to get boxed in by a commitment to the New York Times that I would do this or that. I would want to feel at liberty to do whatever the national policy required, as I said in the statement.,And I think it is very clear on that, when you have a chance to read it. I know you would want your country to have some flexibility in case our national interests required it. If it does, I assure you we will exercise it.,FUTURE MEETINGS WITH SOUTH VIETNAMESE LEADERS,[21.] Q. Mr. President, do you still hope to meet Premier Ky14 in Honolulu this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. We would like to have further meetings between representatives of this Government and the South Vietnamese Government as the civil program develops, as we step up our education and health and election methods--the general things we discussed at Honolulu.,14 Nguyen Cao Ky, Prime Minister of South Viet-Nam.,Just when that will be, and just who will be there will have to be determined by the events. But we do expect periodically to check on what advancements have been made and try to improve our efforts and expedite them as much as possible.,Mr. Komer will be going out there Sunday to meet with the leaders of the South Vietnamese Government and our own staff in this general field. As a result of his meetings with Mr. Porter, we have made a number of decisions and approved some of the suggestions of the Government of Vietnam. We will be cooperating in them.,A little later there will be other Cabinet members going out. I would hope that sometime during the year, after sufficient time elapses for our agricultural, education and health, and electoral programs to make headway that we can take a good look at them and see how they can be improved and expedited.,THE NEED FOR MAINTAINING A FLEXIBLE POSITION ON VIETNAM,[22.] Q. Mr. President, on your Vietnamese announcement, sir, would you care to give us your view, as you have at sometimes in the past, as to whether the expanded military activities will increase the risk of widening the war?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think I will stand on my statement because I don't want to be speculative. I do not see that there is much to be gained by telegraphing your shots to the aggressor.,I tried to anticipate the yearning for particular moves of this kind, and to cover it in my statement. I don't want to get fenced in by a commitment to the Washington Post or any other person, so that I feel we can be flexible when we need to.,THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PLANS,[23.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us how you feel about a President campaigning in off-year elections and whether you intend to do so this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the president certainly ought to and has the right to make his views known to his people. That is what I am doing this morning and expect to do so as long as I have these responsibilities.,I have no specific plans at this time. I have no doubt but what I will be expressing my views from time to time. There will be various interpretations placed upon them.,If I plan to go out in the hinterlands, I will be glad to try to give you as much notice as I have myself. I haven't made any decisions on any place at this time.,Q. Mr. President, Congressman Ford15 is quoted this morning as now calling the Vietnam war \"President Johnson's War.\" Do you feel that this or other things that have been said lately are harming the bipartisan approach to the effort?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't--I wouldn't want to comment on that. Let's not provoke any difficulties within the Government.,15 Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, minority leader of the House of Representatives.,THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,[24.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would give us your views on the chances of passing the open housing section of the civil rights bill?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made our recommendations. We see the developments and the problems. I talked to the Attorney General last night about the situation. I talked to some of the Members of Congress today. We do have difficulties. We are trying to resolve them and get a bill that can be approved by a majority of the Congress. We hope we will be successful.,I am not sure at this moment what will be the result of the Attorney General's conferences and his efforts with various individuals. The Members seem to be willing to give consideration to various approaches. They are making some. We are making some. I just have to see how successful we are.,Generally speaking, we are hopeful we will get a good civil rights bill as near our recommendations as possible. We don't always get all we ask for.,We have asked for about 91 bills this session and we expect the House to act on almost 70 of them before they leave on July 4. In the Senate, of the 91 there are about 33 that remain to be acted upon. We expect some of them to be acted on between now and the holidays. We think that the Congress will act very sympathetically on our recommendations as a general matter.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC,[25.] Q. Mr. President, when the Dominican crisis began last year, there were a lot of predictions of gloom and doom with our policies and those of the OAS with regard to the eventual outcome of events of the situation there. I wonder how you feel now that the thing has worked out pretty well. I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I did that in my statement. There is very little I can add to that, except that we went through a very difficult and trying period there, as we frequently do with problems in various parts of the world. But under the skilled leadership of the Provisional President, Garcia-Godoy, and Ambassador Bunker and the members of the OAS group, the people-more than a million of them--went to the polls and had a free choice. They selected a government of their own choosing. And very shortly that President will be inaugurated.,The decision was a decisive one. I have paid due recognition to the efforts of all parties involved, Mr. Bonnelly, Professor Bosch, Mr. Balaguer, and Ambassador Bunker. I would say that we are rather glad that the Dominican people had an election and they have made the decision. We look forward to working with them and helping in any way we can in their new efforts with their constitutional government.,Al Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-06-01","text":"REVIEW OF CABINET MEETING,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Bill1 thought that an efficient and effective way for handling your problem of coverage would be for me to review what transpired in our Cabinet meeting and to ask those who made the presentations to stay here and make a brief report to you, or at least to be available for any questions that you might have.,1 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,First, Secretary Gardner2 presented the medical care picture, 15 or 20 minutes for the presentation of the number of sign-ups, the progress that had been made in that field, the hospital and medical needs and problems, and so forth. Secretary Gardner is here and will be available to you.,2 John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.,We reviewed the foreign aid program-what has been done in various parts of the world, our development loans, technical assistance, the Alliance for Progress, our international education and heath proposals. Mr. Bell 3 reviewed the status of the legislation in the House committee and the Senate committee. He is here and will take any questions.,3David E. Bell, Administrator, Agency for International Development.,We had a legislative forecast of various measures the administration has sent up. We had the chart over there. Larry O'Brien and Joe Califano4 will review that with you.,4 Lawrence F. O'Brien, Postmaster General, and Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,We went over the economic situation. Mr. Ackley5 spent about 15 minutes reporting on the economic situation.,5Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers.,The civil rights conference was reviewed by the Vice President and Mr. Katzenbach,6 both of whom were in attendance this morning.,6 Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Attorney General.,We went into our savings bonds report from the departments and Mr. O'Brien talked on that for about 5 minutes.,I reviewed the meetings I have had with some 20 to 30 staff members of Mr. Rostow's7 office, and the meetings I have had with the Under Secretaries of various departments, I went over with the Secretaries our exchange of ideas.,7Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the President.,I also reviewed with them the meeting I had yesterday with the Assistant Secretaries.,We discussed earlier in my office with Mr. Ball 8 and others the agenda in Brussels this week. We reviewed our policies in Africa and Latin America. I am encouraged because the growth rate there for the last 3 years has been 2½ percent as compared to 1 percent in the preceding years.,8 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,We also mentioned the Southeast Asia situation, with particular reference to India and Pakistan and developments there following our meetings with the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India.,PERSONNEL VACANCIES,[2.] We talked with the Cabinet about certain personnel vacancies in certain departments. We have very few vacancies. Mr. Macy 9 is here. He can give you a report on it if you wish.\nWe have some six or eight ambassadorial vacancies, fewer than we have had any time in 5 years. We will have a vacancy in the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Mr. Mann's10 place.,9John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission.,10Thomas C. Mann, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.,We have a couple of General Counsel vacancies, one in Defense and one in HUD. We have an Assistant Secretary vacancy over at Health, Education, and Welfare, and a Republican vacancy on one of the boards. The number of vacancies is very low, but we did review those.,SAVINGS BOND SALES,[3.] Mr. O'Brien reported that the first 3 weeks of the current bond campaign showed an increase from 60 percent to 64 percent.,Bond sales are up from $206 million to $330 million. The outstanding increases were in the Executive Offices, 59 percent to 67 percent; Department of State, 60 percent to 69 percent; Department of Labor, 46 percent to 55 percent; Civil Aeronautics Board, 70 percent to 77 percent; and General Accounting Office, 66 percent to 80 percent.,The May drive will be extended through June in order to achieve our goal of 75 percent participation. I am hopeful that the results obtained during our Federal Government campaign will set an example for the rest of the Nation.,If any of you have any specific questions on any of these subjects--Medicare, foreign aid legislation, personnel, civil rights, foreign policy--we will be glad to try to answer them.,QUESTIONS APPRAISAL OF THE ECONOMY,[4.] Q. Mr. President, on the economy, about 6 weeks ago you were trying to slow down. Now there seems to be a feeling that you have been, perhaps, too successful and you have slowed it down more than you would like. What would your current appraisal be?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we haven't reached that conclusion. We are studying all the indicators. The gross national product is exceeding our expectations, and we are trying to give careful attention to that and every other indicator.,We will have a rather detailed meeting on that this afternoon, and look at our revenues and our expenditures, among other things.,There is some indication that the estimates for this year will show that so far as our cash budget is concerned--and that includes all of our trust funds--we will probably take in more than we will spend.,It appears that we will actually have a cash surplus this year. But there is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip between now and January.,DISCUSSION ON VIETNAM,[5.] Q. Mr. President, did the Cabinet meeting include any kind of a general discussion or a report from Secretary McNamara n on the political situation in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. No. 11 Robert F. McNamara, Secretary of Defense.,CASH BUDGET ESTIMATE,[6.] Q. Mr. President, were you talking about this fiscal year when you said--,THE PRESIDENT. This calendar year.,INDIA AND PAKISTAN,[7.] Q. Mr. President, can you be any more specific about your discussion about India and Pakistan?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We reviewed the legislation on the billion dollar food program area, and the conferences we had with the Prime Minister when she was here.12,12 See Items 148, 149, 152-154, 180, 311.,We were pleased with the progress that had been made at Tashkent 13 and the subsequent conferences with the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India. We have a new American Ambassador going to Pakistan shortly,14 and we have had new reports from India.,13Capital of the Soviet Republic of Uzbek in Central Asia and site of a conference between India and Pakistan in January 1966 which resulted in partial withdrawal of troops from the disputed Kashmir territory.,14Eugene M. Locke of Dallas, Texas.,Our programs are proceeding according to plan, and we think that we have had very fruitful results from our meetings with the leaders of those two countries.,NATO POLICIES,[8.] Q. Mr. President, did you develop any new policy lines on NATO at your meeting today?,THE PRESIDENT. We had an extended meeting earlier this morning. The full Cabinet did not participate in that. We will be having those meetings from time to time.\nSecretary Rusk15 will return in a few days from the Brussels meeting and will participate in further discussions with us. In his absence, Secretary Acheson,16 Secretary Ball, Mr. Rostow, and Mr. Moyers will be working with their staffs in the NATO area.,15 Secretary of State Dean Rusk, U.S. representative at the Brussels meeting of NATO foreign ministers.,16 Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State (1949-1953) and Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on France and NATO March 15--June 17, 1966.,Our policies are moving forward according to schedule. It is consuming a good deal of our time, but it is worthy of it. We have a deep interest in that area of the world--in Europe. We are appropriately devoting a good deal of our energies to them.,EAST-WEST TRADE BILL,[9.] Q. Mr. President, did you discuss your East-West trade bill at all this morning, and what might be done to get it through Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we did at our earlier meeting. That is an important part of our program for that area of the world. We are very hopeful that the Congress will agree with us on the wisdom of our proposals and in due time will act upon them.17,17 The East-West trade bill was not adopted by the 89th Congress.,OPEN HOUSING PROVISION,[10.] Q. Mr. President, did the open housing provision come up at the Cabinet meeting, particularly Senator Dirksen's stand on it?18,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The Attorney General discussed the hearings that have been held in the House. He felt that the hearings brought out some very excellent testimony. He is hopeful in due time action would be taken in the subcommittee and in the full committee, and we could get action in the House in a reasonable time.,18See message on civil rights, Item 196. Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, minority leader of the Senate, was opposed to open housing legislation.,WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be some dissension among the civil rights leaders at the White House conference on civil rights.19 Are you optimistic that they will come out with something productive from the conference?,THE PRESIDENT. We always have differences. I think maybe you are inclined not to overlook any of them. Of these differences, we hammer out a course that will result in making progress in this field--a field that we think desperately needs continuing attention.,19 See Item 248.,We are very hopeful that under the leadership of this council, the 2,500 delegates can discuss the pros and cons of various proposals and give their judgments about the wisdom of undertaking them. All of them will be fully and thoroughly considered. We will do everything we can to continue to make rapid advances in the field of civil rights and justice.,I believe there are many more areas of agreement for us than there are disagreement. There are many more constructive things likely to come out of this conference than the little dissension and different viewpoints suggest.,Most of the delegates, I think, realize that there are many problems that must be faced; they have views on how to deal with them. They won't all be in agreement, but I wouldn't get upset about that, or excited.,BRIEFING OF REPUBLICANS ON VIETNAM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Dirksen seems to feel that the Republicans ought to be briefed on Vietnam. Do you agree with him?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I am pretty well aware of Senator Dirksen's feelings. He and I are pretty much in agreement. They are being fully informed.,Q. Does that mean you have had a briefing for them, or are planning one?,THE PRESIDENT. That means I had a rather extended talk with him in the hospital. As he told them up there the other day, I have had another since then with him. We spend a good deal--I would say a substantial portion of our time--either briefing them or you.,Q. Mr. President, in view of the situation now in Vietnam, is it your feeling--,THE PRESIDENT. We didn't really go into Vietnam here today in the Cabinet. But if you want to spend a little time on Vietnam, if you have a particular interest in it, I will answer your questions.,I am keeping the Cabinet here to answer your questions on the subjects they discussed. If you want to spend time on Vietnam, I will go into it.,VIETNAM ELECTIONS,[13.] Q. I just wondered, in view of the internal turmoil now, do you foresee that elections can go ahead on September 11?,THE PRESIDENT. We are concerned about the problems they are having out there, but, as I have said in the last two or three statements I have made, we realize the difficulties a nation has in proceeding to constitutional government. We are working with them to bring that kind of government about.,We are hopeful that it can be done as early as possible. We solicit the support, the counsel, and assistance of everybody concerned in helping us attain it.,That kind of representative government is a much desired objective, and we believe that in time it is attainable. We are working very much to that end.,PROGRESS OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM IN U.S. AND,OF ELECTORAL COMMITTEE IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, regarding the legislative forecast here, because Congress may want to go home a little earlier this year than last, are you submitting any priority list to them on administration programs you have?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. We try to avoid that old trap. When you list priority bills, a fellow's bill that is not included might cause him to get upset.,We make our recommendations and express the hope that all of them will be duly considered and acted upon. Of course, a good many of them will be modified and amended, and some of them will be postponed and delayed.,But I think we are making very good progress. We are very pleased with what the Congress is doing.,The last 3 weeks--I was reviewing this with some of them last night--we passed the assets participation bill, which was very important to us.,We passed the minimum wage bill in the House.,We have some other major pieces of legislation during that period--a substantial step in each direction.,We have our truth-in-packaging in the Senate now. It's very important.,We have our military construction up in the House today, and our narcotics bill.\nSo we are making solid progress right on down the road.,We are very concerned about our foreign aid in both the House and the Senate. We have completed our hearings.,I have asked each Cabinet officer to review all of their measures: Agriculture--the food for freedom bill and the REA financing; Interior--the various conservation bills; HUD--the rent supplement and the cities legislation; HEW--the Teacher Corps.,We are doing all of that. Most of these hearings are out of the way now. In a good many instances, one House or the other has already acted upon them. Now we will try to move as many of them as we can down the stretch. There is not anything that is a critical emergency, or anything that is in great difficulty that should cause us to panic.,I feel about our legislative program very much like I feel about the question on Vietnam. I don't think we should panic because we have some problems.,Politics is never easy in our country-even with all of our experience--and it certainly isn't easy in the midst of aggression like that being waged against South Vietnam. But with reasonable unity and proper diligence--and by constantly keeping in mind our national interest--we will achieve our objectives here and there.,I am encouraged by the progress we are making in Congress, and I am encouraged by the progress the electoral committee is making out there--although I don't get to follow its progress in the press as fully and in depth as I would like to. I have to go back and dig up some of the cables from day to day, because the progress that the committee is making in the electoral developments is not as headline-grabbing as some of the other distressing incidents.,Nevertheless, they are moving forward step by step. While there will be missteps, the direction is sound.,That is about the same way here at home. There will be some missteps, but we are going in the right direction. I think that you will find that the historians will record that you lived in a period when we made greater progress in health, education, conservation, and development throughout the world than in any similar period in history.,It is a very exciting time to live in. There are many constructive things that we can all do. I know we all want to.,Q. I assume from what you say that Mr. O'Brien delivered a fairly optimistic report.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe in these \"optimistic\" or \"pessimistic\" terms. I would say it is a constructive report, one that shows progress. Probably 35 or 40 percent of our bills are already signed, and that many or more are already out of the committee and passed in one House.,If you had that kind of batting average when the session was over with, you wouldn't consider it a disaster. We want to make as much progress as we can, and we are doing that. You have to make allowance for certain criticisms.,I picked up the ticker the other day and read, I believe over a period of an hour, where there had been seven real denunciations. When it was added up, it didn't amount to much. At the end of the day, they passed the bill they were denouncing by a rather substantial vote.,There is nothing as dead as yesterday's newspaper, and the criticism. What we want to do is get that legislation passed.,What we want to do out in Vietnam is to have this electoral committee make progress. It may not make many headlines, but if it can bring about constitutional government, we will be very pleased.,REVIEW OF AID PROGRAMS,[15.] In our developments in NATO, Africa, Latin America, in this hemisphere, and India and Pakistan, the Philippines and Korea, and all of those areas of the world, we are encouraged and are proud of the progress that has been made. Mr. Bell reviewed that in some depth today. He pointed out that in a number of countries we have been able to reduce our assistance. He talked of what the future held for us in a rather comprehensive and successful program. It is working.,As I pointed out, in Latin America the growth rate is 2½ percent, up considerably in the last 3 years.,We just returned from a visit to Mexico.20 I had a chance a few weekends ago to spend an entire weekend with the Foreign Minister.21 He told me never in the history of the two countries did we have a better relationship. All of the things that divided us, our differences, most of them had been solved--the water salinity, the Chamizal, the various things we had controversy about.,20See Items 174-177.,21Antonio Carrillo Flores, Mexican Foreign Secretary.,We didn't go into great depth country by country today. We discussed these general areas.,The answers are good. The economy is good. The employment is good. The wages are good. The profits are good. The farm income is good. So, as a people, we are doing well. We all have ambitions. We have higher goals and we want to do better, but the reports today were constructive and encouraging.,POSSIBILITY Or TAX INCREASE,[16.] Q. Sir, can you say from your review of the economy whether you feel we are moving any further away or closer to a tax increase?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we just have to study this thing from day to day and take into account everything that is happening. We have to see how much Congress appropriates. We have to see what our revenue is. We have to discuss our expenditures and get good readings on that.,I don't want to make any prediction or do any speculating. You can see the inadvisability of doing that. If I even give the alternatives available to me, someone not really experienced is likely to predict that I intimated something that might affect the market 10 points, up or down. I know you don't want to be a party to anything like that.,Frank Cormier, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-05-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a brief statement I thought you would be interested in.,STATEMENT ON VIETNAM,[1.] We are watching the situation in Vietnam very closely. We believe everything possible should be done to bring the various factions to an understanding of the need for unity while the constitutional process is moving forward. That is what our people are trying to do.,General Westmoreland and Ambassador Lodge 1 are both in Vietnam now. We are in very close contact with them by cable, and our lower level people have other communication.,1Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, and Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,The South Vietnamese are trying to build a nation. They have to do this in the teeth of Communist efforts to take the country over by force. It is a hard and a frustrating job, and there is no easy answer, no instant solution to any of the problems they face.,We are not in Vietnam to dictate what form of government they should have. We have made it abundantly clear that it is our wish to see them increasingly able to manage their own affairs with the participation of an ever broader share of the population. We regret any diversion from that task and from efforts to defeat the Communist attempt to take over South Vietnam.,I will, of course, during the day and the week, and all the time that I am in this office, until we have a satisfactory solution of our problems in that area of the world, be in dose touch with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rostow,2 and other experts, both here and out there.,2 Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, and Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the President.,I know of nothing that I could add that would contribute to improving the situation. Therefore, I think I have said about all that I can on that general subject today.,I will answer any questions you may have on any other matters that may interest you.,QUESTIONS,[2.] Q. There is a technical matter, Mr. President. Has this statement been duplicated or mimeographed?,THE PRESIDENT. It will be given to all of you, and it will be in the transcript, too.,CLARIFICATION OF REMARKS AT DEMOCRATIC PARTY DINNER IN CHICAGO,[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you clarify your Chicago speech? 3 The New York Times and other people have thought that you were indicating that some people were less patriotic than others and that you might be interested in purging some members of your own party. Can you give any indication as to what you meant in Chicago?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I had no such feeling of that kind. I didn't think the speech was susceptible to that interpretation. I do think it is very important that the President of this country have the right, and I think he does have the duty and the obligation when the Nation is involved in the serious difficulties that we have in the world, to make it clear to all would-be opponents, and certainly those who challenge our system in Vietnam and other places, that the President is supported by the people of this country-that the President is determined to carry out the duties of his office.,3 See Item 228.,In doing that he will find people who differ with him, who disagree with him, who dissent from the policies of the Government or the Congress or of his Cabinet officials. We all understand that. We accept that.,We just want to be sure that others understand that. Because we have dissent does not mean that we have been dissected, and because we do have differences does not mean that we are torn to pieces, as we sometimes think other countries are when we read about what is happening.,Q. Have you seen any signs, Mr. President, that that is what other countries think of us now?,THE PRESIDENT. NO.,THE SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, so we are clear, did I understand you at the beginning when you read your statement to say that you would take questions on other subjects but not on the present situation in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to be charged with barring you from asking anything you want to. I made clear what I had to say on the subject, sir.,Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could give us any impression as to what your attitude toward Premier Ky 4 now is, in light of the present situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think what I have said on that subject is what I should say today and I don't believe I would go further. I don't believe a direct response to your question would do anything to contribute to solving the serious problem that your country has out there.,4 Nguyen Cao Ky, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam.,Q. Mr. President, have you possibly had any communication with Thich Tri Quang in response to his letter to you?5,THE PRESIDENT. I think I have said all I want to say on that. I think that question has been answered by others, if you will check the record.,5On May 16 Thich Tri Quang, a leader of the Buddhist opposition, appealed to the President and Ambassador Lodge for American intervention against Premier Ky. The appeal was made in a message delivered to the U.S. Consulate in Hue.,COMMENTS ON MEETINGS CONCERNING NATO,[5.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us something about your talks yesterday about NATO, the meeting last night?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Ambassador Bruce has been here for several days. Secretary Acheson, Secretary Ball and Ambassador Bruce, Mr. Rostow, Mr. Moyers,6 and others have, over the period of several weeks, been exchanging ideas and views preparatory to the ministerial meeting in Brussels in early June.,6David K. E. Bruce, U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State (1949--53) and Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on France and NATO March 15--June 17, 1966, George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State, and Walt W. Rostow and Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistants to the President.,The Belgian Foreign Minister 7 has been here carrying on consultations, as have other foreign ministers. Before Ambassador Bruce returned we decided that we would spend the last 3 or 4 days reviewing the problems of NATO.,7 Pierre Harmel.,As a matter of fact, someone said it looks like we are going to call this NATO Week because we were spending a good deal of our appointment calendar on that subject.,We did finish up our meetings for the week last night, and Ambassador Bruce, I believe, left this morning. We are exchanging views with the 14 members of NATO, and we have given Ambassador Bruce our views to carry back to London with him.,Secretary Rusk is making preparation for the Brussels meeting. Things have gone orderly and I think thoroughly and satisfactorily.,GENERAL EISENHOWER'S LETTER ON NATO,[6.] Q. Mr. President, have you seen General Eisenhower's letter to Mr. Zablocki7a on the NATO situation?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,7a Representative Clement J. Zablocki of Wisconsin.,Q. Did you discuss it with anyone?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,PUBLIC DISCONTENT WITH WAR AND RISING PRICES,[7.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how you regard some of the very recent polls that show considerable public dissatisfaction over both Vietnam and the economic situation as to inflation?,I.. The Economic Situation,[8.] THE PRESIDENT. I think that the public very generally always feels that we should get a better price for the things we sell and have a lower price for the things we buy.,I have observed that in polls all my life. I think there is somewhat more concern now than you would have in a normal period because we are coming close to reaching our objective of full employment. As we do, as labor gets scarce, as commodities get scarce, there are increases.,But comparatively speaking--I will get this chart for you on prices--comparatively speaking, our price situation is so much better than any other of the major nations of the world.\nWe have much to be thankful for.,Here is a chart I had made last night--that I asked for in connection with price statistics.8 You will see the consumer price here as 100, for 1960, and here it is in 1966. In Japan it is 140. In Italy it is 130. In France it is 120-plus. In the United Kingdom it is 120-plus. In Germany it is 115, in that neighborhood. In the United States it is under 110. It looks like about 108.,8The chart \"Consumer Prices in U.S. and Other Major Countries\" was prepared by the Council of Economic Advisers and dated May 20, 1966.,Our average price increase has been less than 1 1/2 percent a year. Rates in other countries have been at least double that. Germany has the next best record with an annual rate of 3 percent.,For France and the United Kingdom the average yearly rise has been 3 1/2 to 4. Italy's annual rate of inflation is 5 percent. Japan leads the parade with a rate of about 6 ½ percent.,So the cost of living record of the United States is far superior to the performance of any other major industrial country.,We are reaching a point that we have worked for so long, trying to get employment for most of our people. When you reach that situation, you run into other problems. I would rather face the problems I face now for this reason: increases in wages have come faster than the prices. The fact that people have work, and the fact that we have income coming into our Treasury to permit us to increase our educational efforts, our health efforts, our beautification efforts, our conservation efforts--I would rather have these problems than problems that come when unemployment is high and incomes low.,I spent some time this morning with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Budget 9 on the debt linnet. We have expenditures planned for this year of $106 billion 400 million. We believe that they will be under that.,9 Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury, and Charles L. Schultze, Director of the Bureau of the Budget.,It is difficult to predict. I don't want to have our credibility questioned if we are off a half percent out of 100. But we are hoping that that expenditure could be under what we predicted, which would be unusual. It is unusual for the President to spend less than he says he is going to spend 18 months later.,Our revenue, we believe, will be up some. We rather believe our deficit will be less than we predicted in January. I think even less than we predicted 18 months ago.,So on that problem, we recognize it. We are aware of it. We give a good deal of attention to it. The best minds in the Nation are dealing with it. It is one that we prefer to have than ones we have had.,2. Discontent With War,[9.] Now I will answer your Vietnam question. The longer we are there, the more sacrifices we make. The more we spend, the more discontent there will be. The more dissatisfaction there will be, the more wish and desire there will be to get out. Leading that parade is the President.,If you want to feel that it troubles you 100 percent, just double that and make it 200 percent for the President. Say his concern doubles yours. I am glad to say that a substantial majority of those that you refer to do approve of the course of action that we have taken. They do support their Government.,There are others who have different plans. Some would pull out, run out. Some would run in further. Some would just stand still and do nothing. You are aware of our plan.,We think that under the circumstances we are doing the best that we can. We would like to have peace. We have had two pauses. We have had economic proposals. We have had diplomatic invitations extended to all 115 or 120 countries. We sent Ambassadors to some 40 of them.,We have asked the United Nations to help. We have supported the Secretary General U Thant when he proposed that he take a trip. They would not receive him. We sent Mr. Harriman, Mr. Goldberg,10 and the Secretary of State to other capitals.,10 W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large, and Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,We had 200 conferences privately. We had visits to 40 countries publicly. We have been unable to get the other people to sit down and talk instead of fight. We are trying to provide the maximum deterrents that we can to Communist aggression with a minimum cost. That is our policy.,We think we are doing the best we can, given these facts. There are some, I think-a very small percentage of the dissatisfied-who would run out. There is a somewhat larger percentage who would run farther in. When you add the two together and put them with the group that would just sit and try to hold--you don't hold when you sit, that is the trouble, you get into deeper trouble--if you put those together, you will have collectively a certain percentage of opposition.,But those who approve of what we are doing are almost twice as many as all these various factions combined. I don't think this detailed explanation will change anyone's mind, but I hope it does give you my view of it. That same view will apply down the road. That has been it all along.,THE DEFICIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1966,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you talking of this fiscal year?,THE PRESIDENT. I am talking about fiscal 1966, which will end June 30, a month from now. We predicted that our deficit would be $6.4 billion. This January we predicted that. That was with several billion additional for Vietnam we had not anticipated. But we are getting several billion additional revenue we had not estimated. Seventeen months ago we predicted the deficit would be $5.3 billion. I believe that our deficit will be lower than the $6.4 billion and lower than the $5.3 billion.,I would say our expenditures would be $106.4 billion, as we predicted, minus a few hundred million, or plus a few hundred million. I must have that flexibility there. But that means that even with all the extra Vietnam expenses, our expenditures are not going to be greatly over what we anticipated.,Our revenues, the last estimate we made, I believe were $100 billion. I believe our revenues now will be $102.5 billion, and I would like to make it clear that it could be more.,That would leave you about $4 billion, or a little less than a $4 billion deficit compared to the $6.4 billion we predicted. You must give us several hundred million either way on those. But it appears that we will not spend a great deal more than we anticipated, and we may even spend less. I think we will. That depends on our June buying.,We will take in a good deal more than we anticipated, at least $2 ½ billion more. and it could be more.,I would think the problem that you are concerned with on revenues would be covered by these figures that we have.,THE DEBT LIMIT,[11.] Q. What is the debt limit figure you will ask for?,THE PRESIDENT. That will be given by the Secretary. I am not sure that a deficit situation has been made. It will be between $330 billion and $335 billion. It is $328 billion now. I would have to have a little range because, again, it is not decided.,OUTLOOK FOR A TAX INCREASE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, on this economic thing, it sounds like you are a good distance away from a tax boost.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to comment on your hearing or about the way it sounds to you. I have a problem with these lights and sounds on the telephone. I frequently don't hear them ring. But I have given you the facts and the speculations.,Q. Is there any change in the outlook for a tax increase?,THE PRESIDENT. We are considering all these things now. When we have any recommendations to make, you will be among the first to know them.,I see the chart go up and down based on predictions and speculations. I don't see that it really serves any good purpose. Until we reach the conclusion that we should make a recommendation, I don't want to create any false impressions one way or the other.,EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH CAUSES OF RACIAL,TENSION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, have you any thoughts on what seems to be indications of mounting racial tension in this country, such as Watts and in some other areas?11,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we are very concerned with the problems in Watts. We have been in close touch with the local officials who are dealing with that problem in the State and in the area. I commented on that last night.12 I would refer you to some of the statements I made about the desirability of trying to avoid provoking antagonisms and trying to pull people together.,11The Watts district of Los Angeles, a predominantly Negro area, was the scene of extensive riots in the second week of August 1965. See 1965 volume, this series, Book II, Items 426 and 453.,12See Item 235.,I was talking to Mr. Ramsey Clark13 just a few days ago. He spent a good deal of time on that situation. A lot of problems come into play when in areas people are urging skilled workers to come to work for high wages. We have unemployed men who cannot qualify for those jobs because they don't have training. Even if they could qualify, sometimes they can't get to work because of transportation.,13 Deputy Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who as the President's personal representative led the team of Federal officials who developed, with Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown of California and Mayor Samuel Yorty, the 1965 program of assistance to Los Angeles.,There are those things, and we are concerned with them. We are working with the local officials. We are proceeding as rapidly as we can to contribute what we can to their solution.\nLast night I said: 13a,\"But the lesson of 12 years is that compassion, when it ceases to be a cliche of the platform and pulpit, can become the binding cement of a new fraternity.,\"This is the time for bridges to be built, not for antagonisms to be aroused. This is the time for those to act who have the power to change what just must be changed. For privilege is power, and its misuse, especially to uphold an unjust status quo grown obsolete, is a dangerous wrong.,\"It is the time, too, for passion to bow to reason. The gains since 1954 must be steppingstones to greater fulfillment, not future reminders of what might have been.\",13a See Item 235.,That is why Secretary Wirtz, 14 with whom I spent a good deal of time yesterday, is working so hard on his manpower training and development and on his Neighborhood Youth Corps.,14 W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor.,That is why we are working so hard on our poverty and educational problems. That is why we are trying to conduct experiments in transportation. That is why we are urging and pleading with our people to help us meet this desperate housing problem.,People are living with their families and their children, in a good many of our cities, while rats are running through the room where their children eat and sleep. We have had the very minimum amount of housing built for people with low incomes in the large cities, too little.,That is why we are striving so earnestly to have some of our experiments put into practice, like the rent supplement, and to get private business to take on some of this development. We have a limited number that can be built under public housing-about 35,000.,We have housing, transportation, and training problems we are dealing with.,I had a memorandum this morning from the Vice President on meetings he has had with mayors. I have reports of meetings he has had with Governors. We are trying to do what we can to find training and employment for people this summer.,He met with the Council of State Governors, the Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the International City Managers, the National Association of Council Officials.,In addition, we have had Secretary Weaver and Mr. Shriver, Gardner Ackley,15 Secretary Wirtz, and others working on this problem to try to find answers.,15Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, R. Sargent Shriver, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and former Peace Corps Director, and Gardner Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.,We have made great progress in this field in the last 2 1/2 years. We are appropriating almost $10 billion more for education and health since I became President than we were the day before.,We are spending about $2 billion more on poverty each year, not to mention what the States, counties, and cities are doing.,I will have a copy of this chart made for any of you who want it.,PROBLEMS OF MEXICAN-AMERICANS,[14.] Mr. President, in this same vein, I asked you a couple of months ago about the Mexican-Americans and their unrest. Can you tell me what the situation is today?,THE PRESIDENT. I went to California on a conference in that field when I was Vice President. I have done everything I could to contribute to a better understanding. I had Members of the House who were of Mexican-American ancestry go on a visit with me to Mexico.,During that time we talked about the desirability of a meeting with the Latin American leaders in the United States, that is, the Mexican-Americans. Since then, some of my people in the White House have had conferences with Members of the House and Senate, and other leaders of various organizations, the G.I. Forum, the LULACS,16 the veterans organizations, and others.,16 The American G.I. Forum of the United States, an organization of Mexican-American veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.,We have been concerned about the special problems of the Mexican-Americans and other Spanish-speaking peoples in our country. I am very familiar with those in the Southwest.,We hope that we can arrange a meeting to invite the Mexican-American leaders and others to the White House to meet with members of the staff and probe more deeply into their problems and the actions that can be taken.,I have tried to find qualified employees for the Government from this group. I now have a good many requests out for recommendations.,Q. What about the White House conference coming up? Will that include members of that group?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the White House conference flowed from my Howard speech, 17 but we will be glad to have one of the same type for their problems.,17The President's commencement address at Howard University in Washington on June 4, 1965. See 1965 volume, this series, Book II, Item 301. For remarks by the President on June 1 to the delegates to the White House Conference \"To Fulfill These Rights,\" and for his statement on August 25 upon receiving the report of the Conference, see Items 248 and 408.,DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS IN VIETNAM WAR,[15.] Q. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, a bit earlier, you alluded to the intensive diplomatic efforts that this Nation has conducted in order to try to get a settlement in Vietnam.,Would you now say that those efforts are stagnant? Is there anything in the diplomatic area--,THE PRESIDENT. Not at all. We are working every day at it. We will as long as I am President. I think that answers the only way I can now. I assume your next one will be to please tell you what is going on.,I had two nice long visits with Ambassador Gronouski,18 who is returning to engage in conversations next week that will have a bearing on this general field.,18 John A. Gronouski, U.S. Ambassador to Poland.,Every day we get reports from other countries and their reactions to suggestions that have been made. I would say that we religiously and determinedly are pursuing every lead we can get to take advantage of every possibility that might lead to a negotiating table.,That is why I said it again the other night: If you will name the day and the place, you will find this Government ready to sit down with any other government to discuss these things.,I have with some of our most experienced and some of our new and fresh men. Ambassador Gronouski is very new to this field. He is a very creative person and an imaginative person.,I have been interested in some of his reports he has been making about some of his recent conversations and what he proposes to say in the days ahead. This week I saw a number of Ambassadors. These appointments--Congressmen, Senators, Ambassadors, Deputy Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries-do not always appear on this appointment list for obvious reasons.,I will meet with some today, including a Supreme Court Justice; you can't list them always because that creates more problems than the meeting solves.,No one wants peace in the world more than the United States of America. There is no one willing to go further to obtain it than this President.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-04-22","text":"QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT [in response to a question before the arrival of the official stenographer]. [1.] I haven't received that note. I saw Reuters1 carried a dispatch that it would be delivered to us today. I think that you know that we have exchanged correspondence with General de Gaulle.2 He has given his viewpoints and we have given ours. We have all the decisions related to them constantly reviewed and I believe they will be discussed with the Secretary as soon as he gets back.,I don't have anything to add to what we have said at this stage. I haven't seen the letter.,1 British news agency.,2 President Charles de Gaulle of France.,UNREST IN VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, it has been about a month now, since the unrest has broken out in Vietnam. I wonder what comments or observations you might have to make about that.,THE PRESIDENT. We think that the Vietnamese people are going through a trying period. They are trying to build toward and develop a constitutional government. We realize that the Vietnamese military and our military also have a problem, along with our allies--Australian, New Zealand, Korean, and all the others associated with us there--in maintaining a unit capable of directing a successful resistance effort.,We agreed in Honolulu to do everything we could, not only to continue the resistance and defeat aggression but to try to defeat social misery and establish a stable, democratic society and to seek peace.,I doubt that the Vietnamese people have ever seen such efforts made in this direction as have been made following the Honolulu conference.3,3See Items 53-56.,There are regional, religious, and tribal differences there. The country is split by those differences. In some ways they accentuate these differences.,I think the Prime Minister indicated in his January 15 speech, as he confirmed in our meeting in Honolulu, that there was a widespread feeling that, despite the war, they should move toward a constitutional and democratic government. It affects all of us. I believe we are moving in that direction.,I think it is also dear that the Communists hoped the Vietnamese people will not be able to carry it out, or that the military will not remain united, or that our people here will get tired and want to change.,But I do believe that in due time that the constitutional government will be formed.,RESULTS OF THE HONOLULU CONFERENCE,[3.] Q. Mr. President, some have said this Honolulu meeting may have caused some of the problems we have seen in the past weeks in Vietnam.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there is any basis for that at all. I think that the leaders of the Government in Vietnam have indicated their desire to have constitutional government, and many people believed to be opposed to the military effort in Vietnam were very anxious to get ahead with the pacification effort.,Prior to Honolulu, we had Ambassador Porter 4 come in and we had organized that. A good many of the Senators and others had urged us to increase our economic assistance, speed up our educational development and our health program.,4William J. Porter, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,So we met with the representatives of the Vietnamese Government for that purpose. We outlined our plans rather successfully. We are very proud of what happened.,I don't think that there is any connection with the Honolulu conference and the statements that it brought about a crisis. I had a report here this morning from Ambassador Lodge.5 I don't have his full report, but here is a quotation from the weekly report which I think gives us reason to be pleased with our discussions in Honolulu.,5Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,He says, \"For the first time in the history of this country, some competitive spirit is in evidence on who cares the most for the underdog. This would not have happened without Honolulu.\",I think from all of the people who know what happened there, they are very glad that the meeting took place. They are very satisfied with its accomplishments.,THE PACIFICATION PROGRAM IN VIETNAM,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Senator McGee 6 has said more South Vietnamese troops will have to be used in the pacification program and that would mean more American troops would have to be used in combat. Do you have any comment?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen the Senator's statement. We have secured the interest and deep concern and cooperation of the Vietnamese Government which is essential. General Westmoreland7 and those under his command will cooperate in this effort as outlined in Honolulu and as followed by the Vice President, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary Gardner.,6Senator Gale W. McGee of Wyoming.,7Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,Whatever cooperation is necessary for General Westmoreland to help the Government of Vietnam accelerate education, production, health efforts, I am sure it will be done.,One of our primary objectives at Honolulu was to get General Ky8 and General Westmoreland to understand how important we felt it was to carry along this two-pronged approach to matters there, not only military but economic.,8Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky of South Vietnam.,MANAGEMENT OF VIETNAMESE WAR,[5.] Q. Mr. President, some of the Republicans have been a little more vocal in their criticism of the administration in Vietnam. Congressman Ford9 used the word \"mismanagement\" and former Senator Goldwater10 said they are not prosecuting the war to the fullest. Do you have any comment or reaction to these statements?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think we can expect some people to be critical of what we do and the way we do it. I am sure that you find that in all periods of strain like the one we are now going through. This is not anything new.,9Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, minority leader of the House of Representatives.,10 Barry Goldwater, Senator from Arizona 1953-1965 and Republican candidate for President in 1964.,I picked up a note this morning I had Mr. Jacobsen11 write General Westmoreland in February about a need for some spark plugs at a certain place. A Member of Congress was rather critical of General Westmoreland and Secretary McNamara.,11Jake Jacobsen, Legislative Counsel to the President.,I inquired about the situation and General Westmoreland wrote Mr. Jacobsen back and said, \"My response to the President in Honolulu was that there are no shortages in supplies for the troops in Vietnam which adversely affect combat operations or the health and welfare of the command. This is a valid appraisal of the supply situation.\" That was February 19th.,We recognize that every day you do not have all you want, where you want it, when you want it, in an operation as big as the United States Government conducts. I ran out of lead pencils last night in my night reading about 2 o'clock. I wondered why they didn't sharpen some that were there. They had all broken off. But there was nobody around to criticize so I had to get up and go to my coat pocket and get a new pencil.,We have those problems. There is no mistaking it. It is going to be increasingly difficult as we carry on this effort so far from home. It requires so much in the way of health facilities, material supplies, ammunition, guns, and planes.,I don't want to play down the fact that we do make mistakes and that we do have criticisms at times. But I would say that I am very grateful for the general support and the general reaction of the Republicans, as I am of all Americans.,I think they have tried to be generally, with a few possible exceptions, very helpful to us in this whole effort.,THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, what do you see shaping up as the major issue or issues in the November election?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we probably emphasize the election a little bit too much too early. We don't have any national election in the terms of an administration, selection of a President or Vice President, this year.,There will be congressional elections, some senatorial elections. But I reviewed them for the purposes of answering questions of some of the Democratic leaders and committeemen about the Democratic seats that are up. This time it looks like in the Senate most of the Senate seats are reasonably safe.,I think even the most optimistic opponent won't assume there is more than one or two in doubt of the Democrats. It just happens it is a good year for us. The Republicans have, I think our boys feel, about six in the Senate that have serious problems. I don't look for any great sweep with that number-two on one side and six on the other.,In the House the men will be campaigning, of course, on their record. I don't believe any Congressman on the Democratic ticket ever had a more comprehensive record or a better record to campaign on.,The sentiment everywhere seems to support that record. Most of the polls show that 90 percent of the people think that we have gotten along well with Congress. The polls run from 85 to 95 percent, the President working with the Congress. I think I have reviewed now about 30 polls. I think Kentucky was off from 64 to 63, and a Southwestern State was off one or two points although we still have a 56 margin.,Except for that, there were rather substantial increases in the other areas. Our men don't know where some get this information that there is going to be any great difficulty this year. I guess it must be the wish is father to the thought, or maybe you people promote some of this doubt.,When you get out and see the folks, I think they approve of the education program. Our problem is to keep the Congress from appropriating far in excess of the budget. Someone told me the other day they are considering appropriating several hundred million dollars more in the health-education bill than we recommended. I know this year they have already appropriated almost $300 million more in the GI bill, they authorized that; $20-odd million more in the Coast Guard; $41 million more in the deficiency for impacted areas.,The agriculture bill today is $128 million more. So it seems like the Congress is not only for the programs, but for spending more on them than we have recommended.,I would think that we are going to have a rather peaceful and constructive preelection period, unless some of you fellows provoke some disputes up there.,EFFECT OF WAR ON THE ELECTION,[7.] Q. Mr. President, do you think the Vietnamese war will hurt the Democrats in the fall election?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't really believe that any of you want to make this a Democratic or a Republican Army or Air Force or Navy or war. I never use the party term in connection with the servicemen and what they are doing. I don't see many people that do.,I try to talk to the leaders of both parties in this country about the national interest and I have never seen many of them put their party ahead of their country. I doubt that they, will.,SPENDING FOR DOMESTIC PROGRAMS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Bobby Kennedy 12 said he thinks that the domestic program this year has been cut where it will especially hurt the poor--in health, education, and housing. Do you have any comment?,THE PRESIDENT. Our budget was $99 billion last year, and it is $113 billion this year. I think about $5 billion of it is in the Great Society programs generally for the poor. I have repeated to you many, many times that since I succeeded President Kennedy we have increased the spending appropriations for education and health and poverty from $10 billion to $12 billion more in the last 2 years than was being spent before.,12 Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York.,We want to continue to spend as much for education and health as we think the budget will permit. I never object to anyone being interested in education or health, or any of those things. I am glad to have the help of all I can in that field. We are going to need it. I may not be able to go as fast and as furiously as some think is possible, but we are making great progress and we are going to be making more.,MILITARY OPERATIONS IN VIETNAM,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you have spoken of the political situation in Vietnam. Could you report to us on the military operations?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have anything that I could tell you that you haven't seen in the papers. I get the intelligence briefings every night and the operation reports every morning, but I hear out of my left car on the radio just about what I am reading. Sometimes I believe you fellows get these things--they court you--before they get to me with some of them.,There is a sizable operation going on there now. I have been very proud of the way our men have conducted themselves. I think we have the very best in military leadership under General Westmoreland.,DIPLOMATIC DEVELOPMENTS,[10.] Q. Mr. President, is there any hope of changes in the diplomatic front?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have anything that I could announce that is new there. We expressed ourselves on Senator Mansfield's 13 suggestion. We had made that type of suggestion in somewhat similar form several times before. I think that nearly everybody in this country has heard from us several times.,13Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, majority leader of the Senate.,If you have any information from them through any of your sources that will encourage me, we would surely welcome it. I think you know how we feel about it. We must continue to hope and try. We will do that through every avenue, but to say to you that there has been any indication from the Vietcong or from North Vietnam that they are ready to cease their aggression, I have to say no.,They are still determined to swallow up the people of South Vietnam and by force bring them to their knees. I presume they still think they can do it.,SERVICEMEN'S TOUR OF DUTY,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in the event that this continues for some time in Vietnam, is there any plan now for consideration that may extend the servicemen's tour of duty beyond the 12 months they are currently serving now?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, it looks like they will be able to handle the 12 months.,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to your question is no.,TESTIMONIAL DINNERS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,[12.] Q. Sir, in light of your years in the House and Senate as a Member of the legislative branch, have you any thoughts about the desirability or need of testimonial dinners for legislators to help meet expenses?,THE PRESIDENT. I have spoken at many testimonial and appreciation dinners at various times for various Members and others who have received awards from time to time. I have expressed my appreciation to distinguished Members of Congress.,Q. Mr. President, do you think it is appropriate for these dinners to be used to raise money for a Congressman's personal use?,THE PRESIDENT. I have had no information about any dinners held for anyone to obtain funds for personal use, none that I have ever attended that I knew were being held for that purpose.,I always understood that they were having an appreciation dinner or testimonial dinner but I didn't know that it was for personal, or political, or local campaign, or national.,I have been asked to appear, and have. I see from your papers what is reported and I see that Senator Stennis and Senator Bennett 14 are considering the facts in the case. I would think the appropriate thing to do would be to have the body set up by the Senate to receive all the information that is available and make its judgment, and I would be willing to have confidence in their judgment.,14Senator John Stennis of Mississippi, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, and Senator Wallace F. Bennett of Utah, member of the committee.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-03-31","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have an announcement or two I would like to make while I am here, if you want to use them, and then I will be glad to answer any questions, if you have any, that may occur to you. We will call this, I guess, a White House impromptu press conference.,ADDITIONS TO THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF,[1.] I want to announce today two new additions to the White House staff.,ROBERT KINTNER,As a Special Assistant to the President and as Secretary to the Cabinet, I am naming a man who is an old White House reporter and known to most of you, Mr. Robert Kintner, the former executive with the National Broadcasting Company.,When I came to Washington sometime in the early thirties, I remember coming back on the train with President Roosevelt, and I first met Bob Kintner and his wife Jean. They have been friends ever since, and I have asked him to come and work with me. He will work at the highest level with the Cabinet, and as a Liaison not only with each Cabinet department, but with the other agencies that report to the President.,He will take a substantial part of the work that Jack Valenti is doing with the Cabinet at present, and Joe Califano.1 They are dividing it, and Mr. Kintner will assume that responsibility and relieve them for other work.,1Jack Valenti and Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistants to the President.,He will advise me on a broad range of matters, including organizational and administrative problems, coordination of the Great Society programs, as well as topflight presidential personnel.,Mr. Macy 2 does not replace him or change his duties in any way, but frequently I am unable to interview and evaluate all of the people. He will originate suggestions from here on top quality personnel. Any of you that don't want to get on the public payroll had better dodge Bob when he is walking down the hall.,2John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission, and personnel adviser to the President.,Bob Kintner is a man of wide experience in public affairs, journalism, and executive management. He is an innovator, administrator, and a genuine doer. I think the Government is fortunate to secure his services.,WALT WHITMAN ROSTOW,[2.] I am also naming as Special Assistant to the President Mr. Walt Whitman Rostow. Mr. Rostow is presently Assistant Secretary of State for Policy Planning and Counselor of the Department of State. He is one of the most original thinkers that I know. He is a man of long experience in academic and governmental circles.,He will come to the White House to work principally, but not necessarily exclusively, in the field of foreign policy. I will especially look to him for the development of long-range plans in that field, as well as special coordination of Latin American development, in which we are intensely interested, and in which he has played a very special part in CIAP (Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress).,It is one of his fields of particular interest, and I shall look to him as a catalyst for ideas and programs on the various continents of the world.,As Special Assistants to the President, Mr. Kintner and Mr. Rostow will earn $30,000 annually. The Press Office will have biographical material on each man available when we have finished here.,QUESTIONS,I will be glad to answer any questions on this subject or any other that you may have, and if Smitty will keep time on us, so that I can count this as a regular, impromptu, unannounced, hurried-up press conference, I will appreciate it.,PURPOSE OF MEETINGS WITH MAYORS AND BUSINESSMEN,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech today over at the mayors,3 you seemed to indicate a new sense of urgency and concern about the inflationary threat. Is there any single event or group of events that you can identify that have caused this concern and led you into this series of meetings, such as last night and today?,THE PRESIDENT. No. When I came into the Presidency, that led me into them. I regard the institution of the Presidency as requiring responsible leadership, and I think the country expects the President to provide that leadership. Shortly after the tragedy that took President Kennedy away from us, I asked the labor leaders of this country to come meet with me and counsel with me and discuss the problems of the Nation. They have done that at frequent intervals since then. I have done the same thing with the business leaders. I think I met with them the night before I went to the hospital last October. I met with them, I believe, again in July. I met with them last February or March again.,3 See Item 155.,I have had innumerable meetings of this kind. They are not anything new, not anything panicky, not anything frantic, not anything different. We have a review of the general problems that may be facing the Government at the time that we have the meetings. It happened that Mr. Murphy, the president of Campbell Soup,4 who happens to be head of the Business Council, asked me to address the Business Council last year, and I was unable to do so. I talked to them by telephone, if you will remember.5 He asked for an appointment the other day to come and see me on other matters, including a trip that he was taking. In the course of the discussion, we talked about when we could get back together again. Wednesday night seemed to be a desirable night.,4 W. Beverley Murphy, President of Campbell Soup Company and Chairman of the Business Council.,5 See 1965 volume, this series, Book II, Item 632.,Secretary Rusk took them on a trip around the world. He discussed the African Continent, the Western Hemisphere, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, the Tashkent Agreement, the Soviet Union, the Chinese situation, Vietnam.,The Vice President discussed his trip and a variety of matters involving economics, military, political.,The Secretary of Defense talked about the number of men in the Department, the operation of that Department, the problems facing that Department, our military strength, our equipment, various matters.,Each of them took questions on any subject--not the British system of appearing before the House of Commons and answering questions, but we extend it a little further. We have had all the Congress in this year. We have had a number of the labor leaders in this year--Mr. Meany and Mr. Reuther.6 We plan to have a dinner of this kind for them just as soon as we can arrange it. We are trying to be in touch with Mr. Meany to see what his pleasure is in the matter.,6 George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, and Walter Reuther, President of the United Automobile Workers of America.,We will have educators, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and newspaper people in. And when we have these meetings, they will have the privilege of doing what you do twice a day here, ask questions about matters that concern you.,One of the matters that I think indicates a need for information and pointing up of problems just at this moment is our cost of living. Every poll shows that our people are concerned with the cost of living. Every day the President is concerned with the cost of living. Every day every housewife is concerned with it.,So when I called in the Governors the other day,7 I pointed up to them that we are approaching full employment. We had 3 million unemployed, 73 million employed. I gave them my view as I did the mayors this morning, as I did the businessmen last night, as I did Mr. Meany and Mr. Reuther when I met with them earlier this year, as I did all the Congress--every Member of the House and every Member of the Senate, as I did all the House chairmen and all the Senate chairmen, and as I did you last week.,7 See Items 121-124.,There is not much difference. New facts come in. We get a new picture on revenues one day, and a price rise one day, a price decline another day, and they change the story some--but the general problem that you have is an economy where you have most of your people working at reasonably good wages and shortages developing, things of that kind. So we discussed that last night. We discussed it this morning. We will be discussing it with the Congressmen, with the Senators, with the country, with the Governors, with business and labor, et cetera.,BUSINESS REACTION TO DISCUSSIONS,[4.] Q. Mr. President, how sympathetic did you find the businessmen to your suggestions that they cut back on capital investments?,THE PRESIDENT. I outlined to them the situation as I saw it. I made no demand of them and just pointed up to them what we could accomplish together if we all had the same information and understood the same problem. I thought the reaction both from the standpoint of the questions asked and the exchanges that occurred were very constructive and very helpful.,I don't want to be recommending myself for the approval they gave us, but they all applauded the statements made by the various Cabinet officers, by the Vice President, and by myself. They all had a good understanding of them. They asked questions. Several of them got up and pointed out how they appreciated this, that there had never been the flow of information between any President and the industrial leadership in this country that we had now, meeting every few months and discussing them, that our door had always been open to them and they appreciated this.,I asked them about how many of them would recommend a tax increase if they were President. I answered some of the questions they asked me. We had a good constructive meeting. A good many of them were kind enough to say they thought this was the best meeting we had ever had together.,We had the Secretary of State who had to go to another meeting, and the Vice President who had to go to another meeting. The Secretary of Defense appeared before the dinner. We ate dinner in about 45 minutes. We went in to dinner about 8, I guess, and came out about 9.,I had a reception line and shook hands with each one of them. Then we went in and had the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Vice President, in that order. We went in and ate at 8 o'clock; we came back at 9 o'clock. Then I spoke to them for 15 or 20 minutes, answered questions, and had each member of the Cabinet there, plus the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, plus the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Martin, and plus the Director of the Budget, Mr. Schultze. I told them that each man would be ready to answer any question any businessman had to ask, and we would be glad to have their complaints, their suggestions, their criticism.,POLITICAL SITUATION IN VIETNAM,[5.] Q. I wonder, sir, if you can give us your views and comments on the current domestic political trouble in South Vietnam, and specifically, should there be a change in government, what effect this might have on the war?,THE PRESIDENT. I would answer all your questions in one sentence, that there is not any information that I could give you that would add to what you have read in the papers. I think that there is a very adequate free flow of information out there, and everything that is reported to this Government in that field is pretty well known to you either simultaneously, by the time I get it, or maybe sometimes a little ahead of me.,DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL ASSISTANTS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, could it be said that as your new Special Assistant, Mr. Rostow will take over all or many of the duties and assignments handled by McGeorge Bundy? 8,THE PRESIDENT. It could be, but that would be inaccurate. It would not be true. Most of the men play any position here. We hope--I hope Mr. Rostow can. Part of the work Mr. Bundy did we will say will now be done by Mr. Komer. Some of the work Mr. Bundy did is now being done by Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers.9 There will be some of the things Mr. Valenti and Mr. Moyers formerly did that Mr. Kintner will do. He will be Special Assistant. He will be paid $30,000 a year.,8 McGeorge Bundy, former Special Assistant to the President.,9 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,He will be at the service of the President, and if he needs to play first base or second base or third base, I hope that he can do it. He is equipped to do it. I don't want him to play any position too long, because he gets too familiar with you all--and familiarity breeds contempt.,CONSUMER PURCHASES,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech this morning you seemed to be advocating in some sense a buyers' strike. I hate to use that word, but you suggested that housewives and consumers might not--,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not use that word, and I did not advocate that. You were very accurate on my statement yesterday on the tax situation. But I did not advocate any buyers' strike. I won't advocate any kind of strike, ever.,Q. I just wondered if you would give us your thinking on this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. I did this morning. I can't add anything to that- I think it would be wise for all of us to be selective in our purchases, and when we see that a commodity is scarce or that it has suffered from the weather or from some other unusual situation that has resulted in the price skyrocketing, that we can just turn the other cheek, go the other way, and that will have a very good effect and balance things out.,I think it would be good if our wives chose to do so. I am not requiring them to do it or forcing them to do it, or trying to make them do it. Don't get that in there. But I think it would have a good effect if we would really put on our glasses and look at these prices and see who it was that had a commodity or product that was in short supply, and whether we could make any substitute or exchange for it.,My mother used to say, \"The one eats the most corn bread gets the most cake.\" I assume that was because we had more corn bread than cake. That is a thing we might all practice now when our fellow man is working and buying.,MEXICAN AMERICANS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, have you heard anything to the effect that Mexican Americans feel they should have more attention?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have heard that all my life. And I agree with them. I think they should have more attention. I am going to give them all the attention I can. I haven't given them enough. I want to give them more. I think that they are entitled to more consideration in Government employment than they have received. I think they have been discriminated against in housing, in education, in jobs. I don't think we can be very proud of our record in that field.,I want to see it improved. I feel a very high regard and great respect for their people and a deep affection for them. I want to do everything I can to improve their lot. I think some of their complaints and their protests have been well founded, and they have pointed up some things that we needed to hear. I hope that the appropriate people, including the President, can take prompt action on it.,Q. Mr. President, do you think they might be included in the coming up Conference on Equal Opportunity?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not explored that. I don't know the thinking behind it. But they can be included in any conference any time they would have one. My door is open to them always. I am very anxious to exchange views with them. If they are ready for a conference, I will be ready for one.,BUSINESS OPINION ON TAX INCREASE,[9.] Q. Mr. President, when you asked the businessmen last night if any of them would call for a tax increase now if he were President, can you say what their response to that was?,THE PRESIDENT. I asked anyone who felt that they would recommend to the American people that the Congress increase taxes now to raise their right hands, and there were no hands raised.,CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND THE BUDGET,[10.] Q. Mr. President, in relation to the talk about inflation currently,THE PRESIDENT. Whose talk? General?,Q. Yes, general talk. Would you comment on various actions that the Congress has taken with your budget, both in cutting and adding to?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a great problem in housing in this country, particularly in the cities. If you will go into the center of our cities and see how some of our people live--the fact that there are not many people building or renovating or improving, or who have been providing in the past desirable housing for our poor people--you can see the problem we have.,We are trying to find a new approach to that through the experimental rent supplement. We don't know that that is the answer. But the National Association of Real Estate Boards, and the home builders' industry, and the experts in housing in private and Government circles feel that it is worth testing.,So we asked, as you know, for a modicum of money for that experiment. It was authorized last year. I went to the hospital and the appropriation was held over until this year, until the Appropriations Committee could consider it further. Due to the fact that a good part of the fiscal year is gone, the money we asked for last October-October, November, December, January, February, and March have passed--the Committee reduced that request for a Teacher Corps and for a rent supplement to a figure around $21 million, the two of them, I believe, $21 or $22 million.,Now that was a great issue, and you all had your backgrounders that the future \"fall\" of the Johnson administration was just around the corner.,That was the test, and I read about it for about 3 days here and sat trembling, waiting for the announcement of that roll call, because everything depended on that $22 million vote. They had it and it was adopted.,Then in the same bill they added one that was not so important, $41 million to school districts in the impacted areas, some of which are rather wealthy districts--some adjoining here that are in rather good shape. That was over and above the budget. So they attempted for 2 days to reduce the $21 million, and then in 2 minutes put in $41 million. That is a sample of the reaction on that appropriation bill.,The Coast Guard bill I signed this morning,10 and you have a statement on that-the total authorization is $126 million. The Committee and the Congress in their wisdom saw fit to add $23,079,000 in excess of what we desire or request or think is desirable this year.,10 See Item 159.,The GI education bill was the first bill we got this year.,Is Senator Long 11 still here? He is gone, but that came out of the Congress, and a good many were here who signed it. That added almost $300 million to our budget this year, and will add almost $2 billion over the total period. Now we have cut, as I said this morning, $16 or $17 billion from the departmental requests, and there are certainly more that may be able to be reduced. Any place we can find something that we think it is wise to forgo, we are going to do it.,11 Senator Russell B. Lung of Louisiana, majority whip of the Senate.,We have Cabinet officers coming in here tomorrow to meet. I hope Mr. Kintner can be here to meet with them the first time. We are going to look at anything under their jurisdiction that could be forgone or eliminated or postponed or stretched out in the hope of saving money, particularly in the tight places where labor is tight and commodities are tight, lumber and construction and those fields. But the whole field we will review. Now we do that nearly every month, but we will do it again tomorrow.,If we can impound anything that we don't have to spend, we will do it. In my judgment--I talked to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee again this morning; I am in consultation with the men in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees nearly every week--I believe it is fair to assume that the committees and the Congress will not substantially, I am speaking in terms of billions now, reduce that $112 billion-plus budget.,I don't think they will reduce it. Now we are going to have a lot of speeches on it and we are going to have a lot of talking and there are going to be a good many handouts. They are going to say we ought to cut expenditures, but you cut one of these veterans hospitals and see what a buzz saw you run into--or you eliminate some post office and you cut out some water project or you defer some of these things.,My judgment is that the money we have in the impacted areas, milk for children who can afford to pay for it, land-grant college aid, defense loans, some of those items we have cut, from the Record that I read every morning, they are going to be put back in.,I thought we could reduce them and have a new formula, because we would be putting more back in, in education, this year. I would like to have a million and a half children who have no school lunch at all to have a school lunch before a rich man's child gets milk at a subsidy. But I am not going to be unreasonable about it. Congress has their viewpoint and I have mine. I will try to reconcile them and try to keep it to a minimum of friction.,I don't think that we can reduce the present budget by billions. We will have to let time see. So you look at these men who tell you about how much they ought to reduce the budget. You say, \"Okay, give me your bill of particulars.\" Then look at their roll call on the $41 million. Well, they did not have a roll call on that--excuse me, that was the $41 million addition--but look at the roll call on the GI bill, $300 million.,We have a bill up there for a wage increase. We have agreed to move the Government workers and the military along each year for wage increases within the 3.2 increased productivity. Last year, as you know, we increased both of those, the Congress did. I had to come back for several hundred million dollars more this year in a supplemental to pay for that over-riding. I hope they won't do that this year.,I have had a general understanding that we would try to stay to the guidelines, but there will be efforts to increase it. If I had to just make a prediction, and I was really anxious to keep as good a record as Drew Pearson 12 says he has, I would predict that the budget that finally comes to me in the form of an appropriation bill is increased over what we submitted.\nDoes that summarize what you want?,12Author of the syndicated column \"Washington Merry-Go-Round.\",FBI CHARGES AGAINST DRAFT EVADERS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday the FBI filed some charges against some people who were involved in trying to evade the draft. Do you have some thoughts on a problem of this kind in the country today?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't understand that word--soughts? Oh, thoughts. No. I saw that report. That is about the extent of my information on it, Sid.13,13 Sial Davis of Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc.,INFILTRATION BY NORTH VIETNAMESE,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that the North Vietnamese are infiltrating into the South in greater numbers. Can you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are infiltrating into the South, and they are infiltrating in substantial numbers. They have been for some time. I think that is very evident. They are suffering very heavy casualties. They are attempting to find an answer to their problem there. They are bringing in a good many more people than they did in the early days of the conflict out there and for that reason, it has been necessary for us to do likewise.,But I believe last week they had the second largest week of casualties that the enemy has ever suffered out there. I think that the count of those actually killed by body count, plus those who die, according to our estimate from those wounded, will be in the neighborhood of 50,000 since the first of the year. I get that report each morning. Their dead by body count is in excess of 10,000. Their wounded is something we estimate at more than three times that much. They lose most of their wounded, and we lose less than 1 percent of ours.,NATO,[13.] Q. Mr. President, President de Gaulle has now set a specific timetable for withdrawal of NATO, of the NATO Command from France, and of French officers from the NATO Command. Do you have any comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no comment. We are keeping in constant touch with that situation. I have communicated my views to the General, and as he spells out his to us and to the other nations involved, we will receive them, consider them, and act appropriately. When we do, we will keep you fully informed.,U.S. FORCES IN VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, does the increased infiltration by the North Vietnamese indicate we may have to increase substantially our forces over there?,THE PRESIDENT. We will, as I told you last July, from time to time add to our forces in such numbers as our Joint Chiefs and General Westmoreland 14 may feel is desirable, and as the President may approve.,14Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-03-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I am ready if you have any questions.,QUESTIONS,ADDRESS BEFORE FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE,[1.] Q. Can you tell us anything about the nature of your speech tomorrow? 1,THE PRESIDENT. No, it is going to be very brief. It is before a group Secretary Rusk wanted me to come over and visit with. I do not imagine it would be more than 15 minutes, 10 or 15 minutes. I am working on it now.,1 See Item 142.,POLITICAL SITUATION IN SOUTH VIETNAM,[2.] Q. Mr. President, sir, can you give us an assessment of the political situation in South Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have about the same information I do. I don't think that there is much I have received which would shed any light on what has been reported.,TAXES AND THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY,[3.] Q. Mr. President, a lot of the economists would like you to raise taxes, and ask Congress to raise taxes soon. Have you any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. We get a lot of advice on economics from time to time. I think that is natural. We try to weigh it all and study it and draw our own conclusions. We conferred with the economists available to the President and the leaders in this field in the House and Senate last fall and concluded that it would be desirable, in addition to the $6 billion we would begin taking out on Medicare in July, to have a tax adjustment act of roughly another $6 billion, a little over $4 billion, or which would be running at a rate of a little over $4 billion at the end of this year.,So we had $6 billion come out in January, and medical care that we provided again in January, and something over $4 billion that we provided in March. We are watching developments every day. I get reports on what is happening.,Retail sales for January and February have just been reported to me. They are slightly below November and December. New orders for durable manufactures declined in February. Housing starts have fallen to the lowest level in 3 years. I believe they are 17 percent under January--I would like to check this figure, Bill 2--and some 11 percent under February of last year, the same month last year. It is about 11 percent under.,2 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,Some farm prices and foods are leveling off. The money supply declined in February and the growth of business loans slowed down. Numerous municipal bond issues and some corporate issues have been postponed.,The increase of inventories in January was a moderate increase. Unemployment exceeds 6 percent in about 19 or 20 of the major labor markets, so we still have some problems there.,We are running just a little under our estimated expenditures in Vietnam the first 3 months of this year. We hope to pick that up and accelerate it some in the next 3 months. We had planned to run at roughly $50 billion, or at the rate of $50 billion a year for the first 6 months, that is, June 30 to January 1, and $58 billion from January 1 to June 30, for an average of $54 billion compared to $49 billion last year.,That would add about $5 billion or $6 billion, or maybe $7 billion to the economic bloodstream for extra expenditures, so we have taken out $6 billion for Medicare and we will take out $4 billion or $5 billion more with $6 billion for taxes, and this will bring us about to $12 billion to be pulled out.,We have to see what effect that has. If more needs to be taken out, we will give consideration to it. Some of that will depend, I think, on appropriations.,We are asking all of the departments, as I have told you from time to time--I do this every few months--to take a new look at their expenditures to see if there is anything that appears to be obsolete, or that is unnecessary, and forgo anything that they can.,Congress is adding some expenditures that we did not ask for. They may add some more. I read the Record every morning and it looks like there are some things that we tried to make some reductions in that they might put back in. So we will have to watch our expenditures.,There are three things that the economy suggests for consideration in a period where you are having as full employment as we are having now, and the gross national product has reached the level this one has. One of them is control of prices and wages, but very few people want to go to controls as we had to in World War II, and as we had to in Korea. Of course I don't want to, and I hope we won't have to, but that is something we have to consider always.,The second thing is the tax bill3 a that would take some more money out or draw it off. That will depend on our appropriations and our expenditures, what reaction we get from this March action of taxes, and the January action of Medicare.,3 See Item 132.,Third, is curtailing expenditures. Now they are being curtailed in some State governments and some city governments, and some of the bond issues are being held back. There has been some slowdown in our own operations, withholding construction in certain areas. We will watch it very closely and see what happens in these unemployment markets, in retail sales, in housing, and in the money market, and then take whatever action is indicated.,We don't want to act prematurely. We don't want to put on the brakes too fast, but it is something that requires study every day, and we are doing that.,THE OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION,[4.] Q. Mr. President, are you taking action against the Operating Engineers Union in New Jersey, which seems to have exceeded the wage-price guidelines in their contract demands?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, frequently in the past when you reviewed the economy with us, you have emphasized largely the prosperity aspects with things improving. Today you cited a number of negative or down factors. I wonder, sir, is it fair to conclude that you are saying that the inflation or the threat of an inflation is probably not as bad as some of the economists or politicians have maintained?,THE PRESIDENT. My statement is made without reference to economists or politicians. This just happened to be the report that I received on the 20th. There are some good things in it, like increase of inventories in January. There was a moderate increase.,The decline in NASA's budget for 1967 will free many highly skilled workers that are now in tight supply. They estimate we will have between 50,000 and 100,000 people that will be freed unless we accelerate that budget.,The relationship between unfilled orders and shipments of durable goods today remains in sharp contrast with the situation a decade ago, when this sector got us into trouble. There are current backlogs of 3 1/2 months of shipments. In 1956 they ran 4 1/2 to 5 months. That would be on the negative side. The decline of $150 million in military family housing will help ease the tight supplies of building materials.,Widespread indication is that banks are rationing customers by tightening credit standards and rejecting loan requests of their less profitable customers, and in the municipal field notable was a cancellation of a $440 million New Jersey issue. Stock prices are down. They were up the last 2 days.,Throughout the next 15 months, the increases in Federal revenues which are drawn out of the economy will exceed the increases in Federal expenditure that add to private purchasing power.\nThat is a significant thing.,Even though defense expenditures continue to increase, the shift toward restraint emerges by any measure of the budget because of the austerity in nondefense expenditures.,We are up to $600 million over last year with new tax laws and increased revenues from the growth of the economy.,In fiscal 1967 the cash budget will move into surplus, thus swinging toward restraint by more than $7 billion from the current fiscal year. On the administrative budget the move toward restraint shows up in a decline of the deficit from $6.4 billion to $ 1.8 billion.,Durable shipments meanwhile inched up one-tenth of 1 percent. I think that durable manufacturers' new orders declined 1.3. The biggest element was a 20 percent drop in aircraft orders. Machinery showed a decline. Steel orders shot up 20 percent. It goes back and forth, both of them. I think some days the news is good and some days it is different.,NATO PROBLEMS,[6.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in the light of the developments of the past few weeks, could you give us your assessment of NATO's problems and future?,THE PRESIDENT. I may do that in the morning, and I don't want to take the bloom off the rose.,U.S. POLICY TOWARD COMMUNIST CHINA,[7.] Q. Mr. President, there has been quite a bit of discussion about China lately on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. I wonder if you could tell us how you view the China problem in the light of these discussions, and specifically whether you favor the admission of Communist China to the United Nations in the foreseeable future?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Secretary of State covered the administration's position very thoroughly Sunday. If he didn't, the Press Secretary did. If not, I would call to your attention that we have watched with interest and complete understanding the testimony of various committees, those of Mr. Zablocki in the House, and Mr. Fulbright in the Senate,4 and the testimony about that part of the world. We think that it is very good to have the opinion of these professors and experts, and Ambassadors and other people.,4 Representative Clement J. Zablocki of Wisconsin, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Senator J. W. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.,As far as I am aware, it is not the position of this country that creates the problems with China. It is China's own position. We are very anxious to try to have more contact with her and more exchanges with her, but as has been explained by all of these people, she hangs up the phone. Until there is some change on China's part, I doubt that these academic discussions will do much more than satisfy people's yearning for information.,APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: ROBERT KOMER,[8.] THE PRESIDENT. I am naming Robert Komer, of Chicago, Illinois, as my Special Assistant, and he will primarily have the assignment of duties involving the peaceful reconstruction in Vietnam.,As you know, Mr. Komer is a dedicated man on the National Security Council staff. I am promoting him to be Special Assistant at $30,000 a year. He will be leaving for Vietnam on Tuesday morning with Secretary Vance 5 and Mr. Bill Moyers, my Press Secretary and Special Assistant, for a few days of visit in that area.,5 Cyrus R. Vance, Deputy Secretary of Defense.,Q. Did you say Mr. Moyers was going?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.,INDEPENDENCE OF LABOR,[9.] Q. Sir, what do you think about labor going into independence? You have had your ups and downs with labor before. Are you worried about this or not?,THE PRESIDENT. Are you informing me or asking me?,Q. Both. I am reminding you and asking you.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say that as far as I have been aware, labor has always been independent and should be. I am very pleased with the attitude of their leaders. You are probably more distressed than I am, and perhaps not as happy.,SURVEY WORK IN VIETNAM,[10.] Q. Could you give us a little more detail on the survey work that Mr. Moyers and Mr. Vance and Mr. Komer will be doing?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had Mr. Freeman6 out there. He came back with about 50 recommendations. We have had Mr. Gardner out there and he has come back with a few which will be available to me. I sat up until 2 o'clock this morning talking to General Rudder, Dr. Cain, and others who were on the Gardner mission.7,6Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture.,7The task force, headed by Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner, which was established by the President on March 6, 1966, to study the health and education needs of the Vietnamese people (see Item 106). James E. Rudder, President of Texas A. & M. College, College Station, Texas, and Dr. James C. Cain of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., were among the 15 experts who left for Saigon on March 12.,We have the best experts available in this country involved in studying the peaceful reconstruction of Vietnam, their education problems and health problems, productivity problems and agricultural problems. We selected Ambassador Porter 8 the latter part of last year and called him here in January. We had meetings down here at Warrenton. We are trying to concentrate our energies and all of our expertise and knowledge to help these people help themselves and have a better way of life.,8William J. Porter, U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,Mr. Komer will be the counterpart in Washington of Mr. Porter in the field. I want him to go there and meet with Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland 9 and try to get an on-the-ground picture and come back here and help me see that these people get what they need in that particular field.,9Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam, and Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,Mr. Komer met yesterday with Secretary Rusk, with Secretary McNamara, with Mr. Gaud in Mr. Bell's department,10 and spent a good deal of time with me and Mr. Moyers. Cy Vance is going out there. I asked him if they could ride along with him. Bob McNamara and I agreed that we would try to work it out. That is Tuesday morning after the Indian dinner here Monday night for the Prime Minister.11 They will leave in the morning.,10 David E. Bell, Administrator, Agency for International Development, and William S. Gaud, Deputy Administrator.,11 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India (see Item 149).,MILITARY SITUATION IN SOUTH VIETNAM,[11.] Q. Mr. President, could you bring us up to date on the military situation in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not have any information that you do not have. You see the reports. There is nothing to speculate about. You can see what is happening. Our men are doing a very fine job. Their morale is high. Their competence is to be applauded.,This is Earl Rudder, this old friend of mine who is a rancher from Brady, Texas, of whom General Bradley12 General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. says, \"No soldier in my command has ever been wished a more difficult task than which befell the 34-year-old commander . . . James E. Rudder (who) was to take a force of 200 men, land on a shingled shelf under the face of a 100-foot cliff, scale the cliff, and there destroy an enemy battery of coastal guns,\" while they were dropping hand grenades on their heads.,12 General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,He commanded at Normandy. He has been out at the front with our boys in Vietnam. He said that he had never seen the morale of any troops as high and never seen an army any more effective. He never saw better coordination, that it was absolutely marvelous, unbelievable, that you could move 200,000-odd men that far, that fast, that effectively. We moved their housing and their medicine and their food and their ammunition and their equipment and everything with them.,He said they have had a wonderful effect on the Vietnamese, and that the boys felt they had a mission and they were fond of the Vietnamese people and they were working very well together. He said that they would protect themselves during the day and advance and take the valleys, and spend the evenings trying to fix up the schools and teach the children.,Dr. Cain said that they saw 30 men brought in, all of them wounded and in terrible shape. He said in less than an hour he went down the line to each one of them, and most of them were wanting to get back. Probably over half of them would be back in a short time. Dr. Cain said he didn't believe there would be a single casualty in the group because of the prompt treatment they received.,So I would say that the reports from that front are good. We must not be too optimistic and we must not exaggerate what is taking place. But I get about 100 letters a week from them, and I would say they are my greatest source of strength. If I get real depressed when I read how everything has gone bad here, I just ask for the letters from Vietnam so I can cheer up.,THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS,[12.] Q. Mr. President, a number of Congressmen, Democrats running from marginal districts in the House, are worried about what Vietnam is going to do to their chances in November. How do you think about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe the Congressmen are as worried as the Republican leaders are. I have watched that, and I discussed that yesterday some. We have had 18 polls made from New York to the west coast, and they compare to 1964. We found yesterday, I think, 12 of them showed that they were in better shape than they were in 1964, 3 were in the same shape, and 3 may drop.,But they had dropped in one case from 61 to 56. In another case they dropped from 63 to 61. In another one, they dropped two or three points.,The Congressmen don't feel that way. What you have been reading are the handouts. We interviewed 270 of the Congressmen. We asked a series of questions about Vietnam. They are all worried about the sacrifices our men are making there, but there are not many of them who have any doubt about the justice of our cause or the wisdom of our course.,The vote today shows that. I have been reading where you called this a mutiny, with a vote of 87 to 2 in the Senate today. In the case of the economic aid bills, we had fewer votes cast against them than we have ever had before.,The achievements before Easter are surprising to anyone who has watched the developments in this town as long as I have. The Congressmen on both sides have done a good job, and I don't think that the Republican Congressmen, except in rare instances, have too much to be worried about. Most of them have a chance to be reelected. There are some of their Senators that are going to have some trouble, but it has been a productive year. I think we will probably have 15 or 20 measures signed before Easter, which is something unusual.,We have the Southeast Asia bank development, the economic aid, the military aid, the North Carolina seashore bill, the minimum wage here in the District, and the tax bill. I have seen tax bills take 2 years to get through.,This passed in 2 months, and we received it the day we asked for it. That is a $13 billion bill today. They did not take a dime from it. We asked for $6 billion, and you said we had \"mutiny\" running around here for 2 or 3 days. Then we received it, and it was $6 billion 10 million.,That is the kind of \"mutiny\" we like, where you give us all that we ask for, and then add a little supplement to it.,Congress has done a good job. They are doing a good job. Some folks play politics. They give out statements. I see them on the ticker--about three or four handouts a day. They are usually some new pressman who has been hired, or a fellow who thinks he is being paid by the column, like a stringer. He gives out these handouts and provokes fights. He puts a little twist on it. But the Congress is doing a good job, and the people know it. We are moving along with the program and they know it.,I had lunch today with Mr. McNamara. He spent almost 30 days testifying all morning and all afternoon. But he has cleared every single bill for which he is responsible, even next year's appropriations. That is for 1967.,He testified on economic aid and the military supplemental before the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, then had a week's vacation.,Secretary Rusk is doing the same thing. The Congress is doing fine, and the elections are going to be fine. We are glad to have them, and they are a good thing. There is not any real indication of a serious problem for either group. There are these people who pick these figures out of the air. I heard someone the other night talking about 74 or 80 House seats. It was amusing. I wondered how much he knew about any House seat.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to get out in the campaign, to explain your attitude on the Congress or to help any particular Congressman?,THE PRESIDENT. I am explaining my attitude now, and that is why I want you to help me. My attitude is good. I think the Congress has done a good job. I am not just talking about Democrats. I am talking about the Congress generally. I think that the people know it. I would not forgo a chance to give my advice if it was solicited in the right way, under the proper auspices, with appropriate sponsorship. But I have no dates set yet.,I want to try to complete this campaign to prevent aggression, to defeat social misery, and to find a way to the peace table in Vietnam. This is occupying our time now. We are trying to get our Alliance for Progress program in top flight shape. I have spent some time with former Ambassador and now Secretary Gordon.13 We are very proud of what has happened in Latin America. The last 2 years we have raised their growth rate from 1 percent to 2 ½ percent. We think that is a real achievement.,13 Lincoln Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, and former U.S. Ambassador to Brazil.,We are very interested in the developments on the African Continent. We have just named a new Assistant Secretary to succeed Mr. Williams,14 Assistant Secretary Joe Palmer, who was in to see me this morning. He is one of the distinguished heads of the Foreign Service Institute who headed the Congo task force for us.,14 G. Mennen Williams, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.,We are talking about inviting Ambassador Gronouski 15 home for consultation in the next few weeks. He has done a very outstanding job in Poland for us. We want to talk to him and encourage him in his work.,15 John A. Gronouski, U.S. Ambassador to Poland.,We have a good many world problems. We have spent some time in the last few days conferring with our allies about General de Gaulle's views on the NATO alliance. We will be having more to say about that.,POSSIBILITY OF A EUROPEAN TRIP,[13.] Q. Mr. President, is there any chance of your taking a trip to Europe before the end of the summer?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans at all along that line. I think that is something for you and Bill Moyers to talk about from time to time, which you all enjoy.,Q. Mr. President, have we overlooked anything? We are trying to get another news story.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say we all ought to be commended for our good spirits and jolly frame of mind. I appreciate the good humor you are all in. I don't know how to account for it.,HANOI,[14.] Q. Have you heard anything at all from Hanoi that has changed the picture in the last few months? Has there been any sign of an interest in going to the peace table, as you mentioned a moment ago?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We work at that every day, and we have discussions around the world in that field. We have some of our top men, and some that are not at the top level, always carrying on discussions. But there is nothing that would justify my responding in the affirmative to what you have said.,DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER GANDHI,[15.] Q. Mr. President, can you say anything at all about what you may be discussing with Prime Minister Gandhi?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I am looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to seeing the Prime Minister again. We have met on several occasions. Mrs. Johnson and I spent some time with her when we were in her country in 1961. I had lunch with her Ambassador today, and spent a good while visiting with him about the agenda.,We will be talking about our relations and what the American people can do, working with the people of India, to promote peace and prosperity. I want to hear about her ideas and any suggestions she may have as to what we can do that we are not doing in these fields.,We will, of course, talk about some of the things that were on the agenda last year when a visit was postponed, and again when I planned to see Prime Minister Shastri and was prevented from doing so by his death. We will take up where we left off there. We look forward to a very pleasant and very productive visit.,MR. KOMER'S NEW DUTIES,[16.] Q. Mr. President, would Mr. Komer continue to handle the same duties in addition to the new assignment, or is this a change?,THE PRESIDENT. No, this will be a new assignment and a very responsible one. He will be working very closely with Secretary Rusk, Secretary McNamara, Administrator Bell, and Mr. Marks of the USIA,16 on my behalf, as my Special Assistant.,16 Leonard H. Marks, Director, United States Information Agency.,I think he will have his hands pretty full on that. We are going to call him, for our in-house purposes, \"Special Assistant for Peaceful Reconstruction in Vietnam.\",I have talked to each Secretary about what I expect him to do. I talked to Mr. Komer at some length. It has been a matter that has been evolving since the first of the year.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-03-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I will give you a brief rundown. Bill Moyers 1 will supply you with any other information that I leave out.,1 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,I will ask Governor Reed of Maine, the chairman of the Governors' Conference and his executive committee that met with us this morning, to make a statement. Any Governor will respond to any question you may have to ask.,RESUME OF EARLIER MEETINGS,[2.] In the program this afternoon, I presented Gen. Ellis Williamson,2 who has just returned from Vietnam. He went in with the first Army group to go into South Vietnam. He spoke and took questions.,2 Brig. Gen. Ellis W. Williamson, outgoing Commander of the 173d Airborne Brigade.,Secretary McNamara spoke at some length and took questions. He left for a week's vacation, and I let him leave earlier. Then we asked General Taylor to address the group briefly.3,3 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, Special Consultant to the President and former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Wheeler, spoke to the Governors. Secretary Rusk spoke at some length and took all the questions that were presented. The Vice President closed the meeting with a very eloquent statement.,Bill will review the substance of those.,I reviewed with them the treaty, the joint resolution, the historical background, the troops that we had there, the economic situation, and other matters of our relations with other nations--the state of the world as we see it. Secretary Rusk discussed it by continents. He went into some detail on Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern and Western Europe, and this country.,Then we talked about the state of the Nation.,During lunch we talked about the state of the States and what conditions were in the States. Some Governors made observations about them. Governor Reed made a statement in conclusion and Governor Rhodes made a statement.,I will ask Governor Reed to speak to you now and say anything that he may desire. He will speak as long as he wants to--as long as you may want him to--and then we will be open for questions.,Governor Reed of Maine.,REMARKS BY THE CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN,[3.] GOVERNOR REED. Thank you very much, Mr. President. First, let me state that I am very confident that probably never in the history of the United States has a President ever been so generous of his time with the Governors of these United States.,President Johnson indicated early in his tenure that he wanted to work closely with the Governors and he has followed this up with a number of very important sessions with the chief executives of the United States.,I know I speak for every Governor of every State and every Territory when I express my deep gratitude to him for the amount of time he has devoted to keeping us informed, improving the relations between the State governments and the Federal Government.,Much has been said about the role of the States being submerged, that the Federal Government is more or less taking over and moving into these areas. The President today has very emphatically, by deed and word, indicated that he firmly believes in the sovereignty of the States and the important partnership we must play in order to develop our country to its greatest degree.,This, I feel, is without precedent, and it certainly is deserving of the highest commendation on the part of the Governors to the Chief Executive of the United States. In fact, we have had his time throughout the day. First with the executive committee of the National Governors' Conference to discuss problems that you were briefed on earlier. Then with a group of the Appalachian Governors, and finally with the reception, the luncheon, and with this complete afternoon devoted to a thorough, in-depth briefing on the situation in Vietnam.,We have been taken into the confidence of our President and his chief advisers, and we certainly are going to respect an obligation to treat with great circumspection the information that he has divulged to us.,I do want to say, and state it most emphatically, that every Governor of the National Governors' Conference stands foursquare behind the President of the United States.,RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF VIETNAM POLICY,[4.] I would like at this time to read to you a resolution that was adopted unanimously at the session this afternoon. It was presented by Governor Rhodes of Ohio.,\"WHEREAS President Lyndon B. Johnson has asked the Governors of the 50 States to come to Washington for the purpose of discussing ways to improve the coordination between the Federal Government and the States in the fulfillment of their mutual objectives; and,\"WHEREAS the President included in the discussions a review of the circumstances surrounding the conflict in which this Nation is engaged in Vietnam; and,\"WHEREAS the President has given the Governors a complete and candid review of the situation in Vietnam; and,\"WHEREAS the Governors have been given the greatest freedom in the expression of their convictions and the exchange of their views on the Vietnam situation; and,\"WHEREAS it is the unanimous opinion of the Governors here assembled that the policies being followed by the President in pursuit of our national objectives in Vietnam are sound and the only rational policies to be followed under the circumstances;,\"Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Governors of the States assembled in Washington, D.C. on this 12th day of March 1966, that they do wholeheartedly support and endorse the policies and programs in Vietnam being pursued by the United States of America under the leadership of President Lyndon B. Johnson.\",I believe that resolution sums up the complete and utter support that the Governors have for the administration's position in this conflict.,I could go on and enumerate and take more time, but in essence, we are completely united behind the President, and we also feel that the vast majority of the American public subscribes wholeheartedly to our objectives, that the very small number who participate in demonstrations, draft card burnings, and so on, represent an infinitesimal, small portion of the people of these United States.,We think it very important whenever we speak to speak out forthrightly that this is the position of the United States. In our trip to Vietnam last fall, in which I was chairman of the 10-member Governors' delegation going there, the first question. we received from the foreign press was: How do the American people stand on Vietnam? Do these demonstrations represent a large portion of our population?,We were able to state without reservation this was not so. The American people are wholeheartedly behind the President. I don't believe I could state it any more emphatically than to say that every Governor here is wholeheartedly behind our President.,MEETINGS WITH THE GOVERNORS,[5.] THE PRESIDENT. I would say that the Secretary of State reiterated an announcement he had made on another occasion when he met with the Governors. I guess we have met with the Governors and their executive committee at least a half dozen times in the 2 years I have been President. We have met with all the group at least three or four times; the executive committee at other times.,We have invited the Democratic Governors and the Republican Governors--all the Governors--together.,The Secretary told them today that we would make available any diplomatic, political representative of the State Department and any military representative they desired to come to their legislatures for any briefing.,We also made it clear that any Governor who could arrange to go firsthand to Vietnam, we would be glad to see that that was arranged. A dozen or so of them have already done that and have contributed valuable suggestions to us.,NOMINATION OF GOVERNOR FARRIS BRYANT AS OEP DIRECTOR,[6.] I have asked Governor Farris Bryant, from the State of Florida, to come here and meet with us today. I have asked Governor Bryant--I haven't even told all the Governors this yet, so I will just make this announcement now--I have asked Governor Bryant to join this administration. I will send his nomination to the Senate very shortly to succeed Governor Ellington as head of the Office of Emergency Planning. He will sit on the National Security Council. He will handle our stockpile matters. He will be the President's representative with all the Governors of all the States. He is, as you all know, a former Governor of Florida.,I had a biographical sketch here, but I have misplaced it. I will ask Bill Moyers to give it to you a little bit later.,The Governor has served in public life for years with distinction in the State of Florida. He is a graduate of Harvard University. He served in the legislative body of that State and served as Governor of that State and is now in private life. At great sacrifice, I have asked him to dispose of his law practice, give up his various business connections, come here and take over this job. He will take the oath just as soon as his nomination is consented to by the Senate.,I have talked to the chairman of the committee and he assured me they will have a prompt hearing on it. We look forward with great pleasure to having Governor Bryant with us. Bill will give you a biographical sketch.,We will be glad to take any questions you have, or if you have any individual questions of any Governor, or if any Governor cares to make any comment--get things out in the open here. This is a rather open society in this country. And if it is not, these reporters will make it open when they leave here!,QUESTIONS VIETNAM POLICY,[7.] Q. Governor Reed, was any effort made to get other Governors to sign the declaration? The Governors who are not here? I think there are 12.,GOVERNOR REED. That question hasn't been brought up, but I do intend to write each Governor, and the ones who were not present, to give them an opportunity also to subscribe to the resolution. There is no question in my mind that they will all respond affirmatively in this respect.,Q. But, Governor, when you say the conference wholeheartedly supports the President in his stand, do you mean to include those Governors not present, among them Governor Hatfield of Oregon?,GOVERNOR REED. Well, it is impossible for me to commit the Governors who are not present. This proposal was passed unanimously. I have every reason to believe that the other Governors will subscribe to it, but I cannot, of course, say carte blanche until I've had a chance to contact them.,Q. Governor Reed, last December the Republican coordinating committee, which includes five Republican Governors, including some, I believe, who are present at this meeting, called for a naval blockade of the port of Haiphong and the bombing of military targets--particularly military targets-in North Vietnam. Does their statement today represent a change in position from last December?,GOVERNOR REED. Not being a member of that committee, it would be impossible for me to comment concerning their views on it.,Q. Was any question raised along these lines during your meeting?,GOVERNOR REED. No, sir. The questions were raised, yes, but there was no question among the Governors when it came to supporting this resolution.,[8.] Q. Governor, is there any reason why the phrase \"under the circumstances\" was used at the tail end of that resolution?,GOVERNOR REED. Not to my knowledge, no. Governor Rhodes constructed the resolution, and I would say that to my knowledge there was no particular concern about it.,Q. Could we ask Governor Rhodes? GOVERNOR REED. Governor Rhodes had to leave to return to Ohio. I am afraid we would not be able to contact him.,THE NATIONAL GUARD AND THE RESERVES,[9.] Q. Sir, can anybody tell us--Mr. McNamara is not here--why Mr. McNamara said he thought he would not still call the National Guard or Reserves?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that that is a matter we would want to go into in detail. It is not necessary at this time. He emphasized that it was not necessary at this time. When and if it is, we will call them. But I have made that clear at various press conferences,,The Reserves mean just what they say: They stand in reserve. When we need to call the Reserves, we will call them.,I will tell you a little story about a boy I asked one time to come stay all night with me. His mother said no, he couldn't go. He had a little brother about 12 years old that was overweight and we nicknamed him \"Bones.\" Cecil was the one I wanted to spend the weekend with me and his mother said, \"No, Cecil, you can't go.\" Cecil kind of whined a little bit and said, \"Mama, I don't think that's fair. Bones done been two wheres and I ain't been no wheres.\",So there have been some people that have been called before and already served. There are some people that haven't served at all. So at the moment we are not asking those who have served before to come back and do duty again or those that were called up before to come back and be called up again. We are asking some to give their service for the first time. But when and if it is necessary to call the Reserves, we will do it.,The Secretary explained that he could not give any written guarantee that that Would not be necessary, but at this time it isn't.,FURTHER QUESTION ON THE VIETNAM POLICY,[10.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything you can say about the unanimous support given you by the Governors on your Vietnam policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I welcome any support that I can get from anyone. I am gratified that the leaders of the States represented here, and the Governors who visited our troops in Vietnam, would feel as they do. No one gave me any advance notice that Governor Rhodes from Ohio would make his speech and offer his resolution. I did not anticipate that he would.,All we wanted to do was to do what we did 8 months ago--to bring them up to date on what we were doing, what our plans were, why we were doing certain things, and to permit them to ask any question they wanted to ask. They did that.,At the conclusion, the Governor of Maine, who was chairman and who had asked for a meeting, was gracious enough to express his appreciation for at least our hospitality and our lunch and the meeting.,Following the Governor's statement, Governor Rhodes arose and presented the resolution and read it. Governor Reed heard a second and a vote was taken on it. I hope it is not too displeasing to anyone. It is very pleasing to me and most Americans welcome the unity that it indicates.,NATO DEVELOPMENTS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, did any question come up on NATO or did you explain what is happening in NATO today?,THE PRESIDENT. 'Yes. Secretary Rusk pointed out the developments in the NATO countries, the action that had been taken in the last few days there, as he did in other parts of the world.,DISCUSSION OF FOREIGN POLICY,[12.] Q. Mr. President, although there was unanimous endorsement of your policy during the discussion, was there any criticism or questioning of specific aspects of the policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there were a good many questions about why we did this and why we didn't do that and what we were doing here, and what reason we were using. This is not a regimented society. I can assure you that the man who becomes the chief executive of any State in this Union speaks his mind freely when he chooses to, and some of them chose to today.,I would not say that there was any doubt or difference or any argument that took place, or that there was even any serious objection presented, you understand. General Wheeler gave them reasons for his observations. General Williamson gave them his. Secretary McNamara went into considerable detail and answered I don't know how many questions. Bill can go into the details on the number. But I would guess there were 50, 75, maybe 100 questions asked this afternoon.,None of them showed any bitterness or any envy or any displeasure. They were searching for information and asking for facts, and they got them. I thought it was a very constructive meeting.,TAX ACTIONS,[13.] Q. What did you tell them, sir, about taxes? Any income tax raise?,THE PRESIDENT. We discussed in the meeting with the executive committee this morning what has been happening on the Hill. I believe that I observed that the President had asked for about $6 billion in additional revenue as a result of the acceleration of corporation taxes, acceleration of income taxes. That was a one-time thing, I emphasized. We don't expect Vietnam to be a permanent thing. We hope it is not. We felt that that was what we should do now.,The chairmen of the committees advised us, and Mr. Mills. of the Finance Committee,4 that they thought this was the proper course to take before Congress reassembled. We asked for $6 billion, and the House acted on it and the Senate offered some amendments to it. I am told now that the conference amendment will recommend that we get about 56 billion 10 million. I am hopeful that the conference report will be adopted.,4Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means and of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.,The chairmen of the House committees met with me day before yesterday and the chairmen of the Senate committees met with me yesterday afternoon and they indicated that they believe the conference report will be adopted. If it is adopted we will be very grateful for the extra $10 million, as well as the $6 billion we asked for.5,5 The Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 was approved by the President on March 15, 1966 (see Item 132).,I know all of you are pleased to know that the mutiny that was in the air may have been worked out and we may be getting along a little better.,GOVERNORS' VISITS TO VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, have any of the Governors taken you up on the offer to go to Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think there have been probably 15 that have been out there and there will be others from time to time. I told them we would be glad to hear from them to suit their convenience. Each Governor explained to me, who couldn't be here today, that he was either sick or had a legislature in session, or some justifiable reason he couldn't come, and we will communicate with them also.,DEFICIT ESTIMATES,[15.] Q. Mr. President, can you clear up the matter of the deficit you were talking about to us this morning? You used the figure $5.3 billion. If you are referring to the current fiscal year, I was puzzled by the fact that the original estimate was $6.4 billion.,THE PRESIDENT. I was under the impression that the original estimate was $5.3 and the present is $6.4.,Q. The present estimate was $6.4. Is that what you are saying we will be within a billion dollars of?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The $5.3 billion was within a billion of--it is $1.1 billion to be exact. Between $5.3 billion and $6.4 billion there is $1.1 billion difference. We don't expect the $6.4 billion--we don't expect to reach that, although the estimate was made January 1st.,As I said this morning, our military expenditures in the months of January and February amount to approximately what we expected. The first 6 months of the year we ran in the neighborhood of about $50 billion. We are projecting that the last 6 months will go much faster, maybe $58 billion. But we are not up to that yet. Therefore, I would expect that in that area, and some of the other areas, perhaps some of the bigger areas, we will cut that $6.4 billion down to where it will be more nearly in line with the $5.3 billion.,I don't want to be positive about that. I was talking to these men, and I'm not giving you a guarantee--[inaudible]--McNamara promise to get out of Vietnam by a certain time. It does have a lot of \"ifs\" to it. It you are going to publish it at all, you are required to publish all the \"ifs.\",Mr. McNamara said, \"if we have stable governments,\" and \"if they didn't come in from the North,\" and if these other things. So I want to point out that if we go along according to our plan, we hope to be under a billion dollars of what I told Congress originally. The budget says $1 billion 400 million in 1965, and $1 billion 200 million in 1964, so those will be the two best predictable years in the history of the Government.,ECONOMY IN FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you said that the Federal Government would try to economize in every way possible, and you said you told the Governors you hoped the States would do likewise. Is there any particular area where the States--,THE PRESIDENT. No, no! I wouldn't want anything I said to indicate that I was trying to direct or influence or even persuade any Governor to handle his business in any particular way. I said what I have said to you several times, and what I frequently say to my own Cabinet: to please take a new look at everything you are doing to see if you can find any way to eliminate anything obsolete or archaic or anything that can be postponed.,I told the Governors that that was what I was doing, and some of them indicated that they were trying to do the same thing. I think we are all called upon during this emergency to exercise the greatest frugality and prudence in order that we may have sufficient resources to complete our assignment in Vietnam.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-03-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, we are running a little bit late, about 15 minutes, for the other meeting. That is not uncommon for men in political life. But we want to give you a very brief resume. of what happened. Those in attendance at the meeting, as you will observe, are Governor Wallace of Alabama, Governor Tawes of Maryland, Governor Rockefeller of New York, Governor Moore of North Carolina, Governor Rhodes of Ohio, Governor McNair of South Carolina, Governor Smith of West Virginia, Governor Clement of Tennessee, and Governor Scranton from Pennsylvania, who was to be spokesman. We were unable to have Governors Godwin, Breathitt, and Sanders.,APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION REPORT FOR 1965,[2.] Governor Scranton and Cochairman Sweeney 1 have presented me with the 1965 Appalachia report,2 which should be available to you. We had a general discussion of the program. I had a brief statement which Mr. Moyers 3 will make available to you. The meat of it was that 100 percent of the highway message, which Congress authorized in Appalachia, had been approved by the Commission. Twenty percent of it was already under the planning and construction stage. We approved 125 public facility projects. We have 105 more under consideration. We had put $400 million extra in development contracts in the Appalachian area in 1965 and 1966 over what we had done in 1964.,1Governor William W. Scranton of Pennsylvania, State Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and John L. Sweeney, Federal Cochairman.,2The annual report of the Appalachian Regional Commission, covering the period March 9-June 30, 1965, was transmitted to the President on December 31, 1965 (Government Printing Office, 1965, 27 pp.).,3Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President. For the statement see Item 123.,Under the educational aid, Appalachia will be a prime beneficiary of the $1.3 billion educational aid bill.,A disproportionate share of the less fortunate people in Appalachia are over age 65. I have been told today that Medicare will substantially ease the financial burden faced by these people and the private and public institutions which provide their hospital and medical services.,I expressed great personal satisfaction from today's meeting. I thanked each of the Governors for their nonpartisan and patriotic support and effective work. We observed that there has been no relationship in my experience in Government that had been more constructive or more cooperative. We are grateful for the leadership of Mr. Sweeney.,That was about it.,I would like for Governor Scranton to make any observations that he may care to make. He made a very fine, constructive statement, and he can repeat as much of it as he dares or cares to. Then each Governor will be glad to make any observations he wants, and will answer any of your questions. I hope you will understand though that we do have them all waiting for us at a 1:30 lunch.,MR. MOYERS. The Appalachia report will be available. The President's opening statement is being mimeographed, and will be available in 15 or 20 minutes.,REMARKS OF THE GOVERNORS,GOVERNOR SCRANTON. I simply reported to the President that I personally know of no Federal program that has started off better than this one. As you know, this is a unique Federal-State relationship. There has never been anything like it before.,As a group, I believe that we feel strongly that it not only works extremely well, but we highly recommended to the President that a relationship of the same sort might be made in other programs of the Federal Government, or in other regional establishments which are now being contemplated under the EDA.,Likewise, we informed him that though our particular budget is forced to take a cut because of the problems in Vietnam, we understood this and were able to arrange it within ourselves, which is remarkable in view of the fact that New York has become a part of us this year, and other States seem to be interested in joining us, too.,We also suggested in the future if he could, by the time that world problems might be a vacant sum, that we might go up. to what we have received in 1965 and 1966. But this has caused no problem in going ahead with the programs, which have been initiated more rapidly and with greater success than any Federal program with which I have been concerned.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Clement.,GOVERNOR CLEMENT. We are very pleased in Tennessee with the program of the Appalachia plan.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Smith.,GOVERNOR SMITH. We have been very pleased, and are very glad to be able to help New York get the mileage.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor McNair.,GOVERNOR McNAIR. South Carolina has been very pleased. It has been very helpful.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Moore.,GOVERNOR MOORE. We think this is the ideal Federal-State relationship. We hope that it can be used in other fields.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Wallace.,GOVERNOR WALLACE. Alabama is very pleased with the program.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Tawes.,GOVERNOR TAWES. We are, too.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Rockefeller.,GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER. We are pleased with the program, and West Virginia, in reference to the highway program. There was a discussion regarding the possibility of using the authority in the act to allow States to prefinance on programs in view of the cutback which I think was unanimously adopted by the Governors.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Rhodes.,GOVERNOR RHODES. There has always been a raging question between the States and the Federal Government as to whether they can work together. I think your administration has given a prime example of how they can work together.,We thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Are there any questions? Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-03-12","text":"OPENING REMARKS,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] If you will come in quickly--we are running late for the next meeting--I will review exactly what has happened. Governor Reed is to my right. Bill 1 has given you a list of those that attended the meeting: Governor Burns of Hawaii, Governor Hansen of Wyoming, Governor Johnson of Mississippi, Governor Volpe of Massachusetts, Governor Scranton of Pennsylvania.,1 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,Governor Hughes was in Japan and Governor Connally has another commitment and couldn't be here.,FEDERAL-STATE-LOCAL RELATIONSHIPS,[2.] The questions discussed were divided into three pans: What did we have in mind in the establishment of the commission to study Federal, State, and local governments referred to in our State of the Union Message? We discussed that at some length and I explained to the Governors what I had in mind and told them we would go into more detail in our meeting later; that we wanted to know what new institutions and new partnerships were needed to attack these problems.,How could we best organize the Federal Government field structure? How could we go about getting the best and right information on how effective these programs were, our new programs for this year, such as river basin commissions, community health services, multi-State training schools, and so on and so forth? Bill will give you any fill-in on that that you may want.,TAXATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS,[3.] The next question was with regard to H.R. 11798. That is the bill introduced by Representative Willis. It sets up uniform formulas that States have to follow in imposing taxes on business engaged in interstate commerce.,My statement in response to their query and discussion of it was that the bill was controversial. Many States have opposed it because they didn't like the thought of being subjected to such formulas. Some businessmen were against it because they thought it would overburden them by increased taxes.,There is a need to simplify and reform the whole area of State taxation of interstate business. That is a tough area full of legal and constitutional complexities. The key question is: What is the best approach? We are trying to study and determine this now.,The Federal Government has a keen interest in insuring fair and just treatment for business and States. We don't have all the answers. There are other alternatives that we are looking at. For example, 11 States have already enacted model codes. The question is: Should those be extended and are they really model? Would they be good for the Nation?,In the meantime, we have our experts here studying H.R. 11798 which concerns the Governors. We are looking at it carefully and looking at the other alternatives as well. We are open to their suggestions. We will be glad to have any comments they have. We are designating Secretary Fowler 2 to act as the Federal Government's representative in reviewing the existing proposals and any the Governors might submit.,2 Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury.,DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL REVENUES TO STATES,[4.] The third one was the question of the Federal Government acting as a partner in restoring fiscal balance and strengthening State and local governments by making available for their use some part of the great and growing Federal tax revenues over and above the existing aids. I told the Governors that we were redistributing Federal revenues; we were increasing our distribution to the States.,When I became President, a little over 2 years ago, we were spending $4.75 billion for education. This year we are spending $10.2 billion for education. That represents more than double the previous amount, an increase of $5 billion; although our budget was $6 billion more than last year exclusive of Vietnam, that we had cut out a lot of old programs in order that we can make new distributions to the States.,That meant research stations, that meant closing of military bases, that meant effecting economies in other routes so we could have what we popularly call Great Society programs--education, health, and conservation in these fields. I illustrated it by the fact that Federal expenditures for aid to State and local governments rose from $ 10.3 billion in fiscal 1964 to $14.6 billion in fiscal 1967, an increase of 40 percent in distribution in 3 years.,The share of Federal aid to State and local governments has risen from 6.4 percent in 1964 to 9.9 percent in 1967. The examples of major programs aimed at States and local governments that we spelled out were: $1.3 billion under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; $600 million in medical care and social security amendments; new programs to clean up rivers, modernize hospitals, help law enforcement along the line of the crime message.,ECONOMIC OUTLOOK,[5.] That pretty well covered it. I discussed the problem we had with the economy, unemployment dropping to 3.7. I told them we couldn't tell this far ahead just what strains would be put on our economy. We had to watch it very carefully. We couldn't anticipate what would happen in Vietnam very far ahead as near as we could anticipate for--but we might have to ask for extra money. At least we were going to forgo every possible expenditure that we could that we felt could be eliminated that was archaic or obsolete, and I hoped they would do likewise.,Governor Reed can comment or say anything he wants to. We will go into the Appalachian meeting following this one. I am running a little late. We will go to the meeting this afternoon and have a general exchange of briefings on the state of the Nation--the state of the world, a briefing on the state of the Nation, and I hope a briefing on the state of the States. We will hear from them about the State conditions.,We will tell them what we believe the national condition is and we will review in some detail the world condition. Our people will report to you as much as they can after those meetings, and Governor Reed, as the Chairman of this group, if you have any observations, you can make them now, too, so we can go on.,COMMENTS BY THE CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN,[6.] GOVERNOR REED. Thank you, Mr. President.,This marks the third time that the Executive Committee of the National Governors' Conference has had an opportunity to meet with the President. In my recollection, this is the most opportunities that have ever been afforded the Governors to have direct communication with the President. We are very grateful for it.,The President has outlined the areas that we had concern in and I know I speak for my fellow Governors when I say that we are relieved, we are encouraged for the prospects of closer liaison between Federal and State governments.,There are many new programs to be implemented, and we feel that meetings of this type will help better inform the Governors as to the President's view as to how these should be implemented.,We are also delighted with the prospects of continuing closer relationships with our Federal Government. In all these areas the President has outlined his thinking, and we are very pleased that a meeting of this kind has been possible and feel that this is going to result in greater and better Federal-State relationships.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Reed and his group, the Executive Committee, called upon me at the ranch following my operation last fall. This meeting really grew out of that meeting. I have never participated in a more constructive one. Everything that we do in these respective fields that he enumerated will be done only after a full discussion with the Governors and in full cooperation with them.,The meeting was helpful to me. It was constructive. It was nonpartisan. It was in the very best traditions of the American political system.\nThank you.,GOVERNOR REED. Mr. President, we feel the prospects were never better for Federal-State relationships. We are very grateful to you.,ADDENDUM TO OPENING REMARKS,[7.] THE PRESIDENT. I might add, in addition to the names I gave you, Governor Farris Bryant is sitting in these meetings with me, along with two or three others who are not Governors, but Governor Bryant's experience as Governor, his participation in the Governors' Conference, and so forth-he was here and I asked him to participate in this meeting and be helpful to me and to the Governors today. He will be participating in the meeting later this afternoon.,As all of you know, he is the former chairman of the Governors' Conference.,Any questions you want to ask me, I don't want to dodge or delay them. I will be glad if you will try to be limited with them.,QUESTIONS,[8.] Q. I gather you are going to send up a message on State-Federal relations.,THE PRESIDENT. We have always referred to it in the State of the Union Message.3 They wanted me to add to it today. We have done that. As we get to it, we will spell it out in more detail.,3 See Item 6.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the Governors' Conference is on record for the so-called Heller plan.4,THE PRESIDENT. That is what we were talking about in the distribution of funds. We told them we were distributing a good deal of funds now.,4 A revenue-sharing plan proposed by Walter Heller, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, under which surplus Federal tax receipts would be distributed annually to the States for use as they determined.,POSSIBILITY OF TAX INCREASE; DEFICIT ESTIMATES,[10.] Q. Mr. President, when you told the Governors that we might have to ask for extra money, were you thinking in terms of an increase in personal taxes, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't reached any conclusions on that. I think that we have anticipated as accurately and as nearly as we can our appropriations and our revenues for this fiscal year and for the next one. We have no illusions, though, that they may have to be adjusted.,I did review with the Governors the record on our estimates to date. I don't know if the Herald-Tribune would be interested, but I will be glad to give it to you.,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. In the 1964 budget estimate, the President's estimates were down $1.1 billion from the original estimate as submitted to the the Congress. In the fiscal 1965 budget they were down $1.4 billion from the estimate that he submitted to Congress. At the moment--the estimate he submitted to Congress--we are within about a billion dollars of that estimate, notwithstanding the increased, unanticipated Vietnam expenditures, because our revenue has gone up also.,That is a 3-year period. We will know more about it June 30th, but we estimated, as you will recall, a deficit of $5.3 billion, and we think that deficit will be in the neighborhood of that figure, within roughly a billion dollars.,Contrast that with fiscal 1959's budget. They estimated $500 million surplus and had a deficit of $12.4 billion. In 1956 we had a $4.1 billion deficit; in 1957 a $4.4 billion deficit. So we cannot tell at this time, but we think that our estimates on budget revenues and expenditures show an excellent guess.,The Budget Director says it is perhaps the best estimating record in the memory of the Budget, and we did review that in some detail.\nBut we do want to make it clear that we cannot foresee how many planes we are going to lose, how many shells we are going to fire, how many losses we are going to suffer, but as near as we can anticipate them, we have provided for them in the budget.,I might say that as of March 10th, that our estimates for January and February are running a little under what we estimated we would spend in Vietnam for those periods. That is an unusual period, as you know, because of the weather and other things, but we are running a little under. We may well run over next month.,Q. That is the period January to date?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-02-26","text":"ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ASIA,THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have met this morning with Mr. Eugene Black, the great American who has done so much in company with Asian leaders to make the Asian Development Bank a reality.,Mr. Black has told me of the strong support which he has found for the Bank in his discussion with congressional leaders and congressional committees. As you know, it has passed the House and been reported unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and will be taken up shortly.1,1 The Asian Development Bank Act of 1966 was approved by the President on March 16, 1966 (see Item 133).,I have asked Mr. Black to continue as my personal adviser on the great issues of economic and social development in Asia, and I am glad to say that after discussing it at some length this morning he has agreed.,In particular, I have asked him to visit major Asian capitals early in the spring as my personal representative to discuss the prospects for increased cooperative effort with Asian leaders. I hope that Mr. Black will be able to go to Tokyo and to Manila, to Bangkok and to other major capitals.,Mr. Black has told me of his own belief in the special importance of cooperative efforts in the field of education, and I have asked him to consult with Secretary Gardner2 and to give very special emphasis to this subject during his trip. He will be provided with a Presidential 707 and he will assemble his own staff. In the next few days they will begin to work with him and assemble material and briefings in connection with his trip. Some of them are going to Florida to meet with him there.,2 John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.,ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENTS,[2.] After long thought and much consultation, I have selected Andrew F. Brimmer to join the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Brimmer is presently Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. I named him to that post last year, after he had served with distinction in banking (Federal Reserve, New York), in education, and in Government. His record at Commerce has been excellent. He has inspired not only his colleagues in the Government, but the wide array of businessmen with whom he has worked. And Secretary Connor3 has strongly recommended him.,3 John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce.,He is a young man, 39 years old. He brings to the Federal Reserve Board a unique combination of qualifications. He worked with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has been a member of the economics faculty at Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, and the University of Pennsylvania.,He has worked closely and effectively with the business community. He has studied and taught in the field of economics with which the Federal Reserve is concerned. He has been an active participant in the development and the administration of the economic policies of this Nation.,I have given this appointment exhaustive concern for some months now. Of the many men considered, Mr. Brimmer emerged as the choice of so many with whom I discussed this question.,He is a man of wide professional experience and great personal integrity, a man of moderation, whose brilliance is combined with a sense of fair play that I believe will enable him to serve with distinction in this new and important assignment.,[3.] I am today announcing my intention to appoint Mr. William W. Sherrill to the Board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Mr. Sherrill is 39 years old. He is an honor graduate of Harvard Business School with a distinction in finance and a master's degree in business administration.,For the past 4 years he has been a bank president, a savings and loan association officer, and a corporation executive. For the previous 4 years he was treasurer and chief administrative officer of the city of Houston.,He had an unusual military career. At the age of 15 he enlisted in the Marine Corps, serving overseas on two separate occasions, participating in the campaigns of Bougainville, Guam, and Iwo Jima. He was wounded by rifle fire on Iwo Jima; he spent 14 months in the Oakland Naval Hospital before he was 20 years old. He will bring to the FDIC a youthful, keen, logical mind, as well as an energetic and imaginative spirit.,[4]. I am pleased to appoint Mr. James M. Quigley to the post of Commissioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.,Mr. Quigley, who has played a major role in shaping Federal water resource policies, has been Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare since 1961. We are making an all-out attack on water pollution in our rivers, lakes, and streams--and Mr. Quigley is going to be one of the most important generals in that attack.,[5.] I am naming three men as Assistant Attorneys General in the Department of Justice today:,Mr. Mitchell Rogovin, now the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, to take charge of the Tax Division upon the recommendation of Attorney General Katzenbach.,Also Mr. Ernest C. Friesen, presently Assistant Deputy Attorney General, to become Assistant Attorney General for Administration.,I am also naming Mr. Frank M. Wozencraft, former editor of the Yale Law Journal and now a private attorney, to direct the Office of Legal Counsel. He is with Baker, Botts in Houston, Texas.,To succeed Mr. Rogovin as Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, I am appointing Mr. Lester R. Uretz. He is now the Deputy Chief Counsel of IRS.,[6.] Several days ago I announced the appointment of Mr. Elmer Staats to be Comptroller General. To succeed Mr. Staats in the crucial job of Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget, I am naming Phillip S. Hughes. Mr. Hughes has been the Assistant Director for Legislative Reference during the past 8 years.,More than any other man not immediately on the President's staff, Sam Hughes has been responsible for the drafting of the President's Great Society legislative program. Not a single bill has escaped his personal attention, and all the important legislation bears his personal mark.,He is one of those quiet but highly effective civil servants whose influence reaches into every corner of this Government, and I am delighted to be able to give him this recognition on the basis of merit and to promote him to be the Deputy Director of the Budget Bureau.,[7.] Mr. Milton P. Semer is joining the White House staff as Counsel to the President. He will work on legal and legislative matters. Mr. Semer was General Counsel and Deputy Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency before coming to the White House. He has served at the University of Chicago, the Brookings Institution, and as counsel for the Senate Banking and Currency Committee.,[8.] I will have a swearing in this week for Mr. Lee White, who is Counsel--maybe this week or the next week; he has been confirmed-as Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, in the Cabinet Room, and you will be invited to that.,GERMANY'S ANTIPOLLUTION PROGRAM,[9.] I am sending a fact-finding mission to the Federal Republic of Germany next week to study natural resource management, with a very special emphasis on environmental pollution.,Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall will head the mission. High-ranking officials from State and HEW will accompany him. This trip marks the first round of what Chancellor Erhard and I envision as a continuing consultation between the two Governments of our countries on common matters.,The antipollution programs of Germany are said to be among the most effective in the world, and I am sure this beginning trip will provide us with valuable insights and information.,WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE \"TO FULFILL THESE RIGHTS\",[10.] I am today naming a council of distinguished Americans to prepare for the conference on \"To Fulfill These Rights\" which will be held in Washington June 1 and 2.4,4 See Item 248. A list of the council members is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 2, p. 282).,These men and women, under the chairmanship of Ben W. Heineman, of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, will develop a substantive agenda for the concepts, proposals, and programs outlined in the 1965 planning session. The council will also consult with experts across the country.,To make equal opportunity a reality in America is one of the most vital tasks that we face in this generation. This conference and this council can help us meet undertaking of that task more successfully than ever.,U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE, THIRD CIRCUIT,[11.] I am nominating Honorable Collins J. Seitz, chancellor of the State of Delaware, to be the new United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. He succeeds John Biggs, Jr., retired.,GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC,[12.] I have a very interesting and exciting report 5 from john Macy, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and adviser to the President. Last November, I told him I wanted to improve the services to our citizens from every Federal agency and department, and this is his first report on that program. This report shows vigorous action to improve the quality of Federal service to the public. All units of the Federal Government, from the smallest to the largest, have acted, here at home and overseas.\n--More and more agencies have extended their office hours to serve the public.\n--We are speeding up replies to mail from the public.\n--There are now information desks to serve the public who visit Federal buildings.,5 Mr. Macy's report is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 2, p. 283).,--24-hour, 7-day-a-week telephone emergency service by many departments and agencies.\n--In many large cities, we now provide a one-stop service for people doing business with the Federal Government, so instead of someone having to make seven or eight calls at different Government agencies and traveling from one building to another, all a person has to do now is to make a single stop in some places.,John Macy tells me the prospects for additional improvement are excellent. I have had his detailed memorandum mimeographed for you.,QUESTIONS,[13.] Any additional information on biographies or personal questions you want to ask, I will have Bob Fleming and Bill Moyers 6 available to you.,6 Robert H. Fleming, Deputy Press Secretary to the President, and Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,I will try to talk loud enough in response to questions for those of you in the back to hear me. I will be glad to take your questions now.,VIETNAM,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the other night, sir, in New York7 you said that the tide of the battle has turned in Vietnam. Yesterday, General Walt 8 told us that he had said to you that we are winning there. Was that roughly what you meant by saying the tide was tuning?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I will just stand on what I said in New York. I am not familiar with what General Walt said. I wasn't there. I had a long talk with him, though, and he reviewed the situation with me. And I was very glad to hear what he had to say.,7 See Item 86.,8 Lt. Gen. Lewis W. Walt, Commanding General of the III Marine Amphibious Force in Vietnam.,REPLACEMENT FOR MC GEORGE BUNDY,[15.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what you intend to do to replace Mr. Bundy 9 when he leaves next week?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have no announcements to make now. We have a very efficient staff operating in that field, and I will work very closely with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Security Council, the Vice President, and others.,9 McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President.,I have no appointee to recommend now. I may do some shifting, changing, promoting, and transferring, but we will do that after Mr. Bundy leaves.,PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL VIEWS ON VIETNAM POLICY,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any evidence that the so-called \"hawk\" sentiment is on the rise in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I don't brand sentiment one way or the other. I think many people are interested in the developments that are taking place and opinion-molding in this country. And I think that basically all of us want to do what is best for our country and what is best for the world, and attempt to avoid war, and to bring about successful peace negotiations. Some of us feel differently at times. That is the strength of this democracy. We express ourselves pretty strongly upon occasions.,The Vice President gave four excellent briefings on his trip to eight countries in 9 days. Mr. Bundy and the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense reviewed in some detail the progressive developments and the decisions that were made at Honolulu. I think pretty generally they were accepted by those who heard these briefings. We invited every Member of the House and Senate to these unusual four meetings in 2 days.,We started by asking the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and every member of that Committee from both parties, the Foreign Affairs Committee, both Armed Services Committees, both Appropriations Committees--they have 50 members on them. Then we asked all of those who were not on the committees. And then the Vice President went to the Hill and briefed 100 others.,From time to time we will be sitting in informally with other groups. We have briefed all the leadership. Certainly there are different approaches. There always are on almost any problem that troubles us. There is much more that unites us than divides us.,I think the fact that the House passed the foreign aid authorization supplemental with less than 40 votes against it, less than 10 percent against it, I think the fact that the military authorization was reported unanimously (will be considered Tuesday by the House), I think the fact that the Asian Bank was reported unanimously by the Foreign Relations Committee (that could have been a very controversial matter, establishing a new bank out in that area involving over $1 billion with some 14 or 15 nations)--all these are good signs.,I expect the military affairs authorization bill in due time to be passed with a minimum of opposition. Of course, with as many people as we have, and as many different approaches, there will be differences of opinion. But I am rather pleased that the differences are as minimal as they are.,I am very grateful for the support of the leaders of both parties where I have received that support. And I think it will continue. I believe that out of these discussions, the New York speech, the hearings of these committees, and other things, it will bring about a unity that will serve us in good stead in the days ahead.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, some Members of Congress are quite puzzled. They wonder if you think that this Gulf of Tonkin resolution10 is more important than operating under the Constitution, and letting Congress declare war.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very clear to the Members of Congress that the President has authority to take the action he has taken, first as Commander in Chief, and second, under the treaty that the Congress has ratified 82 to 1, and third, under the resolution that said that the Congress believes it should be our national policy to support our treaty commitments in Southeast Asia, and that the Congress supports and approves the Commander in Chief preventing aggression and responding to armed attack and supporting the treaty.,10 A joint resolution to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia was approved by the President on August 10, 1964 (Public Law 88-408, 78 Stat. 384).,I think the Members understood that resolution. It went to the House for a hearing; it had a hearing in a committee. It received a rule and it was discussed thoroughly on the floor. It went to the Senate and it was considered by the Foreign Relations Committee. It was reported 31 to 1 in the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It went to the floor; it was debated.,Many, many questions were asked and raised, very penetrating questions. One of those questions, by the Senator from Kentucky,11 was about the President's authority to pledge ground forces. The chairman of the committee pointed out that this resolution clearly gave him that authority; that he hoped it would not be necessary, but it authorized him.,11 Senator Thruston B. Morton of Kentucky.,I did not feel that it was essential that the President have a resolution in order to take the action that was taken. As a matter of fact, in the Tonkin Gulf, I took the action before the resolution.,But in the light of what Senator Vandenberg12 had said about people being in on the takeoff as well as on the landing, in view of what Senator Taft13 had said about President Truman, that he was justified in going to Korea, but he should have asked the Congress for a resolution; and in view of the advice I had given President Eisenhower in connection with the Formosa and Lebanon resolutions, I said to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense:,12 Arthur H. Vandenberg, Senator from Michigan 1928-1951.,13 Robert A. Taft, Senator from Ohio 1939-1953.,\"Before we go in there to a more advanced state or involve ourselves more substantially, I want the Congress to go in with me. Let us ask them to act upon this resolution and discuss it and debate it, and give us their views: first, to declare the policy; second, to support the treaty; third, to approve and support whatever actions we might take to prevent aggression; and fourth, to approve and support whatever actions we might take to respond to armed attack.\",Now, they did that after discussion. That has been passed. I understand that Senator Morse14 is going to make a motion to rescind it. We anticipated that when they passed it.,14 Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon.,I have no desire to operate without authority, although if the resolution is repealed I think I could still carry out our commitments there. But they provided in the last paragraph, upon recommendation of one of the chairmen of the Senate committees, that they could repeal this resolution any time by a majority vote, without Presidential signature. It would have required a two-thirds vote, if it had the President's signature. So upon the recommendation of Senator Russell 15 we put that amendment in.,15 Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.,The Congress is free to act, and I am not going to try to direct or force one course of action over another. I think they will act wisely. I am a product of the Congress and I have great confidence in it. I am not worried about it.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Harriman16 said that he found the recent debate had given encouragement to the enemy. Can you give us your view of the impact of the recent debate abroad?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that I would not want to try to evaluate public opinion abroad on this. I have not been abroad. I think the Members of the Congress are going to follow the course that they think is best for this country. And I don't want to be critical of that course unless I feel it is much more damaging.,16W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large and former Governor of New York.,MILITARY EVALUATION OF VIETNAM CONFLICT,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the military news out of Vietnam seems to be somewhat more encouraging. Indeed, a number of people around town are talking with considerable enthusiasm about the possibility of cracking the enemy, or at least cracking the hard core. Do you share this kind of optimism or do you think it is premature?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked to General Westmoreland17 about his plans and his evaluations and his hopes. I was pleased with what he had to say. I don't think that public predictions on battle strategies and possible or likely results in the days ahead would serve the national interest. I have no desire to put any deadline on what might happen when.,17Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,I think General Westmoreland better understands that position than anyone here in Washington. I was very pleased at what he observed was ahead and how he felt about it.,Now, we will have a long and hard road. I don't want to try to repeat Mr. Churchill's phrase of \"blood, sweat, and tears,\" but it is not going to be easy and it is not going to be short. It is going to be difficult and it is going to require sacrifices. We want everyone to know that. But we are determined to do what we think ought to be done there.,We have told you over and over that our objectives are limited; that the Prime Minister of South Vietnam very well stated them at the Honolulu Conference:18 We want to defeat aggression.,18 See Items 53-56.,We are not trying to seize power and overturn other governments and try to dominate other peoples. We are trying to defeat aggression in South Vietnam. We are trying to defeat social misery. We are trying to establish a stable democratic government, and we are searching for an honorable and just peace.,I think that we have the forces in motion that are calculated to attempt to get good results in each of those fields. It will take time, but I don't want to put a limit on it.,MAINTENANCE OF FINANCIAL STABILITY,[20.] Q. Mr. President, with respect to the AFL-CIO rejection of your wage guideposts, should organized labor generally disregard them, what steps might the administration take or ask Congress to authorize to curb them?,THE PRESIDENT. I think very generally that organized labor is going to follow a course that is in the national interest. I never have been, as a candidate, willing to predict my own defeat, and I am not going to predict any defeats on the basis of some newspaper stories out of Florida.,I think that this country has the most stable financial policy of any nation in the world. We have been able to maintain stability better than any nation in the world. We have, because we have had the cooperation and the wise leadership of labor as well as business.,Now there will be individual situations. It may be temporarily in the aluminum industry, when the industrial leaders read that their President \"is sputtering mad,\" and it may take a week to clean up a situation like that. But the situation is very generally good in that field now.,The same thing will be true in the labor field where the President reads that someone feels very deeply about the guidelines.,I have seen Mr. Meany19 and the other leaders of labor several times since the first of the year. I think they understand my problem, and I have an understanding of theirs.,19George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO.,I am hopeful that we can keep our wages in line with our increased productivity and maintain stability, because I know that the first persons to suffer from inflation and high costs of living are the working people that they represent.,I hope that employers and business people will forgo any price increases, just as I have asked labor to forgo any increases above their productivity gains. Now there will be exceptions when neither can do that. Some times there may be a justification. Other times the President will not think so. But we are going to hope for the best, and we think we can work it out. And if we can't, we will recommend whatever legislation we may think is desirable after consulting with both groups.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON VIETNAM,[21.] Q. Mr. President, to clear up some confusion, Mr. President--,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I always want to do that. The first 20 years I was here I did that every time I met with the press. They were always confused and I found out that after I got through explaining it, I was confused.,Q. All right, sir. To clear up some confusion that seems to have arisen the past week or so about the role of the American military in Vietnam, could you, for the record, set the record straight on whether the American troops in Vietnam are fighting to stabilize and maintain a democratic, non-Communist government, or whether their goal is to get some free elections in which the Communists might emerge as part of a coalition government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would refer you to the detailed statements of Secretary Rusk on that, which I think are very clear. If they are not satisfactory, I would refer you to the statements of the Prime Minister20 at Honolulu. Then if that doesn't satisfy you and doesn't clear it up, I just refer you to the four objectives that we have out there now, which I just stated.,20 Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky of South Vietnam.,I think that in due time we will prevent aggression, establish a stable government by democratic methods, defeat social misery, and obtain a just and honorable peace. And I think those are objectives that any person in this country can embrace.,Q. Mr. President, while you are in the department of clearing up details, as to the objectives that you stated we have in Vietnam, do they not preclude both the necessity and the desirability of a declaration of war against anybody?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I explained in the beginning of my press conference today how I felt about a declaration of war, and I think it is very clear how I felt, by my own action.,TAX POLICIES,[22.] Q. What is your reaction to Senator Dirksen's21 statement earlier this week that a 5 percent tax increase is in the offing?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no information about it. I have said all along that when and if we felt additional taxes were necessary, we would confer with the business and labor communities, the legislative leadership of both parties, and particularly the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and Mr. Byrnes, and Senator Long and Senator Williams,22 and make such proposals.,21 Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, minority leader of the Senate.,22 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, member of the committee, and Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana and Senator John J. Williams of Delaware, members of the Senate Finance Committee.,We have not made any studies or made any recommendations as of this time. I would not want to preclude them. We are very happy at the action the House took on our tax bill. We are very hopeful that with Senator Dirksen's assistance--and he has been very helpful and patriotic and cooperative-we will get action on the tax bill by the deadline I set. Once we get that, then we will have to watch developments.,We don't want to put the brakes on too fast. There are some encouraging signs and some discouraging signs every day. I saw an encouraging one this morning on the Consumer Price Index. I see some increases in some prices and some downturns in some prices.,The housing situation fluctuates up and down. We just can't speak with complete, cool authority at this moment on the necessity of tax increases, but we are watching it closely, it will be high on our priority agenda.,SECRETARY OF STATE DEAN RUSK,[23.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that there may be a change,THE PRESIDENT. What reports? I don't want to deny just rumors.,Q. There have been newspaper reports.,THE PRESIDENT. What newspaper?,Q. Several newspapers, including the Washington Post, including the New York Herald Tribune, and others, that Ambassador Goldberg23 may be replacing Secretary of State Rusk sometime this summer. Would you care to comment on it?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have not seen those reports. I would not believe that the Washington Post and the New York Herald Tribune would be in the business of either predicting or nominating my Secretary of State. They are usually more constructive than that.,23 Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,I have said a number of times how I feel about the Secretary of State. When we get in these difficult periods there are always campaigns against individuals that participate in these developments. I remember the campaign that was waged on President Diem24 for many, many months, and then on the military leadership in Saigon, and then on the CIA and the economic leadership, and then on some of the Cabinet leadership--\"Secretary McNamara's War.\" And Secretary Rusk gets his share of it.,24Ngo Dinh Diem, former President of South Vietnam.,But I think if your friends on the Washington Post and New York Herald Tribune could have observed what happened over there yesterday with almost 300 Members of Congress, when one Congressman said, \"Mr. President, I want to tell you that the American Nation is proud of the Secretary of State,\" there was a spontaneous outburst and every Member in the room stood and applauded, and applauded, and applauded. And we had to stop them so we could go on with our business.,So I have told you how I feel. And I think that is how the country feels about Secretary Rusk.,I would say to any individuals who may have some particular motive in writing these stories or spreading them around that the best way they have to find out about how I feel about the Secretary of State is to ask me, and I will tell them every time what I have already told them and what I repeat to you now: that he sits first in the Cabinet and first with me. I don't think the Post or the Herald Tribune will have much to do with replacing him.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON VIETNAM,[24.] Q. Mr. President, would you be willing to speculate on the months ahead and the possible need for troop buildup in Viet-Nam on our part?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said to the American people, last July, that we had substantially over 100,000 troops in Vietnam, and we would be sending others as requested.,Secretary McNamara and the Defense Department have done the greatest job in the history of the Armed Forces in my judgment by moving almost 200,000 men from last spring to the end of the year to Vietnam-and providing housing and food, hospitalization, equipment, and everything for those men. Never has an army moved so fast, so efficiently, so economically.,I have said that as General Westmoreland made requests, they would be carefully evaluated by our Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, and be acted upon promptly.,We do not have on my desk at the moment any unfilled requests from General Westmoreland. We have something in excess of 200,000 men in South Vietnam. A considerable number of those men are support forces.,General Westmoreland will make additional requests, as he told me in Honolulu, and as the Marine general told me yesterday, but the numbers of those requests have not been made known to me.,I have a general impression perhaps between now and summer what will be asked for, but no one has told me, and I don't want to predict. But I would think we would be able to fulfill those orders without any great strain on our forces.,And so far as I am concerned, I repeat now what I said last July, and what I said in New York the other night: As he makes his requests, they will be considered and they will be met.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, did the British Prime Minister or any of his colleagues carry the diplomatic game any farther with either the Soviets or the North Vietnamese in Moscow?,THE PRESIDENT. The British Prime Minister had a visit of some duration in which he covered a wide field of subjects.25 I have no doubt but what any Prime Minister in this day and age would discuss Vietnam at some length with the people that he visited with.,25 Harold Wilson, British Prime Minister, visited the United States in December 1965.,We have received reports from him, and we are now in the process of reading them. I just finished one before I got up this morning, and I want to study it further during the day.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-02-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I had some announcements I thought maybe you would want before the weekend is over.,ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENTS,[1.] I am appointing as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Mr. Dixon Donnelley, who is presently serving as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs.,He is a Foreign Service officer. You can get the details on his background. He is succeeding Mr. Greenfield, who is leaving shortly.,I am appointing Mr. Lee White, who is presently Special Counsel to the President, as Chairman of the Federal Power Commission. You can get the details from Mr. Moyers.,I am appointing Mr. Staats, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget, as Comptroller General. Mr. Staats joined the Bureau in 1939, and was born in Kansas in 1914. He married a daughter of former Congressman Rich of Pennsylvania. I think you all know him well.,I am appointing Mr. Harry McPherson to succeed Mr. White as Counsel to the President. There is a good deal of information on Harry here. I didn't know that much about him myself.,I am appointing Cliff Alexander as Deputy Special Counsel.,PRESS SECRETARY,[2.] I am appointing Bob Fleming as Deputy Press Secretary, but he will be my Press Secretary from time to time as well, and help out generally. Robert Fleming is formerly of the Capital Times, Milwaukee Journal, Newsweek, and present Washington Bureau Chief of the ABC.,I think that is all I have. I will answer any questions.,Q. Mr. President, what happens to Bill Moyers after that? Where does he go?,THE PRESIDENT. Bill will continue to go wherever the ball is and work wherever we need him. There are a good many different places. As his tide implies, he will be Special Assistant to the President.,Q. Mr. President, do you mean, sir, that Bob Fleming is now the White House Press Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the press prefers that we have one man who does more of the briefing than anybody else called the Press Secretary. I have talked to some of them about it. We are going to call for your convenience and pleasure--Bob will be Deputy Press Secretary for the moment, but he will be doing a good deal of the Press Secretary's work.,As far as I am concerned, I will want to call him my Press Secretary and try to satisfy both of you.,Q. Mr. President, if he is yours, he can be ours, too.,THE PRESIDENT. Smitty 1 didn't think so. I talked to him about it.,1 Merriman Smith of United Press International.,Q. Pull together.,Q. Mr. President, will Bill Moyers be working on national security affairs primarily?,THE PRESIDENT. No, he will be doing just what I said. I couldn't give him one answer and you another. He will be working on anything I want him to from time to time. It may be a personnel matter. This afternoon it was, for an hour. Tomorrow it may be a legislative matter. The next day it may be an appointment matter, as it was yesterday. A good deal of the time it will be nursing the press.,Q. Mr. President, will Mr. Laitin2 remain, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,2Joseph Laitin, an assistant press secretary.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Moyers' tide will be that of Press Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. Special Assistant to the President. It has always been that. You can call him Press Secretary, though, if it gives you any thrill.,Q. Mr. President, I would like to know your preference.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say Special Assistant to the President. That is his title. But I talked to some of the boys in the press about it, and they say that since Bill does a good deal of the briefing, they want one man to be responsible. They would like to call Bill the Press Secretary. I don't object to what you call him. I am ultimately responsible and I will take it all. If you can't get to me, you can get to Bill. If you can't get to him, you can get to Fleming. If you can't get to him, you can get to whoever else is around.,I have no objection to your getting to anyone you want to if they know what I am thinking. My special problem here with 11 Cabinet officers and 10 Special Assistants is for them to be all on the same course at the same time and all know what the policy is, without one having one idea and another one another. Sometimes I can't get them all briefed, but I can brief whoever is briefing that day, and Bill Moyers.,I do hope Fleming will take over some of the heavy briefing because I think it is too much for Bill with what else he is doing, too.,QUESTIONS ON APPOINTMENTS,[3.] Q. Is Mr. Fleming here, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Welcome aboard.,MR. MOYERS. And so is Dixon Donnelley, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. And here is Dixon Donnelley, who will be over with Mr. Rusk.3,3Dean Rusk, Secretary of State.,Q. What becomes of the present Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Mr. Greenfield?,THE PRESIDENT. Ma'am?,Q. What becomes of the present Assistant Secretary of State, Jim Greenfield?\nDoes Mr. Donnelley replace him?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Is he resigning, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. That is right.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC,[4.] Q. Mr. President, are you open for other questions?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have been waiting on them, Smitty.,Q. I wonder, sir, if you could appraise this situation in the Dominican Republic, the resumption of fighting down there seeming to be increasing a little each day. Are you at all concerned about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I am concerned. I deeply regret what is taking place there. I am very hopeful that the President will be able to bring peace to the island as early as possible. It is a very difficult situation.,CONGRESSIONAL VIEWPOINTS ON FOREIGN POLICY,[5.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Gore4 said, in effect, what he and some Senators have done is go over your head to the American people and reach you that way. Do you think that is a legitimate approach?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is always legitimate to go to the American people with a program or any problem you have. They are the bosses in this country, and they are the ones that make the decision, and they are the ones to whom we are all responsible.,4 Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.,Any Congressman, any Senator, has a right and a duty to submit his program to the people and get their support.,FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Do you think that the hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee are helpful, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see that I would be the proper one to judge, because I haven't had the intimacy with them that the members of the Committee have. But that is a matter for the Senate to determine. I wouldn't find any fault with any committee having any hearings at any time, as long as they are conducted in an atmosphere of objectivity, fairness, judiciousness.,I have not observed that these have been conducted in any other manner, so far as I can see. They had Secretary Rusk for awhile and he is going to be appearing again, and General Taylor.5 They have had General Gavin.6 From what I read about him, his program or his testimony, and what I have seen about Mr. Kennan's,7 I don't see that they have done any harm to anybody.,5 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, Special Consultant to the President, former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,6Lt. Gen. James M. Gavin, former Chief of Research and Development, Army General Staff.,7George F. Kennan, former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union and to Yugoslavia.,I think it is a question for everyone fully exploring the problems that face our country coming up with the best recommendations and best programs they can. I have tried to take every recommendation submitted to me and carefully consider it and pursue it to the extent I thought justified. I will continue to do that. I welcome any suggestions any of you have.\nHave you some, Pete?8,8 Raymond p. Brandt of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.,Q. No, but I would like to ask you about the fact that you used to have some official concern here about how Hanoi might misread this kind of debate in the Senate as well as the demonstration. Do you think they might misread the present Senate hearings and think there are differences in the country which are not really legitimate?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't read the transcript of the hearing, but I gather from what General Gavin said in summary there is not a great deal of difference between what he and Kennan are saying and what the Government is doing. No one wants to escalate the war and no one wants to lose any more men than is necessary. No one wants to surrender and get out. At least no one admits they do. So I don't see that there is any great difference of opinion. If there is, I guess in their report they will recommend the program. Whatever it is, we will be glad to consider what any Senator says.,I had a letter from Congressmen giving me their views, and I thanked them and considered them and tried to tell them what the Government was thinking here. I had a letter from some Senators and they gave me their views, and I thanked them and told them I appreciated it and said to them substantially what I said to the Congressmen.9,9 See Items 23, 36.,This was our feeling. But as, if, and when the circumstances justify other decisions, why, we will make them, but we are always glad to have their suggestions and recommendations if they have any. Some of them recommended the pause, and some recommended resuming the bombing, and some recommended not resuming the bombing. We carefully considered it.,I was just looking at one Senator's record this morning who was making some recommendations. I asked to see his card and I had seen him 21 times last year. I think it is very important that we give careful and thorough consideration to every suggestion made by every Senator of either party, and every Congressman and every citizen that We Can.,I get almost a hundred letters a week from the boys in Vietnam and I try to read them and get help from them. I do get strength from them.,QUESTIONS ON VIETNAM POLICY,[7.] Q. Mr. President, earlier this week in Honolulu, General Ky, the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, said that they would not negotiate with the Vietcong. Do you think this position would present any difficulties should negotiations develop at some future date?,THE PRESIDENT. When you get Hanoi ready to negotiate, I think that the viewpoint of all the people interested in negotiations can be considered and no one will have any trouble hearing them. If you are prepared to produce Hanoi, I am prepared to negotiate.,Q. Mr. President, how is your mail in the country running on this issue?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that there are a good many people in the country that are troubled about Vietnam and wish we could find some way to negotiate, but I think the country overwhelmingly supports the position that we have taken. I believe that the Members of the House and the Senate do likewise.,All these days and weeks, all that has been said and done, I don't see any real program that anyone has presented that offers a clear alternative to recommend itself in preference to what we are doing. General Gavin didn't, or Mr. Kennan. They both are expublic servants. General Gavin--I remember hearing him when he resigned from the Army because he felt that he wanted to leave. I remember his testimony then and I saw it in the papers the other day. I didn't see anything that I could really catch onto as any great difference between us.,He said he had been misunderstood on the enclave thing. He said he didn't want to get out. He said he didn't want to escalate. That is the way we feel about it.,Mr. Kennan said he hadn't ever been to Southeast Asia. He started off by saying that he didn't want to escalate, but that he didn't want to pick up and run out.,So those are the only two experts that I have seen put on, and I have been given that feeling.,Q. Mr. President, Mr. Kennan apparently believes that withdrawal, if we left South Vietnam, would have a bad effect on other countries--or rather he does not believe it would have a bad effect on other nations. How do you feel about that?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't see that in his testimony. When I get the testimony I will read it and give careful consideration to any recommendations that he makes.,HONOLULU CONFERENCE ON VIETNAM,[8.] Q. Mr. President, when you were in Los Angeles reporting on the Honolulu conference,10 you listed 11 items which you said were discussed, and you said that in all these fields you set targets, concrete targets.,10 See Items 53-56.,Would it be possible to get a list of these concrete targets?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any. I think what I had in mind there was saying that we hoped to make certain progress in certain fields. And we expect to have another conference after a reasonable length of time, in which we will take the hits, runs, and errors and see what we have achieved, and everybody would be answerable, so to speak, as to the progress they have made and whether or not they are nearing their goals.,We distributed 8 million textbooks and hope to distribute 16 million. The next time we meet we will probably have 12 million distributed.,We have doubled the rice production and we hope to substantially increase that after these technicians we have selected from all over the country get through with their study and their recommendations.,Then we will get General Westmoreland, Prime Minister Ky, and Ambassador Lodge,11 the civilian counterparts to Mr. Westmoreland, and we will keep score and come back.,11Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, Nguyen Can Ky, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam, and Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,I hope to be in Honolulu in the next few months, maybe in the middle of the year, and see what has been done. I thought it was good that we could go there and have the Government, and the military leader, General Westmoreland, and the Ambassador, and the Deputy Ambassador,12 meet with the Vice President, the Secretary of Agriculture, and technicians, and try to expose to the world for 3 days what this country is trying to do to feed the hungry, and to educate the people, and to improve the life span for people who just live to be 35 now; to show that we really had goals, we had targets, and we were going to put the very best that we had into it.,12 William Porter, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam.,A lot of our folks have felt that it is just a military effort. We don't think it should be that, and we don't want it to be that. We have social objectives. One of our main goals is to defeat social misery. We were very glad to see the leader of their Government state what he did in the January 15th speech.,We want to follow up and try to contribute everything we could to realizing that objective. A good many Senators and a good many Congressmen have felt that we ought to place more emphasis in this field. That is what I was trying to do, and that is what I think we did do.,The tendency is for all of us to talk about casualties and military operations, bombs, ammunition, and things of that kind. I was trying to talk about some of these other things that I thought were quite important.,VISIT OF MRS. GANDHI,[9.] Q. Mr. President, have any definite arrangements been made for Mrs. Gandhi 13,13 Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. See Items 148, 149, 152. to come and visit you?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have told her she would be very welcome. She has told us that she wants to come as early as possible. I had a letter from her last night. She doesn't say when she is coming, but she wants to come at as early a date as possible.,I would say you can say that it is believed that she will try to be here in the latter part of March or April. But the Vice President is discussing with her, in response to her letter of February 9th, some of the matters that she mentioned, such as food, economic aid, and things of that type.,FUTURE HONOLULU CONFERENCE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, will the leaders of Vietnam with whom you met in Honolulu be invited to Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have no plans to.,Q. Mr. President, but the next meeting would be, again, in Honolulu?,THE PRESIDENT. We haven't definitely set a meeting, but we are going to review the hits and runs and errors down the road in the next few months, and follow through on these various missions after they have had a chance to get their recommendations put in practice.,Agriculture will come back in the next few days and then the education people will go and work for a while. They will come back and then the health people will go and work for a while. Then the AID people.,I spent some time this morning talking to Mr. David Bell14 and his group, and they are working on price problems, inflation problems, import problems--things of that kind.,14 David E. Bell, Administrator, Agency for International Development.,Then we will probably, after those three or four groups come in, have a meeting. I am guessing now, but I would guess in June or July we would have an accounting, so to speak, kind of an examination--like Luci's15 finals that she takes.,15 Luci Baines Johnson, the President's daughter.,We would say what we have done in these fields and kind of check up. We are very anxious to make a maximum effort in these fields because we want to show the people what I tried to bring out in my Baltimore speech, 16 and what we are trying to do in a good many parts of this country.,16For the President's address in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins University on April 7, 1965, see 1965 volume, this series, Book I, Item 172. day for me. I am very happy with it. I just hope it stays that way.,We have increased the number of children in school from some 300,000 to 1 million 300 thousand--multiplied several times.,We have doubled the rice production. Each one of these things--we built 6,500 classrooms--all of those things we were talking about the other day.,We are saying: \"Let's get going\" and \"Let's move into high gear.\" We are spending more economic money in that country than any place in the world and we desire doing it expeditiously, efficiently, and getting results. \"We are going to call you back in here,\" and I am going to look at them and see what they have done.,PRESIDENTIAL RATINGS IN POLLS,[11.] Q. Mr. President, a recent Gallup Poll showed that while high, your rating is about the lowest it has been since you have been in office, and I wonder how you interpret this?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't noticed much change. It is about the same thing every,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON VIETNAM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, did the Vietnamese leaders indicate to you that they think they can find the personnel to carry out the rural reconstruction programs?,THE PRESIDENT. The Vietnamese leaders were very hopeful and appeared to be very earnest. And both Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland were quite encouraged, when they left, about the results of our 3 days of discussion.,I don't know how to predict the outcome of 3 days with people that you don't know and that you haven't known before personally.,I had just met General Westmoreland once. That was one reason I wanted to spend some time with him. I saw him at West Point and liked him, and admired him. I read his cables every day and I just wanted to see the fellow who was writing them.,I would say the conference was, I thought, productive and addressed itself to constructive subjects. I think the reaction I have had from the country was that they were glad that their Government was putting the spotlight on education and health and production, and higher living standards, trying to get other people to put proper emphasis on it, too.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans, sir, to ask Congress for a resolution or some other formal expression of approval of the administration's policy in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I have a resolution saying that, I have one passed in August, I think, 1964. You read that one. I think if you get familiar with it, it pretty well explains my view.17,17A joint resolution to promote the maintenance of international peace and security, in Southeast Asia was approved by the President on August 10, 1964 (Public Law 88-408, 78 Stat. 384).,Q. Mr. President, could you say what you feel are the drawbacks, if any, to the enclave theory that Mr. Kennan set forth yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't want to debate with Mr. Kennan. I don't think Mr. Kennan follows the enclave theory as I read it. I would be glad to have you give me a memo on what Mr. Gavin and Mr. Kennan advocate and let me look at it, and then I will talk to you and give you my views. From what I have seen, I don't see any diversions.,Most people wish we weren't out there, most people wish we didn't have a war, most people don't want to escalate it, and most people don't want to get out.,U.N. CONSIDERATION,[13.] Q. Mr. President, has there been any change in the war or peace picture since you resumed the bombing and went to the U.N.?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how to answer that. I just don't know.,Q. Mr. President, Ambassador Goldberg18 gave us the impression we were not pressing the Vietnam situation through the U.N. but hoping the U.N. would get it to Geneva. Is that a correct assessment of that?,THE PRESIDENT. The Ambassador is the best source for the Ambassador's impressions. I think we made our position clear to the U.N. We made it clear to the world. What the U.N. does about it is a matter for them. I don't want to interfere in their matters.,18 Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,We have asked the Security Council. As you know, we agreed with the Secretary General 19 when he wanted to go out as Secretary General and go to Hanoi and they didn't receive him. We agreed with him when he wanted them to come to the United Nations after the Gulf of Tonkin. They didn't want to come.,19 U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations.,We felt, after we had explored with all the other 115 nations, that we ought to ask the Security Council to give its consideration and attention to it and we have done that. I have tried, really, to take every position that someone suggested and analyze it, and in good faith explore it and try to run it out to its end, whether it was a pause or whether it was an economic venture or whether it was a United Nations question, or whether it was a nonaligned proposal, or whether it was a reconvening of the Geneva Conference, or whether it was the ICC,20 or whether it was a 20- or 30-day pause. I think I have taken every single suggestion that anyone has made that seemed to offer any possibility and carried it out. I welcome any other suggestions that any of you may have.,20International Control Commission, established by the Geneva Accords of 1954 which terminated the war in Indochina between the French and Communist forces.,STRENGTH OF MILITARY FORCES,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that it will require substantially greater numbers of men to pursue this conflict and, if so, how will they be gotten? Are there any plans to call up Reserve units, or anything like that?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no present plans to do that. There will be additional men needed and they will be supplied as General Westmoreland is able to use them and as he may require them. His requests will always be carefully considered and promptly acted upon here. That is what we have done and that is what we are doing.,As you know, he has a problem of fitting them in and providing for necessary installations to take care of them, things of that nature. If your hopes were all realized and we had peace in the area, he wouldn't need any additional troops. But I don't see that at the moment. There will be additional ones. As he requests them, they will be supplied, as I have stated on several occasions.,Q. Sir, are you in a position to give any figures?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Are you able to judge, tell us, Mr. President, whether that will involve Reserves or any approval by Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to predict because you all are very critical of Mr. McNamara 21 when he makes predictions. I see at this moment no requirement for the Reserves, but I wouldn't want to say that firmly. I don't want to guess. At the moment we don't have any plans for that.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,21 Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-02-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have two or three items of interest, I think, to give you.,FOOD SITUATION IN INDIA,[1.] First of all, I spent some time this week working on the food situation for India. I think I need not dwell at length on the very serious situation that confronts the Government of India and the people as a result of the drought and the famine that exists there.,I have counseled with the appropriate Members of the House and Senate, in agriculture and foreign affairs and foreign relations and appropriations fields, and I am today making an allotment of 2 million tons of wheat and 1 million tons of maize to be immediately available, and to be shipped as quickly as is possible.,The wheat will be worth in the neighborhood of $160 million, and the maize will be between $45 million and $50 million.,I plan to see the Prime Minister 1 at her convenience, and we will at that meeting go further into the problems, the mutual problems, to try to arrive at a further course of action and additional measures that we can take and our people can take to be helpful to our friends and to the people of India, and also to talk about things that the people of India can do to help their friends, the people of America.,1 Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India.,I have reviewed this at some length with the Ambassador, at great length with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Agriculture. We have had a number of our best technical personnel there. Some are still there. Others will be going in the next few days.,If there are questions on that, I will take them now, and then I will go into some other things.,QUESTIONS CONCERNING INDIA,Q. Mr. President, I would gather, then, that the resumption of economic aid will await the visit of Mrs. Gandhi.,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to foreclose or preclude any allotments in between, but none have been made as of now. I would anticipate that she would be here in the reasonably near future. I am just passing on the most urgent at the moment. That is food. We have allotted 3 1/2 million tons already this fiscal year, and this will be an additional 3 million--2 million of wheat and 1 million of maize.,You can say that we are formulating legislation that we will discuss with the Indian Government, but we are formulating legislation that will be discussed and debated and sent to the Congress unless we change our mind. That is our present plan--to ask for a commitment of the Congress and the American people and to also use whatever influence we have, what leadership in the world, to ask other countries to come in and contribute.,Now, in just what form we will do that is still in the detail state. I went into it last night and I spent some time today with the Secretary of Agriculture on it, but he is going to be working on it today.,Q. Can you say how this might affect the American farm situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't think it would affect it a great deal one way or the other. We have adequate supplies.,Q. It will cut down surpluses, though, will it not?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Mr. President, would you expect Mrs. Gandhi to come here within the next few weeks? 2,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a matter for her to announce. She is welcome any time she can come. We have been very receptive to visits of the Prime Minister of India since we got our foreign aid legislation last year and we were in a position to know what we were authorized to do.,2 See Items 148, 149, 152. 3 See Item 153.,Q. Mr. President, this shipment you just announced is in addition to the emergency grain shipments you authorized late last year?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. This will be a total of 6 1/2 million tons. We have authorized 3 1/2 million and we will authorize another 3 million today. I haven't even told the Secretary the amount. I have been studying this since he left here.,But, as a matter of fact, I am announcing a little more than I thought. I want to be sure that we announce what we can, and then I am going to ask Congress to join me in authorizing me to make a rather substantial increase in allotments and ask the world to help us every way it can?,Q. Mr. President, is the aim to try to get it up to approximately a million tons?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that is pure speculation. We don't have any aim, goal, or objective. We want to do whatever we can to try not to have more than we need or less than we need, but we are surveying that now. We don't know what other nations will do. You can be sure America will do more than her part.,I think we do a great disservice when we speculate that America is going to contribute x or y amounts before we have even decided that, because you then wed us to a position in the public mind which is not justified, and which I am not authorized to make.,Q. Mr. President, would this be a part of your Food for Peace message, or will you put in a special bill that would apply to India?,THE PRESIDENT. This will be India, a special emergency situation for India.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what India's needs are at this point on a monthly basis or a yearly basis?,THE PRESIDENT. They have a shortage of roughly 19 million tons, and they are taking steps to ration and pull that down to several million tons--6, 7, 8, maybe down to 11 or 12 million. They can speak better about that than I can, although I had a detailed report from the Ambassador last night that I reviewed with the Congress. Is there anything else?,Q. Will you take questions on other subjects, sir?,CONFERENCE ON VIETNAM IN HAWAII,THE PRESIDENT. [2.] Yes. I am going to make another little announcement and you will probably want to ask me something on that.,For some time I have been wanting to visit with Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland. 4 Last week we explored the possibility of General Westmoreland coming here and addressing a group, and that did not work out. So I ascertained he would be in Pearl Harbor and Honolulu this weekend. I have tentative plans to have Ambassador Lodge come--,4 Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam, and Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.,Q. What was that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I have plans to ask Ambassador Lodge to come into Honolulu and join General Westmoreland there. I will ask the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with appropriate education and health officials, to join me and a very limited 'White House working group. We will leave here sometime late tomorrow and go to Honolulu.,We will ask the Chief of State, General Thieu, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Ky, to also come there for a visit and to exchange views with us. We will have both military and nonmilitary briefings.5,5 See Items 53-56.,Following those meetings on Tuesday I will return to Washington with some of the Cabinet, and perhaps Mr. Bundy,6 the Secretary of Agriculture, and other technical people may go on to explore and inaugurate certain pacification programs in the fields of health, education, and agriculture in Vietnam.,6 McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President.,As I said, I have been wanting to have a chance to review with Ambassador Lodge and General Westmoreland our complete program there. Since General Westmoreland is going to be there anyway, I thought it would be good for us this weekend to meet him there instead of trying to have them all come over here. It is a little trip for each one of us, but neither one of us has to go too far. We will do that. I expect to come back Tuesday. I don't know what General Westmoreland plans to do. Sometimes he stays there for as long as a week. I am not sure, and they are not sure, just what his plans are. I believe his wife is in Honolulu.,QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONFERENCE,Q. Mr. President, do you have any assurance that the Vietnamese officials you mentioned will be meeting you there?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Sir, have you met Prime Minister Ky before?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Have any political or military developments prompted this?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Just as I stated, for some time I have been wanting to see them and talk to them, and this seems to be a good time to do it.,Q. Are you asking any Member of Congress to go with you?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Will you use the Navy base for your headquarters?,THE PRESIDENT. We have our security people working on that, and that will be a matter that will be handled by the State Department and Admiral Sharp's 7 group out there.,7 Adm. U. S. Grant Sharp, Jr., Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in the Pacific.,Q. Mr. President, just to review your timetable, you are going to leave here tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow night?,THE PRESIDENT. Tomorrow afternoon. It will be as soon in the afternoon as I can. I plan to return Tuesday night.,Q. You will be back in here Tuesday night?,THE PRESIDENT. I will probably leave out there Tuesday night.,Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility of other allies who are associated there with us in combat to participate in this?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Will the discussions be mainly on military matters or political?,THE PRESIDENT. Just as I said, it will be on nonmilitary and military matters. We will have a good deal on the pacification matters, particularly on agriculture. Secretary Freeman 8 has been working on this for some time. I asked him about 10 days ago to go out, and then I asked him to have his technical people wait until this thing jelled a little bit.,8 Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture.,I had planned to ask Mr. Bundy to go out, but I asked him to hold back until we could try to put this all together. I have asked Mr. Gardner 9 to try to make arrangements to get excused from hearings that he will have so that he can have the health and education people, too.,9 John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.,We are going to emphasize in every way we can, in line with the very fine pronouncements that the Prime Minister has made concerning his desires in the field of education and health and agriculture. We want to be sure that we have our best planning and our maximum effort put into it. That will occupy a substantial part of the conference.,But we will, of course, very thoroughly go into the military briefing and have Admiral Sharp and General Westmoreland bring to my attention anything and everything that they feel will be worthy. I would like to know them a little better and I would like them to know me a little better.,Q. Perhaps you mentioned this before, Mr. President, but will the conferences run the full 3 days--Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday?,THE PRESIDENT. I would expect I would be coming back late Tuesday night. I would expect that I would leave here some time after noon tomorrow. Now, the precise moment, I just frankly do not know.,Q. Sir, is Mr. Bell going to go?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I haven't talked to him, but I would hope that either Mr. Bell or Mr. Gaud 10 could go. Mr. Bell, I believe, is testifying, and I don't know whether he has concluded or not. I wouldn't want to interrupt it. It is a matter for him to work out. We have had detailed conferences with him in this field and he is prepared for the action we have discussed.,10 David E. Bell, Administrator, Agency for International Development, and William S. Gaud, Deputy Administrator.,Q. Will some of Mr. Lodge's staff, like General Lansdale,11 be included in this?,THE PRESIDENT. There will be appropriate officials from some of the staffs.,11 Maj. Gen. Edward G. LanEdale, senor Iiaison officer with the Saigon government.,THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARINGS,[3-] Q. Mr. President, in Senator Fulbright's12 committee, Mr. Bell has been testifying in public hearings, and Mr. Rusk and Mr. McNamara13 both have declined to do so.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Rusk testified--,12 Senator I. W. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.13 Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, and Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense.,Q. I mean today.,THE PRESIDENT. --in a public hearing before television.,Q. Today, it was Mr. McNamara and General Wheeler,14 I'm sorry. Can you tell us what prompted this decision, please? Is there any comment on it you would like to make?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think all of you who have been around here through the years--particularly when we have had testimony on military matters and times when we are engaged with the enemy or when we are fighting Communists--know that we have tried to work out a procedure, at least in the years I was on Armed Services in the House and Senate, to make available all the information we could make available without aiding the Communists and aiding the enemy.,14 Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,I guess the most notable case was the MacArthur case where the committee in its wisdom-and the administration agreed--decided they would take full testimony and the witnesses could make complete and detailed answers, and then appropriate judicious officials would review that testimony and not furnish damaging testimony to the enemy?15,15In June 1951 Senate committee hearings were held to look into the dismissal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command in the Far East. The testimony is printed in \"Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, on the Military Situation in the Far East\" (Government Printing Office, 1951, Parts 1-5, 3691 pp.).,I am sure that that procedure has been satisfactory and it is the general practice in Appropriations Committees now. And the Armed Services Committees, who really have some experience in this field, and who have practices, I would think could work out something along that line without any difficulty. Of course, you are always faced with this problem.,I think the Preparedness Committee that I headed for years, I think still follows this rule though I could be wrong. I haven't looked into it but it is just my impression that they take full and complete testimony and release everything that can be released.,If not, the witness is confronted with this problem: He cannot be fully responsive, or if he is fully responsive he endangers and places in jeopardy the lives of a good many of our men.,I saw the other day on television one of our witnesses testifying and he was asked the question about bombing a certain country, some Senator having made a statement about it. Just the connotation of the question, just the question itself created a problem that when you fellows get through writing about it and putting a headline on it, could really become a problem for the Nation, and particularly for our men.,He was attempting to form an answer before television that would try to satisfy the Senators, and at the same time protect the men. The Senator said, \"Well, if you don't want to be responsive, that is all right, if you are not going to be responsive.\" So he points up the problem.,The problem is that if you are fully responsive in some military matters, the Chief of Staff can very quickly get your men involved.,If you are not fully responsive, then you don't satisfy the Senators. So how do you serve the national interest?,Well, through the years, I think Senator Russell,16 when he was chairman of the MacArthur committee--and we had the Republicans, a number of them, on the committee-they all agreed to these procedures and I think they use them pretty well now. I am sure they will work out.,16Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.,I don't know what General Wheeler's position is. He has not discussed it with me, and Secretary McNamara hasn't. But I don't think that is any great problem for informing Senators. It is not a matter that is spectacular, or it is not a matter that you want to have a show about.,When you are talking about military matters and men out there dying, you want to be very careful that you don't involve them or endanger them.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON VIETNAM,[4.] Q. In regard to the Honolulu meeting, do you think it is possible that a shift in policy on Vietnam might result from these consultations?,THE PRESIDENT. That is not anticipated at all.,Q. Is it a policy review?,THE PRESIDENT. We are there to get military and nonmilitary briefings and to exchange viewpoints. I wouldn't want to anticipate getting off and making any changes one way or the other. I wouldn't say that we wouldn't learn some things from the meeting that would cause us to either improve the situation or strengthen it, but I would not want you to anticipate that the purpose of the meeting was to formulate any different policy at all, because that is not the purpose.,Q. Mr. President, are you thinking about a report to the American people when you return from Honolulu?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I am reporting to them every day. I am reporting to them now.,Q. I was thinking of a speech on television or something like that.,THE PRESIDENT. I just finished one on television. 17 I know of no President that has been given the opportunity to report more or who has taken advantage of it more.,17 See Item 39.,As a matter of fact, last year I got some criticism for using the television 58 times, almost twice as much as my predecessor, in reporting to the people.,I had a rather detailed report on Vietnam in the State of the Union. 18 I have gone into some of the decisions involved in the statement when I resumed activities out there a few days ago.,18 See Item 6.,We will report to you, following these discussions and these meetings, everything that we can and, through you, to the American people.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything you can tell us about the response you have had to your decision to resume the bombings of North Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there is anything that you don't know about. I reviewed last night here the responses from all of the countries of the world. I pretty well know the measure of public sentiment that we have had.,Substantially large groups, some 70-odd percent, felt that the pause was advised and they approved of it, and I think a very substantial percent approved of ending it. It went somewhat longer than anyone had anticipated, even the proponents of it, and even the nonaligned countries or neutral countries, some of whom felt that it was indicated.,But that was a series of circumstances. We would hear something here, and we wanted to be sure that we didn't get Mr. Sevareid 19 confused, and so we would follow it right out to the last inch.,19 Eric Sevareid of the Columbia Broadcasting System.,But by the time we traveled down that road, we would hear some rumor over here, and we would go and follow that one out. By the time you did that with 115 countries and you get them all wrapped up, it takes time.,Finally, the last a or 3 days we received a note that there was going to be a very urgent message delivered to one of the large powers in a very critical capital, and so we had to wait a couple of days for that.,The substance of that was the Ho Chi Minh20 letter that had been printed here 2 or 3 days before. So by that time we had used 38 days, and we felt that we had exhausted all of the possibilities there.,20 Ho Chi Minh, President of North Vietnam.,Therefore, we had no real hope of accomplishing anything in these capitals and we were free to pursue other efforts, which we are now pursuing at the United Nations and any other places that may offer possibilities from time to time.,Q. Mr. President, on that subject, the United Nations, could you give us your evaluation of what has happened so far? Is there any movement, in your opinion, toward the peace table, through the U.N. or anywhere else?,THE PRESIDENT. I am glad that we took the action that we did, after we had thoroughly exhausted all of the possibilities with other countries. I am happy that the Security Council took the action that it did. I am not as accurate in my predictions as Drew Pearson.21 I do not have any batting average like that, and I would rather let developments up there emerge and not try to predict what course they will take.,21 Author of the syndicated column \"Washington Merry-Go-Round.\",We will do everything that we can to thoroughly search for a course that will lead to peace. Ambassador Goldberg,22 with the help of his staff, and the friends of peace in the United Nations, are going to be working around the clock until peace is achieved.,22 Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, to clarify an earlier question or answer, it would be wrong in your view, would it not, to interpret your trip as coming at a crucial point in the war in Vietnam?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not see any reason why I ought to interpret it one way or the other. I just say that I am going. I am going in a 707, and as to what phase of the war, I don't think that that has much to do with it.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask if the overseas polls on opinion were made by USIA and what use we are making of that polling technique now in directing foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not know what you are talking about, but if it is USIA, I would talk to USIA.,Q. I was merely asking if the polls you have were made by USIA.,THE PRESIDENT. What polls are you talking about?,Q. On overseas opinion.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what you are talking about. You will have to get it dear. I haven't discussed any polls with you, have I?,Q. I was referring to the polls that you mentioned, the 70 percent.,THE PRESIDENT. They are here, in this country.,Q. They are domestic polls?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe your Washington Post publishes Lou Harris. I am talking about the feeling here on Lou Harris' poll, where 73 favored the pause--that is, 73 percent of the people of this country.\nReporter: Thank you."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1966-01-13","text":"ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY AND UNDER SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,[1.] I think that all of you are aware of the effort that we have been making in the past months since the Congress adjourned, to make a thorough study of the new Department of Housing and Urban Development, its problems, its situation, its approach, the general nature of the programs they will be carrying out, the criteria, the costs, the benefits, the administration, the financing, the advances, the new application of technology as well as the formulating of a proposed plan of organization for that Department.,Without criticizing what may have taken place in the organization of other departments in the Government in times past, we tried to make sure that those mistakes were not repeated this time. I have reached a decision today that I am now delighted to announce to you and to the country. We have conducted a very thorough search to find the best man in the United States to head this new Department of Housing and Urban Development.,No man is going to have a more difficult or a more challenging job. No man is going to be better able to leave a mark on the generations of Americans to come than the man who takes on this very vital undertaking. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and members of my own staff have reviewed biographical data and studied experts in this field from a substantial number of the States in the Union, from a substantial number of the universities and business organizations of the country--it numbers a little over 300 men that have had their names presented and some consideration given to them.,After looking over these potential candidates, after carefully reviewing the proposed operations of the Department, its functions as well as its organization, I came to the conclusion that the man for this job is Mr. Robert Weaver.,I talked to Dr. Weaver this morning before I arose, in my bedroom, and I informed him then that I planned to send his nomination to the Senate, announcing it today.,He and I have decided on the man that I expect to nominate as Under Secretary of the Department, and he is here with us this afternoon, together with his charming wife. His name is. Mr. Robert Wood, head of the Political Science Department of MIT--one of America's most imaginative students of the urban scene. Dr. Wood is the author of \"Suburbia, Its People and Their Politics,\" \"1400 Governments, the Political Economy of the New York Region,\" \"Metropolis Against Itself,\" \"School Men and Politics,\" and \"Government and Politics of the United States.\",I am very proud of this team. We have reviewed a number of men whom we expect to attempt to draft for the Assistant Secretaryship and for the General Counsel of this Department. In due time their names will be announced.,Mr. Weaver is here with his charming wife this afternoon. I think his performance as Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency has been marked by the highest level of integrity and ability, and I think he has been able to stimulate a very genuine team spirit in that Department.,I just presented him to the Cabinet, and his colleagues there welcomed him with open arms.,I have worked with Bob Weaver for a good many years, and I believe him to be a deep thinker and a quiet but articulate man of action. As you know, he has had an outstanding administration in the Housing and Home Finance Agency. He is the author of \"Negro Labor, A National Problem,\" \"The Negro Ghetto,\" \"The Urban Complex\" (1964), and \"Dilemmas of Urban America\" in 1965.,He is as well versed, I think, in the urban needs of America as any person that we could find. So it adds up to saying this, that I believe him to be exactly the right man in the right place to pursue the right goals of bringing a full measure of the Great Society to our urban areas and carrying forward the major new urban programs that I will propose to the Congress in the days ahead.,Professor Wood is currently the chairman of the Political Science Department of MIT. He has chaired two Presidential task forces on urban affairs, this year and last year, and has worked very closely with the President, with members of the Cabinet, with members of Government--formerly employed in the Budget Bureau--and with my special assistants. Working with Bob Weaver, Professor Wood has been a major architect of the urban programs of this administration. He is a well known author, he is an outstanding manager, he is a perceptive analyst of the urban scene.,So the talent and the ability and the experience of these two men sets them apart from the hundreds of candidates that have been proposed and have been considered.,I am sending to the Senate, and presenting to the American people, the best men that I can to fulfill the pledge of this administration to bring the Great Society to the American people.,And now, it gives me great pleasure to sign the nominations for Mr. Robert C. Weaver of New York to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Mr. Robert C. Wood of Massachusetts to be Under Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. They will be sent forward to the Senate at the appropriate time.,Dr. Weaver will now take the proposed plan of organization, which he is familiar with, the proposed programs for the Housing Department--and may the Good Lord have mercy upon you !,QUESTIONS,THE PRESIDENT. I will be glad to answer any questions that any of you may have about this, or about any other matters that may be of interest to the press at this time.,VIETNAM: U.S. PEACE EFFORTS,[2.] Q. Mr. President, sir, have you heard anything from the Vice President since his talks with the Soviet Prime Minister? 1,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have had detailed reports on the conversations through State Department channels.,1 Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey and Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin met in New Delhi following the funeral of Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in early January.,Q. Mr. President, can you give us the benefit of your thinking on the hopes you expressed last night in your speech for limiting the Vietnam war? 2,THE PRESIDENT. I think that I covered about everything that I could say, that I thought was appropriate to say last night. There have been no new developments this morning.,2 See Item 6.,Q. Mr. President, could you evaluate for us your recent peace drive? Do you think that there have been other benefits perhaps than what you may or may not have heard from Hanoi, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. I reviewed pretty well what we have done last night, and I think the Secretary of State, Mr. Goldberg, and Mr. Williams 3 have brought you up to date. I don't know anything that I could add to it, other than the Secretary and Ambassador Harriman 4 will be reviewing our objectives and our hopes in this field with other governments in the days ahead.,3 Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, and G. Mennen Williams, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.,4 W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large.,DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the appointments in the Housing and Urban Development Department, there have been reports that a task force headed by Dr. Wood recommended--,THE PRESIDENT. What reports? I want to know who reports what so I can see if it is,Q. There have been published reports in the newspapers.,THE PRESIDENT. Whose?,Q. There have been published reports in the newspapers.,THE PRESIDENT. Who published it? That's what I want to know. I don't want to comment on something that,Q. Well, I saw something in the Washington Post.,THE PRESIDENT. All right, go ahead. The Washington Post. Now, what did the Washington Post say?,Q. That a task force headed by Professor Wood had recommended the transfer of the Community Action Program from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the new Department, and there have been subsequent reports that you have decided against this. Can you make any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that so far as the report that I have made a decision on the matter, I would say it is more propaganda than accurate. I have made no decision. I have not been called upon to make any decision. We will, in the days ahead, consider a good many reorganization proposals, but the best authority for a Presidential decision is the President or the President's Press Secretary, and you can always get guidance on that, if you have the time or the disposition to obtain it.,Q. That's why I asked you.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you got it. [Laughter] That's why I told you!,DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE,[4.] Q. Mr. President, last night in your message you urged the House to act on a number of Senate-passed bills; one was home rule for the District of Columbia. I wonder if you are supporting the Senate version of this home rule bill, or if you would be for a compromise?,THE PRESIDENT. I am supporting the Senate version, as I did when I recommended it to the Congress. It's a matter for the Congress to work out, but my position is abundantly clear. I favor the Senate bill. I did when it was before the Senate. I did when it was defeated in the House.5,5 See 1965 volume, this series, Items 39, 402, 481, 486.,PLANS FOR SPECIAL MESSAGES,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan a special message with regard to consumer problems, such as truth in packaging, truth in lending, etc., that you referred to briefly in your speech?,THE PRESIDENT. There will be a good many special messages--on what particular subjects will have to be announced later. That will depend on our conferences with the members of the committee and with the authors of the legislation. Just what subjects they will be on, and the timing, have yet to be developed.,INTENSITY OF FIGHTING IN VIETNAM,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do we have any indication that the other side in Vietnam is reducing the number of incidents, reducing the intensity of the war at all?,THE PRESIDENT. The number of incidents has dropped off some. I don't say that there is any connection with that and our peace moves, but that is a fact.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH,[7.] Q. Mr. President, it's been a little over 3 months now since your operation. How do you feel?,THE PRESIDENT. Fine.,Q. No more soreness in the side or the back?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh yes, I have a little soreness.,DATE OF ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in light of the proposals you made last night, do you still think Congress can adjourn in June?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know if I have ever thought it could adjourn in June. That's the answer.,Q. Do you have any prediction?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. I never have done that. I came here 35 years ago, and the first thing I learned was never to predict when they would adjourn during the day, or during the week, or during the year. And I have never done so. I have read reports about my predictions, but the wish was father to the thought by the person announcing it. I have never made any prediction when Congress could get out. I don't know. I would like for them to go home as early as they can, consistent with discharging of their duties and consistent with their own desires.,Congress is an independent branch of the Government and I want to cooperate with them and suit their pleasure as much as possible, consistent with the performing of my duties. In an election year I realize the importance, not only from the standpoint of the individual Member of Congress, the people concerned, but from the standpoint of the administration, to have the Congressmen at home--60--odd Democratic Senators and 290-odd Democratic Congressmen--discussing what we have done and why we have done it. So I would like to see them go as soon as they can. But whether they can go in June or January, I don't know. And I have never known; I have never made any such prediction.,THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS,[9.] I do get a little bit sensitive sometimes when I see Presidential decisions being made, and predictions being made, and recommendations being made that I never heard of. I saw in a UP item this morning how I had eliminated the redwood forest from my State of the Union Message at the last minute. And while I was handling that ticker, I was reading the recommendations on the redwood forest in the Budget Message that's to go up on the 24th, and had never been submitted to the State of the Union. That could have been ascertained.,So, those things get out and then when I change them, some of you reporters think I changed them because of something that you may have said. [Laughter],REACTION TO STATE OF THE UNION,MESSAGE,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you characterize the reaction to your speech last night? You talked about some \"con\" telegrams, which we understand you said were in the minority. How do you feel the reaction,was?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it was very good. I was very pleased with it. Any time that you receive the welcome we received and the some 50-odd applauses you receive--it makes you feel good. We got some messages favoring what we had said and some messages violently opposing some of the recommendations we made. That is generally true of almost every Presidential recommendation, and certainly one as inclusive as the State of the Union. But, on balance, I expect that the percentage of wires was perhaps heavier than we would get if we polled the country, because maybe your friends are disposed to wire you and encourage you and stimulate you.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us which of your proposals drew the biggest opposition?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't observe any concentrated, leveled opposition to any particular one. One fellow amused me by saying he thought he would leave the country, and I asked Bill Moyers to check up and see if that was the same fellow that was going to leave last year. [Laughter],PLANS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL,[11.] Q. Mr. President, we have been given to understand that you would like to do some foreign travel this year. Is there anything you can tell us now about these plans?,THE PRESIDENT. Not a thing, Sid.6 I have no such plans now. I always enjoy exchanging views with leaders of other countries and meeting other peoples. But right at the moment I have no plans.,6 Sid Davis of the Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc.,THE MANSFIELD REPORT ON VIETNAM,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that your report to the Nation coincides with Mansfield's report on Vietnam?7,THE PRESIDENT. No--it was somewhat later. [Laughter],7 The report of Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana and four other members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, based on their tour of the region in December 1965, is entitled \"The Vietnam Conflict: The Substance and the Shadow\" (Congressional Record, Jan. 13, 1966, p. 140).,Q. Other than that, I mean?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought it was somewhat different. I think the Mansfield report that he made to me and that he wrote to me and that he subsequently published in another form, gave his impressions of the situation in Vietnam. What I attempted to do last night was to give the President's impressions.,DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,[13.] Q. Mr. President, could you say what you consider the first priority for Mr. Weaver and Mr. Wood in their new Department?,THE PRESIDENT. To bring together a staff of experts, assemble the outstanding men in this country without regard to politics or party, but only with regard to serving the needs of this Department of Housing and Urban Development. And after he assembles the tools, the manpower, then he can get on with the proposals that we have, and the reorganizations that will come about, and the legislation that we will formulate and present.,THE PROPOSED DELAY IN EXCISE TAX,REDUCTION,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the proposal of yours last night that seemed to invoke the most resistance on the Hill--,THE PRESIDENT. The most what?,Q. Resistance on the Hill--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think you can really tell this early--,Q--well, back talk then--was the proposal to delay the excise cuts--suggestions were made by some people that it would be better to get that billion dollars by a further cut in domestic spending. What is your comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that is a very inaccurate poll of the sentiments of the Congress. I expect that we spent a reasonable amount of probing with the various Members as to the alternatives that face us--larger deficits, different forms of taxes, no taxes at all--and I detected minimum opposition. Everyone would like to have all the tax reductions we could have, but conditions have changed a good deal within the last few months, and I did not detect overwhelming resistance to it.,I think most of the people are patriotic, including the industries affected. And I would expect in the light of our economy that if we are going to have substantially increased expenditures in Vietnam, as we are going to have--running several billion dollars this year--that the Congress and the people would be willing to forgo the repeal of the excise tax on long-distance telephone and on new automobiles, particularly in view of the fact that we have already had some reduction in those excise taxes, particularly on automobiles, particularly in view of the fact that some automobiles you have to wait to get delivered now because there is adequate demand, and sales are at an all-time high. I think most of the legislators would prefer receiving revenue in this form than levying a new tax on reporters or corporations or individuals.,THE NEW YORK TRANSIT STRIKE,SETTLEMENT,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you comment, sir, on the New York transit strike settlement,8 particularly in reference to the administration's guideposts for noninflationary wage and price behavior?,THE PRESIDENT. I know that the people of New York must be relieved that the subway strike has been settled and that normal life in one of the Nation's largest cities has been restored. I share the feeling and I want to express my pride in the admirable way that these people met the demands and the inconveniences that they have been subjected to during the last 2 weeks.,8 The transit strike in New York City began on January 1, 1966, and was settled on January 13 when the New York Transit Authority and the Transport Workers Union agreed on a a-year contract which granted workers $60 million to $70 million in increased benefits.,Candor requires me to say that I am quite disturbed that essential services could be paralyzed for so long and I am equally concerned by the cost of the settlement. Although this settlement involves municipal employees, the settlement, I am informed by the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, violates our national guideposts for noninflationary wage increases. And I do not believe that any settlement that violates the guideposts to this extent is in the national interest.,Q. Could I follow up on that, sir? Is there anything further than denunciation that the Government can do or perhaps plans to do about situations of this sort?,THE PRESIDENT. I will say that the Chairman will probably have a statement for you, if it has not already been issued, giving the viewpoint of the Council of Economic Advisers. If you are asking about what weapons we may have or what controls we may have, the answer is that we have no controls. These are voluntary matters.,Most of the labor organizations in the country, most of the business organizations in the country, have been willing to consider the guideposts and to take them into account in connection with their agreements, and I am glad to have--and I am always sorry when there are exceptions that may contribute to inflation. It is not a personal matter with me, this is your inflation and our inflation, and anything that contributes to it is a matter of concern, as I observed last night.,WOMEN IN THE MILITARY SERVICES,[16.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that the women in the military services--the WAC's, the Waves, the women Marines, and so forth--are distressed because they are not being called upon to serve in Vietnam. Is there any chance that this might take place-of course not in a combat area, but to relieve men who could be in the combat areas?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there is always a chance of anything taking place when our women are sufficiently distressed. [Laughter] I will explore your inquiry and if you will check with Bill Moyers a little later, maybe he can make a more adequate response.,CONTINUATION OF U.S. PEACE EFFORTS,[17.] Q. Mr. President, will you continue your diplomatic peace offensive by sending special envoys to foreign capitals?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there will be envoys going to other capitals all the time. As I observed, we have had more than 300 diplomatic discussions and visits this year between the President, the Secretary of State, and leading Ambassadors, with representatives of other nations in the search to promote peace in the world. And as long as I am President, that will continue.,OTHER TAX RECOMMENDATIONS,[18.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned last night in your tax recommendations other simplifications of taxes. Can you elaborate on what other tax recommendations you might have in this area?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of the Treasury, I think, will elaborate to the extent that my recommendations cover the tax proposals in a letter, I think, that will be made public probably tomorrow.9,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,9 Treasury Department proposals for an improved system of withholding income taxes, one which would eliminate or reduce large year-end tax payments, were submitted to Congress on January 13."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-12-06","text":"[With Joseph C. Swidler, Jr., Chairman, Federal Power Commission; Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury; William McChesney Martin, Jr., Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers],OPENING STATEMENT THE PRESIDENT. [I.] I have been meeting with members of the Quadriad. I met with them last on October 6 and, as Joe Laitin1 told you some time last week, they were going to meet with me in the next few days, and we arranged it this Monday.,1 Joseph Laitin, an assistant press secretary.,I asked Mr. Swidler, instead of going into Austin to take his plane back, to await your coming to the ranch where you could have a chance to hear from him on his report 2 and ask him any questions you might desire, and also to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Martin of the Federal Reserve Board, and any of the other members, about the subjects of our discussions this morning, and the views we have concerning the state of the Nation and the economy in the days ahead.,2 See Item 640.,I am going to ask Mr. Swidler first to talk to you. He has just completed a study--at least some inquiries into the most recent blackout over in East Texas, the most recent power failure, and I will ask him to take any questions about his report, make any statements he may care to, and then the other members of the party will be available to you. Mr. Swidler?,RECENT POWER FAILURES MR. SWIDLER. Thank you, Mr. President. I had the opportunity this morning to present the Federal Power Commission report to the President, to discuss it with him, and to answer the President's questions.,As I think you know, on the evening of November 93 the President asked the Commission to make this investigation and we have been at it ever since. We were interested not only in what triggered this massive blackout, the largest that this country has ever had, but also in the sequence of events: to look at the question of whether the cascading of the failure was preventable and also to look at the question of whether the restoration of service was in a sequence that perhaps could have been improved.,3 See Item 608.,The report, of which you all have copies, goes into each of these questions, and, on the basis of the study that we made, we have made a number of recommendations which I hope that the power industry and the equipment industries will look into.,We are continuing our studies and investigations. This is not a matter of a day. It is a matter of making this electric power system in this country, which is already probably the best in the world, even better, so that the risks of outages can be minimized to the absolute minimum that is made possible by the use of the best American technology.,QUESTIONS Q. IS there any discussion in the final chapter on possible Federal legislation?,MR. SWIDLER. I told the President that we would expect to make some recommendations along that line at a later date. We have not made any specific recommendation as yet.,Q. Could you tell us what sort of things you are considering?,MR. SWIDLER. No, I am afraid I can't at this date.,Q. Mr. Swidler, you did mention specifically the question of Federal jurisdiction over service reliability. Is this right?,MR. SWIDLER. Yes, sir.,Q. Is that pretty firm in your mind as a recommendation?,MR. SWIDLER. I don't think I want to anticipate the results of the Commission's discussions of this matter. This is very high on our list of priorities and I am hoping that we can make a recommendation to the President very soon.,Q. Do you have any report yet on the East Texas blackout ?,MR. SWIDLER. The East Texas or West Texas?,Q. West Texas--El Paso and Mexico.,MR. SWIDLER. El Paso. We have a report from our staff, and Mr. Brown4 and I-Mr. Brown is our Chief Engineer and is with me here today--have explained this situation to the President, and we also have had a preliminary report on the East Texas blackout which occurred this morning.5,4 F. Stewart Brown, Chief Engineer and Chief of the Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission.,5 The reports by the Federal Power Commission to the Senate Committee on Commerce are entitled \"El Paso Power Failure, December 2, 1965,\" dated April 11, 1966 (31 pp., processed), and \"Gulf States Utilities Company Power Failure, December 6, 1965,\" dated April 28, 1966 (23 pp., processed).,Q. Do you think that if all of the recommendations were carried out and all the legislation enacted, that you could say there would never be another blackout on the scale we had in the last one?,MR. SWIDLER. Well, \"never\" is an awfully strong word. I think I can say that I don't know any reason why there should be one. It seems to me that if all these recommendations are carried out, and if the companies build the additional interconnections and strengthen their internal systems in the way that we recommend, that this should preclude the risk of widespread blackouts.,Q. Would you expect to have any legislative recommendations ready for the next session of Congress ?,MR. SWIDLER. I just don't want to anticipate our discussions on legislation. I might say, of course, that in one way or another we will make them as early as we can, and the President has instructed us to make our recommendations to him as soon as we possibly can.,Q. Can you tell us how severe the East Texas blackout was ?,MR. SWIDLER. The East Texas blackout was not severe. The outage lasted 25 or 30 minutes, and all of the lines are now back in service. The generating plant that was out briefly is now back in service. This was not an outage of the same proportions.,Q. What cities?,MR. SWIDLER. Beaumont, Sabine,MR. BROWN. The Navasota section, north of Dayton, was out for awhile.,MR. SWIDLER. The Navasota section, north of Dayton, Mr. Brown tells me.,Q. Do you see anything strange with these blackouts--they've never occurred in our history apparently on a national scale-all occurring within a month as they did?,MR. SWIDLER. Well, these two more recent blackouts are not unprecedented by any means. Blackouts of short duration have occurred. And, of course, to the extent that power failures are due to calamities--to tornadoes or floods--that kind you can always expect. But what we ought to be able to prevent is the cascading of failures into areas that are not directly affected by equipment loss. 6,6On December 8, 1965, the White House made public a report to the President from Mr. Swidler on the power failure which affected communication equipment at Port Hardy, Vancouver Island, B.C. (1 Weekly Comp. Pros. Docs., p. 568).,Q. Mr. Swidler, I have heard it said by some of the private power people that if the country had established the grid system nationwide it would have been a major catastrophe. Is that true? Could this have happened if we had the grid system nationwide; and what would have been the result?,MR. SWIDLER. I am not sure what a grid system nationwide is. This is nothing that we have ever recommended, and that is just too vague a term for me to be able to answer. I think that stronger interconnections would certainly have helped, assuming that before the interconnections between regions were made that the regional systems were themselves strengthened. This is a matter not only of building from one part of the country to the other. It is a matter of strengthening each company and each regional pool along the way.,Q. Mr. Swidler, each one of these recommendations seems to call on the private companies to make changes in their own systems. I'm wondering what happens if they don't. Who is responsible here for ensuring that the right changes are made?,MR. SWIDLER. There is no authority now to ensure that these recommendations will be followed. We expect a very high degree of cooperation.,MR. MOYERS. The Chief Engineer who is here is Mr. F. Stewart Brown of the Federal Power Commission.,THE PRESIDENT. I commended Mr. Swidler and Mr. Brown for the dispatch and the comprehensiveness of their report, and I want to thank them again for their prompt action this morning in connection with the Beaumont-Navasota matter.,DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF THE QUADRIAD [2.] THE PRESIDENT. We spent an hour or more before lunch exchanging viewpoints with the members of the Quadriad. It ranged all the way from the action taken last Friday by the Federal Reserve 7 to the anticipated investment figures for the next few months, and the revenue figures for the year ahead, the budget figures.,7 See Item 639.,We will meet tomorrow--a preliminary meeting that will lead to our first budget discussion--and that meeting tomorrow will be with Secretary Rusk and Mr. McNamara, and Mr. Bundy and Mr. Komer,8 and others from the national defense area, in connection with the national defense needs for the next year.,8Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President, and Robert Komer, Special Assistant to the President for Peaceful Reconstruction in Viet-Nam.,We discussed the housing situation, the machine tool situation, the price situation, and aluminum and copper stockpiles. We reviewed all the economic factors that are important in our economy. We had a free flow of information and a rather thorough exchange, and we will continue with those discussions after we have completed with Mr. Swidler and with you this afternoon.,I want to ask Secretary Fowler to make a brief statement to you covering any high points that he may care to observe, and I will also ask any of the other members who are present to state their views and they will be glad to have you ask any questions you choose to ask.,SECRETARY FOWLER SECRETARY FOWLER. Ladies and gentlemen. There is very little to add to what the President said about our meeting this morning.,For your background information, we have these meetings about once a month to give the President a coordinated and updated look at the economic outlook for the period ahead, and of course our focus varies on the outlook for the calendar year 1966.,I undertook to review with the President the results of some conferences that Treasury has had with various outside informed persons.,We had a full day's meeting with a group of very outstanding academic economists back on November the 23d. We had a meeting last week for a full day with about 12 or 14 of the leading business executives-Treasury Department Business Council consultants.9,9 see Item 632.,The Chairman of the Board of Economic Advisers, Mr. Ackley, updated the last reports we had given the President on the outlook in October, and a staff report we had made in November.,Chairman Martin gave an account and a detailed explanation of the reasons for the Board action--Federal Reserve Board action-last Friday.,There was a general exchange of views on the meaning and significance of some of the new economic indicators. Particular attention was given in our exchange to an assessment of some forthcoming figures on plant and equipment expenditure forecasts for 1966 that I think will be released in the next day or two by the Department of Commerce and the SEC.,We reviewed some of the fiscal alternatives or options that are related to the budgetary decisions the President will have to make in the next few weeks.,In general, I think you can just sum it up by saying we tried to give the President the background information that he might find useful in making up his 1967 budget, and the related legislative program, particularly as it involves fiscal questions.,THE PRESIDENT. There will be some half dozen departments and agencies here at the ranch in the next few days. We will meet with them either Friday or Saturday, here or in Washington. I think it will be here. Bill will keep you informed as they are scheduled. Any questions ? Secretary Fowler will be glad to take them.,QUESTIONS Q. Mr. Secretary, what is your prediction of the economic outlook ?,SECRETARY FOWLER. The economy is burgeoning. The growth--and economic growth is particularly included--and prognostications of gross national product figures indicate that we will have a better year in terms of absolute growth than 1965, if the forecasts hold up.,I think the general pattern over the last few months has been that both private and public economists have tended to upgrade their forecasts from early autumn into the recent weeks, and, in general terms, we expect a rather big year for 1966.,Q. Do you think the new Federal Reserve Board action will have any kind of a brake on this burgeoning economy?,SECRETARY FOWLER. I think it is much too early for me to have any opinion on that. You may wish to ask Chairman Martin his views.,MR. MOYERS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.,MR. ACKLEY THE PRESIDENT. Next is Mr. Ackley. Gardner, do you want to review some of the area you went over this morning?,MR. ACKLEY. Mr. President, I think you and Secretary Fowler have covered it pretty well. I tried to review for the president the recent progress of the gross national product and the factors which affect the outlook for the year ahead.,As Secretary Fowler has said, the outlook is extremely strong; a healthy progress of the kind we have had seems to be in the cards for the year ahead.,MR. MARTIN THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Martin?,MR. MARTIN. I was glad to have an opportunity to review with the President the statement which the Federal Reserve Board issued yesterday with respect to the action which the Board took on Friday.,I think that it was a welcome opportunity for me to explain to the President that I had nothing to add to that statement and I made no predictions with respect to the effect of that action.,I told the President that I thought he had made a very fair statement yesterday, very fair indeed. And certainly apart from that statement, in which he in no way placed me in the role of defying the President or the Johnson administration, I want to make it clear I don't think the press ought to cast me in that role.,I am very grateful to be a part of this Quadriad setup and I can assure you that the Federal Reserve System wants to work as closely as it can with the President and with his administration.,QUESTIONS Q. Mr. Martin, I wonder if you and the President are any closer in accord on the rise of the interest rate as a result of your meeting this morning?,MR. MARTIN. I made no predictions and the President didn't ask me to make any predictions.,Q. What is your opinion of the economic outlook for the coming year, Mr. Martin?,Mr. MARTIN. I am optimistic about it.,Q. How do you view the present inflation?,MR. MARTIN. I think it is a very real one but it is one that I believe we will have the resources to contain.,Q. Was that the primary reason for raising the discount rate?,MR. MARTIN. I don't want to add to what I said in the statement, as I already indicated. I think you can see that it was directed toward the domestic economy and I don't want to add to that statement.,Q. You're not concerned, sir, about the timing in advance of this disclosure of budget figures?,MR. MARTIN. This is a matter of judgment and you can have positions in either way, but the Board by a split majority, as you know, after careful consideration decided that it should go ahead.,Q. Was there any key factor, sir, in your decision? Viet-Nam, for instance?,MR. MARTIN. No, other than the problems that the money market is resolving.,Q. Mr. Martin, what do you expect, if things go as you hope they will--what will be the effect of your increase in the discount rate ?,MR. MARTIN. It will improve the flow of funds, make possible sustainable advance. It is directed toward helping, not hindering in any way, the advance.,Q. Will it not then slow down the flow of funds in any way?,MR. MARTIN. It depends on what the demand for funds are, and I am not going to make any prediction on that.,Q. Mr. Martin, would you say that you are in any way in basic disagreement with the President on the economic policy ?,MR. MARTIN. I think the President and the Federal Reserve System have exactly the same objectives, and I know I speak for the entire System when I say that we are doing everything in our power to promote the President's program. We sometimes have differences in our particular field with respect to what is the most effective way to promote that program. This is only in the Federal Reserve's specific field and is not in any way intended to defy the administration.,THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSING REMARKS AND QUESTIONS THE PRESIDENT. Thank you for coming out. If you have any questions of me I'll be glad to attempt to answer them.,Q. Mr. president, are these gentlemen staying over for your meetings tomorrow or have they concluded ?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they will return when our discussions are finished today.,Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you and Mr. Martin are any closer together in your views on this discount increase now?,THE PRESIDENT. I think both of our positions have been clearly and fairly and accurately stated, and as Mr. Martin so well said, it is a matter of judgment as to whether you would act Friday, or next Friday, or next month, or whether you would act at all or not.,We all recognize the Federal Reserve is a board of experts in money and marketing, and I make no pretense of being a monetary expert. But even the experts have a division of opinion, 4 to 3, and we do have divisions all the time within the Government. One Cabinet officer may see one matter from one viewpoint and another from another. But there is one thing you can be sure: I believe the public is served by competent and dedicated men in the Federal Reserve and in the Treasury and the financial agencies, fiscal agencies of the Government. And we are going to continue to exchange views and express differences and try to reach agreements and promulgate policies and do what we think is best for the country. This meeting has been very helpful, very fruitful. They always are.,I am not here to discuss post mortems. I am here to talk about how we can make this country better in the next year. Your job is to provoke a fight. Mine is to prevent one.,Q. Mr. President, do you see the action by the Federal Reserve Board as posing any serious threat to the current economy?,THE PRESIDENT. I expressed my views yesterday on the action of the Federal Reserve Board and I don't think I'll add to it.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans for the future, this month, on where you will meet President Ayub and Prime Minister Wilson?10,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we are working on those plans now, and as we have told you over and over and over again, we will explain them to you in detail just as soon as a decision has been reached between the governments concerned.,10President Mohammed Ayub Khan of Pakistan and Prime Minister Harold Wilson of the United Kingdom (see Items 648-650).,[4.] Q. Mr. President, did anything that Mr. Martin said this morning change your mind about the statement you issued late yesterday ?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no. He did not address himself to changing my mind, nor did I address myself to changing his.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans for changing the oil imports program regulations?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter that Secretary Udall 11 has under consideration and when he makes his recommendations they will be acted upon.,11Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel there is a need for stronger legislation to ensure service on interconnected power systems?,THE PRESIDENT. That will depend, I think, on the recommendations that the people who are studying it will make, and as the Chairman told you, they have not completed their study. They have not made any recommendations as yet. We will have to examine them when they do and act on them.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility of your going to the AFL-CIO convention this week?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I explained to them at the time they invited me that I did not think I would have a very heavy speaking schedule between now and the first of the year.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you entertain a question on Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. There have been some reports that the total amount of Americans--,THE PRESIDENT. What reports? Now let me get this clear, these reports and rumors. I have got to identify them before I can comment on them intelligently.,Q. Do I have to say it's one of my colleagues?,THE PRESIDENT. I want to just be sure it's reliable.,Q. Mr. Mohr,12 of the New York Times, as you know, reported recently from Viet-Nam that there were discussions there of increasing the American commitment up to the capability of the Korean war perhaps. Is there a possibility of that?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to make any predictions or prognostications or question Mr. Mohr's judgment. I think I'll go back to my July statement and say that we are very anxious to have peace in that area in the world, and as soon as folks there are willing to leave their neighbors alone, why, we can have peace. But until we do have peace we are going to continue to help the people of South Viet-Nam resist aggression and we are going to supply whatever men may be needed in that effort.,12Charles Mohr, New York Times correspondent in Viet-Nam.,Now, from day to day those numbers will change and we no doubt, between now and the first of the year, will have to make plans for what changes will take place. But so far as I am aware, those plans have not been made yet, and those decisions have not been made.,Maybe Mr. Mohr has some information I don't have. It takes time to get in. And sometimes our reports don't come as fast as you newspaper people.,Q. Will that be taken up tomorrow, Mr. President, at this meeting you are going to have with Secretary McNamara?,THE PRESIDENT. I would doubt that Mr. Mohr is on the agenda. We will discuss the defense needs rather fully.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us your expert political opinion of what happened to General de Gaulle?13,THE PRESIDENT. No.,13 President Charles de Gaulle of France.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, we had a report the other day from your doctors on how you're feeling. I wonder if you could give us a personal measure of your physical condition and your outlook for the next few weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I feel as well as I expect to feel. I don't feel as good as I did before the operation,14 but I have no reason to feel that I won't be up to my normal operating strength the first of the year.,14 See Item 549.,I think each day I get a little stronger and I have about reached my objective so far as weight and exercise and everything is concerned. I think things are going well.,Reporter: Thank you very much, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-08-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen:,[1.] I want to first of all congratulate the press on their new record today. You have just completed a new record of orbits between Johnson City and the LBJ Ranch. I want to congratulate you on your successful reentry.,We have had a very happy and busy birthday weekend. I am very grateful for all the thoughtful expressions which have reached us from so many families across the land and from leaders in other parts of the world.,From the way it has begun I anticipate that this 57th year may be one of the best years, and that is a very happy thought for me. The weekend has been made especially happy by the presence here of so many good and old and trusted, cherished friends.,I am especially happy to have one of my very favorite couples--Mr. and Mrs. Larry O'Brien. 1 Many of you have been writing about Larry's departure from the White House and I can confirm that this afternoon. But I did want him to spend a weekend here in Texas before he departed. I also want to say a word or so about Larry's future in a few moments.,1Lawrence F. O'Brien, Special Assistant to the President.,The Postmaster General and his lovely wife came down to check on the White House ZIP code. Secretary Rusk and Mrs. Rusk wanted to check up on our relations between the United States and Texas. And I think they have found them generally good the last 24 hours.,Ambassador Goldberg, of course, was eager to come back because he is just naturally more at home in cowboy country.,Seriously though, I do have a statement that I want to make to you before we go back to Washington this afternoon, and that is this:,THE GEMINI 5 ACHIEVEMENT [2.] This is a moment of very great achievement not only for Astronauts Gordon Cooper and Charles Conrad but for everyone whose hopes have ridden with Gemini 5. 2,2 See Item 462.,I am so happy that Mr. Webb and Mr. Seamans,3 who had so much to do with directing this very successful venture, are here to share with us the pride we all feel today. And I deeply regret that our late, beloved President Kennedy, under whose leadership all of this work was so carefully planned and thought out, can't be here to enjoy the fruits and success of his planning and his forethought.,3James E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and R. C. Searoans, Jr., Associate Administrator.,The successful completion of the 8-day, 3 million-mile flight of the Gemini 5 proves, I think, not only man's capacity for endurance in space but it proves that man is in space to stay.,We can be, and we are, enormously proud of every member of our space team--that means all the scientists and the technicians and the controllers and the trackers. To everyone who contributed in any way, as President of this country, I want, this afternoon, to extend the thanks of the entire Nation for a job well done. To Gordon Cooper and Charles Conrad, and to their wonderful families, I want to simply repeat again: We are all very deeply proud of you.,The difficulties and disappointments of this flight have served to increase our appreciation and our respect and our trust for the skill and the ability of all the men involved. We can face the challenges and the opportunities with far greater confidence and certainty in the future, and I think this is an unmistakable gain for all of us.4,4On August 31, 1965, the White House announced that the President had approved the following policy on the promotion and decoration of astronauts:,1. Each military astronaut will receive a onegrade promotion as a direct result of the first successful space flight, but not beyond the grade of colonel in the Air Force and Marine Corps or captain in the Navy. Promotions to general officer rank will be accomplished through usual military selection board process.,2. Each Gemini astronaut will be awarded the NASA Medal for Exceptional Service (or Cluster) after completion of a successful space flight. The NASA Medal for Distinguished Service, the highest award which can be given by that agency, will be awarded for exceptional accomplishments in the Gemini program including, but not limited to, accomplishments in actual flight.,3. Military decorations associated with space flights, such as awards for exceptional heroism or other distinguished service, will be determined on an individual basis consistent with general policy governing the award of traditional military decorations.,Only 7 years ago we were neither first nor second in space--we just weren't in space at all. And as we meet here this afternoon, the capacity of this country for leadership in this realm is no longer in valid question or dispute anyplace in the world. Openly, proudly, we are proceeding on our course, willing always to share our knowledge and our gains with all of mankind. So, I would repeat and I would renew again this afternoon America's invitation to all nations to join together to make this adventure a joint adventure.,This globe seems much smaller today than it has ever seemed before.,Somehow the problems which yesterday seemed large and ominous and insoluble today appear much less foreboding. As man increases his knowledge of the heavens, why should he fear the unknown on earth? As man draws nearer to the stars, why should he not also draw nearer to his neighbor?,As we push ever more deeply into the universe-probing its secrets, discovering its way--we must also constantly try to learn to cooperate across the frontiers that really divide earth's surface.,No national sovereignty rules in outer space. Those who venture there go as envoys of the entire human race. Their quest, therefore, must be for all mankind. And what they find should belong to all mankind. And that is the basis of the program of which our proud astronauts Cooper and Conrad are a part today.,For, as the great Woodrow Wilson said of this country half a century ago, \"We ask nothing for ourselves that we do not also ask for all of humanity.\",And we ask peace. Peace--and the real opportunity to help our neighbors, to improve the quality of all of our lives, to enlarge the meaning of liberty for all, and to secure for all the rights and dignities intended for man by his Creator.,This flight of Gemini 5 was a journey of peace by men of peace. Its successful conclusion is a noble moment for all mankind, and it is a very fitting opportunity for us today to renew our pledge to continue our search for a world in which peace reigns and in which justice prevails.,To demonstrate the earnestness of that pledge, and to express our commitment to the peaceful uses of space exploration, I intend to ask as many of our astronauts as possible--when Mr. Webb thinks their schedule and program will permit--to visit the various capitals of the world. Some, I hope, will be able to journey abroad very Soon.,Secretary Rusk and Director Webb and I spent a good part of last evening going over the anticipated problems that will arise and the schedules that will have to be worked out. But Gemini is really just the beginning. We resolve to have many more such journeys--in space and on earth--until man at last is at peace with himself.,THE END OF THE SHIPPING STRIKE [3.] I am glad, also, to announce to you today that the eight east coast and gulf shipping companies and three licensed officer unions have reached agreement. So the normal operation of the merchant marine will now be resumed again.,The losses from the 75-day tie-up of a hundred ships can never be recovered. It took too long to settle these cases. We all know that.,But this was very constructive bargaining. More was done during this period than simply putting new patches on the leaky hull of maritime labor relations.,A firm basis has already been laid in these agreements to resolve manning disputes resulting from automation, without interruption of future operations.,New principles of parity have been built into the pattern of these three contracts.,The economic terms are built around specific recognition of established stabilization policies.,Provision has been made for taking a clear look at the questions which really must be faced if the pension plans in this industry are to be found.,These settlements are steps toward a new and a responsible maritime policy for the United States of America. They will give the rule of good sense a much better chance to work in the future. No man has done more to bring about this important settlement-the one that was reached in the wee hours of this morning--than the very able and distinguished Secretary of Labor, Willard Wirtz. He has worked patiently, he has worked tirelessly, he has worked reasonably around the clock. And all of America owes him an enormous vote of thanks.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [4.] The Secretary of State and I spent yesterday afternoon and last evening and this morning reviewing various matters of interest around the world.,Secretary Rusk reported that in the Dominican Republic the OAS committee is continuing its very patient and determined work for peace.,It is clear now that this work corresponds to the real hopes of the Dominican people and to the hopes of the whole Western Hemisphere. It is also clear that the OAS committee is right in its belief that the time for agreement is now.,We have followed the negotiations closely and we will support the changes which the OAS committee has proposed in its Act of Reconciliation.5 We believe that these changes strengthen the document by making clearer provisions for the procedure of disarmament, and by reinforcing the authority of what will be a fully sovereign provisional government.,5On August 31, 1965, the Act of Dominican Reconciliation, proposed by the ad hoc committee of the Organization of American States, was signed at Santo Domingo (OAS doc. 281). A summary of the terms is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 53, P. 478).,I am confident that the Dominican people and the members of the OAS are one in their belief that any who continue to oppose the OAS solution are serving no true interest of their country or peace in the world. And it is greatly to the credit of the Organization of the American States that all members of its committee and all officers of the Inter-American Peace Force are doing their dead level best to bring all sides to agreement on the OAS proposal in its present form.,THE KASHMIR ISSUE [5.] The Secretary and I also discussed the tense and difficult situation in Kashmir. We are naturally greatly concerned over any flare-up involving India and Pakistan. Our long-standing and our very consistent stance has always been that the Kashmir issue must, and should be, solved by peaceful means. The U.N. is already involved, and we hope that the constructive efforts of the Secretary General may be successful there.,I might add that we are also always acutely interested in the course of affairs in the subcontinent in general. This is an area to which the United States has provided truly massive assistance and to whose people the United States is deeply attached.,THE YEMEN AGREEMENT [6.] In the Middle East, we are happy to see the statesmanlike agreement between King Faisal and President Nasser, 6 which seems to offer great promise of a peaceful settlement in Yemen. This crisis has long been a very disruptive element in the relations between our two friends. We share their confidence that this long-festering issue is on the road to settlement by negotiation rather than force, and that is most encouraging.,6King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of the United Arab Republic.,THE NEGOTIATIONS IN GENEVA [7.] In Geneva today, our negotiators are continuing their efforts to make progress toward a sound international agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The cause of peace has no more urgent task.,We regret very much that some are still unwilling to join in serious negotiations on the false grounds that our proposals would permit nuclear proliferation in Europe.,In the same way, we regret that these proposals have been misunderstood by others as if they interfered with the legitimate defensive interests of any of the NATO allies. They do nothing of the sort, and I am glad to say that we have had full consultation and understanding with such outstanding leaders as Chancellor Erhard 7 on this point.,7 Ludwig Erhard, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.,APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADOR TO POLAND [8.] Early in 1964, speaking at VMI, I pledged my administration to a policy of building bridges across the gulf which has divided us for more than two decades from the people of Eastern Europe.,I said then \"They will be,\" I said, \"bridge\" of increased trade, of ideas, of visitors, and of humanitarian aid.\",Our hopes for the people of these countries are identical to their own aspirations for their own future. We want to strengthen their ability to shape their own society. And we seek to bring every European nation closer to its neighbors in the ties of peace.,And so today I am very pleased to announce one of the most important steps that this Nation has yet taken to implement that policy: I am asking a member of my Cabinet, a vigorous, intelligent, highly trained, and deeply committed public servant--Postmaster General John Gronouski--to serve as United States Ambassador to Poland.,I have discussed this assignment at great length with Secretary Rusk and other top key officials in the Department of State. And we believe that Mr. Gronouski's appointment reaffirms our strong desire for increased trust and friendly cooperation between Poland and the United States.,Mr. Gronouski is going to Warsaw to do everything in his power to further increase understanding and goodwill between Poland and our country. He is a grand and a very warm human being who enjoys people. His background and his experience uniquely qualify him to translate American ideals to Poland and Polish ideals to America.,I have asked Mr. Gronouski to say to the peoples and to the leaders of Poland that a deep and historic bond exists between Poland and the United States. Let, therefore, trust grow between us. Let us strengthen that bond, and let us work together for the peace and the liberty that we all seek for all peoples everywhere.,John Gronouski is the man, I think, that can carry that message.,America is in his blood, but so is Poland.,He was born the grandson of a Polish immigrant. He is a member of the Polish Institute of the Arts and Sciences of Chicago, a director of the Pulaski Foundation, the honorary chairman of the Committee for an Endowed Chair in Polish Studies at the University of Chicago. In 1963 he became Postmaster General by selection of President Kennedy. He was the first American of Polish descent to ever serve in the Cabinet. And it was my great pleasure to reappoint him to the Postmaster Generalship last February.,But John Gronouski is more. He is one of the very few men with a doctor of philosophy degree ever to sit in the Cabinet. And as an expert on international economics and on government finance, he established a most outstanding record as commissioner of taxation for one of the great, progressive States in the Union--Wisconsin. He is a talented administrator who has opened up new paths of progress for the postal service of the United States.,Just as another very extraordinary American-who I am delighted to see with us today--Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, left the Supreme Court to accept a very extraordinary and highly significant diplomatic assignment, John Gronouski is now leaving the Cabinet with a distinguished record and high honor to serve his President and his country.,And he is, by the way, enhancing a noble and unique tradition. For the man who really set up our postal service, our first Postmaster General, also went on to later serve his country as Ambassador. His name was Benjamin Franklin.,APPOINTMENT OF POSTMASTER GENERAL [9.] Now to succeed John Gronouski as Postmaster General, I have chosen a man widely recognized as a very talented and ardent practitioner of government, a very skilled manager and organizer whose endless capacity for work and clear vision of the greater public good have earned him immense respect and affection among all who know him. He has been Special Assistant to the President for Congressional Relations; his name is Lawrence F. O'Brien.,Larry O'Brien's credentials are as impressive as the job of Postmaster General is demanding. His appointment recognizes merit and recognizes demonstrated ability in government. He is a veteran of 3 years in the Army. He was for 17 years a businessman in Massachusetts. In 1960 he served as national director of organization in the late beloved John F. Kennedy's campaign for the Democratic nomination for President, and later as national director of organization for the Kennedy-Johnson campaign.,He came to the White House in 1961 as President Kennedy's Chief Assistant for Congressional Relations. He became the key legislative architect of the New Frontier. After the tragedy of November 22, 1963, he stayed on--at the President's request--to help enact legislation that meant so much to President Kennedy and to the Kennedy-Johnson administration.,I know of no single individual who has contributed more to the enactment of legislation that touches the lives of more Americans than Larry O'Brien.,From voting rights to medical care, from the tax cut to the war on poverty, from the Peace Corps to education, Larry O'Brien has expressed his compassion for people in the enactment of major legislation.,He enjoys the high regard of Congress and the executive branch of Government. He will be warmly welcomed into the Cabinet by his new colleagues. I have conferred with the leadership of the Congress and they expressed their great pleasure also. We all know him to be a man concerned not only with the process of government but with the philosophy of government.,Wise counselor, gifted strategist, efficient manager, warm humanitarian, he is a man who-as the respected Business Week magazine pointed out last April--has earned the title of \"the 11th Cabinet member.\",So I am very proud this afternoon to make him a member of the Cabinet in fact as well as in the magazine and in reputation. He will continue to be a very strong right arm to the President. Don't be surprised if you see him on the Hill occasionally.,But let me caution you, Larry--just because Ben Franklin went to Paris and John Gronouski is going to Warsaw, that doesn't mean that you are ever going to Dublin.,I'll be glad to take any questions you may care to ask, and after the television time is over Secretary Rusk and Ambassador Goldberg and Administrator Webb will be glad, for a few minutes before you leave, to give you any material on background that you would like to have.,QUESTIONS STEEL MEDITATION EFFORTS [10.] Q. Mr. President, what do you hear from the steel strike?,THE PRESIDENT. We had a very lengthy report this morning. And the special mediators I asked to go up yesterday were meeting again, first, with the steel management, and later with the steel union. They have really made no progress since they went there yesterday. They have been going into the facts of the situation and we have carefully evaluated the factual report they have brought us. We are asking them to get back in touch with us after lunch this afternoon and we will give further attention to it during the day and the evening.,VIET-NAM [11.] Q. Mr. President, the Russians are reported to be saying that North Viet-Nam might be willing to start negotiations if there is another cessation of U.S. bombing. Do you credit these reports and, if so, are there any plans for another temporary halt on the bombing?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know where the reports are. I have not seen them, and we hear a lot of reports but so far as I am aware there is nothing official about them, and I expect some newspaperman is speculating.,Q. Mr. President, there have been a lot of published reports this week about new initiatives, perhaps on the fringe of Hanoi. Are we measurably any closer to peace talks? Can you discuss these reports and give us some background on it?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that reports come and go but there is not anything that I can add to what I have said in my last press conference. The word \"peace\" is a great word in our vocabulary. We are searching for it. We are doing everything we can to prevail on all parties concerned to leave the battlefield and go to the conference table. But I have nothing official, or nothing reliable, that would indicate that any of the parties of interest are ready to do that at this time.,EFFECT OF A STEEL STRIKE [12.] Q. Mr. President, what would the steel strike do to the national economy? 8,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it would be very damaging. It would depend on how long it went on, to say the least. It is something we don't want to happen. I have appealed to both management and labor to let collective bargaining work, and I hope that it will be successful. We are going to do everything we can to ask both parties to be responsible, and to act in the national interest, and I hope and believe they will.,8 See Item 483.,SCHEDULE FOR A FLIGHT TO THE MOON [13.] Q. Mr. President, in light of the success of the Gemini 5 flight, where do we stand in our schedule to get a man on the moon ? Can we do it in this decade, sir ?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think that our schedule is going along very well. That's been our hope. Director Webb can go into further details with you in the backgrounder following this conference, but I don't want to be overoptimistic. A lot of hard work is ahead of us. It is going to be very costly in both time and resources. But I know of no project our Government has ever undertaken that has been better managed, that received more cooperation from the 20 thousand-odd business companies in this country, and all the workers belonging to labor, and the fine management team of Webb, Dryden,9 and Seamans. And I think that we will continue to advance and make progress and meet our goals.,9 Hugh L. Dryden, Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.,STEEL MEDIATION EFFORTS [14.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything further you can do to put off the steel strike?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm going to do everything I can to avoid it. We have to take one step at a time and see what progress is made, but I have no doubt but what management wants to avoid a strike if it can. I know that the workers want to avoid the costly price that the strike would bring. And we are trying to work it out in the American way, and I hope we'll be able to. If not, we'll have to look to the national interest and see what it requires and then carry it out.,ALLEVIATION OF RACIAL TENSIONS [15.] Q. Mr. President, the other day, in the wake of what happened in Los Angeles,10 you warned against further violence and lawlessness in the city streets, and afterward the Republican leader of the House11 suggested that by your remarks you might tend to incite the very thing that you are trying to prevent. Do you have any comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I would certainly hope not. I don't want to incite anything. I think we recognize that we have very serious problems in this area. And I think the Congress has acted very forthrightly and very effectively-at least most of the Congress--to find the answer to this problem.,10 See Items 426, 453.,11 Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, minority leader of the House of Representatives.,The higher education bill passed with only 22 votes against it last week. The poverty bill passed with an overwhelming vote. Both of those measures will be helpful to us. The elementary education bill passed by a rather substantial vote.,I think this Congress has done a great deal in the way of voters' rights. And what I said at the White House, I would remind you all, is something that I think every American recognizes is a fact. We have a good many of these problems that we need to face up to, and I don't think any Congress has ever faced up to them better than this Congress.,We have not concluded our work, but we are rapidly approaching the end. And if we can get the legislation we have asked, we can do our planning, we can make some mass assaults on these conditions, where 35 or 40 percent of the young people in a given area are unemployed, and can get them back to work, or get them back to school, or get them back in better housing and better living conditions.,I think that we will find an answer to these problems, and that is what I am trying to get the country to do. Housing, poverty, education, medical care, home rule--all of these are measures that I would hope the Congress would carefully consider and act upon, and they have done that in most fields. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-08-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I guess you all want to get your lunch, but I wanted to tell you what I knew about my plans and I had a statement that I ought to make to you that you may want to file before lunch.,STEEL NEGOTIATIONS [1.] I have had a very friendly conversation this morning with Mr. R. Conrad Cooper, the Executive Vice President of the United States Steel Corporation, and Mr. I. W. Abel, President of the United Steel Workers of America.,I communicated with them separately over the telephone. I said the same thing to each of them, the substance of which was that I pointed out the question I had received at the press conference yesterday, and my reply to it,1 and I asked them to read it and review it, which they had done. I told them that I had relied upon them, in these troubled times, to negotiate peacefully a decent and responsible settlement. I was sure that neither the company nor the union wanted the disruption of work or an inflationary situation in our country; that I regarded both the industry and the union to be my friend, and I did not in any way want to try to dictate details of what settlement should be negotiated.,1 See Item 448 [11].,I felt, very briefly, that this was a matter for them to settle by collective bargaining; that I did believe that the President of the country had an extreme responsibility for proclaiming the national interest and serving the national interest; that I had a right to ask their complete cooperation; that I was asking for that and I expected to receive it, and I believed I would. Both of them assured me that they would be glad to be helpful in any way they could, consistent with their view of what the national interest was and the needs of their respective constituents.,They wished me a happy birthday, and I told them I sure would have one if they carried out my hopes. 2,2 see Item 483.,[2.] I am going to shoot for a departure of between 3 and 4:30. I would like to meet with a group of ladies that Mrs. Johnson is having at the house between 4 and 6 in Texas. I expect I will miss it, but she is having a group that has been working on a library, on our little boyhood home, and things of that kind, and I would like to visit with them if I can get through with my schedule.,I am running behind. I have some Members of the Congress to see, and some meetings with State Department people, and Mr. Bundy,3 and the staff, and I have a Quadriad meeting that is just beginning, so I can't tell. I'd like to be precise, but I can't tell you at this moment. It depends on how long they talk and how much rebuttal I have to make.,3 McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President.,Q. Mr. President, can I ask you a question ?,THE PRESIDENT. If it's in relation to the trip, I want to get off.,[3.] Q. I just wondered if there was any discussion from these men that they would be willing to extend that deadline?,THE PRESIDENT. They did not mention deadline. I told you all that happened.,[4.] Q. It is now on the record you are going to Texas?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,TENSION IN THE CITIES [5.] Q. Mr. President, one question that is bothering a lot of us this morning since the bill signing 4--,THE PRESIDENT. Just one? You don't mean this is just something that bothered you this morning?,4 see Item 452.,I'll tell you a story. Bill White5 came in one time and he said, \"You know, I'm bothered and I'm confused.\" The first 3 years he did that to me I really took it at face value until I found out how many times I had made mistakes and all the headlines I had made. So I just quit trying to clear up confusions or to clear up people bothering. What is the problem?,5 William S. White of United Feature Syndicate.,Q. It has to do with your statement this morning about the dangers of increasing tension in the cities, and you also mentioned the District of Columbia. I wondered if you thought it would be at all useful for you to restate or amplify, or try to help us out, on exactly what you meant?,THE PRESIDENT. I meant just what I said. And that was that we ought to try to face up to these problems that we have, such as the one we are facing up to this morning, before we had to suffer more serious problems and create additional problems.,Every little town in this country that you can see has problems. The young are leaving and the old are staying there, and the town is drying up, businesses are folding, and all of those things. We are trying our best through area redevelopment, through public works, by trying to solve our water problem, the housing problem, trying to solve the urban renewal problem, and to recognize the economic facts of life and meet them while there is time to do it.,Now, some of these places we don't get to until it already happens and we have to do the very thing we would have to do anyway, plus some additional things. And in Los Angeles we found that we could not contain disappointments and the frustrations, and it took rather drastic action to get that situation back into focus, and now we have all the problems we had before, plus all that were created by this situation.6,6 See Items 426, 453.,But the Congress, recognizing our ability of meeting these things head on in this particular instance, had rather wisely acted. There are other places I want them to act on, other fields I want them to act on. And they are acting. They are turning out a good volume.,So, my purpose was twofold. One, was to caution and to point up the desirability of facing up to the problems before they increased in nature; and, two, was to commend them, in this specific instance, for having done a rather effective job.,And, three, to fully recognize the interest of the great State of Minnesota in this field. I saw a good many of them there. Mr. Foley7 has spent a good part of the last 2 or 3 days talking to me about the great opportunity in this field, and I wanted to enlist the aid of all the Members of Congress present.,7Eugene P. Foley, Administrator of the Small Business Administration and newly designated Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development.,I don't have the privileges of the floor anymore. That's about the only chance I have to appeal to them. I just did this the best way I could.,I did not want to bother anybody or create more problems than I have. I want to solve them before additional ones come along--in Johnson City, New York City, Washington, D.C.--what town were you born in?,Q. Boston.,THE PRESIDENT. Boston.,Q. Do you think it's bad up there?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't say it's bad. We are going to face up to those problems while we can before additional ones develop. That is what they are doing.,This is a rather revolutionary bill, a far-reaching one, a bipartisan one. I pointed that out.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-08-25","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY [1.] After discussion with Vice President Humphrey and members of the Space Council, as well as Defense Secretary McNamara, I am today instructing the Department of Defense to immediately proceed with the development of a manned orbiting laboratory.,This program will bring us new knowledge about what man is able to do in space. It will enable us to relate that ability to the defense of America.,It will develop technology and equipment which will help advance manned and unmanned space flight.,It will make it possible to perform very new and rewarding experiments with that technology and equipment.,The cost of developing the manned orbiting laboratory will be $1.5 billion.,Unmanned flights to test launchings, recovery, and other basic parts of the system, will begin late next year or early 1967. The initial unmanned launch of a fully equipped laboratory is scheduled for 1968. This will be followed later that year by the first of five flights with two-man crews.,The Air Force has selected the Douglas Aircraft Company to design and to build the spacecraft in which the crew of the laboratory will live and operate. The General Electric Company will plan and develop the space experiments. The Titan III-C booster will launch the laboratory into space and a modified version of the NASA Gemini capsule will be the vehicle in which the astronauts return to earth.,THE RULE OF LAW IN OUTER SPACE [2.] Even as we meet, Gemini 5, piloted by two very gallant men, backed by hundreds of dedicated space scientists and engineers and great administrators, now orbits the earth as a dramatic reminder that our American dream for outer space is a dream of peace and a dream of friendly cooperation among all the nations of the earth.1,1 See Item 462.,We believe the heavens belong to the people of every country. We are working and we will continue to work through the United Nations--our distinguished Ambassador, Mr. Goldberg, is present with us this morning--to extend the rule of law into outer space.,We intend to live up to our agreement not to orbit weapons of mass destruction and we will continue to hold out to all nations, including the Soviet Union, the hand of cooperation in the exciting years of space exploration which lie ahead for all of us. Therefore, I have--today, in fact--directed Mr. James Webb,2 the administrator of our civilian space program, after conferring with the Secretary of State and our Ambassador to the United Nations and others, to invite the Soviet Academy of Science to send a very high level representative here next month to observe the launching of Gemini 6.,2 James E. Webb, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.,I hope that he will find it convenient to come. We will certainly give him a warm welcome in America.,NEW GOVERNMENT-WIDE PLANNING AND\nBUDGETING SYSTEM [3.] This morning I have just concluded a breakfast meeting with the Cabinet and with the heads of Federal agencies.,I am asking each of them to immediately begin to introduce a very new and a very revolutionary system of planning and programing and budgeting throughout the vast Federal Government, so that through the tools of modern management the full promise of a finer life can be brought to every American at the lowest possible cost.3,3 See Item 447.,Under this new system each Cabinet and agency head will set up a very special staff of experts who, using the most modern methods of program analysis, will define the goals of their department for the coming year. Once these goals are established, this system will permit us to find the most effective and the least costly alternative to achieving American goals.,This program is designed to achieve three major objectives:,It will help us find new ways to do jobs faster, to do jobs better, and to do jobs less expensively.,It will insure a much sounder judgment through more accurate information, pinpointing those things that we ought to do more, spotlighting those things that we ought to do less.,It will make our decision-making process as up-to-date, I think, as our space exploring program.,Everything that I have done in both legislation and the construction of a budget has always been guided by my own very deep concern for the American people-consistent with wise management, of course, of the taxpayer's dollar.,So this new system will identify our national goals with precision and will do it on a continuing basis. It will enable us to fulfill the needs of all the American people with a minimum amount of waste.,And because we will be able to make sounder decisions than ever before, I think the people of this Nation will receive greater benefits from every tax dollar that is spent in their behalf.,APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF U.S. MISSION\nTO THE UNITED NATIONS [4.] On July the 20th, I named as United States Ambassador to the United Nations a man to whom the sacred cause of peace is an obsession--Justice Arthur Goldberg.,So I am happy this morning to reinforce the United States team at the United Nations with four Americans who also share a passion for peace:,--As Ambassador Goldberg's principal Deputy, I am naming a career Ambassador with a distinguished record of more than 20 years in diplomacy--Mr. Charles Yost.,--As Representative to the Security Council, with the rank of Ambassador, I am naming the noted president of Howard University--Dr. James Nabrit, Jr.,--As Representative to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, a famous American who is giving up his seat in Congress to become our new Ambassador-Mr. James Roosevelt, the eldest son of the late beloved Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt is with us this morning. Will you please stand, Mr. Roosevelt?,--As Representative to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, also with the rank of Ambassador, a vibrant, attractive American woman who has already served as the Nation's chief diplomat in both Denmark and Bulgaria--Mrs. Eugenie Anderson of Minnesota.,OTHER APPOINTMENTS [5.] Tomorrow I will sign into law one of the most important hi]Is enacted by Congress this session: the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.4 To direct this far-reaching program of promise for the distressed areas all across America, I intend to nominate as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and as Director of Economic Development one of our most brilliant young public servants, the outstanding Administrator of the Small Business Administration-Mr. Eugene P. Foley. Please stand, Mr. Foley.,4 See Item 452.,[6.] I am also pleased to announce this morning the appointment of Mr. Hobart Taylor, Jr., as a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Taylor has been Associate Special Counsel to the President since May 1964. He was previously Executive Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and has largely directed our efforts with the large corporations and institutions of this country in our plans for progress. Will you please stand, Mr. Taylor?,He will be succeeded as my Associate Special Counsel by another talented young lawyer who holds degrees from both Harvard and Yale and now serves as Deputy Special Assistant to the President--Mr. Clifford Alexander, Jr. Mr. Alexander has recently reached the tired old age of 32. Will you please stand, Mr. Alexander?,[7.] It is also a pleasure to announce the nomination this morning of the new United States Attorney for the District of Columbia-it may interest some of you people who live here in the District of Columbia--Mr. David G. Bress. Mr. Bress has not only carried on a very vigorous private practice and civic life but he has taught in the field of law at American University, at Georgetown Law Center, the University of Virginia Law School, and has been head of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia. Will you stand, Mr. Bress?,THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SELF-GOVERNING\nPEOPLE [8.] Fifty years ago, President Woodrow Wilson asked, \"Just what is it that America stands for? If she stands for one thing more than another, it is for the sovereignty of self-governing people.\",So I am very proud of the progress that we are making toward that principle on one front--and I am disappointed at the lack of progress that we are making on another.,REGISTRATION UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS\nACT [9.] The Attorney General and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission have just reported to me what I think is a truly remarkable story: In the 19 days since I signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965,5 which I recommended to Congress and they promptly enacted, already a total of 27,385 Negroes in 13 counties in 3 Southern States have qualified to vote. And they represent nearly one-third of the potential applicants in all those 13 counties.,5 See Item 409.,Only this morning a team of Federal examiners will begin to list voters in the 14th county that has been designated by the Attorney General. That new office will be opened in the town of Prentiss in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi.,I am equally encouraged by the high level of acceptance and I am very pleased with the compliance that we have had in scores of other Southern counties throughout the country.,--A check of 45 counties in Georgia shows already that 99 percent of 2,000 Negro applicants have been registered without any difficulty.,--In 50 Louisiana counties, not a single Negro has been rejected.,--In Mississippi, nearly 12,000 Negroes have been registered by local registrars--over and above those that we mentioned that were registered by Federal examiners. The number of Negro citizens registered in Mississippi has increased 100 percent in the last 6 weeks.,Obedience is always preferable to enforcement. Where enforcement is necessary, we will not hesitate to meet our responsibilities under the law. But the very clear and the very heartening lesson of this wonderful report is that obedience to the law is a fact of life to so many men and women of good will throughout the South.,HOME RULE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [10.] On another front--here in our lovely Nation's Capital City--\"the sovereignty of self-governing people\" is still unresolved.,The people of the District of Columbia, I think deserve and I think must and will have home rule. It is an irony and disgrace that having extended self-government already to the Philippine Islands and to Puerto Rico, having enthusiastically recommended democratic principles to nations around the world, nation after nation, after having welcomed Alaska and Hawaii as new States, that somehow some people seem to be afraid to trust almost a million American citizens with the management of their own affairs here in the District of Columbia.,Congress is moving to redeem this disgrace. The Senate--as on at least five different occasions in the past--has acted to pass a good home rule bill containing a solid and a workable charter for home rule.,That bill should come before the House of Representatives very shortly. The limits of reasonable delay have long since been reached and passed.,No one doubts the outcome once that bill finally gets to the floor of the House and the Members are permitted to vote on it. But what is needed this morning is a commitment by the leadership and by the members of both parties, if you please, to the only practical means of getting the bill on the floor, and that seems to be the petition to discharge the House District Committee from further delay of the bill.,Bills have been pending before that committee for year after year after year. So I have, as President, urged the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. McCormack, and the other leaders and members of my own party to lead the way in this movement. But to all of those who believe in our two-party elective system, to all of those who believe in taxation with representation, to those who believe in keeping faith with our own people, I express the hope that you, too, will join us in this effort.,I am now ready to take any questions that you may have to ask.,QUESTIONS,THE STEEL NEGOTIATIONS [11.] Q. Mr. President, the steel negotiators still seem to be considerably apart on an agreement, and a strike is threatened within a week. Would you care to comment on that situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that the steel situation is on almost every citizen's mind in this country. The decisions which will be made in Pittsburgh this week are of vital importance to every person in this country and to people in other parts of the world. There must be continued cost and price stability in our American economy and I expect full and complete responsibility in the current wage negotiations and I expect continued stability in steel prices.,As we meet here today, we are troubled with many questions, but we must never forget that our boys are still fighting in South Viet-Nam and that our economic strength is the keystone of free world peace. It is extremely important to the security that we hold very dear. So the decisions that will be made this week by steel management and by labor in the days that are ahead must certainly take into account the overall greater national interest which is involved.,The Director of the Federal Mediation Service, one of my most trusted public servants, Mr. William Simkin, is in Pittsburgh; and he is there for the purpose of making every contribution he can to assist the parties in reaching a responsible agreement. The eyes of this country are on the leaders of both management and labor. We are expecting and we believe we will receive the responsibility which the national interest requires.6,6 See Item 483.,VIET-NAM [12.] Q. Mr. President, in World War II there were notable air strikes which completely knocked out, in single raids, vast industrial complexes and transportation facilities, yet in the war in Viet-Nam we read from over there of repeated cases of where it takes several raids to demobilize or deactivate certain industrial installations. I am thinking of the powerplants they were hitting yesterday over and over, and such things as bridges.,Is our current inability to knock out some of these big industrial complexes or railroad staging areas or bridges--is this a purposeful thing to avoid saturation bombing, or is there any other explanation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that our operations have been up to our expectations. I think a review and evaluation of them will reflect that they have been rather effective, and I think that they are in keeping with the planned purpose of their mission.,Q. Mr. President, do you think the so-called white paper issued by House Republicans under the leadership of Congressman Ford 7 has injected undue partisanship into the Viet-Nam situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't want to get into any personalities in the matter. I think the issues of war and peace in Viet-Nam are far greater than any personal differences that one might have--for that matter, far greater than any party's.,7 Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, minority leader of the House of Representatives.,I have said on many occasions, and I should like to repeat to the American people, and to Hanoi also, that I am very pleased with the support the American people are giving to the policies of their Government, both at home and abroad. While our men are fighting and dying for freedom in South Viet-Nam, I am going to do everything that I can to support those men and to unite the country behind them.,I think that, generally speaking, the country is united behind them and I think this will be a source of strength to our boys out there. I have received excellent cooperation from the leadership of both parties in the past, and I expect to continue in the future. The boys that are fighting the war are not divided between Republicans and Democrats. The men directing the strategies involved-I don't know what party they belong to.,The distinguished Secretary of Defense, before coming into Government, was a member of a party different from mine. The President with whom I counsel often and who has had the greatest experience in not only political and diplomatic matters, but in matters of a military nature, President Eisenhower, has been a tower of strength to me, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Secretary of Defense, and to the leaders of the Congress.,So I would say that we welcome expressions of viewpoint from the leadership in both parties. There will be times when we don't see everything alike, but that may contribute strength to our system.,I don't think that Hanoi should ever for a moment entertain the illusion that the people of this country are not united in the work of this Government.,THE IMMIGRATION BILL [13.] Q. The congressional session is almost over and what are the prospects of the immigration bill passing, and could you assess for us some of the long-range effects of it if it passes?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know how good a prophet I am. I had put this legislation very high in our list. I think it is extremely important. I have continually urged the leadership to proceed with this consideration. The House has it under study now. I have talked to the Speaker at length, yesterday and again today.,I am sending him a letter later today expressing very strongly the views of the executive branch of the Government again.8 I am hoping that that bill will pass as reported by the House Judiciary Committee without crippling amendments. It has not been acted upon yet by the Senate Judiciary Committee.,8 See Item 449.,I believe that it should be acted on before the Congress gets out of here. I favor the House bill. I think it will result in a great improvement not only in our relations with other nations but will be very satisfying to large segments of our own people. I believe it will pass. I would like to have the help of all of you, though, in that connection.9,9An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act was approved by the President on October 3, 1965 (see Item 546).,THE CIVILIAN PAY RAISE BILL AND WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES [14.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe that the guidelines of your administration and Mr. Kennedy's administration laid down on wage and price stability apply to Federal employees, and if so, do you believe that the civilian pay raise bill now reported out of the House committee violates those guidelines?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that the Federal Government has a different situation from what we have in certain segments of our private sector, but I would hope that we would never ask for privileges for ourselves in Government that we would not expect private industry to share in.,Therefore, when you make allowances for the difference in public and private employment and the various policies and fringe benefits, I would hope that we could keep our civilian pay structure in line with the guidelines that we recommend for private industry.,I do think the House bill goes too far. I do think that it would violate the guidelines. I do hope that the Congress will carefully and thoroughly consider the destructive effect it would have if we should pass the bill in its present form.,We had a most distinguished panel of most distinguished Americans study this whole subject. They made recommendations.,We would hope that the Congress would enact those recommendations with certain modifications that they thought were required, but certainly not go anywhere near the overall recommendations made by the House committee, because we think that would be very disastrous to our price-wage stability policy in this country and we think it would violate the guidelines.10,10 The Federal Employees Salary Act of 1965 was approved by the President on October 29, 1965 (see Item 589).,VIET-NAM--OUR DESIRE FOR PEACE [15.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to Viet-Nam for a moment, the other night on television some of your top advisers spoke in a way that seemed rather pointed about the 1954 agreements11 as a possible basis for a new agreement.,11The Geneva Accords of 1954, which ended the war in Indochina, were signed by the Government of France and by the government of Ho Chi Minh of North Viet-Nam. The United States was not a party to them.,Does this reflect an administration emphasis and does it reflect a feeling that perhaps somebody is listening to you now, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we are always hopeful that all the world is aware of our desire for discussions and our desire for negotiations and our desire for peace. I don't think it is really important how much extra you get an hour in your steel contract, or what the increase of Federal pay is, if your boy is going to be drafted tomorrow and going to be called upon to give his life in Viet-Nam.,So peace--peace, that simple little 5-letter word--is the most important word in the English language to us at this time and it occupies more of our attention than any other word or any other subject. We do expect they are listening; we do hope they are listening.,Secretary Rusk, Ambassador Goldberg, Secretary Ball,12 and all of the other trained diplomats that we have in this country are going to constantly be searching for ways and means to substitute words for guns, and to bring men from the battlefield to the conference table. Our every waking hour is going to be spent trying to find the means for doing this.,12 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,REPEAL OF SECTION 14(B) or THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT [16.] Q. Mr. President, do you still consider the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act a major legislative goal in this session of the Congress? There seems to be some question in the Senate, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of any question. I certainly do.,LOS ANGELES TASK FORCE [17.] Q. Sir, have you been in contact with Governor Collins13 about the situation in Los Angeles?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,13LeRoy Collins, Director, Community Relations Service, Department of Commerce, and former Governor of Florida.,Q. Do you have in mind any action which might avert further tension?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. We have detailed action planned that we worked on until late in the evening last night. Mr. Moyers 14 will have a release available for you. We didn't want to take the television time and further time from your questions, but it will be available later in the week.15,14 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,15 See Item 453.,We are appointing a top-flight task force, headed by Deputy Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and they will proceed to Los Angeles at a very early date. The details of their work and their program will be announced as soon as they are available.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [18.] Q. Mr. President, have we come to any closer solution to the problem in the Dominican Republic ?,THE PRESIDENT. Ambassador Bunker16 has done a very exceptional job there. We are very hopeful that we can obtain agreement on provisional government, and that we can set up the guidelines that will result in an election at an early date where the people of that area can have self-determination and can make the selection of their own government officials. We have felt very close to a solution several times, and we never are quite sure when it will come, but we expect it shortly.,16 Ellsworth Bunker, United States Representative to the Organization of American States.,PENDING LEGISLATION [19.] Q. Mr. President, you said yesterday that what you really wanted for your birthday tomorrow were several bills out of committee, but you didn't say what the bills are. Would you care to tell us, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have the time to review all of my messages. But as I remember it, there are about four bills still in House committees that have not been reported, that are being worked upon.,They include the highway improvement bill, beautification bill, and the heart, cancer, and stroke bill. Larry O'Brien17 is a much better authority on this than I am. He will be glad to be helpful in that respect. There are some eight bills in Senate committees that still need to be reported.,17Lawrence F. O'Brien, Special Assistant to the President.,There are a dozen or so bills that have been reported that need to be scheduled. They are either awaiting a rule or awaiting schedule in one body or the other.,There are about six bills in conference, one of which has emerged recently, much to our satisfaction--the foreign aid bill. We are hopeful that all of those measures can be moved. There are relatively few to be reported. There are a good many more to be scheduled. There are only half a dozen in conference.,We think that in a reasonable time, by diligent work--not around the clock, but a full week in the next several weeks--we can complete our program. If we could, we would like to do that, so that the Members could go home and have some rest before coming back in January.,There will be some important messages for them, awaiting them, when they return in January, but we would not expect anything like the volume of substantive legislation next year. We would expect several substantive bills like a transportation policy and like some refinements in our foreign policy, that we will be submitting messages on food and health and things of that nature. But we look forward to the Congress being able to get out of here early next year--I would say certainly far ahead of the end of the fiscal year in June--so that the Members could be at home and could report to the people.,We like for the Republicans and the Democrats all to be home and report to the people what is going on here, what is going on in the world, so they can be fully informed, and we think that it makes for a more united country.,PROGRESS IN VIET-NAM [20.] Q. Mr. President, of late, sir, have you been able to detect any military advantages in Viet-Nam? Have we turned the corner there after it has gone apparently so bad for so long?,THE PRESIDENT. I am always hesitant to make a prophecy about how good things are or how bad they are, because you fellows have a way of remembering what a public official says way back there and feeding it up to him from time to time.,But I think it must be evident to you that your Marines and your other soldiers in the Army, and the men in the Navy and the Air Force have been giving a good account of themselves. And working very closely with the dedicated and patriotic and determined South Vietnamese, always associated with them and working with them, they have been quite effective in the last few weeks.,As I told you, in our last meeting, I plead with my Cabinet every time I see them. I say to Secretary McNamara, \"You be sure that our men have the morale, and have the equipment, and have the necessary means of seeing that we keep our commitments in Viet-Nam, and we have the strength to do it.\",I say to Mr. Rusk, while he is working with his right hand on strength and stability there and doing the job we are committed to do, \"You and Mr. Goldberg and the rest of you, use that left hand and be sure that you do everything to get us away from the battlefield and back at the conference table, if that is possible.\",So we are like a man in a ring. We are using our right and our left constantly.,INDONESIA [21.] Q. It seems increasingly possible, Mr. President, that the conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia could erupt into an earthquake that would affect southeast Asia far more gravely than anything that is going on in Viet-Nam today.,Would you assess that danger for us, including the point as to whether you think it is possible to keep Indonesia from completely going into the Communist Chinese orbit?,THE PRESIDENT. I would agree that the whole situation there is very delicate, a matter that requires constant watching. Our Secretary of State is doing that. The President is doing it. We have recently sent to Indonesia one of our most trained and trusted diplomats.18 We are going to make every contribution that we can to try to preserve peace in that area.,18 Marshall Green, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia.,We think that what we are doing in South Viet-Nam has a very important bearing on the whole sector of that part of the world. I would not want to make any prophecies as to what the final outcome would be, other than we will be hopeful and we will be continuing in our efforts to contribute anything we can to a peaceful solution.,VETO OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION BILL [22.] Q. Mr. President, sir, you vetoed the military construction bill the other day 19 and said you did it because it was repugnant to the Constitution. Some people disagree with you. They think that very clearly, while your powers are limited by the Constitution, the powers of Congress are extensive.,19 See Item 440.,I would refer you to section 8 of the Constitution, where it says that Congress will make all the rules for government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Don't you think you might reconsider that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first I reviewed that veto message very carefully late in the evening of the last day with most of my best legal advisers. The statement as I remember it said that the Attorney General informed me that it was repugnant to the Constitution. So I would refer you first to the Attorney General, and I know he would be glad to give great weight to any observations you might have.,I, myself, agree with the Attorney General. I hope the Congress will share that view. I think that we do owe the Congress a reasonable reporting procedure. I indicated in my message that I would willingly make those reports if it could be worked out where it would not adversely affect our military posture or my duties as Commander in Chief.,I genuinely believe that the bill, in the form that I vetoed it, did considerably restrain the Commander in Chief and was not in the national interest.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-07-28","text":"WHY WE ARE IN VIET-NAM THE PRESIDENT. My fellow Americans:,[1.] Not long ago I received a letter from a woman in the Midwest. She wrote:,\"Dear Mr. President:,\"In my humble way I am writing 'to you about the crisis in Viet-Nam. I have a son who is now in Viet-Nam. My husband served in World War II. Our country was at war, but now, this time, it is just something that I don't understand. Why?\",Well, I have tried to answer that question dozens of times and more in practically every State in this Union. I have discussed it fully in Baltimore in April, in Washington in May, in San Francisco in June. Let me again, now, discuss it here in the East Room of the White House.,Why must young Americans, born into a land exultant with hope and with golden promise, toil and suffer and sometimes die in such a remote and distant place?,The answer, like the war itself, is not an easy one, but it echoes clearly from the painful lessons of half a century. Three times in my lifetime, in two World Wars and in Korea, Americans have gone to far lands to fight for freedom. We have learned at a terrible and a brutal cost that retreat does not bring safety and weakness does not bring peace.,It is this lesson that has brought us to Viet-Nam. This is a different kind of war. There are no marching armies or solemn declarations. Some citizens of South Viet-Nam at times, with understandable grievances, have joined in the attack on their own government.,But we must not let this mask the central fact that this is really war. It is guided by North Viet-Nam and it is spurred by Communist China. Its goal is to conquer the South, to defeat American power, and to extend the Asiatic dominion of communism. There are great stakes in the balance. Most of the non-Communist nations of Asia cannot, by themselves and alone, resist the growing might and the grasping ambition of Asian communism.,Our power, therefore, is a very vital shield. If we are driven from the field in Viet-Nam, then no nation can ever again have the same confidence in American promise, or in American protection.,In each land the forces of independence would be considerably weakened, and an Asia so threatened by Communist domination would certainly imperil the security of the United States itself.,We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else.,Nor would surrender in Viet-Nam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another country, bringing with it perhaps even larger and crueler conflict, as we have learned from the lessons of history.,Moreover, we are in Viet-Nam to fulfill one of the most solemn pledges of the American Nation. Three Presidents--President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and your present President--over 11 years have committed themselves and have promised to help defend this small and valiant nation.,Strengthened by that promise, the people of South Viet-Nam have fought for many long years. Thousands of them have died. Thousands more have been crippled and scarred by war. We just cannot now dishonor our word, or abandon our commitment, or leave those who believed us and who trusted us to the terror and repression and murder that would follow.,This, then, my fellow Americans, is why we are in Viet-Nam.1,1Copies of a booklet, entitled \"Why Vietnam\" (Government Printing Office, 27 pp.), were distributed to reporters on August 23, 1965, by Press Secretary Bill D. Moyers. The President's foreword to the booklet, dated August 20, follows:,My fellow Americans:,Once again in man's age-old struggle for a better life and a world of peace, the wisdom, courage, and compassion of the American people are being put to the test. This is the meaning of the tragic conflict in Vietnam.,In meeting the present challenge, it is essential that our people seek understanding, and that our leaders speak with candor.,I have therefore directed that this report to the American people be compiled and widely distributed. In its pages you will find statements on Vietnam by three leaders of your Government--by your President, your Secretary of State, and your Secretary of Defense.,These statements were prepared for different audiences, and they reflect the differing responsibilities of each speaker. The congressional testimony has been edited to avoid undue repetition and to incorporate the sense of the discussions that ensued.,Together, they construct a clear definition of America's role in the Vietnam conflict:,--the dangers and hopes that Vietnam holds for all free men,--the fullness and limits of our national objectives in a war we did not seek,--the constant effort on our part to bring this war we do not desire to a quick and honorable end.,LYNDON B. JOHNSON,THE NATION'S GOALS IN VIET-NAM What are our goals in that war-strained land?,First, we intend to convince the Communists that we cannot be defeated by force of arms or by superior power. They are not easily convinced. In recent months they have greatly increased their fighting forces and their attacks and the number of incidents.,I have asked the Commanding General, General Westmoreland,2 what more he needs to meet this mounting aggression. He has told me. We will meet his needs.,2 Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander of U.S. Forces in South Viet-Nam.,I have today ordered to Viet-Nam the Air Mobile Division and certain other forces which will raise our fighting strength from 75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately. Additional forces will be needed later, and they will be sent as requested.,This will make it necessary to increase our active fighting forces by raising the monthly draft call from 17,000 over a period of time to 35,000 per month, and for us to step up our campaign for voluntary enlistments.,After this past week of deliberations, I have concluded that it is not essential to order Reserve units into service now. If that necessity should later be indicated, I will give the matter most careful consideration and I will give the country--you--an adequate notice before taking such action, but only after full preparations.,We have also discussed with the Government of South Viet-Nam lately, the steps that we will take to substantially increase their own effort, both on the battlefield and toward reform and progress in the villages. Ambassador Lodge3 is now formulating a new program to be tested upon his return to that area.,3 Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to South Viet-Nam.,I have directed Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara to be available immediately to the Congress to review with these committees, the appropriate congressional committees, what we plan to do in these areas. I have asked them to be able to answer the questions of any Member of Congress.,Secretary McNamara, in addition, will ask the Senate Appropriations Committee to add a limited amount to present legislation to help meet part of this new cost until a supplemental measure is ready and hearings can be held when the Congress assembles in January. In the meantime, we will use the authority contained in the present Defense appropriation bill under consideration to transfer funds in addition to the additional money that we will ask.,These steps, like our actions in the past, are carefully measured to do what must be done to bring an end to aggression and a peaceful settlement.,We do not want an expanding struggle with consequences that no one can perceive, nor will we bluster or bully or flaunt our power, but we will not surrender and we will not retreat.,For behind our American pledge lies the determination and resources, I believe, of all of the American Nation.,OUR READINESS TO NEGOTIATE Second, once the Communists know, as we know, that a violent solution is impossible, then a peaceful solution is inevitable.,We are ready now, as we have always been, to move from the battlefield to the conference table. I have stated publicly and many times, again and again, America's willingness to begin unconditional discussions with any government, at any place, at any time. Fifteen efforts have been made to start these discussions with the help of 40 nations throughout the world, but there has been no answer.,But we are going to continue to persist, if persist we must, until death and desolation have led to the same conference table where others could now join us at a much smaller cost.,I have spoken many times of our objectives in Viet-Nam. So has the Government of South Viet-Nam. Hanoi has set forth its own proposals. We are ready to discuss their proposals and our proposals and any proposals of any government whose people may be affected, for we fear the meeting room no more than we fear the battlefield.,In this pursuit we welcome and we ask for the concern and the assistance of any nation and all nations. If the United Nations and its officials or any one of its 114 members can by deed or word, private initiative or public action, bring us nearer an honorable peace, then they will have the support and the gratitude of the United States of America.,LETTER TO U THANT I have directed Ambassador Goldberg4 to go to New York today and to present immediately to Secretary General U Thant a letter from me requesting that all the resources, energy, and immense prestige of the United Nations be employed to find ways to halt aggression and to bring peace in Viet-Nam.,4 Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,I made a similar request at San Francisco a few weeks ago,5 because we do not seek the destruction of any government, nor do we covet a foot of any territory. But we insist and we will always insist that the people of South Viet-Nam shall have the right of choice, the right to shape their own destiny in free elections in the South or throughout all Viet-Nam under international supervision, and they shall not have any government imposed upon them by force and terror so long as we can prevent it.,5 See Item 331.,This was the purpose of the 1954 agreements which the Communists have now cruelly shattered. If the machinery of those agreements was tragically weak, its purposes still guide our action. As battle rages, we will continue as best we can to help the good people of South Viet-Nam enrich the condition of their life, to feed the hungry and to tend the sick, and teach the young, and shelter the homeless, and to help the farmer to increase his crops, and the worker to find a job.,It is an ancient but still terrible irony that while many leaders of men create division in pursuit of grand ambitions, the children of man are really united in the simple, elusive desire for a life of fruitful and rewarding toil.,As I said at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore,6 I hope that one day we can help all the people of Asia toward that desire. Eugene Black7 has made great progress since my appearance in Baltimore in that direction-not as the price of peace, for we are ready always to bear a more painful cost, but rather as a part of our obligations of justice toward our fellow man.,6 See Item 172.,7Eugene R. Black, adviser to the President on southeast Asian social and economic development and former President of the World Bank.,THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL FEELINGS\nABOUT WAR [2.] Let me also add now a personal note. I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our finest young men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units, but I know them all, every one. I have seen them in a thousand streets, of a hundred towns, in every State in this Union--working and laughing and building, and filled with hope and life. I think I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their families sorrow.,This is the most agonizing and the most painful duty of your President.,There is something else, too. When I was young, poverty was so common that we didn't know it had a name. An education was something that you had to fight for, and water was really life itself. I have now been in public life 35 years, more than three decades, and in each of those 35 years I have seen good men, and wise leaders, struggle to bring the blessings of this land to all of our people.,And now I am the President. It is now my opportunity to help every child get an education, to help every Negro and every American citizen have an equal opportunity, to have every family get a decent home, and to help bring healing to the sick and dignity to the old.,As I have said before, that is what I have lived for, that is what I have wanted all my life since I was a little boy, and I do not want to see all those hopes and all those dreams of so many people for so many years now drowned in the wasteful ravages of cruel wars. I am going to do all I can do to see that that never happens.,But I also know, as a realistic public servant, that as long as there are men who hate and destroy, we must have the courage to resist, or we will see it all, all that we have built, all that we hope to build, all of our dreams for freedom--all, all will be swept away on the flood of conquest.,So, too, this shall not happen. We will stand in Viet-Nam.,VOICE OF AMERICA APPOINTMENT;\nJOHN CHANCELLOR [3.] Now, what America is, and was, and hopes to stand for as an important national asset, telling the truth to this world, telling an exciting story, is the Voice of America. I classify this assignment in the front rank of importance to the freedom of the world, and that is why today I am proud to announce to you the name of the man who will direct the Voice of America.,He is a man whose voice and whose face and whose mind is known to this country and to most of the entire world. His name is John Chancellor.,Mr. Chancellor was born 38 years ago in Chicago. For more than 15 years he has been with the news department of the National Broadcasting Company. During that time he has covered the world--in Vienna, London, Moscow, New York, Brussels, Berlin, and Washington.,Since 1964 he has been with you, one of the White House correspondents.,This, I think, is the first time in the history of the Voice of America that a working newspaperman, a respected commentator, an experienced, independent reporter, has been given the responsibility of leadership and direction in this vital enterprise. I think he understands the challenges that are present and the achievements that are possible.,I am satisfied that the Voice of America will be in imaginative, competent, reliable, and always truthful hands.,Stand up, John, will you please?,NOMINATION OF ABE FORTAS TO SUPREME COURT [4.] The President has few responsibilities of greater importance or greater consequence to the country's future than the constitutional responsibility of nominating Justices for the Supreme Court of the United States.,I am happy today, here in the East Room, to announce that the distinguished American who was my first choice for the position now vacant on the Supreme Court, has agreed to accept this call to this vital duty. I will very shortly, this afternoon, send to the United States Senate my nomination of the Honorable Abe Fortas to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.,For many, many years, I have regarded Mr. Fortas as one of this Nation's most able and most respected and most outstanding citizens, a scholar, a profound thinker, a lawyer of superior ability, and a man of humane and deeply compassionate feelings toward his fellow man--a champion of our liberties. That opinion is shared by the legal profession and by the bar of this country, by Members of the Congress and by the leaders of business and labor, and other sectors of our national life.,Mr. Fortas has, as you know, told me on numerous occasions in the last 20 months, that he would not be an applicant or a candidate, or would not accept any appointment to any public office. This is, I guess, as it should be, for in this instance the job has sought the man. Mr. Fortas agrees that the duty and the opportunity of service on the highest court of this great country, is not a call that any citizen can reject.,So I am proud for the country that he has, this morning, accepted this appointment and will serve his country as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.,I will be glad to take your questions now for a period.,QUESTIONS,POSSIBILITY OF ESCALATION IN VIET-NAM [5.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the decisions on Viet-Nam which you have just announced, is the United States prepared with additional plans should North Viet-Nam escalate its military effort, and how do you anticipate that the Chinese Communists will react to what you have announced today?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not want to speculate on the reactions of other people. This Nation is prepared, and will always be prepared, to protect its national interest.,DURATION OF FIGHTING Q. Mr. President, you have never talked about a timetable in connection with Viet-Nam. You have said, and you repeated today, that the United States will not be defeated, will not grow tired.,Donald Johnson, National Commander of the American Legion, went over to Viet-Nam in the spring and later called on you. He told White House reporters that he could imagine the war over there going on for 5, 6, or 7 years. Have you thought of that possibility, sir? And do you think the American people ought to think of that possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think the American people ought to understand that there is no quick solution to the problem that we face there. I would not want to prophesy or predict whether it would be a matter of months or years or decades. I do not know that we had any accurate timetable on how long it would take to bring victory in World War I. I don't think anyone really knew whether it would be 2 years or 4 years or 6 years, to meet with success in World War II. I do think our cause is just. I do think our purposes and objectives are beyond any question.,I do believe that America will stand united behind her men that are there. I plan, as long as I am President, to see that our forces are strong enough to protect our national interest, our right hand constantly protecting that interest with our military, and that our diplomatic and political negotiations are constantly attempting to find some solution that would substitute words for bombs.,As I have said so many times, if anyone questions our good faith and will ask us to meet them to try to reason this matter out, they will find us at the appointed place, at the appointed time, in the proper chair.,GHANA-HANOI DISCUSSIONS [6.] Q. Mr. President, there is now a representative of the Government of Ghana8 in Hanoi talking with the Foreign Minister of North Viet-Nam about the war in Viet-Nam. Do you see any indication of hope that something good will come of these talks?,THE PRESIDENT. We are always hopeful that every effort in that direction will meet with success. We welcome those efforts as we welcomed the Commonwealth proposal, as we welcomed Mr. Davies' visit,9 as we welcomed the Indian suggestion, as we have welcomed the efforts of the distinguished Prime Minister of Great Britain and others from time to time.,8 Kwesi Armah, Ghana's High commissioner to London.,9 See Item 347 [10].,As I just said, I hope that every member of the United Nations that has any idea, any plan, any program, any suggestion, that they will not let them go unexplored.,EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY [7.] Q. Mr. President, from what you have outlined as your program for now, it would seem that you feel that we can have guns and butter for the foreseeable future. Do you have any idea right now, though, that down the road a piece the American people may have to face the problem of guns or butter?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not the slightest doubt but whatever it is necessary to face, the American people will face. I think that all of us know that we are now in the 5 ad month of the prosperity that has been unequaled in this Nation, and I see no reason for declaring a national emergency and I rejected that course of action earlier today when I made my decision.,I cannot foresee what next year, or the following year, or the following year will hold. I only know that the Americans will do whatever is necessary. At the moment we enjoy the good fortune of having an unparalleled period of prosperity with us, and this Government is going to do all it can to see it continue.,MISSILE SITES IN NORTH VIET-NAM [8.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us whether the missile sites in North Viet-Nam that were bombed yesterday were manned by Russians and whether or not the administration has a policy about Russian technicians in North Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have no information as to how they were manned. We cannot speak with any authority on that matter. We made the decision that we felt our national interests required, and as those problems present themselves we will face up to them.,REACTION OF FRIENDLY NATIONS [9.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you have had any communications from Chiang Kai-shek that he is ready to go to war with you?,THE PRESIDENT. We have communicated with most of the friendly nations of the world in the last few days and we have received from them responses that have been encouraging. I would not want to go into any individual response here, but I would say that I have indicated to all of the friendly nations what our problems were there, the decision that confronted us, and asked for their help and for their suggestions.,ATTITUDE OF SOVIET UNION [10.] Q. Mr. President, given the Russian military involvement, or apparent involvement on the side of Hanoi on the one side, and the dialog which Mr. Harriman has been conducting for you on the other,10 as well as the disarmament talks in Geneva at the moment, could you tell us whether you believe this war, as you now call it, can be contained in this corner of southeast Asia without involving a U.S.-Soviet confrontation?,THE PRESIDENT. We would hope very much that it could and we will do nothing to provoke that confrontation if we can avoid it. As you know, immediately after I assumed the Presidency I immediately sent messages to the Soviet Union. We have had frequent exchange of views by letter and by conversation with Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Dobrynin.11 We are doing nothing to provoke the Soviet Union. We are very happy that they agreed to resume the disarmament conference.,10 W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large, arrived in Moscow on July 15, 1965, for discussions with Soviet officials on the war in Viet-Nam.,11 Andrei A. Gromyko, Soviet Foreign Minister, and Anatoly F. Dobrynin, Soviet Ambassador to the United States.,I went to some length to try to extend ourselves to make the proposals that I would hope would meet with acceptance of the peoples of the world. We would like to believe that there could be some success flow from this conference although we have not been too successful.,I know of nothing that we have in mind that should arouse the distrust or provoke any violence on the part of the Soviet Union.,ROLE OF SAIGON GOVERNMENT [11.] Q. Mr. President, does the fact that you are sending additional forces to Viet-Nam imply any change in the existing policy of relying mainly on the South Vietnamese to carry out offensive operations and using American forces to guard American installations and to act as an emergency backup?,THE PRESIDENT. It does not imply any change in policy whatever. It does not imply any change of objective.,THE UNITED NATIONS [12.] Q. Mr. President, would you like to see the United Nations now move formally as an organization to attempt to achieve a settlement in Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I have made very clear in my San Francisco speech my hope that the Secretary General, under his wise leadership, would explore every possibility that might lead to a solution of this matter. In my letter to the Secretary General this morning,12 which Ambassador Goldberg will deliver later in the day, I reiterate my hopes and my desires and I urge upon him that he--if he agrees--that he undertake new efforts in this direction.,12 See Item 390.,Ambassador Goldberg understands the challenge. We spent the weekend talking about the potentialities and the possibilities, our hopes and our dreams, and I believe that we will have an able advocate and a searching negotiator who, I would hope, would some day find success.,CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESS [13.] Q. Mr. President, what are the borders of your power to conduct a war ? At what point might you have to ask Congress for a declaration?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. That would depend on the circumstances. I can't pinpoint the date on the calendar, or the hour of the day. I have to ask Congress for their judgments and for their decisions almost every hour of the day.,One of the principal duties of the Office of President is to maintain constant consultation. I have talked to, I guess, more than 50 Members of Congress in the last 24 hours. I have submitted myself to their questions, and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense will meet with them tomorrow if they are ready, to answer any questions that they may need.,Up to now, we have had ample authority, excellent cooperation, a united Congress behind us, and--as near as I could tell from my meetings last night with the leaders, and from my meetings today with the distinguished chairmen of the committees and the members of both parties--we all met as Americans, united and determined to stand as one.,THE GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE [14.] Q. Mr. President, in this connection, however, last night one of the leading Governors of the Republicans said some rather strong things. Governor Hatfield of Oregon said the most recent escalation of action in Viet-Nam is moving all the people of the world closer to world war III, and we have no moral right to commit the world and especially our own people to world war III unilaterally or by the decision of a few experts.,This seemed to imply rather strong criticism of present policies. Do you care to express any reaction?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I don't interpret it that way. I think that there are dangers in escalation. I don't think I have any right to commit the whole world to world war III. I am doing everything I know how to avoid it. But retreat is not necessarily the best way to avoid it.,I have outlined to you what I think is the best policy. I would hope that Governor Hatfield and the other Governors, when they understand what we are doing, and when I have a chance to submit myself to their questioning and to counsel with them, would share my view.,I know they have the same concern for the American people and the people of the world as I do. I don't believe our objectives will be very different.,As a matter of fact, I asked the Governors if they could, to come here at the conclusion of their deliberations. I will have my plane go to Minneapolis tomorrow, and I believe 43 of the 48 have indicated a desire to come here.,I will give them all the information I can--confidential, secret, and otherwise-because I have great respect for them, their judgments, their opinions, and their leadership. It is going to be necessary in this effort.,I will also have the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense review with them all their plans, and answer any of their inquiries, and we hope resolve any doubts they might have.,THE PRESIDENCY [15.] Q. Mr. President, after the week of deliberations on Viet-Nam, how do you feel--in the context of your Office? We always hear it is the loneliest in the world.,THE. PRESIDENT. Nancy,13 I am sorry, but because of the cameras and microphones, I didn't get your question. Raise the microphone up where I can hear, and you camera boys give her a chance.,13 Nancy H. Dickerson of the National Broadcasting Co.,Q. Mr. President, I said, after the week of deliberations on Viet-Nam, how do you feel, personally, particularly in the context we always hear that your Office is the loneliest in the world?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't agree with that. I don't guess there is anyone in this country that has as much understanding and as much help, and as many experts, and as good advice, and many people of both parties trying to help them, as they are me. Of course I admit I need it more than anybody else.,Nancy, I haven't been lonely the last few days--I have had lots of callers.,POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATION WITH THE\nVIET CONG [16.] Q. Mr. President, would you be willing to permit direct negotiations with the Viet Cong forces that are in South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. We have stated time and time again that we would negotiate with any government, any place, any time. The Viet Cong would have no difficulty in being represented and having their views presented if Hanoi for a moment decides she wants to cease aggression. And I would not think that would be an insurmountable problem at all. I think that could be worked out.,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND\nWELFARE [17.] Q. Mr. President, to shift the subject just a moment, does your appointment of Mr. Gardner14 suggest that there will be less interest now in the creation of a separate department of education?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not at all. My appointment of Mr. Gardner suggests that I looked over America to find the very best man I could to lead us forward to become an educated nation where every child obtains all the education that he can take, and where the health of every citizen is his prime concern, and where the Social Security system is brought to the needs of the 20th century.,14 See Item 385.,After canvassing some 40 or 50 possibilities, I concluded that Mr. Gardner was the best man I could get. I asked his board to relieve him of his duties and release him to the Government so that he could furnish the dynamic leadership officially that he has been furnishing unofficially to us.,He told me yesterday morning that he was prepared to do that. I remembered that I had not asked him what State he lived in, where his permanent residence was, so I could put it on the nomination paper, or what party he belonged to. And he rather-well, maybe somewhat hesitantly said, \"I'm a Republican.\",I don't mean that his hesitating meant any particular significance, but I was happy that he said that because a good many Republicans voted for me and I don't want to be partial or partisan in this administration. I like to see leadership of that kind come from the Republican ranks. So I told him if he had no objections, I would announce very promptly his appointment and I hoped that he would give us American leadership without regard to party. And that's what I think he will do. I believe all the Nation will be proud of him as we are of Secretary Celebrezze.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-07-13","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,VIET-NAM [1.] Secretary McNamara and Ambassador Lodge 1 will be leaving tomorrow evening for Saigon. When they return next week, we will give careful consideration to their recommendations, as well as those of Ambassador Taylor2 and General Westmoreland.3 And we will do what is necessary.,1 Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Ambassador to South Viet-Nam.,2 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, former U.S. Ambassador to South Viet-Nam, who resigned on July 7, 1965.,3 Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander of United States Forces in South Viet-Nam.,The present center of the struggle is in South Viet-Nam, but its root cause is a determined effort of conquest that is directed from Hanoi. Heavy infiltration of North Vietnamese forces has created new dangers and difficulties in South Viet-Nam. Increased aggression from the North may require an increased American response on the ground in South Viet-Nam. Increased aggression from the North continues to require very careful replies against selected military targets in North Viet-Nam.,Meanwhile, General Westmoreland has the authority to use the American forces that are now in Viet-Nam in the ways which he considers most effective to resist the Communist aggression and the terror that is taking .place there. These forces will defend their own bases. They will assist in providing security in neighboring areas, and they will be available for more active combat missions when the Vietnamese Government and General Westmoreland agree that such active missions are needed.,So it is quite possible that new and serious decisions will be necessary in the near future. Any substantial increase in the present level of our efforts to turn back the aggressors in South Viet-Nam will require steps to insure that our reserves of men and equipment of the United States remain entirely adequate for any and all emergencies.,Secretary McNamara and Ambassador Lodge will concern themselves also with the political and economic situation. We have had Mr. Eugene Black visiting southeast Asia and he has given me an oral report on his encouraging visit to that area.4 We mean to make it plain that our military effort is only a necessary preliminary to the larger purpose of peace and progress.,4On July 10, 1965, the White House announced that Eugene R. Black, adviser to the President on southeast Asian social and economic development, had telephoned the President and given him an encouraging report on his visit to the Far East. During his trip Mr. Black had participated in meetings of the Consultative Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East on the establishment of an Asian Development Bank. He reported to the President that all had gone well, and the Bank would begin operating early in 1966.,DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [2.] In the Dominican Republic, Ambassador Bunker5 and his colleagues are continuing their skillful and determined effort to find a peaceful solution. We believe, as they do, that it is urgent that a solution bc found, and found promptly.,5 Ellsworth Bunker, U.S. Representative to the Organization of American States.,We are encouraged by indications that leaders on both sides are prepared to stand aside in favor of a new government which will enjoy the confidence of the Dominican people as a whole. Those on both sides who show good will and those who join a new government in the work of restoring peace will deserve the thanks of all of their countrymen. Right now, here, we are both cautious and hopeful.,NOMINATION OF THURGOOD MARSHALL AS SOLICITOR GENERAL [3.] I am very pleased to announce today that I am nominating Judge Thurgood Marshall to be Solicitor General of the United States. He will succeed the Honorable Archibald Cox, who is retiring after more than 4 years of distinguished service to return to Massachusetts.,The Solicitor General directs all Government litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States and the other appellate courts. Judge Marshall brings to that significant job an outstanding record of legal and judicial experience. He has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1962, and at very considerable financial sacrifice is resigning in order to meet the needs of his Government.,For a quarter of a century before his appointment to the bench, Judge Marshall was the leading legal champion of equal rights under the law, appearing before the Supreme Court more than 30 times. His vast experience in the Federal courts, and especially in the Supreme Court, has gained Judge Marshall a reputation as one of the most distinguished advocates in the Nation. I know him to be a lawyer and a judge of very high ability, a patriot of deep convictions, and a gentleman of undisputed integrity.,So it is an honor to appoint him as the 33d Solicitor General of the United States. He is here this afternoon and I would like to ask him to stand.,Judge Marshall.,OTHER NOMINATIONS [4.] I intend to nominate Mr. Leonard Marks of Washington, D.C., to be the Director of the United States Information Service, succeeding the Honorable Carl Rowan.,Mr. Marks has an excellent record as a teacher, as a lawyer, and as a Government servant. President Kennedy appointed him to be an original member of the board of directors of the Communications Satellite Corporation in 1962. Since that time he has been reappointed. Mr. Marks, who has had a long interest in international communications, has represented the United States at broadcasting conferences and activities in Italy, India, Pakistan, Switzerland, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iran.,Phillips Talbot, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, will be nominated as United States Ambassador to Greece. He will succeed Mr. Henry R. Labouisse, who is Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund.,A most experienced Foreign Service Officer, the Honorable Raymond A. Hare, who is presently Ambassador to Turkey, will succeed him in his post as Assistant Secretary of State. Ambassador Hare has been in the Foreign Service since 1927. He has served in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the United Arab Republic, and Yemen.,I have asked Mrs. Penelope Hartland Thunberg of Maryland to become a member of the United States Tariff Commission. She will serve in the position last held by Commissioner Walter Schreiber for a term expiring June 16, 1970.,Mrs. Thunberg is an international economist presently serving as Deputy Chief of the International Division, Economic and Research Area, Central Intelligence Agency. She was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Pembroke College and holds the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Radcliffe College. She is here this afternoon and I would like for you to meet her. Please stand up.,RECONVENING OF THE DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE [5.] Yesterday the Soviet Government notified the United States Government that it is agreeable to the resumption of negotiations of the 18-nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva. The United States has suggested a date no later than July 27th for this resumption. Mr. William C. Foster now is in the process of inquiring whether this date is agreeable to the other 16 members of the Disarmament Committee.,At the conclusion of the Geneva conference last September, it was agreed that the two cochairmen, the Soviet Union and the United States, would consult and would agree on a date for resumption, after which the other members of the Committee would be consulted in order to obtain their agreement as well.,Mr. Foster met with the Soviet spokesman in New York on June 15th on instructions to urge reconvening of the Disarmament Committee as soon as possible. Yesterday's Soviet response is an encouraging development. As we have stated before, peace is the leading item on the agenda of mankind, and every effort should be made to lead us toward that goal. As I stated in San Francisco, we will come to these next negotiations with proposals for effective attack on these deadly dangers to mankind, and we hope that others will do the same.,Now I am prepared to take your questions.,QUESTIONS,MANPOWER NEEDS FOR VIET-NA VIET-NAM [6.] Q. Mr. President, in your statement about the situation in Viet-Nam, sir, you referred to the necessity for maintaining adequate reserves and adequate equipment. I wonder, sir, in view of the increased fighting and the increasing manpower commitment, are you giving any thought, is the Government giving any thought, first, to calling up additional Reserves, or second, to increasing draft calls?,THE PRESIDENT. The Government is always considering every possibility and every eventuality. No decisions have been made in connection with the Reserve or increasing draft calls. We will be in a better position to act upon matters of that kind after the Secretary returns from his trip.,AMBASSADOR HARRIMAN'S TRIP TO MOSCOW [7.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us whether Governor Harriman's 6 trip to Moscow has any connection with the Soviet position in Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the Governor has best explained that trip himself by saying it is a vacation. That is on the wires today. It is not an official Government trip. He was not sent there by the President, although the Governor is a man of a wide range of interests and experience. I approved heartily of his statement that he would be glad to visit with any people that cared to visit with him. It is a personal trip, and a vacation trip in nature.,6 W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large and former Governor of New York.,POSSIBILITY OF AVOIDING MAJOR WAR IN ASIA [8.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think, in your judgment, are the chances at this time of avoiding a major land war in Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that anyone can prophesy what will happen from day to day, or week to week, or month to month. I think it is well for us to remember that three Presidents have made the pledge for this Nation, that the Senate has ratified the SEATO treaty by a vote of 82 to I, pledging the United States to come to the aid of any nation, upon their request, who are parties to that treaty or protocol.,President Eisenhower made our first commitment there in 1954. That was reaffirmed by President Kennedy many times in different ways. The present President has reiterated the stand of the United States that we expect to keep that commitment.,Our national honor is at stake. Our word is at stake. And it must be obvious to all Americans that they would not want the President of their country to follow any course that was inconsistent with our commitments or with our national honor.,MERGER OF RESERVES AND NATIONAL GUARD [9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in view of the situation in North Viet-Nam and South Viet-Nam, are you thinking of continuing the plans for a merger of Reserves and the National Guard?,THE PRESIDENT. So far as I am aware, the situation there has no effect on the merger one way or the other.,Q. Would it not affect the efficiency of our forces?,THE PRESIDENT. It is contended that the merger would improve the efficiency, but I do not think that it is a matter that would be considered in connection with what happens out there, one way or the other.,MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY [10.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us a status report on the Air Force's manned orbiting laboratory, and specifically whether you intend to give it a \"go-ahead,\" and if so, when?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not in a position to make a statement on that at this time. The Space Council has had some briefings in connection with the matter. There is a study going on every day in that connection, but I would not want to go further than that now.,RELATIONS WITH SOVIET UNION [11.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the Disarmament Conference and the Soviet response, and Ambassador Harriman's conversations with the Soviet Union, could you give us your assessment of the Soviet-American relations as they stand now? Could you give us a temperature reading?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very anxious to maintain close relations with the Soviet Union, and we had felt that considerable progress had been made in the last several years. Unfortunately, the situation that developed in North Viet-Nam has placed a strain on those relations. We regret it very deeply, but we have felt that, as I said earlier, our national honor required us to pursue the course of conduct that we have followed.,We will be looking for every opportunity that we can to work with the Soviet Union in the interest of peace. We think that the resumption of the Disarmament Conference is one step in that direction. We would like to improve the relations any way we can.,MANPOWER NEEDS FOR VIET-NAM [12.] Q. Mr. President, you told us last week, sir, that things in Viet-Nam will probably get worse before they can get better. And today you indicate that we will probably send a lot more forces there than we have now. Can you give us any appraisal as to how many, or are we going to change our fighting, or is a new concept going to be introduced? Can you give us any indication of that?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said in my opening statement, the aggression has increased. The forces that are pursuing that aggression have greatly increased in number. It will be necessary to resist that aggression and, therefore, to have substantially larger increments of troops which we have been supplying from time to time.,I do not think that anyone can tell at this date any special figure that will be required, but I think that following Ambassador Lodge and Secretary McNamara's trip we will have a better estimate of what the rest of the year will hold for us.,GOVERNMENT IN SAIGON [13.] Q. Mr. President, some people have questioned the ability of the South Vietnamese to govern themselves at this point--most recently, Senator Stennis of Mississippi. Can you give us some indication of what you see in the future for the reestablishment of democratic civilian rule in Saigon?,THE PRESIDENT. We would hope that if the North Vietnamese would cease their aggression we could immediately take steps to have the people of South Viet-Nam exercise their choice and establish a government of their choosing. We, of course, would hope that that would be a very efficient and effective and democratic system.,SEARCH FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT [14.] Q. Mr. President, with the increasing number of American troops going to Viet-Nam, would you say if there will be a continuing or any increasing diplomatic probing for a peaceful settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we will constantly be on the alert to probe, and to be ready and willing to negotiate with the appropriate people. I must say that candor compels me to tell you that there has not been the slightest indication that the other side is interested in negotiation or in unconditional discussions, although the United States has made some dozen separate attempts to bring that about.,RELATIONS WITH THE PRESS [15.] Q. Mr. President, quite a bit has been written recently about your relations with the press. Some of these stories have been openly critical, to say the least, sir. We seem to have heard from everybody but you. I wonder if you could give us your views on the subject?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the press and the Congress and the people of the United States have, generally speaking, with very minor exceptions, given me during the time I have been President very strong support and very excellent cooperation. I know that there are some in each segment that have been disappointed in some of my decisions and some of my actions. I like to think that those who talk about them the most see us the least, and so far as I am concerned, I have no criticism to make of any other people in helping me do my job.,We have a very fine Cabinet. Nearly every person I have asked to come and help the Government has done so. I think that there are very few Presidents in the history of this country that have had more support of more publishers and more magazines than the present President. I am grateful for that, although I recognize it is an essential 'part of their duty to point up weaknesses that they think exist.,I have seen that take place for some 35 years, and as long as they point them out, in the manner in which they are pointing them out, and the people continue to support us, and the Congress continues to support us, I am not going to find any fault with them. During the period that we have had the most hectic, distressing moments here in Washington, the poll has gone up 6 percent out in the country, so I sometimes think maybe it just may be July in the Nation's Capital.,REPEAL OF THE POLL TAX [16.] Q. Mr. President, are you taking any position at this point on the poll tax repealer in the House version of the voting rights bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have taken a position since making my recommendations to the Congress early in the year, that I would like to see the poll tax repealed. I am against the poll tax. I have tried to get it repealed every time that I have had a chance, when I thought we could do it legally.,I have asked the Attorney General to attempt to work with the conferees of both House and Senate to see if they cannot agree on satisfactory language that will give us the most effective repeal provision that is obtainable and that we think can be supported in the courts. I have no doubt but what a very satisfactory solution will be found. And I think that would be quite desirable.7,7The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by the President on August 6, 1965 (see Item 409). The act did not abolish the poll tax as a precondition for voting in State elections, but it authorized the Attorney General to test the constitutionality of the poll tax in the courts.,VACANCIES IN USIA [17.] Q. Mr. President, have you discussed with Leonard Marks as yet the particular man or the type of men that you and he might like to fill the other two key vacancies in the USIA--the Deputy Director and the head of the Voice of America?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The Deputy Director is now being handled by a very able man with experience who will be there for a while yet. I am sure that after Mr. Marks reviews the organizations and talks to the present Deputy Director and the present Director, Mr. Rowan, he will come up with some suggestions and recommendations. I believe that they will be acceptable.,HOUSE ACTION ON VOTING RIGHTS [18.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your long history of seeking to keep civil rights a bipartisan matter, why did you single out the House Republican leadership for criticism in your statement on voting rights last week? 8,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't single out anyone. We had had several days' debate about the relative merits of two proposals. It had been observed that the administration proposal was dripping in venom and was inadequate and went too far, and a good many things had been said about it. Finally, when it was put as a test to the judgment of the House and they made their decision, I commended that decision and said that I believed that they were wise in acting as they had. Because had they adopted the so-called Ford or McCulloch substitute for the committee bill, as advocated by Judge Howard Smith and Governor Tuck and others, I was of the opinion it would have diluted and taken strength from the bill that they had passed.9,8 See Item 349.,9 Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, minority leader of the House of Representatives, and Representative William M. McCulloch of Ohio, ranking Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, sponsored a substitute for the administration's voting fights bill. The substitute bill was supported by Representatives Howard W. Smith and William M. Tuck, both of Virginia.,I am very proud of the action of the House. I am very proud of the judgment they exercised in that connection. But people are allowed to comment on the relative merits of legislation either before or after a vote, and I found there have been a good many comments on my proposals. I thought it would be appropriate if I carefully limited myself to an observation that the substitute would have diluted the right of every American to vote.,I think all of us are aware of the fact that in years gone by we could have done much more than we have in that field. I have become very conscious of that as I have traveled over this Nation and talked to our people. I think the House acted wisely, and I have every confidence in the action that will follow the conference report. I ask the cooperation of members of both parties. I do not think the substitute was as effective as the bill that was adopted. And I would not like to see us return to it.,THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON CIVIL RIGHTS\nGENERALLY [19.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with civil rights and the colloquy between you and the Republican leaders, they have suggested that over the years you have changed your position on civil rights. I wondered if you could give us your concept of your developing philosophy on civil rights legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think that all of us realize at this stage of the 20th century there is much that should have been done that has not been done. This bill is not going to solve the problem completely itself. There will be much to be done in the years ahead. I think the problem of the American Negro is one of the two or three most important problems that we must face up to with our legislation again next year.,I am particularly sensitive to the problems of the Negro and the problems of the city and the problems which the shift in population has caused, the problems of education. I have task forces working on those things. And perhaps it is because I realize, after traveling through 44 States and after reading some 20,000 or 30,000 letters a week, digests from them, that it is a very acute problem and one that I want to do my best to solve in the .limited time that I am allowed.,I did not have that responsibility in the years past, and I did not feel it to the extent that I do today. I hope that you may understand that I think it is an acute one and a dangerous one, and one that occupies high priority and one that should challenge every American of whatever party, whatever religion. I am going to try to provide all the leadership that I can, notwithstanding the fact that someone may point to a mistake or 100 mistakes that I made in my past.,THE SOVIET UNION'S AID TO HANOI [20.] Q. Mr. President, the Soviet Union announced yesterday a new aid agreement to North Viet-Nam. I think they said it was over and beyond what they are now supplying. Do you see this as a serious, perhaps dangerous contribution to the increased aggression you spoke of earlier that is being directed from the North?,THE PRESIDENT. Peter,10 I don't think that we can tell the extent of that agreement and how far it will reach. They gave no figures. They did not explain what materials they were going to supply. We have known for some time now that they are furnishing equipment and they are furnishing supplies and they are making contributions of aid in one form or the other to North Viet-Nam; this is no surprise to us at all.,10 Peter Lisagor of the Chicago Daily News.,I read the very general announcement that they had made. There is nothing that I could detect from it, or that our experts could detect, that would give me any more information than contained in the announcement.,EFFECT OF TEACH-INS ON VIET-NAM [21.] Q. Mr. President, do you think it possible that increased aggression and infiltration by North Viet-Nam springs from a misreading on the other side, a perhaps mistaken belief that the teach-ins and whatever criticism there has been here in the United States of your policy, that this represents the voice of the American people?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think that the teach-ins and the differences of opinion have increased the strength of the North Vietnamese or the aggression that has taken place. I do think that at times our allies, particularly the South Vietnamese people, and particularly our own soldiers, do get concerned about how strong we are behind them and how united we are in this very serious undertaking.,But I am glad to say that I don't think it has had any serious or damaging effect there. I get several letters a day from soldiers in Viet-Nam, service people, the Navy, Marines, Army, and Air. I hear from their parents. And I have yet to receive a single complaining letter.,On occasions they wish that the folks back home, who are following this with such dedicated interest, understood the position as they feel they understand it. But I don't think it has damaged our effort out there and I don't think it will. I think we will be united in this effort.,There will be some differences of opinion about the wisdom of some courses that the President takes, the Executive takes, but whenever and wherever we can, we will try to explain those to the people involved and at least try to get their understanding.,THE SECRETARY OF STATE [22.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports published from time to time that you might contemplate a change in the office of the Secretary of State. In the months to come, do you foresee such a change ?,THE PRESIDENT. None whatever. And I think you do a great damage and a great disservice to one of the most able and most competent and most dedicated men that I have ever known, Secretary Rusk. He sits to my right in the Cabinet room. He ranks first in the Cabinet and he ranks first with me.,SELECTION AS VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE\nIN 1960 [23.] Q. Mr. President, there are two recently published versions as to how President Kennedy selected you as his vice presidential running mate in 1960, Mr. Graham's 11 and Mr. Schlesinger's.12 Which of these, in your judgment, is closest to the truth, or do you have your own version?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to get into a dispute with my friends who have written these memorandums. I don't see anything to be gained by that.,11 The late Philip L. Graham, former President of the Washington Post. His account of the 1960 nomination for Vice President is in the form of a memorandum to himself. It is published in \"The Making of the President\" by Theodore H. White (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1960).,12 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., \"A Thousand Days--John F. Kennedy in the White House\" (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965 ).,The President asked me, on his own motion, to go on the ticket with him, and I gave him my reasons for hesitating. He told me he would speak to Speaker Rayburn and others, and he did. Subsequently, he called me and said, \"Here's a statement I am going to read on television, unless you have an objection.\" I listened to it. After I heard it, I felt that I should do what I did. I don't know just how much these men may know about what actually happened, but they are entitled to their opinions. Of course, I know why I did what I did.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-07-09","text":"THE. PRESIDENT. After you have had a chance to write your stories, we will be going to Texas and will be there over the weekend. I thought you might have some questions you wanted to ask me, and if you do, I have a few minutes to answer them.,REPORT ON VIET-NAM [1.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of recent news developments concerning Viet-Nam, I wonder, sir, if you could give us an up-to-date assessment of how the war is going out there, what is happening, and what sort of news you think the country can expect in the next month or two?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we will have a somewhat better picture of that after Secretary McNamara and Ambassador Lodge1 return a week from next Wednesday. I spent an hour or so with the Secretary this morning reviewing the reports that have come in from there, and evaluating them and discussing with him the work that he is going to do with Ambassador Lodge when he is out there.,1Henry Cabot Lodge, newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to South Viet-Nam, who had previously served in that position from July 1963 to June 1964.,The incidents are going up: that is, the Viet Cong attacks. The casualties are going up. From June 15th through July 3d there were 4,556 Viet Cong dead counted, and some 1,900 South Vietnamese forces, and some 40 Americans. We have lost in the neighborhood of some 300 men in the period since I have been President. We expect that it will get worse before it gets better. They have had substantial increases in the aggression forces. They are swinging wildly. They are suffering substantial losses in their sneak attacks.,Our manpower needs there are increasing, and will continue to do so. We have some 60,000--odd people there now, and they are landing each day. There are some 75,000 that will be there very shortly. There will be others that will be required.,Whatever is required I am sure will be supplied. We have met and taken action to meet the requests made by General Westmoreland,2 and as other needs appear, we will promptly meet them.,2 Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander of United States Forces in South Viet-Nam.,We committed our power and our national honor, and that has been reaffirmed by three Presidents. I have neither a rosy nor a gloomy report to make. It will require understanding and endurance and patriotism.,We have suffered 160,000 casualties since World War II, but we did not allow Greece or Turkey or Iran or Formosa or Lebanon or others to fall to aggressors, and we don't plan to let up until the aggression ceases.,I will ask Secretary McNamara to talk to you before he leaves, or talk to the press before he leaves. I reviewed with him in some detail this morning his plans, and I am sure he will tell you all about them that he can.,MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS AND WITH TASK FORCE GROUPS [2.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that you met until well after midnight last night with a group of foreign policy advisers. Could you tell us about that meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is not a correct statement. I met until about 8 o'clock with them, maybe 8:30. I don't recall exactly. After I left that meeting, I met with a number of members of my task forces and chairmen of the task groups that are studying our program for next year and making our plans that will be submitted in the State of the Union Message, so they probably got those two meetings mixed up.,We discussed the balance of payments situation, and we had a brief report from Secretary Fowler. We discussed the European situation, NATO, and our relations with European countries and had a brief report in that connection from Secretary Ball,3 who left today for a meeting of the Deputy Prime Ministers in Europe.,3 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,We discussed the Latin American situation, including the Dominican Republic and other sensitive areas, and we had a brief report from Secretary Mann.4,4 Thomas C. Mann, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.,We discussed the Asian situation, and the problems in India, and Pakistan, and their economic plans. Reports were received from Mr. George Woods5 of the International Bank. Secretary Rusk reviewed them in some detail. We discussed our plans and ideas in the field of disarmament and proliferation. Mr. Bundy6 went into some detail on that. We spent a substantial amount of time on Viet-Nam--I expect more time on that than on all of the other subjects. I will get Bill 7 to supply you with the time we went in and went out.,5 George D. Woods, President, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.,6 McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President.,7 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,I went from that meeting to a meeting with the task force in the mess. I had my dinner with them and stayed until after midnight.,I will give you the subjects that we discussed. (I asked Bill to get them for me, and he did, but I misplaced the list.) I can give you pretty generally the basic ones-resources, education, health, fiscal policy, economic foreign policy, beautification, and the basic things.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [3.] Q. Can you give us an evaluation of the Dominican situation now?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we are having very thorough reports from there. Ambassador Bunker8 will be back to spend the weekend. We have been conferring with every interested group of citizens from all factions, and the OAS committee feels quite encouraged. There is a minimum of disorder. There is some economic dislocation and some strikes that have given some difficulties, but under all the circumstances we have made remarkable progress.,8 Ellsworth Bunker, United States Representative to the Organization of American States.,The OAS is entitled to our thanks for the diligence of their representatives there, and their effectiveness. I would hope that we will have some specific plans that will be acceptable, and that the OAS will make specific recommendations that will be acceptable to all concerned at an early date.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS [4.] Q. Are the reports, sir, that the balance of payments deficit is wiped out in the last 3 months true, and if so, what about some worry among economists that this could hurt the economy of Europe, that they will not have the dollars that they had before?,THE PRESIDENT. The reports that I have read are highly inaccurate. They cannot be confirmed. We do not have the exact information. I asked the Secretary of the Treasury to give me even his speculation, and he refused to do that yesterday. After I read the wire service stories, and stories in other periodicals, I asked the Chairman of the Economic Advisers, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury. All of them were unfamiliar with it. They said that the only thing they could say was that it was premature, it was inaccurate, and was undependable so far as the President is concerned.,Now, in the days ahead they may be exactly on the nose, but they are unwilling to say that in their position today, even to me, or to the task forces.,RESIGNATION OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR;\nAPPOINTMENT OF HENRY CABOT LODGE [5.] Q. Mr. President, it seems inevitable that Ambassador Taylor's resignation is going to encourage or promote stories which allege that the real reason that he resigned was because of policy and/or strategic differences with the administration on how to conduct the war in Viet-Nam. Would you care to comment on these reports even before they become current?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not think that they were inevitable. I would think any such comment would be irresponsible and inaccurate and untrue. There have been no such facts to justify any conclusion of that kind. The letters reveal that, I think, clearly.9,9 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor served as U.S. Ambassador to South Viet-Nam from June 1964 to July 1965. His letter of resignation, dated July 7, and the President's reply, dated July 8, were not made public by the White House.,To assume that, you would have to assume that neither the President nor General Taylor would tell the truth. General Taylor, at my request, was drafted to take this job. He told me when I asked him to take it that he would do whatever his Commander in Chief said, but that he hoped I would assure him that at the end of 12 months, 1 year, he would be relieved; that he had been taken from his family three times in 45 years, during three wars, and he looked forward to retiring from Government service.,Very shortly after he had retired he had been called back to serve his country. He had done that in connection with the Bay of Pigs study. When he concluded that, they asked him to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and that now he still looks forward to it, but if we needed him there, he would go for 12 months.,So we assured him that we would relieve him at the end of the 12-month period. That period was due to be about June 1st when he returned to Columbia University for a degree that they were to give him.,As usually happens, before General Taylor planned to come back, we had a serious problem there. We had a change of government about that time. It was necessary for him to delay his return for a few days until he had maintained contact with that situation. So he was delayed in departing.,When he came back, in the light of the developments out there, at his suggestion he returned, feeling that he did not want to leave that situation without going back and having an orderly transition that would not have been necessary if it had the same government. But we had a new government.,On March the 23th I had received from Ambassador Lodge an indication that he would be available for service to the Government. I had asked him to take another assignment. He told me that he would be glad to do it if I felt that that is where he could be best used, but if I had any thought of asking him to go back to Viet-Nam after General Taylor's year was up, that he would be available to do that.,I said, \"Well, you think it over and talk to Mrs. Lodge, and call me back the next morning. And let us wrap this one up.\",On the morning of March 24th he called me back and said he would be available. Since that time we have had him go to SEATO, and to NATO countries. We have had him appear before the Congress, and at the debate at Oxford. We have kept him in complete touch with the situation. When General Taylor was ready to be relieved, it was agreed that this was the most effective and desirable way for us to do it.,Does that answer your question?,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with Mr. Lodge's appointment, as you know, there has been a good deal of criticism about his appointment, especially because of his role during the overthrow of President Diem.10 I would like to ask whether you anticipated those criticisms and how deeply concerned you are about them?,THE PRESIDENT. I know that some people can find fault with almost anything you do. I always anticipate that there will be some difference of opinion. I believe that in the Government there is none. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Assistant to the President in charge of matters of this kind, Mr. Bundy, and the President, all felt that Mr. Lodge had a grasp of the situation, a knowledge of the situation, that no other American had; that he was the best equipped, the best qualified, and the most experienced to do this work.,10 Ngo Dinh Diem, former President of South Viet-Nam, who was executed after his government was overthrown by a military coup on November 2 1963.,He had a combination of military experience, actual service in World War II, and diplomatic experience. He had gone to the SEATO nations and the NATO nations. He had been Ambassador there for some time and his service was highly respected by the governments of that area that he worked with, and by the people in this Government that he worked with.,It was with great regret that we accepted his resignation when he decided he should come home prior to the Republican Convention. It was with great pleasure that we learned he would respond to the President's request to go back.,I think that we have the best man that is available to the United States in one of the most difficult jobs. I think the representatives of the people and the people will think so, too. He asked for 2 days' notice to notify his employers and to discuss the matter with General Eisenhower. I had discussed it with him some time before. I discussed Mr. Lodge with him and his Government service at a meeting 2 or 3 weeks ago and we gave him that 2 days' notice. That is why we made the announcement yesterday.,THE COMMON MARKET [7.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the Common Market situation? Did you discuss that yesterday with Mr. Heller? 11 Did you reach any conclusions?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Heller made a brief report on his meetings that involved the Common Market situation. It involved the monetary situation; it involved the views that the Europeans have about our country, our leadership, and the soundness of the dollar, and so forth. It was an encouraging report generally, although there were some disappointments in it. I asked him to review the matters that he thought he could review with you.,11Walter W. Heller, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.,TASK FORCE PERSONNEL [8.] The task forces I talked to were the intergovernmental fiscal cooperation, transportation, metropolitan and urban problems, income maintenance task force, cost reduction task force, sustaining prosperity task force, foreign economic policy task force, natural resources task force, preservation of natural beauty, Government reorganization, and education.,I will ask the Press Office to get you those.,Q. Mr. President, are these the same personnel as those who worked on the task force reports?,THE PRESIDENT. There are some adjustments. We have some substitutes, some additions. We think we have the best people available in these respective fields in the country. We have some new Government personnel working with them. For instance, Mr. Schultze12 of the Budget is new; Mr. McPherson13 is new. There will be other new ones that I hope to announce over the weekend.,12 Charles L. Schultze, Director, Bureau of the Budget.,13 Harry C. McPherson, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,I am going to have a rather busy weekend on appointments. I will try to make available to Bill information on them, and I will try to have a televised press conference, for those of you who are interested in that type of information, sometime next week.,CALL UP OF RESERVES [9.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the increased troop commitment to Viet-Nam, is it conceivable that you might call up some specific reserve units and also, perhaps, extend the draft to cover the other services?,THE PRESIDENT. When we have any plans or announcements to make of that nature, I will get in touch with you.,MISSION TO HANOI [10.] Q. Mr. President, would you say, sir, to what extent you are being kept informed of the mission of Mr. Harold Davies that Prime Minister Wilson is sending to Hanoi,14 and what opportunity there may be for a peace talk?,THE PRESIDENT. We are informed about it.,14In early July Prime Minister Harold Wilson of the United Kingdom sent Harold Davies, parliamentary secretary at the Ministry of Pensions, to Hanoi in an attempt to persuade President Ho Chi Minh to meet with a Commonwealth peace mission. The discussions in Hanoi were not successful.,INCOME TAX CUT [11.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the previous performance of the Government's receipts, have you moved any further along in your thinking about a possible further income tax cut next year?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a task force working on it, and the Secretary and the tax experts are working on it. I spent some time discussing fiscal matters with the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday.,We have a rather thorough report that I am sending to the Cabinet this week that will be released,15 I think, about the middle of the week by Secretary McNamara that shows $4.6 billion were actually realized during fiscal 1965 in savings, and that was $2.1 billion more than we estimated we could realize.,15 See Item 360.,Savings of $6.1 billion a year by fiscal 1969 and each year thereafter has been set as our new long-range goal. We have the chart, the details of how it is done, the explanations and the challenges of change. We will make those available to the Cabinet and to some 30,000 other individuals that are involved. Secretary McNamara will discuss them in some detail with you a little later.,We cannot foresee at this moment the exact effect of defense expenditures at this time, but we have task forces in each department working on abolishing old programs and cutting down on present expenditures so that we may have some funds available for the subjects I discussed.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-06-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I had some announcements that I thought would be of interest to you, and some of them are going to take some time. We normally take from 12 to 15 minutes on our announcements, 80 what I thought we'd do would be to just go ahead and make all the announcements and we'll send them to the mimeograph and have them made available to you as soon as possible. And then we'll reserve 20 minutes for questioning afterwards, and we'll depend on AP or UP here to tell us when that 20 minutes is up, if that is agreeable to all of you. If none of you have any suggestions, what I plan to do is read these announcements, and as I read them, send them to the mimeograph. And if you prefer any other way I'd be glad to do it.,The Vice President has been talking to me about the developments on the Hill, the legislative program he's working on, some agriculture legislation--now in the Fish Room with a number of people. The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission has been here discussing a variety of matters with me. I'll refer to those a little bit later.,Q. Sir, we don't hear a word.,THE PRESIDENT. The Vice President has been here--now can you hear me?\"discussing some legislative matters with me. He has been in the Fish Room working on an agricultural message with various interested parties--and various would include Members of Congress, and departmental members, and agriculture people, and others-some items on the cotton bill. He has also reported to me on certain legislative developments and targets. We'll have a meeting of the leadership, if it is convenient with them, in the early part of the week, at which time we will review our remaining legislation and look at the dates that they have it targeted for.,DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS [2.] We have some very good news from Capitol Hill in the last few days--in a variety of fields.,I was especially gratified by the action of the House yesterday in giving approval to the legislation establishing departmental status for urban affairs. I hope, and I believe, that the Senate will act favorably. The vote in the House was impressive and decisive, and exceeded our expectations. I believe it reflects the realization throughout the land that our cities constitute the decisive challenge of these last decades of the 20th century.,By the year 2000 we estimate that approximately 80 percent of our people will be living in urban areas, so we must meet the needs of the cities because the cities are really the homes for most of our people. What our country is to mean for most Americans, therefore, depends upon the quality of life in our cities.,This is a long and a historic step forward. I congratulate the House on this forward-looking action in support of building a better America for all of our people, and I communicated my thanks and appreciation to the leadership of the House and asked them to express that view to the Members that supported the legislation.,EXCISE TAX REDUCTION [3.] Another subject. I am pleased that the Congress has now completed action on the reduction of excise taxes. The bill remains to be enrolled, and there are certain steps that you take before a bill is sent to the President. But we expect to get it later in the week. After we get it, we will have it reviewed by the experts and the Budget and the Treasury, and any other agencies that could be concerned with it, and collect their recommendations. After we get those recommendations and read them we'll take action.1 I think it is safe to predict it will not be a veto, in light of what I said this morning.,1 The Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1965 was approved by the President on June 21, 1965 (see Item 326).,This bill will realize about $1 3/4 billion extra purchasing power in the economy for the rest of 1965, and another $1 3/4 billion on top of that beginning next January. The bill itself is a little over $4 billion and adds to the $14 billion tax reduction last year, totaling something over $18 billion.,Under the bill, consumers will no longer be paying this $4 billion into the Federal Treasury, and will have it to spend instead on the products of our farms and factories.,It will help maintain the steady growth of jobs and production that are the mark of a healthy economy.,It will extend the string of production gains that the Federal Reserve Board announced yesterday--gains that have brought our total industrial production rate more than 7 1/2 percent above a year ago.,It will support the continuing growth of our economy that has already served us so well for the record-breaking 52 months. It will maintain stability of prices.,Yesterday, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers announced that the Council, and the Treasury, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics initiated some time ago a study of the impact of excise tax reduction on prices. I am sure the study will show that businesses throughout the Nation have passed along to consumers in lower prices the tax reductions that the Congress enacted.,CEASE-FIRE VIOLATIONS IN THE DOMINICAN\nREPUBLIC [4.] In the Dominican Republic in the last 2 days there has been renewed, and repeated, and totally unjustified firing on the Inter-American Force. This is in flagrant violation of a cease-fire.,This firing has been accepted without reply by the Inter-American Force for periods up to one-half hour before the necessary replies were given under the orders of General Alvim of Brazil and General Palmer of the United States.2 In these actions 3 of our fellow Americans have lost their lives, and 37 more Americans and 5 Brazilians have been wounded.,2General of the Army Hugo Panasco Alvim of .Brazil, Commander of the OAS Inter-American Force m the Dominican Republic, and Lt. Gen. Bruce Palmer, Jr., of the United States, Deputy Commander.,These unprovoked attacks on the Inter-American Force appear to have been premeditated by elements which seek to prevent the establishment of peace in Santo Domingo. Our forces there have no other mission, and they will continue to observe the same soldierly restraint that they have shown now for more than 7 weeks, in the face of more than 900 cease-fire violations, and they have already suffered almost 200 casualties.,ATOMIC ENERGY PROGRAMS [5.] Dr. Seaborg3 and I talked about the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards system and nonproliferation. At present, facilities in 15 countries are being inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I believe we should do everything we can to point out the important contributions to nonproliferation and the world's peace that the International Atomic Energy Agency is making. And I plan to make further reference to that in a speech that I now have in the works.,3 Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.,We discussed the progress report on nuclear power and the nuclear powerplants that are being selected by American utilities because of economic considerations alone. About 20 utilities are considering such large plants and several are on the verge of announcing their orders. The Commissioner estimates that 5,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity by 1970, and 70,000 megawatts by 1980 seems reasonable.,The AEC and Department of Interior program on desalting also seems very promising. I have directed him, today, to undertake a new study in connection with the associated Government agencies, particularly Interior, in connection with certain cooperative efforts-that I expect to announce at a later date with other nations--in the field of desalting in an attempt to make the deserts bloom.,We discussed the United States and U.S.S.R. exchanges in atomic energy in some detail. This program is making a very effective and very positive contribution to the U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. Dr. Seaborg reports that Ambassador Kohler has emphasized to us the great value of this program. As you know, he is our Ambassador in Russia. Dr. Seaborg stated that during his visit to the Soviet Union in May 1963 his counterpart, Chairman Petrosyants,4 and Dr. Seaborg signed a memorandum of understanding in the peaceful uses of atomic energy, which has since provided us numerous scientific exchanges.,4 Andronik M. Petrosyants, Chairman, State Committee for Use of Atomic Energy in Soviet Union.,We are hopeful and we are going to labor to the end that the scientists become a bridge between nations of differing philosophies in the hope that we can bring about, through their efforts, much better understanding.,In the last 2 years, four U.S. teams have visited the U.S.S.R. Those teams are made up of 7 to 10 men each. And four Soviet teams visited the U.S. on a reciprocal basis. Three American scientists have been sent to the U.S.S.R. on an extended basis, and reciprocally three Soviet scientists have come here to the U.S. The success of this program has furthered our hope that science can serve as a common ground between East and West even in these troubled times.,You now have a mission there, don't you?,DR. SEABORG. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. How many men?,DR. SEABORG. We have a couple of scientists working there on a long-term basis in one of the labs. The last team was a Soviet team that came to this country just last week. That is a team of 10 scientists in the field of radioactive waste disposal.,REDUCTION IN BUDGET DEFICIT [6.] THE PRESIDENT. This one I'll go a little slow on. Earlier this year I announced to you that our expanding economy would produce more revenues than we had anticipated in our prediction to Congress in the January budget.,I also announced that the drive to keep Federal expenditures under tight rein would reduce expenditures below the estimates we made in January. We do not have any final figures for June, but I do have a final, rather strong, memorandum to all the agencies about this June spending. And on the basis of the reductions we were able to make in June spending last year, and the best estimates that the career men and Budget can make today, we want to report that our progress on both fronts is much better than we had previously expected, according to Mr. Schultze,5 of the Budget Bureau, and the Secretary of the Treasury.,5 Charles L. Schultze, Director of the Bureau of the Budget.,Instead of revenues increasing by $1.4 billion above our budget estimate, as it appeared earlier, we now anticipate a $1.6 billion revenue improvement. Our latest reports also indicate that expenditures will be in the neighborhood of $900 million lower than our January estimate. So, we expect to have a very unique thing happen to us--at present, taking in $1.6 billion more than we said we would, and spending in the neighborhood of $900 million less than we said we would spend. That will make a difference of $2.5 billion.,Now, as a result, we expect revenues to be $92.8 billion and expenditures $96.6 billion. This could be off a hundred or so million either way, but this is the estimate they make, and they have been very good on it and this is the middle of June. The budget deficit, therefore, will be only $3.8 billion, which is $2.5 billion less than the $6.3 billion estimated in our January budget.,REDUCTION IN UNEMPLOYMENT [7.] Continuing improvement in the Nation's economy has now, today, reduced to 22 the number of major manpower centers classified by the Federal Government as having substantial unemployment. The figure is the lowest since May of 1957. There were 39 such areas at this time last year, and 101 such areas in March and April of 1961.,Last month's data on employment and unemployment collected in the Nation's 150 largest manpower centers has resulted in our reclassification of 16 areas to categories denoting lower unemployment. Fifteen of these were removed from categories of substantial unemployment and were redesignated as areas of relatively low or moderate unemployment.,The Governor of Georgia told me that before they were acting on requests for new facilities they were making very careful studies because their unemployment rate is down in a good many areas 2 percent or less. Now before people come in and make surveys they try to bring them up to date. I just add that parenthetically. This is what he told me arriving at the airport yesterday.,The improved conditions can be credited to the effects of Federal programs of tax reduction, manpower training, area development, cooperation and trust and confidence between employees and business and labor and Government, in addition to the general improvement in the economic climate and the strong confidence existing in the business community, so far as new plant investments are concerned.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS DEFICIT [8.] Another item is in connection with our voluntary cooperation program to control and reduce the balance of payments deficit. Many cooperating bankers and businessmen have asked what the Federal Government is doing for its part in the program. I have reviewed with the Secretary of the Treasury, and night before last with the Secretary of Commerce, and I will meet with Mr. Robertson of the Federal Reserve Board, and Mr. Maisel, a Federal Reserve Board member,6 tomorrow. We don't want to be overoptimistic, and we want to caution everyone to be prudent in their predictions. We are pleased with the balance of payments and it is exceeding our expectations. But these bankers and businessmen that I was speaking about--their concern is quite proper.,6J. L. Robertson and Sherman J. Maisel, members, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System.,I have just received a report from the Budget Director today on the matter and here is what it shows. The net balance of payments costs of the Federal program-that is just Federal; what I said a moment ago has to do with banks alone, capital investments by business--this has to do with Federal programs. The net balance of payments costs of Federal programs through regular transactions abroad--keeping our troops there, Korea, Germany, our headquarters in France, and our foreign aid to all the countries--through regular transactions abroad declined 23 percent, or $635 million from fiscal 1963 to 1965.,According to present plans, these costs will decline another 13 percent, or $290 additional million, by 1967.,We have certain actions and decisions that have already been made but have to be tapered out. This major improvement has been possible because of efforts throughout the Government to reduce overseas dollar payments and to increase our receipts from abroad. The most substantial contribution to date has resulted from a reduction in overseas payments of $720 million from 1963 through 1965. In the next 2 years our receipts from abroad--loan repayments, receipts from the sale of Government-owned agricultural commodities, and even advance repayments on loans made since World War II, and we hope some of these days some from World War I--will increase sharply.,These we welcome gladly, and some of them are coming back, and some are coming back in advance, and that is what reduced this 23 percent and 13 percent. So, these contributions of Federal agencies toward sharing the burden of reducing the balance of payments deficit were also reflected in the reduction in Federal employment in foreign countries. As I reported several weeks ago, there were 8,614 fewer civilian Federal employees overseas in December 1964 than a year earlier--approximately 9,000 reduced.,These improvements have been obtained without sacrificing essential U.S. commitments abroad, and in the face of rising price and wage levels in most overseas countries where we spend our dollars.,REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT\nEMPLOYEES [9.] Employment last month, I believe, is down something like over 4,000 employees in the Federal Government. I'll get those exact figures if Bill Moyers,7 or someone else, will get them for me. That is contrasted with 2.1 million more people working this May than worked last May.,7Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the president.,RESIGNATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS [10.] I have today accepted the resignation of Secretary of the Army, Stephen Ailes, effective July 1st. I plan to nominate Stanley R. Resor, currently Under Secretary of the Army, to replace Mr. Ailes as Secretary of the Army. Mr. David E. McGiffert, currently Assistant Secretary of Defense, will replace Mr. Resor as Under Secretary of the Army. Secretary Ailes served as Under Secretary of the Army from February 9, 1961, until January 28, 1964, when he succeeded Cyrus Vance as Secretary of the Army. He has served in that post continuously since that time. Secretary Ailes is returning to his Washington law practice.,I have spent a good portion of my time in the last few days going back and forth-yesterday to Georgia, and other places, reading reports and evaluating employees. I expect to have some today when it is convenient to give you a number of other appointees. We are having changes from time to time. There will be more in the Defense Department. There will be a good many in the Justice Department. Some on commissions. We are in good shape with our appointees but we have a dozen or so now under active consideration.,[11.] I have today accepted the resignation of Under Secretary of the Navy, Kenneth E. BeLieu, effective July 1st. I will nominate Robert H. B. Baldwin of New Jersey, currently a partner in the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, and a consultant to the Secretary of the Navy, to take Mr. BeLieu's place.,Q. What does he do?,THE PRESIDENT. He is consultant to the Secretary of the Navy and a partner in private life--he comes from the firm of Morgan Stanley.,CABINET TO REVIEW INTERNATIONAL\nSITUATION [12.] I called a meeting of the Cabinet for 11 a.m. Friday. We will have a thorough review and discussion of the international situation, and U.S. policies. I will ask the Secretary of State to review the dozen or more diplomatic proposals and initiatives that we have considered and received and proposed, so that all the members of the Cabinet may evaluate and discuss them and be informed about them in greater detail than has been permitted before.,In addition, we will explore with members of the Cabinet certain other hopes for peace that we are evaluating and considering. The Secretary of Defense will report on the status of the men in uniform, who protect us and who defend us, and the quality of their performance, the dangers that they have undertaken, the commitments that we have made to certain areas of the world. That will be thoroughly and carefully reviewed, and members of the Cabinet will make--those not on the National Security Council--the Secretary of the Treasury is, and the Attorney General comes frequently, and, of course, the Vice President is always there--but others will make any suggestions that they come to, and very likely will make some suggestions to new initiatives which we have already tried, and some unsuccessfully.,I think that is all I have at this time.,QUESTIONS\nRESIGNATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS [13.] Q. Mr. President, will Mr. BeLieu have any office in Government?,THE PRESIDENT. He has resigned from his office and he has not informed me what he expects to do.,When Mr. McNamara came over the other day to talk about personnel matters he presented these resignations and made these suggestions, and while studies have been made of the men--investigations that we normally make, we brought them up to date, and since that meeting--whenever it was, 3 or 4 days ago, it was on the record--I have decided to name Mr. Resor and Mr. Baldwin.,CONGRESSIONAL COMMENTS AND THE\nNEGOTIATIONS IN VIET-NAM [14.] Q. Mr. President, since you made a recent speech, you expressed a willingness and acceptance of the fact that your foreign policy was very subject to public discussion and such open remarks as this--,THE PRESIDENT. I have always believed that.,Q. Yes, sir, but in the last day or two, this criticism or discussion on Capitol Hill has become a little more pointed--,THE PRESIDENT. In recent days it has become a little more what?,Q. Pointed. Senator Clark of Pennsylvania says we must negotiate with the Viet Cong or we will never get a peace without it. What do you think of a statement like that by a member of the Foreign Relations Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I think Senator Clark is a very able member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He has been interested, I recall, through the years when I was leader--he wanted to go on Foreign Relations and has been added to Foreign Relations recently. I think he has a perfect right to express himself--and a duty. His suggestion is one that I think has been carefully considered by Secretary Rusk and Secretary Ball,8 and for that matter the entire Security Council and the President.,8Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Under Secretary of State George W. Ball.,I think that you must observe--as accurate and perceptive as you are a good many times--and I think we all wish we could settle these differences by discussion and by reasoning them out instead of the way we are attempting to settle it.,I have no doubt--I am sure other Senators who are real familiar with this matter, including Senator Clark, have no doubt that if the Viet Cong had a viewpoint to present and were anxious to negotiate they would have no difficulty finding the government to negotiate.,I don't think that you would have a group that feels very strongly--maybe like the group at the Pentagon yesterday, or maybe State--I don't believe we'd ever agree to someone negotiating that is not a government. I am not aware of any government the Viet Cong has. What would you think about the State of Mississippi negotiating for us in this matter? Although it is a State it is not a sovereign government.,Now, if there is any indication, or anyone has information--I remember one time Senator Borah 9 said he had better information than the President. At that time, Smitty,10 it was a matter of much more point than it is now, and much more equal, I am glad to say. But our information is when we asked them to come into the United Nations last August, after we said you bring these people in and let's try to work through the U.N., they weren't the slightest interested-the North Vietnamese were not.,9William E. Borah, Senator from Idaho 1907-1940.,10Merriman Smith of United Press International.,In February, we started the program of trying to curtail their ammunition supply and trying to eliminate their bridges and make it more difficult for them to come in, and attempting to convince them we were there to keep our commitment and we were going to keep it although they believed from some things said in word and writing, we might not. We attempted to convince them.,They told our representatives, our spokesmen, people who were negotiating for us (not members of this Government), and this is an example that I have used in talking to a good many people in the Congress and elsewhere, \"this inflexibility characterizes the position of this entire regime, and illustrates its great measure of confidence in itself. It considers it holds all the trump cards; that world opinion is becoming more sympathetic; that the United States retaliation is limited; that South Viet-Nam is having its difficulties and they are not the slightest interested.\",On February 15th, the same man reported to us and just a few days ago, I believe it was June 7. And the message on June 7 was just about the same as the message on February 15. It is a confidential message but I will unclassify a paragraph or two of it for you.,He is completely persuaded, from his conversations with the officials, they are not now interested in any negotiation of any kind. He said he was able to see he names a high official--and he followed the standard line that the United States offer of unconditional discussion was deceitful. He asked them to elaborate on any proposal they would consider. He remained deliberately vague and gave no clear answer. We pressed him specifically about this matter but only received a vague and very indefinite reply.,He just talks about being impressed by an American in a foreign country, and he concludes the paragraph that his impressions from all of his meetings and discussions was there has been no change whatever in their position or at least they did not seem about to let such change be known.,Now, if any of these people want to negotiate they would have no difficulty finding a way. I told them in Baltimore we would like to go and would hope to do, and have repeated it since, and we have indicated many, many times we would be glad to negotiate with any government. Now they are going into groups of people.,Well, that is the current line. You remember first we had no policy. Second, we wouldn't explain it. Third, we ought to negotiate. Fourth, we ought to have a halt. These things originate and in about a month they come to us. You will find a good deal of it in the next few weeks--negotiate directly with the Viet Cong. And I would say the Viet Cong would have no difficulty, since they are controlled, directed, and masterminded from North Viet-Nam, in getting any view to us they wanted.,Q. Mr. President, this man who is reporting in, is this an American national?,THE PRESIDENT. You don't need to give him a blood test.,Q. This man was talking to Hanoi?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The negotiations, or who is carrying it on and how, I don't see how that could be of any value. The substance is what you want; not how much he weighs, how tall he is, or what country he represents. What we are trying to do is get them to talk to us.,Q. Mr. President, the Commonwealth meeting in London agreed to contact countries principally involved. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Ministers of other Commonwealth countries are deeply interested in this matter and we are happy they are. We have reviewed their ideas and we are keeping close touch with them. We are very happy they have made this suggestion. We have talked to them, communicated with them about it, and they will have our full cooperation and we are delighted.,As I indicated the day after I took over as President, I'd be glad to go anywhere, do anything, see anybody, anytime that offered any hope of peace, and this is hope. We hope they can select a good committee that will be fair to all sides and we will be glad to meet with them, and we hope that every other country involved will be glad to meet.,We welcome any attempt, as we told them about the Cambodian conference11 and we replied to the 17 nations,12 as we said in 44 States and as we tried to repeat in some length in Pat Furgurson's13 town of Baltimore some time ago.,11On April 25, 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated that the U.S. would gladly participate in any conference on Cambodia. The text of his remarks is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 52, p. 711).,12On March 15, 1965, at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, a conference of 17 nonaligned nations adopted a declaration on the war in Viet-Nam. The 17-nation declaration and the U.S. reply are printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 52, p. 610).,13 Ernest B. (Pat) Furgurson of the Baltimore Sun.,THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS [15.] Q. Mr. President, what is to be done about the bad financial condition of the U.N.?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a matter that deeply concerns us. We don't want to see the U.N. wrecked on account of a dollar. At the same time, we recognize the responsibilities of the member nations and there are differences of opinion there and we are trying to carefully consider the merits of the positions of various governments and find an area of agreement.,I am sorry to say we are not in a position to go any further at this time but we are very concerned about it, very anxious to find an answer to it, and we have great hopes for the U.N. and we think it would be tragic if because of a relatively minor amount of money, compared to the total budgets of the various nations, the U.N. should become less effective because of that.,I plan to--I want to put it this way, I hope that I may be able to go to San Francisco next Friday, and I wouldn't take that as a commitment that I am going to be there, but I hope to go and if I do, I may have something to say about the future of the U.N. at that time.,THE SITUATION IN VIET-NAM AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [16.] Q. Mr. President, with the situation in Viet-Nam and the Dominican Republic, what is your personal assessment of the chances of improving international relations right now?,THE PRESIDENT. What is the first part of your question?,Q. With the situation in Viet-Nam and the Dominican Republic, what is your assessment?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say it is very difficult. They are strained. We are going to do everything we can to avoid provoking any controversies or straining any relations, and there has been no statement of ours toward any of the leaders of other governments, no propaganda of ours toward other peoples; and in our judgment, no act of ours that would justify irritating anyone who really loved peace and hated war.,We recognize that other nations keep their commitments and are true to their alliances and we assume that they would allow us the same privilege they reserve for themselves. We agreed to help the signatories of the Southeast Treaty Organization and the protocol states, and pursuant to that commitment we are trying to help them save their freedom from aggression. And we intend to save it.,In the Dominican Republic, forces moved in and overthrew the government. And while I am not passing on the merits of the actions that take place many times in many places, where they change governments-and we believe in change of conditions, and we are trying to obtain them through the Alliance for Progress--but in this particular instance, a fact that has been emphasized all too little, I think, some 1,500 innocent people were murdered and shot, and their heads cut off, and six Latin American embassies were violated and fired upon over a period of 4 days before we went in.,As we talked to our Ambassador to confirm the horror and tragedy and the unbelievable fact that they were firing on Americans and the American Embassy, he was talking to us from under a desk while bullets were going through his windows and he had a thousand American men, women, and children assembled in the hotel who were pleading with their President for help to preserve their lives.,We didn't start that. We didn't intervene. We didn't kill anyone. We didn't violate any embassies. We were not the perpetrators. But after we saw what had happened we took the necessary precautions as I have said so often and as I repeat again: We do not want to bury anyone and we don't intend to, but we are not going to be buried ourselves. And as we had to go into the Congo to preserve the lives of American citizens and haul them out when they were being shot at, we went into the Dominican Republic to preserve the lives of American citizens and citizens of a good many other nations--46 to be exact, 46 nationals.,While some of the nations were denouncing us for going in there their people were begging us to protect them. And the American Marines protected them. Twenty died. We removed 5,600 people from 46 nations and we didn't sprain an ankle doing it. But we had 20 of our boys killed by the rebels who fired first and who tried to keep us from evacuating these people. We established a peace zone.,We had only two purposes there. One, to get an Inter-American Force in there to bring about a cease-fire and preserve peace, that is all. We are not after their money or after their philosophy or trying to dominate them. We said that. And we tried our best to get them there as quick as we could and we finally got them--and General Alvim is doing an excellent job under great difficulties.,Yesterday I saw one of his cables, and it was 23 minutes after they started shooting before he replied. I don't know how many of you are anxious to stand up and be shot at by tommy-guns, and you ask a lot of these boys to do that. That is the first thing.,The second was to have a government broadly based to be acceptable to the people of the Dominican Republic. We are not pointing, we are not matching a computer and saying, here is what the government will be. We asked Mr. Bundy, Mr. Vance, Mr. Mann, Mr. Vaughn 14 and everyone we knew to talk to the extreme elements--some to talk to the other side, some to the loyalists, the rebels--hoping we could have a cease-fire until we could have a broadly based government, and until the OAS could give help, counsel, and mediation.,14McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President, Cyrus R. Vance, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Thomas C. Mann, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and Jack H. Vaughn, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and United States Coordinator, Alliance for Progress.,They have appointed a very fine committee. They appointed the best men they could find and they are there talking to every group, going all over the land. They are making progress, and we hope that the OAS will have a recommendation on the political matter like they did on the military matter. We don't want it to be unilateral. We much prefer that the forces of all nations go in to save people of 46 nations. But it is taking us 7 weeks to get the two things we have done up to now and haven't got the final answer yet.,We first had a committee appointed, then a man, then another committee appointed from the OAS, and we are proud of what the OAS is doing but it is not a matter that can save lives. As a matter of fact, we landed our people in less than 1 hour from the time the decision was made. It was a decision we considered from Saturday until Wednesday evening. But once we made it, in the neighborhood of 6 or 6:30 that evening, they landed within 1 hour. But they didn't save 1,500 lives.,CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT [17.] Q. Mr. President, because of the growing commitment of American combat troops in Viet-Nam, there have been some discussions in Congress that you should go back to Congress for another resolution of support?,THE PRESIDENT. The evidence there is very dear for anybody that has read the resolution. 15,15The joint resolution (HJ. Res. 1145) to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia was approved on August 10, 1964 (Public Law 88-408, 78 Stat. 384).,First, the authority of the President is very clear and unquestioned without a resolution. The Commander in Chief has all the authority that I am exercising. But because of my desire to have the support of the Congress and to have them a part of any decision we make after consulting their leadership, exchanging viewpoints, and carefully drawing a resolution, we submitted to the Congress language that we thought would make it clear for all time, to one and all.,That language, just as a reminder to you, said the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President as Commander in Chief \"to take all--all--all necessary measures to repel any--any--any armed attack against the forces of the United States\" and, \"to prevent further aggression.\",Furthermore, the United States is prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed forces to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in the defense of freedom.,Now, the resolution--and we carefully put this in, and this, I think, will give a full response to your question--this resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by the action of the U.N. or otherwise; it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress. I couldn't veto that resolution. We purposely put it in.,Anytime they want to take the authority the resolution gives me, they can take it away. It is just an expression and they just approved the position that we were taking. So we think that if there is anyone--and there will be some in a body of a hundred when from time to time we ask them to make appropriations, and there are such things as the military bills reported out today, and military assistance which has a lot of testimony in this connection and the economic bill just last week.,Anyone that wants to cannot only speak against us but can vote against us. We don't encourage it, and we think we are very fortunate that we are as unified as we are. The first vote was 502-2 and my study of history would indicate that that is rather unusual even for most extreme times.,I remember Jeannette Rankin of Montana16 voting against a declaration of war. And on the last vote, I believe it was 10 out of 35. So we are very happy at the support we are receiving and the people are supporting us not only in this country but other places.,16Jeannette Rankin, Representative from Montana 1917-1919 and 1941-1943.,I told Senator Long 17 yesterday morning: Do not be dissuaded and do not become discouraged because I remember your father telling about the Louisiana farmer that stayed awake night after night because of the frogs barking in the pond. Finally he got irritated and angry and the way you all describe me--those of you that never come around here--and he went out and drained the pond and killed both frogs.,17Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana.,We aren't going to kill anybody but we recognize the frogs and the ponds and they keep us awake sometimes. That is the freedom we love.,President Eisenhower told me about a prominent Soviet general who came into his office during the war and criticized one of the newspaper reporters. He was talking about some bad articles that had been written about him, and he thought they were unjust. And President Eisenhower told him he would consider it. The next day the Soviet general came back to the headquarters and said he wanted Merriman Smith, or whoever it was, court-martialed.,President Eisenhower said, \"Here is a big book compiled on what they said about me.\" He said, \"Before I left here I went home to see my mother and there were five Eisenhower boys there, and Milton is a liberal, progressive head of a university; one is a banker, the other is a constitutional lawyer; one is a professor; and one is an engineer.\" He said, \"My father was a railroad man who married my mother when she was 19 years old and gave birth to five children. She had five boys--there had been six but there were five there that day, I believe it was, but two of those boys are ultra-conservatives and two of those boys are progressive liberals and one of them is General of the Army. I am over here fighting for that fight and to preserve that right where a railroad man can marry a 19-year-old girl and produce five children and two of them can develop into conservatives and two liberals and one General of the Army.\",So, I have been around Congress too long--35 years--not to understand that there are going to be different viewpoints but I applaud and appreciate the assistance that General Eisenhower, who is the only President of the other party that is living, has given me.,I read last night a very lengthy report of a briefing that he had received and his reactions and I have asked him to come back to the White House from time to time, and don't you think there is an emergency when he walks in. He is going to be here the latter part of this month, speaking to Howard.18 I am going to talk to him then.,18Son June 17, 1965, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed an audience at Howard University in Washington, D.C., at a ceremony honoring 320 college students who were to spend the summer in Europe as \"people-to-people\" ambassadors.,I consult with President Truman from time to time, but the strength the opposition party has given me is very much appreciated and the support of my own people. I don't know of any similar period in history with the great difficulties we are facing now that the Congress has performed more magnificently.,I may question some individual member some time close to election, but I am not going to quarrel with any this early.,FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, JR. [18.] Q. Mr. President, Franklin Roosevelt 19 said he would like to talk to you as to whether he should run for mayor or not. Are you going to see him?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen him. I have not talked to him. I will be happy to talk to him. I like him. He performed a very valuable service to this administration but I am not in the business of selecting mayors for any cities. I would, of course, be happy to talk to any prominent citizen, and I include Mr. Roosevelt in that group, who desire to talk to me about his future or any others. As a matter of fact, I talked to Franklin Roosevelt, St., about my future a good many times and I would feel very bad if I refused.,19Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.,THE SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT [19.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything you can tell us on the supersonic transport?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The Russians have made considerable advances in that field. We watched them with interest and we are glad they have been successful.,The French and the British have made rapid strides in that field and as you know it won't be long before they have their plane ready. We have carefully studied it and tested the sonic boom and other things necessary. I told the committee of the Vice President, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Webb, Mr. McNamara, Mr. Halaby,20 and others--we are going to build it if the Congress gives us some money. We want the best plane and we want one the airlines will buy, so, therefore, it must be a sizeable undertaking involving hundreds of millions-over a billion dollars for the first plane--and it has got to be at a price they will buy and can use to haul people 2,000 miles an hour, or however fast it goes--2,200 some of them. The Russian, I think, is 1,600.,20James E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, and N. E. Halaby, Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency.,To do that we have got to get the best brains in this country who know how to build a plane, and that is not a civil service worker or ex-governor or even manager of an airport.,So, Mr. McNamara and the Secretary of the Treasury--because of the balance of payments we want these people to buy our planes instead of buying abroad--Mr. McCone 21 worked with us because of his experience in business before he left; Mr. Webb because of the NASA interest. And we looked to try to get the best man in the United States without regard to politics, without regard to anything, and we think we got the best man in the United States. His name is \"Bozo\" McKee.,21John A. McCone, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.,He was the head of Wright Field, he was a procurement expert, and Mr. McNamara said he has been on a good many different sides with him and against him, but he considered him the best man. Mr. Webb grabbed him up for the space program--he is 50 and some odd years and he has an $8,000 retirement--and so he got him and sent him to some of his NASA centers to give expert advice on procurement and building and construction, because that is his business. He built a lot of airplanes. He was in charge of Wright Field.,I called him one morning at 7:30--they agreed he was best--and I said, \"What are you doing?\" And he said he didn't have his britches on. And I said, \"Get them on and come on up.\" I asked him to take this job and he said he didn't like the idea of being tied down and looked forward to a vacation. I said he could have it after he gave us air supremacy, and if he could do it after 2 or 3 years he could go back to Palm Springs or Nassau. And like most men trained by West Point and Annapolis, or whatever, he said, \"If that is what the Commander in Chief wants me to do I will do it.\" (\"I have been separated from my wife in three wars ...\"--that was Maxwell Taylor 22 who was separated from his wife.) I asked Mr. McKee to do the job. But they had gotten into an argument with General Quesada 23 and they had put a provision in the act that the head must be a civilian. The head or deputy is a general but he is not going to build a transport. We want the man to head it and be responsible for it, and we asked the Congress--as you do in extreme cases--to permit this man to move over from NASA, where he didn't have to be confirmed, to FAA at the same salary.,22Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to South Viet-Nam.,23E. R. Quesada, former Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency.,He kept his $8,000 retirement and got the job, whatever it pays--28 or 30. So, we sent the bill up there and Congressman Harris had been against the General because of the problem with General Quesada. But he thought it was merited, and I called him down in Arkansas and he said we ought to get the best man.,But he is the most experienced and he is the best now. The bill has passed the House overwhelmingly. Only one Democrat voted against it. It is in the Senate. It is up today and I hope, as I speak, the roll is called on it and I hope McKee will take that job.24 And I told him we want him to go full steam ahead, around the clock, until we obtain the best plane at the best price that was achievable.,24A bill (H.R. 7777) authorizing the President to appoint Gen. William F. McKee to the office of Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency was approved on June 22, 1965 (Public Law 89-46, 79 Stat. 171).,THE DENVER FLOOD DISASTER [20.] Q. Mr. President, have you been apprised of the Denver flood disaster and have you taken any action?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Ellington 25 has that matter before him. It is a matter for the Governor. The Governor called me. I haven't been able to talk to him. Governor Ellington will talk to him and we will make all resources available to him.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,25Buford Ellington, Director, Office of Emergency Planning, and former Governor of Tennessee.,FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE STAFF [21.] I have a couple of additional announcements to make. Doug Cater26 has been working with Health, Education, and Welfare on the education bill and health bill, and he's been doing so well that I want to get him back where his time is not so divided. I hope that he can get back with the work of the Security Council, and I am going to ask him to. And as soon as I can I am going to move him over from the Executive Office Building. And I will probably move Horace Bushy,27 too. Both of them will be devotees of Mr. Bundy.,Are the wire services here?,26S. Douglass Cater, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,27Horace Busby, Jr., Special Assistant to the President.,Q. We'll tell them, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. This is that pool that you're always seeking there. Busby will undertake a variety of duties. As you know, he now prepares statements for me, and does research, and analyzes, and gives me advice on a good many matters. But he will concentrate some on space, on defense, on various regions of the world, and various messages and correspondence that we will be sending to other countries. We have an exchange of things that go back and forth, and I'll have him attend to and specialize in that field, and there will be others, including this but not limited to this.,Mr. Cater will be working in foreign policy, generally. He'll be doing what he can to give us advice on cooperative efforts that we can make in matters like saline water, or against the ancient enemies of mankind, or in food, health, education, with other nations. That is a big problem. If we can get those people some food and clothing and housing and some education and health, we would not be having all this bombing. It would not be necessary to make them.,They'll be working with USIA, keeping in close touch with them. Both of them will be working with certain international organizations: SEATO, CENTO, NATO, U.N.,They'll have increasingly important roles in the preparation of all of my statements and my press conferences. For that reason, they'll be kept informed of all major national security matters, and they'll be present on all security matters. They may not go to lunch with me on Tuesday. But they don't mind. I'd be glad to have them there, but they'll be in on official meetings and on a good many of the unofficial ones. They have both worked very closely with me for a good many years on a series of subjects, and they have been very helpful to me in Viet-Nam, and the Dominican Republic, and in other areas.,Now, Mr. Bundy will continue to head the staff. He has several people specializing in various areas, Bob Komer, Cooper,28 and different ones, and they'll still have their regions. But these men will be working within the fields I've told you about.,28Robert W. Komer, Deputy Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and Chester L. Cooper, senior member of the National Security Council staff.,JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS [22.] I anticipate that I will name very shortly Judge Homer Thornberry to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the 5th District of Texas, and former Governor I. P. Coleman of Mississippi 29 Mr. Coleman is a former attorney general of that State, a former judge of that State, and a former Governor of that State. Thornberry is a former district attorney, a former member of the city council, a former member of the legislature, a former Member of the Congress. He's now a district judge and he'll be promoted to the circuit court.,29Also appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.,Q. What was Governor Coleman to be?,Q. How about replacements?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a matter we'll have to look into. I want to get the recommendation from the Bar Association. I want to consult with Senator Yarborough.,Under the Constitution, the President appoints judges and the Senate confirms judges. It doesn't mean necessarily that when a bar association checks them because of a practice they're in that we give the Bar Association the appointment power of the President. It doesn't mean that we give the Senate the appointment power. If they're not qualified they can always reject them. The Bar Association does a good many times in their judgment, and the President goes ahead and acts anyway. I don't have the record but a good many have been rejected.,A good many times men not qualified may be personally obnoxious, but I would try to select one that is qualified to meet the Bar Association's requirements, one that is not obnoxious. And I prefer someone who is actually supported by Senator Yarborough and is not offensive to any Member of the Senate and has the qualifications of the job beyond the peradventure of a doubt. I have not gone in and considered anyone.,Judge Adrian Spears will move to Austin and will reside in Austin and will succeed Congressman Thornberry there.,Q. Mr. President, of course--,THE PRESIDENT. This is not another press conference.,Q. Mr. Busby and Mr. Cater, of course, will retain their present titles?,THE. PRESIDENT. Yes, their same present titles. This is just an expansion of their duties.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-06-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,WITHDRAWAL OF MARINES FROM THE\nDOMINICAN REPUBLIC [1.] The situation in the Dominican Republic continues to be serious. That is why we welcome the additional efforts which are being made in the OAS today to enlarge and to strengthen the efforts to find a peaceful settlement there. We continue to give our full support to Secretary General Mora 1 in his outstanding service under existing OAS resolutions, but we share his judgment that a very strong and sustained effort is going to continue to be needed.,1 Jose A. Mora, Secretary General of the Organization of American States.,Meanwhile, I have been advised today by General Alvim, the Commander in Chief of the Inter-American Force, and by Lieutenant General Palmer, the Deputy Commander of the Inter-American Force, that conditions in the Dominican Republic will now permit the further withdrawal of the United States military personnel from the Inter-American Force. This recommendation has the concurrence of Secretary General Mora and Ambassador Bennett.2,2 W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic.,I am, therefore, accordingly, ordering the immediate withdrawal of one battalion landing team of United States Marines, plus headquarters and supporting personnel. This will total approximately 2,000 people.,Now to another subject.,ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNITED NATIONS [2.] This month of June marks a very historic anniversary in the affairs of man. Twenty years ago, while war still raged in the world, the nations of Europe assembled at San Francisco to sign the charter of hope that brought into being the United Nations. Men were mindful that in these times humankind must choose between cooperation or catastrophe.,At San Francisco there was brought into being a great instrumentality for international cooperation, and we can believe today that the cooperation engendered by the United Nations has helped to avert catastrophe in this century. So today we have to work not on the things that divide us, but instead on the things that unite nations in the bonds of common interest.,On June 24th, 25th, and 26th of this year, the General Assembly of the United Nations will meet for commemorative sessions in San Francisco. It is my hope and plan at this time to be in San Francisco and to address the delegates at that time during the meetings of the sessions there.,FOREIGN AID FUNDS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA [3.] This afternoon I am sending to the Congress a very special message requesting an additional appropriation to help in the peaceful economic and social development of southeast Asia.3 This is another forward step toward carrying out my April proposal for a massive effort to improve the life of man in that conflict-torn corner of the world.,3 See Item 294.,The American people, I think, want their own Government to be not only strong but compassionate. They know that a society is secure only when there is full social justice for all of its people, and these principles of compassion and justice never stop at the water's edge.,So we do not intend that the enemies of freedom shall become the inheritors of man's worldwide revolt against injustice and misery. Therefore, we expect to lead in that struggle, not to conquer or to subdue, but to give each people the chance to build its own nation in its own way.,My personal representative, Mr. Eugene Black,4 has already begun extensive and hopeful discussions with interested parties around the world. Thus, the groundwork has already been laid for a long-range development plan for all of southeast Asia, led by Asians, to improve the life of Asians.,4 Eugene R. Black, adviser to the President on Southeast Asian social and economic development and former President of the World Bank.,In South Viet-Nam today, brave and enduring people are carrying on a determined resistance against those who would destroy their independence. They will win this fight, and the United States of America is going to help them win it.,But there is another and a much more profound struggle going on in that country, and that is the struggle to create the conditions of hope and progress which are really the only lasting guarantees of peace and stability.,The 16 million people of South Viet-Nam survive on an average income of $100 per year. More than 60 percent of the people have never learned to read or write. When disease strikes, medical care is often impossible to find.,As I remarked the other day here, there is only one doctor for every 29,000 people, compared with one for every 740 in the United States. They have 200 doctors; whereas, they need 5,000. This poverty and this neglect take their inevitable toll in human life. The life expectancy there is only 35 years. That is just about half what it is in our country.,Now, we think that these are the common enemies of man in South Viet-Nam. They were there before the aggressor struck. They, of course, will be there when aggression is completely gone. These enemies, too, we are committed to help defeat.,Today's request will be used to help develop the vast water and power resources of the Mekong basin. They will be used to bring electricity to small towns in the provinces. We have had REA teams, as you know, there working for several weeks making these surveys and planning to build several REA systems.,We will build clinics and provide doctors for disease-ridden rural areas. We will help South Viet-Nam import materials for their homes and their factories, and in addition, the members of the American Medical Association have already agreed with us to try to recruit surgeons and specialists, approximately 50 of them. We are particularly very much in need of plastic surgeons to go to Viet-Nam to help heal the wounds of war and to help them, as well, to deal with the ravages of unchecked disease.,Now, this is just a part of the beginning. This appropriation today calls for only $89 million, but in the future I will call upon our people to make further sacrifices because this is a good program, and the starts that we are making today are good starts. This is the only way that I know in which we can really win not only the military battle against aggression, but the wider war for the freedom and for progress of all men.,Now I will be glad to take any questions you may have.,QUESTIONS,THE OAS PEACE FORCE [4.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech at Baylor on Friday,5 you spoke of new international machinery being needed to counteract any future aggression or subversion in this hemisphere. Could you spell out in any further detail just what your concept of this is, militarily or diplomatically?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that we are very delighted that for the first time in history, we have presently on the military side an Inter-American Force that is functioning-and functioning effectively--under the leadership of General Alvim in the Dominican Republic. A good many of the nations in this hemisphere are supplying forces to that Inter-American Force, and others will be making contributions, we hope, in the next few days.,5 See Item 286.,On the political side, we are now considering the Organization of American States' certain solutions for the Dominican Republic which could very well serve as an indication of what might come in similar situations down the road. We have had very enlightened and very positive leadership under Mr. Mora, the Secretary General of the OAS, in the Dominican Republic, and we hope not only can they supply forces to help provide the military answer to the necessities in that field, but that they can evolve a formula that will provide judicious determinations in connection with political judgments that we need to make in the near future.,U.S. EFFORTS IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Q. Mr. President, could you spell out for us, sir, the efforts and role that the United States has been playing in seeking a compromise government in the Dominican Republic and what you think the chances for success are?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I will be very glad to. We found it necessary, in order to preserve our own citizens' lives, and in order to stop the wholesale killing of hundreds and even thousands of Dominicans, to intervene in the Dominican Republic. Since that time, we have counseled at great length and sought the assistance of the OAS in connection with contributing the military forces that would bring about a cease-fire and preserve the peace.,At the same time, we have urged the OAS to establish machinery to help find a political solution, and awaiting the establishment of that machinery, which we are really considering in the OAS today, we have sent some of the best people in this Government to maintain contacts with the broad base of leadership in the Dominican Republic in the hope that there would, in due time, evolve a broadly based government that would meet with the approval of the Dominican people.,I have had Mr. Vance, Mr. Bundy, Mr. Mann, Mr. Vaughn,6 and others maintain liaison with various leaders of various groups there. Those conferences have been taking place from day to day and we have been keeping the OAS and their representatives fully informed. We are hopeful that in due time they will reach conclusions as to how they think it can be best handled and that we will be able to contribute our part and cooperate with them. As you know, they were discussing the matter over the weekend and today, and we hope that a decision will be in the offing in the immediate future.,6 Cyrus R. Vance, Deputy Secretary of Defense, McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President, Thomas C. Mann, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and lack H. Vaughn, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and United States Coordinator, Alliance for Progress.,We have no desire to insist upon our particular brand of military solution or political solution. We think it is an inter-American matter, and we want to cooperate fully with them. Prior to our intervention, we consulted and discussed the gravity of the situation there with 14 Latin American nations, beginning on Saturday when the revolution took place, up through Wednesday when we sent the Marines in.,During that same period, we met with the Peace Committee of the OAS on Tuesday, and we met with the OAS Council on Wednesday. It has been our desire all along to contribute all we could to a cease-fire, to the eventual evolution of a stable government that would be broadly based, and to make our appropriate contribution to the necessary reconstruction of that country.,We feel that when the OAS reaches its decision, that that decision will be communicated to the people of the Dominican Republic. We hope that they will be able to find agreement between the inter-American body and the folks there that will ultimately lead to an expression of opinion by the people of the Dominican Republic and ultimately lead to a broadly based government that will include none of the extremes.,MAYOR WAGNER'S CANDIDACY [5.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel Mayor Wagner7 should run again?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a matter not for the President to determine.,7 Robert F. Wagner, Mayor of New York City.,THE OAS SECRETARY GENERAL [6.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that the attacks which have been made on OAS Secretary General Mora in the Dominican Republic may have undermined his usefulness as a peace negotiator?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. I think it may have had that objective in mind. That may have been its purpose. But you know the old story--when a man gets in the role of a mediator, both sides usually hit at him. But we think, as I said in my opening statement, that the Secretary General has performed a very useful role, a very intelligent one, and a very objective one, and we have every confidence in his efforts. We have regretted to see the attacks come upon him as we have regretted to see the attacks come upon us. But we much prefer the attacks to what could have happened except for our action and except for his action.,FREEDOM OF SPEECH [7.] Q. Mr. President, this morning, sir, you said \"We welcome and ask for new ideas in foreign policy from universities and journals and public platforms across the land.\" Two questions, sir: Does this mean you approve of the university teach-in techniques, and what is your view of dissenting comment on Viet-Nam and other foreign problems?,THE PRESIDENT. I will answer the latter question first. I think that this administration profits from the suggestions and recommendations of leaders in other branches of government, from men who occupy public platforms, from general discussions. I think that is the strength of the American system, instead of a weakness. I am hopeful that every person will always exercise the free speech that the Constitution guarantees him, and I would prefer, of course, that it be constructive and it be responsible, and I think generally that has been true.,I am glad that I live in a nation where, in the midst of conflict, when men are dying to preserve our freedom, that our citizens still do not fear to exercise it, and I can assure you that they do exercise it.,INCREASED ACTION IN VIET-NAM [8.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a flare-up of the fighting in Viet-Nam. Could you give us an estimate of the situation there, the military situation?,THE PRESIDENT. We had anticipated that we would have some actions of this type at this season of the year. We have had a rather serious engagement in the last few hours, in the most immediate past. The South Vietnamese have lost, according to the reports we have, dozens, even hundreds, of people.,We do not know exactly the extent of the Viet Cong losses, although we believe them to be substantial. We do not announce those, perhaps unfortunately, along with the announcement of our own losses. We know how many we lose, but we don't know how many they lose until we get out there and count them, so their losses never really catch up with the original story of our losses.,Suffice it to say I think it has been serious. We are concerned about it. It is occupying our attention. As you know, General Taylor8 plans to be here in the next few days and he will probably have more definite information at that time, just about the details of this particular engagement.,8 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to,COMMUNIST THREAT IN THE DOMINICAN\nREPUBLIC [9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, last month when you spoke to the Nation on the Dominican Republic, you indicated that the threat of Communist control of the rebel movement was very serious. More recently we have included the rebel leaders in these talks for coalition. Do you feel that the Communist threat in the Dominican Republic is now over?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, no. If you want me to elaborate on that a little bit, I will say that the threat was greater before 21,000 Americans arrived there. It always is. The Communists did not, in our judgment, originate this revolution, but they joined it and South Viet-Nam. they participated in it. They were active in it, and in a good many places they were in charge of it.,We think that following the action that this Nation took--it served a very good purpose and some of the men who had originally participated in the revolution, and had to take asylum, returned, and more moderate forces took leadership--the Communist elements have not been so active, although their presence is still noted hour by hour. Their effectiveness is still observed. From day to day we see their handiwork in the Dominican Republic and elsewhere throughout the world, particularly in the propaganda field.,REGIONAL PEACE FORCES [10.] Q. Mr. President, do you foresee that an inter-American peace force which may be set up permanently would be used only to suppress Communist-directed revolutionary movements in Latin America, or would it also be used to thwart revolutions by military juntas which were attempting to destroy elected governments?,I would also like to ask, in view of the precedent which may be created by such a force, would you look with favor upon the creation of similar regional forces in such areas as Africa and the Arab world?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to anticipate what action the OAS is going to take.,REAPPORTIONMENT [11.] Q. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court handed down several decisions in reapportionment cases in line with its doctrine of \"One man, one vote.\" However, as you know, there are several proposals already introduced in Congress for constitutional amendments which would nullify this doctrine in part. Could you tell us what your administration's position is on this legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. The President does not take action in connection with constitutional amendments. I have reviewed some of the proposals that have been made. I am generally sympathetic with the reapportionments taking place throughout the country in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision. I would not want to get into detailed discussion of the individual programs about which the President will not act one way or the other, because a constitutional amendment does not require White House action. It is a matter for the representatives of the people to decide.,In submitting it, the Congress takes that action. The people themselves have an opportunity to judge it. When the Congress does get down to debating the question and considering it, I will, of course, spend some time on it and become thoroughly conversant with it, but I wouldn't want to predict at this time just what measure would emerge in the form of an amendment or what action Congress or the people might take on it.,FORTHCOMING GEMINI FLIGHT [12.] Q. Mr. President, the astronaut flight on Thursday is going to have more maneuvering than was originally announced. Was this increase done at your suggestion or urging, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,VIET-NAM [13.] Q. Mr. President, if the situation in Viet-Nam--in which you have promised the United States to help that country achieve victory--becomes such that American combat troops are used in the combat there, would you give that order, sir, in the event that there was an invasion from the north?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see that I can do you any good, the country any good, or myself any good by discussing future operational plans. I know of no real reason why we ought to photograph them or decide them until we are confronted with that possibility.,REGIONAL PEACE FORCES [14.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your statement on the United Nations, the Secretary General of the U.N. has expressed the apprehension that the OAS action in the Dominican Republic might have established, I think, what he called an embarrassing precedent, that the Arab League might act in its region and the African states might act in theirs. I was wondering whether you shared those apprehensions about the U.N.?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not.,THE \"JOHNSON DOCTRINE\" [15.] Q. Mr. President, some persons claim that you have enunciated a new Johnson doctrine under which American troops would be used to prevent the establishment of a Communist government anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. In sending American troops to Santo Domingo and explaining your actions afterwards, did you have any such purpose in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I am afraid that the people that have branded the Johnson doctrine were unfamiliar with the fact that the nations of this hemisphere have repeatedly made it clear that the principles of communism are incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system, just as President Kennedy made it abundantly clear. That is the basis of our own attitude on the matter, as I explained in my television appearance.,That does not mean, of course, that this Government is opposed to change. The greatest purpose of the Alliance for Progress, which we are working on so hard and making such substantial contributions to, is to encourage economic and social change. We believe that will benefit all the people of this hemisphere. We are doing our best to provide encouragement for those changes. But I think it is a well-known and well-advertised doctrine of the hemisphere that the principles of communism are incompatible with the principles of our inter-American system. President Kennedy enunciated that on several occasions. The OAS itself has enunciated that. I merely repeated it. I am sorry I got some folks excited by it.,THE DECISION TO INTERVENE IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [16.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you two questions about the Dominican rebellion, one dealing with its origin and one dealing with the possible future. Do you think that it would have been helpful if Juan Bosch 9 had returned; and do you think he might have exercised a restraining influence on some of the left-wing extremists, or Communists, who are in there? And secondly--,THE PRESIDENT. I will answer your first one. I don't want to get into personalities. Go ahead.,9 Former President of the Dominican Republic.,Q. On the second one regarding the future, do you think it would be useful if the Dominicans were to follow the example of the Founding Fathers in this country and hold a constitutional convention themselves to talk out some of their differences before they try to set up a new government?,THE PRESIDENT. We have taken several steps in the order of priority that we felt was required. Many months ago we became aware of the increasing tensions there, and the difficulties that would likely confront us. On the Sunday before we went in there on Wednesday, we asked the Ambassador, who had already come to Washington at our calling, to leave his family's home and come here to meet with us.,Ambassador Bennett met with us on Monday. We rushed him back to the Dominican Republic and set in motion certain steps.,First, was to attempt to obtain a cease-fire. Second, was to take the precautionary steps necessary to protect approximately 5,000 Americans, as well as thousands of other nationals, if that should be required. We moved our ships up there on Sunday.,The Ambassador arrived there on Monday. He talked to various leaders. We did all we could to bring about a cease-fire in cooperation with the Papal Nuncio and others who were active on the scene. On Wednesday at noon it became apparent that danger was lurking around the corner and the Ambassador gave us a warning in a cable about 1 o'clock.,We had met on Monday and we had met on Tuesday. We had met on Wednesday and we had had many conversations on Sunday that we did not issue any handouts on. During that period, I think from the time we were notified on Saturday, until we intervened on Wednesday, we spent a good part of both day and night giving our attention to this matter, from moving the ships up to making the final decision.,I had 237 individual conversations during that period and about 35 meetings with various people. Finally, on Wednesday afternoon at 4-something, we got another warning that we should have a contingent plan ready immediately, and a little before 6 o'clock we got a plea, a unanimous plea from the entire country team, made up of the Ambassador, the AID Director, CIA and the USIA, and the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, to land troops immediately to save American lives.,Now, of course, we knew of the forces at work in the Dominican Republic. We were not unaware that there were Communists that were active in this effort, but 99 percent of our reason for going in there was to try to provide protection for these American lives and for the lives of other nationals. We asked our Ambassador to summon all our people immediately to the Ambassador Hotel, to put them in one central group. In the presence of Secretary Rusk, Secretary McNamara, Secretary Ball,10 Mr. Bundy, and Mr. Moyers11 of my staff, we consulted with the Latin American desk, Mr. Vaughn and his experts, and Mr. Vance and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,10 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,11 Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President.,In the neighborhood of 6 o'clock Wednesday evening we made the decision, it was a unanimous decision, about which there was no difference of opinion either at the Dominican Republic level, or the country team, or the Cabinet level here, to send in the troops. We did not want to announce that they were on their way until they had landed, for obvious security reasons. But when I made the decision, I pointed out to the Secretary of State that we had been consulting since the weekend with some 14 Latin American nations, that we had had a meeting of the Peace Committee of the OAS, and we had had a meeting of the Council of the OAS. I thought it was very important that we notify all the Latin American Ambassadors forthwith.,So the decision was to notify the Congress and ask them to come down so we could review with them developments, notify the Ambassadors, and ask for an immediate session of the OAS, and to notify the troops, because the lives of our citizens were in danger.,Men were running up and down the corridors of the Ambassador Hotel with tommy-guns, shooting out windows, and through the roof and through the closets. Our citizens were under the beds and in the closets and trying to dodge this gunfire. Our Ambassador, as he was talking to us, was under the desk. We didn't think we had much time to consult in any great detail more than we had talked about up to that time, but we did make the announcement about 8 o'clock and immediately asked the OAS for an urgent meeting the next morning.,Since that time we have had two purposes in mind: One was for them to take action that would give us a military presence and provide a military solution so that we could quit killing people. I think that the Armed Forces are entitled to one of the greatest tributes ever paid that group in war or peace for the marvelous operation they conducted. They moved in there and landed within an hour from the time the Commander in Chief made the decision. They surrounded the hotel and protected the lives of a thousand American citizens and many hundreds of other nationals. They did not lose one civilian. They opened the route of 7 miles to the port and they evacuated 5,600 people. Those people came from 46 different countries.,The next step that we thought should be followed was to provide food and clothing and sustenance for those people, so we sent an economic team of 32 people, headed by Mr. Solomon,12 who was sworn in today as Assistant Under Secretary of State in charge of economic matters. And we started feeding the 3½ million people of the Dominican Republic. We have provided food and other necessities, medicine, since that time, to those people without regard to which side they were on.,12 Anthony M. Solomon, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.,In addition, we have treated more than 15,000 with our medical facilities.,So having gone in and secured the place, having evacuated 5,600 people, and now the commercial planes are running and they can come out on their own stint, having obtained a cease-fire, having provided the economic aid, having sent our best people there to talk to all groups and all factions and leadership, to try to find a government that would appeal to all the Dominican people, we now think that there are two essential things that are left to be done: One is to find a broadly based government under the leadership of the OAS that will be acceptable and approved by the Dominican people; and second, to engage in the comprehensive task of reconstruction of that nation, in trying to make it possible for 3 1/2 million to have an economic comeback.,ALVIN SPINAK(United Press International): Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-04-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad to see that you are willing to trade your new comfort in the West Lobby for these straight-backed chairs in the East Room.,Today I have somewhat of a conflict of emotions. I wanted to give you due and adequate 3-day notice of a press conference, and at the same time I didn't want to manage the news by holding up the announcement of some appointees I have here today, so we have tried to reconcile the two, and a little later in the statement I want to present to you some men that over the weekend I selected to occupy some important posts in Government.,VIET-NAM [2.] We are engaged in a crucial struggle in Viet-Nam. Some may consider it a small war, but to the men who give their lives it is the last war and the stakes are high. Independent South Viet-Nam has been attacked by North Viet-Nam. The object of that attack is total conquest. Defeat in South Viet-Nam would deliver a friendly nation to terror and repression. It would encourage and spur on those who seek to conquer all free nations that are within their reach.,Our own welfare, our own freedom, would be in great danger. This is the clearest lesson of our time. From Munich until today we have learned that to yield to aggression brings only greater threats and brings even more destructive war. To stand firm is the only guarantee of a lasting peace. At every step of the way, we have used our great power with the utmost restraint. We have made every effort possible to find a peaceful solution. We have done this in the face of the most outrageous and brutal provocation against Vietnamese and against Americans alike.,Through the first 7 months of 1964, both Vietnamese and Americans were the targets of constant attacks of terror. Bombs exploded in helpless villages, in downtown movie theaters, even at the sports fields where the children played. Soldiers and civilians, men and women, were murdered and crippled, yet we took no action against the source of this brutality--North Viet-Nam.,When our destroyers were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, as you will remember last summer, we replied promptly with a single raid. The punishment then was limited to the deed. For the next 6 months we took no action against North Viet-Nam. We warned of danger; we hoped for caution in others.,Their answer was attack, and explosions, and indiscriminate murder. So it soon became clear that our restraint was viewed as weakness; our desire to limit conflict was viewed as a prelude to our surrender.,We could no longer stand by while attacks mounted and while the bases of the attackers were immune from reply. Therefore, we began to strike back. But America has not changed her essential position, and that purpose is peaceful settlement. That purpose is to resist aggression. That purpose is to avoid a wider war.,I say again that I will talk to any government, anywhere, any time, without any conditions, and if any doubt our sincerity, let them test us. Each time we have met with silence, or slander, or the sound of guns. But just as we will not flag in battle, we will not weary in the search for peace.,So I reaffirm my offer of unconditional discussions.,We will discuss any subject and any point of view with any government concerned.,This offer may be rejected, as it has been in the past, but it will remain open, waiting for the day when it becomes clear to all that armed attack will not yield domination over others.,And I will continue along the course that we have set: firmness with moderation; readiness for peace with refusal to retreat. For this is the same battle which we fought for a generation. Wherever we have stood firm, aggression has been halted, peace has been restored, and liberty has been maintained. This was true under President Truman, under President Eisenhower, under President Kennedy, and it will be true again in southeast Asia.,THE STEEL AGREEMENT [3.] I want to go now to another subject. I want to congratulate the negotiators for the steel companies and the United Steelworkers union on the statesmanlike agreement that they reached yesterday to extend their contract. I hope and I expect that it will be approved by the union's committee tomorrow. While the settlement reached in steel is only an interim one, I think we can be confident that the final settlement will be a responsible one which fully considers not only the interest of the immediate parties, but also the larger public interest.,1965 WAGE-PRICE STABILITY [4.] So far in 1965 our record of wage-price stability remains intact. A survey of the wage increases on more than 600 collective bargainings settled so far this year shows that on the average the percentage increases were unchanged from the moderate increases agreed on in the same period last year. A number of important settlements were at approximately the level of our guideposts, and this record of private actions is most encouraging.,Today I can report to you and to the Nation that our expanding economy will produce higher Federal revenues this year than we estimated to Congress in January. I can also report that our continuing drive to hold down Government spending will produce lower expenditures this year than we estimated to Congress in January. As a result, we expect the actual budget deficit for fiscal 1965 to be at least $1 billion below the $6,300 million estimated last January when we sent our budget to Congress.,Our expenditures, therefore, will be decreased by approximately $500 million under our estimate, and the revenues collected will be increased by approximately $500 million over our estimates.,NEW JOB CORPS CONSERVATION CAMPS [5.] I am pleased also to announce today that the war on poverty is setting up 10 new Job Corps conservation camps in nine States. They will bring to 87 the number of centers that provide skills and education to our youngsters who are out of school and out of work. These new centers will be located in the States of Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and Washington.,ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENTS [6.] Today I would like to introduce to you some gentlemen that I intend to nominate for new assignments in this administration. First, Mr. Alan Boyd. He is 42 years of age, Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, a distinguished lawyer, and a very competent public servant. Mr. Boyd will become Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, the Senate being willing.1,1 The Senate confirmed the nomination on May 25, 1965.,Mr. Warren Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins is 42 years old, with a master's degree in public administration from Harvard. In 1962 he was chosen one of the 10 outstanding men in the Federal Government. He has been with the Peace Corps since 1961. Today I am nominating him as Deputy Director of the Peace Corps.,Dr. John A. Schnittker. He is 41 years old, with a Ph.D. from Iowa State University. He is one of the Nation's outstanding farm authorities. He has been Director of Agricultural Economics with the Department of Agriculture. Today I am nominating him to become Under Secretary of Agriculture.,Mr. Charles S. Murphy. This judicious and able man has served in Government for 21 years under four Presidents. He was President Truman's Special Counsel in the White House. He has performed with out-standing quality as Under Secretary of Agriculture. Today I am nominating him to become Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board.,Gen. William F. McKee. He is a 4-star general who was Vice Chief of the Air Force and on retirement became special assistant to the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Secretary McNamara has called him one of the most knowledgeable and competent administrators in the Defense Department, with skills in research and development, administration, procurement, and logistics. Today I am nominating him to be the new Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency.,Mr. Wilbur J. Cohen. Mr. Cohen is a dedicated career public servant who has served the Government for 26 years as a full-time civil servant and another 5 years as a consultant. Since 1961 he has been an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Today I am nominating him for a promotion to become Under Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.,Mr. Donald F. Turner. Mr. Turner is 44 years old, a Phi Beta Kappa from Northwestern University. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard, and a law degree from Yale. He has been a law clerk to a Supreme Court Justice and is widely and favorably known throughout the Nation for his work and his writing in the antitrust legal field. He is currently a visiting law professor at Stanford University in California. Today I am nominating him to become Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division.,Mr. Leonard C. Meeker. He is a career attorney with 25 years of Government service. He is a Phi Beta Kappa from Amherst College. Since 1961 he has served as Deputy Legal Adviser in the State Department.,Today I am nominating him to become Legal Adviser in the State Department.,THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC [7.] We are all very much concerned about the serious situation which has developed in the last few hours in the Dominican Republic. Fighting has occurred among different elements of the Dominican armed forces and other groups. Public order in the capital at Santo Domingo has broken down. Due to the gravity of the situation, and the possible danger to the lives of American citizens in the Dominican Republic, I ordered the evacuation of those who wish to leave. As you know, the evacuation is now proceeding.,My latest information is that 1,000 Americans have already been taken aboard ships of the U.S. Navy off the port of Haina, 8 miles west of Santo Domingo. We profoundly deplore the violence and disorder in the Dominican Republic. The situation is grave, and we are following the developments very closely. It is our hope that order can promptly be restored, and that a peaceful settlement of the internal problems can be found.,DEATH OF EDWARD R. MURROW [8.] I have just received the sad news of the passing of Edward R. Murrow. It came to me just a little while ago. I believe that all of us feel a deep sense of loss. We who knew him knew that he was a gallant fighter, a man who dedicated his life both as a newsman and as a public official to an unrelenting search for truth. He subscribed to the proposition that free men and free inquiry are inseparable. He built his life on that unbreakable truth. We have all lost a friend.,I will be glad to take any questions now.,QUESTIONS\nDISCUSSION ON VIET-NAM [9.] Q. Mr. President, do you think any of the participants in the national discussion on Viet-Nam could appropriately be likened to the appeasers of 25 or 30 years ago?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe in characterizing people with labels. I think you do a great disservice when you engage in name calling. We want honest, forthright discussion in this country, and that will be discussion with differences of views, and we welcome what our friends have to say, whether they agree with us or not. I would not want to label people who agree with me or disagree with me.,THE INDIA-PAKISTAN CONFLICT [10.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us your reaction or any information you have on the reports of seemingly intensified fighting between the Indians and the forces of Pakio start, and could this possibly relate or have an effect on the fighting in Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. We deplore fighting wherever it takes place. We have been in dose touch with the situation there. We are very hopeful that ways and means can be found to avoid conflict between these two friends of our country. I talked to Secretary Rusk about it within the hour, and we are anxious to do anything and everything that we can do to see that peace is restored in that area and conflict is ended.,SOVIET NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT PROPOSAL [11.] Q. Mr. President, today the Soviet Union agreed to a French proposal for a 5-power nuclear disarmament conference which would include Communist China as a nuclear power. What would be your attitude to this proposal, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not studied the proposal and was not familiar with the fact that it had been made.,REACTIONS TO JOHNS HOPKINS ADDRESS [12.] Q. Mr. President, the only formal answer so far to your Baltimore speech 2 was that by the North Vietnamese Prime Minister, Pham Van Dong, who offered a 4-point formula which he suggested was a possible basis for negotiations. My question is, do you regard the 4 points as so unacceptable as to be a complete rejection of your offer to begin discussions, or are there portions of the 4 points which interest you and which you might be willing to discuss?,2 Item 172. [ APP Note: Address at Johns Hopkins University: \"Peace Without Conquest.\" April 7, 1965. ],THE PRESIDENT. I think it was very evident from the Baltimore speech that most of the non-Communist countries in the world welcomed the proposal in that speech, and most of the Communist countries found objections with it. I am very hopeful that some ways and means can be found to bring the parties who are interested in southeast Asia to a conference table. Just what those ways and means will be, I do not know. But every day we explore to the limit of our capacity every possible political and diplomatic move that would bring that about.,USE OF CHINESE VOLUNTEERS Q. Mr. President, I wonder, sir, if you could evaluate for us the threat that has been posed by Red China to send volunteers into Viet-Nam if we escalate the war further?,THE PRESIDENT. We have read their statements from time to time, and the statements of other powers about what they propose 2 Item 172. to do. We are in close touch with the situation. That is all I think I would like to say on that matter.,THE WAR ON POVERTY [13.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some criticism at the local level in this country of your war on poverty, and one of the chief complaints is that the local community action groups do not represent the poor. Have you found any basis for this criticism, and do you feel that criticism such as this could have a demoralizing effect on the overall program?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think there has been unjust criticism and unfair criticism and uninformed criticism of the poverty program even before Congress passed it. Some people opposed it every step of the way. Some people oppose it now.,I don't know of any national program in peacetime that has reached so many people so fast and so effectively. Over 16,000 Americans have already volunteered to live and work with the Peace Corps domestically. A quarter of a million young men have joined the Job Corps. Every major city has developed poverty plans and made application for funds. Three hundred State, city, and county community action programs have already received their money. Forty-five thousand students from needy families are already enrolled in 800 colleges under the work program. More than 125,000 adults are trainees in adult education on the work-experience program.,We will have difficulties. We will have politicians attempting to get some jobs in the local level. We will have these differences as we do in all of our programs, but I have great confidence in Sargent Shriver 3 as an administrator and as a man, and I have great confidence in the wisdom the Congress displayed in passing the poverty program. I think it will be one of the great monuments to this administration.,3 Director, Office of Economic Opportunity.,FOREIGN ATTITUDES TOWARDS U.S. POLICY IN VIET-NAM [14.] Q. Mr. President, is it true that the United States is losing, rather than making, friends around the world, with its policy in Viet-Nam--sort of a failing domino theory in reverse ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we have friends throughout the world. I am not concerned with any friends that we have lost. Following my Baltimore speech, I received from our allies almost a universal approval. Our enemies would have you believe that we are following policies that are ill-advised, but we are following the same policies in Asia that we followed in Europe, that we followed in Turkey and Greece and Iran. We are resisting aggression, and as long as the aggressors attack, we will stay there and resist them--whether we make friends or lose friends.,THE VOTING RIGHTS BILL [15.] Q. Mr. President, your voting rights bill is moving toward completion in the Senate this week. Do you think that proposal--the amendment to abolish the poll tax--would make this unconstitutional? Do you think it would damage the passage of the bill in the House and what do you think about it generally ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is being worked out in the conferences they are having today, and they will have in the next few weeks. I have always opposed the poll tax. I am opposed to it now. I have been advised by constitutional lawyers that we have a problem in repealing the poll tax by statute. For that reason, while a Member of Congress, I initiated and supported a constitutional amendment to repeal the poll tax in Federal elections.,I think the bill as now drawn will not permit the poll tax to be used to discriminate against voters, and I think the administration will have adequate authority to prevent its use for that purpose. I have asked the Attorney General, however, to meet with the various Members of the House and Senate who are interested in this phase of it, and if possible, take every step that he can within constitutional bounds to see that the poll tax is not used as a discrimination against any voter anywhere.,THE BOMBING OF NORTH VIET-NAM [16.] Q. Mr. President, a number of critics of your Viet-Nam policy say they support our presence in South Viet-Nam, but do not support the bombing raids to the North. I wondered if there is anything you can say to them, and what you can say on any conditions that might arise under which you feel the raids could be stopped?,THE PRESIDENT. I said in my opening statement that we went for months without destroying a bridge, or an ammunition depot, or a radar station. Those military targets have been the primary targets that we have attacked. There is no blood in a bridge made of concrete and steel, but we do try to take it out so that people cannot furnish additional troops and additional equipment to kill the people of South Viet-Nam, and to kill our own soldiers. There are not many civilians involved in a radar station, but we do try to make it ineffective so that they cannot plot our planes and shoot our boys out of the skies.,There are not many individuals involved in an ammunition dump, but we have tried to destroy that ammunition so that it would be exploded in North Viet-Nam and not in the bodies of the people of South Viet-Nam or our American soldiers.,We have said time and time again that we regret the necessity of doing this, but as long as aggression continues, as long as they bomb in South Viet-Nam, as long as they bomb our sports arenas, and our theaters, and our embassies, and kill our women and our children and the Vietnamese soldiers, several thousand of whom have been killed since the first of the year, we think that we are justified in trying to slow down that operation and make them realize that it is very costly, and that their aggression should cease.,I do sometimes wonder how some people can be so concerned with our bombing a cold bridge of steel and concrete in North Viet-Nam, but never open their mouths about a bomb being placed in our embassy in South Viet-Nam. The moment that this aggression ceases, the destruction of their bridges and their radar stations and the ammunition that they use on our bodies will cease.,POSTPONEMENT OF AYUB AND SHASTRI VISITS [17.] Q. Mr. President, on your cancellation of the Ayub and Shastri 4 visits, some of your critics have said that the reasons for your postponement were sound, but the abruptness of it left millions of Asians angry at this country. Is anything being done to correct that impression on their part?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I would not assume many parts of your statement.,4 Mohammed Ayub Khan, President of Pakistan, and Lal Bahadur Shastri, Prime Minister of India.,First, we didn't cancel it. So that is the first error that the critics have made. We feel very friendly toward the people of India and the Government of India; toward the people of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan. I have spent some time in both of those countries. I have had the leaders of those countries visit me in this country and visit in my home.,I have before the Congress now recommendations concerning the peoples of those countries and how we can work together to try to achieve peace in the world.,I said through the appropriate channels to those governments that I had had some eight or nine visitors already the first 90 days of this administration; that the Congress was hopeful that it would get out of here in early summer; that we had approximately 75 top important measures that we were trying to get considered and passed, one of which vitally affected that part of the world; and that I could be much more communicative and could respond much more to their suggestions and to their recommendations on the future of India and their 5-year plan, and Pakistan and their plan, if our visit could follow the enactment of some of these bills instead of preceding them, because if it preceded them, I could not speak with authority. I would not know what the Congress would do.,We have spent in excess of $10 billion in that area, and this year we will propose expenditures of more than $1 billion. But if the Congress said no to me and didn't pass the foreign aid bill or materially reduced it, I would have made a commitment that I could not support, so I said, \"If you would like to come now in the month of May or June, during this period, we can have a visit, but we will not be able to be as responsive as I would like to be if you could come a little later in the year.\",I have been host a few times in my life and when you put things that way, most people want to come at the time that would be most convenient to us, to the host, and would be most helpful to them. We communicated that to the appropriate people, and the answer came back that they would accept that decision.,I think it was a good decision in our interest and I think it was a good decision in their interest. I am very sorry that our people have made a good deal of it, but the provocation of the differences sometimes comes about, and I regret it. So far as I know, it is a good decision, and a wise one, and one that I would make again tomorrow.,USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS [18.] Q. Mr. President, in light of the news reports that came over the weekend, I wonder if you could clarify for us your position concerning the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, I have the responsibility for decision on nuclear weapons. That rests with the President. It is the most serious responsibility that rests with him. Secretary McNamara very carefully and very clearly in his television appearance yesterday covered that subject thoroughly, and I think adequately.5 There is not anything that I could really add to what he said.,5 The text of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's statement, made at a televised news conference at the Pentagon, is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 52, p. 752).,I would observe this: that I have been President for 17 months, and I have sat many hours and weeks with the officials of this Government in trying to plan for the protection and security of our people. I have never had a suggestion from a single official of this Government or employee of this Government concerning the use of such weapons in this area. The only person that has ever mentioned it to me has been a newspaperman writing a story, and each time I tell them, \"Please get it out of your system. Please forget it. There is just not anything to it. No one has discussed it with us at all.\",I think that when Secretary McNamara told you of the requirement yesterday and that no useful purpose was served by going into it further, I thought it had ended there.,VIET-NAM [19.] Q. Mr. President, the North Vietnamese today, sir, say that in a raid on Sunday the United States and the South Vietnamese used what they called toxic chemicals. Could you tell us, sir, what they might be talking about ?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't know. I frequently see statements they make that we never heard of. I don't know about the particular report that you mentioned.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, could there come about, as you now see the situation in Viet-Nam--could there be circumstances in which large numbers of American troops might be engaged in the fighting of the war rather than in the advising and assistance to the South Vietnamese ?,THE PRESIDENT. Our purpose in Viet-Nam is, as you well know, to advise and to assist those people in resisting aggression. We are performing that duty there now. I would not be able to anticipate or to speculate on the conduct of each individual in the days ahead. I think that if the enemy there believes that we are there to stay, that we are not going to tuck our tails and run home and abandon our friends, I believe in due time peace can be observed in that area.,My objective is to contribute what we can to assist the people of South Viet-Nam who have lost thousands of lives defending their country, and to provide the maximum amount of deterrent with the minimum cost. They have lost thousands of people since February. We have lost some 40 to 50 people of our own. We could not anticipate in February whether we would lose 50 or whether we would lose 500. That depends on the fortunes and the problems of conflict. But I can assure you that we are being very careful--that we are being very studious--that we are being very deliberate--that we are trying to do everything we can within reason to convince these people that they should not attack, that they should not be aggressors, that they should not try to swallow up their neighbor, and we are doing it with the minimum amount of expenditures of lives that we can spend.,THE STEEL AGREEMENT [21.] Q. Mr. President, labor and management in steel have differing versions of what their increase in productivity is. Can you tell us what your advisers figure this is, and whether you think a settlement in excess of the 2.7 percent of the interim agreement would be acceptable?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to pass on it. We have laid down the guideposts. They are well acquainted with them--both management and employees. They have had very responsible negotiations, and we are very pleased with the outcome of those negotiations. We anticipate that they will be confirmed by both parties very shortly, and we believe between now and the September deadline that we will have an agreement. I don't think that I have ever observed a period in the life of free enterprise in this country when American labor and American business have been more responsible, and have been more anxious to work with their Government in maintaining full productivity, and I expect that that will come about.,Merriman Smith (United Press International): Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-04-08","text":"PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHEAST ASIA THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Earlier in the day the Secretary General 1 wrote me in reference to my speech last evening 2 and I am replying to him expressing my pleasure at his reaction. I am asking Mr. Black, 3 who incidentally is governmental and fiscal adviser to a good many people, including the President and Mr. U Thant, to get together with and assure the Secretary General of our desire to be helpful in connection with any southeast Asian plan that could be evolved.,1 U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations.,2 Item 172.,3 Eugene Black, adviser to the President on southeast Asian social and economic development.,Mr. Black will convey my views to him and ask him for any further suggestions he may want us to consider. In the meantime, we will be awaiting any suggestions that may come from that area of the world, or that Mr. U Thant may make to us.,Mr. Connor, the Secretary of Commerce, was here earlier and had to leave for a speaking engagement. Ambassador Stevenson 4 was here earlier and had to leave for a speaking engagement. Mr. Black is here now and will have to leave for some other kind of engagement.,4 Adlai E. Stevenson, U.S. Representative to the United Nations.,You can ask him any questions. Just have mercy on him.,QUESTIONS Q. Do you have any date for meeting with U Thant?,MR. BLACK. No. I just learned about this yesterday and I came down today, as the President said, for a further understanding of this, and so I have not been in touch with the Secretary General.,THE PRESIDENT. I might add that I had some remarks with General Eisenhower yesterday before I made my speech, and he called me this afternoon while we were in the meeting. I talked to him and he said that he had listened to the speech last evening with great interest. And he commended my approval of--my selection of Mr. Black and the general statement I made with regard to his work, and he sent his good wishes to Mr. Black. I asked Mr. Black to come in and talk to him, also. The General is coming east at the end of the month. 5,5 Gen, Dwight D. Eisenhower was returning to his home at Gettysburg, Pa., after spending some time at Palm Springs, Calif.,Q. What was that about Easter, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. The General is coming east toward the end of the month, coming to Gettysburg about the first of the month. We'll have a further meeting after he gets back.,Q. Of additional members of the committee?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there won't be any until the Secretary General and people out there have a chance to move--until we have further meetings.,Q. Mr. Black, may I ask you about the mechanics of what you are going to be setting up? I am sure there are a lot of these countries that would like to stand in line for their checks, but you have to set up a new committee with the U.N. Secretary General and with those countries out there. Or how is this?,MR. BLACK. We just don't know yet.,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure as you are about standing \"in line for their checks.\" What we are going to do first is say to the Secretary General, \"Here is the feeling of this country\"--in somewhat more detail than we outlined last night--and we are going to await his pleasure and the application of his wisdom and knowledge of that area and see what they come up with. And we will see where we go from there.,Q. Mr. Black, admitting there is preliminary thinking about this project, might we look forward to any involvement with any developed nations with or without additional ties in that area?,MR. BLACK. I would think this is very likely. As a matter of fact, there has been some preliminary interest expressed by some already.,Q. Could you mention some of them? MR. BLACK. I would rather not.,Q. These are developed countries? MR. BLACK. Yes.,Q. Do we know whether the billion dollars would be grants or loans?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think you can put the cart before the horse, fellows. I told you last night what I felt I would like to see evolve and what I would recommend. What I said was I would like the Secretary General to use his knowledge of that area and the leadership and prestige of his office, and that is where he will go. That is what he will come back with, what programs--it won't come from this station.,Q. Mr. Black, you had a great deal of experience as President of the World Bank in bringing India and Pakistan together. Do you see another sort of negotiating role for yourself in getting these nations to work together when there has been so much trouble in that area?,MR. BLACK. I think that is what we hope for.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan to bring General Eisenhower into this program more than this consultant position or just conferring with him again generally ?,THE PRESIDENT. I talked to President Truman and General Eisenhower at every opportunity I had--I always seek their advice and counsel--and he called me this afternoon and just told me he heard the speech. I told you everything that happened after that.,Q. Mr. President, is the next step then the meeting with Secretary General U Thant?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. U Thant, and he takes it from there and you go with him from there on.,Q. This committee, I understand, Mr. President, is a governmental committee. Am I wrong in that?,THE PRESIDENT. This is a committee of certain people from the Government to work in this area. Mr. Black is the committee for the moment. Maybe after Mr. U Thant and the Asian planners come up with their suggestions I may add to that committee.,Q. From the outside?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether it will be Baptists, Methodists--it might be a welfare group. He is the committee at the moment and we will add to it when we need it. These people are going to outline to him what the resources of the Government are, and appropriations are, and what we are doing. He is going to carry what information he has to Mr. U Thant, and Mr. U Thant will take it wherever he wants to. He will get back to us and if Mr. Black wants a committee of four more or eight more we will work it out. I am not trying to discriminate against anyone in Government or out.,STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING HOUSE APPROVAL OF MEDICARE BILL [2.] Q. Mr. President, on another subject, what do you think of the House passing the medical bill ?,THE PRESIDENT. I just happen to have it here.,[Reading] \"This is a landmark day in the historic evolution of our Social Security System. The overwhelming vote of support in the House of Representatives for the Social Security Amendments of 1965 demonstrates once again the vitality of our democratic system in responding to the needs and will of the people.,\"In 1935 the passage of the original Social Security Act opened up a new era of expanding income security for our older citizens. Now, in 1965, we are moving once again to open still another frontier: that of health security. For an older person good health is his most precious asset. Access to the best our doctors, hospitals, and other providers of health service have to offer is his most urgent need.,\"Today the whole country has reason to be grateful to the Members and leadership of the House for responding positively to the carefully devised proposals of the House Ways and Means Committee to deal in a practical way with a historic idea 'whose time has come.',\"As Senator Harry Byrd 6 has already indicated he will have hearings in the Senate Finance Committee. I believe that speedy Senate action may convert this monumental bill to the final reality of an enacted law.\",6 Senator Harry Flood Byrd of Virginia, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PLANS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA [3.] Q. Could we return to one final question on southeast Asia, sir? We all understand that the plan is in its preliminary stages, but have you talked about the scope of the plan?,THE PRESIDENT. It is an idea now and the plan will be evolved later.,Q. Will it include possibly India, on the one hand, and Indonesia, on the other?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not going to get down to countries or even individuals now. We are just going to say to Mr. Black: Here is what the Government is doing, here is what the President said, here are my views. I have just gone over with him a quotation of my report to President Kennedy on May 6, 1961, which may give you a little more feel of my view:,\"Any help, economic as well as military, we give less developed nations to secure and maintain their freedom must be a part of a mutual effort. These nations cannot be saved by United States help alone. To the extent the southeast Asian nations are prepared to take the necessary measures to make our assistance effective, we can be and we must be unstinted in our assistance. It would be helpful to enunciate more clearly than we have in guidance of these nations what we expect or require of them.\",Now, that was 3 or 4 years ago, when I was meeting with the United Nations Economic Group out in Saigon. This statement followed that meeting. My March 25th statement 7 indicated what I thought would be the good course to follow--that the Secretary General use his influence in the area, and have the Asian planners plan a program for southeast Asia, and we would be glad to participate. Last night I expressed the hope that the Secretary General would use his knowledge of the area and prestige of his office to evolve the plan. Now you want me to evolve it for him. That I am not going to do, either by individual country or by individual program.,7 Item 130.,We are doing a good many things in agriculture, in medicine, in aid, and all these things now. We told Mr. Black what those things are. We are spending almost a billion dollars a year in the Department of Defense for what we are doing in that area now-bombs, bullets, planes, and supporting them, and all those things, and spending $450 to $500 million in addition in military assistance. We are spending in aid and Public Law 480 funds in southeast Asia some 400-odd millions more.,So, we indicated last night as a goal, if we could in some way find peace we would like to bring our men home right away. We would like to take some of these resources now being used and instead of converting them into bombs and bullets put them into food, medicine, and clothes, and economic development--like the Mekong River development and how that comes out, how much we put in and what others put in. What nations come in and what nations are developed is somewhere down the road, and we hope Mr. U Thant and the southeast Asians evolve that.,Q. Mr. President. this is already being called a Marshall plan for southeast Asia. Is that label familiar to you?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not heard it yet. I don't think we have a plan yet. As I have tried to state several times, the idea here, an indication of our willingness, what we are saying to Mr. Black he will be saying to the Secretary General, that here is what I think the President had in mind, in detail, and we will be waiting to see what the Secretary General says.,I am saying to the Secretary General something like this: \"I am greatly encouraged about my speech last night. I welcome your assurance of your own continuing concern for peaceful settlement of Viet-Nam. I am asking Ambassador Stevenson to keep in dose touch with you on these matters.\" And Mr. Black will also be talking to him about what went on this afternoon.,I want to stress and emphasize: we expect it to be a plan formulated under the leadership, guidance, and prestige of the Secretary General and which we want the people of southeast Asia to do the planning and to lay out the program which we will try to fit our resources into. Is that clear?,I know how much you can use some extra copy, but it is not going to be formulated here. It is going to be formulated out there and it will come back here and we will act on it.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-04-01","text":"THE UNEMPLOYMENT RECORD FOR MARCH THE PRESIDENT. [I.] The Department of Labor has today reported the latest gains in our continuing national effort to reduce unemployment in this country.,The news is very good. In March, unemployment fell to the lowest rate in 89 months--it fell to 4.7 percent; 70.2 million Americans were at work, 1.7 million more than a year ago. At the same time the actual number of jobless persons was 3,740,000, the lowest March level in 8 years.,I am having a careful analysis made of these 3,740,000 in an attempt to see how we can encourage them and help them to find jobs which they are qualified to fill.,There is much good news economically this year. We should be a grateful people. The news of this gain on employment is the best, and the most important of all.,It means that more and more Americans are getting opportunities that they want for useful and for productive work. I believe that the single most important test of the performance of this American economic system is our ability to provide a job for all who need a job.,The record is a tribute to all sectors of our economy--labor, business, and our public policies. I think it proves what we can do when we work together, when labor trusts business, and both trust Government, and Government trusts them.,A year ago we eased the burden of our taxes on our economy. We looked forward confidently to a more vigorous prosperity with more and better jobs. The results have confirmed our confidence.,I believe that by trusting the working of our free enterprise system--by making wise use of our Federal governmental policies-we in America can continue to sustain our prosperity and provide job opportunities for all persons willing and able to work. Today we are entering the 50th consecutive month of economic expansion and prosperity. This is the longest uninterrupted record in American history.,I have today called upon the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Willard Wirtz, and the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Jack Connor, as well as leaders of both labor and business, to continue the cooperative efforts which are proving so productive and so successful in supporting America's economic strength.1,1 See Item 153,Good as it is, 4.7 percent unemployment is too high.,That figure means that the number of unemployed in our economy is equal to or greater than the individual populations of at least two-thirds of our States--States like Connecticut or Kansas or Tennessee or the State of Washington.,That many is too many.,With so many Americans doing so well these days, it is more important than ever that we shall not forget nor neglect those who are not sharing in the production or the enjoyment of American abundance.,This outstanding record is convincing proof for my own long-held and often repeated belief that our potential in this country is unlimited if all segments will concentrate on cooperation instead of contention, on helping each other instead of harassing one another.,It is my wish and my hope that our leaders of labor and of business will continue working together as they have done increasingly over the last 50 months. Let us put the public interest, the national interest, and America's interest always first by seeking those areas of agreement which unite us instead of searching for those things which divide us. If we do that, the result will be a strong and a secure and a successful America for all our people.,THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BILL [2.] Those Members of the Senate Education Subcommittee who today unanimously approved the administration's education bill are participating in one of the historic victories of the American Nation.,Once this bill becomes law, as I am confident it will, and I hope soon, those who shared in its enactment will have earned the gratitude of future generations of Americans. I am told that the leadership of the Senate-I was informed of this by Senator Mansfield 2 a little earlier--hopes to bring this bill before the Senate for debate and for action this coming Tuesday and Wednesday. If the full committee reports it Tuesday, it is hoped that they can take it up Wednesday, and it would be a wonderful thing for this country if we could have the bill passed before the end of the week.3,2 Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, majority leader of the Senate.,3 The bill was passed by the Senate on April 9 and was approved by the President on April 11 (see Item 181).,This bill has a very simple purpose. Its purpose is to improve the education of young Americans. It will help them master the mysteries of their world. It will help them enrich their minds and learn the skills of work. These tools can open an entirely new world for them.,With education, instead of being condemned to poverty and idleness, young Americans can learn the skills to find a job and provide for a family. Instead of boredom and frustration they can find excitement and pleasure in their hours of rest. Instead of squandering and wasting their talents they can use these talents to benefit themselves and the country in which they live.,How many young lives have been wasted ? How many entire families now live in misery? How much talent has this great, powerful Nation lost because America has failed to give all our children a chance to learn?,Each day's delay in building an educational system means 2,700 school dropouts--2,700 wasted and blighted lives. Last year almost one out of every three draftees were rejected by the armed services because they could not read or write at the eighth grade level.,Today, as I speak, 8 million adult Americans have not finished 5 years of school; 20 million have not finished 8 years of school; and it is shocking that nearly 54 million have not finished high school at all.,This is a shocking waste of human resources. We can measure the cost in many other terms. We now spend about $450 a year per child in our public schools. But we spend $1,800 a year to keep a delinquent youth in a detention home; $2,500 for a family on relief; and $3,500 a year, almost $300 a month, for a criminal in a State prison. In other words, we are spending almost as much per month to keep a criminal in a State prison as it costs us to keep a child in our public schools.,Education is the most economical investment that we can make in this Nation's future.,From the very beginning, knowledge for all was the key to success in the American experiment. The duty to provide that knowledge has rested on each successive generation. It weighs most heavily on us. For as society has grown more intricate the need for learning has grown more intense. And the rapid growth of the Nation threatens to outdistance the capacities of the school systems we now have. The result is that millions of young Americans are denied their full right to develop their minds.,The administration bill reported by the Senate subcommittee under the leadership of Chairman Morse 4 this morning is a bill that represents a national determination that this shall no longer be true. Poverty will no longer be a bar to learning, and learning shall offer an escape from poverty. We will neither dissipate the skills of our people nor deny them the fullness of a life that is informed by knowledge. We will liberate each young mind in every part of this land to reach to the farthest limits of thought and imagination.,4 Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, chairman of the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.,QUESTIONS\nCLARIFICATION OF REMARKS MADE AT CANCER CONTROL CEREMONY [3.] Q. Mr. President, could you clarify that statement about the money you had to borrow to pay your taxes? s Some of us were a little confused on that. Some of us were not sure whether you borrowed a hundred thousand or had to pay a hundred thousand.,THE PRESIDENT. No, we had a tax of about a hundred thousand and that included the tax this year and the advance payment that you make on your estimated tax for the next year which will be paid on April 15. And a good deal of that tax this year had been deducted in your check that comes to you each month and for the remaining part I borrowed a portion of it and had a portion of it.,That was not the point, though, that I tried to get over to the press. The point I hoped you would get was that people whose lives had been spared the dreadful consequences of heart attacks--if you spend that money saving those lives you get that money back in the form of taxes. I will make another appeal to you to get as excited about that as you are just where I got my money and how much. That is really not important, that part of it, but it is important that people who have cancer, heart attacks, and strokes find an answer to those problems so 5 See p. 361. they can continue going on living, continue producing, continue earning, and finally, continue paying taxes because they will be with us as long as we live.,PROPOSAL FOR A BOYCOTT IN ALABAMA [4.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your view of Dr. King's call for a boycott of Alabama? 6,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have any comment to make at this time. I saw his statement on the television on Sunday and I will follow with concern any developments in that area but I would not want to pass judgment on the effects of some plan that I am not aware of and to what extent and how it will be practiced.,6 The proposal of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, for an economic boycott of Alabama was set forth during his appearance on the television program, \"Meet the Press,\" on Sunday, March 28.,I think we must be very careful to see that we do not punish the innocent in this country while we are trying to protect all of our people and that we do not hurt those who through no fault of their own could be damaged without any real reason.,I don't know what his recommendations will be. I understand they are being worked on and until I know more about them I don't want to be premature and make some statement without having information that would justify a conclusion.,EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES [5.] Q. Sir, have the hearings of the McClellan committee on the conduct of the banking business raised any question in your mind of the efficiency of the operation or the control of the currency ?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, they have raised a good many questions about it in my mind--on the efficiency of the operation not only of the banking system but of the regulatory functions of various agencies of the Government. We are giving most serious consideration to these questions now. We were doing that even before the McClellan committee had its hearings. We have no doubt they will make a valuable contribution to it and I would not be surprised if the executive and legislative departments improve upon some of their regulatory functions.,OUR COURSE OF ACTION IN VIET-NAM [6.] Q. Mr. President, does it seem to you, sir, that the U.S. bombings of North Viet-Nam are bringing any results ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we are following a course of action that is calculated to best represent the interests of this Nation, and beyond that I see no real good that would flow from prophesies or predictions. I sometimes think that we do not really give as much consideration as we ought to on the problems of our country and the interest of our country and the need in our country to accept and understand pictures before making judgments and recommendations.,I earnestly believe that your Government has the ablest military leadership in the world. I genuinely believe that the most experienced and patriotic and knowledgeable men that are available in the United States are providing leadership in the diplomatic and political field under the guidance of Secretary Rusk. 7 I know that those associated with me in the White House love peace and hate war and are willing to do anything that honorable people can do to try to discuss our .problems and solve them in ways short of destroying human beings. But our concerns and our conduct sometimes are determined to a degree by the conduct of other people.,7 Secretary of State Dean Rusk.,We have a commitment to the people of South Viet-Nam. That commitment is not only the result of the commitment President Eisenhower made in his letter 8 but that the Congress of the United States--the Senate made in its vote of 82 to 1 in approving the SEATO Treaty which provided that in effect when any nation was attacked and asked for our help, any signatories of that treaty would receive that help. So we have that commitment; if we ignore that treaty, we might as well tear up all the treaties we are party to.,8 See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower. 1954,\" Item 306.,But just so that everyone could have a chance to participate and there would be no one-man decisions, I asked the Congress for their decision and their judgment last August and by a vote of 502 to 2 they approved the Commander in Chief taking all efforts necessary to prevent aggression in South Viet-Nam and to try to keep that little nation from being swallowed up by aggressors. Now, for 16 months since I inherited this problem I have tried to provide a cautious leadership and an effective leadership and attempted to prevail upon people to stop this aggression. We are continuing to exercise all the diplomatic and political leadership that is possible and conceivable at this end. But if that does not succeed, we do not plan to come running home and abandon this little nation or tear up our commitments or go back on our word.,We seek no wider war, as I have stated many times, and I would appeal to our own people who are concerned by the roar of a plane that may destroy a building but kill no people, to be equally as concerned when bombs are thrown into our embassies and American citizens are carried out on stretchers and American lives are taken. I would appeal to all of the folks who detest war to also be concerned when American compounds are entered and bombs are dropped on American soldiers and they lose their lives by the dozens.,So we will try to take such measures as are appropriate and fitting and measures that are calculated to deter the aggressor. And we think in due time the course of justice and wisdom will prevail.,Q. Mr. President, you referred to the attack on our embassy in Saigon. Will there be any direct reprisals for any such acts of terrorism in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a course that we have undertaken there, that has been formulated throughout the months of my Presidency. That course will be followed and from time to time we hope to improve on its efficiency and its effectiveness. We think that we are utilizing the resources we have, wisely and effectively. I see no real point in you or any individual getting into the details of the targets and the strategy.,I was reading last night a good many statements made by General Marshall and President Eisenhower and others, and I hope that any time you really have a need-to-know on military plans that you will ask yourself if you need to know bad enough that you would want this announcement made if your boy was executing the plan.,THE INVITATION TO SOVIET LEADERS [7.] Q. Mr. President, on the peace side of this problem, we haven't heard much in recent weeks about the possibility of an exchange of visits between the leaders of the Soviet Union and yourself. Are we still planning that for the end of this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the statement that I made 9 is still as I made it, that I would welcome a visit from them, and I don't know how many times you want to hear it. Maybe at the moment such a visit would not appeal to the people of Russia or the leaders of Russia, but I extended the invitation and it was a genuine one. I would be very happy to see them accept it because I think when we know each other better, when they learn what we are doing here in America, that there will be better understanding. I would be happy to welcome them.,9 See Item 22 [8].,POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATIONS ON VIET-NAM [8.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything in the whole international scene that gives you any evidence of a willingness on the part of the Communists to negotiate the situation in Viet-Nam ?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no indication and no evidence that they are ready and willing to negotiate under conditions that would be productive. I know of no information we have received that would indicate that any conference at this time would be productive or would hold out hopes of achieving what we all desire so much--peace in the world.,THE RECORD OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND OF CONGRESS [9.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the action that Congress is taking so far on the recommendations you have made ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think all Americans would be very proud of the achievements of the first 60 or 70 days of this administration, since the inauguration. We have made more than 300 reports to the Congress; we have submitted more than 200 bills to the Congress. Most of our major bills are moving and, after careful deliberation but with reasonable speed, we expect to pass in the House in the coming week the medical care bill. It will be one of the great achievements of any Congress in the history of this Nation. We expect to pass next week the most comprehensive, far-reaching, all-inclusive education bill ever introduced in the Congress, or considered seriously by the Congress. We have already passed the Appalachia bill and very shortly will proceed to the poverty bill which will provide jobs for our people. We have hearings going in both Houses on the voter fights bill. We expect before this month is out we will have those bills on the President's desk. There will be improvements made in our recommendations. We have no mortgage on all the imagination and all the judgment in the country.,We have great respect for the judgments of the Congress. Men from both sides of the aisles are making contributions to all this legislation and are being cooperative and helpful. I think we have a minimum amount of partisanship. I think we have a maximum production. The Senate has already passed 15 substantial measures in this program. I think you will find that they have passed more measures already than were passed the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration, about which you have been writing for 30-odd years.,So I would congratulate the Congress and the leaders of both parties for the contributions they have made toward advancing that legislation, and if any of the leaders of either party didn't make any contributions--well, I'd turn the other cheek.,VETERANS HOSPITALS [10.] Q. Mr. President, how is the proposal coming for closing VA hospitals?,THE PRESIDENT. The Veterans Committee of the House had some hearings throughout the last several weeks. I have been reading those hearings every evening. I have carefully read the testimony of some of the representatives of the areas where hospitals were closed and I must, in frankness, say that some doubt in my own mind has resulted from reading their statements.,I have asked the Veterans Administrator 10 to personally go to each of these hospitals and to take another review of them. I have asked him to take each hospital and give his reasons for advocating that they be closed, in the light of the statements of the Congress, Members of the House and the Senate who have given their reasons why they don't think they should be closed. I am giving serious consideration after he makes his statement to evaluating all the evidence to see if we have made a mistake or if we have erred in any way or if our judgment in each instance has been correct. The Veterans Administrator, I believe, went to four or five last week, and he will go to six or seven this weekend. And he has either testified today or will testify early next week. And all the time I will be reviewing it and I may ask some other people to help me with that task. 11,10 William J. Driver, Administrator of Veterans Affairs.,11 A committee to review the closing of veterans hospitals was appointed by the President on April 3 (see Item 163).,I am very anxious to see that no injustice is done. Our people, all of them who studied the details of it, feel they were justified in that decision, but candor compels me to admit that I have seen some of the hospitals and some of the testimony on them and they have raised doubts in my own mind as to whether we were 100 percent right.,VIET-NAM; GENERAL TAYLOR'S REPORT [11.] Q. Mr. President, General Taylor 12 said yesterday he would be bringing you some definitive proposals today. Do you envision anything very dramatic in those proposals?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know exactly how to answer that \"dramatic\" term. I think that we will be exchanging viewpoints on how we can improve America's position and how we can be of increased help, give increased efficiency to our effort to help the South Vietnamese people. I think that we are inclined to be too dramatic about our prophesies and our predictions and I might say too irresponsible sometimes.,This is a very serious matter. Many men are dying because of the problem that exists there with the aggressors and the infiltrators coming in from North Viet-Nam, hitting our compounds at 2 o'clock in the morning. So when I see and hear people say that there is a group here on one side and a group here on the other side and there is great division here, we are moving to a great critical decision, I am afraid that they have a good hat but not a very solid judgment on their shoulders or on their head.,I know of no division in the American Government, I know of no far-reaching strategy that is being suggested or promulgated. I hear the commentators--I heard one yesterday and heard one today--talk about the dramatics of this situation, the great struggle that was coming about between various men and the top level conferences that were in the offing, where revolutionary decisions were being made, and I,12 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, United States Ambassador to Viet-Nam. turned off one of my favorite networks and walked out of the room. Mrs. Johnson said, \"What did you say?\" And I said, \"I didn't say anything but if you are asking me what I think, I would say God forgive them for they know not what they do.\",USE OF TEAR GAS IN VIET-NAM [12.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in the world about our use of tear gas--nonlethal gas--in Viet-Nam. Would you set the record straight on what happened ?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the record is pretty straight on it already. They filed a story out there that indicated--the first story filed--that America was engaged in gas warfare. The implications of that story were that we were using poisonous gas-mustard gas or a war gas--to kill people. It took the Government about 2 weeks to catch up with that story and I am not sure it has caught up. But most of the people that have gotten the facts understand that where women and children are involved, where American citizens are involved, where the enemy is involved, it is not always the better course of wisdom, notwithstanding some suggestions that we always have available and free to us--it is not always the better course of wisdom to handle that situation with machine-guns or bombs or implements of war that bring death, because while you might kill a few Viet Cong, you might also kill some Americans, and you might murder some innocent victims, women and children.,The type of gas that is a standard item in the South Vietnamese military forces, antiriot item, can be purchased by any individual from open stocks in this country just like you order something out of a Sears Roebuck catalog--I don't mean Sears Roebuck is handling the gas, but a catalog almost that large--any of you can order it. And if you felt that I was endangering your life and your family you could use it on me right now in this room and it would bring some tears, it would nauseate me for--some of them for 3 minutes and some of them 5 minutes, and sometimes up to an hour. It would not kill me or kill you.,It was used in upstate New York and in the city of New York; it was used in Maryland; it was used in Alabama. The chief of police in Washington has it now and if in the interest of saving lives and protecting people it should be used, the chief of police no doubt would use it now. But if you wrote a big story and made a big broadcast and said the chief of police is using gas warfare under orders of the Commander in Chief or something, it would excite people, because the word \"gas\" is like the word \"dope,\" it is an ugly word. And until you get all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you have a lot of people making misjudgments.,Now I knew nothing about the gas. No one told me that the South Vietnamese were going to use any tear gas any more than they told me that they were going to shoot this fellow that left the bomb in his car in front of our embassy, but there is no reason why they should. If the United States military forces were going to use poisonous gas, of course the Commander in Chief would know about it and of course he would authorize it and of course he would have to approve it--if he ever entertained such a thought--before it could be used. But the chief of police likely wouldn't call me, and the allied governments that have used it don't call me, and the allied government of South Viet-Nam didn't call me.,I think that Senator Fulbright, 13 a very cautious and wise, intelligent chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, after a full hearing on it, pretty well summed it up when he said that somebody made a mountain out of a molehill. I just wish they were as concerned with our soldiers who are dying as they are with somebody's eyes that watered a little bit, particularly in an effort the South Vietnamese were making to save some of their people and some of our people.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,13 Senator J. W. Fulbright of Arkansas."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-03-20","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the LBJ Ranch. I hope you enjoy your stay and can bring the temperature up a little while you are here.,TELEGRAM TO THE GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA [1.] I have today sent the following telegram to the Honorable George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama:,\"Responsibility for maintaining law and order in our Federal system properly rests with the State and local government. On the basis of your public statements and your discussions with me, I thought that you felt strongly about this and had indicated that you would take all the necessary action in this regard. I was surprised, therefore, when in your telegram of Thursday you requested Federal assistance in the performance of such fundamental State duties.,\"Even more surprising was your telegram of yesterday stating that both you and the Alabama Legislature, because of monetary consideration, believe that the State is unable to protect American citizens and to maintain peace and order in a responsible manner without Federal forces. Because the court order must be obeyed and the rights of all American citizens must be protected, I intend to meet your request by providing Federal assistance to perform normal police functions. I am calling into Federal service selected units of the Alabama National Guard, and also will have available police units from the Regular Army to help you meet your State responsibilities. These forces should be adequate to assure the rights of American citizens pursuant to a Federal court order to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery, Ala.\"\n\"LYNDON B. JOHNSON\",It is not a welcome duty for the Federal Government to ever assume a State Government's own responsibility for assuring the protection of citizens in the exercise of their constitutional rights. It has been rare in our history for the Governor and the legislature of a sovereign State to decline to exercise their responsibility and to request that duty be assumed by the Federal Government.,Governor Wallace and the legislature of the State of Alabama have now done this. I have responded both to their request and to what I believe is the sure and the certain duty of the Federal Government in the protection of constitutional rights of all American citizens.,I have called selected elements of the Alabama National Guard into Federal Service. Additionally, I have military police put in position at both Selma and Montgomery, Alabama. In addition, we have Federal marshals, FBI agents on duty in that area at this time.,Last evening I dispatched Deputy Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the scene to coordinate all the National Government's activities. He is assisted by the very able Burke Marshall and John Doar and some other dozen able lawyers from the Department of Justice.,Over the next several days the eyes of the Nation will be upon Alabama, and the eyes of the world will be upon America. It is my prayer, a prayer in which I hope all Americans will join me earnestly today, that the march in Alabama may proceed in a manner honoring our heritage and honoring all for which America stands.,May this, the conduct of all Americans, demonstrate beyond dispute that the true strength of America lies not in arms and not in force and not in the might of the military or in the police, nor in the multitudes of marshals and State troopers but in respect and obedience to law itself.,In other times a great President--President Abraham Lincoln--said that he was confident that we would be touched by the better angels of our nature. That is my hope for you, and my expectation of all of you and my prayer to all of you today.,A nation is molded by the tests that its peoples meet and master. I believe that from the test of these days we shall emerge as a stronger nation, as a more united people, and a more just and decent society.,OUR GOAL IN VIET-NAM [2.] I will now pass to another subject-to Viet-Nam. I want to announce this morning that Ambassador Maxwell Taylor will shortly resume his periodic visits to Washington for consultations on the Viet-Nam situation. He will return to Washington on March 28 and will remain approximately a week. There are no immediate issues which make the meeting urgent. It is a regular--repeat--regular periodic visit, part of our continuous consultations to make sure that our effort in Viet-Nam is as effective and as efficient as possible.,Let me say this additionally on Viet-Nam. One year ago on March 17, 1964, I made this statement, and I quote: \"For 10 years, under three Presidents, this Nation has been determined to help a brave people to resist aggression and terror. It is and it will remain the policy of the United States to furnish assistance to support South Viet-Nam for as long as is required to bring Communist aggression and terrorism under control.\",Our policy in Viet-Nam is the same as it was 1 year ago, and to those of you who have inquiries on the subject, it is the same as it was 10 years ago. I have publicly stated it. I have reviewed it to the Congress in joint sessions. I have reviewed it in various messages to the Congress and I have talked individually with more than 500 of them stating the policy and asking and answering questions on that subject in the last 60 days. In addition, I have stated this policy to the press and to the public in almost every State in the Union. Specifically last night I read where I had made the policy statement 47 times. Well, I want to repeat it again this morning for your information and for emphasis.,Under this policy, changes in the situation may require from time to time changes in tactics, in strategy, in equipment, in personnel. As I said last month, the continuing actions we take will be those that are justified and made necessary by the continuing aggression of others. These aggressors serve no peaceful interest, not even their own. No one threatens their regime. There is no intent or desire to conquer them or to occupy their land. What is wanted is simply that they carry out their agreements, that they end their aggression against their neighbors.,The real goal of all of us in southeast Asia must be the peaceful progress of the people of that area. They have the right to live side by side in peace and independence. And if this little country does not have that fight then the question is what will happen to the other hundred little countries who want to preserve that right. They have a right to build a new sense of community among themselves. They have a right to join, with help from others, in the full development of their own resources for their own benefit. They have a right to live together without fear or oppression or domination from any quarter of this entire globe.,So this is the peace for which the United States of America works today. This is the peace which aggression from the north today prevents. This is the peace which will remain the steadfast goal of the United States of America.,ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENTS [3.] On Monday I shall have been in the Presidential office for 16 months. Whatever the accomplishments of this period no one knows better than I how much credit is due the ability and integrity and outstanding quality of the men and women who serve the executive branch.,We have between 3 and 4 million people working in the military and civilian services. I believe the quality of talent and capacity in the top positions of the Federal Government, and in the other positions as well, is without parallel in modern times. This high level of quality is going to be maintained. I am determined that the American people shall be served by the very best talent available, chosen on the basis of principles and performance, not politics or speculation.,Since November 1963 I have made a total of 163 major appointments through today. Of the 135 nonjudicial appointments almost exactly half, 49 percent, have been purely merit appointments made from the career service of the Government or other Government background. Fourteen percent additionally have come from university careers, 16 percent from business and labor, 19 percent from the legal profession. And I would like to add they have included both Republicans and Democrats.,This week I was privileged to announce the appointment of former Under Secretary Henry Fowler to succeed Douglas Dillon in the Cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury.,Today, Mr. John Macy 1 has brought to the Ranch seven outstanding men and I am nominating them to serve in positions of major responsibility. The press will receive detailed biographical information on each. I want to announce their appointments and present these gentlemen to you this morning.,1 Chairman, United States Civil Service Commission.,For the position of Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Commission established by the act that I signed just a week ago, I have selected Mr. John L. Sweeney of Michigan. This outstanding young man served as the Chairman of the Federal Development Planning Committee for Appalachia with great distinction and was a key figure in developing the program that he will now administer.,Next, on the Federal Power Commission, I am reappointing a public servant from the State of Vermont who has demonstrated his commitment to the public interest, Mr. Charles R. Ross of Vermont.,To fill the vacancy on the Federal Power Commission, I am nominating an outstanding Republican attorney from the State of Illinois, a Phi Beta Kappa, a lecturer in universities abroad, a leader in Young Republican activities who is presently serving as the general counsel of the Santa Fe Railroad--Mr. Carl E. Bagge.,On the Civil Aeronautics Board, I am making a merit appointment of a career public servant who has served as chief of the CAB's three major operating divisions, Mr. John G. Adams of South Dakota.,On the National Labor Relations Board, I am proud to announce the nomination of a former member of the working press, a registered Republican who has served for 10 years as administrative assistant to the Republican Senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Clifford Case. He is Mr. Sam Zagoria of New Jersey.,For the position of Under Secretary of the Army I am nominating an honor graduate of Yale University and the Yale Law School, a Silver Star Army veteran of World War II, a member of the New York Young Republicans, and now a member of a major New York law firm--Mr. Stanley Resor.,I am very proud of these citizens and I am grateful for their unselfishness.,I wish to announce now the last appointment, Mr. Howard Woods of St. Louis, Missouri to be an Associate Director of the United States Information Agency. Mr. Woods is a worthy journalist. He will be one of two Associate Directors for this very important agency. He will have special responsibility for planning USIA activities in underdeveloped countries, particularly those that are trying to build their communications systems so as to increase the contact of these governments with their people. As you may know, Mr. Woods has been the reporter, the columnist, the city editor, the publisher of the St. Louis Argus, St. Louis, Missouri.,Mr. Carl T. Rowan, the Director of USIA has told me he is increasing substantially USIA activities in countries such as Viet-Nam which are caught up in new style Communist aggression. Mr. Woods will join us to help plan and direct this broadened program.,So this morning the score card is 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 1 Independent.,THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS [4.] Finally, because of the very considerable interest and discussions concerning the President's press policies I want to give you some idea of what you may plan and what you may expect in the days to come.,First of all, I regard my own responsibility in this field as making available to all of you all of the information that I can, consistent with the national interest, on as fair and as equitable basis as possible. How and where I do that is a decision that I reserve for myself, and I shall continue to reserve for myself.,Second, I consider it the responsibility of the press to report those facts to the American public as fully as possible and in the best perspective possible. The press, of course, also has the right and has the duty to comment on the facts in any way it sees fit. But that is a right and not a responsibility.,Therefore, I plan to see the press at many different times in many different ways if you are willing. I will, however, try to follow the standing practice of holding at least one press conference a month of the nature which you describe as ample advance notice, coverage by all media, full dress--even white ties if you choose.,I do not intend to restrict myself to this as the sole form of seeing the press, but I will try to state it as a very minimum.,Today marks the 39th on-the-record press conference that I have held, 18 off-the-record, or a total of 57. I have had 18 press conferences with adequate advance notice, 16 covered by radio and television. Eight of these were live television in addition to 3 live television joint sessions in the little over a year that I have been President.,There have been other occasions upon which I have seen the White House press corps on an informal basis in order to give them some insight into my thinking. In addition to these 56 formal meetings I have had 9 informal, lengthy walks with the White House press corps. Some of you who used to enjoy those walks when they were scheduled a little earlier with President Truman and from time to time those of you who enjoy them will be invited back again.,On various occasions I have had conferences with pools representing the White House press. We have had 173 airplane flights with pools where they visited--two pool visits while I was in the hospital with a bad cold, and one pool visit in my bedroom in the Executive Mansion when I thought I was recuperating from it.,I have had additional visits from 374 accredited press representatives at their request; in addition, 64 who requested meetings with bureau chiefs, plus 200 telephone discussions that I have responded to.,There have been 9 other occasions where I have met with the press ranging from a barbecue at the Ranch to addresses made to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Associated Press luncheon, and of course last year each one of the social affairs, White House press conference and gridiron etc., I believe numbered 8.,I have had 9 special appearances ranging from a television interview with all 3 networks to special statements concerning Viet-Nam and the railroad strike.,A considerable amount of my time has been spent with the press in this effort to discharge what I consider to be the President's responsibility to this country. I think that it is necessary to do this because the press is the media through which the American people are informed and as I said, I intend to continue to bring them all the information that is possible and to see that every Cabinet officer and every head of an independent agency does the same thing.,Insofar as the President is concerned, I will continue seeing the press at different times, different places, and different ways at my own choosing.,I am ready for any questions.,QUESTIONS\nDURATION AND EXTENT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN ALABAMA [5.] Q. Mr. President, your proclamation 2 of this morning referred specifically to the 5-day period that the Federal court approved for the Alabama march. Is that the sum total of time to be covered by your action with respect to calling up the Guard and authorizing the use of troops or will it go beyond that?,THE PRESIDENT. We anticipate the march will have been concluded by that period and we cannot tell at this time any reason why it should go beyond that. If it is necessary, we will take appropriate action at an appropriate time.,2 Proclamation 3645 \"Providing Federal Assistance in the State of Alabama\" (30 F.R. 3739; 3 CFR, 1965 Supp.).,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us how many National Guardsmen you are calling to duty and how many military police you have available in Alabama?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, for the moment we have called up 1,863 National Guardsmen. In addition, we have approximately 100 FBI men. We have approximately 75 to 100 marshals that are present; others will join them later in the day. In addition, we have 500 men in place from Ft. Bragg that are now at Maxwell Field, Montgomery. In addition to that, we have 509 men at the moment in place at Craig Field, Selma.,On alert, we have a reinforced battalion at Ft. Benning, that can be there on short notice, of an additional thousand men. One company can be ready to move and be there in a very few hours. The others are alerted.,These military forces are being placed under the command of Brig. Gen. Henry Graham, who, some of you will remember, is the assistant division commander of the 31st Infantry Division. He was the Guardsman commander of the forces that were federalized at Tuscaloosa. He is assisted by a Regular Army man, Brig. Gen. James M. Wright.,Q. Mr. President, I get the impression that you don't quite believe that Governor Wallace maneuvered you into this position only for monetary consideration. I wonder if you could tell us why you think the Governor has done what he has done?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to leave such an impression. I want to correct it if I have left the wrong impression. What motivates Governor Wallace is a matter that he can discuss with you better than I can. He has his responsibilities and he is going to exercise them according to his judgment and his views, and I plan to do the same thing. I just repeated the statement he made in his wire.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any idea of the number of people who will take part in the march, and is there any Federal service available to them for medical care or that sort of thing?,THE PRESIDENT. We are keeping in very close touch with the leaders of the march. We have reasonably accurate estimates of how many we think will be included. We have medical forces in the general area. They have been alerted to take care of any needs that may arise, and we hope and pray that there will be none.,We have a 75-bed hospital with 5 doctors and 5 ambulances, 43 aircraft, helicopters (5-ambulatory patient, 2 litters with corpsmen). This is located at Craig in Selma. At Maxwell Field we have a 250-bed hospital, 50 doctors, 5 ambulances, 4 H-43 aircraft. We trust it will not be necessary to use any of these, but we have taken the precaution, and there is hardly a day passes but what the President is asked to provide medical service to some citizen where it is not available from other sources, and we do that in all instances where it is justified.,Q. Mr. President, in your telegram to Governor Wallace you have referred to his discussions with you. Have you had discussions with him since this crisis developed, or does that refer to earlier talks?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been constantly in touch with him, General Katzenbach,3 and other members of the executive branch in Washington and here. Since I received his wire the other evening I have not talked to him, have not talked to any of his people, but our people are talking to him with regularity and trying to give such counsel and guidance as we think will be helpful.,3 Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach.,ARMAMENT NEEDS OF ISRAEL [6.] Q. Mr. President, sir, West German arms supply to Israel, which was instituted with U.S. support, has been cut off. In view of this, would the United States be willing to supply arms to Israel to maintain a balance of power in the Near East?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't discuss iffy questions like that. We will give consideration to the problems and the needs of the various nations and countries, and while we have them under consideration we will try to evaluate them and if a decision is reached in any area with any country, why we will carry it out. But we don't think that it is desirable to speculate or to engage in any prophecies that may or may not work out.,THE VOTING RIGHTS BILL [7.] Q. Mr. President, under the terms of the Voting Rights Act does the administration plan to lower the literacy requirements if Federal examiners are used, and possibly so far that illiterates could be registered in the South?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration has made its proposals in the form of legislation pending before the House committee. There will be a number of amendments added to that and a number of changes, and my own personal view is included in the recommendations in that bill which is available to you. I should have liked to have gone further if I thought I could have without a constitutional amendment, if I could have done it by statute in other respects concerning voting, but the legal talents available did not think that we could make these additions. The final judgment of just how far we do go in connection with literacy and qualifications of the electors will be determined by the two judiciary committees made up of lawyers and the other Members of the Congress.,Very frankly, I would like to have included in the message a provision that would permit all people over 18 years of age to vote, but the lawyers felt that would complicate the matter and that it should be approached otherwise.,But specifically answering your question, what final action will be taken in the bill that is sent to me will be determined by what is going on now, and I hope that they will work every morning and afternoon and night and that we can have legislation very shortly.4,4 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by the President on August 6, 1965 (see Item 409).,VIET-NAM [8.] Q. Mr. President, in the 6 weeks, sir, that we have been bombing north of the 17th parallel, has there been any measurable change in the North Vietnamese support of the Viet Cong guerrillas in South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to tell you or them or the country any of our evaluation of military operations at this time. We are being as effective and as efficient as we know how. We have our policy of responding appropriately, fittingly, and measured.,We are doing everything that we know to try to bring about freedom for South Viet-Nam and peace in that area. That was the policy that General Eisenhower announced when he was President when we assumed responsibilities there. That was the policy provided for in the SEATO Treaty that passed the Senate 82 to 1, which obligates us to the commitment we have made there. That was the policy that was incorporated in the resolution passed August the 10th by the Congress. But to give a day-to-day evaluation of what effect this strike or that strike might have would not only contribute, I think, to confusion and perhaps might be inaccurate, but would be ill advised, I think.,THE NATION'S SPACE PROGRAM [9.] Q. Mr. President, where does our space program stand in relation to the Soviets' in the wake of their latest feat?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we sent them a wire congratulating them and expressing our good wishes for the successful outcome of one of their tests.6 Administrator Webb 7 is here today. He came in last night from New Mexico where he has been on an official visit. I asked him to be here this morning. He and I have reviewed the Russian activity in space this week, as well as our own planned activity next week.,6 Item 116.,7 James E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.,The Soviet accomplishment and our own scheduled efforts demonstrate, I think, dramatically and convincingly the important role that man himself will play in the exploration of the space frontier. The continuing efforts of both our program and the Russian program will steadily produce new capabilities and new space activities.,These capabilities, in my judgment, will help each nation achieve broader confidence to do what they consider they ought to do in space.,I have felt since the days when I introduced the space act and sat studying Sputnik I and Sputnik II that it was really a mistake to regard space exploration as a contest which can be tallied on any box score. Judgments can be made only by considering all the objectives of the two national programs, and they will vary and they will differ.,Our own program is very broadly based. We believe very confidently in the United States that we will produce contributions that we need at the time we need them. For that reason I gave Mr. Webb and his group every dollar in the budget this year that they asked for, for a manned space flight.,Now the progress of our program is very satisfactory to me in every respect. We are committed to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. We stressed that in our hearings and our legislation when we passed the bill. And while the Soviet is ahead of us in some aspects of space, U.S. leadership is clear and decisive and we are ahead of them in other realms on which we have particularly concentrated.,If it is not an imposition on you and if you care to--I haven't consulted him--but after the conference is over, if you are not in too big a hurry to get back to the Driskill,8 Mr. Webb will be here and he will answer any questions you may want to ask him.,8 Driskill Hotel, Austin. Tex.,FURTHER QUESTIONS ON ALABAMA AND ON VIET-NAM [10.] Q. Mr. President, to return to the Alabama situation: There has been an incursion of proponents of the civil rights measure into the Selma area. It has also been reported there have been opponents of the civil rights group. Do you know anything about the number of, say, extremists opposing this and what you can do about it? And how dangerous will this march be that begins tomorrow?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have stated the facts that are available to all of us. The people on the ground are taking judicious notice of the entire situation. We hope that we have taken the necessary precautions and we are adequately prepared to deal with whatever may develop.,But I think it would be a great mistake to predict disaster, and I think that we have the people that have the training and that will carry out the normal police functions, and I hope we have the patriotism on every side of the question and on all viewpoints to obey law and order and to respond to my plea this morning that we conduct ourselves as law-abiding Americans who want to unite our country instead of divide it.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the debate in the Congress concerning Viet-Nam, and especially those who have been urging quick negotiations, has weakened your position or this country's position ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think our position is all right at the present time. I never know what any statement--what effect it may have on some other person.,We have freedom of speech in this country, and that is one of the things that we are working toward in our calling up the Guard last night,9 and we have freedom of assembly, and I have observed no lack of it in Congress; in the time I have been there in 35 years I have seen no restraints imposed by anybody.,9 Early in the morning on March 20 the President issued Executive Order 11207 \"Providing Federal Assistance in the State of Alabama\" authorizing and directing the Secretary of Defense \"to call into active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, any or all of the units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard of the State of Alabama to serve in the active military service of the United States until relieved by appropriate orders\" (30 F.R. 3743; 3 CFR, 1965 Supp.).,I have never discussed with a human being something he should say or shouldn't say on Viet-Nam. I think debate is healthy, it's good for us, provided it is responsible. And I think we have had debate.,I have met with 520, I believe, Congressmen and Senators for over 2 hours for over 11 nights, and each one of them could ask any question he wanted to. The Secretary of State gave them a thorough briefing--the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Vice President. And as I stated, you have raised the question with me 47 times. We have covered it very good. So maybe the Senators and Congressmen have some speeches left in order to be even with us.,Alvin Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-03-13","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.,EVENTS IN SELMA, ALA. [1.] This March week has brought a very deep and painful challenge to the unending search for American freedom.,That challenge is not yet over, but before it is ended, every resource of this Government will be directed to insuring justice for all men of all races, in Alabama and everywhere in this land. That is the meaning of the oath that I swore before Almighty God when I took the office of the Presidency. That is what I believe in with all of my heart. That is what the people of this country demand.,Last Sunday a group of Negro Americans in Selma, Alabama, attempted peacefully to protest the denial of the most basic political right of all--the right to vote. They were attacked and some were brutally beaten.,From that moment until this, we have acted effectively to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of Selma, and to prevent further violence and lawlessness in this country wherever it occurred.,More than 70 United States Government officials, including FBI agents, including Justice Department lawyers, Governor Collins,1 the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. John Doar, whom I asked to go to Selma, have been continuously present in Selma. They have all been working to keep the peace and to enforce the law.,1 LeRoy Collins, Director, Community Relations Service, Department of Commerce, and former Governor of Florida.,At all times the full power of the Federal Government has been ready to protect the people of Selma against further lawlessness.,But the final answer to this problem will be found not in armed confrontation, but in the process of law. We have acted to bring this conflict from the streets to the courtroom. Your Government, at my direction, asked the Federal court in Alabama to order the law officials of Alabama not to interfere with American citizens who are peacefully demonstrating for their constitutional rights.,When the court has made its order, it must be obeyed.,THE VOTING RIGHTS BILL The events of last Sunday cannot and will not be repeated, but the demonstrations in Selma have a much larger meaning, They are a protest against a deep and very unjust flaw in American democracy itself.,Ninety-five years ago our Constitution was amended to require that no American be denied the right to vote because of race or color. Almost a century later, many Americans are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.,Therefore, this Monday I will send to the Congress a request for legislation to carry out the amendment of the Constitution.,Wherever there is discrimination, this law will strike down all restrictions used to deny the people the right to vote. It will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenuous the effort, to flaunt our Constitution. If State officials refuse to cooperate, then citizens will be registered by Federal officials.,This law is not an effort to punish or coerce anyone. Its object is one which no American in his heart can truly reject. It is to give all our people the right to choose their leaders; to deny this right, I think, is to deny democracy itself.,What happened in Selma was an American tragedy. The blows that were received, the blood that was shed, the life of the good man that was lost, must strengthen the determination of each of us to bring full and equal and exact justice to all of our people.,This is not just the policy of your Government or your President. It is in the heart and the purpose and the meaning of America itself.,We all know how complex and how difficult it is to bring about basic social change in a democracy, but this complexity must not obscure the clear and simple moral issues.,It is wrong to do violence to peaceful citizens in the streets of their town. It is wrong to deny Americans the right to vote. It is wrong to deny any person full equality because of the color of his skin.,The promise of America is a simple promise: Every person shall share in the blessings of this land. And they shall share on the basis of their merits as a person. They shall not be judged by their color or by their beliefs, or by their religion, or by where they were born, or the neighborhood in which they live.,All my life I have seen America move closer toward that goal, and every step of the way has brought enlarged opportunity and more happiness for all of our people.,Those who do injustice are as surely the victims of their own acts as the people that they wrong. They scar their own lives and they scar the communities in which they live. By turning from hatred to understanding they can insure a richer and fuller life for themselves, as well as for their fellows. For if we put aside disorder and violence, if we put aside hatred and lawlessness, we can provide for all our people great opportunity almost beyond our imagination.,We will continue this battle for human dignity. We will apply all the resources of this great and powerful Government to this task. We ask that all of our citizens unite in this hour of trial. We will not be moved by anyone or anything from the path of justice.,In this task we will seek the help of the divine power which surpasses the petty barriers between man and man, and people and people. Under His guidance we can seek the Biblical promise: \"I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart which shall not be put out.\" And we will follow that light until all of us have bowed to the command: \"Let there be no strife between me and thee, for we be brethren.\",MEETING WITH GOVERNOR WALLACE I met today with Governor Wallace of Alabama to discuss very thoroughly the situation that exists in that State.,The Governor expressed his concern that the demonstrations which have taken place are a threat to the peace and security of the people of Alabama. I expressed my own concern about the need for remedying those grievances which lead to the demonstrations by people who feel their rights have been denied.,I said that those Negro citizens of Alabama who have systematically been denied the right to register and to participate in the choice of those who govern them should be provided the opportunity of directing national attention to their plight. They feel that they are being denied a very precious right. And I understand their concern.,In his telegram last night to me, Governor Wallace expressed his belief that all eligible citizens are entitled to exercise their right to vote. He repeated that belief today, and he stated that he is against any discrimination in that regard.,I am firmly convinced, as I said to the Governor a few moments ago, that when all of the eligible Negroes of Alabama have been registered, the economic and the social injustices they have experienced throughout will be righted, and the demonstrations, I believe, will stop.,I advised the Governor of my intention to press with all the vigor at my command to assure that every citizen of this country is given the right to participate in his Government at every level through the complete voting process.,The Governor's expressed interest in law and order met with a warm response. We are a Nation that is governed by laws, and our procedures for enacting and amending and repealing these laws must prevail.,I told the Governor that we believe in maintaining law and order in every county and in every precinct in this land. If State and local authorities are unable to function, the Federal Government will completely meet its responsibilities.,I told the Governor that the brutality in Selma last Sunday just must not be repeated. He agreed that he abhorred brutality and regretted any instance in which any American citizen met with violence.,As the Governor had indicated his desire to take actions to remedy the existing situation in Alabama which caused people to demonstrate, I respectfully suggested to him that he consider the following actions which I believed and the Attorney General and others familiar with the matter, and associated with me, believed would be highly constructive at this stage of the game.,First, I urged that the Governor publicly declare his support for universal suffrage in the State of Alabama, and the United States of America.,Second, I urged him to assure that the right of peaceful assembly will be permitted in Alabama so long as law and order is maintained.,Third, I expressed the hope that the Governor would call a biracial meeting when he returns to Alabama, to seek greater cooperation and to ask for greater unity among Americans of both races.,I asked the Governor for his cooperation and I expressed my appreciation for his coming to Washington to discuss this problem.,QUESTIONS\nTHE RIGHT TO DEMONSTRATE Q. Mr. President, against the background of what you said, and aside from the situation in Selma, I wonder if you could tell us your general philosophy, your belief in how demonstrators in other parts of the country should conduct themselves? For example, how do you feel about the demonstrations that are going on outside the White House right now, or in other parts, in other cities of the United States, and in front of Federal buildings ?,THE PRESIDENT. I tried to cover that in my statement, but I believe in the right of peaceful assembly. I believe that people have the right to demonstrate. I think that you must be concerned with the rights of others.,I do not think a person, as has been said, has the right to holler \"fire\" in a crowded theater. But I think that people should have the right to peacefully assemble, to picket, to demonstrate their views, and to do anything they can to bring those views to the attention of people, provided they do not violate laws themselves, and provided they conduct themselves as they should.,GOVERNOR WALLACE Q. Mr. President, did Governor Wallace indicate, sir, at all, an area of understanding and cooperation and acceptance of some of your suggestions to solve this violence there ?,THE PRESIDENT. I will have to let the Governor speak for himself. He is going to appear tomorrow. We spoke very frankly and very forthrightly. We exchanged views--and we are not in agreement on a good many things. I am hopeful that the visit will be helpful and I did my best to make my viewpoint clear.,Q. Mr. President, I was going to ask you how the Governor reacted.,THE PRESIDENT. The Governor had his share of the conversation. He told me of the problems that he had in Alabama, the fears that he entertained, and he expressed the hope that I could do something to help bring the demonstrations to an end.,I told him very frankly that I thought our problem, which I had been working on for several weeks now, was to face up to the cause of the demonstration and remove the cause of the demonstration, and that I hoped if he would give assurance that people would be protected in their demonstrations in Alabama, he would give assurance that he would try to improve the voting situation in Alabama, if I could submit my message to the Congress and get prompt action on it that would insure the right of the people of Alabama to vote, that I thought that we could improve the demonstration situation.,Q. Mr. President, a two-part question on the same subject:,Can you tell us what your thinking is if Governor Wallace would not accept any or all of your suggestions; and secondly, in announcing from Montgomery that he had asked to see you, he indicated that he was concerned about a threat throughout the country. Do you share that concern ?,THE PRESIDENT. I am deeply concerned that our citizens anywhere should be discriminated against and should be denied their constitutional rights.,I have plotted my course. I have stated my views. I have made clear, whether the Governor agrees or not, that law and order will prevail in Alabama, that people will be--their rights to peacefully assemble will be preserved, and that their constitutional rights will be protected.,GROWING MODERATION IN THE SOUTH Q. Mr. President, some of the clergymen who came out yesterday reported that you had detected a resurgence of a moderate spirit among the whites in the South. Can you tell us what evidence you have seen of that, and perhaps anything that is being done to encourage it?,THE PRESIDENT. The presence of a good many people from the South in Selma, the presence of some of the ministers from the South here, the messages that I have received from the citizens of that area, the support that the businessmen and the clergy and the labor people have given the Civil Rights Act and its enforcement, have all given me strength and comfort and encouragement.,REMOVAL OF DEPENDENTS FROM VIET-NAM [2.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to turn to the other problem that has occupied so much of your hours in Viet-Nam. About 5 weeks ago, when you felt it necessary to give an order that our wives and children of our men in Viet-Nam be withdrawn, a high officer said to me, \"Give us a year and they will be back.\" I have two questions:,First, would you like to see the wives and children of our civilian and military officers in Viet-Nam go back; and secondly, do you think that a year is a good prognostication?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not think that I can be much of a prophet in either respect. First, I do not think that Saigon is the place for the wives and children of our military people at the moment, or else I wouldn't ask for them to come out. If the situation changes, and conditions are different, I will pass on them in the light of those changes.,I think that anyone that makes a prophecy now as to what the situation will be a year from now would have to be a big guesser.,THE OTEPKA CASE [3.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I would like to change the subject to another matter. Mr. Otto Otepka, a top security officer in the State Department, faces dismissal for answering the questions of some Members of Congress who were investigating the security of the United States. I would like to know if you can't stop this dismissal.,THE PRESIDENT. I have had some conversations with Secretary Rusk concerning that case, and I have complete confidence in the manner in which he will handle it.,U.S. POLICY IN VIET-NAM [4.] Q. Mr. President, in the last 5 weeks the American participation in the situation in South Viet-Nam has undergone certain changes. Could you give us your view of any benefits that have accrued to us, or your view of the situation over the past 5 weeks in South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have a very difficult situation there as a result of the instability of the governments and the frequent changes of them. I would not say it has improved in the last 5 weeks.,I would say that our policy there is the policy that was established by President Eisenhower, as I have stated, since I have been President, 46 different times, the policy carried on by President Kennedy, and the policy that we are now carrying on. I have stated it as recently as February 17th in some detail and prior to that, in my last press conference, on February 4th. 2 Although the incidents have changed, in some instances the equipment has changed, in some instances the tactics and perhaps the strategy in a decision or two has changed.,2 Items 76 and 46.,Our policy is still the same, and that is to any armed attack, our forces will reply. To any in southeast Asia who ask our help in defending their freedom, we are going to give it, and that means we are going to continue to give it. In that region there is nothing that we covet, there is nothing we seek, there is no territory or no military position or no political ambition. Our one desire and our one determination is that the people of southeast Asia be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way.,USE OF TROOPS IN ALABAMA [5.] Q. Mr. President, there was a report published this morning that some Federal troops had already been alerted, at your direction, for a possible move into Alabama. Can you confirm this report?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that the FBI officials, the marshals in the general area, the United States forces, including the Armed Forces, were ready to carry out any instructions that the President gave them, and the President was prepared to give them any instructions that were necessary and justified and wise.,NEGOTIATION ON VIET-NAM [6.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us your reaction to the pressures that have been mounting around the world for you to negotiate the situation in Viet-Nam. Could you explain to us under what conditions you might be willing to negotiate a settlement there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, since the Geneva conference of 1962, as has been stated before, the United States has been in rather active and continuous consultation. We have talked to other governments about the great danger that we could foresee in this aggression in southeast Asia. We have discussed it in the United Nations. We have discussed it in NATO. We have discussed it in the SEATO councils. On innumerable occasions we have discussed it directly through diplomatic channels. We have had direct discussions with almost every signatory of the 1954 and the 1962 pacts.,We have not had any indication, and as the Secretary of State said the other day, what is still missing is any indication--any indication--from anyone that Hanoi is prepared or willing or ready to stop doing what it is doing against its neighbors. I think that the absence of this crucial element affects the current discussion of negotiation.,A great friend of mine who had great responsibilities for a long period of military and executive life in our Government said to me the other day, \"When I see the suggestions about negotiation, I wonder if folks don't recognize that there must be someone to negotiate with, and there must be someone willing to negotiate.\",THE TIMING OF PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENTS AND NEWS CONFERENCES [7] Q. I said, sir, that the events in Selma occurred last Sunday, and I asked why you waited to have a press conference and make a statement until late Saturday afternoon ?,THE PRESIDENT. I know of nothing that either required or justified my making a statement prior to the time that I had a recommendation to make on the problem that was facing us, namely, they were demonstrating about voting rights, and I had that message delivered to me only a few hours ago. I have reviewed it and am in general agreement on what I am going to send to the Congress. It happened that I had the time this afternoon to review it and had the information that was available to me.,I think the President should have some leeway when he determines to have press conferences. I have had 46 since I have been President. I plan to have at least one once a month. But the President will determine when they are held, where they are held, and what subjects he discusses.,YOUTH CORPS CAMPS [8.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that there has been some violence in the youth camps, Youth Corps camps, or Job Corps, and that involves a knifing, and there have been one or more deaths as a result of that. Is that the reason you visited the Catoctin, Maryland, camp last week, to build the morale up in the camp and give them public confidence ?,THE. PRESIDENT. I visited the camp last week because I had agreed to some time ago and had been forced to cancel one planned visit. I want to visit a good many of their Camps.,We all deeply regret any accidents or any violence or any injuries that may occur at any time. That is not the reason, though, or rather, that is not the sole reason why I should be interested in what they are doing. I hope by my visits to better understand their work, perhaps to stimulate some of them, and maybe improve on what is being done.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,THE VOTING RIGHTS MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT. [9.] I should like to ask you to stay here for another 10 or 15 minutes, we will say 15 minutes, for the Attorney General to give you a very brief briefing on the high points of this message, and if you will do that for 15 minutes, he will be here longer and Mr. Moyers will, but at the conclusion of 15 minutes, I hope that Mr. Reedy will tell you, and any of you that need to rush away to meet your deadlines can do so.,[At this point the Attorney General spoke on a \"background\" basis. The President then resumed speaking on the record.],I should like to observe that the 15 minutes is about up, but at 9 o'clock, in Mr. Reedy's office on Monday morning, we plan, and hope, and pray that we will have the message ready for you. If you will be ready for it, there will be a briefing there.,Over the past few weeks, I have determined that we would have a voting rights law this year on about November 15th, and so informed certain Members of the Congress and certain Governors of the States. Since that time, I have talked to the majority and minority leaders, the chairmen of various committees, the Speaker of the House, and have reviewed with them the highlights of my viewpoint and have asked the Attorney General to go into some detail in connection with the principles that we would have in this bill.,We are very anxious to have Democratic and Republican support. As you know, President Kennedy in the Kennedy-Johnson administration in 1963, in the civil rights measure that I counseled on and worked on and approved, submitted to the Congress a voting rights section that provided, however, for voting only in Federal elections. That section was deleted in the legislation that finally came to me and, as a result of that deletion, I have felt that we should again approach that subject, but to extend it from Federal elections to both State and local elections.,I have talked to the leaders of the Negro organizations in this country and asked for their suggestions, and asked for their counsel. I have talked to various Southern Senators and Southern leaders including Governors, and generally reviewed with them what I hope to have encompassed in this legislation. Of course, there will be amendments and changes, and extensions and deletions. But I think that our message will go to the Congress Monday. Perhaps the bill will accompany it. If not, it will go there very shortly.,We will not only expect the Congress to give fair and just consideration to the administration bill, which they have been asking for for several days now, but to give consideration to any one suggestion, as they always do.,So if you will be back at 9 o'clock Monday, we will have a briefing on the details of the message.,We thank you for enduring us this afternoon.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-02-04","text":"THE MESSAGE- ON AGRICULTURE THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Today I am sending to the Congress my agricultural message.1 It is a message for all farmers and ranchers, both large and small. It is a message for all of rural America.,1 Item 47.,In the Texas of my boyhood, farming was the backbone of our economy. This message that I am sending to Congress today makes it very clear that the farmer and the agricultural community are still most important in the American way of life.,But this message is not only for our Nation's farmers and those who live in our rural areas. This is a message for all Americans who benefit from our unparalleled harvest of plenty.,Food today is our best bargain. It is right and it is proper that a grateful Nation should properly reward those who make possible the food that sustains us all.,In this message today, I make the following recommendations:,First, the appointment of a blue ribbon commission of Americans to assist in adapting our farm programs to the needs of tomorrow and the 20th century. I will ask this commission to conduct a fundamental examination of the entire agricultural policy of the United States of America.,Second, I am taking steps to assure that benefits of Federal programs are distributed fairly between the urban and the rural areas.,Third, I am proposing new loans for rural areas for better housing at lower budget costs.,Fourth, I am recommending that we continue price and income support programs which are necessary to prevent a catastrophic decline in our farm income.,Fifth, we will begin a long-term land use program which will help achieve the best use of our land at the least possible cost.,Sixth, we will take increased steps to find new markets abroad for our farm products. Secretary Freeman has just this week returned from Europe where he has been in that interest.,Agriculture is one of our best dollar producers in the foreign market. It is the number one export in the American economy.,This message that I have sent to Congress recognizes the great importance of an agricultural economy. Depressions and recessions are usually farm led and farm fed.,During the weeks and months ahead, details of our programs for agricultural and rural America will be presented. It is my earnest hope that these programs will permit us to travel farther down the road toward our goal of parity income for American agriculture and parity of opportunity for rural America.,RELATIONS WITH UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC [2.] Last week, the House of Representatives adopted a proposal that would, if brought into law, by adding an amendment on the appropriation bill, prevent the United States of America from carrying out a 30-year agreement that we had made with the United Arab Republic. This agreement was to sell surplus commodities to the United Arab Republic under what is called tide I of Public Law 480.,Yesterday the Senate passed a milder version of this proposal and moderated the House amendment. It would permit delivery of surplus commodities if the President determined it to be in the national interest.,I judge it of the highest importance that the flexibility provided the President by the Senate version be sustained by the Congress. I hope the House of Representatives will accept the improvements made by the Senate committee and voted by the Senate.2 Because if we are to protect our vital interests in this part of the world where tensions are very high, then the President must have freedom of action to act in the best interest of all the people of this land.,2 The House, after conference and agreement to the conference report, receded and concurred in the Senate amendment (see Congressional Record, Feb. 10, 1965, pp. 2428 et seq.; Public Law 89-2, 79 Stat. 4),,It is of course obvious that the relations between the United States and the United Arab Republic must be improved. It will demand effort from both countries.,I cannot predict whether improvement can be achieved. But if we are to have any degree of success in this sensitive relationship the President must have some freedom of action. I earnestly suggest to the Congress that they consider this need which I believe is truly in the best interest of all of our people and is not in any manner a partisan matter, as demonstrated by the very fine speech made by the Minority Leader, Senator Dirksen, yesterday.,REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN ALABAMA [3.] On another matter, I should like to say that all Americans should be indignant when one American is denied the right to vote. The loss of that right to a single citizen undermines the freedom of every citizen. This is why all of us should be concerned with the efforts of our fellow Americans to register to vote in Alabama.,The basic problem in Selma is the slow pace of voting registration for Negroes who are qualified to vote. We are using the tools of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an effort to secure their right to vote. One of those tools of course is legal action to guarantee a citizen his right.,One case of voting discrimination has already led to a trial which has just been concluded. We are now awaiting a decision in this case. In the meantime I hope that all Americans will join with me in expressing their concern over the loss of any American's right to vote. Nothing is more fundamental to American citizenship and to our freedom as a nation and as a people. I intend to see that that right is secured for all of our citizens.,I had planned to make these statements for the newsreels and recording, and I informed Mr. Reedy while I was here I would be glad to take any questions that might flow from them or any other questions on any subject that might interest you.,QUESTIONS\nEXCHANGE OF VISITS WITH SOVIET LEADERS [4.] Q. Mr. President, last night, sir, you held out the prospect of an exchange of visits with the Soviet leaders this year. Could you tell us in any firmer detail how far discussions have gone or what the timing might be?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the statements I made last night 3 were made in the light of the information we have at the moment and the judgments that we have exercised. I said that I had reason to believe-that the reason to believe was based upon discussions that have taken place between the representatives of the Government of the United States and the Soviet Union. The details of the exchanges will be made public as soon as they are definite.,3 Item 44.,GENERAL DE GAULLE'S SUGGESTIONS [5.] Q. Mr. President, General de Gaulle has made a suggestion to hold a 5-power conference including Red China, and to discuss possible changes in the United Nations. Would you comment on that, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I have only seen the very brief press report regarding General de Gaulle's conference, which apparently has just concluded before this meeting, and I would much prefer to await a full report on the exact statement before getting into any detailed discussion involving the General's observations.,It is the position of this country, however, we believe, that the problems of the United Nations are traceable not to the United Nations Charter but to those countries which have violated either the spirit or the letter of the charter, because we believe that the framework for world progress and peace is in the charter. And I will be glad to respectfully review any observations the General has made and give due consideration to them.,FUNERAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL [6.] Mr. President, there has been some criticism both abroad and here because Vice President Humphrey was not sent to London to the Churchill funeral. Would you care to go into your reasons and what motivated you in selecting the American delegation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at first I thought I would hope that I would be able to go if my physical condition permitted.4 I asked that we defer final decisions until the doctors could act. But I had my staff contact President Truman and President Eisenhower and express the hope they could accompany me. President Truman was unable to go and President Eisenhower informed us that he had accepted the invitation of the family and he would be going and that he would be in attendance and would be doing other things there.,4 The President had recently been hospitalized at the Navy Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., for the treatment of a cold.,I urged that he go with us in our delegation and sent a plane to California to pick him up. At the same time I personally called the Chief Justice and asked if he would agree to go with me in case we made the trip. I also was informed we had Senator Fulbright, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Hickenlooper, the ranking Republican of that committee, and eight other Senators in London at the time, some of whom would be paying their respects as representatives of this country.,I felt that with the former President, with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, with the distinguished Ambassador of this country to the United Kingdom, that we had a good delegation and a high ranking delegation.,I had no particular reason for not asking the Vice President to go, although the Vice President, as you may or may not have observed, was addressing the delegates from 50 States at noon the day the plane left at 7:30 in the morning, on his new responsibilities in the field of civil rights.,I am glad to have the press reactions and the reactions abroad on the protocol involved in connection with funerals. I had served as Vice President for 3 years and it had never occurred to me and I had never had it brought to my attention so vividly that it was the duty and the function of the Vice President to be present at all official funerals.,On occasions during the 3 years I was Vice President I attended one or two funerals representing this country, but there were many representatives from many walks of life. I did review the list of delegates representing their countries at the Churchill funeral and I did not observe that other nations sent in most instances either their top man or the next man necessarily.,I thought we had a rather well-rounded delegation in the former President, the Secretary of State, the Senators who were present, the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.,In the light of your interest and other interests, I may have made a mistake by asking the Chief Justice to go and not asking the Vice President. I will bear in mind in connection with any future funerals your very strong feelings in the matter and try to act in accordance with our national interest.,VIET-NAM [7.] Q. Mr. President, since your last news conference there have been a considerable number of developments in Viet-Nam. Mr. Bundy 5 is currently there. I wonder if you could speak generally to us about Viet-Nam and your attitude toward these late developments ?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. There has been no change in the position of this country in regard to our desire or our determination to help the people of Viet-Nam preserve their freedom. I frequently observe to the people of this country that our basic commitment to Viet-Nam was made in a statement 10 years ago by our President, to the general effect that we would help the people of Viet-Nam help themselves.,5 McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.,Now we have difficulties from day to day and sometimes they increase with the hours, and we have Mr. Bundy out in Viet-Nam now on a regular exchange of views with our spokesmen and our representatives in that area. Normally, about every 6 weeks or 2 months we ask our Ambassador and our military advisers to bring us a full exchange of views. General Taylor was here, I believe, in July and again in September and maybe in December, and he was due to come back here in February.,In the light of the recent developments out there, he thought that it would be better if Mr. Bundy came out there at this particular time than for him to take the time out for a trip back to the United States.,So in accordance with his suggestion I recommended that Mr. Bundy go there and that General Taylor bring him up to date on the military situation in that country, on the political situation in that country, and give us his views as to what our course should be in trying to continue to be more effective and efficient in aiding the people of Viet-Nam to preserve their freedom.,Mr. Bundy will be back on the weekend. He no doubt will bring with him all the information that is available to our people, and I will be glad to make as much of that information available as is in the national interest.,I only want to reassert this morning our determination to continue our present policy, the policy of our Government from the beginning, to try to help the people of Viet-Nam help themselves to preserve their freedom.,THE KOSYGIN VISIT TO HANOI Q. Mr. President, in this connection, sir, you have addressed yourself to the political and military situation of Viet-Nam, but the diplomatic situation there seems to have turned some corner with the announcement that Mr. Kosygin was going to Hanoi. I wonder, sir, could you assess for us the possible significance of that visit in terms both of our commitment to South Viet-Nam and in terms of the broader effect on East-West relations?,THE PRESIDENT. The Kosygin visit and its implications and its significance could best be interpreted by Mr. Kosygin. Our visit to South Viet-Nam is required by our regular practice of exchanging views every 6 weeks or 2 months. It has nothing whatever to do with the Kosygin visit. It was planned before we had information of the Kosygin visit.,What the purposes of Mr. Kosygin and what the results of his visit to Peiping or Hanoi will be are unknown to me at this time. We will have to await developments to see what flows from those meetings.,POSSIBILITY OF A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Q. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are in South Viet-Nam at the invitation and request of the South Vietnamese Government. Yesterday there was a dispatch from Paris saying that North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese officials were exploring behind the scenes the possibility of a negotiated settlement. What happens if we are invited to leave South Viet-Nam by the South Vietnamese Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not anticipate that we would receive such an invitation. I would comment only on the dispatch that came from unknown and unauthorized, and I rather think, uninformed sources in Paris. In my judgment that dispatch had no validity and like a good many, was completely untrue.,I believe that we will continue, as I said before, to do our very best to make our effort in Viet-Nam more efficient and more effective in helping the people of Viet-Nam to help themselves. I would not want to speculate on what might be it- this situation happened or that situation happened. I would want to cross that bridge when I came to it. But I do not anticipate crossing any such bridge as was indicated by the dispatch from Paris.,Q. Does that mean, sir, that you are opposed to the suggestions of the Senators of your own party, notably Senator Gore and Mr. Church, recommending the exploration of a negotiated settlement ?,THE PRESIDENT. It means that my position, I think, is abundantly clear: that we are there to be as effective and efficient as we can in helping the people of South Viet-Nam resist aggression and preserve their freedom. You will find from time to time that Senators from both the Democratic and the Republican Parties will have different viewpoints, to which they are entitled, and they will express them, as I have expressed mine.,CLOSING OF VETERANS HOSPITALS [8.] Q. Mr. President, sir, have you given any consideration to modifying your order on the closing of veterans hospitals in light of the congressional opposition?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I gave a good deal of consideration to the action of the Veterans Administration in closing the installations that they recommended be closed in the interest of savings and economy and the interest of the veterans themselves.,This recommendation was first made by Mr. Gleason who had served many years as Administrator of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Gleason's recommendations were sent to the appropriate people in the Budget Bureau and they studied them and agreed with Mr. Gleason and referred them to the President with their views.,Upon the receipt of those recommendations I carefully studied them and sent them to the new Veterans Administrator, Mr. Driver, for his study and consideration and any action that he cared to take.,Mr. Driver made a very careful study of each of the installations and made rather full recommendations back through the appropriate officials in the Budget Bureau. They forwarded Mr. Driver's recommendations back to the White House and I asked an independent attorney, one of very judicious temperament and a good many years experience in handling public property and land and installations, to make an independent study of each of the installations and each of the consolidations.,He prepared for me a memorandum, in which he concurred in Mr. Gleason's recommendations, in Mr. Driver's recommendations, in the Director of the Budget's recommendations, and he said that the public interest required that the Veterans Administrator take the action that he proposed to take.,I have heard from most of the representatives of the communities involved. I have heard from a good many of the people who live in those communities. We recognize the economic impact of the closing of these installations and the hardship that it brings in some instances. We are doing what we can to minimize that hardship.,We do not feel that we are justified in taking the taxpayers' money to support a hospital that in many instances the people feel should not have been so located to begin with, in some instances is not modern, in other instances the head of the medical facilities of the Veterans Administration urged that they never he established to begin with because they couldn't attract outstanding military and professional medical people.,And it is our judgment that we are not justified in paying $5 or $6 a day more to keep veterans, service-connected or non-service-connected, in one of these smaller hospitals when he could get the best modern medicine available at a much cheaper cost in a hospital in the area.,Now Congress may have a different viewpoint. I have observed that they have asked us to permit the Independent Offices Committee of the Senate Appropriations Committee to look further into it. The chairman of the House Veterans Committee was consulted before we took this action, and he proposes to make a close study of it now in the House as they have done in the Senate. We will, of course, supply all the information we have and we will receive all the information that anyone else has to offer, and we will always be glad to give it consideration.,But the judgments we have made, insofar as we can now determine, were made on the best facts available, and we do not believe that the national interests of all of our people justify the waste that will occur if we satisfy the narrow local requirements. As desirable as they may be to the local community, they don't necessarily serve the national interest.,THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH [9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what the doctors report on your health since your illness last week?,THE PRESIDENT. They take my blood pressure practically every morning. They look at my throat. The comments now are they think I am doing very well, and most of the symptoms of the infection I had are gone. Although I don't feel as bouncy as I did before I went to the hospital, I am putting in a rather full day these days. I had a bowl of soup in my office for lunch yesterday and worked until I went to the meeting last night and had my dinner after I returned. I am reasonably well caught up with my work and I feel in good shape.,I would be glad to have you, if you have any specific requests that you want to pursue, talk to Dr. Burkley about it. He would be glad to give it to you. He sees me every day.,ROBERT G. BAKER [10.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate Rules Committee made a report stating that Bobby Baker was involved in gross improprieties. That was the official report. And earlier you indicated you wanted to wait until the committee finished at least a report,THE PRESIDENT. No, I never indicated I wanted to wait for the Senate. I said that was a matter for the Senate, and that is what I would repeat.,Q. Mr. President, in light of President Kennedy's much stated views that he thinks the moral leadership on these ethical questions should come from the White House, I wonder if you would like to give us your opinion now on Bobby Baker, when he was your assistant and the time afterward?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not care to make a comment about a matter that is under investigation in a Senate committee and is being thoroughly studied by a local grand jury. I have stated at various times that the question has been raised that I think that this is a matter for the Senate to study and if there has been any violation of the law, for the grand jury and the FBI and the Department of Justice to take appropriate action.,Now I have referred to the FBI any and all information of a substantive nature that has come to my attention in this regard. That information is being presented to the grand jury and is being or has been or will be presented to the committee, and I think the committee will draw its own conclusions and I have no doubt but what the grand jury will act appropriately in the matter.,VIET-NAM [ 11.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to the Viet-Nam situation, do you consider that the American national interest is limited only to the fulfilling of the commitment that you spoke of?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I did not intend to prelude--I did not intend to narrow our interests in the matter. I intended to make abundantly clear that we have made a commitment to help these people help themselves, and we intend to abide by it.,Q. Do you consider, as some people do, that there is a larger national interest in the sense that the war in Viet-Nam is part of an effort to contain Chinese expansionism in Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the effort in Viet-Nam is an effort to help liberty-loving people preserve their freedom, and realizing how much we appreciated those who helped us to obtain ours, that we want to help everyone we can preserve theirs. And our purpose there is to help the people of South Viet-Nam preserve their freedom, and we are doing all we can to do that.,Q. Mr. President, does this constitute recognition of the present Government of South Viet-Nam or are those some of the matters that are still being looked at?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not think that that is a question we are dealing with at the moment. We are working with the existing government as we have been right along. We will be exchanging views with the spokesmen for the people of South Viet-Nam through Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bundy.6,6 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam, U. Alexis Johnson, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS [12.] Q. Sir, do you see any need or justification at this time for tightening of the Nation's money supplies?,THE PRESIDENT. We are making a careful study of our balance-of-payments situation. We are very concerned with some of the developments of the last quarter, and I plan to submit, after I have adequate staff work done and have recommendations of the Council of Economic Advisers and the Treasury and the Department of Commerce, our views to the Congress. Just what specific recommendations we will make has not yet been determined.,We are exploring several possibilities with the departments. We do intend to maintain the value of gold at $35 an ounce. We do intend to see that the statement \"as sound as a dollar\" is a true statement and that the dollar is sound.,We do intend to take strong action to see that our balance-of-payments situation is improved, and we will have strong and specific recommendations in that field as soon as adequate and thorough study has been given. I would hope that it would be a matter of the next few days or few weeks, and then we will spell out the specifics.,REGISTRATION IN ALABAMA [13] Q. Mr. President, you spoke rather strongly about the situation in Selma, Ala. Have you any plans to send any Federal personnel, either Justice Department or military, to Selma, or to take any other move there?,THE PRESIDENT. I told you of what we are doing in that area, that we had just concluded one case in Alabama. We are today awaiting a decision in that case. We intend to see that the right to vote is secured for all of our citizens. We will use the tools of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in every State in the Union in an effort to see that that act is fully observed.,THE STEEL PRICE INCREASE [ 14.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything you can tell us, sir, on the study you requested on the impact of the recent steel price increases ?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I received a memorandum from Mr. Ackley 7 last night saying that he had received some information from a good many of the companies, that other information was being obtained and being supplied and would be from time to time over the next several days and weeks; that he was getting cooperation from the companies involved; that as soon as he had the basic information the Council would evaluate it and would submit it to me, and that he hoped that as much of that information as was not confidential, or not obtained under a classification that it would be confidential, could be released and made public.,7 Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers.,I don't anticipate that that information from the companies or from the Council will be available in the next few days. When it is available I will give it my careful study and if it is appropriate and if it is permissible, I will make the study, as much of it as possible, available to you so the country can know all the facts that are possible.,Alvin Spivak (United Press International): Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1965-01-16","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have three or four statements that may be of interest to you, but due to the weather and your desire to get back and file following the Prime Minister's departure you can just consider them as having been read here and treat them the same as if I had read them and that will save you time and give you more questions.,I have one that you may want to follow with some questions, so I think I'll except it from the group.,I trust that none of you attach any particular significance to the fact that you were not warmly greeted this morning by Mr. Emory Roberts. Lem Johns is here though. 1,1 Emory P. Roberts, Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, Secret Service, and Thomas L. Johns, Assistant Special Agent.,He hasn't got his tie with him but he will extend to you any courtesies of the house that you may desire.,THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF I want to talk to you though this morning about the White House and make some announcements concerning it.,On the night of November 22, 1963, when I returned to Washington, one of my first actions was to meet with the members of president Kennedy's unusually devoted and unquestionably able staff. I asked each of them to remain at their post. All of them agreed to do so. They have rendered a noble service to their country by their response in time of tragedy.,Few Presidents have been so fortunate as I have been in the quality, intelligence, dedication, and loyalty of those who served the country and served me in the Cabinet and in the White House. I think all of you know my gratitude is great.,Over the past year several have departed-Ted Sorenson, Arthur Schlesinger, Brooks Hays, and our new Ambassador to Chile, Ralph Dungan.,Today I am respecting the personal wishes of several others by regretfully and reluctantly announcing these further resignations:,Kenneth O'Donnell, Myer Feldman, Dave Powers, and a lady who is a dear and cherished friend of the Johnson family, Dr. Janet Travell.,Later today, however, George will have available to you letters from each of them and my reply. Needless to say, each of these people leaves with my profound personal gratitude for the loyalty they showed me and the outstanding service they rendered to the country under the most difficult of personal circumstances.,In addition to these announcements, I want you to know the following:,Mr. Lawrence O'Brien sometime ago submitted his resignation as Special Assistant for Congressional Relations. At my urgent request, he has agreed to remain in that capacity to help launch the new legislative program. I am asking Mr. O'Brien to continue. I emphasized that I want the White House to set an example in legislative liaison and Mr. O'Brien, with his extensive experience in such work, particularly with the legislation that was carried over from last year, recommended by President Kennedy, is the man, I think, to make this possible.,I plan to ask Mr. Lee White to assume the position of Special Counsel to the President, to be effective upon the departure of Mr. Feldman. Mr. White has served for the past 4 years as Associate Counsel. I have known him and held his abilities in the highest regard for a number of years.,With these changes I have reported, the roster of Special Assistants to the President and their duties for the new administration beginning next Wednesday will be as follows:,Mr. Lawrence O'Brien--Congressional Relations,Mr. McGeorge Bundy--National Security Affairs,Mr. George Reedy--Press Secretary,Mr. Bill Moyers--Legislative Program,Mr. Jack Valenti--Appointments Secretary,Mr. Horace Busby--Cabinet Secretary,Mr. Richard Goodwin--Urban Affairs and Conservation,Mr. Douglass Cater--Education and International Affairs,Mr. Lee White--Special Counsel,All of these Special Assistants--there is no order of rank among them--all work with and report directly to me as they have in the past. As you know, Mr. Bundy and Mr. Moyers, Mr. Valenti and Mr. Busby, Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Cater all will serve from time to time in the preparation of messages and statements.,I should tell you that some further changes may be announced from time to time. I have at least one other choice for a Special Assistant whom I hope will be able to come with us. His arrangements are not yet complete and I am respecting his wish that no announcement be made at this time.,[At this point the President spoke off the record. He then resumed speaking on the record.],All of the Special Assistants will receive the same salary--$28,500 annually, with one exception. I have set Mr. O'Brien's salary at the statutory maximum of $30,000. It is the consensus of his colleagues and myself that no public servant in Washington is more deserving.,I may say that the Congress provides 14 Assistants at $30,000. I will feel at liberty and will no doubt do so as the weeks move on, promote some of these men to various salaries in keeping with their experience, their duties, and their requirements. But I don't believe in starting them off at that particular scale. They are drawing $28,500 now with the possible exception of Mr. White who is not in the Special Assistant category at this time. The other men-Mr. Bundy, Mr. Moyers, Mr. Valenti, and the others--are on the payroll, $28,500, effective when the act went into effect July 1st, dating from that time as authorized by the act.,I could have named them all at $30,000 at that time but I felt and they felt, we all talked it over, that this was a better procedure.,I believe this staff of Special Assistants is one of the ablest and most broadly experienced, and I hope most harmonious and most dedicated, serving the President. I am proud to have them all with me now. I should say there will no doubt be additions to this in order to fill the needs that arise from time to time, but we are going to get by with as few people as we can for as long as we can. But they allow the President very generously in that regard, a good deal of leeway and we have a number of places that are unfilled.,I have a statement on the economic review for the year just completed. I have a statement about Mr. Pearson's and Mr. Martin's visit, which are just general statements you will probably want to cover.,I will be glad to take any questions.,QUESTIONS Q. Mr. President, are those statements going to be available? 2,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,2 see Items 21, 23.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, have you gotten the report that you requested from Mr. Ackley 3 on the steel price increases?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,3 Gardner Ackley, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister Churchill, as everyone knows, is gravely ill,THE PRESIDENT. I am praying for his recovery and hope very much that his condition will improve.,Q. In the event of his death, Mr. President,THE PRESIDENT. I will stand on the statement I made. I can think of nothing crueler than going into something \"in the event of.\",THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA [4.] Q. Mr. President, sir, to cut down the type of speculation that you have always advised us against regarding military matters, would it be possible to spell out exactly the extent of the war in southeast Asia now? There have been stories about air raids in Laos and a story today about PT boats and air attacks in North Viet-Nam.,THE PRESIDENT. I would not ever entertain a hope of reducing your speculation. I'm an optimist and I want to look forward to the 21st century but I can't go that far. I think in connection with that, there has been published, as you are familiar with, the loss of our planes. I think you have known for sometime, since last May, at the request of the Government of Laos we have been helping them, attempting to help defend them, and I do not think it wise public policy or desirable to go into the details--for me to go into the details of military operations.,THE BUDGET [6.] Q. Mr. President, have you been able to get your new budget under $100 billion yet?,THE PRESIDENT. We finished about a third of the budget last night and sent it to the printer. We have not wrapped up the budget yet. I don't want to get into any numbers game because I always lose those. I think it is better to say that we want to keep the budget as low as we can, consistent with meeting the needs and the requirements of this country.,There is nothing sacred about $100 billion, or 99 or 102 or 104, and anything I say you may interpret that one way and later I'll be blamed for misleading you. So I don't want to get into that. I want to be able to keep it as low as we can, and I hope to be able to cut everything out we can forego and I hope to put everything in that is necessary. About a third of it is wrapped up and it will be some 20 days yet before we finish.,THE PRESIDENT'S TRAVEL PLANS [5.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask you about the travel plans you mentioned in your State of the Union? Do you have in your mind any priorities as between Latin America and Europe, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. NO.,Q. Could you give us a clue.,THE PRESIDENT. I said no.,Q. When you might go, I mean?,THE PRESIDENT. NO.,Q. Mr. President, talking about travel plans, is there any possibility that you might add Canada to your itinerary ?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like very much to go to Canada at some time when the schedule will permit.,[At this point the President spoke off the record. He then resumed speaking on the record.],THE MULTILATERAL FORCE [7.] Q. Mr. President, where do we stand now in our talks concerning the nuclear problem in Europe, the MLF? Can you sum that up?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, when Prime Minister Wilson was here in Washington 4 we considered the proposal he put for the multilateral force as an expansion of this concept and to the Atlantic nuclear force. Since then, as we had understood and hoped, several governments have been actively discussing these proposals in some detail. They will be further discussed in the days ahead; I believe next week between Chancellor Erhard and Prime Minister Wilson when the Prime Minister visits Bonn. We have been in very close touch with the participants in these discussions and we will continue to follow the progress of these talks with the greatest of interest.,4 Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Great Britain visited the United States December 17-19, 1964. For a joint statement of the President and Prime Minister Wilson issued at that time, see 1963-(54 volume, this series, Book II, Item 797.,We have made clear to the participating governments that we think it is highly important to develop arrangements within the alliance that will provide an opportunity for the nonnuclear members to participate in their own nuclear defense, while avoiding the spread of national nuclear systems. I strongly hope in these talks there will be progress that will allow us to move on to fruitful multilateral discussions.,The position of this Government is abundantly clear, and I emphasize what I have said this morning, that we are watching carefully the progress of other governments and we have made our viewpoint clear.,INVITATION TO RUSSIAN LEADERS;AUTO TARRIFFS [8.] Q. Mr. President, have you received any response from the Russian leaders concerning your proposal that they visit here?,THE PRESIDENT. We have extended them an invitation and have had some discussions with some of their leaders, but at this time I am not in a position to go further than I did in my State of the Union Message.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any reaction from American automobile makers to the negotiations for the auto tariff remission ?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that they have indicated their pleasure in our ability to avoid further controversy and evolve an agreement that is satisfactory to the two nations, and we think it is highly desirable for both of them. I think both the auto producers and the auto workers will be pleased with the result of these exchanges.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, when you spoke earlier about an invitation, you didn't mean any formal invitation? Did it go beyond the reference in the State of the Union Message? Was it a formal invitation to the Soviet leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said I didn't think I had anything to add this morning to what l said in my State of the Union Message.,BALANCE OF PAYMENTS [11.] Q. Mr. President, in the State of the Union and in your foreign aid messages there were references to the improved international balance of payments situation over the last few years, but there were reports from Washington yesterday that there had been a recent turn for the worse in the balance and that you might ask Congress to do something about that. Do you contemplate any action in this field?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not in a position to say at this time what may develop from time to time in that field. As you know, our deficit last year was something in excess of $3 billion, 3 billion 3, and this year it is several hundred million below. But as long as there is any deficit it is a problem that gives us concern and one that we will constantly study and try to evolve answers to. And as we study it and as we find answers, and if and as recommendations are necessary, I will make them public. I have none that I am considering at the moment. I saw the story and I would say that probably represents a highly aggressive reporter who met a man who wanted to appear smart.,A good many of these administration proposals are administration down at different levels, and I am not aware of the level from which this came. But I am aware of the problem that is constantly with us and we will deal with it as we think best after our studies indicate what recommendations we should make, if any. But they are not at that point at all, as they are frequently not on these things if you look back over a period of months.,FURTHER QUESTIONS [12.] Q. Mr. President, are you expecting additional Cabinet changes in the next few weeks or months ?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I could say. I don't think I have an answer to that.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the other day there was a report that on a lower level in the administration there was a proposal to send Peace Corps volunteers to Eastern Europe. Has that reached your attention?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I read it in the paper. I would say that it was lower level.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you share Speaker McCormack's optimism that Congress is going to act promptly on your major legislative proposals ?,THE PRESIDENT. I am going to propose and I know Congress will consider and dispose as the circumstances and merits of the legislation justify. I hope to have material ready for them to consider promptly so that no one will feel we are derelict, and I have every reason to believe that they will act, as other Congresses have done, in the public interest.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, a great deal was made of extremism in the recent presidential campaign, groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations. Do you feel that the threat posed by these groups is greater today than it has been in the past?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not made any evaluation of that, period.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Mansfield was very forceful the other day in complaining of plans to close veterans hospitals in his home State, and apparently there have been other complaints by other lawmakers. Do you see any reassessment of those closings coming up or do you have any plans along that line ?,THE PRESIDENT. That decision has been made by the Veterans Administrator. That is a matter for him. He is a career employee. That is not something that I am passing on from day to day, on these individual locations.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, earlier you said when you were discussing the MLF that the position of the U.S. Government was abundantly clear, but I think there are some people in Europe and the United States who would like to think we are not as strongly behind the MLF as we were before and it is therefore negotiable. Could you just say whether we are still strongly in favor of a mixed-manned nuclear fleet?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I said that just now. I will refer you to the statement I just made.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, on the eve of your inauguration could you sum up or characterize for us your view of the general world condition, or the leadership job that you see ahead for us ?,THE PRESIDENT. I prefer to do that off the record for you. I don't want to create any more problems than we already have. If you want to do it on that basis I will be glad to.,Q. Could that be for our guidance?,THE PRESIDENT. I assume it would guide you.,Q. I mean we can use it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, you can say White House sources said or the President said or somebody close to the President said or anything. I will just give you my view off the record and if it has any influence on your view, well, all right. You can entertain your own.,Q. Okay.,[The President again spoke off the record.],Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,[19.] Q. Could I get in one question for the Ottawa group, Mr. President? It is felt that tomorrow Canada would recognize Communist China, if we could, but it is also expressed off the record in Ottawa that the United States is exerting a great deal of pressure on Canada to prevent this move. Anything either on the record or off the record you can tell us ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they said, \"Thank you.\""}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-12-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any important news for you. I understood that some of you hadn't had a chance to come out and visit and you might like to do that before you went back. I know I am going to be here for at least the next couple of days.,[1.] I have a few brief announcements that will be of interest to you and I'll make them, and I have a comment I want to make about the state of the Union so that we can get it in the proper perspective. Then I'll go on \"deep background\" for you and answer freely and fully as I can anything that your editors may be interested in or that you may be interested in.,I have been poring over these thousands of pages from some 50 agencies regarding matters that they would like to have the President consider before drawing his pattern for his message to Congress this year. Obviously, the State of the Union Message will be brief and cannot deal with all these subjects.,We will give a general outline and emphasize some of the immediate, repeat immediate, recommendations that we would like to see promptly acted upon. The other parts of the administration's program will be dealt with during the next 4 years in a series of messages from time to time, and they will be timed based upon when the Congress is ready to receive them and when the committees can act upon them and when the administration has completed its studies in the respective fields.,So I want to point out to you that the message that I will give on the evening of the 4th will not be a complete or final summation of all that we hope to achieve in this\n4 years. That program will evolve over a period of time through various messages.,I don't want to leave the impression that we expect to build a Great Society and develop it overnight, or in any 1 day or in any 1 week or in any 1 month or in any 1 session. There will be, as I want to emphasize, a series of legislative proposals, and these will be brief and considered very carefully.,[2.] Now George 1 will give you details of these biographical sketches.,1 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,Mr. Frederick Lewis Deming will be the new Under Secretary of the Treasury, succeeding Mr. Roosa who will leave us the first of the year. Mr. Deming was born in Des Moines, Iowa, September 12, 1912; A.B. degree from Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.; has an M.A. degree from Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.; has a Ph.D. from Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. He has been since 1957 president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. He first went to work for the Federal Reserve Bank in 1941 as assistant manager of the research department. By 1953 he had served as economist, manager of the research department, assistant vice president, vice president, and finally first vice president. He continued to serve the St. Louis bank until 1957 when he became president of the Minneapolis bank.,From April to June 1956, Mr. Deming served as chief of Banking Advisory Mission to the Republic of Honduras, and from November to December 1960, served as consultant to the Central Bank, Government of the Republic of China. He was recommended by Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Dillon, and by most of the--well, he is first on nearly everyone's list, and he is the only person that I have approached about it. I talked to him several weeks ago in Washington and he has now been cleared and he will give notice out there and be leaving shortly.,We are naming Mr. Sheldon S. Cohen, the General Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, as the new Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Mr. Cohen is a Washington boy, finished Calvin Coolidge High School in Washington, D.C., has an A.B. degree from George Washington University with special honors in 1950; doctor's degree, with distinction, A average, and he completed it in 2 years in 1952; had special honors in accounting at George Washington University, where he was first in his school class. He is the recipient of Charles W. Dorsey Scholarship. He was editorial and business secretary, George Washington Law Review; he was case notes editor, George Washington Law Review; United States District Court for the District of Columbia Bar; United States Court of Appeals Bar; United States Supreme Court, the Tax Court Bar; and Certified Public Accountant, Maryland, since 1953.,He has been associate professorial lecturer of George Washington University from 1958 to date; Howard University Law School lecturer in 1957 and 1958; 20th New York University Institute on Federal Taxation lecturer; and in 1957, American University Tax Institute.,He has been Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service since January 6, 1964. He was formerly associated with the legal firm of Arnold, Fortas and Porter; of Stevenson, Paul, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. He was Legislative Attorney to the Chief Counsel's Office of Internal Revenue in 1952 to 1956. He was an accountant in a CPA's office in 1950 to 1952. He was former treasurer and member of the board of directors, Lane Manor Citizens Association; assistant treasurer, director, and membership chairman of the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington; second vice president, director, and chairman of the legal committee, Jewish Social Service Agency. He had military service, U.S. Naval Reserve,\n1945 and 1946.,He will be succeeded by a career man whom I am naming today, Mr. Mitchell Rogovin, presently Assistant to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; born in New York, December 3, 1930; has an A.B. from Syracuse, Maxwell School of Citizenship; LL.B. from the University of Virginia, Du Pont Scholarship; has an LL.M. from Georgetown University, master's degree in taxation.,His career from 1954 to 1958, officer-in-charge, trial section, base legal office, Camp Pendleton, handling over 300 general courts-martial; 1958 to 1961, Office of Chief Counsel, IRS, trial attorney; 1961 to 1964, Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. He received a Treasury Department Special Service Award in 1964. And he has got various memberships which George can give you.,He has taught at the University of Virginia Law School, 1958 to 1964, as a guest lecturer, and at Palomar College, 1956 to 1957, was an instructor in English and business law.,A note on Mr. Cohen may be of interest to you. During the last 12 months as Chief Counsel, from which position he is going to Commissioner, he inaugurated, in cooperation with the Commissioner, new procedures for the handling of rules and legislative proposals which will result in annual savings in excess of a million dollars. These new procedures, involving the elimination of duplication, will also mean faster service to the public and better administration of the tax laws.,He also developed the use of electronic data processing equipment to coordinate the work of field offices so as to provide similarity of treatment for taxpayers and to make the experience of individual field offices readily available to all of them.,Mr. Cohen streamlined the organization and operation of the Chief Counsel's office, which includes approximately 1,350 employees stationed in 32 offices throughout the Nation, with notable improvements in morale and efficiency.,Q. Do you have his birthdate, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it is June 28, 1927. But that data will be available to you. I won't take any more of your time on them.2,2 A biographical sketch of each of the appointees was released at Austin, Tex., on the same day.,[3.] We have a report today for the 5 months, July through November, of this fiscal year. Total expenditures of the Federal Government are down $1.2 billion over the same period of last year. The first 5 months of the present fiscal year's expenditures came in this afternoon, 39.3. The first 5 months of last fiscal year they were 40.5.,[4.] Secretary Rusk and Mr. Bundy will arrive at the ranch tomorrow. They will review with me international developments, various personnel matters in the department in Washington and ambassadors throughout the world, and we will finish up on the final study of the budget for the State Department.,I expect Mr. Gordon to be returning to review some extra data with us.,Q. Mr. President, may I interrupt? You mentioned Mr. Bundy. There are two of them. I assume this is McGeorge?,THE PRESIDENT. McGeorge Bundy. On Wednesday I expect Mr. George McGhee. He is home for consultations. I will ask him to come here and review developments in West Germany.,I have, in the last 24 hours, talked to Secretaries Rusk and McNamara, Mr. McCone, Mr. Bundy, and Mr. Moyers several times on the state of the Union; messages back and forth to the Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers and the Budget Director. I think that is about it. Now tomorrow will be Rusk's day primarily, and next day we will spend a good deal of time with Gordon and with Ambassador McGhee and others.3,3 The President referred to Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President, Kermit Gordon, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, George C. McGhee, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, John A. McCone, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to the President, and Gardner Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.,Q. Mr. Gordon on Wednesday, did you say, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not quite sure; I think tomorrow, if they can get that many seats on the plane. I don't see beyond that.,[The remainder of the news conference consisted of \"deep background\" briefing.]"}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-11-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] The present discussion of the Atlantic Alliance that we see in the press and by the commentators, on television and radio, is, I think, partially the result of a neglect of first principles that are worth some new attention this morning.,The ultimate essentials of the defense of the Atlantic community are the firmness and the mutual trust of the United States and Europe. The United States position I should make abundantly clear. The safety of the United States depends upon the freedom of Europe, and the freedom of Europe depends upon the strength and the will of the United States. That strength and that will have never been clearer, have never been more necessary than today.,The United States is committed to the increasing strength and the cooperation of the Atlantic community in every field of action--economic, commercial, and monetary. There are no problems which we cannot solve together, and there are very few which any of us can settle by himself.,The United States sees no safe future for ourselves and none for any other Atlantic nation in a policy of narrow national self-interest. One of the great aspirations within the Atlantic community is the aspiration toward growing unity among the free peoples of Europe. No nation on either side of the Atlantic has done more to support this purpose than the United States. This support will continue.,Since 1945 the United States has borne a special responsibility for the nuclear defense of the free world. The costs and the complexities of modern nuclear weapons make it inevitable that this American responsibility will continue far into the future. While we cannot divest ourselves of this awesome obligation, we can and we will work earnestly with all of our friends to find new and better ways by which all interested members of the alliance can increase their own sense of safety by sharing responsibility in the unified defense of the alliance as a whole. This is the meaning of our present interest in the multilateral forces. This is the meaning of our continued readiness to discuss these problems with every interested ally.,I believe that the Atlantic Alliance is only at the beginning of its time of greatest achievement. Its success has been proved in 15 years of Atlantic peace. Its differences are differences among peoples who have learned in the torment of war that the freedom of each requires the freedom of all. I look forward with confidence to the resolution of present differences and the reassertion of the unity which is so deeply in the common interest of us all.,[2.] Let me add here this statement voluntarily before I submit for questions, a word about the Congo and about Africa, which has engaged our very special attention, as you know, this week. This terrible experience, this reign of terror and disorder, these innocent lives sacrificed in political reprisals, constitute a tragedy for Africa and for the Congo as well as for the rest of the world.,What has happened in Stanleyville has happened far too often to Congolese and foreigners alike on both sides in various conflicts in the Congo in recent years. The Congo has suffered through more than 4 years of violence and bloodshed and disunity. It has been an arena of power struggles and ideological wars. I hope now that it can have at last a chance for peace and order, and economic recovery, so that the ordinary people of the Congo can hope for improvement in their lot and for protection against the daily threat of violent death.,I have wired the relatives of our citizens who lost their lives there my feelings and expressed my great sympathy for them in this hour. We lost three Americans.1 Undoubtedly we would have lost dozens more had we not acted promptly and decisively in cooperation with the Belgian paratroopers. As you know, more than 4,000 Congolese themselves, most of whom were people with education, more than 4,000 Congolese in recent months have lost their lives because of these disorders.,1 Dr. Paul Carlson of California, Phyllis Rine of Mount Vernon, Ohio, and Joseph Tucker of Lamar, Ark., all missionaries.,I would like to stress to those of you here at the ranch this morning that the United States has no political goals to impose upon the Congo. We have no narrow interest. We have no economic gain to be served in the Congo. We seek to impose no political solution, neither our own nor that of some other outsider.,We have tried only to meet our obligations to the legitimate government, and to its efforts to achieve unity and stability and reconciliation in the Congo.,So we hope now that everyone who has had a part in this 4-year agony of the Congo will bury past differences and try to work together in a spirit of compassion, to help reach these goals of unity and stability and reconciliation. If this could happen, perhaps the hundreds of innocent lives, Congolese and foreign, that have been sacrificed will not have been sacrificed in vain.,We were necessarily a party to the decisions, and I assume full responsibility for those made for our planes to carry the paratroopers in there, in this humanitarian venture. We had to act and act promptly in order to keep hundreds and even thousands of people from being massacred. And we did act in time.,The paratroop force that we moved in there will be moved out tonight, and it will be moved out of the Congo to Ascension Island in the South Atlantic Ocean.,[3.] Another matter which we have spent some time on in the last few days is the monetary situation.,This week we witnessed a rather remarkable demonstration of the strength of international monetary cooperation. Eleven nations, including the United States, and the Bank of International Settlement, arranged with the United Kingdom to provide credit facilities totaling about $3 billion to defend the pound sterling against speculative pressure.,We are gratified that these arrangements were worked out so speedily and with such widespread international participation. This action should give the United Kingdom the breathing space needed to carry out an effective program for improving its balance-of-payments position.,Of course, none of us was pleased that the Federal Reserve was obligated to raise our discount rate as a precautionary move in response to international developments. However, as Chairman Martin has clearly stated, this move is not, repeat not, intended to restrict the availability of credit to the domestic economy and does not lead us to expect any significant increase in the cost of domestic long-term credit, either from the banks or in the capital market.,We can count on monetary policies that continue to meet the credit needs of a noninflationary expansion. This expansion, as you know, is about to enter its 46th consecutive month, an unprecedented record of peacetime prosperity.,Although strikes in the automobile industry dampened our economic performance in October and early November, there is encouraging evidence that the underlying economic forces remain strong. I presume it has almost become traditional for me to discuss economics, and I will certainly do so as long as you will follow me and it is desirable, at least.,But I would like to point out that our housing starts showed a welcomed 9 percent rise in October. Our new orders received by manufacturers continued to exceed shipments, which would indicate further strength in manufacturing production in the coming months.,Outside of durable goods manufacturing, which showed the effects of the strike, nonfarm payroll employment scored a good gain, 180,000 persons in October. Excluding sales by auto dealers, retail sales were 6.5 percent above last year for the 4 weeks that ended November 21st.,Now that the auto strikes are behind us, this underlying strength should again become fully apparent. The coming holiday season will find our economy setting new records for production, employment, income, and sales.,I think I should add that I have been kept in close touch with the auto people. I communicated with Mr. Reuther when he was abroad, and he came back and I have talked to him since we have been here. I am very happy that the employment situation in the auto industry as a result of the agreements between the management and labor has been worked out, and we can look forward to full production and more complete employment.,[4.] As you know, I will complete today a rather thorough review with each Cabinet officer of items that we will 'put in the budget for fiscal year 1966. Mr. Katzenbach 2 and some of his associates will arrive shortly and will spend part of the day with me. Later in the day I will have the Chairman, the distinguished Chairman, of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, Mr. Mahon, flying in to give him an up-to-date review of what the agencies are asking, and to invite the suggestions of the Congress and certainly his committee on any suggestions they might have.,2 Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Acting Attorney General.,I must tell you that in candor and frankness no one can tell what this budget figure will be. What we have done is, we have had each department present to the Budget and to the President what they feel are their minimum demands for this year.,The Budget Director has not scrutinized each of those demands nor has the President. We will do that during the next 30 days.,This is the first preliminary presentation and there will no doubt be some increases to what they have asked at this time, depending on developments abroad and here, and there must be a good many reductions.,The figure that they are asking is in the neighborhood of $108 billion, between 108 and 109. As I say, there will be some additions to that and there will be some reductions. But that process is now underway.,I have a perspective on the budget expenditure and the employment trends in relation to other trends in our great and growing economy.,It has been a rather interesting study that must continue until early January. I asked the Budget Director when he was here the other day to present two charts which would show how the Federal budget expenditure and Federal employment have behaved over the past decade. All of our people are interested in this, but they have to support other divisions of Government, and I wanted to see how our expenditures compared with our gross national product and how our employment compared with our population.,We all realize that we have new people, 3 or 4 million, coming into our population each year. There will be additional needs for them, and so forth. The Federal expenditures shown on this chart show what they would have been had they kept their '55 relationship to State-local government spending and to the gross national product.,You will see we started out at $64.4 billion in our 1955 expenditure, and if we had gone and spent the same amount as the State-local governments did, we would have a budget this year of $143 billion. If we had spent only the same percentage to our gross national product as we did in 1955, we would be spending $109.8 billion.,I think that that is what the managers of our departments feel would be a felt last year and feel this year--would be the desirable and almost necessary level.,You will recall the 37 days and nights that we worked. We anticipate this year an expenditure of somewhere in the neighborhood of $97.2, about $700 million under what I had estimated at the beginning of the year. That may come up some the next few months, depending on any needs that we have. But if we had spent like the States and local people spent, it would be $143 billion. If we had spent in accordance with the increase in our productivity, our gross national product, it would be $109 billion. It actually is between 97 and 98. They are asking for 108 next year. These charts show our general relation to the gross national product and State and local government expenditures.,We have here an employment chart that tells somewhat the similar story. We had 2,371,000 in '55. If we had added the same number of employees that the State and local governments have added according to their relationship, we would have 3,886,000. If we added only in accordance with our population needs, it would be 2,783,000. As you can see, during this period, it held about the same, or actually it has declined a few thousand since we went in.,That will necessarily increase some because we have an increasing population, we have a steadily growing economy, we have expenditures in employment in Federal programs that are new, that are just coming up. At the same time, I think it is imperative that we do our best to increase efficiency and productivity in Government programs and reform existing programs to meet the needs of today and tomorrow.,These charts show that both Federal spending and Federal employment are under tight and effective controls and I plan to keep it that way. So we are putting together a budget which will continue these favorable trends but we are trying to find substantial places where we can eliminate programs and where we can make reforms that will give us some leeway to institute new measures.,[5.] The United Steel Workers officials are meeting Wednesday to draw up their wage demands. I know you must have observed that, and I think that every person in this country has a very vital interest in the outcome of these negotiations.,I am very pleased with the current prosperity of the steel industry. Production this year will reach an all-time peak. Steel profits are up 26 percent over last year. Employment is up 80,000 since last December. Steel prices have been essentially stable since October 1963, and I hope and I expect that they can remain that way.,As the period of bargaining approaches, I am anxious to preserve stability in this great industry. I know I can count on both sides to do their utmost to resolve the important local and national issues before them, again avoiding the dislocations of a strike.,I also look forward to a responsible settlement which preserves stable labor cost per unit and thus contributes to continued stability in steel prices. I am sure that the parties have the wisdom to reach a new agreement without a strike and without labor cost or price increase. We can then look forward to continued balanced expansion with our record of cost-price stability remaining intact.,Now, if you would like, I will take questions. I know that you don't want to be kept too long. But you can extend your period of questioning a little bit if you want to because we have some people from our State that may want to add to your usual time. It may be that you will want to eliminate some of these volunteers that don't interest you. I just wanted to review with you what we have done here in the last week.,We will be returning tomorrow afternoon, sometime between 1 and 3. I have spent the morning talking to Secretary Dillon, Secretary Rusk, Secretary McNamara, Mr. Bundy, and the Budget Director 3 in the usual routine conferences we have by telephone instead of in person, when we are here. Now, if you care, you can take the next 20 minutes so you don't get deprived of any of your opportunity to ask questions.,3 McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President, and Kermit Gordon, Director, Bureau of the Budget.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, is expansion of the Viet-Nam war into Laos or North Viet-Nam a live possibility at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mr. Kilduff 4 reviewed with you yesterday the feeling of this administration. I don't want to give you any particular guideposts as to your conduct in the matter. But when you crawl out on a limb, you always have to find another one to crawl back on.,4 Malcolm M. Kilduff, Assistant Press Secretary.,I have just been sitting here in this serene atmosphere of the Pedernales for the last few days reading about the wars that you have involved us in and the additional undertakings that I have made decisions on or that General Taylor5 has recommended or that Mr. McNamara plans or Secretary Rusk envisages. I would say, generally speaking, that some people are speculating and taking positions that I would think are somewhat premature.,5 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam.,We have had many conferences in the last year in connection with the South Viet-Nam situation. It has been a serious problem for many years. Secretary McNamara has made several trips out there. Secretary Rusk has made two trips out there since I became President. The first meetings I had as President were with Ambassador Lodge 6 who was called in. I have had other meetings with General Taylor and other conferences. We have scheduled them in Honolulu.,6 Henry Cabot Lodge, former U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam.,In retrospect, as you look back over your writings during all of that period, they are somewhat similar to what they are today. I don't know whether you have a black sheet that you take out every time we have a meeting on it and rewrite it, but in Honolulu we had these dire predictions and we served notice on the world that we were about to launch a big new effort.,I would say the situation is always serious. It is quite a problem. Periodically we will have meetings with our top people. Every few weeks we will have General Taylor or Mr. Johnson or General Westmoreland 7 or some other people from out there in here. We will evaluate the situation. We will do everything we can to make it more effective and more efficient. The only thing we need to do to end our real problem in that area is for some folks out there to leave their neighbors alone. We hope in due tithe that that can be brought about.,7 U. Alexis Johnson, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam and Gen. William Westmoreland, Commander, U.S. Forces in Viet-Nam.,At the moment, General Taylor will report to us on developments. We will carefully consider those reports. He is meeting with Secretary McNamara and Secretary Rusk, Mr. Bundy and Mr. Harriman, I believe, today and tomorrow. I will meet with him in the early part of the week.8 I anticipate that there will be no dramatic announcement to come out of these meetings except in the form of your speculation.,8 On December 1 the White House announced that the President had reviewed the situation in South Viet-Nam with Ambassador Taylor, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, Central Intelligence Agency Director John A. McCone, and Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,The release stated that Ambassador Taylor reported that the political situation in Saigon was still difficult, but that the new government under Prime Minister Tran Van Huong was making a determined effort to strengthen national unity, to maintain law and order, and to press forward with the security program. Over the past few months, he said, security problems had increased in the northern provinces of South Viet-Nam, with uneven progress elsewhere; however the strength of the government's armed forces was being increased by improved recruiting and conscription, and by an increase of nearly Ion percent in the combat strength of the Vietnamese Air Force. Ambassador Taylor also reported that increased interdiction of communication routes by the Viet Cong was interfering to some extent with commerce within the country.,The meeting, the release noted, also reviewed the accumulating evidence of continuing and increased North Vietnamese support of the Viet Cong and of North Vietnamese forces in, and passing through, the territory of Laos in violation of the Geneva Accords of 1962.,The release concluded by stating that the President had \"reaffirmed the basic U.S. policy of providing all possible and useful assistance to the South Vietnamese people and government in their struggle to defeat the externally supported insurgency and aggression being conducted against them.\",[7.] Q. Mr. President, have you given any thought to a meeting with the new leaders of the Soviet, and do you think such a meeting could serve a useful purpose in the next few months?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no plans for such a meeting.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your statement on Western Europe, there have been questions about your own personal commitment to the multilateral force. Do you strongly believe in it as the main essential in your program for Western Europe at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. I touched on that in the statement a moment ago. We are now preparing ourselves for a conference with the Prime Minister of Great Britain who will be here in a few days.9 We have just concluded meetings between Mr. Rusk and Mr. Schroder. 10 I think the general feeling of the President and this Government is outlined in the statement I just gave you. We do realize that for many years to come we will have great responsibility in this general area.,9 See Items 795-797.,10 Gerhard Schroder, German Foreign Minister, who was in Washington November 22-26.,We want to work out with all of the nations, the free nations, the best solution possible. We are not going to be adamant in our attitudes. We are going to try to be cooperative and helpful, and we hope that we can obtain a meeting of the minds of all of our allies.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you foresee the meeting with Wilson as the beginning of a round of bilateral talks with allied leaders, and including one with De Gaulle?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't say it is a beginning. I would say it is natural and normal for the allies to confer and exchange viewpoints. We are very happy that the Prime Minister is coming, and we look forward to a very productive visit. We will be very glad from time to time to meet with the other leaders. As you know, Secretary Ball 11 and Secretary Rusk both have trips to Europe planned this year, and there will be other exchanges. I wouldn't say that the meeting with Wilson is necessarily the beginning. I would say it is a normal routine, and we will carry on with them and explore every possible matter of mutual interest.,11 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,Q. Do you foresee one soon with De Gaulle?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't have any scheduled at the present time.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, sir, do you plan any sort of reprisals against the rebels in the Congo to hold them responsible for killing the Americans?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the Secretary has stated our position, that we feel outraged by the actions that were taken, not only against some of our people but against the Congolese themselves, that resulted in thousands losing their lives, and we certainly hope that the perpetrators of these outrages are brought to justice.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that J. Edgar Hoover's usefulness has been impaired because of the controversial statements he has made about Martin Luther King, the Warren Commission, and the Supreme Court?,THE PRESIDENT. We have individuals from time to time that give their views in various situations. Both persons that you mentioned have exercised their freedom of speech on occasions. My problem is to try to prevent the strong divisions that could come to pass from time to time, instead of provoke them. We are very anxious that each person receive the protections of the law in this country and be adequately protected in their constitutional rights.,Mr. Hoover has been called upon by the President and by others on many occasions to do work in the examination and in the study and investigation in this field, particularly the field of civil rights. He has been diligent and rather effective, and I would hope that in the months ahead we would have further evidence of the outstanding capacity of his people, and that this would not degenerate into a battle of personalities.,As you know, in the campaign I did all I could to keep that from happening, and I will continue to.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, is it the estimate of our Government today that an increase or an expansion of the war in Viet-Nam would probably lead to Chinese Communist retaliation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we will evaluate the entire situation out there with General Taylor in the coming week and take whatever action we think is in the national interest.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you intend to name--,THE PRESIDENT. I am not hearing you, and I am having a little static over here.,Q. Do you intend to name a new Attorney General anytime soon, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I have named Mr. Katzenbach to direct the activities of the Justice Department. When and if I have any changes in that situation, I will be glad to promptly announce them.,Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate any other Cabinet changes?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think from time to time there will be changes in the departments. A good many men who came there expecting to stay 2 or 3 or 4 years--their time has already run out. I have one that I can announce to you this morning.,The Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Roosa, had agreed to stay on 3 years when he came to Washington, and because of the situation in our Government following the loss of President Kennedy, we asked him to stay on. He agreed to help us through this year. He is resigning to go into private business, and he has written me a letter of resignation. I have responded.,If Mr. Reedy will have those letters mimeographed, they will be available to you and you can release them in the morning.,But there will be changes in the administration from time to time because of the long period that some men have served, because of financial demands, because of family problems. I don't anticipate that I will have the degree of changes that you would have in a change of administration. I hope that we will have reasonable continuity, and I think we have had. It is rather unusual. I am deeply indebted to the men and women who have made sacrifices to continue in public service.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, to get back to J. Edgar Hoover for 1 minute, have you given him assurances that he can remain as Director of the FBI as long as you are President?,THE PRESIDENT. We had a public ceremony regarding Mr. Hoover, and I will ask Mr. Reedy to give you a full transcript so you can have exactly what happened and what was said. 12,12 See Item 333.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you have an agreement with Vice President-elect Humphrey as to what would happen if you suffered some disability as other Presidents have had?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't.,Q. Do you plan something like that?,THE PRESIDENT. I do--when he is Vice President.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, a number of African nationalists have charged that our intervention in Stanleyville was an act of imperialism. What answer do you have for those?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I have told you what actuated us and what motivated us. We went in solely for humanitarian reasons. We were asked by the Belgian Government to assist with transportation in order to prevent massacre of our citizens and of other citizens of the world, including citizens of the Congo.,We gave great consideration to that and we saw there was no responsible government that had been able to give us any assurances that the lives of our people would not be taken and the lives of other nationals would not be taken. And we had seen that thousands of Congolese had lost their lives.,So we felt that our concern for humanity, our own national interest, dictated that we comply with the request to furnish transportation. We made that decision. We acted. We carried out our part of the bargain and we think we saved hundreds and thousands of lives, not only of Americans but others. And I thought we had no alternatives.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to give Mr. Marvin Watson a post in your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to, but I have no plans whatever to. He has other problems, other duties now, and there is not anything in the offing. I see a good deal in the press about it. But if they had taken the same caution you do, they wouldn't have misled their readers.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, have you made any decision on the vacancy on the Federal Power Commission?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't. When I have any appointments to make, we won't keep those secret. We will make a public announcement of them. In cases of all commissions, we will submit their names to the Congress for confirmation where they will be carefully considered and perhaps debated.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us anything about your personal contact with General de Gaulle?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have had contacts from time to time when I was Vice President, and since I have become President, personal, official, orally, and in writing. No doubt we will have others from time to time.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports, including one in a speech by Senator Humphrey, that you plan to submit a very extensive Federal aid program for elementary and high schools. Can you tell us a little bit about that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have reached no agreement about that.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, do you still hope to keep your budget below $100 billion?,THE PRESIDENT. I would always hope to keep it as low as possible. I have told you about what I know, and I think that it would be pure speculation to say--well, I have said many times that I like to keep the budget as low as possible. I hope it could be $100 billion. But I have given you the facts as I see them, and maybe your speculation on that is as good as mine. It is very difficult to know now whether you can reduce these requests to that area or not. I would rather doubt it at the moment.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, before the convention, we understood that you expected to expand the duties of the Vice President. Have you talked to Senator Humphrey about this and could you give us something more specific about the tasks you expect him to do?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have talked to him about it, and I will be talking to him about it from time to time, and will be asking him to assume additional responsibilities as the need for them arises. I expect to engage his counsel and his years of experience in connection with the budget before it goes to Congress so he will be generally familiar with the operations of each department.,I would hope that because of his long association in the Senate and his familiarity with the legislative program that he would not only as presiding officer of that body under the Constitution but as a former Member of it he would be of great service to the country, acting with the Legislative and the Executive in trying to help formulate our program for the year.,I know he has demonstrated an intense interest in our space activities, and under the Space Act he will be the new Chairman of the Space Council, which is composed of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Space Administrator. Because of his activity and his interest in the constitutional rights field, I know that he will give us his counsel and leadership in connection with equal employment and preventing discrimination against any of our citizens because of race or religion or region.,From time to time there will be particular assignments that I will want him to undertake because, as I told you before, I have an extremely high regard for his capacity, and he has a rich background. I want to call upon him every place I think he can make a contribution.,He has already been here, as you know. He was the first to come. We talked at some length about what he would do. Some of that was on the record, such as I have just repeated to you. Unfortunately, the horse got in the way and took the headlines. But he will be very busily engaged.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, you may remember that during the campaign you had to cancel a dinner engagement in Dallas. Do you expect to be able to keep that engagement before the end of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I never had an engagement in Dallas, and I did not cancel any engagements. There was some tentative planning that included a number of visits in Texas. We did not confirm those and we were unable to continue with our planning in that regard because of developments regarding the Chinese nuclear situation and the change of government in Russia.,I welcome every opportunity to come to Texas, and I will no doubt be visiting you perhaps more frequently than you would like because I know it is a long way out here on a slow bus, and part of your responsibility is to look after, look over, and look out for the President, and keep in touch with his activities. But I will be back, in and out from time to time, and I would like very much to visit other parts of the State.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any sort of a preview of the program you will place before the new Congress, at least the items to which you will give top priority?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I don't think the Cabinet and the President, and my staff people, have closed it up yet, but we have been working day and night since the election in thinking, researching, studying, and inviting the counsel of business people, medical leaders, educational leaders, and Government experts, and we are trying to assemble these ideas and suggestions for my consideration and for the Cabinet's study, and for the Budget Director's attention.,We feel very strongly that the parts of the program that were not enacted in the last session should be acted upon at an early date. Those include medical care, Appalachia, ARA, the immigration bill. All of those are a part of what the Johnson administration feels is of immediate interest and need to the American people.,In addition we are now evaluating very carefully the requirements of the three educational bills that I signed into law, the hospital and library bills that I have signed into law, the poverty program which we have inaugurated, which they received their money for in October. They are very carefully trying to wisely apportion that over the country. We want to see what expansions we can make in that field.,We will have a very heavy emphasis, as I indicated in the campaign, on natural beauty, on conservation, on education, on health, on economy, and we will continue with our scientific studies and try to advance and accelerate improvements in the Defense Department, our weapons systems, and our space effort. All of those will be submitted to the Congress from time to time.,We will have some general observations to make early in the year, but I have already reviewed with the leadership what I would like for them to act on in the way of medical care, excise taxes, unemployment compensation modernization, and the detailed provisions on health, education, conservation, agriculture, natural beauty, will come along from time to time.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-10-19","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Today the President held his 12th meeting with the Members of the leadership of both parties in the Congress and related his observations resulting from his personal conversation with British Prime Minister Wilson, Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin, and other Government leaders.,The President presented to the leadership a highly classified briefing on recent events in the Soviet Union and Communist China.,Director McCone and Chairman Seaborg presented details on the development of the Chinese nuclear effort.1 Mr. McCone reviewed in detail the evidence which supports the conclusions the President announced in recent days.,1John A. McCone, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.,Secretary McNamara reported in detail on the U.S. defense plans and deployments which take full account of the Chinese effort now and for the future. He emphasized as well the enormous cost to all mankind of any nuclear holocaust, and he showed how the heavy strategic superiority of the United States deters, and will continue to deter, all possible opponents.,Ambassador Thompson2 discussed the probable causes and estimated meaning of the removal of Chairman Khrushchev and reviewed the evidence with which political developments in the Soviet Union are observed, assessed, and analyzed by U.S. experts.,2 Llewellyn E. Thompson, Ambassador at Large for the Department of State and former Ambassador to the Soviet Union.,The Secretary of State reviewed the political meaning of these important events and explained the political and diplomatic steps which the United States is taking in support of the basic positions set forth by the President last night. The Secretary also reported that the President had talked with Prime Minister Wilson and now intends to have a preliminary discussion of international problems early next week with the new British Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker.,The President invited the Members of the leadership to offer their own evaluations and to pursue any questions of interest to them, and a thorough discussion followed. The President expressed his pleasure at the cooperation of the leadership of the Congress in all matters affecting our country's foreign policy. The President reaffirmed his conviction that while these new developments require a careful watch by the United States, they only reinforce the need for continuation of our basic bipartisan foreign policy.,I will give that to the radio and television people as soon as they can have it.,[2.] In addition to that, I made brief statements concerning the civilian employment of the Government and the expenditures for the first few months of this fiscal year.,[3.] I also pointed out that I would try to meet in the next few days with the group that I set up to counsel with me on international matters, made up of General Bradley, Mr. John Coles, Arthur Dean, Allen Dulles, Roswell Gilpatric, George Kistiakowsky, Bob Lovett, John McCloy, and Honorable James Perkins and James Wadsworth. And I expect to try to meet with them Wednesday before we go out to have some visits with people.3,3 See Items 591, 696.,[4.] I pointed out that the Federal civilian employment in September was 2,449,327. At this level, it was 14,000 under the preceding month, down 14,000, down 21,000 from the beginning of the Johnson administration, the lowest level in 2½ years.,I pointed out that we spent $676 million less in July and August than last July and August. The figure for September looks like we spent $635 million more. We have a net difference of probably $41 million less expenditure for the 3 months than last year's 3 months. In other words, our expenditures for the first quarter, fiscal quarter of the Johnson administration, is $41 million less than the 3 months for the other administration. It would have been $250 million or $300 million more except we borrowed $134 million for FNMA, and Civil Service made a big lump contribution that was not spread out over the years for the Government Employees' Trust Fund.,The important thing is we have 21,000 less people working now than we had when we took over. We had 25,000 less in July and 17,000 in August and 14,000 less in September, but the net is as of October 14th through the month of September we had 21,000 less working, which is the lowest level in 2 years, and for the quarter we spent $41 million less. I reviewed that with them.,[5.] I also told them about the Hoover report involving Mr. Jenkins,4 that we would get those facts and what the indications were at this time. I made available to them a copy of Mr. Dillon's5 letter to the Attorney General where he says he was not checked further with District of Columbia authorities, the Secret Service, nor were any other high officials informed of the report, speaking of the '59 incident. It was not specifically brought to the attention of any member of the White House staff, the Kennedy staff, in 1961 and 1962, the then Vice President, or any member of his staff. That is the result of the study by the man in charge of the Secret Service.,4 Walter Jenkins, former Special Assistant to the President (see Item 671).,5 Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon.,[6.] I reviewed with them some of the efforts that I am making in the budget field to try to keep our employment down and our expenditures down, notwithstanding the new programs and the first quarter spending below last year, notwithstanding a major civilian pay increase in July, notwithstanding two military pay increases effective October 1, 1963, and September 1964. So notwithstanding those three increases we are still, for the quarter, under it. That will fluctuate, but we are trying to make rather material reductions under what we had last year, and we think we will be able to.,I also expressed appreciation for their consideration of my budget. It was cut about 3 percent, a little over 3, the lowest budget cut in years.,I think that is about all.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, when you referred to going back to visiting people, did you mean on Wednesday?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope to. I don't have any definite plans at the moment, but I will check as soon as I get out. I have not had my lunch. You worry about my health, and I want to get my lunch. I was never in better health. I never felt better, notwithstanding some of the rather heavy problems that have come across my desk this week.,[8.] I have had a heavy schedule of meetings with my advisers in USIA, Defense and Treasury, Secret Service, with Mr. Hoover, and other people. And I would hope that I can get this group in here Wednesday--Mr. McCloy and company, Arthur Dean, Bob Lovett--and review with them this world picture.,I have been with Mr. Erhard twice, and there is the situation in Germany; with a new government in Britain; Mr. de Gaulle just made his trip to the Latin American countries; we have had very interesting developments in Brazil--and Chile has given us some concern, and Panama and Cuba, since we have been here; but we think the OAS meeting with 19 out of 20 passed a resolution which is very good.,We are trying to keep abreast and be very prompt in our actions on this hemisphere. We are happy for the work Tom Mann6 has done. He has brought us where we can act quickly and cut the red tape over there, and he has funds obligated which were not piled up. I talked with the businessmen's committee, headed by David Rockefeller.7 I want to get their ideas.,6 Thomas C. Mann, Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress, and Special Assistant to the President for Latin America.,7 Business Group for Latin America (see Item 169).,We have a new government in India. We have a new government in Russia. And I want to draw upon their wide experience on a bipartisan basis, from Lovett and McCloy and Dean and Kistiakowsky, Dean Acheson, all of whom I have had individual talks with in the last few days, but I want to have their collective thinking.,I also asked these people to give me any suggestions they could. I will be glad to have any criticism they have to offer or any corrections that they would like to suggest.,[At this point the President spoke of the record. He then resumed speaking on the record.],I pointed out to them that we now have over 11 countries that have moved into Viet-Nam. We now have something over 1,000 people that those countries are contributing. It is now exceeding the 1,000 mark and General Taylor8 has just told us and we are very appreciative of the efforts of various countries--Australia and others. I think that is about all we said.,8 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, Ambassador to Viet-Nam.,They didn't ask any questions. I don't want to imply that their silence approved what we said or did anything, although I asked for corrections and suggestions as falling within that area. Some questions were asked to develop information on what is happening in this area of the world or that one.,Ambassador Thompson gave a very excellent review, as did Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara who went into everything from warheads to airplanes and all those things.,That is it now."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-10-03","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] The Federal Government began operations under my first budget on July 1st. The Kennedy year went out June 30th. I spent part of the afternoon with Mr. Gordon yesterday, and we worked on it some more this morning. We now have complete figures for Government operations during the first 2 months of this fiscal year, totaled and complete, July and August. This is what the figures show:,I. Total budget expenditures for this 2 months' period are down $667 million from the same period last year.,2. Civilian employment in the executive branch in July 1964 was 25,000 below the same month, July, in the previous year. In August of 1964 it was 17,000 down below August of 1963. We expect that the September figures will also be below last year's level. In a few days, when we have our reports calculated from the various agencies, we will give you that information.,Federal nondefense agencies report, in accordance with my reporting requirements, that they took steps to initiate management improvements and cost reductions in July and August which will produce savings of more than $178 million on an annual basis. These savings are in addition to the $100 million reported last April and to the $140 million reported in July. I would caution you that these are figures in nondefense agencies. They are in addition to the $2.5 billion savings actually already realized last year under the Defense Department's cost-reduction program.,The agencies with the largest savings to be realized by actions taken in the first 2 months of our fiscal year, July and August, are as follows:,Atomic Energy Commission, $66 million.,National Aeronautics and Space Administration, $44 million.,Department of Agriculture, $14,600,000.,Post Office Department, $10,500,000.,Agency for International Development, $8,900,000.,Interior Department, $7,400,000.,Veterans Administration, $6,100,000.,These are the largest savings. I will not take time to go into the smaller ones.,These savings were achieved through better procurement methods, tighter controls on employment, elimination of publications which I reported to you, overtime paid, reduction of travel, reduction in communications, greater use of Government surplus facilities and equipment, better organization, consolidations, cutting out unnecessary layers and eliminating unnecessary functions.,With the adjournment of the Congress we have, last night, totaled up all of the requests for appropriations which I sent to the Congress since I became President, and we have determined that we requested $450 million less than I publicly stated I would request in my budget last January.,The Budget Director informs me that our performance in July and August strengthens his confidence in the 1965 expenditure reestimate of $97.3 billion which we made to you officially in May. At this level, expenditures will be $600 million below the actual expenditures in fiscal 1964. A copy of that statement will be made available to you, and George1 will give you a copy.,1 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,Federal civilian employment in the executive branch in August was 2,483,559, if you want that figure. Employment in August, last month, was a third consecutive month in which Federal employment was below the figures for the same month in the 2 preceding years.,[2.] I have received today an updated cost-reduction report from the Secretary of Defense. This report contains the final audited savings resulting from the Department of Defense cost reduction program for the year that we ended June 30th. On July 7th Secretary McNamara reported savings of $2,553 million. The figures for the final quarter of the year were estimated, as he so reported. I am happy now to state that the final figures for the year have been audited and the actual savings from the cost reduction program, instead of $2,553 million, as estimated, are $2,831 million, an increase of $278 million over our previous estimates.,On July 30th, I announced that the number of direct-hire civilian employees in the Department of Defense had been reduced for the first time below one million in many years, to 997,864, the first time since the Korean war buildup that such employment had ever gone under one million.,Secretary McNamara has informed me this morning that his previous direct-hire civilian employment ceiling of 989,920 for the end of the current fiscal year on which I based my 1965 budget estimate that I sent to Congress can now be reduced to 984,553, or a further reduction of 13,311 below the Department of Defense civilian employment level on July 1, 1964, and 5,367 below the previously established ceiling of July 1, 1965.,These reports from Secretary McNamara gave me renewed conviction that I will be able to fulfill my pledge to the taxpayers of America when I assumed this office: to give them a dollar's worth of defense for every dollar spent. The report also makes me confident that the Secretary of Defense will probably exceed his established goal of saving $4.6 billion each year, every year, beginning in fiscal 1968.,[3.] Six months ago I directed the Secretary of Defense to undertake the most comprehensive study of the draft system ever made in this country, and report that to you through our press and television-radio media. Today Secretary McNamara gave me a progress report on this study.,He is exploring all possible ways of meeting our military manpower needs, including the possibility of not relying on the draft. This study will be completed next April. I am impressed and I am pleased by the very thorough approach which is being given and taken on this very complex and important problem.,The Department of Defense staff is being supported by many other of the civilian agencies and Government departments. I am confident that when the study is completed, it will provide the most extensive information on our military manpower needs and supply that has ever been assembled in this country. Secretary McNamara has undertaken the following:,--A thorough evaluation of the fairness of current and alternative draft selection procedures.,--A series of studies aimed at tracing the influence of the draft on employment, on training, on marriage rates, on education, and so forth.,--Surveys and analyses of the plans and the attitudes of young men of military service age to assist us in designing ways to increase the number of volunteers.,--A review of the potential for extending the use of civilians in place of military personnel in support-type activities.,The Secretary of Defense emphasizes that the current population boom offers an unprecedented challenge to our armed services to try to strengthen their voluntary recruitment program. In this coming year the first wave of the postwar generation will reach military-service age. The number of young men reaching 18 will increase from under 1 ½ million in the past few years to nearly 2 million during the fiscal year ending June 1965.,While I am encouraged with the progress made thus far in these studies, I must emphasize that it is premature to make responsible forecasts of the outcome at this time. Most Americans would agree that we should minimize the use of compulsion in meeting our military manpower needs, but I believe that few Americans would want us to take risks with our security.,We will consider all of the facts. We will consider all of the reasonable alternatives to the present system. We will weigh them in terms of their effect on the young men of this country and their families, as well as on our military capabilities and national security.,We will receive from the Selective Service, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the expert civilians in the Department appropriate recommendations as to their judgment of what is best to be done. We will then offer to the American people that course of action which, after careful and thorough study, we believe to be best calculated to protect our freedom at the least and most equitable burden to our society.,[4.] I have an economic statement.,This week, as we enter the last quarter of 1964, the 44th month of our economic expansion, we can see the economic record of the year now taking shape. The pace of our advance has quickened.,Unemployment, after remaining stubbornly between 51 1/2 and 6 percent in 1962 and 1963, dropped to 5.3 in the first half of this year, to 5.1 in the first quarter.,Our total national output is growing at a 5 percent rate in real terms.,With the aid of the tax cut, consumers are leading the advance. In the first half of the year, their spending rose by a record $15 billion. Strong gains are now continuing. In July, August, and the first 4 weeks of September, retail sales have been 6 percent or more above this period last year.,Business is investing 13 percent more in plant and equipment this year than last year. Sharply rising profits and depreciation allowances, which as you will recall were running 12 percent above a year earlier during the second quarter, have supplied most of the necessary funds.,Our great gains are not being eroded by inflation. Consumer prices, which dropped a bit in August, rose only 1 percent in the past year, a rise well below the postwar average. Average wholesale prices were below their levels of a year earlier, and below their level at the time that the tax cut was enacted. Wise and responsible policies by business, by labor, and by Government, working and reasoning together in harmony, can bring us continued solid and sound expansion for a long time to come.,[5.] Today the first round-the-world cruise of our first nuclear task force will come to an end when the three ships comprising that force return to their home ports in the United States. The carrier Enterprise and the cruiser Long Beach will put in at Norfolk, and the guided missile frigate Bainbridge will arrive in Charleston. I commend this event to your attention as one of great interest. And there is a fuller statement that you can copy.2,2 The statement as released by the White House included the following additional paragraphs:,These ships have demonstrated a new dimension in our strategic capabilities at sea and they have written a new chapter in the history of our friendly relations with the countries they have visited.,It should be noted by friend and foe alike that these ships in traveling 65 days and more than 30,000 miles did not require a single item of logistic replenishment from any source to complete their mission. They were completely self-sustaining.,The officers and men of these ships are to be congratulated on a job extremely well done, and I have asked both the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to go to Norfolk today to convey my personal greetings and congratulations,[6.] I have a statement prepared on the Congress that will be available to you, but I don't want to take your time from questions to read it. It summarizes the 10 months of hard, painstaking work of the Members and it gives my opinion of the achievements of the Congress.3,3 Item 620.,[7.] I have a brief announcement on the number of women, since we started our special program to induce the employment and promotion of women, in the Federal service. Since our last report on September 8th, the departments and selected agencies have reported a total of 88 personnel actions promoting or appointing women in grades GS-12 and above. These additions bring the grand total since January 1964 to 1,542, excluding Presidential appointments. With the Presidential appointments, that brings a total of 1,610. There is more detail on that if you want it.,[8.] There is also a statement here by the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Information for providing the United States with a more flexible and effective Foreign Service. I won't read that. If you care to have it, you can get that mimeographed and George will make them available to you.4,4 For the President's statement on announcing a change in the Foreign Service, see Item 621.,Now I will be glad to answer any questions.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us how many women in GS-12 and above were in Government a year ago?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can just tell you that we have added that many by promotion and appointment.,Q. Well, this is in addition?,THE PRESIDENT. These are in addition to that. You will remember it was reported-I questioned it at the time--but someone said that we would have at least 50 women in top places in Government. There was considerable splash about it, and stories about the 50, and there has been 1,600-odd.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us when you plan to have the President-elect of Mexico and his wife as your guest at the LBJ Ranch, and also your thoughts in making the invitation?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the Warren Commission's report, and the campaign season, there are many stories about your behavior in crowds and the campaign and your physical well-being. Because of these recommendations in the Warren Commission report, and because of some of these concerns that have been expressed, would this start you to change your style?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I want to be fully responsive to your question, and I have studied the Warren Commission report. I wish you would specify what recommendations you had in mind, because I have been reading some of these articles that are written by people who obviously haven't seen it.,Q. It is not the solid recommendations, but some of the suggestions.,THE PRESIDENT. What specific ones?,Q. Well, that you not go into the thick of a crowd.,THE PRESIDENT. There is no such recommendation.,Q. Well, undue exposure.,THE PRESIDENT. There is no such suggestion. I commend the report to your reading. I have read it and I have the provisions marked, and they point out that the President must have association and contact with them, and they do not recommend that you not do it.,The facts of the case are that when you are visiting with these crowds and shaking hands with people, this is the least dangerous period that the President has. I am just amazed that the press would point up these things as creating a problem.,I would have you know that the director of the Secret Service and all of those associated with him tell me that you frequently quote their opinions and their feeling without authority or without justification, in your stories.,Only yesterday I sent him a story where a usually reliable White House reporter had written about the concern of the Secret Service, and it was not only not a concern, but they felt that we were following their instructions. I never violate any instructions from them. But the question is whether to follow some reporter who has neither read the Warren report nor who knows anything about security--following his suggestion or following the suggestion of the security man.,Now, this morning I have this note from the Chief of the Service, and this is the feeling of all of the people who have served the President.,Following the assassination, we took a good many precautionary steps. We had the highest people in this Government meet and attempt to work out what additional precautions could be taken. I don't want to go into all of those, because I really think that you all serve no good purpose by playing on these things and inviting the attention of folks who have interests in these fields. But if you want to do it and must do it, I think that you ought to do it with the facts, and not off the top of your head.,The memo from the Chief of the Secret Service this morning says this, which might be helpful to some of you:,\"There has been much said concerning the dangerous risk involved when the President personally appears in and mingles with crowds. The Secret Service is quite accustomed to working in crowds, and this responsibility does not make them nervous or jittery or worried. It is the nature of the protective assignment that the Secret Service is always concerned for the safety of the President and the First Family.,\"The element of surprise which is gained during impromptu appearances of the President, for example, when he stops his car during a motorcade without notice is often the most important deterrent to risk. The ability to infiltrate any gathered crowd by plainclothesmen and law enforcement officers, both male and female, is another important deterrent. The crowd itself also offers some protection by covering the President. It also prevents a potential assassin froth performing an act unnoticed and prevents the escape of the individual. When on the same level, only these persons in the front row have fair accessibility to the President.\",[At this point the President spoke off the record. He then resumed speaking on the record.],But I would say that we have had the Secret Service meet with the FBI and appropriate people in other investigative agencies and we comply with their requests and with their instructions. I am very pleased with the competence of the Secret Service people that surround me, and with the cooperation that they receive from Mr. Hoover and his group at all times.,We do feel and we have felt all along, that you do need to take advance precautions before you go into a place. We try as best we can to balance their desire that we not overly advertise far ahead of time our exact movement with your desire that you have 2 weeks' notice before we travel, and we try to balance it as best we can.,We think that the Secret Service is not in any way dismayed. They are pleased with the way we are handling ourselves, and I am pleased with them. The only ones I know that are not pleased are some politician that doesn't understand it or some reporter who hasn't read it.,I had the Warren Committee report briefed this morning. Will you get it for me? I think Dick5 has it here. I had a young lawyer go over it and we are trying to find out all of these recommendations that these folks are writing about, and how we violate it. It just isn't so.,5 Richard H. Nelson, Presidential Aide.,Q. There was an innuendo there about exposure.,THE PRESIDENT. Give me the innuendo. It is just not there. Have you read the Warren Commission report?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. What are you referring to?,Q. Well, there were portions in there which said the President should not expose himself unduly.,THE PRESIDENT. There is a matter of degree. No one wants to endanger himself unduly, but the question is this: When you stand in front of a group of 80,000 people for 37 minutes, you are in much greater danger than you are stopping. None of the Secret Service or the FBI are worried about a fellow shaking hands.,Q. Mr. President, I believe one of the recommendations of the Commission was that your personal physician be close to you when you are in public. Dr. Burkley was several cars back in the motorcade when one burst into flame. Will you keep your own doctor closer to you in public?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that he is kept as close as is necessary, and as is practicable, and he is really not guarding me. He is a matter of seconds from me. If he happens to be in the second or third car, that is adequate, and they think it is adequate. We try to put first things first, and we believe that we are doing that.,There are some parts of the report that interest me, and I will quote them:,\"From George Washington to John F. Kennedy, such journeys have been a normal part of the President's activities.\",Another quotation is:,\"In all of these roles, the President must go to the people. Exposure of the President to public view through travel among the people of this country is a great and historic tradition of American life. Desired by both the President and the public, it is an indispensable means of communication between the two.\",Here is another quotation:,\"But his very position as representative of the people prevents him from effectively shielding himself from the people. He cannot and will not take the precautions of a dictator or a sovereign. Under our system, measures must be sought to afford security without impeding the President's performance of his many functions.\",This is another quotation:,\"An approach to complete security would require the President to operate in a sort of vacuum, isolated from the general public and behind impregnable barriers. His travel would be in secret; his public appearances would be behind bulletproof glass.\",Very frankly, they had \"behind bulletproof glass\" as a recommendation following the Kennedy assassination. On certain occasions, when we go over and under certain dangerous places they have outlined ahead, they try to cover every one of these trips with dozens of men going ahead of us, long before you folks even know what we plan. Sometimes they go and examine places that we don't even go to, because they think that we might go to them.,Quoting further:,\"Any travel, any contact with the general public involves a calculated risk on the part of the President and the men responsible for his protection. Some risks can be lessened when the President recognizes the security problem, has confidence in the dedicated Secret Service men who are ready to lay down their lives for him and accepts the necessary security precautions which they recommend. Many Presidents have been understandably impatient with the security precautions which many years of experience dictate because these precautions reduce the President's privacy and the access to him of the people of the country. Nevertheless, the procedures and advice should be accepted if the President wishes to have any security.\",We have gone through and analyzed all of the pertinent parts, and I have read the pertinent parts here to you now. Since I became President, we have been following them. It is irritating to go in an old car that sometimes roars and you can't even talk in it, but if they recommend it, that is what we do.,None of you need to be worried about my physical safety between now and November. I am going to follow their recommendations. Of course, no one can tell whether their recommendations are best or not, but I comply with them. I had the same people with me as Vice President when you will remember a good many of you complained in columns and articles and in four speeches about having too much protection.,I remember some Congressmen got up and made speeches about having too much protection, and a waste of money, and so forth. But we follow what these men do. Mr. Rowley6 is the head of it and Mr. Behn7 is the head of the White House detail, but the man who has been with me many years, and who travels with me, and really supervises all of the folks with us, is Mr. Rufus Youngblood. He and I never have a difference of opinion or a cross word. We are very congenial and very understanding, and his security recommendations are carried out to the letter.,6 James J. Rowley, Chief of the U.S. Secret Service.,7 Gerald A. Behn, head of the White House detail of the Secret Service.,The memorandum that I read you a moment ago from Mr. Rowley represents the views of the people who really do the actual guarding. It is over his signature, but I have discussed that with him thoroughly because of two or three articles that were written along that line.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the budget figures that you read us, have you come to any tentative conclusions as to whether or not next year's budget can be held at this year's budget, or under it?,THE PRESIDENT. We have given to the departments certain guidelines for their exploration in connection with their recommendations to us. We cannot finalize that figure until (1) our task forces have made their reports, which will be the latter part of November, some 15 task forces working on the program which I will recommend to the next Congress; and (a) until the Budget Director and I have a chance to scan their recommendations.,We are anxious to keep the expenditures just as low as we possibly can. We recognize that we have a growing population and we have growing needs, but we are trying, as I have said on other occasions, to take the things that we are now doing, what you call the \"haves,\" if we think they are unnecessary, we reduce them in every way we can in order to give to other new programs for which they now do not have anything-the \"have-nots\"--and we will take from the ones that can be reduced over to the ones that need to be started.,For instance, we reduced from regular departments throughout the Government-Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HEW, Defense, and others--more than enough money from what they had to finance our entire poverty program which was a so-called \"have-not\" at that time. We took from them and put it over here.,I am trying to follow the policy that if I am going to have a new venture, then I have to have some way whereby I can find the money for that, rather than just adding to what we spend. I actually had $1 billion less in our budget this year than last year. I don't know how it will run the coming year. We will have to take a look at it. We are working very hard to keep it as low as possible.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of invective--and I use that word--hurled across the landscape lately by some candidates running for high office, words like \"lies\" and \"deceit\" and \"drift\" and \"defeat\" and words along that line. Aside from what is read into your replies at formal speeches, I wonder if you have anything to say about that kind of campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would refer you to my previous statements on my belief that the people are not particularly concerned about my opinion of my opponent or his personal opinion of me. Most of them recognize in campaigns that candidates don't spend their time recommending the other fellow.,[14.] Q. Referring to your statement of taking from the Government departments that are involved and giving to those that are \"have-nots,\" in the spirit of the season, it appears there is some material questioning whether you meant to apply this to the executive departments or the country as a whole, and I thought you might want to clarify it. I think we all understand it.,THE PRESIDENT. If there is any confusion, eliminate the words \"have\" and \"have-nots.\" What I mean to say, by previous appropriation of funds, where a department has those funds and a new program does not have those funds, you have to find places where you can make savings if you are to inaugurate a new program. You have to get the approval of Congress, and I think that is one of the reasons we got our poverty program through, because we had effective savings from those departments that had appropriations. So we have something available to those \"have-nots.\",[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us, sir, what the status and the meaning are of this nuclear treaty that Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Senator Douglas,8 among others, talked of in the past few days?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no secret of any kind. It seems to me that the question raised by one of the candidates yesterday-my opponent--on a train, was somewhat impulsive. Most of you have had these news briefings and will recall that back in January I made a public announcement on the television and radio networks of this country, and have said several times at press conferences, that we propose new agreements to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to nations not now possessing them. We put forward that proposal publicly and officially in Geneva. All of you know it has been under constant discussion ever since.,8 Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Senator Paul H. Douglas of Illinois.,I am convinced, as I said in Seattle, that the spread of nuclear weapons is one of the great dangers to peace, and as long as I am President, I shall continue to work as hard as I know how to work to seek agreements that will stop that spread.,Unfortunately, as you know, and as the public record clearly shows, the Soviet Union so far has refused to support our proposal and, as all the world knows, the Chinese Communists have violently opposed any nuclear agreement of any kind.,So there is no secret here. It is simply some more evidence that impulsive people should probably get themselves properly briefed.,[At this point the President again spoke off the record.],[16.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on the failure to get the medicare bill, and particularly whether it was satisfactory to you that we also failed to get the social security benefits increased?,THE PRESIDENT. We regret that we could never get Congressman Mills, the chairman of the committee, and Congressman Byrnes, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, and Congressman Curtis to yield or to moderate their views.9,9 The President referred to Representatives Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, and Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri.,The Members reported to me that there was an impasse and they just would not have any part of a Senate proposal this year. I did everything that I could to get it accepted in the Senate and the House. I had many, many conferences with many, many people. But they felt that they couldn't get agreement and they had several meetings and several votes, and like many conferences they just couldn't agree.,I think Senator Gore very properly presented the situation when he said that it is now a matter that the people of this country can pass judgment on. I hope that we get a mandate in November. There are about 19,700,000, about one out of every 10 people, who are on social security, and we think that one of the most important domestic problems is to provide some hospital and medical care for them. It does not in any way involve doctors, and we think it is better for the individual and his employer to provide that by contributing to a fund than to shovel it out of State funds, as you do in other programs.,The Senate agrees with us, but as is often the case, you have difficulty getting both Houses to agree on the same thing at the same time. However, we confidently feel that we will find a way to get agreement in the next session.,We are just sorry that one of our Democrats agreed with two Republicans. I know he was sincere and I know he thought he was doing the right thing, and men do have different opinions.,[17.] Q. Sir, do you think any good can ever come from a situation in which testimony given to the Warren Commission is released to the public by someone other than the Warren Commission?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think any matter involving the testimony of the Warren Commission at this stage of the game is a proper inquiry for the Warren Commission.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us your view on the suggestion that your administration is soft on communism?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know that I want to reply in kind to the charge of that nature. I see in the papers--that is the only information that I have--the new and frightening voice of the Republican Party is merely trying out this charge at the moment to see if it works. On that basis, my own advice would be to drop it.,I also saw it reported that he was advised along these lines by Mr. Hoover and Mr. Nixon, former President Hoover, but both President Hoover and Vice President Nixon are men I have known for many years and have worked with them, and I doubt very much that either of them would make such a suggestion about me or about my Cabinet or this administration.,My own belief is that this sort of nonsense was the product of some third-string speech writer and accidentally got into the public print without prudent or careful screening. As far as I am concerned, I intend to ignore it. I think when the Republican candidate really has a chance to think about it and study it, he will stop it.,William Eaton, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President.,Q. Mr. President, we all have more questions.,THE PRESIDENT, I am sure that would be true if I stayed here all day."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-09-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [ 1.] I have just put together three appointments for the Comsat Board-Communications Satellite. It is a 12-man board, and 3 appointments by the President. I have appointed Mr. Frederic Donner, who is chairman of the Board of General Motors, and has been since 1958. I delayed you a little bit because I had to have his acceptance. I just received it. I have Mr. George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO. I will have Mr. Clark Kerr, president of the University of California. Those are the three Presidential appointees.,Q. How is that name spelled?,THE PRESIDENT. D-o-n-n-e-r. This has required a good deal of study and discussion, and I feel very pleased that these men have indicated their willingness to make a sacrifice to lend their peculiar and unusual talents to the direction of this great adventure between Government and free enterprise. Needless to say, all of them have a good many duties at the present time, but because I pointed out the need for their experience and their broad knowledge, they accepted membership.,[2.] That is about all I have to tell you. I will go over some travel plans that I have as nearly as I can make them. I hope you will be understanding with me in case I have to adjust them or modify them in some ways. Sometimes we have to make adjustments from time to time.,On Friday morning I will be in El Paso to meet with President Lopez Mateos.,We will then go to Oklahoma to dedicate the dam 30 miles south of Muskogee. That is a long-standing commitment I made to dedicate this dam, the Eufaula Dam.,I will then go on to Oklahoma City to speak at the Oklahoma State Fair. I had agreed with Congressman Albert, the Majority Leader, and with Mr. Monroney, head of the fair association, some time ago, to be there.,On Monday, September 28th, I hope to visit the New England States. I hold an honorary degree from Brown University, and I have had a very warm feeling for that institution, and particularly for President Keeney, which I formed through Senator Green, who is a member of the board of trustees there. I hope to be able to call on them. They asked me last spring to come see Senator Green and speak at the university. I agreed to it if the good Lord was willing and the creeks didn't rise. So I am going to be there on the morning of September 28th at the university's bicentennial convocation. It is a long-standing engagement, but unless something intervenes, you can plan to be there with me.,I would like to go on to Hartford, Conn., at noon, and to make stops in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont before returning to Washington.,Q. The same day?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. On Tuesday, September 29th, I will be visiting Mr. Brosio, the Secretary General of NATO. The visit will start here, and where it will end up we are still planning, but it will probably be at one of our interesting installations that command his interest. It will be something that he would like to see. It could be a naval installation, a missile installation, or something else.,On Thursday, October 1st, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, president of Johns Hopkins University, has invited me to speak to the student body and the faculty of that school, and I have accepted.,On Monday and Tuesday, October 5th and 6th, just before you ladies take off on that train with Lady Bird, we will have President Macapagal of the Philippines here for a state visit that has been planned for many months now. I believe that is the time that Lady Bird leaves on her trip.,On Wednesday, it is likely that I will be in the Midwest to make a political speech. I will give you more details as soon as we finish out some of the arrangements that are being made now by the security people and by the advance people.,Q. Of this week?,THE PRESIDENT. No, October 7th.,On Thursday, the 8th, I will be in Cleveland, Ohio, for a Democratic dinner, and there make a Democratic campaign speech.,I have some other plans, but they are tentative and they involve other foreign visitors, and I don't think I had better announce them here until we coordinate with their announcements, so we will not create problems for them, but I will give you them a little later.,[3.] I will answer any questions you have that are important, and then I am going to walk around at least once or twice, around the back here. I am going to take a short walk and a longer swim, but I have some appointments around 12:30. I will be glad to answer any questions you have here. I gave you this before we started the walk because somebody told me Muriel 1 has not permanently fixed the heel on her shoe, and I didn't want her to take notes on the trot.,1 Muriel Dobbin of the Baltimore Sun.,[4.] Q. Speaking of your travel, do you envision anything beyond the campaign, specifically, trips abroad? Tokyo hears you might go there, and Latin America hears you might go there. Have you thought anything about such trips at all abroad?,[The question was answered on a \"background basis.\"],[5.] Q. Mr. President, sir, do you have any further information on what may have happened in the Gulf of Tonkin and, if so, what do you think were the motives of whatever these ships were that approached the destroyers?,THE PRESIDENT. This is for background. No, I will let it stand for the record.,I have no further information on the incident other than that given you, other than the information you received Saturday on a background basis. I am unable to speak with any authority on the motives of the persons you referred to.,On Friday morning at around 9 o'clock, which was around 9 o'clock in the evening in the Tonkin Gulf, we received a flash information that has been described to you, namely, that ships were approaching our destroyers. The ships were unidentified; that a warning shot was being fired; and that they would, pursuant to orders, fire additional shots in order to protect and defend themselves.,So I received that information from Secretary McNamara. I asked to be informed immediately upon receipt of any other information. I conferred with the National Security Adviser and asked him to meet with the appropriate officials of State and Defense and keep me informed from time to time.,It was night out there, and it was day here, Friday. I was later informed that the ships or the unidentified vessels continued to approach our two destroyers and they opened fire. The ships disappeared. They would keep us informed. Planes had been launched and were in the air to protect the destroyers and to conduct a search, and to contribute anything they could contribute during the darkness of the night.,As we went into Friday night, which was morning out there, during Friday night the members of our fleet and our planes spent the daylight hours out there, the night hours here, attempting to conduct adequate reconnaissance, locate any hostile vessels that might be in the area.,Saturday morning, which was the end of the day out there, they notified us of their reports through the Commander in Chief of the Pacific, and CINCPAC, both of whom evaluated their reports, which were brought to me here in the Cabinet Room. I spent 2 hours reviewing them with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and my security people.,At that time I directed Mr. McNamara and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to issue an operational statement giving you all the facts that we had been able to confirm from the first daylight hours surveillance we could make, and the first reports we could finalize on that reconnaissance, and to give you specific times and locations and area and types of ships, and all of the details that they could from an operational standpoint, because it has been the custom of the President in my relationship to you to have operational things decided by operational people relayed to you because they have a knowledge of it, and they have a duty and obligation to maintain a relationship with the people in the field.,At the same time I informed them that I would be giving a full background to the people who covered the White House. As soon as they left here, I proceeded to call for you and you were in here shortly thereafter.,[The remainder of the President's answer was on a \"background basis.\"],[6.] Q. Mr. President, the President of Mexico, Lopez Mateos, has already announced detailed plans for the development of the Chamizal Zone on the Mexican side, and the El Paso Times would like to know what you are going to announce for the American side.,THE PRESIDENT. We will see, and I will be in touch with you.,[7.] Q. There is a strike deadline of 6 a.m. tomorrow set by various rail unions. Do you have any plans to ask for a postponement in that strike deadline?,THE PRESIDENT. I have nothing I would like to say at this point in connection with those negotiations.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, has there been any information at all that would suggest whether these boats in the Tonkin Gulf were torpedo boats like they were before, or larger ones?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you will have to stay with the announcement that Mr. McNamara gave that came from CINCPAC because I think it reflects exactly what happened and is about all of the sure information they have. They saw unidentified vessels on their radar and I don't think I can go beyond that. It is not because I don't want to, but I don't have any additional information.,[9.] Q. On the west coast trip, everyone feels you were way ahead in stating your visit, but they felt this was overconfidence and this was something you were going to have to overcome by shaking up the Democratic organization. Have you talked over that problem of overconfidence yet?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I don't think it exists. I think we all recognize that a very important derision is going to be made in November. I think every patriotic American will want to participate in that decision wherever he is.,My wife is certainly not overconfident, because she is exploring where she is going to vote in absentia. Before a very important election her car was turned over and a reporter asked her, \"What was your first thought when you came to?\" and she said, \"I wished I had voted absentee.\",So we don't believe in overconfidence. We think that the people want to hear from us, they want to get our viewpoints on public questions, they want to know how we stand on issues, so we are going to be visiting all over this country. I expect, myself, I will be in many, many States.,I don't have any accurate poll on them, but to just pick a figure out of the air, I would think now, since I have been President, the 10 months and maybe 11 months by election time, that I will be in States that involve a population of 125 million and probably more than 30 States. I know that Luci told me that she was finishing 10 that she had been in. Lynda Bird has been in 8 or 10, and Mrs. Johnson is going to be in some 20-odd.,Luci moved her father's presidential campaign into Indiana yesterday and brought 3,000 Hoosiers screaming to their feet with a plea, \"Help me ring the bell for freedom.\" So I hope she is not criticized now for leaving out the word \"freedom\" there. At least Luci does her own speeches and she won't take any recommendations from anyone. I found that out the other evening when I tried to make a suggestion to her.,We will all be giving our viewpoints, the family, in places where we can. I will join Mrs. Johnson's train, I hope, someplace for an appearance, and both girls will be with her in and out where the school duties permit, and I will be in as many States as my Presidential duties permit. I would like nothing better, if I could do it, to be in all States. I hope to be in them all while I am President, and I hope I don't have to pick up several between November and January.,We think it is good that people in most of the States indicate their approval of the job that we are doing. We want them to continue to indicate their approval right through November and right through the next 4 years. In order to do that, we are going to look them in the eye like we look you in the eye, and we are going to talk to them and answer their questions and try to be available.,I am glad we came in from Utah the other morning. I got to bed at 5 and I was talking about the Tonkin Gulf the next morning. I was glad it was 9 that morning and not the morning before, because I would have been in Portland, Oreg., then. I could have done everything I did there, but I was just glad from the public standpoint that I was here. So I will be in and out of this office, and this will have first priority. I will be President first, but we will be out campaigning when the opportunity permits, to the extent it permits.,At the same time, we will have to dedicate airports and we will have a dam here and there, and we have visitors from here and there, and we will have interviews and press conferences and we will have all of these other things that are part of the Presidency.,Q. Mr. President, you specifically said that a couple of these appearances are going to be political. Does that rule out politics on the others?,THE PRESIDENT. I am going to make a Democratic fundraising appearance in Cleveland. As I recall, that is the only fundraising I make. I will make Democratic appearances in New England on behalf of the Democratic Party. I don't consider when I meet with you that I am making a Democratic appearance. I consider that I am doing my job as President, and that extends to a lot of places.,I might go to the Hill next week sometime to have a lunch with somebody, and you might consider that. I notice some of you considered the California appearance a political appearance. I don't care what you consider it. You have free speech. I don't want to guide the news. I don't want to try to lead the news. You just consider what you want them to. We had members of the Judiciary, Republican Members of the Senate, Republican Party of California, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and folks of that kind. We were in a defense-interested State. I am sure there were a good many Republicans in the audience. I would think that with a good many people like that, there were some Republicans. In fact, I saw two or three folks that just looked like they were Republicans.,When I go to meetings like that, I try, as I do in my hometown when I invite people to come in, I don't try to be offensive with them. All of you thought my speech in Detroit was a red-hot political speech. I thought I was going out at the invitation of the labor union in Detroit on Labor Day to make a Labor Day speech.,I was very pleased that I had not been partisan in the speech and had not been denouncing any Republicans in the speech when I saw the distinguished Republican Governor had come there to welcome me. I would have felt a little bad to invite him into my home and denounce the Republicans. I would have felt bad to have him invite me on the platform there and then start denouncing him. You can rate or classify that any way you want to.,I know my speech in Cleveland will be about the Democratic Party and will be charged for it, and I know some of my speeches in New England will be at the invitation of Democratic people up there, and so forth. I don't consider reviewing a hurricane as a political thing. It could hurt or help you.,The President has to do that just as I am doing like I am doing now. I will be doing things like that every day. I don't think you can cut off all announcements and not issue any information and not tell what is happening. You will be seeing from day to day developments in Government between now and November. I am President, and if I tell you about them you will say they are political announcements, and if I don't tell you, you will say we are guiding the press.,Q. Are you going to Atlantic City too morrow?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Where are you going to be on Election Day?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. We have not planned that far ahead.,I am going to make a speech to the Steelworkers.2 I did last year, and the year before in Miami. I agreed to do this sometime ago, and I will go up and come right back.,2 See Item 589.,Q. Mr. President, the Steelworkers are probably concerned about labor-management. Can you characterize the Chrysler-Ford contract for us?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think I would. I will give some thought this evening to what I say to the Steelworkers and I will try to work out something to them that will be satisfactory.,Q. Might your trip to El Paso include a trip to Los Angeles?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think so.,Douglas Cornell, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-09-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a few announcements here.,[1.] Here is one we agreed on at a meeting, that I roughed over.,At a regular bipartisan meeting of the congressional leadership called by the President, Ambassador Taylor gave a detailed report of recent political developments in South Viet-Nam and his assessments of progress toward a more stable government there.,The Ambassador was able to report continued progress in the field in the Vietnamese Army's fight against the Communist Viet Cong, and to answer the leadership's questions about the general situation there. Secretaries Rusk and McNamara and General Wheeler and Mr. McCone also participated in the meeting.,It was a full and frank examination of the whole situation--a discussion of the sort that we have had at least 11 since November and we hope to be able to provide frequently for further meetings of the joint leadership in the future.,You of the press have already received from General Taylor a good account of his report to us. Other meetings were held in November, in December, in January, in February, April, May, and August.,[2.] I am pleased that the Chrysler-United Auto Workers case has been settled peacefully and privately on true good faith and collective bargaining.,I have not seen the actual terms and have no comment on them.,I am gratified, however, by the statements by the parties that this settlement takes full account of both public and private interests, that it will mean more jobs, and that it will be noninflationary.,[3.] On September 16, Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and I will join in ceremonies at the International Peace Arch, on the U.S.-Canadian border between British Columbia and the State of Washington, to commemorate the successful conclusion of the Columbia River Treaty.,Prior to the Peace Arch ceremonies, the Prime Minister and I will make an aerial inspection tour of a considerable part of the upper Columbia River Basin, flying over the proposed sites of the dams to be constructed in British Columbia under the treaty, the location of the Libby (Montana) Dam to be constructed by the United States, and some of the existing downstream United States dams concerned.,While in the Pacific Northwest, the Prime Minister and I will consult with regional leaders in our respective countries regarding cooperative steps to be taken on both sides of the border in implementation of the treaty. The Prime Minister and I will also take advantage of this opportunity to discuss current international problems of mutual concern. I have talked to him by telephone earlier today. We will leave here at 6:30 or 6:45, and George1 will give you the details of the latter, that is on September 16.,1 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,[4.] I also talked to three Governors last evening, in regard to the Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia situation and tendered them our assistance and full facilities of the Federal Government in any way we could help. 2,2 The reference was to the widespread damage from Hurricane Dora which had struck the three States. A White House release, dated September 9, stated that the President had that day declared Florida a \"major disaster\" area because of the earlier hurricane, Cleo, which had caused extensive damage in nine east coast Florida counties. The release further stated that the President had also made available $300,000 in Federal disaster relief funds for use in the State. Later, on October 31, the White House announced that the President had that day made an additional $2 million available for Hurricane Cleo disaster relief in Florida.,[5.] I want to announce the formation of a panel of distinguished citizens who will consult with the President during the coming months on major international problems facing the United States. I reviewed this with the leadership earlier today, and I made the statement to them, but this is the first public announcement made. George will have copies of it.,Members of the panel will be consulted in matters where the advice of highly qualified and experienced men in private life may be helpful in finding effective courses of action in the quest for peace and advancement of the national security. They will not act as a committee nor will they hold regular meetings. Instead, they will be asked for advice as individuals, under flexible and informal arrangements suited to the needs of the problem at hand.,Their regular point of contact will be the Special Assistant for National Security Affairs, and their services will be available not only to the President but to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. I have conferred with both Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense in some detail about the membership on this panel.,All of these distinguished men have served informally in this fashion in the past, but it seems to me useful and important to reemphasize the role of leading private citizens, without regard to party, as counselors to the President.,The consultants named today have a distinction that is above partisan politics, and their services will be available not only to me this year, but also to the man who is President in 1965. If I am President next year, I expect to use their help.,The members of the panel are: Arthur Dean, John Cowles, Morris Leibman, Gen. Omar Bradley, James Wadsworth, Arthur Larson, James Perkins, Teodoro Moscoso, Robert Lovett, George Kistiakowsky, Roswell Gilpatric, Dean Acheson, Paul Hoffman, Eugene Black, John McCloy, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles.,Q. Who is the chairman?,THE PRESIDENT. They will just have a group, and if they have need of a chairman they will select one, or they will name one.,[6.] Confidence in our economic prosperity has been growing as indicators continue to point up:,Steel production rose for the fifth consecutive week last week, reaching 37 percent above a year ago; and,New car sales rose to an 8.1 million unit annual rate in August, matching the previous high for this year scored in February.,The Dow-Jones industrial stock average closed at a new high yesterday--851.91--surpassing previous peak reached on July 17th.,With the aid of the tax cut, consumers have been able to score record advances both in their current living standards and their financial savings for the future.,In the first half of this year consumer spending rose $15 billion, the largest peacetime advance in history for a half year period.,New figures which the SEC will release tomorrow show that net financial savings of individuals in the second quarter was $7.7 billion, the highest quarterly total of the postwar period.,The new advance in savings tops a record that was already excellent: In the past 3½ years the net financial saving of American households has totaled $73 billion, or about $1,300 per family. This 3½ year figure matches the savings of the entire 6 years 1955-60.,As I have stated before, experience in the Department of Defense indicates that every dollar of procurement which can be shifted from sole-source to a competitive basis saves the taxpayer 25 cents. The Department of Defense has steadily raised the rate of its competitive buying since the beginning of this administration. The Secretary of Defense has reported to me that as of the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 1964, the amount of competitive contract awards has risen to a rate of 39.1 percent, the highest level on record.,The fiscal '64 rate represents a conversion of new contract awards totaling some $1 .8 billion to a competitive basis for an estimated saving of $450 million. The fiscal '64 rate of 39. 1 percent compares with 32.9 percent in fiscal year '61; 35.6 percent in fiscal year '62; and 37. 1 percent in fiscal year '63.,Those statements will be made available to you, if I can find someone who will give you copies.,I will be glad to take any questions.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, as a result of your consultations with Ambassador Taylor, can you tell us, will there be any shifts either in emphasis or in magnitude of our effort in Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think General Taylor's briefing with you this morning pretty well outlines our position, and I would stand on that.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, these civilians you have just listed who you are to consult with on foreign affairs, will you consult with them at a time of crisis, or just any old time?,THE PRESIDENT. Anytime, and whenever we think it is appropriate, on any question on which their particular qualifications may suit them.,[9.] I have asked--I am going to another subject that I just happened to think of--I am asking the FBI to give me a compilation of their reports on the various problems that we have encountered in cities and in States that could involve a violation of Federal laws, and that do involve disturbances, such as riots and disturbances of the peace. When I get that compilation of the various reports, I will review those and try to compile them if I find any pattern that is common to all of them, and ask that further study be made.,We are informing all of the mayors and all of the Governors, where these problems arise, that we will make available through appropriate channels of their peace officers full information that we may have. We are available for any supplementary work that may be within our authority under existing law. That is true in Mississippi, and Georgia, New Jersey, and New York, and Maryland, and other States that have it.,But out of this compilation of Federal Bureau of Investigation reports we may find some particular pattern that will need to be pointed up, and that may lead us to make further recommendations.,Q. Are you referring specifically to riots such as in Philadelphia and Harlem and so forth?,THE PRESIDENT. I am referring specifically, not exclusively to those, but including all of them, that is, anything that involves a disturbance of the peace where Federal law might be violated or where our jurisdiction and authority might exist.,Q. Mr. President, in connection with this, about 3 weeks or a month ago in Austin, at a news conference, you told us that you were anticipating some break in the Mississippi thing within a short time.3 Is there any indication?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it is still a short time.,3 See Item 504 [3, 8].,[10.] Q. Senator Goldwater has said that if he is elected he would cut Federal income taxes 25 percent over a 5-year period. I wonder if you can tell us what you think about this, and whether you think that would be feasible without impairing the national security.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that we made our views on cutting taxes known earlier this year. When we cut the tax rate, that was carefully studied in '63 and '62 by the fiscal agencies of the Government--the Council of Economic Advisers, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve authorities, and all of the fiscal experts. It was carefully worked out and submitted to Congress in '63, after consultation with Mr. Mills and Senator Byrd. It was acted on in the House in '63, and in the Senate early in '64, as I remember it.,That represented our position on the desirability of tax cuts and the extent that they should be made. It involved a very thorough and careful fiscal evaluation, with the advice of the best experts. We have had continuing on since that bill was enacted a study by the same agencies in the executive branch of the Government with the same thoroughness, as well as the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives.,That is a study on the extent of further cuts that would be desirable and effective. In our message to the Congress we will make known our conclusions that these studies justify.,Q. What message would that be?,THE PRESIDENT. When we make our recommendations to the Congress in January, when the new Congress comes in.,[11.] Q. In connection with the FBI reports that you have asked for, you spoke of the possibility that you might find that further recommendations are needed. Do you mean legislative recommendations?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't limit it to legislative recommendations. I would say further recommendations. It is not limited to, but it could include that.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, how disappointed are you, sir, that a Democratic Governor, Johnson of Mississippi, has endorsed Senator Goldwater?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that every person in this country ought to support the candidate of his choice, and the candidate that he feels will best serve.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, is this request to the FBI predicated on any preliminary information that may already have been gained from the FBI in these terms?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that I understand your question, but I am not sure now. Would you repeat it for me and let me soak it in ?,Q. I wondered if there had been some preliminary investigations made by the FBI.,THE PRESIDENT. A good many of them.,Q. Of these disturbances?,THE PRESIDENT. There have been investigations made, and I read about 40 of them every night.,Q. And on the basis of these reports, you are submitting another request?,THE PRESIDENT. I am trying to accumulate them all and put them in one place, and study them as to their effect or such a pattern as may exist in various areas concerning these disturbances, at which time I would have them carefully evaluated and try to make some further recommendations.,Q. Is there any indication, Mr. President, that in this particular pattern which may emerge, is there any indication it may be outside agitators, or politically inspired?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it is pretty well known, if you read the newspapers, that considerable agitation is present in these disturbances.,Q. I have read, too, Mr. President, that I think that they have found known Communists have been among the agitators. Did the FBI reports confirm that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to discuss the content of FBI reports.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in view of Governor Johnson's announcement on Senator Goldwater, are you hopeful that you might carry Mississippi this November?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to see every person who felt that our program and our leadership for all America was preferred by them, to vote for us. I would hope that a good many people in all of the States would feel that way. I hope that a majority of them would. But I have no way of telling, at this date, just what the final outcome will be.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you favor this resolution that Senator Mansfield put in today to have the Rules Committee investigate the latest charge in the Bobby Baker case?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen the resolution, but I have favored a thorough investigation and study of every indication that any Federal law may have been violated. The FBI was ordered to make a thorough and exhaustive investigation. As soon as these facts are brought to my attention, I would be glad to see the Senate take any action it feels is justified.,Q. Do you favor the Rules Committee over the McClellan Committee ?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a matter for the Senate.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Kuchel says the President of the United States should make his views known on the apportionment rider that Senator Dirksen is sponsoring. Do you have any comments of the proposal by Senator Dirksen?,THE PRESIDENT. No, sir.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan any campaign trips this year? If so, when?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when I do I will tell you. I have one tomorrow that I am going up to Harrisburg on. I am going to make a speech at a dinner. From time to time, when time permits, I will cut you in on them just as soon as I know.,Q. Mr. President, are we going to have the pleasure of another one of those train trips like we had in 1960?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you will have to talk to Mrs. Johnson. I think she has given some consideration to a train trip. I do not have any such plans at the moment. I understand she is giving some consideration to it already. She may have already announced it; I am not sure. If you like to ride the train, get with her; she will be glad to have your company. 4,4 See Item 628.,Ralph Harris, Reuters-Australian Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-09-05","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have just signed a proclamation designating the week of September 6th as College Students Registration Week.1 I won't take any of your time going into it, but it may interest you. Only 52 percent of these young people cast ballots in recent presidential elections compared with 82 percent of the men and women in their 60's.,1 Proclamation 3614 (29 F.R. 12817; 3 CFR, 1964 Supp.).,The American Heritage Foundation, the group that met with us once before with the chairman of both parties, in the White House, are interested in this matter and they have conducted this poll. It was at their suggestion that we are issuing this proclamation. Get Mac2 to get you a copy of it.,2 Malcolm M. Kilduff, Assistant Press Secretary.,[2.] The first thing I want to say this morning is about the Chilean election, that it was an internal matter in which the people of Chile were the only judges of the issues. The election reminds us once more, however, of the strength of democracy in Chile and throughout the Western Hemisphere.,It reminds us that the last 6 months have been good for democracy and progress in the Americas. Prospects in a number of important countries are more hopeful now than they were 6 months ago, and the prospects for those who are hostile to freedom are weaker.,The Chilean election reminds us of the advances which the Alliance for Progress is making throughout the hemisphere. Mr. Frei, in the campaign, expressed his intention to work for the economic and social development of his country within a democratic framework which emphasizes personal liberty. These are our goals and the goals of the Alliance for Progress.,We wish the Chilean people well. We look forward to cooperating with their newly selected leader just as we have in the past with his distinguished predecessor. We hope that the next 6 years will be a period of peace and prosperity and a period of continued progress in economic and social reform.,Let me say again that I see yesterday's events in Chile in the context of Latin American affairs generally. In that context, the Chilean election seems to me to reinforce our hopes for a very bright future in the Americas. Each country in the hemisphere must work for progress and democracy by its own methods. We have a long road to travel, but we are on our way.,[3.] Another item that may interest you: General Taylor3 is coming back, in accordance with the plans which we previously made, but which he delayed last week because of the political situation in Viet-Nam. I look forward to meeting with him early next week, and also with Ambassador Lodge,4 who has done an outstanding job abroad in explaining our policy and purpose in Viet-Nam to our allies in Europe.,3 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam.,4 Henry Cabot Lodge, former U.S. Ambassador to Viet-Nam.,These meetings, like other meetings which we have had in the past on Viet-Nam, will be devoted to a careful review of our programs, and the reaffirmation of our simple basic purpose which is to help the free people of that country in their struggle for progress against the Communist subversion and terror.,[4.] I think you should know also that I plan to have a talk with Mr. Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State, who has returned from 8 weeks of the most delicate and diplomatic talks,5 He is in the country today, and he will be in the early part of the week, perhaps Monday or Tuesday.,5 Mr. Acheson served as personal envoy of the President to the Geneva conference to mediate the dispute between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus.,Although the situation in Cyprus has not yet been resolved and the situation there remains full of danger, all Americans can be very proud of Mr. Acheson's patient and skillful efforts to help find the honorable and peaceful solution. I believe when such a settlement is found, it will be clear that his work was a major constructive element in the process.,The United States continues to have an intimate interest in finding such a settlement because of its close ties with all parties and its commitment to freedom and peace for this eastern wing of the great alliance.,[5.] A couple of other matters that might interest you:,[Reading] \"I have been advised by Secretary of Defense McNamara that a new and significantly improved weapon--the Polaris A-3 missile--will soon become part of our strategic missile force. The new A-3 will be deployed for the first time aboard the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Daniel Webster when she begins her first patrol later this month.,\"The A-3 missile which was put into accelerated development in 1964, has a range of 2,500 nautical miles, some 1,000 nautical miles greater than that of the A-2, and more than double that of the A-1. This new weapon not only has a much greater range, but it is extremely accurate and incorporates the latest technological advances to assure that it will be able to penetrate to its target, including those protected by possible ballistic missile defense systems.,\"With the A-3, our Polaris submarines will be able to operate over much wider areas. For example, a submarine armed with A-1 missiles for targets 1,000 miles inland has some 700,000 square miles of sea room in which to maneuver. Armed with the A-3, the same targets can be covered and the submarines will have more than 8,000,000 square miles of ocean in which to hide. Operating in the 700,000 square mile area, an A-3 submarine can hit targets nearly 2,500\nmiles inland.\",The statement is more extended. I won't take your time on it, but it will be available for you.6,6 The statement as released by the White House contains the following additional paragraphs:,You will recall that in January 1961 this administration ordered an acceleration of the development of the A-3 missile and a speedup in the construction . of Polaris submarines. This resulted in the production of one submarine each month as opposed to one every 2 months under the old schedule. As of this date, 16 Polaris submarines are deployed on station, 8 more than would have been available under the old plans. Under the original schedule the Daniel Webster would not have deployed until July of 1965, and with A-2 missiles. The first A-3 would not have been deployed until a year from now.,No land area on this earth is beyond reach of these submerged missile ships of our Navy. They are truly a global deterrent to war.,We have made great strides in developing the Polaris system in a very short time. It was less than 4 years ago, November 1960, when the first Polaris submarine deployed. Now, 16 are on station armed with 256 Polaris missiles.,Eight Polaris submarines have gone to sea for their initial patrols since the beginning of this year. In the next 8 months we expect to deploy 11 more, all but one of which will carry the A-3 missile.,Polaris submarines now operate in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and before the end of the year will be operational in the Pacific as well.,All 41 Polaris submarines planned as part of our strategic forces will be operational in 1967. Twenty eight will carry the A-3 missile and 13 will have the 1,500 nautical mile A-2. The A-1 will have been phased out.,The Fleet Ballistic Missile system, highly invulnerable, dependable, and accurate, gives the United States a force which can deliver a crushing and retaliatory blow to an aggressor.,[6.] I am informed by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Secretary of Defense this morning that--[reading]-\"they are proceeding with the development of a new, high-powered, long-lived reactor which constitutes a major step forward in nuclear technology, and will make nuclear power more attractive in the construction of our aircraft carriers.,\"Two of these reactors could power an attack aircraft carrier as compared with eight reactors required for the U.S.S. Enterprise. Four are considered for the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. The development program will be under the direction of Vice Admiral Rickover.,\"The new two-reactor 'plants will provide approximately the same total horsepower as that provided by the four and eight reactors. In addition, it will almost double the fuel life. It is important to note that the new two-reactor plant will be less expensive than others, particularly with respect to operating costs. A carrier powered by this new plant will require refueling only once in the life of the ship.\",There is some more detail in the statement, but I think it is too long to give to you.7,7 The statement as released by the White House contains the following additional paragraphs:,The Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission are confident that the reactor will be developed in time so that it could be installed in a carrier in the 1968-69 time period.,Development of the two-reactor aircraft carrier propulsion plant is another significant step in the creation of a nuclear powered Navy. It is part of a continuing program to develop reliable, advanced nuclear propulsion plants for both surface and submarine use.,The Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission will have further details.,[7.] We have exchanged correspondence between the United States and Brazil, expressions of our solidarity during the Tonkin Gulf incident. Those letters will be made public to you if you are interested in the exchange.8,8 See Item 561.,[8.] Later this month Random House is publishing a book--and it is right here; I am making some editorial changes--in which I will discuss my philosophy of government and my views on the issues. This book is devoted to what I have said and done since becoming President, and what I have believed in all my life.9 The earnings from the book, if there are any, will be turned over to charity.,9 Johnson, Lyndon B. \"My Hope for America\" (New York: Random House, 1964, 127 pp.).,I am ready to take any questions now for a few minutes before I take a walk. If any of you want to go with me, you can go with me.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, you said you would withhold a statement on whether you would engage in televised debates until you received the nomination. Will you now engage in debates with Senator Goldwater on a regularly scheduled news program?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't reached any decision on that. I haven't said I would withhold the statement. I said we would cross the bridge when we got to it. I haven't reached it yet.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us your reaction to Mr. Nixon's statement that the Democratic Party is now the party of big business?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I haven't heard from Mr. Nixon. I didn't know that he had said anything like that.,Q. He said the Republican Party is now the party of the people. Would you agree with that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both are trying to do what they think is best for all the country, without regard to any specialized segment of the country. I think the whole question is the approach to it, and which course is more likely to attain the best results. I don't think that the Democratic Party wants any business government, any labor government, any big government. It is just interested in the best government for all the people.,I have expressed my philosophy in that field many times. I don't think in order to be for the private enterprise system you have to be against Government; or in order to be for the workingman, to be against business; or in order to be for business, to be against labor.,I think we can all work together. As a matter of fact, I have given a good deal of thought to a big problem that confronts our country. If you will take a little time, I will go over some of my ideas in connection with that very thing.,I think this Nation's most important concern, as far as we can see ahead, is and should be the unity of this country. Never in the history has any people succeeded in building a free society on such a huge scale and with the variety of such different religious denominations, ethnic stocks, and races.,We have witnessed the complete destruction by inner conflict of many nations because they pitted race against race and religion against religion, group against group.,What your question implies or suggests is class against class. That must not happen here in either party. All of us in government, and all of you in the press, and all responsible, constructive citizens everywhere have a responsibility to see that it doesn't.,Against the great odds we build one society from many. There is one good reason for that, because we have been willing to subordinate our loyalties to any one group to the loyalty to a greater group.,I have expressed that to you many times, and I won't go into a great deal of detail, but probably the most memorable occasion was when I assumed the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate in 1952-when we had been routed in the election by a very popular war hero, General Eisenhower--I rejected Mr. Taft's philosophy that it was the duty of the opposition to oppose.,That was his statement: it is the business of the opposition to oppose. I rejected that, and said I think it is the business of the opposition to do what is best for America-that is where our greater loyalty lies, ahead of loyalty to any of these other groups and parties.,We must subordinate our loyalty to any group to a greater loyalty and commitment to the moral principle upon which this Republic was founded, that is, to freedom and to justice and to the brotherhood of man.,We must not lock ourselves in with our prejudices. We must be prepared to learn, to be able to change our minds, to demonstrate compassion and humility toward others of different faiths, different origins, different colors, different sections, different professions.,An underlying theme in the history of the Republic has been the often painful but always successful reconciliation of different people into one national community of Americans.,I think you heard Mrs. Johnson say when she used to address envelopes to send out agricultural bulletins in my district that the thing she thought gave us such great strength was the names indicated they had more than a dozen different nationalities living in that one little central Texas district--a real melting pot in America.,All we have to do to realize the benefits of this principle is to look at the political life today, sitting in the courts, in the executive branch of the Government, the Congress-Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Negroes--many men and women whose fathers came to this country from another land; you heard Senator Pastore say that the other night: that he was the son of an immigrant to this country-men from Japanese-American and Chinese-American minorities, representing both parties and the public interest.,But the point I want to make is not of any special group. We all have a lot to learn about each other and about ourselves, and what is needed most today is, in my judgment, in this country, as I said in the beginning, unity, and, as I say now, understanding. We need a recognition that all Americans of every race, religion, ethnic origin, that all that most Americans want is the right and the opportunity to be treated as Americans, as members of our national community, and to live by the law and under the law.,I want to urge all men and women in this land of ours to resist with all their dedication the spiritual cancer of hate. If we hate others, we not only sin against them in the eyes of the Almighty God, but we undermine and eventually destroy our own integrity. By hating, we indicate and express that poverty of the spirit which is far more dangerous to a nation's future than the economic poverty that we are making war on and that we have announced as our objective to eliminate.,So I want to suggest this morning that we proceed with our adventure in freedom, a part of which is the grand tradition of political campaigns with a firm commitment to law, a just and efficient enforcement of all laws, a faith that a people which has learned to triumph over prejudice will once more demonstrate the vitality of our most striking ideal: E Pluribus Unum--from many, one.,[11.] I expect to be here for the weekend. We have to celebrate Jack Valenti's birthday. He is one year older today, and shows it. He was late to work this morning for the first time. He got in after the sun had been up and had to go pull the curtain, with the sun shining in my eyes. He is usually there early.,[12.] We go out to Detroit for a brief visit Monday. We will be back here. I have a series of meetings coming up the latter part of the week.,That is about all I know to tell you.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater today announced a very extensive speaking schedule in the South, Middle West, and East beginning September 15th. Can you give us any clues as to what your campaign schedule will be?,THE PRESIDENT. We will, as I have said before, determine our departures from Washington by the condition of the affairs of the Nation. We have a job to do here, and we are going to try to do that first. When, as, and if we can, we will make as many appearances as we think we can without neglecting the interests of the Nation.,I will try, always, to be accessible to you, available to you. I will meet with you as frequently as is possible, or as often as you may feel the need. But just where I will be at some certain day in October, I can't determine, and I don't want to announce, because then you have me cancelling and adjusting my plans, things of that kind. That makes more of a story than my appearance would make, or maybe what I had to say makes.,I know sometimes you emphasize the change in plans, the details of them, and I don't want to confuse you or frustrate .you. I will announce them just as soon as it is possible for me to announce them.,There will be occasions when even Mrs. Johnson will say to Liz10 that she hopes to go with me to Detroit and it will be carried as hard news that she is going, even though we have not confirmed it. We talk those things over. But we know reasonably certain we are going to Detroit and this is our plan. But as soon as we did know that, with certainty, we announced it to you.,10 Mrs. Elizabeth S. Carpenter, Press Secretary and Staff Director for the First Lady.,It still could change, if there was some development in the world that would hold us here. The first consideration is going to be running the country and carrying out the duties of the Presidency.,Q. Mr. President, the Democrats up in Pennsylvania seem to be expecting that you may drop in on them in Harrisburg Thursday night. Can you give us any help on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I answered that question before. As soon as I am able to, I will tell you. It will save all of you a lot of time if you don't speculate. If I had known that I was going to go to the ranch this weekend, I would not hesitate to tell you I would be there. But I have no plans to do it. I can't tell you ahead of time.,I see George's11 briefings and most of them are taken up in speculation and not a great deal of good comes out of them, because he can't tell you if he does not know and I can't tell you if I don't know.,11 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,[14.] Q. You spoke in your statement about pitting group against group, religion against religion, and race against race. In his statement the other day at the opening of his campaign, Senator Goldwater said--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to have any connection with a jab or reference to anybody. You talk to Senator Goldwater about his views. I have expressed mine positively, affirmatively, and completely, without reference to anybody or Senator Goldwater, but just myself. If I say I believe I loved my mother, you would say it is a jab at Senator Goldwater. You just have to be more--,Q. Can I go on with the question? Senator Goldwater said that you are, in a sense, ignoring violence in our streets and he accused you of not providing enough moral leadership. Do you see any contradiction between these persistent remarks of his on violence in the streets and his meeting here in the White House to seek ways to reduce racial tensions in the campaign?,THE. PRESIDENT. I think you make your point.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, I read a suggestion that your speech.--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might say--,Q. Mr. President, I read a suggestion that your speech in Cadillac Square may not be a political speech. That would seem strange to me, but anything can happen. Would you tell us, will it be a nonpolitical or a campaign speech?,THE PRESIDENT. I am still working on it. Is somebody passing out something I am going to say? There are a lot of leaks in this place.,Q. The tone of it. I wasn't there, but I think Mr. Reedy said he was not certain it would be a political speech. Is that true?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I had not seen anything like that. I am going to Detroit to speak to a group of workingmen who invited me 3 or 4 months ago to come out there and make an address to them on Labor Day. I am going to discuss in, I hope, a constructive manner the problems of our country and the times in which we live.12,12 See Item 562.,I don't know, but there may be some of those workingmen that belong to various parties. It is not a party-sponsored affair, except that my expenses will be borne by the party. But that is the only connection that any party has with it. It is not the Democratic Party of Wayne County or Detroit, and so forth.,I have not completed my speech. I am working on it. I believe that it will be acceptable to all Americans. I think it will follow very much my philosophy here that I have outlined to you, as will most of my speeches. I don't want to accept an invitation of a church, or a labor organization, or a group of workingmen or businessmen, or newspapermen, and get into matters that would be offensive to them.,At the same time, I am going to exercise my right of free speech. But I am going to try to do it with judgment, fairness, and a word that I like very much that I reiterated several times, \"understanding.\",Q. Mr. President, in the past, some other Democratic candidates for President have followed up the Cadillac Square speech with a number of other appearances, going up even to Flint.,THE PRESIDENT. We are not going to plan our activities for the next few weeks based on any traditions or any practices of Presidents who have preceded us. Our first obligation is to do this job that we are doing here, today, and I will be doing it all day today, and I will be doing it all day today and all day tomorrow, right in this house.,But if I can get off a few hours Monday, I am going out there and speak to the folks there at their Labor Day meeting like I would go the Fourth of July. And then I am coming right back here to burn some midnight oil this week, but without regard to who went where, any time.,Q. Mr. President, you are not characterizing this speech, then?,THE PRESIDENT. We never characterize any speech. The President of the United States is not in the business of applying labels and making speculations on matters of this kind. You will have copies of the speech, and if you want to indulge in that, it is all right. You can say it is conservative, progressive, prudent, or radical; it is political or nonpolitical; whatever you want to say about it.,You would get irritated if I commented on your description of it. So you call it what you want to. We don't do it. George has told you many, many times, in repetitions, and you are not going to get him to change his mind. I will not change my mind. We will not say this is going to be a major speech, a minor speech, or a middle-sized speech, or a political speech or nonpolitical, or any of that. Characterize it any way you want to.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the question of ending the draft was injected into the campaign the other day. Have you seen any early results of a study you requested from the Defense Department on that line?,THE PRESIDENT. AS you know, several months ago we told you what we were proceeding to do in that field. We have the best people in the Selective Service and the Department of Defense and the White House examining and evaluating that program, and the whole effect it would have on our mobilization effort, and how many billions extra it would cost if the draft were done away with and how we can maximize the results with a minimum of cost.,One of the distinguished members of the Armed Services Committee of the Congress talked to me the night before last in some detail, or 3 or 4 nights ago, and his estimate was that it would cost us several billions to act precipitously in the matter, compulsively. That is the purpose of this study. We expect probably an interim announcement of some kind in the next few weeks, and probably some definite conclusion early in the spring.,From time to time people are going to read about these things and hear about them and make observations about them. With 190 million people in the country, they are all going to have an interest in this field. But that is the position of the Government.,Governor Stevenson had some thoughts back in the middle fifties sometime about how we could end the draft. I think Senator Goldwater commented on Governor Stevenson's thoughts, but I don't want to advertise either position. If you are interested in making a historical study about it you can see what Stevenson said and what Goldwater said about his action.,You will hear a lot of that in the months to come. But you really would not have a solid, accurate, or substantial conclusion on it, I would think, before early spring, because there are too many bases that have to be touched and too much work has to be done.,Q. Would it be correct to say that you share the view of President Eisenhower in 1956 that, in effect, the draft should not be made a campaign issue, the question of ending the draft should not be made a campaign issue?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would agree with General Eisenhower on a good many things, and always have. I don't think that the service of a man to his country ought to be involved in politics. I say that without reference to any individual, General Eisenhower or anybody else. I think we have demonstrated, and I have been on the committee for 24 years up there, and I think the Selective Service System should be free from any politics, Republicans and Democrats and Independent boys wearing the uniform.,Q. Mr. President, sir, I think I understand thoroughly your statement there, but could you explain for us a little more how people who don't want to be in a position of creating disunity, who don't want to hurt the welfare of the country, but who might have honest differences of opinion with, say, the leader of the Government, how would they get their ideas across?,THE PRESIDENT. They don't have any difficulty doing that, I observe.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-08-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I am sorry to have delayed you. We are going over and get a little hops d'oeuvre and sandwich, in a moment, and then we are going to Atlantic City. Those who want to go, talk to George,1 and if we have room in our plane I will be glad to have you go with us under the regular rules that you follow.,1 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,I was delayed in getting to you. I thought we would be out of here before, but I had to visit with Secretary Rusk, Secretary McNamara, and Mr. Buddy on another matter.2 That held us some.,2 Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President.,I have this afternoon talked to some people and have others in to see me. That is one reason why I am running a little bit late. We will have our hops d'oeuvres and we will cut our birthday party short.,My reason for going up there is to make an announcement which I expect I will make\nsometime between 9 and 10 o'clock.,Q. When?,THE PRESIDENT. Between 9 and 10 o'clock. That announcement will be my recommendation to the convention on a running mate.,[At this point the President spoke off the record.],Q. How will you make that recommendation, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I will point out what I have considered, who I have talked to, the factors that have entered into it, and then I will make my suggestion.,I expect to do that in an open convention after they nominate, if they nominate and take the nomination speeches for me, and after they take action on those nominations.,Q. Will this be at the Convention Hall?,THE PRESIDENT. This will be at the convention tonight.,Q. Will you return tonight?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, and we will be back in the salt mines tonight.,Q. Privately, before you make any announcement in Atlantic City, will you advise the person whom you will recommend to be your running mate?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not gone into that. I have not thought of it. I will think of it and you will be on the plane, so you can ask me, and I will let you know what I decide-if you are available. I don't know whether I can reach him.,Q. You don't know?,THE PRESIDENT. I will make the announcement between 9 and 10 o'clock.,Q. But you have made up your mind?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have. This is the first time I have said it.,Q. What time did you make up your mind, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I just stand on the previous statement. I found out today that you ask real tough questions. That little clarifying statement of yours got me into trouble.,Q. Mr. President, what time do you plan to take off for Atlantic City?,THE PRESIDENT. After we get an hors d'oeuvre and get some planes, and get me there in time for 9:15. If we work it out, we will go in Air Force One. If there are too many, I will go in the Jet Star and you can go in a second plane, but you will have to reimburse the Air Force. Does anyone know how many we can haul in Air Force One? See if we can't have a follow-up plane. How many want to go? Hold up those hands and somebody count them.,Mr. Valenti: 3 About 35.,THE PRESIDENT. I would ask them to have a follow-up plane, and those who go up with me can come back on the follow-up plane, and those who are going up in the other plane can come back with me. I don't want to make anybody go with me both ways. Tell the Secret Service, Jack. If they can satisfy this many, they will have to be very special people.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,3 Jack Valenti, Special Consultant to the President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-08-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [I] I have a moment here, before I have some recordings I want to do and I have a 12 o'clock meeting. George1 told me that a suggestion that I made to him earlier might be helpful, if I carried it out. So I thought I would review with you some of the things we are going to do the rest of the week, so you can have some advance notice of it.,1 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,I have some real news for you this morning. I can announce positively that the husband and father in this house has not, repeat not, seen a moose all day and is mighty happy to have his family back with him.,As a friend observed this morning, he said he had read about some of my problems and he believed the White House is the one place where the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. We have been doing something more than watering the lawn around here, though, and we have some other plan. We put in a busy time over the weekend seeing all the press and going to church Sunday.,[2.] For your information, guidance, and background, I want to tell you about some of the plans in the days ahead. As you know, we have been conducting a number of meetings with leadership of all segments of our national life, Congress, business, labor, public school superintendents, State university presidents, women's groups, foreign language publishers, chiefs of bureaus, members of the press, and so forth. A number of other such meetings are in the planning stages.,We will have some women's organizations in, leaders of other organizations and trade associations in various fields, leaders of Negro groups throughout the country, with whom we want to talk especially about observance, compliance, and enforcement of laws of particular concern to civil rights groups. These meetings will be announced as the plans are completed and as soon as we can get confirmation on the invitations.,This week we have a number of sessions scheduled at the White House that may be of interest to you and to the country. On Tuesday, at 5 o'clock, that is today, we will meet with the Community Relations Citizens Committee from all sections of the Nation and Governor Collins.2 One of the members stayed all night with me last night, Mr. Palmer Hoyt of the Denver Post, and got me up early this morning.,2 LeRoy Collins, Director of the Community Relations Service, Department of Commerce, and former Governor of Florida.,On Wednesday, August 19, at 11 :30 a.m. we will have 5,000 young people on the White House lawn as part of the White House seminar program. Let me say that our Nation's leadership challenge knows no age. Our young citizens have very great responsibilities in these times for active community leadership, wherever they live or attend school.,On Wednesday, August 19, in the evening, we have invited all Members of Congress, from both parties, to the White House for a richly deserved \"Salute to Congress.\" When the record of this Congress is completed, it will place the 88th Congress in the record books as the most productive and, I think, the most constructive in the 20th century. Executive and congressional relationships could hardly have been better.,Before Members return home, I want to congratulate them personally, salute them, have them all to the White House once again. As you will remember, they were here a short time after I assumed the Presidency.,On Thursday, August 20, at 4:30 p.m., we have a broad cross section of small business leaders coming from throughout the Nation for a meeting at the White House on the general subjects we have followed before. We want to discuss economic opportunity for American enterprise. We want to explore a subject of first importance, the continued growth of job opportunities for all of our people. We will discuss the fiscal policy of the Government. We want to discuss law observance, law enforcement.,On Saturday, August 22, we are inviting the Democratic Governors from 34 States to come to the White House for a working session in the afternoon and to stay with us for dinner that night, if they can. We are inviting all the Governors, although we know some of them are unable to come to the convention and some may be unable to come to Washington, may be out of the country.,In this administration we have given, and expect to continue to give, unusual attention to the constructive potential of the Federal-State relations. As I indicated last week in my remarks to the State university presidents, I feel a new era of resurgence and vitality is coming among the States. We want the Federal and State relations to enter a new era, too, and we are confident that it is possible.,One of the first meetings that I held after assuming office--after assuming office in November, I held the meeting in December-was with the Governors. Since then, I have had well over 100 meetings with at least 37 of our Governors, either here or in their States. We have met with 85 percent of the Democratic Governors and 50 percent of the Republican Governors. I hope to meet with them all and often.,Earlier this year the Republican Governors met here in Washington. I invited them to the White House. Unfortunately, they were not able to come. This week, for the first time this year, the Democratic Governors will be in this vicinity. So that is why we have asked them to come to the White House, if they can.,There is much we will talk about. Our programs are set now. Most of our appropriation bills have passed the House and the Senate and have been signed or are in conference. So we want to review with the Governors the impact of Federal activities on their State economies over the next 12 months. We will have a complete discussion and will review with them the impact of our defense and space programs and where we will be developing; the new opportunities for Federal and State cooperation in education and health programs--the Hill-Burton Act was signed this morning--the three educational bills we signed the latter part of last year; the mass transit program, and what it means for our metropolitan areas, just enacted; what we can all do together to increase the growth of plants and payrolls, new jobs and new opportunities.,[3.] We have gotten below the 5 percent barrier on unemployment and we want to keep moving. We will make to them a private report of a little survey that we are doing on the capital expenditures that are being made, capital investment that is providing jobs out in the States to help us break through that 5 percent unemployment figure.,As an illustration, one man told me if we could get the tax bill passed that his company could add 20,000 new people. He told me the other day that he had broken through and added 22,000 so far. So we are working with a good many companies asking them to do that, to help reduce the heavy youth unemployment.,We brought that down from 16 to 13, and the total unemployment is down for the first time, under 5 percent, in several years. We will review the full range of the record number of major legislative accomplishments and what these bills mean in helping our State governments meet their responsibilities.,[4.] The economic health and prosperity of the Nation today requires closer understanding and, I think, much closer cooperation among all our levels of Government. I believe it is in the interest of all the people for the White House and the State houses to work together with a new outlook, with a new trust, a new creativity, and this is our objective now in all that we do.,[5.] I just might add, for your information, that we have been meeting with various Governors who have been coming in and have been talking about problems in their State and politics in their States. A number of them spent the weekend with me at the White House. The same thing has been true of mayors who have come to the White House, mayors from the Midwest, Mayor Daley of Chicago, Mayor Wagner from New York, various mayors. We had the Midwest Governors in 2 or 3 weeks ago and we had Governor Brown and some of the Midwest Governors, the Governor of Indiana, and others in for dinner and they spent the weekend with us.3,3 The President referred specifically to Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, Mayor Robert F. Wagner of New York, Governor Edmund G. Brown of California, and Governor Matthew E. Welsh of Indiana.,So this time we will add to that by inviting them all. That is all I have to say, except that we are going to continue every week bringing people in from over the Nation to exchange viewpoints with and to discuss our problems with and to ask for their help.,[6.] If you have any questions on this schedule, or these points, I will be glad to have you ask them. I cannot spend the time on detailed questions, because the Prime Minister of Iceland has landed and is en route to the White House now. He is going to come in the southwest gate and I will greet him and take him into the office for a meeting. If you want to, I will take him on a little walk. I haven't had one and you can go with us.4,4 Immediately after his news conference the President greeted Prime Minister Bjarni Benediktsson of Iceland and walked with him through the White House grounds. They were accompanied by members of the press.,[7.] Q. That meeting with the Governors is Saturday afternoon of this week, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about your plans for next week?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but maybe Jack Valenti 5 can. With regard to the convention, I expect to go up later Thursday evening--I don't know what time--if I go at all.,5 lack Valenti, Special Consultant to the President.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, will you entertain a question about your schedule this morning?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Did you have a long visit with Senator Humphrey this morning, or can you tell us about it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't have a long one. After the signing there he wanted to report to me on a little situation there on the Hill, and he did. We discussed it a little earlier at breakfast. We didn't get to finish it.,[10.] Q. With respect to what you are saying about the economy, I don't know whether it is too early to ask this, but I was wondering how seriously the Government looks at the status of the automobile problem.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to get into a general press conference. I just said that. This man is on his way here. There is nothing to say at this stage of the game. They are going through their routine.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you said you talked politics with Governors and mayors. Did they give you an outlook on the situation throughout the country in November?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Can you tell us about that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think we ought to take time right now to talk about that. It is good.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in relation to next week's schedule, have you decided how you will communicate with the convention on your vice presidential choice--how or when?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Mr. President, did I understand that you might not go to Atlantic City at all?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. I misunderstood.,THE PRESIDENT. Evidently. I didn't say I would, or I wouldn't.,Q. You will go, if you are asked?,THE PRESIDENT. We will announce that, when we know definitely what we are going to do.,[13.] Q. Are there going to be any special ceremonies for the signing of the antipoverty bill on the 20th, I believe it is?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I believe there is a signing schedule arranged for and it seems to me it is on Thursday.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-08-15","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have signed a joint resolution and issued a proclamation calling on all Americans and our friends in other lands to see more of our great country, to visit and to enjoy our historic shrines and our scenic wonders.1,1 Public Law 88-416 (78 Stat. 388), approved on August 11, 1964, and Proclamation 3607 \"See the United States in 1964 and 1965,\" issued on August 15, 1964 (29 F.R. 11883, 3 CFR 1964 Supp.).,This resolution and proclamation are important for several reasons:,First, we Americans and our friends abroad need to discover and visit the many great places in our own land. In July of 1963, when President Kennedy sent his balance-of-payments message to Congress, he urged that private industry launch a drive to encourage Americans \"to learn more about their own country and the glory of their heritage.\" This private industry effort is already underway, and this resolution and this proclamation, I hope, will make a contribution to it.,Second, travel within the United States provides the opportunity to keep abreast of the changes which are constantly occurring across the land, and to appreciate more fully the diverse characteristics possessed by the different regions of this lovely country. This diversity which has contributed to the strength and to the broad appeal of America includes not only the many sections of our mainland, but our newest States of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean territories.,Third, I would urge that Americans enjoy the recreational opportunities which this country offers. Life is at its best when balanced between work and play, and our land provides limitless opportunities for both. I am sure Lady Bird will attest to this wherever she may be as I speak.,Americans are now enjoying an income in excess of twice that of 1929. Much of this increased income is going as it should, to increased recreation and to increased enjoyment of the out-of-doors. New jobs that are being generated in restaurants and hotels, motels and resorts, and recreational centers of the country contribute to the expansion of our national well-being, providing an important contribution, therefore, to our total economy. Tourism is an important industry for many parts of our land and can be a powerful factor in building the economy of such areas as Appalachia.,And fourth, all Americans can gain a richer sense of the Nation's history and traditions by visiting our historic sites. I am confident that the \"See the United States\" program will be successful and I urge both American citizens and citizens of other countries to travel whenever they can throughout our beautiful country.,I am happy to say to you this morning that Mrs. Johnson and Lynda Bird and Luci are practicing what I am preaching. They are touring the countryside today, visiting, seeing new people, enjoying some of the historic shrines and scenic wonders of our great country, from the far West in Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, where Mrs. Johnson is, to Wisconsin where Luci is in the afternoon, to Long Island where Lynda is now..,[2.] Now to another subject that may interest you. Because all matters relating to nuclear weapons are matters of great gravity, I think it is quite important to have the record absolutely straight on this matter of the orders to the commanders in the Gulf of Tonkin that I issued last week.,On Wednesday, at a Governors' Conference, peace conference, at Hershey, Pa., Senator Goldwater, the Republican candidate, said repeatedly that the President had given an \"admonition\" to the commanders to use \"any weapons.\" He admitted that he had not seen the orders; that he had not read the orders; that he did not know what was in the orders. But he said that he had read of this \"admonition\" in some newspaper.,The truth and the record show, and show plainly: (1) that I gave no such admonition in public or in private; (2) that our orders to the commanders plainly specified conventional ordnance weapons only; (3) that Secretary of Defense McNamara made this fact entirely plain again in a public press conference one-half hour after my speech, and it, too, was carried by both radio and television on August 4th; and (4) no magazine or daily, or even weekly newspaper that we can locate contains any such report of any such \"admonition.\",There was, therefore, no justification whatever for Senator Goldwater's initial statements, and it was both necessary and proper, I think, for the Secretary of State and for the Secretary of Defense to call the Republican candidate's interpretation \"unjustified and irresponsible.\",So yesterday, Senator Goldwater took back the charges he made on Wednesday. He now says he did not mean what he said on Wednesday. It is said, instead, that it was not so much what I said, as he speaks in retrospect, but what Secretary McNamara said. And then he charges we used fuzzy language.,This appears clearly in the Philadelphia Enquirer, the front page, this morning.,But in this discussion, it is not our language that has been fuzzy. The Senator has repeated the charge that we said \"all weapons,\" whereas in fact we said the opposite, and the record proves it.,The Senator has thus suggested again that we gave field commanders authority to use nuclear weapons. This suggestion is preposterous, because we had carefully, explicitly, and publicly ruled out the use of nuclear weapons and stated so on the radio and on the television the day the attack was ordered.,The Senator points to no language of mine which justifies any of his many different interpretations. He has not cited the name of any paper in the United States, or any press service in the country, or has not even told any reporter where he heard or where he saw any such language. He does not do so because he cannot do so. His running mate now speaks in a corridor of a Government building of the President having authorized \"complete, full retaliation,\" and this assertion is equally false and reckless.,From the beginning the language that responsible Government officials have used in this crisis has been most carefully chosen. Our position has been explained not only in repeated public statements but in working sessions with the leaders of both parties, and with at least three committees of the Congress, including the Armed Services Committee, of which Senator Goldwater is a member, but which he did not attend. No one has misunderstood this matter except the Republican candidates.,The control of nuclear weapons is one of the gravest of all the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Loose charges on nuclear weapons without any shadow of justification by any candidate for any office, let alone the Presidency, are a disservice to our national security, a disservice to peace, and, as for that matter, a great disservice to the entire free world.,So it seems to me that even at the price of some reflection the Republican candidate ought to keep his lenses in his glasses, at least on the subject of nuclear warheads.,[3.] The Secretary of Defense has reported to me this morning that he has approved a program for the development of an aircraft designed specifically for air support of counterinsurgency, and limited war operations, and the Department of the Navy to contract for the building of seven prototype aircraft at a cost of about $18 million.,This counterinsurgency (COIN) aircraft will be an airborne equivalent of the \"jeep.\" It will be able to perform peacetime emergency functions such as disaster relief, medical missions, or riot control, as well as military missions to include light armed reconnaissance, helicopter escort and attack, and support of ground troops.,The aircraft will have the capability to operate from rough clearings, primitive roads, and waterways, in addition to prepared airfields and aircraft carriers.,This aircraft has been extensively studied by the military services. The Marine Corps initially stated the formal requirement for a light armed reconnaissance aircraft and the Air Force confirmed the need for such an aircraft. The Marine Corps supplied the specifications. The Navy was designated as the developing agency.,The first flight of the new aircraft will be in about 1 year. I am sure if you are interested the Defense Department will give you further details.,[4.] I shall send to the Senate on Monday the nomination of Mr. Sargent Shriver to head the poverty program. I have talked to Mr. Shriver about this, and I have carefully reviewed all the people that could be available for this very important assignment. I am making my recommendation of Mr. Shriver. I think he has done an excellent job during the time he has been in public service, and I hope the Senate will take prompt action.,In addition, we are tentatively selecting some 22 job corps conservation camps to be opened this year in the States of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Further details on the camps will be made available to you by Mr. Shriver's office, when the negotiations have proceeded further.\nI will be glad now to take any questions.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel any sort of concern about the situation in Congress where the redistricting thing or reapportionment may threaten adjournment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am always interested in any matter that concerns the country and the Congress. I will talk to the congressional leaders about their schedule, when we meet again on Tuesday, and I am sure that we will discuss this subject and others rather fully.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some question about as to why you felt it necessary to specify conventional ordnance in your instructions to the fleet. The commanders would not have instructions to use other than conventional ordnance, would they?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we may have anticipated that some people would be asking that question and we wanted to be sure the record was clear. But we have made a very clear record on it, and we think we were justified in doing so, and we think that the American people would be glad that we had done so, at least if it served no other purpose. It brought out on the table what had happened and made it clear that unsubstantiated charges would not stand up for long.,Q. Mr. President, do you think that the Senator's comments on this matter have caused us harm abroad with other nations?,THE PRESIDENT. I am unable to evaluate that. I want to be sure that the people of my own country and the people of the world know that we speak and act with responsibility.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, as Senate majority leader, you always sought consensus on legislation. If the consensus of the State Democratic leaders, convention delegations, labor leaders, Negro leaders, points toward one man as your running mate, would you be bound or guided by it?,THE PRESIDENT. I would only say now that I am carefully and conscientiously and earnestly considering the availability of various individuals, and at the appropriate time when I have reached a conclusion that I think is a good one and a sound one, and one worthy of the Presidency, I will make my recommendations.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, are you in favor of the candidacy of Robert Kennedy for the U.S. Senate seat in New York State?,THE PRESIDENT. I explained that to you yesterday. I have no desire to repeat it, unless you failed to get it the first go-round. I never interfere in primaries of any kind. I think you know, and I think those present realize, that I have a very high regard for the ability of the Attorney General. He has performed outstanding public service in very important posts in this administration and before this administration in the legislative branch of the Government. I have worked closely with him and admired his performance.,I made it clear, however, that he had not consulted me when we talked here in the White House about any desires he might have. He has not asked me to make any recommendations. I have not made any recommendations. I will not intervene in New York, or Massachusetts, or Texas in a primary. I have repeated that time and time again. I have no desire to repeat the speech, but if any of you have any doubt that same rule has applied to my entire public life. Who the Democratic Party selects as a nominee in New York, or Massachusetts, or Texas, is a matter for the Democrats of that State.,As close as I was to Mr. Rayburn and as long as we served together, I never even intervened when he had a hot congressional race. And he did not intervene in my primaries either. I hope that makes clear that, first, I have great admiration for the Attorney General; second, the matter of whether he is a candidate in New York or not is a matter for him to decide and for the people of New York to decide. And when they make that decision, I am sure it will be a good one.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, there is a report published this morning that the administration is now supporting a modified version of the medicare bill rather than the original King-Anderson bill. Is this correct? Could you help us out on that?,THE PRESIDENT. The administration strongly favors the King-Anderson bill. No one speaking for the administration has ever made any statement at variance with that. I do not want to assume the responsibility for keeping accuracy in reporting, but this is the first question that has been raised since that report about the administration's attitude, and if I had been consulted by the reporter who made the report, I would have answered him as I am answering you.,We favor the King-Anderson bill. The administration has favored it for several years. We will continue to favor it and do everything we can to get it enacted.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you say you feel Senator Goldwater has performed a disservice to the national security and to world peace. Do you feel he should now publicly recant what he said and join you in setting the record straight?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter for the Republican candidate and his own conscience.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in this same connection, sir, do you plan to renew your offer to make intelligence files available to Senator Goldwater so they can be of use to him in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any necessity or requirement to renew it or restate it. It still exists. We made the briefings available to all the candidates. Governor Scranton accepted them, Ambassador Lodge had them available to him and utilized them, and even Governor Stassen came here and was thoroughly briefed. We have made that offer to the Republican nominee. If he does not care to have the information or the knowledge that would be contained in those briefings, that is a matter for him. I would say it is a matter entirely for his judgment and for his conscience.,The administration's record is clear that we want every person seeking the office of the Presidency, every responsible candidate, to have responsible and accurate information, and full knowledge, on the position of our Government and conditions in the world. If he does not desire to receive that knowledge, that is entirely a matter for him.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some public comments that Mr. Yarmolinsky2 had been offered as a sort of a sacrifice to the southerners in exchange for support of the poverty program. I wonder if you would care to make any further comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to get into another running discussion here like we are in on nuclear weapons. What public comment? Who said what, so I will know what I am answering and what I am saying.,2 Adam Yarmolinsky, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.,Q. Sir, I believe there were some published columns from various sources.,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that probably you ought to seek the columnist and see what the source of his information is. Mr. Yarmolinsky is employed by the Defense Department. And the Defense Department, the Labor Department, the Health, Education, and Welfare Department, and the Justice Department are jointly interested in the poverty program, so they all shared a part in preparing it. No one, to repeat, to emphasize, no one, at any time, any place, anywhere, suggested to me anyone for any of these places. The first information that I had that Mr. Yarmolinsky was, in effect, appointed to one of these places that did not exist was the columnist rumor that you talked about.,I was informed by the leader of this task force, Mr. Shriver, that he had made no recommendations to anyone, that he had not recommended Mr. Yarmolinsky to anyone associated with me, or with me, and did not plan to. I have asked Mr. Shriver, now that the bill has passed and we plan to start selecting our personnel, to review the four other Presidential appointments and submit his recommendations to me. I would not be able to say in advance whether I would embrace all those recommendations or not, but I would certainly be inclined to.,We do not plan to give any assignment, necessarily, to any person who participated in the drafting of it, and that may have been the reason for the report being given out. Nor do we plan to make any assignment because some columnists think we ought to.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the question has been raised from time to time on the possibility of a defense slip in the presidential campaign debate.,THE PRESIDENT. Defense what?,Q. Of a defense slip in a presidential campaign debate. In other words, if you were to debate with Senator Goldwater, he has raised the question, himself, that the President shouldn't debate on TV because there might be a defense slip.,THE PRESIDENT. We will get into that after our convention when we make a decision in the matter. I don't quite follow what you are saying now. But after the convention, if I am the nominee, we will go into all manners of how we will conduct the campaign and we will give you due and adequate notice.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, we have been told that the Senate-House conferees on the beef import restrictions are trying to work out a compromise acceptable both to the cattle industry and to the White House. Could you tell us what might be acceptable to you along this line?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of State is working with the appropriate leadership in both Houses in connection with this very important subject, and I am hopeful that we will be able to reach some meeting of the minds that will be satisfactory to all.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate that Mrs. Johnson will be campaigning this year?,THE PRESIDENT. She is and will be.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Mayor McKeldin of Baltimore yesterday had lunch with Mr. Jenkins. Is there any indication that he is going to play a role in the campaign with you?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't know that they had lunch together, so I wouldn't be able to tell you what happened. This is the first information I had about it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you favor a Secret Service guard now for Senator Goldwater?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't explored that subject. If the Senator felt that he was in danger in any way and felt the necessity of protection and felt that we ought to carefully consider adopting a policy of protecting candidates, I would be glad to review it carefully and try to work out some kind of an agreement that would be satisfactory to him. He has not told me of his views on the matter. All I know about it is what I have seen about the suggestion of the Vice Presidential candidate.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the Wall in Berlin was just 3 years old. Do you see any chances for tearing it down?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly concerned with improving the conditions of the free world. We are very proud of our relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany. We are going to continue in cooperation with them to do everything that is humanly possible to bring about the unification of the great people of Germany at the earliest possible date.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, what are the issues in this campaign, as you see them?,THE PRESIDENT. We plan, after our convention in Atlantic City, to release to the country the platform we have adopted, and that platform will be an affirmative, positive declaration of the problems, the issues, and the matters that we think are of most concern to the American people.,Hearings on that platform will begin Monday. I think the appearance of those witnesses gives some indication of the subjects that we think are most important. The Secretary of State will lead off and will discuss conditions in the world, our viewpoint pertaining to those conditions, what this administration has done in connection with our relations with other nations and in our attempt to prevent the spread of communism and the enslavement of free people.,I think Secretary Rusk will point out, as I did at the Bar Association a few days ago,3 that peace in the world is the primary objective of our party and our country, and we have had many difficult problems but we are quite proud that communism has not enveloped any single nation and taken it over since Cuba in 1959. We do have several spots in the world that create serious problems, but we will try to outline our approach to the problems of peace.,3 see Item 511.,That will be followed by our preparedness efforts, the strength of our Nation, and how important it was that we improve our defenses as we did when President Kennedy came into office. He has recommended the expenditure of $30 billion over and above what would have been recommended in the last year of the last Republican administration. So, we think that peace and preparedness are very important.,We will discuss economic conditions at some length in this platform, working conditions, agricultural conditions. We are sure that peace and preparedness and prosperity will all be subjects of discussion and will more or less resolve themselves into the presentation of opposite viewpoints. You might refer to these as some of the principal issues.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Albert4 this morning seemed a little uncertain as to at what point you would review the platform. Could you tell us at what point you will review it?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't worked out that agenda, that date. Whenever it is available and they would care to review it with me or discuss it, I would try to find the time to do so.,4 Representative Carl Albert of Oklahoma, Majority Floor Leader.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, you've mentioned responsibility in government a great deal in the last week or two. Is this going to be an issue in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I had not felt that I was overstressing any particular thing, and I had not intended to indicate that. I observe that when I say our country is strong that it is usually interpreted as a reply or a jab. When I say something about responsibility, that may have sudden implications, but they must be your implications. I don't intend them to imply anything other than what I say.,I do believe that I want my administration to be constructive, affirmative, forward-looking, progressive, and always, of course, responsible.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-08-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] First, I am glad to see so many of you made the bus this morning. When we set this early hour last evening, I asked George Reedy if he thought the eastern press that is traveling with us would interpret this as extremism. He assured me that the press regards moderation in pursuit of the eastern daylight deadlines as no virtue.1,1The conference was held at 10:05 a.m., central standard time.,Last Saturday we all met together and I think you were interested in photographs of the surface of the moon. This Saturday I suppose some of you may be more interested in photographs of the surface of Granite Shoals Lake.,But I thought I would tell you as President of all of the press photographers as well as reporters I want you to be able to catch up on your rest after you file, so I will just tell you about this afternoon. I may be on the lake, but there won't be any story over there.,[2.] For several days at the White House, I spoke of our \"summer of discontent.\" There has been discontent and there has been dissatisfaction, but it seems to me that these last 7 days deserve very special consideration in contemplation of every thinking citizen. All week long the Americans have been doing what Americans do best--working together.,The results have been highly gratifying. The week has been deeply reassuring. Wherever we have faced them, we have been meeting our challenges--at the Gulf of Tonkin, the Halls of Congress, in distant space of our universe, and all sections of our Nation.,Only a week ago we saw a steady, stable, straightforward national course yield an important national success in the mission of Ranger 7' Only a few days later we saw that same kind of steadiness and stability and straightforwardness permit us to make America's peaceful purpose unmistakably clear when we were challenged by an act of aggression in the Tonkin Gulf.,Today, both adversaries and allies have the basis for new respect and understanding of America's resoluteness. In the unity of nonpartisanship and commonsense which Americans rallied together for, we have the basis for new confidence in the continuing strength of our own society, but there are other reassurances, too.,I find it reassuring in this week, while we faced challenges abroad, our Congress faced up to challenges at home--facing them with an active answer to them.,You will see the fruits of their labors signed into law, a good many of them, next week. We have several signing ceremonies scheduled.,This has been one of the most constructive weeks within my memory in the Congress, and it is a fitting climax to one of the most constructive sessions that I witnessed in my 33 years.,[3.] In addition, I think we may properly note with reassurance another development at home.,I have just talked to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He assures me that the investigation in Mississippi is going exceedingly well; that substantive results can be expected in a very short period of time.,Murder in any State, whether Mississippi or Georgia or New York, and civil disorder in any region--North or South, East or West--cannot and will not be condoned in this country.,Perpetrators of these crimes and these law violators are being apprehended and will be brought to justice. We must not allow violence and lawlessness to go unpunished. No person can be allowed to attack the right of every American to be secure in this land.,Under our system of government, local authorities have the basic responsibilities for civil peace. We look to the Governors and local officials to keep the peace and to protect the citizens. It is essential to our Federal system that they keep that responsibility. I am in constant communication with Governors where these problems appear.,A Federal police force is inconsistent with the tradition of this country, and I do not believe we must create such a force to keep the peace and enforce the laws. But inaction on the part of the Government when Federal laws are violated and assistance is needed is equally repugnant to our traditions. We intend to do our part when it is necessary and right to do so.,[4.] I have been in communication with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McGeorge Bundy,2 and other officials in Washington, and I have a brief statement to make on southeast Asia.,2 secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President.,The situation created by unprovoked aggression against our naval forces on the high seas remains serious, but there have been no further incidents in the last 24 hours. We, of course, remain fully alert against any attempt to renew or widen the attacks from any source.,It is important for us all to understand that these attacks at sea are only part of a basic pattern of aggression which had already shown itself against the people and Government of South Viet-Nam and the people and the Government of Laos. Our actions this week make clear not only our determination to give a clear and positive reply to aggression at sea, but our general determination to resist and repel aggression in the area as a whole. That is the meaning also of the resolution adopted yesterday by the Congress with almost complete unanimity.,The most encouraging fact of the week, indeed, was the unity, calmness, and strength of purpose shown by our own people, together with the understanding and support which our actions have received from our friends around the world.,Ambassador Lodge,3 pursuant to my request and in accordance with my directions, will proceed at an early date to communicate in more detail with our friends in other parts of the world.,3 Henry Cabot Lodge, former United States Ambassador to Viet-Nam.,Our friends who are defending their freedom and independence in the area can take new courage from this unity and this support as they carry on, with our help, in the continuing work of repelling aggression by terror and by infiltration.,Finally, let me repeat again and again that in all our actions, our purpose is peace.,[5.] Another situation which is a matter of grave concern is the renewed fighting on Cyprus between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. We are intently watching this development, and I don't wish to comment on it further except to say that we are in very close touch with the situation through our embassies, that we strongly support the efforts of the U.N. peace force to achieve a cessation of fighting so that movements toward a peaceful solution can continue.,As I am sure you know, the Turks have asked for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.,[6.] The Air Force will proceed immediately with the program to orbit 24 satellites for an. interim, independent Defense Satellite Communications System. This system will provide reliable, worldwide circuits, highly resistant to jamming and physical attack, for carrying essential military communications in time of crisis.,Further details of it can be in a statement, and George4 can give it to you.,4 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,[7.] I have approved a proposal by Secretary Wirtz to survey job vacancies in 20 labor market areas across the Nation.,For more than a year the Labor Department has been studying the feasibility of collecting information from employers on vacant jobs that could be filled if qualified workers were available.,Experimental surveys, research, and the investigation of job-vacancy information activities in other countries indicate that such a program would be of tremendous value in combating unemployment.,I have a letter here from the Secretary describing the project, which I won't go into, which you can take.5,5 In a letter to the President, released by the White House on August 8 at Austin, Tex., Secretary Wirtz proposed that pilot surveys be conducted in 20 labor market areas of different sizes, industrial composition, and labor market conditions, with a view toward the eventual establishment of a job-vacancy identification system in each major labor market area. The surveys would measure the extent and nature of unfilled job openings by occupation so that manpower training and retraining programs could be geared to local labor market conditions. Mr. Wirtz added that the surveys would provide needed information for the prompt placement of skilled workers and also provide employers with a systematic method of assessing their own training needs.,We are greatly encouraged by the success of breaking through the 5 percent barrier on unemployment, getting it down to 4.9. We believe if we get the bill that was voted on yesterday--dilatory tactics required us to carry over until today for final vote--if we pass that bill today,6 we expect to make strong inroads into the largest group of unemployed that we have; namely, the young people. We have reduced that from 16 down to 13 percent. We expect thousands of young people to be able to obtain useful training in employment as a result of this bill in all parts of the Nation.\nI will be glad to take any questions.,6 Economic opportunity bill, passed by the House of Representatives on August 8. See Item 505.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, when you said that you expect substantive results in the Mississippi investigation in a very short time, do you mean, sir, you are expecting something today or within days? Could you pin it down slightly?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say a very short time. I don't want to get down to minutes or hours. I would just leave it at that.,Q. That is, arrests?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say substantive results.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Lodge told us yesterday he was going to allied capitals. Are you planning to send anyone to neutralist capitals?,THE PRESIDENT. We are in touch with most capitals most of the time. I don't think that there is any clear line of demarcation that would divide one capital from the other, although I think early in his schedule he will be discussing some joint efforts that would not apply to the neutralists that are going on now in southeast Asia. I would say that he would not be precluded from visiting any capital whether it was our ally or a neutral, but I would say probably the first ones he will visit will be allied capitals because of some of the plans that some of them have announced for their increased efforts there.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, last week Senator Goldwater said it appeared to him that as of now Viet-Nam is dead as a campaign issue this year but that it probably could be revived later. Do you agree with this?,THE PRESIDENT. I prefer to treat it as a problem of free people without association in a political campaign. I think that all Americans are going to support their country in defending our interests in the world.,I have seen no evidence that our action in Viet-Nam should be made a partisan matter. I am exceedingly pleased with the unanimity with which the Congress and the people-and, if you will pardon me, the press--supported this movement.,[11.] Q. Sir, have you been able to better establish the motives in the Vietnamese two attacks?,THE PRESIDENT. You had better find out about their motives from them.,Q. Do you have any ideas or do you assume why?,THE PRESIDENT. The same answer would go to that same question. I am unable to speak with any accuracy on the imaginations or motives or ideas they may have had in mind on what they did. It would be pure speculation and I don't care to indulge in that.,Q. Mr. President, there has been some criticism of your timing on the announcement of the attack. Can you give us any feeling about this thing?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't paid much attention to it. I don't know what you referred to, but I think that our conduct is going very well there, and I didn't know there had been any criticism from any responsible source. It looks like the votes have been pretty uniform and pretty unanimous.,Q. I was thinking of the criticism by Congressman Foreman yesterday in the House.7,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't see that. Did he think we shouldn't have done it?,7 Representative Ed Foreman's remarks appear in the Congressional Record, August 7, 1964, p. 17962.,Q. He suggested you were acting irresponsibly by announcing the attack before it started.,THE PRESIDENT. Before what?,Q. Before the attack started.,THE PRESIDENT. Of course that didn't happen.,Q. Didn't it?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Before the planes got to the target is what he was saying.,Q. Before the strike actually began.,THE PRESIDENT. When the strike got off the carrier they were in their radar and the Defense Department and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought it was very important that we say to the American people what was happening before Hanoi said it to them, and that we say to all peoples what kind of an attack it was without any description. I don't think any well-informed or reasonable person would feel that we did not act properly and successfully.,Q. Mr. President, have you talked with former President Eisenhower about the air strikes?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't. I think it is fair to say that I have had General Eisenhower fully briefed, and I have received his reactions, and I have asked for any opinions or suggestions he might have at any time, and I have received them in this connection. I have suggested that Ambassador Lodge talk to him about my suggestions of the last couple of days with the Ambassador. He has done that and he has reported back to me--not me personally.,Q. The Ambassador said the General was pleased that he had told him.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, have you been in communication with Premier Khrushchev in the past week either through the \"hot line\" or through regular diplomatic channels?,THE PRESIDENT. We are in communication with most of the governments of the world most of the time. The specific method and timing I don't go into.,[13.] Q. Sir, in connection with some other communications, there have been some conflicting and some confusing reports as to whether you did or did not ask the Attorney General to be your campaign manager or director this year. Have you made any such request of him?,THE PRESIDENT. I would just leave that up to your description. I don't think anything I could say would change it in any way. It would be conflicting and confusing as long as all of you speculate, and I would say that I am not going to take any active part in any campaign until after the convention.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask a question about Adam Yarmolinsky,8 if I pronounce it correctly. He had been with the Department of Defense--,THE PRESIDENT. He still is.,8 Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.,Q. I thought he had been working for the Peace Corps and working on the poverty bill.,THE PRESIDENT. No, your thoughts are wrong. He is still with the Department of Defense.,Q. I was also asked to ask you, sir, if he was going back to the Pentagon, but you say he is still there.,THE PRESIDENT. He never left.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, by drawing Chinese power southward, as they appeared to be doing, Mr. McNamara said they appeared to be bringing planes into South Viet-Nam. Are we reducing the potentiality of friction between China and the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not care to go even so far as Mr. McNamara in speculating on what other people are going to do. That involves a great many imponderables, and I don't see any useful purpose being gained by speculation.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to comment on any of those recent rumors about a possible price increase in steel?,THE PRESIDENT. If the reports had any basis, it would be a matter of very serious concern because steel is very important in our economy. We follow all of these problems very closely. We would be surprised if steel raised prices in light of the information we have; namely, declining costs and rising profits, increased volume, favorable Government actions that we have taken on depreciation and taxes, interest rates, and our Government policies in connection with all of these. It seems to us that the steel industry has been getting steadily healthier.,It is now engaged in a major modernization program, and we have been told from time to time that they have been very successful in cutting their costs.,We all know that the volume of steel output is setting a new record. Increases in hourly labor costs have apparently been exceeded by good productivity gain.,As I said before, profits have been steadily rising. The first half of 1964 steel profits were up 17 percent over the first half of 1963.,Now, if you had a price increase, it would strongly conflict with our national interest in price stability. We think that stability is essential to sustain a strong expansion of jobs and output, to sustain the improvement in our balance of payments.,I am confident that leaders of the steel industry will act responsibly in the national interest. I have had no indication whatever that there is going to be any other action.,Q. Mr. President, you did not mean to imply, sir, any criticism--,THE PRESIDENT. I did not mean to imply any. I don't want to imply anything.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-07-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I am rushed a little bit this morning, but I thought I had a few items you might be interested in. I will get these statements distributed for you as soon as they can be copied.,[1.] First, a year ago this week the nuclear test ban treaty was signed and agreed upon. Today, a year later, more than 100 nations have joined the three original signing countries. We have also seen a U.N. Resolution Banning Weapons of Mass Destruction in Outer Space, and steps to cut back production of fissionable materials.,A year without atmospheric testing has left our air cleaner. This is a benefit to every American family, and to every family everywhere, since all radiation, however small, involves some possibility of biological risk to us or to our descendants.,At the same time we have taken every precaution to insure the security of the United States. To this end we have put into full effect the program of safeguards originally approved by President Kennedy on the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I can report that the Chiefs have reviewed the present program and agree that satisfactory progress is being made under it. Indeed, the safeguards program leaves us much safer against surprises than we were in the period of moratorium begun in 1959.,Even if this treaty should end tomorrow, the United States would be safer and stronger than before.,We owe the test ban treaty, and this year of progress, to the determined and dedicated leadership of a great President, and the Senate of the United States. This leadership toward peace has had no partisan tinge. Four-fifths of the Democrats and three-fourths of the Republicans in the Senate voted for this treaty. It is therefore right that all Americans without regard to party should give thanks in this anniversary week for what the President and the Senate achieved last year.,This thankfulness can be traced to the deep desire that all of us have for a world in which terror does not govern our waking lives. We should think of a world in which we need not fear the milk which our children drink; in which we do not need engage in agonizing speculation on the future generations and whether they will be deformed or scarred.,We can live in strength without adding to the hazards of life on this planet. We need not relax our guard in order to avoid unnecessary risks. This is the legacy of the nuclear test ban treaty and it is a legacy of hope.,Q. You say we will get that statement, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. It will be copied and gotten to you as soon as possible.,[2.] I have recently had reports from several Government groups dealing with the hard problems of minimizing the adverse impact of shifts in our defense programs.,The Atomic Energy Commission has reported to me on the steps it has been taking to cushion the impact of scheduled reductions in the production of fissionable materials at such sites as Hanford, Wash., and Aiken, S.C.,The AEC has set up an Office of Economic Impact and Conversion, similar to the Defense Department office set up by Secretary McNamara, to work with communities affected by base closings or contract terminations. AEC is bringing in new contractors at its Hanford plant. They are expected to undertake private work along with their Government contracts, thus helping to diversify the local economy. And Congress has just passed legislation we requested to make Government land and facilities more readily available for diversification programs.,I have also had an informal progress report from the group I set up last December under the chairmanship of Gardner Ackley of the Council of Economic Advisers to study how we can best adjust to shifts in our defense programs.1,1 Committee on the Economic Impact of Defense and Disarmament, established December 21, 1963. See Item 62.,Some areas--such as Long Island, Boston, southern California, and Seattle--have already lost many jobs by defense cutbacks. But the overall problem has been greatly relieved by our general prosperity.,South Bend, Ind.--which has been hit by the closing of an automobile factory rather than defense cutbacks--is an example of what vigorous Government programs, aided by a strong economy, can do. The rate of unemployment in South Bend--which rose to almost twice the national average--has now been cut to 6 1/2 percent.,South Bend has provided a test case for steppe&up Government programs of placement, retraining, relief, and help to local authorities in attracting new industries. These programs are available for other communities which might be hit by closing of a defense facility or ending of a defense contract. But additional measures may be needed.,Some new measures have already been taken, for example, a change in defense procurement regulations, to allow defense contractors to count civilian product planning as cost in defense contracts, and new Defense Department surveys to pinpoint the regional and industrial impact of defense subcontracts.,The committee expects to report to me within the next 2 or 3 months. This report will include its first set of recommendations for further actions to relieve problems of economic adjustment. The problem is a complex one, and will not be solved in 1 month or r year. But I am sure that the intensive work of the committee will lead to constructive measures.,[3.] Here is a brief statement, a copy of which will be given to you, on the OAS meeting.,The inter-American system demonstrated once again this week its effectiveness and vitality by dealing resolutely with Cuban aggression against Venezuela. The speeches at the meeting showed general agreement on a verdict condemning Cuban aggression, and the final resolution made it abundantly clear that the hemisphere will not tolerate aggression by subversion.,There was a genuine concern, which we shared, that although Venezuela was the target of Communist aggression today, another country might be the target tomorrow, and that we must stand all for one and one for all. Many able diplomats contributed to this encouraging result, but we Americans can be proud of our own Secretary Rusk, and of Secretary Tom Mann and Ambassador Bunker who backed him up.2,2 secretary of State Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas C. Mann, and the U.S. Representative on the Council of the Organization of American States, Ellsworth Bunker.,[4.] I had a meeting yesterday which I would like to make a comment on that may be of interest to you. It was with my economic and financial advisers. We reviewed economic prospects, problems, and policies. We can, and do, take great pride in our record-breaking prosperity on the home front and the restored prestige and strength of our dollar abroad.,But it is a President's constant duty to focus on areas where we still fall short of our goals; to foresee and forestall problems that may arise in the future.,We took a close look at the further impact of the tax cut in creating jobs and putting idle machines to work, and what fiscal and monetary policies will get us to our goal of full employment.,We took a close look at methods of assuring continued improvement in our export surplus, our balance of payments, and our gold flows.,We took a closer look at prospects for maintaining our excellent price and cost record--the world's best--and preventing any renewal of the price-wage spiral.,We took a close look at warding off any threats of slow-down or recession that may arise to endanger our record-breaking expansion in 1965 or 1966.,With the aid of able and experienced men like Secretary Dillon, Chairman William Martin, Budget Director Gordon, and Economic Adviser Heller3--all of whom have been here since the Democratic administration and economic expansion got under way early in 1961--I know that the Government, in partnership with labor and business and all the private economy, will do its part to maintain our unparalleled economic advance.,3 Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System William McC. Martin, It., Director of the Bureau of the Budget Kermit Gordon, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Walter W. Heller.,[5.] I wish to report that the number of direct hire civilian employees of the Department of Defense has been reduced to less than 1 million for the first time since the Korean war buildup of the early 1950's.,The Department's civilian personnel strength on July 1, 1964, was 997,864, some 6,600 less than the goal of 1,004,467 set for that date. The Department has not had less than 1 million civilian employees since December 1950.,The breakdown by Departments is:,Army 337, 670\nNavy 332, 678\nAir Force 289, 720\nOther Agencies 37,796,These reductions in civilian personnel are attributable mainly to base closings, improvements in productivity, and a reduction of direct hire foreign nationals as part of the Department's 'program to reduce the unfavorable balance of payments.,Secretary of Defense McNamara, while pleased that the goal for July 1, 1964, has been exceeded, expects to achieve additional reductions before the end of the year. The figure for November 22, 1963, was 1,011,939, so we have had a reduction of about 14,000 or 15,000 in that period.,[6.] I have a brief statement on Senator Engle which you can pick up.,Clair Engle was set apart by qualities of intelligence, compassion, and integrity which made him an unusual person and an exceptional public servant. His life was given to the pursuit of high goals and to the service of just causes. He was the servant of millions and the friend of many, but none held him in greater affection than Lady Bird and I did.,[7.] I have sent up two additional budget messages. I think you got one yesterday-George gave you--on the breakthrough in a new era of cooperation between public and private power in this country. The great city of Los Angeles public plant received a surplus of power there.4,4 on July 29 the President requested that $45.5 million be appropriated to begin construction of a power transmission network in the Far West which would tie together public and private power systems and would make possible the transmission of surplus power wherever needed from Seattle to western Texas. For further remarks on the new power intertie see Item 578.,I have today sent to the Congress a $19.8 million budget amendment to maintain schedules on four projects now under construction by the Corps of Engineers. We would lose $11 million by setting back a year the Arkansas River navigation project. The States interested in this one are Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Kansas.,Now I will take any questions.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you see anything to be gained by the candidates or by the voters by having televised debates such as the one in 1960?,THE PRESIDENT. I will repeat it every day for the record, if you want me to. I haven't been nominated yet. We haven't selected our candidate. We have a convention. When that is done, we will carefully review any suggestions that any of you have and give attention to them and act in the national interest on them.,[9] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you plan to announce your vice presidential preference within 10 days.,THE PRESIDENT. I know of no such reports. Who is reporting it?,Q. The New York Herald Tribune had a story that you plan to do it within 10 days, August 15th they say.,THE PRESIDENT. As far as I know, they have had no contact from me. Anyone here from the Herald Tribune ?,Q. Yes, sir; but I didn't write the story.,THE PRESIDENT. Who did?,Q. Andrew Glass.,Q. It said you would make up your mind by August 15th and not announce it until the convention. Is that a fact?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that I haven't seen the story. I haven't talked to the author and I haven't discussed the subject with anyone else. While I would not want to reflect on the accuracy of his speculations, I would say it was written right off the top of someone's head without any consultation with the President.,Q. Mr. President, just so--,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to forego the privilege of announcing it at any time that I reached a conclusion, but I would say for your protection, so you don't think the President has given someone some inside stuff.,Q. Have you reached a decision, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. What was your answer to that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. I would like to know just when to start alerting myself about when do you think there might be some announcement on your decision.,THE PRESIDENT. When I feel something like that coming on, I will let you know. My high regard for you will give me a chance to give you warning and I hope you have adequate notice so you can interpret it and analyze it properly for the country.,Q. A fellow could get a bloody nose on that story, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. He could.,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what criteria you might be thinking of in the selection of a running mate?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think so. I think that we want the person that is equipped to handle the duties of the Vice Presidency, and the Presidency, if that awesome responsibility should ever fall upon him--I think he should be a man that is well received in all the States of the Union among all of our people. I would like to see a man that is experienced in foreign relations and domestic affairs. I would like for him to be a man of the people who felt a compassionate concern for their welfare and who enjoyed public service and was dedicated to it.,I would like for him to be attractive, prudent, and progressive. I would like him to be one who would work cooperatively with the Congress and with the Cabinet and with the President. I would expect him to be one that would meet with overwhelming approval of the delegates who have the responsibility for passing upon him.,Q. What was that last, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. --who have the responsibility for passing upon him. I think that is enough. Helen?,Helen 5 has a question she wanted to ask.,5 Helen Thomas, United Press International.,[10.] Q. I just wanted to know if you thought elective office was sort of a--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I want to get into that. You might place the wrong construction on something like that. I am doing my best to keep you all active.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, of your own varied experience, what did you find the most useful after you succeeded to the Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. I needed all I had and a good deal more, too, and I don't think one ever has too much. I doubt that many Presidents have ever felt that they have had enough experience. My administrative experience in the executive branch of the Government served me in very good stead. I use it every day now in directing other agencies of Government. I had only brief experience, less than 2 years, but it has been helpful to me.,My 12 years in the House of Representatives has given me a background that was helpful on a lot of things, particularly measures like the farm bill, mass transit, and problems of that kind that we have had there.,My 12 years in the Senate has been a matter of assistance to me in connection with treaty matters for foreign relations and procedures in the Senate, difficulties like we worked out yesterday with this new era of cooperation which can mean much to our Nation between all of the private power companies and the public power companies.,My 10 years of leadership, 2 as whip and 2 as minority leader, and the rest as majority leader, helped me some in knowing the personalities and leadership of Democrats and Republicans.,I am glad to say that on some of our key measures like civil rights, over 80 percent of the Republicans supported that measure, and on key measures like taxes we got the support of them, and I think that my meeting with their leaders in the Minority from time to time might not have been done if I hadn't worked with them and had some association and experience with them.,My travels as a Vice President to more than 30 countries have resulted in acquaintances with people of Latin America and Scandinavia and Western Europe, and most of these men I have known, whether it is the Shah of Iran or Prime Minister of Britain or Chancellor of Germany, the President of France--all of these men I have met and talked and exchanged views with, and that has all been helpful.,[12.] Q. If you are elected, Mr. President, will you see that your Vice President is equipped as much as you can help him to be after the election?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't been nominated and I haven't been elected and I don't want to be presumptuous by telling you what is going to happen in the event that those things arise. But it is my view that the Vice President ought to be a very intimate, close part of the Chief Executive's responsibilities, and work with him in discharging them. He ought to be available to do anything the Chief Executive wants him to do and he ought to be competent to do it.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, we have been reading a lot of stories lately about the kind of campaign you are going to run. Some say you are going to sit in this chair and go out only on weekends.,THE PRESIDENT. I saw one story, and someone thought I held a backgrounder on it, and I did not. I never talked to him, don't know him, never had a discussion, and whoever talked to him did it without my authority and knowledge. I don't know who it was. So I would say it was another story off the top of his head. I thought it was favorable and I liked it, but it was without research and authorization. I don't want you to think I left you out.,Q. That is why I am asking. Can you tell us about your plans after the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it will be better to talk to you about it after the convention.,Q. Do you think it will be a vigorous campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I said I think it will be better to talk to you about it after the convention.,[14.] Q. In reviewing your economic policies yesterday, did you inaugurate any new policy changes or alter any old ones to reach these goals?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we analyzed what is taking place. We tried to anticipate what it is down the road. We made some new assignments and some new studies. We are watching certain factors. We have a group of men in addition to these studying ways and means of preserving the prosperity we enjoy, because we don't think you can sit and enjoy the status quo and not anticipate what will happen a year from now. And we are trying to prepare for it by having the best minds in the country look at the problem, anticipate and prepare for it, and evaluate and analyze it.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, just yesterday six civil rights leaders called for a period of quiet in racial demonstration. Do you think a period of cooling off will be beneficial to the Nation during the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't read the text of that statement. I have some thoughts in that general field which I will be glad to give you and I will have a copy of it made a little later, if you want it in more detail.,I don't want to be in a position of intervening in the decisions of any private organization as long as it stays within the law. But as a general matter, it seems to me that there are some general propositions for our people which all of us should consider.,When machinery does not exist to redress grievances, it is understandable that those who are aggrieved will take to the streets, whether rightly or wrongly. Their judgment might be wrong as to how justice could be obtained, but they would be less or more than human if they did not seek justice.,The Civil Rights Act was established to provide machinery--to transfer the area of conflict from the streets and highways to the courts and the conciliation chambers, and the weapons of conflict from the club and the brick to the presentation of evidence and reasoned argument. This is in accord with our traditional concepts of a society that is both stable and free.,The enactment of the law--which was passed by better than a two-thirds vote of each branch of Congress, voted for by over 80 percent of the Members of the Republican Party in the Senate and over 60 percent of the Members of the Democratic Party in the Senate--imposes upon us both the obligation of obedience and the obligation of use. And above all, it instills the obligations of conformance to all the laws, even to some of those which remain in effect but which have become somewhat dusty over the years.,So I commend all of those who are willing to give all the laws a chance to work, whether we are talking about the civil rights statutes or local ordinances against disorder or individual brutality, personal or authoritative. I have a deep and abiding faith in the ability of a free society to work through the ballot and through established judicial machinery, and I do not believe that those who walk those roads will be disappointed.,I might add that I would not argue with anyone who chose to pursue a policy of registration in lieu of demonstration.,One of the reasons for urging the civil rights law was so that we would have the yardstick. Now that we have this law, I would hope that all of our citizens will follow its observance and none of our citizens would do anything to encourage, incite, or inflame disputes.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, I don't mean for this question to be facetious, but in your prescription for a Vice Presidential running mate, were you thinking of an ideal, or did you have some living person in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have any prescription. I was attempting to be helpful and courteous to one of the questioners who wondered what are the things that you would consider in evaluating the type of person you thought you would like to be associated with on the ticket. I had prepared no brief on the subject. I tried to be open and frank about it. But I do not want to set standards for anybody else, but just some of the things that have come to my mind in talking about it.,I have had many conferences with many people who, like you, have interest as to who that person will be. I am very proud that they do have an interest. I am very happy that we have gotten away from the feeling that John Adams had about the frustrations that accompanied the Vice Presidency. I see so many people today who just a few months ago were talking about what was happening to Lyndon Johnson. I read some of those articles with people coming from downtown up to the Hill to get information on it.,I am glad that you have a renewed interest in the Vice President, and a great concern about his equipment and his qualifications, and that you have moved along past John Adams' comment to a more fertile field and a more modern base. I better stop here.,Q. Mr. President, may I go back a moment to the question of the Vice Presidency ? You made a remark that sounds significant.,THE PRESIDENT. I did not intend for it to be.,Q. That is it. The question is whether you meant it to sound significant.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it was not.,Q. I understood you to say, Mr. President, that the number two man should be well received in all parts of the United States. I can think of some possibilities, what some men regard as possibilities, who might not be well received in all parts.,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that would apply to all of them. I don't think that anyone that I have ever heard mentioned would be perfectly received everywhere. There is no significance whatever. It applies to every person. For instance, we are really in the minority party in this century, the Democrats. We have had several million less votes cast for Democrats than for Republicans. I don't imagine any of them mentioned for the Vice Presidency would be well received in some of these Republican precincts--wherever they may be--or other sections. That has no significance of any kind. It must not have.,I have made no decision. I have told you that. There are still many people that are being considered. Whoever is selected, I would hope would be well regarded, at least by some people.,Q. You have saved me from \"experting\" on something, Mr. President. Thank you.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-07-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.,[1.] I would like to announce the successful development of a major new strategic manned aircraft system, which will be employed by the Strategic Air Command. This system employs the new SR-71 aircraft, and provides a long-range, advanced strategic reconnaissance plane for military use, capable of worldwide reconnaissance for military operations.,The Joint Chiefs of Staff, when reviewing the RS-70, emphasized the importance of the strategic reconnaissance mission. The SR-71 aircraft reconnaissance system is the most advanced in the world. The aircraft will fly at more than three times the speed of sound. It will operate at altitudes in excess of 80,000 feet. It will use the most advanced observation equipment of all kinds in the world.,The aircraft will provide the strategic forces of the United States with an outstanding long-range reconnaissance capability. The system will be used during periods of military hostilities and in other situations in which the United States military forces may be confronting foreign military forces.,The SR-7I uses the same J-58 engine as the experimental interceptor previously announced, but it is substantially heavier and it has a longer range. The considerably heavier gross weight permits it to accommodate the multiple reconnaissance sensors needed by the Strategic Air Command to accomplish their strategic reconnaissance mission in a military environment.,This billion dollar program was initiated in February of 1963. The first operational aircraft will begin flight testing in early 1965. Deployment of production units to the Strategic Air Command will begin shortly thereafter.,Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept fully informed on the nature of and the progress in this aircraft program. Further information on this major advanced aircraft system will be released from time to time at the appropriate military secret classification levels.,[2.] I am pleased to announce today that in the year ending July 30th American exports of farm products broke all records, reaching an all-time high of $6 billion 151 million. This represents a 20 percent increase in farm exports in a single year--a $1 billion and a 35 percent gain over the level for the year 1960. Once again American agriculture has demonstrated its ability to succeed in highly competitive world markets.,The trade surplus in agriculture last year was over $2 billion, the highest in 50 years. This represents a substantial contribution to the plus side of our balance-of-payments ledger.,Farm exports contribute to the increased prosperity of our farm economy. The latest revised estimates from the Department of Agriculture show that net farm income in 1963 was $12 billion 518 million, more than a quarter of a billion dollars higher than we had estimated 6 months ago. The net income per farm increased from $2,961 in 1960 to $3,504 in 1963, an increase in this period, from 1960 to 1963, of more than 18 percent.,[3.] I think I should comment briefly on a number of international problems.,First, I think most Europeans know that the United States has never had any interest whatever in trying to dominate Europe or any other area of the world. On the contrary, the United States has constantly supported the strengthening of the free nations of Europe. We believe that Europe and the United States have great common interests, common purposes, and common obligations. So we have never supposed that any European country would need to choose between its ties to the United States and its ties to Europe.,We believe that any effort to force such a choice would be bad for Europe, bad for the alliance. And I have found, I might say, general agreement on this view in my talks with Prime Minister Home, Chancellor Erhard, President Segni, and many other European leaders who have been here this year.,Second, I should like to call your attention to the excellent series of meetings which we have had in Washington this last week with the leaders of Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. These meetings have allowed the United States to underscore its support for the freedom and independence of three most important Pacific states; and our friendship and understanding with these governments, I feel, has been greatly strengthened.,Third, in the continuing discussion of Southeast Asia, let me state American policy once more. We are determined to support the freedom and the independence of South Viet-Nam, where Prime Minister Khanh and Ambassador Taylor have established the closest understanding with each other. They are in continual consultation and the policies of the two nations are the same; namely, to increase the effectiveness of the whole program in that country--political, social, economic, and military.,It is true that there is danger and provocation from the North, and such provocation could force a response, but it is also true that the United States seeks no wider war. Other friends suggest that this problem must be moved to a conference table and, indeed, if others would keep the solemn agreements already signed at a conference table, there would be no problem in South Viet-Nam.,If those who practice terror and ambush and murder will simply honor their existing agreements, there can easily be peace in Southeast Asia immediately. But we do not believe in a conference called to ratify terror, so our policy is unchanged. For 10 years, and in three different administrations, the United States has been committed to the freedom and the independence of South Viet-Nam, helping others to help themselves.,In those 10 years, we have taken whatever actions were necessary, sending men and supplies for different specific purposes at different times. We shall stick to that policy and we shall continue our effort to make it even more effective. We shall do the same in our support for the legitimate Government of Laos.,Fourth, this week I have conferred with the foreign ministers of this hemisphere at the White House and our eyes turned to Latin America. Down in Mexico there has been a highly successful meeting of the Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress. The foreign ministers are working here to meet a challenge to our peace and freedom.,That meeting is still in session, so I must announce to you that I shall confine myself to the hope that in the spirit of the hemisphere, a sound and, I believe, an effective answer will be found.,These four problems are not the only ones that we have to deal with in the world today. There are many, many others, such as dangers in Cyprus, and disturbances in the Congo, and difficulty in the Kennedy Round. But we still work for peace in Cyprus and in the Congo and for progress in the Kennedy Round.,We are a steadfast people in the United States, and in the larger sense the world is less dangerous, and we are stronger than we were 4 years ago, so our work for peace must go on and will go on with success, I believe.,I understand that we have with us today a group of journalists from Latin America who are here to cover the meeting of the foreign ministers. I want to extend to them a very cordial welcome.,Now I am ready to answer any questions you may have.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the statements that have come from various officials in New York City, including the mayor and the deputy mayor, to the general effect that there are indications of Communist involvement in the recent racial violence in New York City, and have you received any such evidence that would back up such indications?,THE PRESIDENT. I receive detailed reports at the close of each day with regard to the investigations that have been carried on by the Federal Bureau of investigation. I do not care to comment in detail on those reports until some conclusions have been reached and some recommendations made, and until I think it is more appropriate to do so. I would not hesitate to say that the impression I gain from reading those reports is that there are extremist elements involved, and at the appropriate time I think that their identity will be made known.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on what you hope or what you feel might be accomplished in your meeting with Senator Goldwater this afternoon?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Goldwater, through the facilities of his office, asked the legislative representative of the White House for an opportunity to meet with the President, and on an unpublicized basis. We informed the White House representative that we would be glad to meet with Senator Goldwater. We have met with Senators every day, and we would certainly be glad to meet with him any time that he thought a meeting would be useful. The 5:30 arrangement today was made.,I cannot anticipate all the subjects that will come up, but I am very glad to talk to him and will try to be responsive and make the meeting as fruitful as possible.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in elaboration of your statement on South Viet-Nam, President de Gaulle yesterday called for France, Communist China, the Soviet Union, and the United States all to get out of Indochina and leave them to settle their problems themselves. Would you address yourself to that proposal, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I have already done that. I pointed out that we had already had one conference, and that we would carry out the agreements reached at that conference table, that there would be no need of our presence there, but until there is demonstrated upon the part of those who are ignoring the agreements reached at the conference table, some desire to carry out their agreement, we expect to continue our efforts in Viet-Nam.,[7] Q. Mr. President, after Senator Goldwater said last week that if he were President he would give at least the NATO Commander more latitude in the utilization of nuclear weapons, the Republican Convention rejected an amendment to the platform restating the traditional civilian authority over the military. What is your reaction to these actions, and could you give us your philosophy of civilian-military relationships in this particular area of nuclear weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there should be complete understanding and confidence in this country and among all our friends abroad. The control of nuclear weapons is one of the most solemn responsibilities of the President of the United States--the man who is President can never get away from that responsibility and can never forget it. The American people rely on his good judgment. They want that authority vested in a civilian. They do not expect to abandon this duty to military men in the field, and I don't think they have ever seriously considered that since the Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution.,I, myself, give close and continual attention to maintaining the most effective possible command and control over these awesome weapons. I believe that the final responsibility for all decisions on nuclear weapons must rest with the civilian head of this Government--the President of the United States--and I think and reiterate that I believe that is the way the American people want it.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the opposition that your administration has shown in the past to Mr. Tshombe, how do you plan to deal with him now that he has returned and taken over control of the Congolese Government?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to be as cooperative and as helpful as we can in an attempt to see that the people of that area have as good a government as is possible, and we have every intention of being understanding and cooperative.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to your meeting with Senator Goldwater, do you and Senator Goldwater intend to enter into a pact to take the issue of civil rights out of the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say to the architect of this meeting this afternoon that I do not believe that any issue which is before the people can be eliminated from the campaign in a free society in an election year. After all, that is the purpose of elections, is to discuss the issues. If candidates differ on important questions, it is up to the electors who must choose between them and in order to be able to satisfactorily choose between them, they must hear their views.,Now, I believe that all men and women are entitled to their full constitutional rights, regardless of their ancestry or their religion or the region of the country in which they may live. I believe that disputes, no matter how bitter, should be settled in the courts and not in the streets. I made that statement many times in press conferences and speeches over the country in the last several years. That is the reason that after more than two-thirds of the Democrats in the Congress approved the civil rights bill, and some 80 percent of the Republicans in the Senate supported the civil rights bill, I signed the civil rights bill.,I believe that all men and women are entitled to equal opportunity so that they can be judged according to their merits and not according to some artificial barrier. Now, to the extent that Senator Goldwater differs from these views, or the Republican Party differs, there will, of course, be discussion. I intend to carry on some of it, if I am a candidate.,The test of a free society is that it discusses and resolves these issues intelligently. It doesn't sweep them under the rug when they become difficult. I propose to discuss and debate the hard and difficult issues in the spirit of attempting to resolve them, and on the assumption that the American people are willing to listen and are intelligent and are unafraid.,No word or deed of mine, that I am aware of, has ever--or I hope will ever--lend any aid or any comfort to this small minority who would take the law into their own hands for whatever cause or whatever excuse they may use.,If Senator Goldwater and his advisers, and his followers, will follow the same course that I intend to follow, and that I expect the Democratic Party to follow, which is a course of rebuffing and rebuking bigots and those who seek to excite and exploit tensions, then it will be most welcome and I think it will be a very fine contribution to our political life in America.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, to return to the trouble in southeast Asia for a moment--,THE PRESIDENT. Can you speak a little louder?,Q. To return to your statement 3 in your opening statement on southeast Asia, do you and the Defense Department foresee a possible withdrawal of our military wives and children from Saigon or other southeast Asian command posts in the foreseeable future?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have no plans along that line. Over the past several years I have heard rumors to that effect, and have seen news stories making predictions along that line, but we have no plans at the present time for any such action.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, recently in San Francisco some rather rough language was directed at you as being President, by the Republican opposition. I wondered if you felt this might be some sort of a signal as to a rather rough campaign for the Presidency that is coming up.,THE PRESIDENT. Most campaigns are rough campaigns. I am an old campaigner. I have been at it 30 years. One of the first things I learned, at least so far as I am concerned, is the people are not much interested in my personal opinion of my opponent.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, your statement that the meeting with Senator Goldwater was to be unpublicized suggests that you are unhappy at the publicity about it. Was there any breach of faith by Senator Goldwater in announcing that he was going to meet you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you have asked two questions there. First, there is no such suggestion at all. I am not unhappy. I hope I don't look unhappy. I don't feel unhappy. I don't know who suggested that to you. But the question was raised that it was unpublicized, and knowing the initiative and ingenuity of the American press, I didn't think it would be unpublicized very long.,I just suggested that it was rather difficult for a fellow to take a glass of water at the White House, or even go out to the hydrant and get a drink, without it being adequately publicized. I can't even visit with my dogs without a lot of publicity. So I am not unhappy about it at all. I just explained that I thought it would be better to put it on the record, and so far as I know, Senator Goldwater is perfectly happy with it.,There is no breach of faith on his part and certainly none on my part. I realize that someone might indicate, because the suggestion in all its entirety wasn't carried out, there might be some difficulty between us, but my object in life has always been to not provoke fights, but to prevent them, if possible.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, without regard to the inter-American conference now underway here, I take it you don't want to discuss the topic under negotiation, but I wonder if you could tell us what your interpretation of the viewpoint of the American people is on the Cuban problem, and what should be done about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that their viewpoint is the same as the viewpoint of their Government. I think, generally speaking, that viewpoint is being considered by the foreign ministers who are meeting here now. I believe that they all recognize the challenge to peace and freedom which exists, and the necessity for not only being aware of that challenge but attempting to combat it with every reasonable and wise means available.,I believe out of this meeting the hemisphere will find a sound and effective answer, and I think that there are some indications now that the policies that we have pursued heretofore and the ones that we are suggesting be followed now are being effective.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, assuming you are not ready to name him yet, sir, could you describe for us your ideal running mate in terms of his characteristics and attributes?,THE. PRESIDENT. The convention will meet in Atlantic City and select a candidate for President, and nominate him. I assume he will make his recommendations and then the delegates will act. I think that for me to make any announcement at this time as to my personal preferences--and I have none, I have made no decision in the matter-would be premature.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater has said that he will make an important issue out of what he views as increasing lawlessness and violence in the streets of our major cities. Are you willing to take this on as a campaign issue?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am against sin, and I am against lawlessness, and I am very much opposed to violence. I think we have to put a stop to it.,To the extent that we have the power to do so, in the Federal Government, we are doing so. We are exerting every action we know to keep violence to a minimum.,We do not have a national police force in this country, we have not assumed power that we do not have, and we do not intend to. But wherever there is violence, we respond to it within the limits of our power and our authority.,We do have confidence in the local authorities. We do respect the sovereign States and the executives of those States. We have communicated with the mayors and the Governors and have made available to them all the facilities of the Federal Government to cooperate with them and work effectively with them. We will continue to do so.,We deplore men taking the law into their own hands and men disregarding the law, wherever it takes place. We treat them all alike.,I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind in the United States that the President of the United States, the power of the Presidency and the people of the United States are going to do everything within their power and within their authority to stop violence wherever it appears. But our judgement is that it is not up to us to take over the authority of all the local governments and not up to us to take over the authority of all the State governments.,I seem to have read and heard that other people, too, are opposed to the Federal Government usurping the rights of the States.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, are there differences of opinion between the United States and South Vietnamese officials on the question of attacking North Viet-Nam, and if there are differences, what are they, please?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no. I stated that earlier, but I repeat it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess your opponent this November, Barry Goldwater, and do you anticipate a close race?,THE PRESIDENT. I think what I think about Senator Goldwater and my prediction as to the outcome of the race is not very important. I think that is a matter for the American people to decide. I think what the people want to know is how I stand on issues, and what my policies will be, and what my party stands for. They are much more interested in what the Democratic nominee advocates than what he thinks about his opponent or his chances of winning.,I have every confidence that the Democratic Party will adopt a good platform, will select good candidates, and that they will present their views to the people without regard to personalities, and the people, in their wisdom, will make a good decision.,Q. Mr. President, about 10 days ago Senator Goldwater used some very strong personal epithets to challenge your own sincerity of purpose in the civil rights issue. Now, would you sit down this afternoon to discuss civil rights without clearing that matter up first?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Yes, I am not concerned with Senator Goldwater's opinion of me. Of course, I would like for it to be a good opinion, but if it is not, that is a matter for him. He is entitled to his view and he has the right to express it, if he thinks it is a proper thing to do and a wise thing to do.,The American people will make their judgments of the various statements that he may make from time to time. I am perfectly willing to leave his opinion of me to the judgment of the people of this country.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your assessment of the effect Governor Wallace's withdrawal from the Presidential race will have?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been rather busily engaged the last few days and I haven't spent a great deal of time evaluating that situation. I don't know how much support Governor Wallace had. I don't know how it would affect the platforms and the nominees of the two parties. All I know is that he decided to withdraw. I had heard and anticipated that he would do that. He confirmed it. But what effect it will have in November, I don't know.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, how active a campaign do you plan to conduct this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. Whatever I think is wise and necessary, and I expect to appear in various parts of the country and be very concerned with seeing that my party and my platform and the views of my candidates are properly presented. I will make whatever contribution I can, consistent with discharging my other duties, and try to be as helpful to the ticket as possible at all times.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us if you plan any further action, any further Federal action, in New York City? And can you give us some elaboration of what you meant by extremist elements involved in the disorders?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said that we get reports from there every evening. I don't think there is any question but what there are some extremist elements involved in the violence that takes place there. I think that must be evident to everyone who reads the newspapers. So far as we are concerned, we are prepared to take whatever action may be ' necessary and desirable. We have Mr. Hoover keeping very close watch on it. He has an adequate supply of manpower available to him. He has them assigned on specific investigations at the moment, and we will follow it very closely and do whatever needs to be done.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in presenting your views this fall and discussing the issues that you want to present, would you be willing to debate Senator Goldwater on television?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, sir, there has been the claim in the campaign of an across-the-board attack on the foreign policy of the United States during recent years. This has raised questions here and abroad as to whether this wholesale kind of attack could cause your administration to trim its foreign policy in any major way. Could you answer these questions, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I think foreign policy is an appropriate subject for discussion. I think the people of this country really need no advice from anyone else in other parts of the world about the decision they should make, but I think they will certainly want to be sure that the foreign policy of their country is a proper one, and I am prepared to present the views of my party on that subject and will do so at such time and at such length as may be desirable.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in response to an earlier question, you said you hoped neither candidate's words or deeds would encourage extremists. Do you feel that anything Senator Goldwater has said of late would encourage extremists?,THE PRESIDENT. I will leave that up to the judgment of the people and you. I don't want to be passing personal judgment on the acts of another individual. I have given you my viewpoint on it. That is a little mission you will have to do for yourself.,Q. Mr. President, would you give us your reaction, please, to the attacks that were made on Senator Goldwater by foreign officials in the foreign press?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the American people are perfectly capable of making their own decision with regard to the parties and the candidates, and I think that they will do that without the necessity of advice from anyone abroad.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-07-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. You are mighty welcome here. I hope you enjoy your visit to the hill country as much as I anticipate that we will.,I had a very refreshing couple of hours here before the sun went down yesterday. After lunch we plan to take a ride through the ranch to see the cattle, do some horseback riding, and probably go over to the lake later in the afternoon.,[1.] Next week I have asked a group of businessmen to meet with me on Thursday, July 23d, for lunch at the White House; a group of labor leaders to meet with me on July 24th, at a reception later in the afternoon. These meetings will be an exchange of views on the state of the economy and the state of the world. I have carried them on periodically in the 7 months that I have been in the Presidency. I seek the advice and counsel of these leaders in American industry and labor. I think it is important to the future of our economy and to our relations with the other nations in the world.,[2.] As I told you earlier this week, the Budget Bureau has been assembling the data that came in on the fiscal year that ended June 30th. I now have the closing figures on the budget expenditures, receipts, and Federal civilian employment for the fiscal year 1964 which ended last June 30th. As far as I know, none of you are in a hurry this morning, so we will take ample time, we will have our usual 15 or 20 questions, whatever you want, afterwards, and we don't have any deadlines. There are printed copies of this statement, so you don't have to take everything by notes. They will be available to you. We have a chart here. It may be helpful to you in working it out. I am very happy that on every count the news is good this Saturday.,Our expenditures for the fiscal year which just ended June 30th were $97 billion 700 million. President Kennedy estimated those expenditures when he asked the Congress to give him money for that year. He estimated those expenditures at $98.8 billion, so we are down more than $1 billion from the original 1964 budget estimate. We have spent $1 billion less than we estimated we would spend.,When I came in in January and put some new ceilings on and called the Cabinet and independent agencies together and asked them to effect economies and to curtail every possible expenditure, we revised the estimate to $98.4 billion. We placed quarterly ceilings on employment. We asked each department to become cost conscious. We had Secretary McNamara review with others some of the efforts that he had made in that figure, and we revised our estimate in the second quarter, after we placed our ceilings, to $98.3 billion. That is down $700 million from the original January estimate.,We have just concluded expenditures on June 30th. The first few days in July we tabulated them, and we now find that our expenditures were $97-7, from the $98.3 estimate that was made in May. So the net of it is that we are down $1 billion 100 million from our estimate.,That accounts for the spending process during this fiscal year that just ended and this is the first definite, accurate figure that we have on the actual expenditures that were certified to me. These charts were made up yesterday evening. They are the source of the material from the Director of the Budget, Mr. Gordon.,Now we will go over the receipts as estimated and actual. We do not have a chart. The receipts as estimated were $89 billion 400 million.,Q. That was in January?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Up $2.5 billion from the original 1964 budget estimate-$89.4 billion is what we took in. That is up $2.5 billion from the original 1964 budget estimate, up $1 billion from the revised estimate in last January's budget while most of the same is $89.5 billion reestimate that we made 2 months ago.,So, summarizing, we took in $89 billion 400 million. We estimated that we would take in about $87 billion; we are up $2.5 billion over that, $86.9 billion. That gives you a figure for your deficit for the year. The deficit was $8.3 billion actual. We estimated in January that it would be $11.9--,Q. January 1963?,THE PRESIDENT. --when President Kennedy submitted it. You will remember the record budget deficit during the Eisenhower administration was approximately that. We had a $12 billion figure for Mr. Eisenhower, and for President Kennedy--you will recall a great deal of publicity about it--at about $11.9 billion.,From November until January, the 37 days that we all went through in that cost-conscious program and budget preparation, we reduced that estimate, and we announced it at $10 billion. In May, when we got in our reports, again, after meeting with the Cabinet, we cut it to $8.8, and the actual expenditure is $8.3 billion. The details on these receipts and expenditures will be available next week when the Treasury completes its work and issues the June Treasury statement.,Federal civilian employment in the executive branch on June 30th totaled 2,468,700 employees. This is a subject on which you get reports from Senator Byrd's committee from time to time. All of us are interested in it, and we have attempted to make every department head very conscious of it. That means that we are down actually from the January estimate submitted to the Congress for the budget to 101,800 employees. We are down 43,700 from the revision carried in the budget last January. I believe this is 59 that was cut out from January ('63) to January ('64) and 43 from January to now. We are down 28,500 from our latest employment ceiling. We are down from the actual number on the rolls 1 year ago. We are down 15,900 by actual number on the rolls 2 years ago.,That is a very interesting chart, but the net of it is from the day we sent our budget until we completed it, we are down 101,800 from what we estimated, and we are actually 15,900 lower than the actual number that we had on the payroll 2 years ago, notwithstanding the fact that this budget was about $5 billion over the preceding budget and up until this year, the last 3 years our budgets have been increasing at the rate of about $5 billion a year because of increased schools and roads and health and unfilled needs that an increased population requires from time to time.,The dollar outflow abroad resulted in Federal programs--was reduced in fiscal '64 as a result of vigorous action taken by the executive branch. The estimated '64 overseas payments by the Federal Government dropped $380 million, and regular receipts rose by $16 million, compared with the previous year. This means that the net dollar outflow from Federal programs decreased in fiscal year 1964 by $500 million, about 18 percent. This is a net improvement of $300 million since I sent the budget to Congress last January.,I thought maybe you would be interested in some of the productivity gains in some of the Government agencies and how we have helped to reduce Government employment since last year, and I have some specific illustrations.,The Treasury's Division of Disbursement improved employee output by more than 14 percent over 1963 due to electronic data processing improvements, consolidation of many field offices, streamlining procedures, elimination of red tape. This is the equivalent of the work of over 200 employees.,The Veterans Administration insurance program increased the productivity of its manpower by 24 percent. That is the equivalent of 600 employees.,The Federal Aviation Agency's Systems Maintenance Service achieved a 6 percent increase which results in a saving of about 600 man-years.,The decisions to close or reduce field installations were taken by the Tennessee Valley Authority--52 installations.,Department of Interior closed 6.,Treasury Department closed 35 throughout the country.,The Post Office Department closed 469 post offices.,The Treasury Department closed 20 local operations.,Federal Aviation Agency closed 3 manned facilities and eliminated intermediate airfields and consolidated air traffic control.,The Department of State closed 13 unheeded consulates.,We will continue the drive to close down or curtail any installation which is not necessary to perform essential functions, much as we have done in the closing down of the obsolete military installations throughout the country.,We have inaugurated a drive to lessen the burden placed on private industry by Government requests for reports. The annual number of responses will be reduced by 2,851,000. One hundred and ninety-five forms involving almost two million responses were eliminated entirely. Ninety five new reports were started in this period so that the net result of this drive has been either to discontinue or to simplify 320 reports representing a net reduction in annual responses of 2.5 million.,Small savings are not being neglected either. A review of Government publications has produced savings of nearly $2 million. Two hundred and forty existing publications were eliminated; 130 proposed publications were canceled; 50 were consolidated.,In our foreign aid program we have effected substantial economies and improved the administration.,As you will recall, the Executive asked the Congress for $4.9 billion for foreign aid in last year's budget. We reduced that request by $1.4 billion to $3.5, although in fairness General Clay1 reduced it from $4.9 to $4.5 billion after his review.,1 General Lucius D. Clay, Chairman of the Committee to Strengthen the Security of the Free World.,We have insisted on rigorous self-help standards, saving, in two cases alone, $30 million.,By diligent efforts to maximize the participation of other free-world lenders, in one case we required other donors to contribute $21 million more than the plans submitted to us..,By strong efforts to use local currency instead of dollars, we have saved $16.5 million on another program.,By improving AID procurement practices, including use of excess U.S. Government property instead of buying new equipment, we have saved $32 million.,This cost reduction has the priority concern of every department and agency, and it will continue to be. Each one of them will have delivered to them today a copy of this report.,Secretary McNamara's cost reduction program in the Department of Defense actually realized savings of $2.5 billion compared with the initial forecast of $1.5.,The Space Agency reduction goal of $81 million, which was established in the fiscal year 1964, has been exceeded by $128 million.,In the Post Office, June 1964, the goal was 3,164 less than June 1962, while mail volume was 3,760,000 pieces more than in 1962. So with 3, 164 less people they handled 3.7 billion more pieces of mail. If output per postal worker today were the same as 1961, the cost of operating the Post Office would have had to be $140 million more.,In concluding, I want to say that few if any of these accomplishments were easy to come by. It took hard work and in many cases courage, and was due a great deal to the thinking, initiative, and the imagination of a good many of our career employees, led by people in the Budget Bureau and in the departments themselves who are determined to get these expenditures under control and to save everything possible, primarily to get a dollar's worth of value out of every dollar spent. Saving money is always hard. Spending it is always easy.,[3.] I have a statement here on economic facts which I will distribute to you.2 It has some new information which I think will be of great interest considering what is happening in the automobile field in Detroit and their employment gains.,2 See Item 463.,Their unemployment was 15.5 percent in 1961. That has been reduced to 4.6 in May of this year.,The retail sales figures, the after-tax income, as revised, will be available to you and you can say that I used it, and if you want it for sound, I will be glad to repeat it, but I won't take your time to go over it now.,[4.] I have a brief announcement that the United States and the United Kingdom tested a low-yield British nuclear device underground at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's test site in Nevada yesterday.,The test was requested by the British Government and was conducted under the Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes.,Both governments were satisfied that substantial technical and military benefits could be obtained. The test was carried out within the framework of the limited nuclear test ban treaty of August 1963.,I will have that statement distributed to you so you don't need to copy it.3,3 The statement, dated July 18, reads as follows:,The United States and the United Kingdom tested a low-yield British nuclear device underground at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's test site in Nevada yesterday (July 17).,The test was requested by the British Government and was conducted under the Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, which has been in effect between the two countries since August 4, 1958-,Both governments were satisfied that substantial technical and military benefits could be obtained by testing a British nuclear device underground as part of a continuing nuclear research program. The test was carried out within the framework of the limited nuclear test ban treaty of August 1963.,[5.] Some of the factual reports which I read daily have recently given me cause for concern regarding organized violence by small groups who mask their identity. I condemn as do most Americans the use of violence and terror by clandestine hate organizations. Savagery of this or any other kind is completely alien to the entire moral and political tradition of the United States.,The effort to force, bully, and intimidate American citizens--to prevent them from claiming their rights under the Constitution-must be stopped. State and local governments have been working to halt such terrorism. I urge them to continue this work and I assure them and all Americans that if local enforcement is inadequate, the Federal Government will always promptly assist local authorities to maintain order as long as the lives and security of our fellow citizens are in danger.,In fact, I would like to say something about the entire subject of effective political action to secure human rights.,To those seeking to secure their rights, the Constitution provides a hallowed and an effective path. That is the path of peaceful petition and legal recourse; that, of course, is free speech and free election. Along that road have come, throughout our entire history, the great warriors in the battle to extend human freedom. Where their cause was just, they have prevailed. As long as that road is open to those who wage daily struggles for civil rights, they have an obligation to follow it. And most of them, I believe, are following it. Any other course will place in question the entire, centuries-old tradition of peaceful settlement of man's just claims to liberty. Once we have destroyed the fabric of this tradition, then the liberties of all of us are in danger.,And where we have had reports of violence such as we have had in Philadelphia, Miss., and such as we have had of the killing of a lieutenant colonel on Federal travel returning from his training course this summer,4 the Federal Government has immediately sent to the scene investigative forces to cooperate with the bureau of investigation of the State and the local officials, and we are going to leave no stone unturned until we find the answers to those heinous crimes. I am now ready for questions.,4 Lt. Col. Lemuel A. Penn of the Army Reserve, a Negro educator, was shot while driving along the highway near Athens, Ga., on July 11, while returning to Washington after 2 weeks' training at Fort Benning, Ga.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, your mention of hate organizations leads to another question. In the wake of the Republican Convention in San Francisco, Governor Rockefeller last night issued a statement in which he took issue with Senator Goldwater's references to extremism and moderation, and Governor Rockefeller said that the extremism of communism, the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society, for example, had always been claimed by these groups to be in the defense of liberty.,When you speak of hate organizations, sir, are you referring, say, specifically to the Ku Klux Klan or the Birch Society, and how did you react to the way this subject was treated in San Francisco?,THE PRESIDENT. I refer to all hate organizations under whatever name they mask and prowl and spread their venom. I am not one who believes that the end justifies the means.,Q. Mr. President, referring back to Mr. Smith's question, Governor Rockefeller and also Governor Brown of California said they were disturbed that the effect of the statement by Senator Goldwater would be to encourage these extremist groups who think of their own cause as in pursuit of liberty as they see it. Are you concerned about such an effect?,THE PRESIDENT. I have stated it as clearly as I know how, my viewpoint in connection with the terror and with hate organizations, and with the theory that the end justifies the means.,I have stated it on the floor of the Senate. I criticized Senator McCarthy 5 for the practices he employed. I voted to censure him, as did every Democrat who was present at that time, for some of the practices along that line. And I have tried to make known my record clearly in the statements I have made this morning.,5 Former Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin.,I condemn, as most Americans do, anyone taking the law in their hands or anyone organizing for the purpose of hate and dividing his fellow man and practicing upon the prejudices and playing upon the prejudices of the people of this country.,I am not going to start passing personal opinions on the expressions of the other party and the other candidate at this point because I think the American people are perfectly careful and prudent people and they can very well judge those matters themselves.,I certainly don't want to get into any argument between the members of the other parties. They have their own problems, as I told you before, and I am not going to spread any hate or any rumor about them.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, even though Senator Goldwater said he would not indulge in personalities in the campaign, you have already been called a phony and a faker and Governor Brown has declared that the stench of Fascism is in the air. Are you looking forward to a real dirty campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't anticipate, so far as the Democratic Party is concerned, that there will be anything about our campaign that is dirty or there'll be any mudslinging. I think we will try to present a positive program to the American people and let them judge the proposals presented to them by the other party and then choose which party they think is best for their country.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any indications when the Warren report might be released, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No. That is a Presidential commission. I asked the Chief Justice and other members to serve on it. They have been at it for a good while. They are very insistent that they pursue every possible lead. When their report is completed, I assume they will submit it to the President and at that time I will be very glad to review it carefully and make such decision as I may feel the national interest requires.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, have you been in further communication with Senator Goldwater about possible intelligence briefings now that he has the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not, but they are available to him, as I stated before, and I think from time to time he has received certain briefings in his capacity as a major general. But I will be very happy for Mr. McCone, the Director of CIA, to brief him at any time that he cares to be briefed.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater said the issue of crime and violence in the streets should be a major campaign issue. Do you regard this as a proper area of Federal responsibility?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that I should remind all of you that the United States is one of the few nations which does not have a national police force. The Constitution provides that responsibility for law and order should be vested in the States and in the local communities, for the protection of the individual.,I would be interested in seeing the other party spell out what some of you seem to feel is a serious takeover of local law enforcement, because I think all of us realize it has the gravest implications. I think it would be of utmost concern to those who believe that the Federal Government's general police power should be limited to interstate matters and situations where the States' ability to maintain law and order has broken down.,If we were to give the Federal Government the responsibility for all law enforcement, in the cities and towns, even here in the hill country, I would think that the people would believe that it would do more than anything else to concentrate power in Washington. I read from some of my columnist friends, and some of the front pages of the newspapers, and I see on TV, where some people are very much opposed to concentrating any further power in Washington.,So far as we are concerned, we are going to urge State and local governments to halt terrorism and to continue their law enforcement, and where it is inadequate, the Federal Government will always promptly assist local authorities to maintain order as long as the lives and the security of our fellow citizens are in danger.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the political campaigns coming up, what future do you foresee for the rest of your legislative program if the Republicans engage in any footdragging ?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have our difficulties ahead, without any doubt. We have had a very good year, however. We have a good deal of our 'program behind us.,When we last met here at the ranch before this session of Congress, we all felt at that time that if we could pass a good tax bill it would help our economy along, and if we could pass the civil rights bill that we would consider that we had a pretty good session.,We have passed the tax bill; we have finally passed the civil rights bill. We have passed the farm bill. We have passed the International Development Act--the idea that had such great difficulty and was defeated on the first go-round.,Before we adjourn, I hope to conclude many other bills that are now in conference. There are some six or eight in conference.,I would hope that we can get action on the food stamp plan, and the pay bill, the poverty bill, the Appalachia bill, and I believe that already we have one of the best records of any Congress.,I am planning to ask the Members of Congress and their wives to come to the White House before the convention just to give a salute to the Congress and honor this Congress for the fine work it has done. I hope by the time we have that meeting we will have some additional measures to tack up on the wall.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you feel, sir, that Senator Goldwater's rather bellicose statements on attitude toward the Communists and our foreign policy in general has increased the difficulties of this Government in its relations with its allies abroad?,THE PRESIDENT. My experience has been that we must be very cautious in formulating the policy of our country in relation to the other some 130 nations in the world. And I think that we are going to have a simple issue this year that the American people can decide which men and which party can best meet the the responsibilities of conducting the Nation's foreign relations. I think you will find that there will be a very different viewpoint expressed in that regard.,I am not in a position to honestly and accurately estimate what reaction other people may have to what some folks say. My experience has been that what men say is always more revealing about themselves than it is about other people. But I have every confidence that the Democratic Party will talk about its record and will explain fully, through the President, the Secretary of State, and all the facilities of this Government, what it proposes to do about meeting the issues that concern our relations with other nations.,I would hope that the other party will campaign in the same spirit, because I want to point out that what Democrats think about Republicans, and what I might think about Senator Goldwater, is of secondary importance and impresses very few people, I think, except the partisans.,What is important, I think, is what each party thinks about America and what the leadership of each party offers to the American people and to the rest of the world. I believe the American people will take the recommendations and the various statements made by both candidates, weigh them carefully, and determine which man they think will be the more responsible, more constructive, more enlightened, and more intelligent in trying to bring peace to this world.,I have not the slightest doubt but what the uppermost problem in the mind of every American and in the mind of most people of the world is how to learn to live with our fellow man and how to achieve peace in this period in which we live. As long as I am permitted to hold the office that I now occupy, no single statement of mine and no single act of mine is going to be in the direction of provoking war. I am going to utilize every resource at the command of the Federal Government and all of its people, and command the intelligence of all the people of both parties to try to find the road to peace.,We have difficulties that appear every day in our relations with 100-odd other nations, just as we do in relations with our neighbors here up the road and down the road and down the river. But I prefer to try to reason out those problems, talk them out be prepared to defend ourselves at all times. But I would hope that no other nation would think that we are a nation of warmongers and that we have any evil designs on conquest or domination.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Did you get in your full 15 or 20 questions?,Q. If you have some answers that we don't have questions for--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want any of you to feel left out.,Q. We think you did very well."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-07-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have some announcements and some appointments to make and then I would be glad, if you desire, to follow up with any questions, to attempt to answer them.,[1.] With the passage of the foreign assistance appropriation bill on July 1, the House of Representatives completed its work on the regular 1965 appropriation bills--all of them. I want to express my appreciation and that of the Nation for the efficiency and the speed with which the House acted upon the 1965 budget. Not in 4 years has the House completed its work on the regular money bills as early as the first day of the new fiscal year.,We owe a special debt of gratitude to the Members of the House Appropriations Committee, who labored long hours to meet a tight schedule, and to the two forceful and effective leaders of the Committee, the late Congressman Cannon, and his distinguished successor, Congressman Mahon.,The scorecard of House action on the regular 1965 money bills shows a total reduction from the budget request of 3 percent, as compared with a reduction of 7.4 percent last year. The size of the House reductions, less than half as deep as last year, is welcome confirmation of our belief back in January that we were submitting a budget that would be hard to cut.,When Congress completes its action on the budget, we are going to look upon the appropriations as a ceiling--not as a mandate to spend. Wherever we can get by with less money than Congress has given us, we are going to do just that. The money we save through our drive to improve management and to cut costs we will return to the Treasury next June.,Within a week or, I hope, at most 10 days, I want to announce the final figures for the fiscal year which ended June 30. Some early and incomplete reports on expenditures, the deficit, and Government employment lead me to hope that I will have some good news for you at that time.,[2.] I have a brief statement on the midyear review of the economy that has been given--gone over with the Council of Economic Advisers yesterday.,At midyear we have all seen many glowing reports on our recent economic advances in employment, sales, profits, and income. In this midyear review, let us look at these advances in human terms. What do they mean to people? You will have a copy of this available to you if you care to use it when you leave.,First, more jobs. Today, 1,200,000 more people have jobs than 6 months ago; 1,600,000 more people are at work than a year ago.,Two, higher wages. Average weekly earnings in manufacturing hit a new high of $103 in May, $3.74 more than a year earlier.,Higher profits. Great gains in profits are being translated into rising investments and new highs in the Dow-Jones average of stock prices. The Dow-Jones average of stock prices were around 700 when we came in on November 22d; they are now 840-plus.,Rising dividends for the country's nearly 20 million stockholders. These dividends are 11 percent higher in May than they were last year, a year earlier.,Bigger incomes. The tax cut and prosperity are boosting incomes to new peaks. The estimated after-tax incomes of the American people in the second quarter of this year, which has just ended, were running at a rate of about $19 billion above the fourth quarter of last year--and $30 billion above a year earlier.,This is a very important fact for all of us, and one that we can take great pleasure in observing. The average American family of four has gained about $500 of annual income after taxes in the past year, a rate of advance matched only once before in America's peacetime history, in 1948. A family of four gained about $500 of annual income after taxes in the past year.,Stable prices. These gains were not eaten away by inflation. The wholesale price level is right where it was a year ago, and 3 years ago, and it is lower than 6 years ago, which is quite a remarkable record. Consumer prices in May were only two-tenths of 1 percent above December and 1 1/2 percent above a year earlier.,A special news note on retail sales in June. The advance report on the whole month, seasonally corrected: Sales maintained the strong May rate, despite a few apparently slower weeks, and were 6.2 percent above last June. Retail sales in the week ending July 4 spurted up 11 percent above the comparative week a year earlier.,Now, looking ahead. We look for continued strong gains in the second half of the year as the benefits of the tax cut flow through the economy. This is partly based on surveys of 1964 business capital spending plans which now show a rise of nearly $5 billion, or 12 percent above 1963. Consumer spending surveys show buying intentions near a record high.,Even more impressive is the calm confidence that we find in the consuming public and in the business community. People know that times are good and that they are getting better, and they are responding by consuming wisely, investing soundly, and showing restraint in price and wage policies. There is a growing response to the challenge of cooperation and respect for the public interest on the part of business in setting prices, and unions in pursuing wage increases, and workers and managers in finding ways to raise efficiency and to cut costs.,In that spirit, the economic horizon will be bright not only in 1964, but I am informed by the Council of Economic Advisers, as far as the trained eye can see, into 1 965.,[3.] I have a brief statement on the auto negotiations. The auto industry is one of the Nation's largest industries and plays a significant role in our national economy. The importance of the current auto negotiations is obvious. The results of this collective bargaining will have a profound impact upon our future price stability and, therefore, on our economic prospects at home and abroad.,The negotiators in autos on both sides are experienced and responsible men. They do not want governmental intervention in these negotiations--nor do I. We are of one mind, that the collective bargaining process should be conducted and completed in accordance with the pattern of free collective bargaining that we are determined to maintain in this country.,I am confident that the parties to the auto negotiations by free, private collective bargaining will work out a responsible settlement consistent with both their private needs and their public responsibilities, a settlement which will reinforce and extend the excellent noninflationary record which has characterized our vigorous economic expansion.,[4.] Mr. Bertrand Harding is being appointed today as Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.,Q. What is his name again, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Bertrand Harding is being appointed today as Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Harding is a 23-year veteran of the Federal service and a recipient in 1962 of the National Civil Service League's award for top career achievement. I am completely confident that Mr. Harding will carry on in an efficient and fair manner the work of the Internal Revenue Service.,[5.] I have today designated Mr. Michael Forrestal to replace Mr. William Sullivan as chairman of the interdepartmental committee which supports the U.S. country team in Viet-Nam. Mr. Forestal, the son of the late Secretary of Defense, Mr. James Forrestal, will work trader the supervision of Secretary Rusk. As you know, Mr. Forrestal has been associated with the staff of the Security Council here in the White House. This is a further step in the series of appointments which have been made in support of Ambassador Taylor. 1,1 Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, Ambassador to Vietnam.,[6.] I intend to appoint Mr. Lucius D. Battle, the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs and a career Foreign Service officer, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Arab Republic. He will succeed Mr. John S. Badeau, who is assuming a position at Columbia University. The background biographical sketch will be available to you in the press office.,[7.] I am announcing today two additional members of the National Food Marketing Commission: Mr. Albert K. Mitchell, a distinguished businessman, and expert in certain aspects of food marketing; Mr. Mitchell is Republican National Committeeman from New Mexico. I am also appointing to the Commission Mr. William M. Batten, president of the J. C. Penney Company. Mr. Batten has had a broad background in retail trade, and I am sure he will make a valuable contribution to the work of this Commission. Mr. Batten is a Republican. Although the statute does not require membership in either party, we are trying to make appointments from both parties. As of now we have two Democrats, Judge Jones and former Congressman Marshall, who is a dirt farmer in Minnesota, and two Republicans, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Batten.,[8.] I am also pleased to announce my intention to appoint Mr. Manuel Cohen as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, when Mr. William Cary, the present Chairman, leaves that position late in the summer. Mr. Cary plans to leave as soon as we complete action on certain legislation. Mr. Cohen, who is now a member of the Commission, has an enviable record in the securities field and an outstanding reputation at the bar. I know that he shares completely my own philosophy of regulation, which is to be fair and equitable, applying the law with vigor and commonsense. I look forward to an era of creative leadership in the Securities and Exchange Commission under Mr. Cohen.,I am also appointing to the existing Democratic vacancy on the SEC Mr. Frank Wheat of California. Mr. Wheat is a distinguished member of the California Bar, chairman of the Los Angeles Bar Association's Committee on Corporations, and a member of the American Bar Association's Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities. Mr. Wheat is a cure laude graduate of the Harvard Law School and a graduate of Pomona College. Mr. Wheat is married and has three children, and is currently practicing law in Los Angeles.,I will be glad to answer any questions.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about Mr. J. Edgar Hoover's mission to Mississippi, what he is down there for ? There has been some speculation that there might be a break in the making on these three missing civil rights workers, or is he down there just to coordinate the overall FBI program?,THE PRESIDENT. The information I have on Mr. Hoover's visit is that he has recently added additional FBI personnel to his force in Mississippi, some additional 50 agents. After a survey of the situation he has decided that he should establish a headquarters office in that State, that he is transferring a director from out of State, an assistant director to take charge of that office, that they have made arrangements for the new office to be opened, and that he will officially open it sometime today.,Of course, I am told that while he is there he will confer with the responsible people from his service who have been stationed there for some time, and get a complete report and give any instructions that he may think are indicated to the people under his jurisdiction.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Attorney General said recently that the only thing he has going for him in the vice presidential nomination is the fact that the big city bosses in the North, the party bosses in the North, are for him. Do you think this is a factor in his favor in getting the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the delegates to the convention, after they nominate the President, will act on the vice presidential nomination, and I plan to make recommendations to them in that connection, as is customary, if I am the nominee. At that time I believe the convention will select the man that is available who has the best qualifications to occupy the office of Vice President and President, if he should be called upon to do that.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan to see Mayor Daley of Chicago when he is in town today?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Would you be discussing this vice presidential question with him?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to.,Q. What was the answer, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to reappoint Mr. Ross to the Federal Power Commission?,THE PRESIDENT. I am giving consideration to that now. I have not made a decision on it.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Tshombe was sworn in today as Premier of the Congo with the pledge that he would bring peace and unity. What, sir, do you believe the prospects are for that, and what will the United States do to help bring it about?,THE PRESIDENT. Everything that we can. We are very anxious to make a contribution in the direction of peace whenever and wherever possible. Where we are offered that opportunity we will certainly exercise it.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on Senator Goldwater's charge of fiscal irresponsibility in your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what the Senator may have said about this, or all that he may have said about it, but I have been interested in the comments of some of those who are in authoritative positions to determine the fiscal responsibility of this administration without any other motives. For instance, the American Bankers Association said only yesterday that the unusual length of the current upswing could be attributed to the reduction in taxes, the stability of costs and prices, which I have just referred to, and the maintenance of monetary and credit conditions which preserve international confidence in the dollar.,I saw a very interesting column on that that went into some detail yesterday.,Mr. Henry Ford is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that \"our economy is now healthier than it has been in many years. Part of the credit must go to Government policies which, on the whole, have been well calculated to stimulate economic growth without inflation. Part of the credit must go to the recent tax cut.\",The National Research Bureau's report to business executives yesterday said, \"Just about any place you look you find evidence of the boom and signposts that point to a continuation of good times.\",\"The tax cut is still the major factor in the business boom.\",Miss Porter2 said yesterday that \"the United States dollar is winning new popularity. The comeback of the dollar is an enormous tribute to our economy's inherent power, and to the policies of recent years.\",2 Sylvia Porter, financial columnist.,The Morgan Guaranty Trust Company in its latest survey of current economic conditions lists this main reason for continuing optimism: \"The excellent business news of the past month indicate that the nourishment of the tax reduction is reaching the muscles of the economy.\",And, finally, the New York Times says, \"This has been and still is a truly phenomenal epoch in the Nation's economic history. The sustained advance is notable not only for its unusual longevity, but even more for the absence of excesses.\",[14.] Q. Mr. President, you have signed a bill for the International Roosevelt Campobello Memorial.3 Will you ask the Governor of Maine to make suggestions for any one of the three American Commissioners?,THE PRESIDENT. I will be looking into that, pursuant to your suggestion.,3 Public Law 88-363 (78 Stat. 299), approved July 7, 1964.,Q. The bill suggests it, but does not direct it, I understand.,THE PRESIDENT. I will be glad to talk to him about it.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the National Space Administration is apparently going to get considerably less funds than it asked for the space program this year. Do you think that this is going to preclude our landing on the moon in this decade?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the funds that we requested are necessary. I hope the Congress will act on this appropriation soon. The Committee has not acted on the appropriation yet. I don't know how to gauge the exact way it will exercise its judgment. I have every reason to believe that they are sympathetic with our national objectives, and I would hope that they will be as generous in their response to our request as possible.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about your meetings, series of meetings, with the Latin American ambassadors last week and this?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We have divided up the meetings into small meetings made up of six or seven of the ambassadors from Latin American countries in each meeting. There will be a series of three meetings. We have had two already. In addition to the Latin American ambassadors, we have the presence of the Secretary of State and Mr. Walt Rostow of the State Department, and Mr. Tom Mann, my Special Assistant, Assistant Secretary for Latin America.,We have an hors d'oeuvre, relax, and start around the room in a conversational, informal manner, and ask the ambassador from each country--Panama, Mexico, whatever country it may be--to give us his evaluation of the problems that exist between our two countries, any suggestions that he has regarding hemispheric solidarity, any criticism he may have to make concerning actions of our agencies with whom he is dealing, or delays that may be present; any suggestions that he could offer that should be considered for the hemisphere, with particular reference to the streamlining and the speedup techniques that we have brought into focus in the Alliance for Progress program.,Our people, Mr. Ball, Mr. Rostow, Mr. Mann, and in instances the President himself, have not only made comments on these suggestions but have outlined this Government's views, this Government's hope, and this Government's ideals. We have talked about the foreign aid bill, the Alliance for Progress funds, pending before the Senate; the action of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the possible action of the Appropriations Committee on our foreign aid bill.,We have talked about the visits of the President from Costa Rica. We have welcomed new ambassadors from some of the countries. We spend about an hour and a half to two hours near the close of the working day, 6 to 8 generally, in that area. We will be having meetings of that type from time to time so that the executive branch can keep better informed on the needs of the area and the hemisphere, and the problems of it, and so that the ambassadors themselves can report to their government on our approaches, our procedures, and our attitudes.,I am glad to report that they have been very stimulating meetings and much good has come from them. The reports we have received from not only ambassadors but heads of state in that area express appreciation for some of the steps that we have taken to centralize functions, to combine functions, to eliminate red tape, give a direct line of authority, and be able to make prompt decisions.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, about two months ago your oratorical propensities were officially recognized by the National Forensic Society.4 Will this in any way influence your decision to debate your opponent in the upcoming election?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so.,4 See Item 343.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, on Latin America, again, what do you expect or hope would come out of this meeting of inter-American foreign ministers that is taking place here in July?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that we would have a very constructive meeting, judging from the expressions of the ambassadors, and the conversations that I have had with OAS officials. I would not want to prejudge the actions or deliberations in advance. I don't know of any particular reward in the offing for so doing. I would just say let's follow the meeting closely and report accurately its deliberations.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, how do you size up the political activity of Governor Wallace of Alabama? Will his candidacy hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, or the Republicans more than the Democrats, in your opinion?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't conducted any study of the Governor's activities or evaluated the effect of those activities. I am not in the polling business, but I did, I believe, read this morning a poll on the front page of the Washington paper, and I think there is a copy there in my office if you want to look at it.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater has gotten into considerable controversy in the Republican Party in the last couple of days by saying that as of now you could beat any Republican. Do you think he was right or wrong in saying that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Republican Party has enough problems already without my adding to them in any way.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment on the Baker report which has come out of the Senate Rules Committee now?,THE PRESIDENT. The report has been filed. Undoubtedly it will be read and thoroughly considered and such action as the Senate feels justified will be taken.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, Premier Castro has recently had a long interview in which he is offering to negotiate peace with the United States. What is your attitude or your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen newspaper reports purporting to reflect his attitude. I am much more interested in the deeds than the words, and I shall carefully watch for any actions or any deeds that would carry into effect the actions that I think would be in the best interest of the people of Cuba and the people of the world. I am much more interested in deeds than words.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-06-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have some announcements that I would like to make that I think would be of interest to you.,[1.] On June 19, Ambassador Lodge informed me that he must return to private life as soon as possible. I have informed Ambassador Lodge that I must, of course, respect his decision, and accordingly, I have accepted his resignation to take effect as soon as he returns.,This Nation has been most fortunate to have Ambassador Lodge's distinguished and dedicated service in a post of the highest importance for the last year.,I intend to nominate Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor to be Ambassador to the Republic of Viet-Nam, succeeding Ambassador Lodge. General Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is an officer of outstanding quality. His remarkable career has shown a devotion to democracy, commitment to freedom, and understanding of the ways of Communist terrorism and subversion which, in my opinion, fit him in unusual measure for this new and demanding assignment.,I also intend to name Mr. U. Alexis Johnson, whose nomination as career Ambassador is now before the Senate, to hold the new post of Deputy Ambassador to the Republic of Viet-Nam. Mr. Johnson will proceed to Saigon immediately--am I going too fast for you?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. How do you prefer it?,Q. A little slower.,THE PRESIDENT. I hope this won't take up too much time.,Mr. Johnson will proceed to Saigon immediately and will act as the chief of our mission there until General Taylor's arrival.,Mr. Johnson is an outstanding career diplomat, the Department's most experienced authority on Southeast Asia, with experience both in the field and in senior posts in the Department of State. He is ideally qualified to support General Taylor in the management of the American team in Viet-Nam.,I am deeply pleased that these two distinguished Americans have agreed, on short notice, to take up these new assignments-I got their agreement late yesterday and last evening--and I am satisfied that together they will give the United States the best possible field leadership in support of our embattled friends, the people of South Viet-Nam.,I wish to announce that I intend to nominate Gen. Earle G. Wheeler to take the place of General Taylor as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,Let me take a moment to read you Ambassador Lodge's letter of June 19 and my reply.,Dear Mr. President:,Herewith I tender my resignation as Ambassador to Viet-Nam. I do so entirely for personal reasons.,My thanks go to you for your unfailing devotion to problems connected with American policy in Viet-Nam, for your guidance, courtesy, consideration, and for enabling me to have this opportunity to serve the United States. And my heartfelt gratitude goes to the late President Kennedy, who appointed me.,Although in a dangerous position, the Republic of Viet-Nam is on the right track and the Vietnamese are to be commended for their determination not to submit to any foreign domination, whatever the source. Persistent and patient execution of existing civil and military plans will bring victory--provided hostile external pressures are contained, which I am sure they can be. This is indeed a time to persist and not to get discouraged or impatient. I am sure we will persist.,With respectful regard,,Very sincerely yours,\nHENRY CABOT LODGE,Dear Ambassador Lodge:,I accept with deep regret your resignation as Ambassador to Viet-Nam. I hereby authorize you to make your farewell call to General Khanh and to depart at your convenience thereafter. I hope to see you at once on your return, to hear your final report and to offer best personal wishes on your return to private life.,Your readiness to assume the duties of American Ambassador to Viet-Nam in a time of danger and difficulty was in the great tradition of disinterested public service. Those who carry on after you will find encouragement in your example. Your departure will mean no change in the steadfast determination of the United States to support the Government and the people of South Viet-Nam in their struggle for peace and security, which means an end of Communist terror and an end of external aggression. As you say, we will persist.\nSincerely,,LYNDON B. JOHNSON,Q. Could you tell us the date of your letter, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. The 23d; that is, June 23d. I have stated our policy as I see it in Viet-Nam on other occasions, in statements to the press which I read, the letter that enunciated that policy written by President Eisenhower on October 1, 1954, and released on October 25, 1954. I have referred to it in various public addresses, but for your benefit, and the benefit of the American people, I would like to make a brief statement restating that policy for those that may not have gotten it, or in order to at least repeat it.,The policy of the United States toward Southeast Asia remains as it was on June 2d, when I summarized it in four simple propositions:,1. America keeps her word.,2. The issue is the future of Southeast Asia as a whole.,3. Our purpose is peace.,4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity.,In these last weeks there has been particular concern with Laos. There again the problem is caused by the aggressive acts of others, and by their disregard for their given word. Our own actions, and what we have said about them, are governed by the legitimate desires of the Government of Laos.,Where the International Control Commission has been kept out, our airmen have been sent to look--and where they are fired on, they are ready to defend themselves. This armed reconnaissance can be ended tomorrow if those who are breaking the peace of Laos will simply keep their agreements. We specifically support full compliance by everyone with the Geneva accords of 1962.,I have said before that there is danger in Southeast Asia. It is a danger brought on by the terrorism and aggression so clearly, if secretively, directed from Hanoi. The United States intends no rashness, and seeks no wider war. But the United States is determined to use its strength to help those who are defending themselves against terror and aggression. We are a people of peace-but not of weakness or timidity.,I should like to repeat again that our purpose is peace. Our people in South Viet-Nam are helping to protect people against terror; they are also helping--and they will help more--in increasing agricultural production, in expanding medical help, and building a sense of hope.,They are helping--and they will help more--to give confidence to those who seek to help themselves, and modern equipment to those who can use it, and friendly counsel to those who are giving leadership. These are proud people, and the task of building their peace and progress is their own--but they can count on our help for as long as they need it and want it.,[2.] On another subject, I have a brief announcement.,I am happy to announce that the United States and the Soviet Union have agreed to explore the possibility of scientific cooperation on methods of desalting sea water,1 including the possible use of nuclear power. As an initial step, the meeting of U.S. and Soviet representatives will be held in Washington on July 14 and 15 of this year.,1 See Item 480.,The purpose of the initial meeting will be, first, to discuss the general problem of desalting; two, to review the present activities and plans of the two countries in this area; three, to consider possible areas of cooperation. The representatives will then advise their respective governments as to the best way to proceed.,The chairman of the U.S. delegation will be Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. He succeeded Dr. Jerome Wiesner. The U.S. delegation will also include representatives of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior.,I hope that this meeting will lead to effective scientific cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union, in what could become a very important activity of great economic significance to many areas of the world.,I would be glad to have any questions.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, just on this military thing, have you gone one step further and picked a new Chief of Staff of the Army?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have some men under consideration, but Secretary McNamara has not made his recommendation. This came up and we have had our hands full the last few days. We are considering, but we haven't reached a decision.,[4.] Q. The appointment of two toplevel men such as General Taylor and Ambassador Johnson to one post--does it indicate our increased concern or your desire to give this additional attention?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had great concern there all along. We still have concern there. We think that we have selected the best men available for the assignment. I don't think it represents a change of our position at all. We have had a very able man in that post in Ambassador Lodge. We have sought to get the best men in the Government that are available for these assignments. I am sure General Taylor, before he leaves, will thoroughly explore the possibility of recruiting additional good men for supporting tasks out there.,Q. Mr. President, why did you pick a military man for this post?,THE PRESIDENT. We picked a military man and a Deputy Under Secretary of State. We picked two men. We feel that General Taylor is thoroughly aware of all that is going on there and the problem that we face there. He is a man of broad experience and great wisdom. We feel that he will be able to give wise counsel and leadership to our entire country team and be quite helpful to President Khanh, who is a military man himself. We feel Mr. Alexis Johnson will be able to support Ambassador Taylor completely. They have been friends and worked together as long as 30 years ago, and both of them have agreed to undertake this assignment. We see no particular significance in the fact that General Taylor may have served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other than that it equips him to do an outstanding job in that area.,[5-] Q. Mr. President, do you see any signs that Hanoi and/or the Red Chinese are willing to lessen the tension over Laos? Has there been any encouraging signs the past few days?,THE PRESIDENT. We feel that the information and our attitude has gotten through to them. We don't know what their reaction down the road will be, but we have made pretty clear, I think, our policy and our attitude.,Q. Mr. President, there have been a number of statements warning the Chinese and the North Vietnamese about the dangers in that area. Has there been any effort made to directly contact the Chinese Communists, either through our Ambassador in Warsaw, or through the British or some other source, to warn them directly?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that I would say that we believe, as I just stated, that they are aware of our attitude and that they have no doubt about our policy or our position.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what you think Henry Cabot Lodge's \"entirely personal reasons\" are for coming home? Would they be political, do you think?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Ambassador will be here shortly and he could better speak for himself. The only information I have is what he said in his letter. I have heard speculation and heard rumors, but I am totally uninformed on them.,Q. Do you know when he is going to come home, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think very shortly, and I mean by that, this week.,Q. Do you think he is coming home to run against you, by any chance?,THE PRESIDENT. I am unable to go any further than he went in his letter. That is all he told me.,Q. You wouldn't care to venture your opinion?,THE PRESIDENT. You might ask him when he gets back. I am sure that he will be better able to tell you.,[7.] Q. Whom do you think you will run against, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I am not an authority on what the Republican Convention might do. Who do you think it will be?,Q. They tell me Goldwater.,THE PRESIDENT. I have respect for your judgment, and I would like to have your opinion on it.,Q. Well, mine are notoriously unreliable, but what some of the Republicans say is that Lodge is still way ahead in all of the polls.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any opinion on whom I may be running against. Do you?,Q. Mr. President, do you think that you might be running?,[8.] Q. Mr. President, may I have your policy statement on Viet-Nam? I want a rewrite when I am dictating.,THE PRESIDENT. If that doesn't involve me with the others.,Q. It sure does.,Q. If we can get copies of it, it would be of tremendous help.,THE PRESIDENT. We will make these copies as soon as we can.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, what is the legislative situation ? You met with the leaders this morning--on civil rights, especially.,THE PRESIDENT. We have reviewed our undertakings since I became President. We have had a good 7 months, although many recommendations have not yet been acted upon. I pointed out that we have had 10 appropriation bills and 3 education bills, a library bill, a foreign aid bill, a tax bill, a farm bill, an international development bill that was first defeated and then brought back.,The civil rights bill has passed both Houses and we hope will be acted upon finally by the House in a short time. We have approximately 30 bills that we think are desirable, which the President has recommended, which we would like to see acted upon. We would hope that the Congress would be able to give its full and complete attention to those bills 6 days a week until the Republican Convention, and then immediately after the Republican Convention come back and take action on them. There are approximately 30 bills. Of those 30, some 20-odd have passed one house or the other.,We have asked the leaders to get together and exchange views and try to see that those that have passed the Senate and are awaiting House action will be brought up as soon as can be, such as the mass transit bill, which is very important, to be brought up this week. There is the wilderness bill, ARA bill, NDEA amendments, SEC amendments, water pollution control.,The bills that have passed the House that are awaiting Senate action are the interest equalization tax, foreign aid authorization, and the food stamp bill. They hope these would be out this week. There are the Hill-Burton amendments, and the pay bill we hope to be reported this week.,There is the debt limit bill, Korean excise tax, international coffee agreement, military construction, and federal aid to highways.,The group awaiting action in the House and Senate, on which we would hope for action before the next Congress, are poverty, health insurance, Appalachia, housing, nurses training bill, immigration, food for peace, land conservation fund, and commission on automation.,The bills that have passed both houses, that are awaiting final action, are civil rights and commission on food marketing. On that bill, action has been taken and that bill is on the way to me, so we will strike that one.,Others are juvenile delinquency, public defender, water resources research, and NASA authorization. That was completed yesterday.,So we are in this situation. A good many of you said if we could get a tax bill and a civil rights bill this year, we would have a good session. Well, we are proud of what we have done, but we would like to get as much of what we have recommended as possible.,We have asked the leadership of the two Houses to confer with the Republicans and ask them if they wouldn't permit us to vote on as many of these bills as possible.,For instance, the poverty bill was delayed time and time again in the committee, and finally it was reported by strictly a party vote, which we regretted very much. Then it went before the Rules Committee and they have had 2 or 3 days of hearings. There are several Republicans who plan to testify on it, and we want to give them a chance to testify, and hope they can and we can get the bill reported and get it voted up or down.,They are going to explore the possibilities of acting on these, and come back to me with their recommendations. I hope that it will include action on all of them.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be widespread feeling that if Senator Goldwater is the Republican nominee that the coming Presidential campaign will be based largely on the civil rights bill and on what some people call issues of hate. Could you give us your feelings on these matters, in the forthcoming campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on who the Republican nominee may be. I don't know and I am no authority in that field. Not knowing who the nominee would be, and not knowing what the platform will be, I couldn't speculate very accurately on your question. I could only express the hope that the two major parties will carry on the highest type of campaign, based upon the issues before the people, and discuss them intelligently, and let the public judge which party and which candidate is best for all Americans.,I certainly hope that appeals to hate and prejudice would be kept at the very bare minimum, and I would intend to do so if I were engaged in the campaign.,[11.] Q. What do you intend to do if massive resistance makes its appearance, as it appears to be in some localities?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to do everything we can when the civil rights bill becomes law to appeal to the people of this country to observe the law of the land and provisions of that bill. We are going to appeal to law-abiding citizens everywhere to help us, and that includes the leaders throughout the Nation. We hope that our appeals will be listened to, and will be followed.,Q. Mr. President, recently--,THE PRESIDENT. I have been in conference with some of the officials throughout the country, and asked for their leadership and their assistance. I will be in communication with others.,Over the weekend in California, and after returning here, I have spent some time-assuming the bill would be passed--attempting to select a key official for the Director of Conciliation, which I think can make a great contribution in the field that you referred to. We are very hopeful that we can get a man that understands our problem, and that he can provide leadership in conciliating and mediating these problems that we know will arise.,Q. Mr. President, do you believe that Senator Goldwater's statement in the Senate that this bill was unconstitutional, is going to add to the difficulty of obtaining compliance with the bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that there are going to be some people who are going to be reluctant to join in helping us get complete observance. But I do not want to believe for a moment that responsible Americans will not observe the law of the land.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any information about those three kids that disappeared in Mississippi?,THE PRESIDENT. The FBI has a substantial number of men who are closely studying and investigating the entire situation. We have asked them to spare no effort to secure all of the information possible, and report to us as soon as possible. We believe that they are making every effort to locate them.,I have had no reports since breakfast, but at that time I understood that they had increased their forces in that area. Several weeks ago I had asked them to anticipate the problems that would come from this, and to send extra FBI personnel into the area. They have substantially augmented their personnel in the last few hours.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to have this Director of Conciliation appointment ready to announce when the bill becomes law?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope to, but we do not have an acceptance. I have talked to some individuals who are seriously considering it. We have a list of extremely competent men, but I am not always as fortunate in getting the men I want as I was yesterday afternoon in getting General Taylor, who is making a great sacrifice to go out there, and the senior official in the State Department who is going to support him and go with him.,I am hopeful that we will have an answer in the next few days, but I can't be sure.,[14.] Q. Was that June 19th letter the first indication that you had from Mr. Lodge that he wanted to resign, or did he talk to you about it?,THE PRESIDENT. That is the first communication that he sent to me, and the first knowledge that I had that he was leaving. I have heard rumors, and I have seen speculation from the time I came in.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-06-02","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] We had a very good meeting with the legislative leadership this morning, and I thought I would make a few announcements and review some of the things that I went over with them and which might be of interest to you. You may have a few questions if you want to, and if we have time.,It may be helpful to outline four basic themes that govern our policy in Southeast Asia.,First, America keeps her word.,Second, the issue is the future of Southeast Asia as a whole.,Third, our purpose is peace.,Fourth, this is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity.,On the point that America keeps her word, we are steadfast in a policy which has been followed for 10 years in three administrations. That was begun by General Eisenhower, in a letter of October 25, 1954, in which he said to President Diem:,\"Dear Mr. President:,\"I have been following with great interest the course of developments in Viet-Nam, particularly since the conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The implications of the agreement concerning Viet-Nam have caused grave concern regarding the future of a country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping, weakened by a long and exhausting war and faced with enemies without and by their subversive collaborators within.,\"Your recent requests for aid to assist in the formidable project of the movement of several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese citizens away from areas which are passing under a de facto rule and political ideology which they abhor are being fulfilled. I am glad that the United States is able to assist in this humanitarian effort.,\"We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Viet-Nam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the Government of Viet-Nam. I am, accordingly, instructing the American Ambassador to Viet-Nam to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of Government how an intelligent program of American aid given directly to your Government can serve to assist Viet-Nam in its present hour of trial, provided that your Government is prepared to give assurances as to the standards of performance it would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied.,\"The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Viet-Nam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means. The Government of the United States expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the Government of Viet-Nam in undertaking needed reforms. It hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Viet-Nam endowed with a strong government. Such a government would, I hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.,\"Sincerely, Dwight D. Eisenhower.\",Dated October 25, 1954, addressed to President Diem.,Now, that was a good letter then and it is a good letter now, and we feel the same way. Like a number of other nations, we are bound by solemn commitments to help defend this area against Communist encroachment. We will keep this commitment. In the case of Viet-Nam, our commitment today is just the same as the commitment made by President Eisenhower to President Diem in 1954--a commitment to help these people help themselves.,We are concerned for a whole great geographic area, not simply for specific complex problems in specific countries.,We have one single, central purpose in all that we do in Southeast Asia, and that is to help build a stable peace. It is others, and not we, who have brought terror to small countries and peaceful peasants. It is others, not we, who have preached and practiced the use of force to establish dictatorial control over their neighbors.,It is others, not we, who have refused to honor international agreements that aim at reasonable settlement of deep-seated differences. The United States cannot fail to do its full share to meet the challenge which is posed by those who disturb the peace of Southeast Asia, but the purpose of America will not change. We stand for peace.,Our soldiers are doing great work, but what they are doing is only part of the job. The issues are political as well as military, economic as well as strategic. Our recent request for additional assistance funds is more than half for economic help.,We are very grateful for the very fine action taken by the House foreign Affairs Committee, and we hope to have prompt action on that request by the Congress.1,1 The Committee, on May 27, had met in executive session and had ordered reported favorably to the House the foreign aid bill (H.R. 11380). The bill was approved by the President on October 7, 1964 (78 Stat. 1009).,The agenda in Honolulu covers plans for progress as well as programs against terror. It is others who make war, and we who seek peace.,I should certainly say that the middle of the Honolulu meeting is not an appropriate time for the announcement of any additional specific programs. I do think as a result of constant reviews of our work in that area of the world that we will try to improve our effectiveness and our efficiency. Secretary McNamara and Secretary Rusk will both have more detailed reports when they return, and that is all I can say about the conference at this time.2,2 The White House announced on May 28 that the President had asked a number of high-level U.S. officials to meet in Honolulu on June 1 and 2 for discussions of the situation in Southeast Asia. The release stated that the meeting would be chaired by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and would include Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, General Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other officials from Washington, together with Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and other high-ranking Americans stationed in the area.,[2.] I have sent a wire to Prime Minister Shastri of India, extending a message of congratulations on his election as Prime Minister.3,3 Item 381.,[3.] This morning the legislative leaders and I discussed our request to Congress for an adjustment of the debt limits bill. The present limit, as you know, is $315 billion. It will drop to $309 billion on June 30th and $285 billion on the following day, July 1st. Neither figure, of course, is realistic. The Treasury Department's latest estimates indicate that the public debt will be $311.8 billion on June 30th.,I pointed out to the leaders this morning that Congress must adopt a reasonable and realistic debt limit for fiscal 1965 if we are to protect the credit standing of the Government. If the scheduled reductions in the debt limit were to take effect, the United States Government would not be able to pay its bills as they come due or refinance maturing obligations.,The debt limit is not a magic formula for promoting economy in Government. Effective control of Federal spending must take place in the appropriations process and in the agencies which spend the money, and we are concentrating our efforts in those areas. for instance, the expenditure figures for fiscal 1965 are now projected to be $600 million below the level we estimated in January, and $1 billion below the latest expenditure estimate for fiscal 1964.,The expenditure total for the 2 years combined is now estimated to be $700 million less than it was expected to be in January. Under these circumstances I am confident Congress will approve the $324 billion debt limit. This is the minimum figure consistent with meeting our financial obligations and handling the public debt in an economical and responsible fashion, and has been recommended strongly by the distinguished Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Douglas Dillon.,[4.] The leaders and I also discussed the hearings which will begin this month before the House Ways and Means Committee on the Federal excise tax structure. Chairman Mills' hearings are always thorough and thoughtful, and this one will not be an exception. I believe these hearings will set in motion a responsible review of our excise tax system, paving the way to responsible changes in that system, if the hearings determine that changes are warranted. No changes should be made until we can complete the hearings.,There could be no sharper contrast to that sound and sensible procedure than the recent proposal that, without any hearings at all, we cut all Federal retail excise taxes in half starting July 1, 1964, and remove them altogether starting July 1, 1965.,[5.] We have just enacted an $11.6 billion tax cut, the largest in our history. I will discuss with you economic impacts with that tax cut, from the Council of Economic Advisers, in a minute. It may well be that future excise tax cuts are highly desirable, but the leaders and I agreed we must first have a fair chance to determine the full effects of the recent tax cut upon our economy, upon Federal revenues, and we must also have the kind of hearing Chairman Mills intends to hold before responsible action can follow.,Although it is much too soon for final judgment, early returns indicate that the economy is responding well to the tax cut. Sustained expansion, our record economic expansion which entered its 40th month yesterday, is showing new vitality. The administration's January forecasts of $623 billion GNP will be realized or bettered. The expansion will roll on through 1964 and, we believe, well into 1965.,Business optimism: Instead of hesitation and pessimism-often found at this stage of previous upswings--businessmen are confident and optimistic under the stimulus of the tax cuts. They are expecting sales to rise faster in 1964 than in 1963. They expect to spend 10 to 12 percent more on plant and equipment this year than last--more than double the 5 percent rise in 1963.,They more widely expect gains in profits than at any time in the past 17 years--according to Dun and Bradstreet's April survey-which is all the more remarkable when you consider that the rate of after-tax profits had already reached $31 billion in the first quarter, 62 percent above the recession low and 22 percent above a year earlier.,Consumers are responding strongly. Partly in expectation of the tax cut, the rate of consumer spending jumped by $8 billion in the January-March quarter--the biggest quarterly rise, by a wide margin, in our 1961-1964 expansion. In the 4 weeks ending May 23d, retail sales averaged 7 percent above a year earlier.,Manufacturers are reflecting the stronger markets: The industrial production index jumped a full point in April, the largest advance in 10 months. New orders for durable goods, which foreshadow future production, rose 6 percent in April, while machine tool orders ran 76 percent above a year earlier.,Unemployment was down from 5.7 percent in April 1963 to 5.4 percent this April. Total labor force time lost through unemployment and part-time work is down even more sharply--from 6.4 percent in April 1963 to 5.9 percent this April. Best of all, there was a gain of more than 1 million new nonfarm jobs from December to April.,No inflation is in sight, although some people feared \"overhearing\" of the economy. Wholesale prices are lower today than in January; lower than 3 years ago; lower than 6 years ago. Both our Government surveys and leading private surveys show confidence in future price stability.,Although I cannot and do not suggest that we now have evidence of the success of the tax cut, it is hard to explain the continued strong advance to date and the bright prospects ahead except in terms of the fresh confidence, the expanded purchasing power, and the new incentives created by the Revenue Act of 1964.,[6.] Through May it looks like we are running a balance of payments deficit of about $500 million to $600 million deficit for the first 5 months. We ran at a rate of $3.6 billion average for the last 6 years. Last year we ran at $3.3 billion. The first 5 months it looks like about $500 million.,Because of the improvements in our balance of payments, as well as the result of heavy Russian sales of gold for the year to date, Secretary Dillon informs me this morning that our overall gold stock has increased by $97 million through May.,I think it is important that you preface that with this statement:,\"Because of the improvement in our balance of payments, as well as the result of heavy Russian sales of gold, for the year to date our overall gold stock has increased by $97 million.\",I think that indicates the confidence that they have in the Government generally.,[7.] I have asked that a National Conference of Labor Leaders be called for June 8th here in Washington for the purpose of implementing the equal opportunity pledges signed by the great majority of AFL-CIO affiliates with the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. The presidents and other leading union executives who represent over 120 major unions will be on hand. Secretary Wirtz and President Meany will join in this discussion.,Now f will be glad to have any questions which you have.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have very forcefully said that you wanted the Senate to pass the civil rights bill as it went through the House. Now that cloture appears in sight, could you say how you feel about the compromise that has been worked out by the leadership?,THE PRESIDENT. I was very pleased with the bill as passed by the House, and I understand that a number of amendments have been proposed that have been reviewed with the administration. I believe that the administration lawyers feel that the suggestions generally have been helpful and would be acceptable.,I haven't reviewed each amendment that has been offered, but they will be debated in the Senate. I have confidence in the action that the Senate will take. I believe it will pass a good bill, and I hope it will.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us whether you are giving any consideration to sending troops into Thailand?,THE PRESIDENT. I stated in the beginning that I would not think that in the middle of the Honolulu meeting would be the time for announcement of any specific program, and I do not plan to do that today.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, have you looked into these reports that the Americans in South Viet-Nam are equipped with obsolete and in some cases outmoded, broken-down equipment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Each day, when I see a news story, I check on it. I think that Secretary McNamara's statement is a correct one and can be trusted by the American people. I think the military authorities are using the equipment that they think is best.,While in the best of equipment you will find flaws from time to time, in the helicopter, in the plane, that is true in every engagement that any people have ever been faced with. I found it true out in the Pacific in the early days of the war, and I found it true in the European theater.,From time to time remedies will have to be found and substitutions made, but I believe that we are furnishing good equipment, that it is being handled well, and I don't share any concern about the quality of it or the quality of the men handling it.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, at the conclusion of the Honolulu meeting and after you have received a report from Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara, do you intend--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any plans beyond that.,Q. I was going to say \"to go before the American people?\",THE PRESIDENT. The answer is still the same.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how you feel about the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan that was submitted to you last week?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Last week the Commission on Pennsylvania Avenue, appointed by President Kennedy, unveiled their bold and creative plan for Pennsylvania Avenue, the Nation's ceremonial drive from the Nation's Capitol to the White House. I hope this proposal will be very carefully examined and thoroughly studied not only by Congress but by all the appropriate agencies in the executive branch, and by the American people as well.,Although as a Nation we have shunned pomp and ostentation, we have a deep and great pride in the Nation's Capital City. I think this is quite proper. The Commission's recommendations are worthy of our attention, and I look forward to reaction from all quarters.4,4 On May 31 the White House announced that the President had that day received the report of the President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue. The 56-page report, entitled \"Pennsylvania Avenue,\" was published by the Government Printing Office.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you said that there is no inflation in sight. Does that indicate that you think that labor will accept the administration's guidelines, both labor and industry?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made our recommendations to both groups. They must, in their own judgment, act for what they think is best for the groups they represent as well as the people. We have responsibility for speaking for the public. We have done that.,We are very hopeful that our recommendations will be seriously considered and accepted by both groups. But there is not anything mandatory about them. They don't have the compulsion of law. We hope they will be persuasive, and we think they will be.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some talk up in New York about the Attorney General perhaps being Senate candidate. Are you willing to let him go out of the Cabinet to make that race?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter that the Attorney General and the people in New York will determine. Neither of them have discussed it with me. I would withhold making any announcement about developments there until the Attorney General makes some decision.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Premier Khrushchev has suggested in an interview with a former Senator5 that the United States stop its reconnaissance flights over Cuba, and use its space satellites instead. In addition, he said that he would be very happy to show us pictures of American military installations taken by Soviet satellites if we show him some of ours.,5 Former United States Senator William H. Benton of Connecticut.,Could you give us your personal reaction to both of these suggestions by Mr. Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't discussed his conversation with the Senator and I would like to do that before I make any detailed comments on what he was alleged or reported to have said.,I find that you can't always depend on reports that you get in the press. That is my own personal experience. But I will say this: that we, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, attempted to work out an agreement for inspection, and that was refused. This Nation, in order to protect its people, must have a knowledge of what is taking place, and we propose to keep informed. As to what offers the best method, we will have to determine that.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, if I may ask, the Ways and Means Committee now seems to be coming to a showdown on the medicare bill. I was wondering whether you could tell us what you think the chances are of retaining at least the principle of social security financing for hospitalization?,THE PRESIDENT. Chairman Mills could probably give you a more accurate evaluation of that than I can, because he has been holding hearings on it. What I know is necessarily second-hand.,I strongly favor, as you know, the medicare program under social security, and I have urged the Congress to act favorably upon it. They have taken a good deal of testimony. I understand they are giving serious consideration to an overall measure which will include consideration of this type of program.,Now, what the overall recommendations will be, will be determined by the committee when it acts. I am unable to say, with any accuracy, just what they will be or what the result will be.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, would you say how you feel about the selection of Mr. Shastri as Prime Minister of India, and whether this affects our military assistance program to them?,THE PRESIDENT. That is, of course, a matter for the Indian people. I congratulated the Prime Minister this morning. We don't interfere in the selection of their government officials, but our relationship with Mr. Shastri has been good and we congratulated him on his selection and we expect to work closely with him.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, you said you had not talked with the Attorney General about New York. Have you talked to him recently about any of his plans for the future at all?,THE PRESIDENT. I have talked to him about the programs of Government, and I haven't talked about any personal plans, no.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, over the weekend Representative Laird of Wisconsin declared that the administration is preparing to move the Viet-Nam war into the North. Is there any substance to this claim?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that Mr. Laird is not as yet speaking for the administration. He might next year sometime. To my knowledge he has no authority to speak for it at this stage.,Q. Mr. President, that doesn't mean that you expect the Republicans to win the election, does it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that means just what I said. He doesn't have any authority to speak for it now. He could at some other time.,Q. Regardless of whether Mr. Laird is the spokesman or is not a spokesman for your administration, is there any substance to what he said, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I know of no plans that have been made to that effect.,I attempted to answer that by saying he wasn't, and couldn't speak for it.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, are you giving the Senate leadership any aid, comfort, or assistance in their efforts to get the votes necessary for cloture?,THE PRESIDENT. I have talked to them about it. It is a matter for the Senate leadership, and not for me. They think that they have a good chance to be successful, as they reported this morning, and there are still some Senators who want to listen to the debate and determine when to vote. They have made no specific request of me.,I have seen, for propaganda reasons, some Senators who are on the opposite side make statements about what I am supposed to have done, but I am totally unaware of it. I must assume that they just state those things for the way they think it might affect the record.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-05-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. My fellow travelers, I am happy to take a brief time out before our lunch to give you a few items that I thought would be helpful to you over the weekend, so I will make a few announcements.,[1.] first, the important indicators show that our economic expansion continues to be strong and healthy. That is confirmed by the Advisory Committee meeting yesterday in Hot Springs,1 but we have some figures that further support it that should be of interest.,1 Spring meeting of the Business Council in Hot Springs, Va.,New car sales in April, on which we just have the figures, were running at an annual rate of 8 million automobiles. That compares to 7.6 in March, up at a rate of 400,000. Retail sales for the week ended May 2d were $5.1 billion, and that is over 4 percent higher than the week before, and it is 6 percent higher than the same week last year, so retail sales are up 6 percent over last year.,Employment continues to rise. After seasonal corrections, employment went up by 750,000 jobs in April. This is a continuation of a very steady rise which has added more than 1.4 million jobs since December. That is 1,400,000 since December, the last 5 months, and 1.8 million in the past year.,In the midst of this steady expansion and rise of employment, the wholesale price index in the first week of May just closed actually declined to 100.1 percent of the 1957-59 average. Compare that with what is happening in other countries, as I gave you the other day2--France, Italy, and Germany-and the increases there, and you will see how fortunate we have been and how important it is that all segments of our economy, labor and business, employer and employee, and most of all Government--that they are friends instead of irritating adversaries.,2 See Item 316 [5].,All Americans benefit from the fact that we are holding the price line now while we are moving ahead to create new jobs, and we are reaching new heights of prosperity in America.,[2.] We have already begun on our program to help young men rejected by the draft for mental and educational reasons. If we can help them soon enough to find jobs, or training, or to go back to school, we can keep them from being condemned to a life of poverty. During these last 2 days I have seen many men who were rejected. If you will remember, those of you who were with me at the North Carolina farm family, the oldest boy had been rejected not because of his physical deficiencies but because of his lack of education. We can salvage them for fruitful, productive lives in American society if we can move fast enough.,In the first 30 days of this program, 9,500 young men were referred to public employment offices in 36 States after failing Selective Service tests. This report has just come in for the first 30 days. Two-thirds of these 9,500 were out of school and unemployed. We have already given 7,000 of the young men counseling interviews, and we have referred 1,255 to employers and more than a third of them have already found jobs.,Many of the rejectees have been enrolled in a training course and we have gotten 58 of them to go back to school. If we can catch the unskilled and undereducated and give them help at this early stage of their lives, we can go forward toward conquering poverty.,Therefore, I intend to send a personal message from the President of the United States with each of the rejection notices that is sent out by Selective Service, urging every rejectee to seek help immediately at his local employment office. I think the success we have had with the 9,500 in the last 30 days justifies that action.,I am ordering a task force on manpower conservation to immediately establish an operations planning group, chaired by the Department of Labor, to coordinate and to develop a vigorous and comprehensive effort to mobilize the full combined resources of Federal, State, and local governments along with the resources of all private groups to help these young men find a place in our national life.,[3.] So that our natural resources might be available to help those who really need help, I have required quarterly reports, as I have told you on other occasions, from all the Government agencies, a quarterly report on economies in operation and personnel. Some of these may be too small to interest you, but they set a good example, and I am going to continue to emphasize them even if you can't publicize them.,I received the first of these quarterly reports on April 20th. I am pleased with the reductions that have been made. The big savings, like the more than $2 billion cut in Defense spending, can attract a headline, but these smaller savings throughout the Government are the real proof that economy's spirit is here and it is here to stay. I want to give you a few of the dozens of reductions which have been made recently that came in to me on these reports, and that I jotted down coming up here.,The Federal Aviation Agency is consolidating eight aircraft maintenance bases into four. This will produce increased operating efficiency as well as operating savings estimated at $1 million.,The Small Business Administration has eliminated the position of Deputy Regional Director and, as a result, 11 positions have already been abolished.,The Post Office Department has saved $250,000 by measuring mail volume less frequently. They don't have as many statistics as often, but they are spending a quarter of a million less.,The Internal Revenue Service, by realigning functions, improving clerical specialization, has saved 42 jobs for me at a savings of $218,000.,The Rural Electrification Administration abolished its Electric farming Branch because its services could be obtained from other sources, and thereby saved nine jobs.,The Weather Bureau is using hydrogen instead of helium for weather balloons at some of its field stations, and it is saving $14,000 in that effort.,[4.] There is a possibility of another economy coming up. It may or may not develop. This one will require personal action by the President. I have sent to the Congress a budget amendment requesting an appropriation of $800,000 to provide staff assistance to a newly elected President between election and inauguration, and to an outgoing President for 6 months after election. This is required by the Presidential Transition Act that was passed in 1963.,I am informed by the Budget Director that my reelection would save this $800,000. While I have no announcement to make at this time, I think all of you know how strongly I feel about economy.,[5.] I am proclaiming World Trade Week. It seems appropriate to declare this week at a time when the important Kennedy Round is going on in Geneva.,In that same spirit, we are announcing today that the United States and Rumania have agreed to open discussions in Washington on May 19th on a number of topics, with emphasis on trade which affects our relations. The American delegation will be headed by Under Secretary Harriman,3 and the Rumanian delegation by Vice Premier Gaston-Marin. These conversations are another example of our effort to increase peaceful contact with the people of Eastern Europe as a pursuit of a lasting peace.,3 Under Secretary of State W. Averell Harriman.,[6.] I have received from the Secretary of State a very important report on the East-West Center in Hawaii, from the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. I have reviewed the report, which was prepared under the direction of Mr. Roy E. Larsen,4 and I am sending a letter to the Secretary of State today to express my own pleasure at the Commission's conclusion that the East-West Center has made remarkable progress since it was established in 1960 by legislation that I authored when I was a Member of the Senate.,4 Vice Chairman of the Commission. The Commission's report (45 pp., processed) was made available by the State Department.,I am authorizing Secretary Rusk to adopt a major recommendation of the Commission's report and to establish an Advisory Board of outstanding citizens to advise the Secretary of State in the advancement of the work of the East-West Center. The Chairman of that Board will be the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Burns, John Burns.,[7.] I have regretfully accepted the resignation of Mr. J. M. Chambers as Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. He has, as you know, had a great record in the Marines during the war, and with the Senate Armed Services Committee for a number of years. He has served his country well in a most difficult and a most critical assignment.,I am sending to the Senate the nomination of Mr. Frederick W. Ford, of West Virginia, for reappointment to another 7-year term as a member of the Federal Communications Commission. He was appointed by President Eisenhower and his term expired in July.,I intend to appoint Mr. Otto Eckstein of Lexington, Mass., with whom I have conferred, as a member of the President's Council on Economic Advisers. Mr. Eckstein will replace Mr. John Lewis, who I intend to send to an important overseas post. Mr. Eckstein is Professor of Economics at Harvard University.,If you need any background on these folks, George 5 can arrange it when you get back this evening.,5 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,[8.] I have just authorized the sending of this wire to the King of Laos, on Laos Constitution Day, and I say I extend my personal felicitations, and I take this opportunity to express my agreement with His Majesty's most recent wise actions and sage counsel.,\"While, as I have already said publicly, we can understand the frustrations that many good Laotians must feel over the situation in which their country has found itself these past years, we nonetheless could not but deplore any action which would destroy the international fabric provided to assure the independence of your country.,\"As you know, the United States Government continues to adhere as firmly as ever to the Geneva agreements and to support the Government of National Union under Prince Souvanna Phouma. We recognize only too well that the full implementation of these agreements as well as the effectiveness of the government have been seriously hampered by the violations and intransigence of others, but we are gratified to know that you and the Prime Minister will persevere in this course with renewed determination.,\"I can assure Your Majesty that the United States Government will continue to support you in your efforts to bring unity, bring peace, and bring prosperity to your kingdom and to preserve its independence and neutrality.\",Thank you, and I will be glad to have any questions.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke this morning about hitting the anvil again and again and again on the poverty program. Can we look forward to some more traveling?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes. We are going to have a good deal of traveling this year. We believe in meeting the people. We believe in reporting to the people. We believe in giving the people a chance to see us and to hear us, and to agree with us and to disagree with us, to criticize us and to approve us. This is a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We will be out seeing them, particularly when we need a little encouragement, to get away from the sidewalks of Washington.,We have been in 13 States in the last 13 days. We may not cover that many States in the next 13 days, but we are not going into seclusion.,Q. Mr. President, can you give us your reaction to the big crowds that turned out to see you?,THE PRESIDENT. Would you repeat your question?,Q. Can you give us your reaction to the big crowds that turned out to see you in Atlanta and the other places, and whether you see any political implication in the warm reception you got through the South?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think the people of that section are great Americans. I think, as I said in that speech,6 they have sent hundreds of thousands of the flower of their manhood to war to protect this country. They have a great respect for the office of the Presidency. They feel that they honor and pay tribute to that office when the President visits them. They reciprocate his attention.,6 see Item 330.,Georgia has always been one of the great Democratic States. It provided the largest Democratic majority of any State in the Union on occasions, and the highest percentage of any State that went for President Kennedy, I believe, with the exception of Rhode Island.,I must say that when some of the men told me that they had never seen crowds like that before, I just had to say that I have been in political life for 32 years, and I haven't seen them either. But I think it is a good omen. I don't think I ever saw as many people as I saw at Gainesville yesterday.,Senator Talmadge told me he has never seen that many in his life. The Congressman from the district told me the same thing. Most of the officials felt that way. I don't know how many were there, but it shows a great interest in their Government, and it is a healthy thing. I hope that all the people of both parties, whatever their affiliations may be, will come out this year and maintain an interest in the governmental processes.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any feeling about whether your trip to the South might have some impact on the civil rights bill?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I hope that my trip through the Appalachian States made my views a little better known to the people of those States, if not better accepted in some instances. I think it is important that we have leadership in the Presidency. I have tried to, in my own humble way, exercise it as best I could.,I told the people in Atlanta yesterday how I felt about our country, and I told the people of New York today, and I told them both the same thing, just as I told business that I thought it was important that we watch inflation and I told the labor union people the same thing, just as I have told the railroads and told the Brotherhoods.,We must provide that leadership if we expect the people to follow it. They can't follow a vacuum. I am going to communicate with them as often as I can, assuming it meets your pleasure and you don't think I am getting overexposed. The real overexposure that bothers me is these friends that are really knocking my block off, all concerned about my overexposure. I can't quite see what is happening. It has me somewhat frustrated.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there were hints in the speeches in Georgia yesterday and again in the Atlantic City speech for tonight that you might be interested in the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.7 What better place would there be to declare it openly than the United States Pavilion at the World's fair?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't figured that one out. There could be other better places. I wouldn't want to shoot from the hip and act on the spur of the moment. I don't have any definite plans as of yet. It is unlikely that I will have any until the Convention. I think that what develops there will depend on the attitude of the delegates, the situation in the country, and my own personal feelings in the matter.,7 See Items 330, 332, and 338.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in recent weeks Mr. Christian Herter has voiced the belief that the Kennedy Round in the tariff negotiations in Geneva may be in for great difficulties. I wonder if you could express your views on this for us?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have difficulties, and we will have serious problems. I think it is entirely too early to conclude the outcome of these negotiations. We know our position. We know that that position is not embraced by all of the parties to this Round, but we are going to be as persuasive as we can. We believe that right will ultimately prevail, and I always maintain an optimistic position. I never was elected predicting my own defeat.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you are going to speak tonight in the Convention Hall at Atlantic City. The Democratic National Convention will be held there in August. I plan to write a story saying that President Johnson spoke in this hall tonight, and that it seemed to me to be a sort of rehearsal for his acceptance speech in August. Do you see anything wrong with that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would be the last man in the world to show my sensitivity by criticizing a story that had not been written. The 'press thinks I am a little bit too sensitive anyway when I point out some inaccuracies about stories that have already been written and published, and so forth. But I hope the rest of them will not think that I am unduly partial when I observe that I have had a very high regard for your political prophesies throughout the years.,Q. The answer is yes, I think, Mr. President.,[14.] Q. In your speech this morning, sir, you recalled that you voted for a cloture petition at one time.8,THE PRESIDENT. No, I signed a petition to force a caucus, to force a discharge of the wages and hours bill. That is what I said.,8 See Item 334.,Q. This was in the context--,THE PRESIDENT. That is right. They provide those things sometimes when they get a little confused. That is to give you all of the thing, but I delivered it correctly.,Q. It was in the context of your talk on civil rights, sir, and I wonder if you could comment on when you think cloture might be tried in the Senate, and generally your view on the pace of it?,THE PRESIDENT. Since I left the Senate, and the Majority Leader's position, I have taken a position that there is only one Majority Leader. If you have more than that, you get confused and frustrated and get into great difficulties. So as Vice President I never gave the Majority Leader any recommendations unless he asked for them, and as President I don't try to involve myself in the procedures of the Senate. I think that Senator Mansfield and Senator Humphrey are much closer to that situation than I am.,I am not trying to dodge you. I just plain don't know. I think that they would be better authorities on it than I am. I hope to get a vote during this month. I think that the national interest would indicate that we should have one. We have talked for more than 50 days now, and I would hope that we could get on to voting, and vote this program up and down, so that we can finish with a very fine record for all Members of Congress, the Members of both parties.,I think that Congress loses when there is a blockade and the Congress is guilty of inaction.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary McNamara and General Taylor have made frequent trips to South Viet-Nam in recent months. The frequency of these visits has raised apprehensions or fears among some people that this means the war is not going well in South Viet-Nam. What can you say on these \"apprehensions,\" so to speak?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a good many problems out there. We all know that. We have had 3 governments in 4 months or 5 months. We know the problems we had when we just had one transition here at home. We are trying to meet with the new government as often as we can and as frequently as we can, and be as helpful as we can.,With the cooperation and counsel of Ambassador Lodge from time to time, I am going to have Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara, and General Taylor and other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Wheeler, go in and provide this advice and assistance and counsel. But I would not conclude that every time they go out there it is because of some particular situation, because that is not true. They will be going there every few weeks, and be providing leadership and judgment, and making decisions. I think it is like our going out and seeing the people. We have to keep in touch with a situation that is as important to us as Viet-Nam.,[16.] Q. In your speech today, sir, you are suggesting that you will have a general school aid bill.9 You have not been listing that in your recent news conferences. I wondered if this is a bill that you are planning to put in in the next session of Congress, if you should be our President then, or are you thinking of a general school-aid bill this year?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am thinking of any measure that will aid in the education of our children that is practicable and feasible at as early a date as possible, whether I am President or who is President. I think that the most important issue before our people today is the education of our young. I think that we must provide leadership and do everything we can to arouse the local community, the county government, the State and the Federal Government to make its maximum contribution in that field. I have no specific target or date line in mind. I want to do it as rapidly as possible.,9 See Item 338. Advance copies had been made available to the press.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, sir, the United Auto Workers negotiate this summer with the auto companies.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is correct.,Q. I wondered, sir, since Mr. Reuther has said that he is going to insist at least on demands totaling 4.8 percent, whether you felt these negotiations presented a threat to your policy of keeping costs and prices stable?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we will have to see how those negotiations go before we go to passing judgment. I would not want to render a decision in advance. For my general views on the general subject, I would refer you to my statement to the labor leaders in the White House last week which I think covered it in its entirety.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, sir, it may develop that many people will not have enough withheld from their taxes because of the new tax bill.,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't get the first part of your question.,Q. It may develop that many people will not have enough taxes withheld from their weekly wages because of the tax bill. Do you propose any remedial action between now and the next filing period?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it is a decided improvement over what it has been, and a good many of us have to add something to what is withheld, and a good many of them have to have a refund, and we will never be able to hit it exactly on the nose. But I think that we have followed the course that will give us the least problems over the course of time involved. I wouldn't change it.,Q. Mr. President, if I could just come back to civil rights--,THE PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, you are right. I am trying to recognize you, but I want to hear from you, first. Stand up there with him. I have been pointing to you twice, but I missed you.,[19.] Q. On civil rights, Mr. President, many of the people who are experts in that field have been warning that there may be a long, hot, difficult summer ahead in the way of demonstrations and so on. I wondered if you had in mind anything that the office of the President could do to head off this kind of difficult situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think that we know yet until they finish their conferences on the Hill, until they have some further votes, just how long it will take or what problems will confront them. I think the President ought to do anything that he can properly do without improperly using the powers of his office to get his program through.,And having been connected with the legislative branch of the Government for 32 years, I am sensitive to their problems. I will bear them in mind constantly, consistent with getting a program through the Congress, and I am going to do all I can to prevail upon men of good will to act on that program at the earliest possible date.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, this question may demand a philosophical answer, but this morning in speaking to the Clothing Workers you asked them to join you in your fight, in your war against poverty. You asked them to enlist as volunteers. I believe in Athens, at the university the other day, you said the same thing. You have said it several times. There are contrasts in where we have been this week and what we have heard. In two of your news conferences, one earlier this week and today, you have spoken glowingly about the economy and the prosperity of the Nation.,My question may have two answers. First of all, in a Nation with so much prosperity, how can you get these people riled up, inspired, to enlist in a war on poverty which is off the main highways, in the woods, number 1; and number 2, what would you have them do?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know how I can get them riled up. I hope by picture, and letting them look at conditions that exist in their own communities, with their neighbors; I hope by public speeches outlining what we have seen, and what the conditions are that exist; I hope by messages and by legislation; I hope by leadership, such as the distinguished Mayor of New York is giving here in New York, in their poverty 'program, that the people can be concerned with the problem and then do something about it.,I believe there has been more consideration given to poverty and to conditions of the 10 million families that are in that group during the last 30 days than has been given almost during the entire 30 years. The more we think about it the more we talk about it, and the more we plan about it the more will likely result. So that is first.,We are going to appeal to every labor group, we are going to appeal to every business group. We don't think they are necessarily enemies of each other. We are going to appeal to every government group-local, State, and national. We are going to try to enlist them in this crusade. We think that from what the Mayor of Chicago told me, what the Mayor of New York told me, what the Mayor of Pittsburgh told me, the Mayors and Governors of all the States in the Appalachian area--I have covered all of them but one, and Lady Bird covered it, Alabama; we have been to all 10 States-we think that we have those people talking about these problems and trying to lay plans locally to do something about it.,Second, you say what can individuals do? I said that in my speech. I gave you a few of the things I thought they could do and Lynda Bird charged me with stealing her lines, so I am a little hesitant to go into that.,But some of the things they can do are like--work like the Peace Corps is doing in foreign countries now, particularly as these Peace Corps people come back, and some of these labor people enlist, and as some of these business people that Sargent Shriver talked to down in Hot Springs yesterday.,Business people can donate money that they are now donating to foundations for general causes. We hope maybe we can find a way that they can donate additional money to sponsor local projects. That is what business can do.,Labor people can go out and have nurseries, take care of the little children while the mother is working. They can provide teachers to teach folks to read and write who don't know how to read and write.,I can't think of a greater satisfaction that a young Junior League lady could get than to teach some adult lady who couldn't read or write how to read and write and give her a chance to vote for the first time. We can conduct schools in our homes in that respect.,We can appeal to the labor unions to make contributions toward local sponsorship of these community plans. We can ask them to contribute to these 500,000 boys that are being sent back each year because they are not fit for the Army, to teach them, as I pointed out, what we are trying to do here now through the Employment Service.,We can try to find new jobs for them, we can create new opportunities in the service industries where they might fit in. Everybody talks these days about getting a new plant into their community, but we don't do enough about increasing service jobs, like opening up Appalachia to tourists. It would create a lot of jobs and we could train some of these people to fit into those guide jobs and things of that kind. There are a good many things that we can do and we must do and should do and will do. It is going to take a little time.,[21.] Lady Bird seems to be in a hurry to go, and if any of you have any questions you want to ask her, she is available.,Bob Eaton, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-05-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Friends and reporters--I hope you are the same--and children of reporters:,I am so glad so many of you youngsters are here today. I want to prove to you that your fathers are really on the job sometimes. I am glad your mothers came, too. I suspect they are also very pleased to find your fathers working today.,I thought you children deserved a press conference because I know that you have taken so many telephone calls for your fathers and mothers, and located your wandering parents at so many receptions, that you have become good cub reporters, too.,Someone even suggested you should be accredited to the White House. Here you are. I think that that person ought to remain anonymous, at least until he has his hair cut again.,When the press conference is over, I want to ask all the children to come up here and pose with me for a group picture. And let's don't have any of the mommas or poppas. They are always crowding into pictures, anyway.,Now let me get the business done first and then we will have the children here.,[2.] Secretary of Defense McNamara will leave Washington Friday for West Germany, where he will continue his discussions on matters of mutual defense interest with Minister of Defense Mr. von Hassel. The discussions with Minister von Hassel will include cooperative research and development, existing cooperative logistics programs and a continuation of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany's military purchase offset program.,I have asked Secretary McNamara to proceed from Bonn to Saigon, where he expects to receive firsthand reports on the progress of military and civilian operations in South Viet Nam since his last visit.,The Secretary will be accompanied to Saigon by the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Wheeler, and Assistant Secretaries of Defense Arthur Sylvester and John McNaughton.,[3.] I have today issued an Executive order establishing a Maritime Advisory Committee to assist the Government in considering matters of vital importance to the maritime industry.1,1 Executive Order 11156 (29 F.R. 7855; 3 CFR, 1964 Supp.).,Committee membership will include the Secretary of Commerce, as Chairman. an; the Secretary of Labor, the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, and an equal number of distinguished representatives of labor, management, and the public.,Because of the impact of the activities of certain other governmental agencies upon maritime policies, I have requested the Secretaries of State, Agriculture, and Navy, and the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, to participate in the Committee's proceedings.,The creation of this committee provides a useful forum for a careful and constructive consideration of the national defense, trade, manpower, and labor relations programs of one of our oldest and most important industries.,[4.] I have today sent a letter to Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, expressing my appreciation for the work of the Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures in keeping the country informed on employment trends. Senator Byrd's reports show a favorable employment trend in recent months. The figures for March show that total civilian employment was 15,700 below March a year ago in the Government.,I told Senator Byrd that we are going to do everything possible to hold down the regular seasonal increases in employment which occur in the spring of the year as outdoor work opens up. I am determined to hold Federal employment to the minimum required to conduct the public business effectively.2,2 A White House release of May 17 announced that the President had approved a second reduction in end-of-year employment ceilings for 1964, which lowered by 15,191 positions the number estimated in the 1965 fiscal year budget. The first cut-back of 6,526 positions was announced on March 7 (see Item 211 [9]). The release stated that the additional reduction of 8,665 positions in 21 agencies and departments were ordered after reviewing the first of the quarterly progress reports on the tightening of management in Government.,I have asked the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, who normally employ a good many people at this time of the year, to be very careful in the people they put on in the next few months.,[5.] I have met in the last few days with key leaders of business and labor, as you know. I am pleased with the gains made by both groups, not at the expense of each other, but as the result of our record month, $108 billion expansion of gross national product. We have a higher productivity. We have lower taxes. We have a better record of price stability than any other industrial country, and some of the gains, side by side, are, for example:,Business corporate profits after taxes this year are running $9 billion above 1961, $31 billion against $22 billion. Corporate cash flow--after-tax profits--is running $16 billion above 1961, $65 billion against $49 billion. The rate of return on stockholders equity in manufacturing corporations was 9.2 percent for 1960. It was percent for 1963; 11.4 percent for the fourth quarter of 1963.,And now for labor: The long-term unemployment in April was down 11 percent from March. Civilian employment after seasonal correction is up 750,000 from March, and 1.8 million over a year ago, 4.4 million from early 1961, and 1.7 million in the past year. Total labor income is up about $50 billion after taxes in 3 years. The wage and salary share in corporate gross product has held up better in the 1961-64 expansion than in any other postwar upswing. It is above 72 percent now. It dropped to 68-70 percent in the earlier upswings.,So with profits and wages and jobs all rising strongly, without rising prices, I asked business to hold the price line or even cut prices and to share productivity gains with consumers. I asked labor to hold wage increases within the bounds of the economy's productivity increases. If they do this, the country can go on to the heights of full employment and full use of our great productive potential, to the greater gain, I think, of all our countrymen.,[6.] I have sent a group of businessmen to Europe, representing the meat packing and cattle industries, to explore what can be done to substantially increase U.S. exports of beef. I will receive a full report from them when they return later in the month.,The Department of Defense has taken steps today to purchase an additional 40 million pounds annually of U.S. beef. This will be in addition to the 70 million pounds already announced.,[7.] Final data on strikes during 1963 is encouraging and just became available. They showed that 1963 established a new postwar low in strike activity. The estimated working time lost through strikes last year was the lowest percentage since World War II--0.13 of 1 percent. The 941,000 workers involved in strikes were the fewest since 1942. The 3,364 strikes that began in 1963 was the second lowest total since the war.,Twice as much time was lost because of industrial injuries last year as was lost because of strikes.,I want to congratulate management and labor publicly today on this very fine record they have made.,[8.] I am announcing the appointment of Mrs. Charlotte Moton Hubbard as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Mrs. Hubbard, whose father, Dr. Robert Moton, succeeded Booker T. Washington as President of Tuskegee Institute, has a distinguished record in education, civic affairs, and government.,[9.] In my first official foreign policy statement as President of the United States, I pledged to the representatives of Latin American countries the best efforts of this Nation toward the fulfillment of the Alliance for Progress. We are carrying out that pledge.,I intend to ask the Ambassadors of each of our Alliance partners to return again to the White House, to come here next Monday to review some of our work in support of Latin American development efforts. At that time I will sign several new loan agreements and commitment letters for the most recently developed Latin American projects.,While the efforts of governments are vitally important in the struggle for hemispheric progress, the efforts of private persons and private groups can also have great impact.,Assistant Secretary Mann has given me a very encouraging report on the progress of the partners of the Alliance program. The program is an effort to encourage private groups in the United States to work together with Latin Americans in the hemisphere's war against poverty and ignorance and disease.,During the past 6 months, private citizens in a number of States in our country have organized to establish contact with interested Latin Americans. I would like to pay these people and these groups in Latin America and the United States a very special tribute today. I thank them warmly for their interest and efforts in this most important work.,[10.] I am sending to Congress today a request for a supplemental appropriation amounting to roughly $40 million for the Chamizal settlement. The additional funds will enable the United States to carry out the recently ratified Chamizal Convention.3 This Convention, which was approved by the Senate in December 1963, settles a long-standing boundary dispute between the United States and Mexico. With these funds, we will be able to act quickly in purchasing properties in El Paso on a basis which is designed to be fair to our own citizens.,3 For the President's remarks upon signing the ratification of the Chamizal Convention, see Item 58.,[11.] Let me also report three new developments with respect to our relations with Panama. First, Special Ambassador Anderson came to see me this morning. He has returned from a very fruitful visit to Panama, during which he met in a very cordial atmosphere with President Chiari, Special Ambassador Illueca, and with other Panamanian officials, for the purpose of having a preliminary exchange of views on U.S.-Panamanian problems.,I met with the Special Ambassadors today, both from Panama and the United States, and I expressed to both of them my sincere hope for a mutually satisfactory outcome of their talks, in view of the importance to both countries, in view of the importance to the hemisphere, in view of the importance to the free world.,Second, I have received a report on the work of the special U.S. economic team to Panama, which I mentioned about 2 weeks ago.4 The team went to Panama on April 27, and held a number of conversations with Panamanian economic officials and private sector representatives. The talks were most fruitful and constructive, and helped to lay the foundation for more detailed discussions later in the spring regarding U.S. cooperation in Panama's effort to improve its economy under the Alliance for Progress.,4 Cabled classified report.,Third, in an effort to further improve the formulation and execution of U.S. policy towards Panama, I have directed our Ambassador in Panama to chair a committee which includes the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone and the Commander in Chief U.S. Southern Command. This committee will meet regularly to discuss all aspects of U.S.-Panamanian relations and make proposals regarding them.,[12.] And finally, I have today accepted lifetime membership in the Vanderburgh Humane Society of Evansville, Ind.,I will be happy to answer any questions, if you have any.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, considering the background of an election year, what are your feelings about holding Congress in session should they run on a little bit with the civil rights bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope and anticipate the civil rights bill would be disposed of in a reasonably short time. We have been debating that bill now for almost 2 months and a good many amendments have been offered and are being considered. But I hope they can pass the bill the end of the month or the early part of the next month, and then we can get on with our food stamp plan in the Senate, our poverty bill, our Appalachia bill, and our medical aid bill. I hope that we can have the pay bill reported by the committee very shortly.,In the event those bills are not acted upon--and some cynical people think that there may be a deliberate slowdown in the Senate for the purpose of voting on the civil rights bill among some people, and among others for the purpose of not voting on any bill. If there should be that kind of a slowdown, I would seriously consider coming back here, of course, after the Republican convention and, if necessary, coming back after the Democratic convention.,The people's business must come first and I think that the people of this country are entitled to have a vote on these important measures. This administration is entitled to have a vote on them, and I am going to ask the Congress to vote them up or down.,Q. Then, sir, you are contemplating an extra session of Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not anticipating what the Congress will do at this moment. I hope they will pass all the bills. If they don't pass the bills, I will seriously consider calling them back until they vote the bills up or down. I will cross that bridge when I get to it.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, how do you assess the Alabama primary results? What are the implications for the South in the Democratic ticket in the South?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the people of Alabama decided they wanted to vote for their Governor and they expressed their sentiment just as the people of Wisconsin and the people of Indiana have done in that connection. In Alabama they voted for him and I see that it has no real consequence beyond the boundaries of Alabama.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, I believe you are going into Maryland tomorrow on a goodwill tour of the Appalachia area and I wonder if while you are there you will speak a good word for your stand-in at the Maryland primary election, Senator Dan Brewster.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am going to Maryland tomorrow in connection with the Appalachia program. I have invited the Senators of both parties to go with me to all the States involved. I am going to take part in no primaries, as I have repeatedly said.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, sir, there have been some letters recently from soldiers in South Viet-Nam that say the way the war is being operated there now, that we cannot win. This is the basis for a request from Congressman Ed Foreman, of Texas, that the House Armed Services Committee conduct a complete examination and review of the war in South Viet-Nam.,What do you think of this?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly examining conditions in Viet-Nam. As I stated earlier in the day, Secretary McNamara is going back there in the early part of this week. Secretary Rusk was there for the last 2 or 3 weeks. Mr. McNamara was there a short time ago. The people who are responsible for carrying on our operations there are constantly examining it to be sure that it is as efficient and effective as possible. I have no doubt but what they will do their job well.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, Premier Khrushchev says that there is no agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union permitting American planes to fly in surveillance flights over Cuba. Officials of your administration say there is such an agreement.,I wonder, sir, if you can tell us, first, whether there is this agreement and, second, what the provisions of the agreement are?,THE PRESIDENT. What officials of this administration say that we have an agreement that there will be no over flights?,Q. I believe, sir, in repeated requests to people at the State Department this point of view has come up.,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with any such agreement that we have with the Russian people.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned earlier Governor Wallace's showing in the Alabama primary. I wonder if you will say something about the possibility of his performance in Wisconsin and Indiana on the national political scene?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think they speak very well for themselves. He got 24 percent of the vote in Wisconsin and a little less than 20 percent of the vote in Indiana. I wouldn't think that would be--less than 20 percent of the total vote polled would be any overwhelming endorsement of a man's record.,[19.] Q. Many of the young people here have dogs. Now that you have brought the subject up, perhaps you would tell them the story of your beagles.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the story of my beagles is that they are very nice dogs and I enjoy them and I think they enjoy me. I would like for the people to enjoy both of us.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in the past, some Presidents have worried about over-exposure, about being seen too much and too often on TV and in the papers. I wonder if you feel that that is a problem of your Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I strive to please, and if you will give me any indication of how you feel about the matter, I will try to work it into my plans in the future. I had observed some little comments by some of the newspaper people about their desire to have live television, and I am trying my best to accommodate them. Although I don't have it very often, I hope all of you are enjoying it today.,I sometimes think that these press conferences can be conducted just as accurately and perhaps as effectively in the President's office, but I try to give you a variety. As I told you in the beginning, I always want to remain accessible. I hope the press will never be critical of me for being overaccessible.,Q. Mr. President, also in light of--pardon me.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Wallace's victory in Alabama involved another thing, and that is the possibility that his organization won in such a way that it will deny the bona fide Democratic candidates the support in the November election.,I would ask you this: What do you think in terms of the health of a two-party system, of the maneuver for the so-called free electors?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that people have a right to vote for any group of electors they want. I think that they should have the right to vote for any candidate and any party that they desire, without confusion.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, in line with the question about your activities and your frequent appearances, could you tell us when was the last time you had a physical examination and if the doctors have admonished you to slow down at all?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The only hazing I have received in that respect is from the newspaper people and I think we made a grievous error when I asked them to walk around the block with me the other day. The doctors, I think--as a matter of fact, I read a report from some doctor, I don't know just which one--and I have been examined frequently since I have been in the White House the last 6 months, and sometimes at greater lengths than I am being examined here today--they tell me that my blood pressure is 125 over 78 and that my heart is normal. I don't have any aches and pains. I feel fine.,I get adequate rest and good pay, and plenty to eat. I don't know anyone that is concerned about my health. Certainly none of my doctors are concerned about it.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, sir, do you feel that an economic boycott of Cuba can be effective without the full cooperation of the British and the French?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think it is being effective, to the extent of the cooperation they have given us. I regret very much to see any of our allies who do not feel that they could cooperate with us all the way. We regret that, but nonetheless we are going to continue our policy of economic isolation in the hope that we can prevent the spread of Castro's communism throughout the hemisphere. We are going to constantly insist that our allies do likewise. But we don't have the responsibility for any foreign policy except our own. They will, in the last analysis, make the final decision, but we are going to continue to urge them to join us in a policy of economic isolation, so that communism will not be channeled out to other nations in this hemisphere.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, are you hopeful about the outcome of Senator Fulbright's mission to Greece and Turkey?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Senator Fulbright had announced some engagements in foreign capitals several weeks ago. When I learned that he was going to be abroad anyway, I asked him to undertake some discussions that I thought would be in the national interest. That is not an unusual thing. Senator Mansfield did that last year on behalf of the late, beloved President Kennedy, and other Senators and Congressmen frequently do it at the suggestion of the President or the State Department. I have every reason to believe that Senator Fulbright will carry on some very useful discussions and have a very good report when he returns.,Q. Mr. President, does your mission for Senator Fulbright indicate any approval of his recent speech that we ought to re-think our policies in the foreign policy field, especially insofar as Panama and Cuba are concerned?,THE PRESIDENT. I stated my views on Senator Fulbright's position in my New York speech before the Associated Press.5 My asking him to carry on these discussions for us did not indicate either approval or disapproval. I had already indicated that we were not in agreement, in toto, with his views on either Cuba or Panama.,5 See Item 272; also Item 242[II].,[25.] Q. Mr. President, you are reported as having said to Chancellor Erhard of Germany that the Germans should put themselves into the shoes of the Russians to understand better the Russian concern. I want to ask you, sir--,THE PRESIDENT. I beg your pardon, but I am not understanding what you are saying. You will either have to speak louder or--,Q. Mr. President, you are reported as having said to Chancellor Erhard that the Germans should put themselves into the shoes of the Russians to understand better their position about Germany. I wonder, sir, what would you think of the idea to apply this principle more universally to more and more countries in their mutual relations, to increase trust and confidence and to decrease tension?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I had an informal discussion with a German newspaperman, in company with a friend.6 In the course of that conversation I expressed to him the determination of the American people to avoid war, if at all possible, that we wanted to find a road to peace and we would do everything we could in that direction. I told him that I thought the best way to do that was to follow the Golden Rule, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and to try to find ways and means of finding areas of agreement.,6 An interview held at the White House on April 18 for publication in a Munich weekly, \"Quick.\",I expressed that as my own view, and as the policy of this country. I have no differences with Chancellor Erhard in that regard. I said no more to the newspaperman than I had said publicly following our visit with him, and than we said in our communiqué, 7 and as I repeat today.,7 See Item 76.,I think it is very important to the people of the world that the leaders of the countries of the world pursue every possible road to peace and to try to achieve it. I have no doubt but what the German people will, in their own way, and through their own qualified people, follow that objective.,As I say, there are no differences between Chancellor Erhard and myself now, and there have not been. Our visit was a very fruitful one and we are in complete agreement. The speech that he delivered a few days ago following this article clearly points that out.8,8 As reported by the press Chancellor Erhard appealed for a common front on foreign policy issues in a speech before the Christian Democratic Party on April 28.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, the economy has just set a peacetime record for no recessions, and the indicators pretty much look good for the future. Is it your thinking and the thinking of your economists in your administration that recessions may be a thing of the past?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that we have to be constantly concerned with economic conditions, as I tried to indicate from my statements to you from time to time. While our unemployment has dropped from 5.8 to 5.4, we would like to see it go down below 5 this year, as quickly as possible. We would like to see many of our young people that are now unemployed put to work under our new program that Sargent Shriver has suggested to the Congress. I think we have to be concerned with the utilization of idle plant capacity.,We have to be concerned with the value of the dollar. We never know what next month or next quarter or next year may lead to. We think that now we are enjoying a very fine record, but we are constantly on the alert for any developments that may indicate otherwise. We are prepared to take whatever measures may be necessary to attempt to avoid any decline. We would not say for a moment, though, that recessions are not possible.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, a short time ago you expressed the hope that other flags would join the United States in South Viet-Nam in helping to contain the war against communism. Can you say if any progress has been made in that line?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, progress has been made, and further progress, I believe, will be made following Secretary Rusk's visit in the next few days to the NATO ministers meeting.9 I think that a good many countries are giving serious consideration to making contributions in that area to keep communism from enveloping that part of the world. We welcome that help and we expect to receive it.,9 North Atlantic Council's regular spring ministerial meeting, held at The Hague May 12-14. Text of a communiqué following the meeting is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 50, p. 852).,[28.] Q. Mr. President, in your war against poverty, sir, the plans that you have, have you given any thought as to how the general public might help on a voluntary basis to combat these pockets of distress in this country, and particularly in this prosperous time?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have given a great deal of thought to it. I appealed to 139 of the big corporate leaders of this country the other evening to do all they could in the way of additional capital investments to provide additional jobs. We have talked to mayors' groups, we have met with Governors' groups, we have met with private groups. We have urged them all to develop local plans.,I have talked to the mayors of large cities, such as Pittsburgh, New York City, and other places in the country. I have talked to Governors, not only from the Appalachian States, but Governors from all over the country. We feel now that it is the job of the local community and the regional area and the State to do their local planning and not to be told from Washington what they ought to do, but to tell us what they want to do and how we can help them.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-04-25","text":"[1.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Truman has been quoted as expressing concern about your safety in crowds.1 I wondered how you felt about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Let's wait until the boys2 get through here and we will start.,1 Mr. Truman, who was attending the President's news conference, had met earlier with the newsmen at which time he had remarked that he hoped President Johnson would \"protect himself.\",2 The photographers.,[2.] As you know, yesterday was spent seeing firsthand and hearing directly from those people in the Appalachian region who unfortunately have not shared in the recent general economic growth this country has experienced. The reports that have been submitted and the discussions that we have had in the White House convinced me long ago that there was a serious problem in this region that needed the attention of the Government at all levels and of private citizens and organizations as well.,However, the full impact was truly brought home in conversations with the people of the area yesterday--first at South Bend, then Pittsburgh, eastern Kentucky, and Huntington, W. Va.--and I believe we must secure congressional action without delay.,I shall send to the Congress early next week my legislative proposal for the Appalachian region based on the recommendations of the Commission, made up of the Governors of the area and top Federal officials. Basically, this legislation rests on the following:,1. Appalachia is a relatively isolated region which requires vastly improved access and communication. It is a relatively isolated region.,2. The abundant rainfall of the area must be made to benefit rather than injure its people through improved flood control and by providing recreational and industrial water supplies.,3. The area's great natural resources of coal, timber, and tillable land must be better adapted to the needs of the 1960's and the decades to come.,4. The human resources must be better developed through appropriate social and economic programs.,The interest of the State governments and local governments demonstrated in our visit yesterday convinced me that together we can--and must--make tremendous strides in bringing the development of Appalachia up to that of the rest of the Nation.,I am certain, too, that if those members of Congress who are questioning our antipoverty program were to have been on the tour yesterday they would today be bending their every effort to pass our program. It is \"must\" legislation.,The principal elements of the legislation are 2,150 miles of highways, at a cost of $840 million; acceleration of water resources facilities at a cost of $35 million, in FY 1965; $10 million for sewage and water treatment; a pasture improvement program with Federal grants of 80 percent, maximum of 25 acres per farm, $22 million; initiation of technical assistance program, $6.7 million for fiscal 1965; expanded research in promoting uses of coal and land restoration after mining, $3 million in fiscal 1965.,We will take another look at that and see if, in accordance with the suggestions from some of the Governors, that appropriately can be expended, and, if so, when.,Stepped-up human resources, $71 million extra for fiscal 1965. That is to be administered by the poverty program under Sargent Shriver.,Establishment of Federal-State Appalachian Commission for comprehensive planning, recommendations to be made by the Federal, State, and local bodies.,The total fiscal year 1965 cost is approximately $220 million, which was included in the item in the budget submitted in January under \"Contingencies.\" The total cost of proposals cannot be accurately calculated today throughout the period of the program.,The specific points that I gained from the Appalachia trip yesterday, and the impressions, are these:,I think we have a demand that we act on this bill immediately and that is why I worked through the night and the morning with other officials, and it will go to Congress on Monday.3,I am now announcing it today.,3 See Item 300.,We have need for early action on the poverty program. We have delayed our hearings, and there are some delays that have occurred that I think have not been particularly helpful, and we hope that we can get action on that at an early date.,Everything I saw justified our speeding up action on the poverty bill yesterday. There is need for careful scrutiny of the development of power resources, looking toward action. That would mean specifically the possibility of steamplants, TVA, in some of that area.,Need for the food stamp program, which has already passed the House, but which will be of great value in that area.,Need for work projects to take care of people who are only working a few days a week, which some of this Appalachia program could cover.,Need for retraining projects in addition to what they have now. We have talked that over with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce. We will talk to others that are involved and try to build some other public projects there.,Need for basic educational projects.,Need for Medicare bill.,Need for careful scrutiny of coal problems.,On the Medicare bill, one of the men that I talked to, whose home I visited yesterday, the man that had the eight children, told me he had stayed up to 3 or 4 o'clock the morning before with a neighbor who was 85 years old, who couldn't go to the hospital. He was sitting up with him. That was at the home of Mr. Fletcher we went to yesterday. That brings home to us the need of Medicare, because if he had had hospital insurance, he could be taken to the hospital.,Need for careful scrutiny of our coal problems, to be sure that we find any new uses for coal and that we try to revive the coal industry in any way possible that we can.,Need for development of an adequate road system.,Therefore, I have sent the nine Governors concerned the following telegram this morning:,\"This is to inform you that I will submit my legislative proposals implementing the major recommendations of the President's Appalachian Regional Commission report to the Congress early next week.\",That means Monday if the House or Senate is in session.,\"The program should be considered by Congress without delay, and I hope that you and the other area Governors will be able to assist in explaining the program to the Congress.,\"The opportunity to visit with families in Appalachia and to see at first-hand the magnitude of the difficulties in the region has convinced me of the need for prompt action.\",There is basically one difference between their recommendations and our program. They recommend $1.2 billion for roads over a period of time that we recommend $840 million for. Instead of four lanes, some of them may be two lanes. It amounts to the same mileage of road but we estimate that they will cost less than the Governors estimate they will cost, after we have taken it over to our roads department.,If you care to have copies of the telegram and copies of the 10 specific points that I gained yesterday, and a copy of this statement, that will all be available. The Appalachia report is available, and here is a copy of the bill that is available.,[3.] Another new note: corporate profits. We have a report this morning. For the first 311 corporate profits [sic], Federal Reserve tabulated for the January-March quarter show after-tax profits in manufacturing to be 23 percent above a year ago.,For wholesale prices, April weekly figures thus far suggest there will be no increase in April from March in the overall price index nor in the index for industrial products, which we believe to be very good news.,[4.] Administrator Batt has made a report to me today in reducing unemployment in depressed areas. He says 73 major labor markets approved in 1961 for ARA assistance had achieved the following gains by 1963: Unemployment in these 73 major markets fell about 32 percent compared to the decline of 13 percent for the Nation as a whole.,The unemployment rate fell from 11 to 7.6 percent while the national rate fell 6.7 to 5.7 percent.,The civilian work force, which rose 2 percent nationally, declined 1.7 in ARA areas as people moved to other areas with better job opportunities.,Total employment in these ARA areas rose about 2 percent compared with the 3 percent increase in the national total. We are pressing ahead throughout Government for any savings, however small, that can be put into effect by improving efficiency. The Division of Disbursement in Treasury reports to me this morning that it is now able to put into effect immediately a saving of $700,000 in the current year through the installation of electronic checkwriting. We had not expected to be able to do that until fiscal year 1965. But we have speeded up that item and hope it is a good example for other agencies.,In addition, I have received a report on Federal civilian employment in the executive branch at the end of March which should interest you. Total employment was 2,461,134. While there has been a small increase in March over February, due primarily to seasonal work in national parks and national forests, I am happy to announce that there are now 13,743 fewer workers than were reported in March a year ago. Most of the departments and agencies reported the same or smaller employment totals in March than a year ago, including a decrease of over 9oo employees in the Department of Defense.,I have taken pleasure in making that information available to Senator Byrd and his committee on reduction of expenditures.,[5.] I have today asked Gen. Paul Harkins to remain on active duty beyond normal retirement age of 60 until his mandatory retirement date of August 1, 1964. General Harkins has rendered distinguished and outstanding service to our country throughout his long career, particularly for the last 2 years as Commander, U.S. Forces, VietNam. Our country is fortunate, indeed, to have the benefit of his dedicated service. Lt. Gen. William C. Westmoreland, former Commandant at West Point, currently Deputy Commander, U.S. Forces, Viet-Nam, will succeed General Harkins.,[6.] I have sent a memorandum to Mr. Halaby of the Federal Aviation Agency that states:,\"I realize that you had hoped to select the contractors to proceed with the development of a supersonic transport by May 1 of this year, as a result of the preliminary design competition conducted over the past several months among a number of airframe and engine manufacturers.,\"As you have reported to me, however, the 210-member Government Evaluation Group, after analyzing the proposals in depth, found that none of the proposed airframe designs met the minimum range-payload requirements of the FAA Request for Proposals of carrying a 30,000-pound payload for a distance of 4,000 statute miles. Moreover, none of these designs met what you properly emphasized as a basic requirement, namely, that the aircraft be capable of economic operation.,\"As you have also emphasized, it has been the objective that the development stage of the Supersonic Transport be financed 75 percent by the Government and 25 percent by manufacturers. The FAA Request for Proposals pointed out that 'the Government's decision to proceed with the supersonic transport program is based on manufacturers' participation in an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the total cost of the development through certification of the transport.',\"I remain convinced that it will be possible to develop an American supersonic transport which will be economic to operate, will find a substantial market among the airlines of the world, and will help to maintain American leadership in the air.,\"In view of the current situation, however, I recognize that it is no longer appropriate for me to hope for a recommendation by May 1. Difficult and complex issues are now presented for resolution so that I can determine how best to proceed. I have asked the members of the President's Advisory Committee on Supersonic Transport, of which you are a member, to study this program thoroughly, after which I will expect recommendations from the Committee and from you.\"4 So the call for bids on May 1 is off, and we cannot expect a recommendation by then.,4For the President's statement in response to a report on the supersonic transport program, see Item 355.,[7.] Senator Anderson heads the Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commission, and he is leaving Sunday for an onsite inspection of earthquake damage in Alaska, taking other Alaskan officials with him.,I have a brief statement. I don't want to take time to read it to you now, but you can get it from George5 if you want to, and get copies of the Halaby memorandum if you want to.,5George Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,[8.] Frank, you had a question about President Truman?,Q. Yes. I wondered how you feel about your safety in crowds?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am unfamiliar with what President Truman had to say about it, but I am glad that both you and the President are concerned with my safety. That is the first reaction I have to it.,PRESIDENT TRUMAN. Very much concerned, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. It heartens me that people care that much. I try to exercise reasonable precautions, and I have never been unduly concerned, nor do I think those responsible for accompanying me are unduly concerned, about meeting American citizens either on the streets or in the buildings where you speak, or visiting with the people who come out to hear you. They can harm you if they want to, while you are talking, just as easy as they can while you are shaking hands, if they are disposed to do so.,I don't think it does any good for us to play up all the time the great concern that people feel when they actually don't feel it. I am exercising all the precautions that prudent men, responsible for my safety, recommend.,I think that the American people, and those of you that particularly had this question raised with you, don't need to feel any more danger than you would under normal operating circumstances. Of course, if I stayed in this room all the time, and it was guarded around by a section of guards, there would be less danger than there is if you go out and address a public meeting. But the President is still going to speak to the people of this country and necessarily is going to associate with them.,I was not in any more danger yesterday, in my judgment, than I am here now.,President Truman says he heartily agrees with me.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President.,Q. Mr. President, specifically, is it your intention to continue to ride in open convertibles in huge crowds, as you did on your tour yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. Specifically, my intentions are to see the people, to talk to them, and I will be on open platforms. I will be on an open stage. I will be at an open desk. I will be in an open car on occasions, depending on the circumstances. I see no difference in sitting in a seat in an open car or standing on an open platform.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, two of your guests this morning, sir, were Governor Brown and Mr. Reuther, and both feel that perhaps your antipoverty program should be larger, that you are not going to do very much for people with its present size. Do you have any idea on extending it after what you saw yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think this poverty program is adequate under the circumstances, and neither of the gentlemen made such representations to me. I think it would be wonderful if we could do all the things in the world that need to be done yesterday, but you have to take these things with gradual realism. You have to build your organization. You have to have the cooperation of local and State authorities. We are getting that.,Governor Brown told me what he was planning to do in California, as Mayor Wagner told me earlier what he was planning to do in New York. One of the fine byproducts in this poverty message is the progress that has been going on in almost every State in the Union. We have State people who have taken notice of the poverty program and are doing something about it.,I reviewed with Governor Brown some figures I got this morning on the people that are coming out of the poverty classification. They are very important statistics. From 1937 to 1947, 5 percent came out. From 1947 to 1953, only 3 percent came out. From 1953 to 1963, only 1 percent came out. So it is much fewer than it used to be that are actually leaving the poverty classification.,Roosevelt talked about one-third ill clad, ill housed and ill fed. Roosevelt and Truman, and down through Kennedy, got it down from one-third to one-fifth. But, as you can see, only i percent is coming out in a io-year period, and it will take a long time at that rate to get them out. We hope we can accelerate that.,We plan in this program to handle some 500,000 young people. I commented to Dr. Dobie about it. He is one of the wise men of our State. He was not one of those Rhodes scholars that I talked about being with the San Marcos Teachers College the other day, but he did spend some time at Oxford. I asked him how he accounted for this, and he said, \"Well, a few years ago you could go out and get a 40-acre poor patch and put you in some okra, tomatoes, and roasting ears and raise your own food. But that is pretty difficult to do on concrete.\",Most of these folks have moved into the urban areas and it is pretty difficult for them to feed themselves and provide their own income on concrete when they are out of jobs. So this program needs to be accelerated, and we need to put it in action quicker.,There is a good deal more, of course, that we could do, but within our budget limitations, this represents a substantial start. If the people who are fighting it would quit saying it does not go far enough, and go this far with us-I have no reference in your question, that is, to the Hill, where some said they were against it-if they would go just this far, we will get it up to the proportions that would satisfy them a little later on as programs develop, and communities participate and States take more interest.,[10.] Q. Although you have ordered a cut of 40 percent in the production of enriched uranium, it is my understanding that the Federal Government has contracts to buy raw uranium for the stockpile still in effect. Will we honor these contracts and, if so, how much will it cost us, and what will we use this raw uranium for?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter the details of which you should talk to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission about. We have contracts we are taking action to dispose of, and exercising clauses under the contracts, particularly in the power contracts, to give them certain notification. That is one reason for the imminence of the announcement.,But the details of it would be better handled and you would have a lot more material for a story if you talked to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission on the details of it. We do know that we had to make the announcement so we could give notice on certain substantial contracts we had entered into, to exercise the clause that provided for that.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, sir, did you make any commitments definite or implied to the railroads or to the Brotherhoods to achieve a settlement in the railroad dispute? Specifically, there was a report, sir, about you telling the railroads that the administration would be sympathetic concerning a request for tax relief.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I made no commitments of any kind. It was not up to me to make any commitments. I said to the railroads and to the Brotherhoods, if they did not know more about how to operate the railroads and how to settle their problems than I did, or the Congress, that they had been overpaid for a good many years.,It was kind of like Mr. Rayburn said one time when General Marshall asked him his suggestions on the war, and he said, \"General, if you don't know any more on how to run this war than I do, we have wasted a lot of money in West Point all these years.\" That is what I said to them.,PRESIDENT TRUMAN. Correct.,THE PRESIDENT. I made no commitment of any kind other than to ask them to stay here and work out these points at issue. Both sides during that period of time frequently commented on injustices and unfair advantages that one had taken of the other, or that the Government had taken of both.,In reply to all of those statements, I always said, \"Your Government will give anyone, big or little, railroad worker or railroad president or railroad company, a fair and just hearing.\" That will be done on any problems, involving legislation, involving taxes, involving work rules, regarding cases in the courts, and so forth. This must always be in the position of giving a person a fair and just hearing. We have made no commitments of any kind beyond that point.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, with respect to your visit with Governor Brown, did you make any suggestions of your own about solving the critical water problem of the Southwest, and bringing peace between California and Arizona, and perhaps sending your own message to Congress on that proposition out there that has been hanging fire for so many years?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,[13.] THE PRESIDENT. Wait a minute. Come back here. I took longer than I thought I would on the announcements. I will be glad to answer a few more questions. If you want to, after it is over with--and I have not asked him--if you have a question or two for my beloved friend who has come in to give me counsel and eat lunch with me, who came down from New York at my request when I heard he was up there the other day, I am sure he will be glad to answer questions. Let us run another 10 minutes.,I apologize to whoever said that, but in the light of my long answers-go ahead.,[14.] Q. In the light of the agreement with Russia for a cutback in nuclear war materials, I wonder if you would comment on the general state of relations with Russia and whether you would see any prospect for other early agreements on other matters?,THE PRESIDENT. We are constantly searching for any agreements that can be effected that will ease tensions and promote our national interest and promote better relations. We have several of those in the discussion stage.,We are hopeful, although it would be premature to predict just what the results will be. I did not know what the results would be on the latest proposal that I announced. I did not know what their reaction would be, in fact, until I was being introduced at the Associated Press luncheon. So I think any prediction on what would flow from the suggestions we have made on several subjects would be premature.,I do hope always for better relations. I am searching for them. I am doing everything I can to promote them.,Q. Mr. President--,THE PRESIDENT. Wait a minute. I will get around to all of you once if I can.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, have you or Secretary Rusk heard from any of the Republican candidates to whom you offered to give briefings?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not talked to the Secretary this morning. I was away yesterday. I think he got his communication out. I am informed that at least two of them indicated that they would welcome any information that was available in this field, that would help them know what our national interest was, and what our policy was, and our reasons for pursuing it. At least one of them indicated that he did not care to receive this information. Other than that, I don't know.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the government, the coalition government, in Laos seems to be having trouble staying coalesced. Could you tell us our position on whether we favor expanding that coalition government?,THE PRESIDENT. Over the last several days we thought the events in Laos were moving in the desired direction of full restoration of the authority of the Government of the National Union of Prince Souvanna. However, we are still disturbed about the situation.,The latest reports received from Ambassador Unger indicate that authority may not really have been returned to the government and that there is still a serious risk of efforts to upset the Geneva Accords, and the earlier agreements on which they rest, and which we strongly favor. We recognize that those participating in these efforts may be inspired by patriotic motives and that the Communist side has been largely responsible for the continuing difficulties and dangers in Laos. Nonetheless, as I said, as a signatory of the Geneva Accords, we continue to believe firmly that these accords must be observed, and we think they must be preserved in both spirit and letter. Our Ambassador has instructions to do all that he can to see that that is brought about.,Our reports on the subject are fragmentary, but that is the policy of our Government.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, some of us have been accused of trying to operate a little boom for your Defense Secretary, to try to talk him up as being a political animal. Do you think he would be good in elective office, or do you wish we would stop talking about him?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never applied the elective yardstick to any of my Secretaries, or anyone else for that matter, including myself, although I have crossed that bridge a few times in past years in various offices. As I have frequently stated, and I don't mind repeating if you missed it —,Q. No, I followed it, but I hoped you would say it a little differently.,THE PRESIDENT. --I do not plan to make any evaluations or make any recommendations or make or conduct any studies or make any reports on the vice presidential prospects until we meet at the national convention in Atlantic City in the latter part of August, at which time I will give a great deal of thought to the subject, and make known my views.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, will this Appalachian program result in an increase in your 1965 budget?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no. I stated in the original statement, which I probably read too fast, that we have money in the 1965 budget under the contingent item of $250 million, and that is what we are asking.,[19.] Sir, you said you did not know the upshot of the uranium agreement, or mutual example, until you were about to make the speech before the AP in New York.,THE PRESIDENT. I did not know the extent of the Soviet reaction to what we were doing until they released their statement through TASS, shortly prior to the 2 o'clock New York talk.,Q. In other words, there had been no private communications between you and Mr. Khrushchev.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there have been a good many communications. I did not say there had been no communications. I said I did not know what their reaction would be, the extent of it, the definiteness of it, what it covered, how much, and what they were going to do.,Q. Sir, on that point, is it possible for you to tell us some of these other areas in general terms, without saying what might happen, how you can identify--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have the consular agreements, we have--I don't think any purpose would be served by talking about them. We have talked about exchanges of various kinds, and our allies, with all of whom I have talked--including the British, Germans, the Canadians, Mexicans, and many dozens of others that I have seen--one of the first subjects on all of our minds and in all of our conversations is, how can we secure peace in our time, in this world; what can we do about it? We are searching for ways and means to reach agreements that will lessen tensions and promote peace.,[20.] Q. How about trade, Mr. President? If some of our allies go ahead with long-term credits, are we ready to go into business with some of the Communist countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Our Foreign Relations Committee, I am glad to say, is now exploring the subject of increasing our trade, the extent of our trade, and the exchanges with the Soviet Union and Communist countries. I think it is a very helpful thing to have the committee do that. We are following their activity with a great deal of interest. We welcome any proposals. We will consider them as we did the wheat proposal and act upon them in accordance with what we believe to be the national interest, depending on the proposal and the time.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that your Status of Women Program is about to go under water, that you are about to name some submarines after women. I wonder if you consulted with the Navy officers about this to get their reaction?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would have no objection, but I made no recommendation. My impression reading the story was that the wish was father to the thought. I have no objection to it, and probably would, but the last time I requested a recommendation, I made the recommendation to be named after the great Secretary of State and Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson.,Q. I wondered how the Navy men felt about it.,THE PRESIDENT. I have made no recommendation since, and I was totally unaware of what I was about to do until I saw that. As I must say, I frequently am.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, if we are able to expand our trade with Russia or any of the other members of the Communist bloc, will this make it more difficult for us to persuade our allies to keep the economic squeeze on Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. I can answer the second part of your question after we get the answer to the first one, and that is being studied, as I said. We have reached no conclusion.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, you said last week that your Council of Economic Advisers is keeping in contact with both labor and management about holding the wageprice line. In Detroit, Henry Ford II said that no price cuts were anticipated in the auto industry. I wondered if you had any indication from any industry at this time that they were agreed to cutting prices?,THE PRESIDENT. We are urging wherever profits will permit that the price line be held or be reduced to the extent they can be. I would not want to get in a name-calling con test of companies. I have talked to some specific companies and congratulated some on their failure to increase prices and congratulated others on the small price increases that they put into effect. I would not want to get into the specific name calling.,I am going to meet on April 28th with some leaders of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, some Business Advisory Council men, the Committee on Economic Development, and I am going to talk about price stability and what inflation can do to the business movement in this country. I am subsequently meeting with labor people. Our people have been in touch with the auto folks. We have not made a specific suggestion in autos.,We had not made any specific request on any companies, although some of them do have rather sizable profits. That is a matter for them to determine. We are suggesting that they not increase prices, and where they can, reduce them, so that we can keep our wholesale price index down, as we did last month, and hope to this month, until we use up our extra capacity and reduce our unemployment. We don't believe that there will be a price increase spiral touched off.,I talked to Mr. Reuther this morning about that. We will meet with the labor people and their wives at the White House dinner in the early part of May, just as we met with the business people. I already have planned what I am going to say. I worked on it yesterday. I had it here early in the morning. I guess I sent it back in there. But I am going to say the same thing to the labor people that I said to the business people.,The meat of what I say to both of them is that the soft-money policy would be dangerous; we want to protect the value of the dollar; that we must realize that the first people to be hurt by inflation are the old people that are living off retirement, and the aged people that are living off frozen income, on old-age assistance; that the workers themselves who have contracts can't afford to stand the inflation and increased prices; that in the long run it would not do business any good.,A house built in 1946 almost costs twice as much to build today, and that means fewer houses being built. It is to the business interest to protect against the inflation as well as labor, and I am calling them in to talk this problem over with them, and to urge them to give me their cooperation in trying to hold the line of wages and prices, something like our guideposts.,In 1946 it cost $10,000 to build the same house it costs us $22,000 to build today. In 1946, with a reasonable down payment and a reasonable mortgage, the house could be bought under FHA for $50 a month. Now it costs $125 a month. So you see what it does to the worker who is buying a house, where his payments have gone up from $50 to $125. A big part of that is inflation, rising costs and rising prices.,If these houses did not cost so much today, if monthly payments were not such a strain, a lot more houses could be built and sold. This means a lot more people could be at work. But the inflation since 1946 is water under the bridge. We know most of it is caused--and so forth.,Reporter: Thank you, again, Mr. President.,[24.] Q. Could we ask those questions that you referred to?,THE PRESIDENT. Would you be willing to answer questions?,PRESIDENT TRUMAN. If you want me to.,Q. You said Mr. Truman had given you some counsel.,THE PRESIDENT. I said I asked him to come down here to counsel with me.,PRESIDENT TRUMAN. Let me tell you something. I want to compliment you birds. You have found out who runs the foreign policy of this country, and I have been trying for 4 years to tell you. Damn it, you have found it out!,[25.] Q. Mr. President, I want to know if the great Missouri political warrior will take the stump for the Democratic ticket?,PRESIDENT TRUMAN. The Democratic ticket will be nominated by the Democratic Convention. The head of the Democratic Party is sitting right here. If he thinks I can do anything to get him extra votes, I will be glad to do it, sir. Does that answer your question?,[26.] THE PRESIDENT. If you have no more questions, I will introduce my daughter Lynda Bird. Maybe you will want to ask her some. I hope it is all right with, you that I let her come in with Jack Valenti this morning.,Hugh S. Sidey, Time and Life magazines: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-04-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,[1.] Secretary Rusk is sending out letters to all those who may wish to accept my offer to provide all possible information to major candidates this year. Appropriate letters are going to Senator Goldwater, Governor Rockefeller, Senator Smith, Governor Stassen, Mr. Nixon, Governor Scranton, and Governor Wallace of Alabama.,We recognize that some of these gentlemen may not consider that they are candidates, but it does not seem appropriate for us to attempt to make that decision for them. Ambassador Lodge is in a somewhat different position. He has access to all the information which he needs in discharging his most important assignment, and if at any time this situation should change, we would make whatever new arrangements might become necessary, with pleasure.,[2.] I do not intend that we should lose sight of those Americans who do not share in the general prosperity of this country, so tomorrow I plan to visit several areas which suffer from heavy unemployment and poverty, or need special attention for the relief of economic distress. I will visit South Bend, Ind.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Paintsville and Inez, Ky.; Huntington, W. Va.,I am inviting the Governors of the Appalachia States to meet with me in Huntington to discuss problems of that particular area. I will be accompanied by several top officials of this administration who are responsible for leading our attack on the problems of unemployment and poverty. These will include Secretary Wirtz, Secretary Hodges, Under Secretary Roosevelt, and Secretary Celebrezze.,[3.] I am glad to report that our decision to cut back on the production of unneeded nuclear materials, and the parallel announcements of Chairman Khrushchev and Prime Minister Douglas-Home, have been warmly greeted throughout the world, and also by responsible opinion in this country. We have made it very clear that these announcements do not constitute a new international agreement or contract of any sort.,We reached the decision here in the United States on our own initiative as what we, in the United States, ought to do. We did it in a prudent and reasonable concern for our strength and for avoiding excess, and we then explained our intention to the United Kingdom and to the Soviet Government. They, in turn, acting on their own responsibility, announced parallel decisions.,This is the policy of restraint by mutual example. I discussed it yesterday in detail with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, at breakfast, and I believe that the discussion resulted in general understanding and agreement among us all.,[4.] We have an encouraging report this morning from Ambassador Unger in Laos. His latest information indicates now that the Government of the National Union under Prime Minister Souvanna is continuing and has the support of all, including the Revolutionary Committee. The important thing now is to concentrate once again on working for the peace and the unity of Laos under the principles established by the Geneva agreements.,[5.] I have had a most cordial telegram from General de Gaulle in response to a message of sympathy which I sent him as soon as I learned of his indisposition last week. We are very much encouraged by the reports from Paris that the General is making a strong and good recovery.,[6.] I am happy to announce that Mr. Robert Anderson, our Ambassador, will be making a brief visit to Panama early next week to meet with Special Ambassador Illueca and other Panamanian officials for the purpose of having a preliminary exchange of views.1 At that time, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Illueca will arrange between them how they will conduct their talks on the problems to be worked out between the two countries.,1 Former Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson was appointed as U.S. representative, with the rank of Special Ambassador, to carry out the objectives of the U.S.-Panama joint declaration of April 3.,I am also sending to Panama in the near future a team of economic experts for the purpose of discussing, within the framework of the Alliance for Progress, our aid program in that country.2,2 See Item 316 [11].,I might add that I received a very full, comprehensive, and satisfactory report from our new Ambassador, who has already been received there, and who has made a report to us on conditions as he sees them.,[7.] I wish to announce the following appointments to the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Commission: Mr. frank Bane of North Carolina, Mrs. Adelaide Waiters of North Carolina, Mr. Tom Elliott of Missouri, representing the public; John Dempsey of Connecticut and Robert Smylie of Idaho, representing the Governors; Mr. Marion Crank of Arkansas and Mr. Charles R. Weiner of Pennsylvania, representing State legislators; Mr. Herman W. Goldner of Florida, representing the mayors.,[8.] I am today nominating Mr. Leonard L. Sells to be a member of the Subversive Activities Control Board. Since 1952 Mr. Sells has been employed in the Office of the General Counsel of the Renegotiation Board.,Mr. Sells is a graduate of the University of Alabama and a member of the Alabama State Bar. He was born August 5, 1912, in Independence, Iowa. He resides with his family in North Arlington, Va.,[9.] I have just approved today recommendations of the Secretary of Defense to further reduce our Defense expenditures by terminating or substantially reducing our non-combat strength. In total, the savings will amount to about $68 million a year.,The installations affected and the specific action to be taken will be announced by the Secretary tomorrow. These are installations which we feel that we can reduce without affecting the strength of this Nation. We think that it is necessary because they are obsolete and unneeded and that they will in no way impair our effectiveness. It is a part of the frugality and economy that we think should be practiced by saving money where we can, to have it where we need it.,The McGraw-Hill Annual Survey of Business Investment Plans shows that American business has again lifted its capital spending for 1964.,Through the courtesy of Mr. Elliott Bell and the McGraw-Hill Economics Department I am informed that business now plans to spend 12 percent more on plant and equipment this year than last year--as against the 9 percent planned in January. So this is a new figure and a rather encouraging one for all Americans.,[10.] I wish to announce my intention to reappoint Mr. James T. Ramey to a full term on the Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. Ramey, as you know, has served in this field with distinction for a number of years as an officer with the Commission, later as staff director of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and more recently as a member of the Commission.,I had some other brief announcements, but I think that they will carry over until we get back. I primarily wanted to get some of these that will be going to the Hill out of the way before I left. I wanted you to know of our plans for the afternoon and the rest of the week. I will be glad now to entertain any problems that your curiosity may suggest.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday you had a chance to see civil rights demonstrations firsthand.3 I am wondering if you would tell us what your reaction was to what you saw.,THE PRESIDENT. frankly, one of compassion. Somehow I think all of us must learn understanding. It is ideal, I think, for us to contemplate that it is easy. But even though it is difficult it is still possible. I believe the basic good will of the American people is strong enough to carry us through these strains.,3 The reporter referred to demonstrations by civil rights groups at the New York World's Fair where President Johnson spoke.,I think the most important thing we can do to ease this situation is to act with promptness and dispatch on the very good civil rights bill that is now pending in the Senate.,I noticed a few people there yesterday, and they were very few, who seemed insistent on being rude, and I pitied them. They serve no good purpose--either of promoting the cause that they profess to support or of disrupting that cause.,I have a deep faith that whatever may have been our sins of the past, we are going to try to do our best in our lifetime, and we are making progress. I don't believe that we are going to be stopped either by fanaticism or rudeness, and so far as I was concerned, I felt sorry for them.,Q. Mr. President, sir, in connection with civil rights, I wonder if you could give us your reaction to the jury trial proposals which appear to have won some favor with your civil rights leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't examined it. That is a matter for the Senators who are considering it, and the counsel of the Justice Department, the Attorney General, who are examining those amendments as they are proposed. I haven't seen it. All I know about it I read in the paper.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder about the results of your talks with Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara. Do you anticipate any change in the involvement of the United States in Viet-Nam, either as to sending more troops, advisers, or more funds there?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I anticipate that we will have steppe&up activity there that will cost more money. There will be people who are coming out of there from time to time, when their mission is completed, and others that will be sent in there. I think that we are going to try to gain efficiency and effectiveness from all of the suggestions that Secretary, McNamara made on his recent trip, and Secretary Rusk made.4,4 See Items 223 and 274.,I would hope that we would see some other flags in there, other nations as a result of the SEATO meeting, and other conferences we have had, and that we could all unite in an attempt to stop the spread of communism in that area of the world, and the attempt to destroy freedom.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, at the turn of the year the developments in Latin America suggested to some people that the roof might be failing in down there. I notice since then there have been some favorable developments. I wonder if you would analyze the situation there as you see it.,THE PRESIDENT. We have some very serious problems in the Western Hemisphere. We are concerned with them. We have attempted to reorganize our operation, and to better coordinate our activities in the hemisphere. On the recommendation of Secretary Rusk, we brought in one of our most experienced ambassadors who has served under two Presidents in the field of diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere.5 We gave him increased responsibilities in connection with the Alliance for Progress.,5 Former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Thomas C. Mann, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, United States Coordinator, Alliance for Progress, and Special Assistant to the President.,We are making progress in organizing and coordinating that work. We expect to have a meeting in the very near future and make a number of allotments to various countries in that area. We are constantly meeting with the ambassadors, and with the leaders of government, getting their suggestions. We are trying to treat each nation as our equal, and trying to sincerely and genuinely have them believe that we want to carry out a good neighbor policy.,We know that what is good for Latin America in this hemisphere is good for Americans, and we are rather pleased with the decisions that have been reached in Panama, and the reception that they have received.,We are rather concerned with the developments in other places, but we will meet those as they come, as we did in Guantanamo. I would say all in all there is not anything to throw your hat in the air about, but we are making steady progress and I think that a few months from now you can tell a little more about it than you can now.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday, sir, at the World's fair, you talked about the possibility of peace in our generation. What would be the minimum conditions from the Soviet Union to have an end to the cold war?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't want to organize any peace parley here this morning. I think that it is very important that we try to understand the other peoples of the world, and that we all recognize that it is hari-kari to think of another war; that we have got to constantly keep our guard up and our hand out.,What we are trying to do is to explore every possibility that we can conceive of that will lead to better understanding. We are trying to be tolerant and recognize the problems of other leaders and of other nations, just as we hope they realize ours.,We have no illusions that we can settle all the problems that exist and have all the world live in happiness tomorrow. But we are ambitious, we do have a goal, we are optimistic, or this would be a very dreary job.,In the 5 months that I have been in it, I have tried to accord other peoples the same consideration I would like to have for myself and, generally speaking, I have found that the world is anxious to pursue the same objective that I am. I don't know that we will have an answer tomorrow, but I do confidently believe that the tensions had been eased under the leadership of President Kennedy, and that the strength that we have developed has contributed to taking us away from war.,If we keep a cool head, our feet on the ground, use some imagination and ingenuity, respect others, we can find the answer as we have in some of our smaller problems.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there was a Republican charge yesterday that you are using blowtorch tactics to heat up the economy. Would you say this is a fair evaluation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not going to object to the economy heating up. I don't know that any of my tactics are responsible for what the economy is doing.,I am very happy that U.S. corporations paid 10 percent more cash dividends in the first quarter of this year than they did a year earlier. I am very happy that wage earners are getting $50 billion more now than they were 3 years ago. I am very pleased that corporation profits are up 50 percent.,I am very grateful that unemployment is down from 5.8 to 5'4. We hope that we can bring it down further, and if the Republicans will use any kind of tactics--blowtorch or otherwise--in helping us pass the poverty program, we'll take a lot of kids off the streets and put them in useful endeavors, and help make taxpayers out of them instead of taxeaters.,I am sorry that they are critical of what is happening to the economy. I'd think that the Republicans almost more than anyone in the country, with their noted interest in private property, would be pleased that business is doing well. I don't know why they should be irritated about it. Maybe we are going to, all of us, be inclined to be a little out of humor between now and November, but after November I am sure they will be happy with what the economy is doing. [Laughter],[16.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would see that the Nation gets all the information from the Air force about the renegotiation of the Howard foundry contract? Some information has come out in a court case downtown that one Fred Black was paid some money to get this renegotiation contract sent from the Justice Department to the Air force.,THE PRESIDENT. I will do all I can to see that every bit of the information that can be made public is made public. When I saw that story in the paper, I asked the Secretary to immediately pursue it and to give me the facts on it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, will the information that you give to the candidates be confidential and will they be precluded from using it in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that that is secret, they will. None of us will use any secret information in the campaign. There will be a lot of general discussions, such as we had yesterday morning, concerning Viet-Nam, the nuclear reduction, that can be used and will I think better inform them of the steps that have been taken and the background and the reasons for those steps.,I would say the answer to your question is yes and no. That is, top secret will not be used by anyone. The President will be very careful to take no advantage of any other candidate in this matter, and that is the reason for my announcement.,I think a man's judgment on any given question is no better than his information on that question. While some of these folks have been traveling around getting some information, it hasn't been because they are interested in running; it is just because they are representing private companies and thinks like that. I want them to get it direct from the horse's mouth and be able to look at the full picture and then make their judgments accordingly.,Q. Mr. President, on that score, have any of the candidates evinced an interest yet in getting this information?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't talked to any of them yet. As I told you, Ambassador Lodge has it available to him, and I want to see that all the information that I have, that involves the future of this Nation, is made available to men who may be called upon to lead the Nation.,Q. Mr. President, is it your feeling that Mr. Nixon's speech on Saturday was based on erroneous information about Viet-Nam? 6,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't make that comment. I don't know what it was based on. I haven't talked to Mr. Nixon. I assume that he spent a good deal of his time out there looking after Pepsi-Cola's interest. I don't know how much real information he got. But at least, that is what he said he was doing.,6 Following a business trip to the far East Mr. Nixon made three speeches, the last of which was before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington.,I do want all of the men in the opposition party to know all the facts that dictate the decisions that involve our national interest. I would like to confer with them and have their suggestions from time to time on what the wise course to pursue is.,I like to reflect on these moves before I make them, and I like to consider everyone's judgment. I get that judgment through newspapers. Some of them want more war in that area and some want more appeasement. Some, such as Ambassador Lodge, seem to have their views as to what we are doing and feel that what we are doing is proper. I just don't know who speaks for them. After the convention, that will be clearer and maybe we can be brought closer together.,I would like to have a relationship with the Republican nominee similar to the relationship I had with President Eisenhower during the 8 years I was leader, when we could come and talk over the problems of the world and try to unite on what was best for our country. I don't want a foreign policy to develop into partisan, knockdown, dragout, and I am going to do all I can to avoid it.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of Republicans, would the fact of Secretary McNamara's past association with the Republican Party bar him, in your judgment, from being among the possible Democratic vice presidential candidates?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know what Mr. McNamara's associations may have been. I have never been a man who believed in guilt by association. But I think Mr. McNamara is a very able, a very imaginative, and a very great American. I am sure that this decision on my part, whatever part I may play, will be made at Atlantic City and will be made by the delegates there. I don't plan to conduct any evaluation scores between now and then.,I would like for you all to get your mind on other things and let the delegates handle that after we get up there, and what we think is the best interest of the country and who would make the best President of the United States in the event he was called upon to be President. That is the criteria that I would use for my own judgment and I would hope the others would use.,I can say nothing but the highest and finest things about Mr. McNamara. I just don't know anything about his party affiliation. He has never discussed it with me. He never talks politics with me. He just runs his shop. He wants to see me right after this is over. I am just not sure whether it is going to be canceling some more bases or what it is about. But he will have a judgment and a recommendation. I like men who are decisive.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you seem to have a good many Senators and Congressmen in your audience today. Have you been talking politics to them?,THE PRESIDENT. No, and I was unaware that they were here.,I am happy to see them. I didn't know they were here. I haven't been talking politics with them.,Q. Why are they here?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. Why? They are here to talk about the importation of shoes.,[20.] Mr. Roberts, I don't think you finished your question. If you didn't,Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wondered. There is the statement, sir, that you are the head of the Democratic Party as well as President. I wondered if you could be a little more specific as to whether as head of the party you considered that there was any kind of political bar given in the American history of parties to choosing a man who has not formerly been a member of this party?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't make a judgment on that because first, I don't know anything about his party affiliations, and it wouldn't apply unless I proceeded on the assumption that you do. I am not in the business of selecting a Vice President this morning. I am not going to. I want to help you any way I can. But I am going to give very little thought about it until I get to Atlantic City and then I expect it will occupy a good deal of my time.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans for a meeting between yourself and Prime Minister Douglas-Home of Britain this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no immediate plans. I will be very glad to meet with him at any time that that appears desirable. So far as I am aware, there is nothing in the planning stage on it.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, in your correspondence with Chairman Khrushchev,\nsir, have you discussed the possibility of Russian SAM missiles being used against our overflights over Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to go into a discussion of the private correspondence that I have had with the Chairman.,Q. Mr. President, can you give us an appraisal of the Soviet military strength remaining in Cuba, either military or so-called technical?,THE PRESIDENT. I said at one of my conferences that from the high point that strength had been reduced considerably. They still have some people there. I would not calculate the exact number because I don't want to get into the numbers game, and I don't think we can do it with any accuracy. I think our people know in general terms what a good estimate is, and we know that there have been substantial reductions in the past, but we know they still have a number of people there.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,[23.] THE PRESIDENT. I want to make an observation before you leave that I neglected. I thought of it when a lady just reminded me.,This beautiful garden that we are the beneficiaries of today represents a great deal of planning and long, hard, arduous work by Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, that lovely lady who we were so proud to have as first Lady for 3 years. Mrs. Paul Mellon came here and gave her very heart and soul to this project for many months. I have never seen it lovelier than it is today. I don't know whether the presence of this front row helps it any or not. I believe it does. Any of you who want to are invited to take a walk and go around and look at it because it is really pretty. I would like for some of you to go with me.,Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-04-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT [1.] I have seen a very inaccurate account of what I am going to say on Monday, so I thought I should tell you something you can rely upon.,My statement on Monday will be a very general statement of our foreign policy.1 I will be talking especially about our relations with the Soviet Union and about certain other important areas, like Cuba and China. I will talk about the responsibility of the candidates, and issues of war and peace, and policies toward Asia, especially Viet-Nam; the policy towards Latin America.,1 See Item 272.,I hope the speech will be interesting. But my advice to you is to wait for the speech itself, and not to put much stock in what you get second- or third-hand. I am still working on it and the report is very inaccurate.,[2.] I have today drafted and approved the plans for a very comprehensive study of the draft system and of related manpower policies submitted to me by the Secretary of Defense. This study will consider alternatives to the present draft selection system, including the possibility of meeting our requirements on an entirely voluntary basis in the next decade.,Last September the administration initiated a number of actions to determine immediate steps that could be taken to free young men from doubt about their draft status, and what improvements could be made in the administration of the draft law.2 This led to the decision which I announced early this year to conduct military service examination of draft registrations who have finished school at age 18 so that these young men then will be able to more intelligently plan their future in relation to their military service liability.3,2 See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, John f. Kennedy 1963,\" Item 393.,3 See Item 89.,I now consider it most desirable to study some of the broader aspects of the military service system. As an original proponent of this act, I continue to be firmly convinced of the soundness of its basic principle, namely, that the obligations and privileges of service must be shared equally in accordance with a fair and just system. I am concerned, as I indicated yesterday in some of my remarks, with the recent indications that in application the system may have drifted from this concept. I pointed out to the Heart Committee that 49 percent of our boys were rejected for one reason or another.,It is clear that at the present time the obligation for military service is essential for meeting our military strength requirements. However, the present law has been in effect for more than 15 years, and a very comprehensive study of the system is now indicated. I have ordered that study immediately. It will be completed in 1 year. It will deal with the implications of trends in our population, in military manpower needs, and will be a most comprehensive study of the decade of the seventies.3a,3a See also Item 619 [3].,[3.] I have some economic news notes. Prices, very good news: total wholesale prices in March fell by one-tenth of a percent. This lowered the Index to 100.4, on the 1957-59; one-tenth percent above the end of '63, five-tenths percent above a year earlier. Industrial wholesale prices fell the same as the total Index, to a level lower than at the end of '63, or the cyclical trough in February 1961 but seven-tenths percent above '63 when this Index began to creep up.,Farm prices rose eight-tenths of a percent, reversing February's sharp decline, and staying within last year's range. Housing starts--this is nonfarm starts--rose almost 1 percent in March, giving us a new record of 1,600,000 units for the first quarter. The last similar quarter was 1,200,000, pointing toward further gains in home-building activity.,New car sales the first 10 days of April increased over March about as is normal this time of the year. It averaged 3.7 percent above the year earlier. GM executive Mr. Russell forecasts 1964 model-year sales of 8 million cars, which would mean a pickup, if anything, from the pace thus far.,Q. Mr. President, what was the rate for the first quarter on housing?,THE PRESIDENT. It was 3 record for the first quarter, a new record, and 1 percent increase in March.,I have another interesting figure, because of the efforts we are making to keep our employment down and to get a dollar's worth of value for a dollar spent, riding herd very closely on each budget. I want to call to your attention that the money that is being spent between now and June 30th is money that was appropriated last year and was in last year's budget, not in the new budget of 197.9. Some of our opposition has pointed out that we are spending more per day now than we spent per day at this time last year.,In view of the fact that Mr. Kennedy's budget last year was $5 billion more than the budget of the year before, it is natural that it would be more. We have reduced that some, however, and we can't confirm the figure they point to. The Budget can't find it and we don't know where they got it. But we have studied the last 6 months and the first 3 months of this year, January, February, and March. We spent a million dollars a day less than the last 3 months of last year.,The latest governmental figures are in. In February of this year, regular employment in the federal Government dropped 900 from February 1963. It is significant that it dropped at all, because it has generally been increasing. The total employment, which includes accelerated public works, is down 13,000 this February over February of a year ago. In other words, we have no accelerated public works now, and we had about 12,000 on accelerated public works, so we have 13,000 less employees in the federal Government at the end of February than we did a year ago. That figure, I know, will interest Senator Byrd and others.,Regular employment this year is 2,458, 000; regular employment last year was 2,459,000. Accelerated public works this year is none; accelerated public works last year was 12,156. The average expenditure per business day for the last 3 months--December through February--is more than $1 million lower than the average for the last 3 months--September through November--under President Kennedy.,We had a story yesterday that said that Mr. Johnson asked Congress for fiscal '65 appropriations larger than any total demanded or received by President Kennedy or any other President in any previous year. The facts are that President Kennedy's '64 budget requested appropriations of $107 billion 900 million. In the months following the submission of his '64 budget, he reduced it by $620 million, making it $107 billion 300 million.,We requested appropriations of $103.8 billion compared to $106.3 billion. In the months since we submitted the budget, we have reduced this request by a net of $39 million, and will make further reductions if and when it becomes possible.,Income tax withholding collections in the first quarter have increased 1900 million above the same quarter of a year ago, reflecting a broadly rising trend in salaries and wages. I don't know how that has affected all of you.,Collections in the first quarter of this year amounted to $10 billion 800 million, compared to 19 billion 900 million in the same quarter of a year ago, an increase of 9 percent in what we took in. The increase a year ago in the first quarter was up $600 million from the year before, and it is up 9 percent. The first quarter increase this year, then, is almost 50 percent above the increase for the same quarter of last year.,Because of the usual lag in the transfer of withheld taxes to the Treasury, the reduction of the withholding rate in March is not reflected in the first quarter collection figures. As I pointed out, we reduced it from 18 to 14, but it was 18 during January, February, and most of March.,Excise tax collections in the first quarter reflect rising economic activity. They are up $103 million, or 3.2 percent, over the first quarter of a year ago, despite a sharp drop in cigarette taxes.,Elsewhere, another plus sign is in the federal Reserve Board's industrial production index. It climbed to 128.2 last month, up 5½ percent over March 1963.,[4.] I am happy to announce the appointment of Eugene Patterson as a new and last member of the United States Civil Rights Commission. That fills the last vacancy. He replaces M. Robert Storey, former president of the American Bar Association and dean of the Southern Methodist University Law School in Dallas.,He will, I am confident, be a constructive and useful addition to the membership of the Commission. It is charged with heavy responsibilities, and I am proud and pleased Mr. Patterson has agreed to serve as a member of this important body. He is editor of the Atlanta Constitution, was born in Valdosta, Ga., on October 15, 1923. He is a\n1943 graduate of the University of Georgia, with an A.B. in journalism.,He has had an extensive newspaper career, serving as a reporter in Texas, Georgia, New York City, and London, England. He has been editor of the Atlanta Constitution since 1960, and was executive editor from 1956 to 1960. Mr. Patterson's military service in the Army extended from 1943 to 1947. Entering as a private, he was discharged as a captain, receiving the Silver Star and the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster. Mr. Patterson is married to the former Mary S. Carter, and has one daughter. The family resides in Atlanta.,[5.] I intend this afternoon to see Dr. James Killian, Jr., to receive a report on the utilization of scientific and engineering talent in the United States. This is a most important study and will give us a lot to think about and a good deal to act upon. The study was initiated by President Kennedy, with the Science Advisory Committee and the National Academy of Sciences, to examine the Nation's specialized manpower resources.,The National Academy persuaded Dr. Killian to organize a committee of distinguished citizens to study these problems. After a year of hard work, they have completed the report.4 It will be transmitted to me this afternoon, and Mr. Reedy will make it available to you as soon as he can do it.,4 The report of the Committee on Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Manpower is entitled \"Toward Better Utilization of Scientific and Engineering Talent, a Program for Action\" (National Academy of Sciences, 1964, 153 pp.).,[6.] I am appointing Mr. Harold Russell as Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped to succeed my old friend Mel Maas. There will be a biographical sketch on him. In February 1942 he entered the Army and volunteered for service with the paratroops. He qualified as a paratrooper instructor, attaining the rank of sergeant, and specialized in demolition and explosives. He made more than 50 jumps, until an explosion cost him his hands. He has received many awards, including the honor of being chosen by the Junior Chamber of Commerce as one of the \"Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Year\" in 1950.,[7.] We are very pleased with the progress that is being made on the appropriation bills and their schedule in the House of Representatives. We are very hopeful we can get the poverty bill reported at an early date, and we can make progress on the Medicare bill, as I said yesterday. Thus far, we have passed four appropriations bills.,Last year they cut HEW and Labor by 6 percent, this year by only 2.7, which indicates that we did have a tight budget. The cut would have been similar to last year. The D.C. appropriation bill last year was reduced by 4.7 percent; this year by seven-tenths. Interior and related agencies were reduced by 8.1 last year, and this year by 2.8. The Treasury-Post Office last year was 2.4, and this year by four-tenths of a percent.,We regret that there were some references made--which might be interpreted as critical--to our limited expenditures in Labor, and the Health, Education, and Welfare Department appropriations bills. I said to Mr. Cannon4a the other day I hope--I knew they wanted economy as much as we did--I hope they wouldn't be too critical of the tight budget we are trying to operate on, and to try to help us instead of criticizing us for not submitting enough.,4a \"Representative Clarence Cannon of Missouri, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House.,I think that is about all I have. I am ready to answer any questions that you may want to ask.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, to try to clarify something on the draft study, would you say this is looking toward the possibility of meeting all of our military manpower requirements on a voluntary basis in the next decade?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. I don't predict that. I said it looks forward to that. We will have to see the results of the study.,Q. Who will make the study, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. The policy will be submitted by the Secretary of Defense, and will be made by them with other agencies of the Government, like the draft agency and the Labor Department and other related agencies that have interest in it.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us a progress report on the rail situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. They are meeting late at night. They are still negotiating in the traditional free enterprise manner. We are very proud of the conduct of both sides. There have been some statements issued by some people that were not connected with the negotiations, away from here. But almost without exception, they have been encouraging and hopeful ones.,I think we have had a very productive few days. I have commended the brotherhoods, the carriers, and I now commend the press for helping us try to settle this in our free enterprise system without burying collective bargaining. I believe it will be settled that way. I am looking for a report early in the week.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, at your news conference the other day, when you were asked about your job, you said you enjoyed it and would like to continue. That is about the closest you have come to declaring you are a candidate. When can we expect a formal answer?,THE PRESIDENT. I would go back and check what I said. I think you are a little bit off on what I said. But you might want to review that, if it interests you a great deal.5 When I have any announcement along that line, I will work out some way of getting it to you. Until I do, I don't want to see any party in this country be an opposition party just for the sake of opposition.,5 See Item 266 [15],,I believe it very damaging to the American Nation to have opposition for opposition's sake, and to have blind opposition. It grieves me when I see measures that are calculated to benefit all Americans opposed along party lines. It distresses me to see measures that came up under President Eisenhower's administration that passed with almost solid Republican votes, and the same measures come up with other administrations and they oppose the same measures as opposition votes. I try to keep as far away from partisanship and campaigning as I can.,I try to keep my political speeches restrained. I have tried to be President of all the people. I want to do it just as long as I can and stay out of the political arena as long as I can, until I get a program along and do what I think is best for all America; not just best for Democrats, but best for all Americans.,I am keeping my engagements down to practically those that President Kennedy had already made firm commitments on. I am trying to acknowledge whatever contributions the other party makes to the success of our program, even in those speeches. I want a pay raise for all the Congressmen, because I think they deserve it; not just for the Democratic Congressmen. I am going to try to stay out of the campaign field as long as possible. How long I will be able to do that, I don't know. But when I do decide, if you will give me your number, I will let you know.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, this morning Governor Romney assailed the Supreme Court decision on the separation of state and church, and said this is a sort of weakening of our moral and religious fiber in this country. Would you comment on the Supreme Court ruling?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen Romney's comments, and I would not want to evaluate them without seeing them.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, this morning from Saigon, sir, there are reports that perhaps another coup is imminent, and perhaps Secretary Rusk's life may have been threatened. Have you received any reports from the Secretary which you might pass on to us?\nTHE PRESIDENT, No. We have no such reports, no indication of such reports. A good many things come from Saigon through various routes, and I don't want to comment on the reliability or responsibility of them, if we find them unjustified. Secretary Rusk is one of our most cautious officers. He has admonished other Cabinet members from time to time to be extremely careful in their traveling. I have no doubt that he will follow my instructions and take care of himself, exercising every possible precaution. I would not think any good purpose would be served by trying to advertise the fact that he is in imminent danger, and I don't believe he is.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, sir, Senator Goldwater said he was leading the pack for the Republican nomination. Do you think he will be the Republican nominee?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't keep informed on the details of the Republican aspirants' gains or losses. A good many people talk to me about it and want to ask me a question during visits, to ask me something about it. One of the men I talked to yesterday, who is very knowledgeable in public affairs, told me that he thought if Senator Goldwater ' carried California and Illinois, as he has, if he carries Texas, as he expects to, without any question, and the other Southeastern States, probably having Arizona and some of the States like Montana and Wyoming, that potential was some 632 votes, without one or two other States that they considered could go his way.,It looked like a pretty solid figure, over 500, the way it was going now. I haven't checked it and I don't know anything about it. But when you take the Southeastern votes that have indicated they are for him and add to them Illinois, Texas, and California, what he might pick up in some of the other States, I think he will be up there pretty high.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, you reviewed your position yesterday with Russian Ambassador Dobrynin. Did you see any indication that there has been any progress?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to add anything to the statement that we made yesterday.6 It was a work meeting. We discussed thoroughly and comprehensively a good many of the problems that face our two nations. I think communication between us is important. I hope it will be helpful. I always want to maintain accessibility with everyone, including the press.,6 The statement announced that the President had asked Ambassador Dobrynin to come in for a general discussion of Soviet-American relations.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, sir, to what do you attribute this improved economic outlook?,THE PRESIDENT. first, we have less men out of work than we have had at any period. We have more capital being invested. They predict that as a result of the tax bill, investment will exceed, this year, 10 percent over last year, and will produce jobs. One company alone will produce 18,000 new opportunities. Some of that is already coming in.,I think the general business optimism in the country which has brought the Dow-Jones Averages from something over 700 to an all-time high of 820-odd, is encouraging people to go out and build plants that will make jobs; I think the responsibility of labor and management being able to work out their difficulties with so few strikes, and the stability of prices; I think the desire of the Government to live frugally and with a reduced budget; I think the passage of the tax bill.,Probably the freedom of the press helped some, because you reported all these things, and the fellows that have to create the jobs and provide the jobs have been optimistic and encouraged about it.,I have often said that this free enterprise system is made up of three parts: the man who has to invest the money, buy the machinery; the man that manages the men that work; and the men that work. All three of them have been pulling pretty good together.,We have talked to both groups and urged them to urge business to reduce prices wherever they could and, in some instances, it has foregone price increases. They have made reductions. We hope that the price line will hold and there can be some reductions in some fields. We are urging business to reduce prices wherever they can. We are urging labor to look at what they are doing now, and bear in mind that if we should have inflation, nobody would be hurt more than the workingman who had a frozen salary and had to pay increased prices for everything he consumes.,We had the Council of Economic Advisers maintain contact with both of them, and I have stayed in very close personal contact. As a matter of fact, I don't know whether it has been made public or not, but if it hasn't, you can check with George7 and get the date.,7 George Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,I am having a good many people from the Committee on Economic Development, the Committee on Business Advisers, and the Council of Advisers, who I have had in before, and then some outstanding businessmen who have been helpful, to a dinner at the White House a little later this month, at which time we will give them a full briefing on foreign affairs,8 as we have done for every Member of Congress, in the House and the Senate--some 535 of them.,8 See Item 299.,We will later have a meeting of the labor leaders, as we have done in the past, and we will review with them the signs that we see ahead, and the desirability of lowering prices and maintaining stability, avoiding inflation, trying to balance our budget, reduce our deficit.,Q. Mr. President, could you be a little more specific about lowering prices in terms of which industries? For example, is one of them automobiles?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We are making it a general proposition as a result of the tax bill. We hope that wherever profits will permit, every businessman will realize he has an obligation to help us control inflation, and it is to his interest to do so, that he will give us the best mousetrap at the lowest price. We don't have controls and the Government cannot force them to do these things. But we are trying to provide leadership and persuasion.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to this manpower study, could you say that we look forward in the decade of the seventies to a reduced military force?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to anticipate the results of that study before it was begun, but we are going to look into the future. Of course, it is the hope of everyone that tensions in the world can ease, that we can bring about disarmament, that we can take part of the resources that are now going into military production and protection, taking these resources and spend them on a better society and a greater society, as I talked of yesterday.,I didn't have all the time I wanted, but I would urge you, if you haven't got the 18 minutes it takes to read all that speech,8a to read the first two or three pages and the last two or three pages, and you will see what I am thinking about on our obligations.,8a Item 270.,I hope during my administration, however long it may be, that I can leave some imprint on having done more for humanity and preserving it, making a better society for all, not only just here, but in the entire world.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the damaging effect that the rail strike would have on the economy, if collective bargaining fails to work--,THE PRESIDENT. That is an \"iffy\" question, and you know I don't want to admit it is about to fail to work or predict it wouldn't work. I assume it will work. When it does not work, you come back in here and I will have a good visit with you on what we are going to do. But until then, I don't know myself.,I am not trying to be secretive. But if you were in my place and I were in your place, and I asked you the same question, you would try to answer it the same way I have.,I honestly don't know. I believe and I have faith in this operation. I was told that I could follow one of two courses. I could call these people over here and appeal to them to continue to negotiate what has been going on for 4 years, or I could do nothing and let the strike go on.,I looked at what it would cost us--7 million jobs, a 15 percent drop in the gross national product, higher prices all across the board, health hazards--and I decided that I would do what I did do.,Some of them said, or indicated, that the President didn't do it the right way, or he should not have done it, or something. But I was very pleased and proud of the patriotism of both groups having asserted itself, and that they have worked diligently, as has Dr. Taylor and Mr. Kheel, both of them having made sacrifices. One of them left a wife that had just been operated on that day. He has been sitting here around the clock, almost.,I believe that if it works out, the Presidency will be--maybe somebody will reevaluate it and have a little different approach to it. If it doesn't, most of them would be very sad because, as I said, they never made these statements, never heard of them. If it doesn't work out, all of us will feel that we tried and did our best and failed. I have done that in the past.,Q. Mr. President, I wondered, sir--,THE PRESIDENT. Did you want to finish that? Go ahead.,Q. No, I just wondered why you called for a report on Monday.,THE PRESIDENT. Like I called for a report earlier this week. I like to keep up with the progress. I drop in on them occasionally. I like to see what is going on and make any contributions I can within the freedom of collective bargaining. We may get one on Tuesday. I hope I will get one on Monday. I hope it is final. There is nothing magic to that dateline.9,9 See Item 284.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, without looking ahead to your Monday's speech,10 could you zero in one part of this story today that you referred to? They talked about 45 percent cutback.,THE PRESIDENT. I did zero in on that in opening my statement, and I think that is all I want to refer to. I just say it is totally inaccurate. If you can just keep your blood pressure in good shape until Monday, I will give you a very full, accurate, and detailed thing of what we have in mind. It does involve a good many things. Decisions are still being made. Every now and then you have people that jump the gun, as we say down there.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President.,10 See Item 272."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-04-16","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen, I have come before you today for a regular, scheduled, televised, notified well in advance press conference. I did not drive myself over here. But I did have to cancel an informal meeting with some tourists at the gate.,I am happy to see here today so many visiting members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, so many of my old friends. You are welcome to your city.,[2.] I have some information on the state of our national economy. In the first quarter of 1964 our gross national product rose to a rate of $608 ½ billion. This is up $8½ billion from the fourth quarter of 1963. The first quarter gross national product is nearly $37 billion above the year earlier figure. It is the largest year-to-year gain, I am told by the Chairman of the Economic Council this afternoon, in more than 2 years.,Personal income in March ran at a rate of $480½ billion, an increase of $1¼ billion over February and $25.7 billion over the rate of March 1963. for the first time in 2 years we are making real progress in cutting down unemployment. We had a net gain of 1 1/2 million jobs from a year ago. The jobless rate dropped from 5.8 percent to 5.4 percent, and some other facts I think are worthy of note.,Labor has gained over 4 million jobs, nonfarm jobs, in a 3-year period, and over $56 billion of added annual income. Business has gained a 50 percent advance in profits after taxes. Moreover, these wage and profit gains have not been eaten away by inflation. Prices in the United States have been more stable than in any other industrial country in the world.,With strong markets, with steady costs, with lower taxes, American business does not need higher price levels to assure continued growth and profits. I look, therefore, to responsible business and to responsible labor to help us maintain our very fine record of cost and price stability, and help us go all the way to full employment and a balanced budget, and a strong enough competitive position to wipe out the balance of payments deficits.,[3.] I believe the accurate picture of what is happening in the railroad strike negotiations has been presented fully and completely, but this may interest you. I do want to stress my deep and earnest hope that these negotiations will strengthen the collective bargaining processes in our country. To me it is vitally important that we preserve our free enterprise system. free enterprise assumes a capacity of both labor and management to handle their own affairs and to settle differences by negotiations.,I do not think that we serve the cause of free enterprise by precipitating situations which could lead to a breakdown of this process. The public interest must and will be served. I think it is in the public interest to proceed by negotiation wherever possible. Intensive negotiation--day and night negotiation--is now going on, assisted by the mediators who are experienced men that I have appointed and who have come here at great sacrifice. It is a genuine collective bargaining in the true sense of the word, and I have great faith in the capacity of true collective bargaining.,There have been fewer strikes since January 1961 than in any other 3-year period since the early thirties. There have been fewer workers involved in strikes in the period since January 1961 than during any comparable 3-year period since the early thirties. There have been fewer man-days lost because of strikes since 1961 than in any comparable 3-year period since World War II. There were more strikes and more people involved in them during the World War II period, but they were settled, as you know, much more quickly, which meant fewer man-days were lost.,[4.] I am today establishing a program of Presidential Scholars.1 The title will be given to outstanding scholars graduating from our secondary schools, public and private, throughout the Nation. These awards are to recognize the most precious resource of the United States--the brain power of its young people--to encourage the pursuit of intellectual attainments among all our youth.,1 Executive Order 11155 \"Providing for the Recognition of Certain Students as Presidential Scholars\" (29 F.R. 6909; 3 CFR, 1964 Supp.).,It is my hope that in the future a similar system can be worked out to honor our most gifted young people in the creative arts.,Two Presidential Scholars, a boy and a girl, will be named from each State. Two will be named from Puerto Rico, two from the District of Columbia, two from the American Territories, and up to 15 at large.,The Presidential Scholars will be chosen by a Commission on Presidential Scholars, which consists of Dr. Milton Eisenhower, president of Johns Hopkins University, the chairman of the Commission; Leonard Bernstein; Katherine Anne Porter; Dr. Albert W. Dent, president of Dillard University of New Orleans; the Reverend Michael P. Walsh, president of Boston College; Dr. William Hagerty, president of Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia; and Mr. Melvin W. Barnes, the superintendent of schools of Portland, Oreg.,The Commission will operate with complete independence. The Presidential Scholars will be named in May of this year. The President will invite them to the White House as guests of this Nation, and present each with a medallion symbolizing the honor.2,2 See Item 397.,[5.] On March 30th, the Senate passed a bill which would authorize and investigate and study the possible construction of a sea level canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This bill has been referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and fisheries. This administration supports this bill and hopes that the House committee will give early and favorable consideration to it.,There are several alternative routes for such a canal, which will have to be studied carefully before a decision can be made. As part of the necessary studies, the United States and the Government of Colombia have already reached an agreement to conduct studies relative to a survey for a sea level canal. We are just able to announce this agreement today. We hope to make similar arrangements with other countries later.,I have instructed the Secretary of Defense to immediately dispatch a survey team to Colombia to explore the possibility of constructing a sea-level canal in that country. The Secretary of Defense has informed me that a 10-man team will leave for Colombia tomorrow morning to begin work immediately. The United States team will work in close collaboration with the team of the Colombian Government.3,3 See also Items 594 and 809.,[6.] I am very pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Roger Stevens of New York as my assistant to advise me on the arts. To assist Mr. Stevens and to provide a forum for the representation of all the arts of the United States, I shall shortly issue an Executive order establishing a Presidential Board on the Arts.,[7.] I have invited Prime Minister Krag of Denmark, and Mrs. Krag, to visit Washington on June 9th. Mrs. Johnson and I visited them last year. The Prime Minister has accepted the invitation, and he and Mrs. Krag will be coming to Washington following their participation in Denmark Day at the New York World's fair.,[8.] I am looking forward to seeing two of my old friends from Germany this summer. The Governing Mayor of Berlin, Willy Brandt, will be here on May 18th. The federal Chancellor, Ludwig Erhard, who was here earlier in the year, will come back on June 12th.,I will be glad to have any questions.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about civil disobedience as a tactic in the civil rights struggle?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we have a civil rights bill pending in the Senate that has passed the House. It is very important that bill be passed at the earliest possible date. I think passage of that bill will be helpful in this general situation.,We do not, of course, condone violence or taking the law into your own hands, or threatening the health or safety of our people. You really do the civil rights cause no good when you go to this extent, but we are hopeful that all Americans understand that we are going to pass the civil rights bill because it is morally right, and because we feel that these people have too long been denied their rights.,On the other hand, we do not think the violation of one right or the denial of one right should permit the violation of another right.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some conflicting high-level statements over the last week about our strength, militarily, as compared with Russia's, particularly in the fields of missiles and air power. Would you give your own appraisal of that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I am pleased with our strength. I think we have made great gains during the last 3 years. When you realize that each year during the last 3 years we have spent approximately $6 billion more on our military budget than was spent the last year of the Eisenhower administration, when you realize that we are spending $8 billion more this year than was spent the last year of the Eisenhower administration on our military budget, you realize that approximately $25 billion more has been spent than would have been spent if we had gone on at the rate of the last year of the Republican administration.,For that expenditure of $25 billion we have achieved extra combat divisions, extra nuclear warheads, extra missile strength. I am pleased with those accomplishments.,Under the law the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara, is charged with the leadership and the direction of the Defense Department. While he operates a tight budget, I think he operates an adequate one. I think his work has been constructive. I have confidence in him. The Congress has confidence in him. I believe the American people have confidence in him. You can depend on what he tells you.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, what do you see in the future, and particularly in the near future, in the field of Soviet-American trade, and in particular, do you see another major development in the wake of the wheat sale?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not anticipate another major development at this time. I am encouraged by the fact that there are approaches being made to purchase some things from our country, and the foreign Relations Committee of the Senate is now having hearings and giving study to the possibilities of increasing East-West trade. But so far as anticipating just the extent of that trade and in what lines it will be, I am not able to say.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the railroad situation, you have emphasized the value of free collective bargaining, and at the same time you have in this case brought the very considerable weight of the Presidency to bear in influencing the action by postponing a strike. Do you have some general guideline as to where the public interest in preventing strikes comes up against the public interest in the freedom to bargain?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that this is a matter that the mediators and the negotiators representing each side will attempt to evolve and find an agreeable ground and a common solution. I am not an overly optimistic man, but I do believe that under our collective bargaining system, a result can be reached. I hope and pray that it will be by the end of the week.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, a group of newspaper editors, many of whom are in this room now, were polled as to your chances for winning in 1964. They all agreed that you would win. It was a matter of how much you would win by. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I hope that they feel in November as they do in April.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, seven of the eight members of the SEATO military organization have taken a strong stand on support for South Viet-Nam. The eighth member, France, had reservations on this. Do you believe that this impairs the effectiveness of that organization or our policy in South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course, we would have preferred the decision to be unanimous and we would have liked for our friend and ally, France, to have seen the situation as did the other seven members of SEATO. We are very pleased, however, that seven of us saw things alike. We have a definite policy in Viet-Nam. You know what that policy is. We think it is the best policy that could be derived from the alternatives open to us and we are very pleased and happy that Secretary Rusk found that at least seven signatories of SEATO were willing to go along with us.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, after nearly 5 months in office, I wonder if you could assess for us whether you find the task more or less difficult than you had anticipated?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't do a great deal of anticipating prior to November on just how difficult the task would be, but I enjoy it. There is a lot of work connected with it. Nearly everyone is anxious to help you do that job. Most people are hoping and praying that you do a good job. And a very few people I have called on that have not been willing to put their shoulder to the wheel and help me. It is probably more difficult than I expected it would be, but I am enjoying it and I am prepared to continue.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable talk in the press and in Congress relative to the LBJ Company, KTBC, owned by Mrs. Johnson, and relative to a secret option agreement. The FCC has asked that that option agreement be made available. I wonder what your view is on that, if you feel it is proper that it not be disclosed.,I also would like to know how you feel about the general ethical question that has been raised relative to high governmental officials, whether in the executive branch or the legislative, who have interests in Government-regulated industries, such as television.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first, I don't have any interest in Government-regulated industries of any kind, and never have had. I own no stocks. I own a little ranch land, something in excess of 2,000 acres. The Commission has made no request of me or of my family for anything. We are perfectly willing to comply, I am sure the trustees would be, with any request that they did make. There is not anything that we have to secrete in any manner, shape, or form.,Mrs. Johnson inherited some property, invested that property in the profession of her choice, and worked at it with pleasure and satisfaction until I forced her to leave it when I assumed the Presidency. As you know, and I want all to know, all of that stock has been placed in trust, as has been the practice with other Presidents, and although I own none of it, Mrs. Johnson has placed it in trust, an irrevocable trust that can--the property can be disposed of, it can be leased, it can be sold, at any time.,Any of those decisions would still require the action of the Commission. Even if you tried to sell it, you would have to have their approval. But I see no conflict in any way. She participates in no decisions the company makes. It is entirely with the trustees. In any event, if she did participate, the President wouldn't have anything to do with it.,[17.] Q. As you know, we now have a record number of military and diplomatic dependents abroad, well over seven hundred thousand. In your concern for the American image and your admirable desire to improve the status of women, don't you think it would be worth the expense to provide language courses for these wives before they go overseas?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is always desirable for anyone to acquire as much knowledge of languages as possible. I haven't given any study to the particular suggestion you make. It seems to be a good one, and I will have it explored.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, in recent months the Air force and certain Members of Congress have said that it is desirable for the United States to develop a new, manned, strategic bomber. Secretary of Defense McNamara maintains that it is not. I wonder if you could give us your opinion, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. At the moment, I would not make a judgment because that decision will likely come to me in the near future. When the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented their military recommendations to me at the early part of the year, they were together on all of the recommendations with the exception that General LeMay asked for the privilege of taking funds already calculated in his budget and using them to study plans for a new bomber.,I told him I would give consideration to his proposal. I understand that proposal has been formulated and is now going through channels, and will shortly come to the President. When it gets to me, I will study it as best I can and make the decision that I think is in the national interest.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to politics, the late President Kennedy, in looking ahead to the '64 election, used to say that he expected a hard, close fight. Would you say, sir, how it looks to you this far ahead of the event?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that is a very accurate appraisal of it, and I would think it will be a hard fight, a difficult one. I would hope that it wouldn't be too close, but it may be. I don't think that you can ever tell this far in advance how people are going to decide the choice, but I have no doubt but what it will be a hard and long fight.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a new factor injected into the civil rights situation. Mr. President, there has been allusion here today to difficulty of extremist action on the part of civil rights leaders. But there seems also to be a possibility of extreme action on the part of some white people who are mightily opposed both North and South, not only to the bill, but to further progress for Negroes.,Would you assess this new factor and do you have any counsel to the people on that end of the battle?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I would counsel moderation to all groups, and understanding of their fellowman and trying to appreciate his position. I think if people would put themselves in the other fellow's position, they will all be a little more tolerant of the other man's viewpoint. There are people who feel very strongly on both sides of this issue. I found that in the 1957 bill. I found it in the bill in 1960. It took us many days and nights to try to find an area of agreement that the Members of Congress and the President would accept.,I expect that there will be many days ahead when strong forces on both sides will be appealing to people to side with them. I only hope that we recognize that it has been a hundred years since Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves of their chains, but he has not freed all of the people of the bigotry that exists. It has been a hundred years since President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but a great many people do not have equal rights as of now.,While emancipation may be a proclamation, it is not a fact until education is blind to color, until employment is unaware of race. As long as those conditions exist in the country, we are going to have protests and we are entitled to protest and petition under our constitutional rights. I hope, though, that the Congress will act promptly with reasonable dispatch to bring those protests and bring those petitions and bring these disturbances from the streets and the alleys into the courts where they belong. In order to do that, we need a good civil rights bill, and the bill now pending in the Senate is a good bill. I hope it can be passed in a reasonable time.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, could you list for us the pending legislative measures which you consider it essential that the Congress enact before it adjourns finally this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that would take more time than I have, but there are some that we are vitally interested in. I have just named one, the civil rights bill, that is pending in the Senate. We had difficulty in the House Judiciary Committee. It spent a long time there. Then the House Rules Committee. We filed a petition, and a good many Members signed that, to discharge the bill and finally the Rules Committee passed it.,It is now in the Senate, and it has been debated a good while there. So that is a very important piece of legislation for the national welfare, because we are going to have many problems, even after it is passed, adjusting to it. We ought to get it passed as early as we can so that before school begins next year we will have this law on the books and we can move ahead.,I think it is as important that we pass the food stamp plan in the Senate as the civil rights bill. We passed it in the House by a good vote the other day. It is very important, not only to the consumers of this country, but to the producers of this country and to the business people of this country. It is a good piece of legislation. It is soundly conceived. I hope that we can get action in the Agriculture Committee of the Senate in a short time. Perhaps as soon as the civil rights bill is out of the way we can pass the food stamp bill.,The pay bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to continued good Government in this country. I have on my desk today a number of resignations from some of the very best men in Government who tell me that they just cannot stay any longer. They have been here 3 years, and they cannot stay any longer at their present salaries. One man said he had had to borrow $16,000, another one said he had had to borrow 19,000, another one $6,000. And they just did not feel they could go on doing that if the pay bill was not going to be passed. I think that we are going to lose some of the best men in the Government.,Like sergeants that run the Army, some of the Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries and the men who do not get the notoriety but do the hard work from day to day--are entitled to a raise. I hope the Congress will consider the bill in both committees--although they have taken one vote on it in the House--that they can make some adjustments to meet the objections of the Members and pass the pay bill.,I think the Medicare bill is an extremely important bill that will provide medical care for our old people, aged people, under social security. I believe that we are close to having enough votes to report that bill from the committee. If we can make adjustments and modifications to get that bill reported and passed and have medicare under social security, it would be a great day for the people of our country.,Nearly every home has some father or mother, or uncle or aunt, or some member of their family that finds need for medical care insurance. Too many of them don't have it, and never will have it under the present system we have.,I think the poverty bill is very important. All the Cabinet Members have testified on it--Secretary McNamara, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Agriculture. We are all united. We think that it is a comprehensive bill and has very sound principles. It will do a lot to help us with our juvenile delinquency problem. It will take our boys off the streets and out of the alleys and out of the pool rooms. It will make it possible for us to train and educate people for national service that are now being turned back by the draft.,We think that bill is soundly conceived and very important. So I would list just those four or five--the pay bill, the poverty bill, the Medicare bill, the civil rights bill, the food stamp bill--as five I should hope would be passed before the convention.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I wonder what you think about some of our columnists and fellow correspondents who have been writing declassified material given to them obviously by some officers in the National Security Council and in the Pentagon. I refer to the material about MacArthur and his command in Korea. I am sure that it was necessary to classify this material, but I wonder why it is declassified at this time for just certain ones.,THE PRESIDENT. I raised that question with the Pentagon today at lunch, and they tell me they are unaware of any of the material relating to General MacArthur that had not already been published in books prior to the recent revelation.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, sir, in the light of your unequivocal stand on civil rights, are you concerned about the election in November of independent electors in the Southern States that would be committed to vote neither for you nor for your Republican opponent?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would always be concerned about any elector that was not committed to vote for me, if I were a candidate. And I would do my best to convince him of the error of his ways. I don't anticipate, however, that there will be any substantial number that will feel that the future of this country should be placed in the hands of independent electors, but I think most of them will be associated with one of the two regular parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, since the Maryland Presidential primary is not exactly a contest between Maryland Democrats, don't you think you might say something or do something to try to affect that result?,THE PRESIDENT. I gave serious consideration to what my policies should be in connection with primaries many years ago. Generally speaking, there could be an exception, but generally speaking, I think it is unwise for me to interfere in primaries or attempt to influence people in primaries.,In connection with the presidential primaries this year, which is much more specific than my previous statement, which applies to all primaries, I gave thought to what my course of conduct should be, and concluded that I would not enter any primaries. I would do the very best job I could as President for all the people up until convention time, and then let the delegates at the convention make their choice freely. Then my conduct would be determined after they made their choice.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-04-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Ladies and gentlemen: The events of the past week in regard to the railroad situation should give us all occasion to pause for some serious reflection. We should be grateful that things turned out in such a way that we have time for that reflection.,It is fundamental to our whole idea of civilized society that we settle disputes by a meeting of the minds, by a free interchange of conflicting ideas, by responsible acceptance of the best possible solution. This is what happens at the collective bargaining table. In any dispute there are always at least two sides, and it has been my experience that each side usually has a deep-seated belief that its viewpoint is correct.,In some countries the solution is determined by the strongest. free men, however, must take a very different role. They must realize that they can remain free only when they are ready to give and take, when they are willing to reason together, when they are ready to look for that common ground upon which all groups can stand honorably.,There is in any large-scale dispute a question of the public interest. This interest must always be overriding. But we must never delude ourselves that we are serving the public interest if at any time we suppress the legitimate rights of the conflicting parties. The ultimate objective of our system of government is a society of free men who know how to live together and how to get consent rather than to get coercion.,I am very proud of the fact that both the railroad brotherhoods and railroad management agreed to a request, based upon the national interest, that they give free collective bargaining another try. I can understand how difficult this decision was for both of them. Their differences have been aired and have been argued for 4 dreary years. Both sides were tired of the seemingly endless negotiations and, under such circumstances, there is almost irresistible temptation for a trial of strength. But when they were asked to serve their country by resisting this temptation, they both agreed to do so.,What is now going on is collective bargaining in the truest sense of the word. The men who are assisting the two parties to the dispute are present as mediators and conciliators and can bring some new points of view.,We owe a deep debt to Dr. George Taylor and to Mr. Kheel for coming here and working with us under very trying circumstances and on very sudden notice. We are not trying to impose a solution. We are just trying to be helpful in arriving at a solution by consent. This is, to me, a matter of the most vital importance to our country.,I will follow the negotiations very closely. I have met with the negotiating parties again this morning, and I am going to do everything that I know to do to be helpful and constructive. Success in this case can be an enormous step in strengthening the foundations of collective bargaining. I know that this is in the hearts and minds of those around the table. I do not know what our result will be, but I do know that this thought will be a basic element in reaching a successful conclusion.,[2.] Gen. Earle Wheeler, Chief of Staff of the Army, will join Secretary Rusk in South Viet-Nam on Friday, April 17. General Wheeler will serve as the Department of Defense's representative in a series of conferences which Secretary Rusk will conduct with Ambassador Lodge, General Khanh, and others. To continue to observe the situation, Secretary Rusk and General Wheeler will remain in South Viet-Nam 2 or 3 days.,[3.] The world record for aircraft speed, currently held by the Soviets, has been repeatedly broken in secrecy by the United States aircraft A-11. The President has instructed the Department of Defense to demonstrate this capability with the procedure which, according to international rules, will permit the result of the test to be entered as a new world record. The Soviet record is 1,665 miles an hour. The A-11 had already flown in excess of 2,000 miles an hour.,[4.] I have invited President de Valera of Ireland to visit the United States.,Are there any questions?,Q. Mr. President, when did you invite President de Valera?,THE PRESIDENT. Several days ago.,Q. When will he come, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. That depends on him. He will notify us if he accepts.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, on the trip to South Viet-Nam that you spoke of, is there going to be any discussion there of the possibility of Ambassador Lodge's stepping out of that position in view of the growing political attraction?,THE PRESIDENT. Not any that I know of at all. His services there have been very satisfactory, and he has done a very constructive job.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, will you be prepared to ask for legislation if these talks on rails fail?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not here to bury collective bargaining. I am here to preserve\nit. I am prepared to carry on negotiations with the thought that we are going to reach a settlement, and I hope and pray we will.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you can give us your opinion of what happened out in Wisconsin with that substantial vote for Governor Wallace and what the political implications might be.,THE PRESIDENT. Governor Wallace got 25 percent of the votes and 75 percent voted against him.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate pushing for dairy legislation this year?,THE PRESIDENT. We are giving consideration to what we will do in that field, but we have reached no final conclusion.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, sir, at what point in Mr. Lodge's career will it become necessary for you to re-evaluate his role as your ambassador?,THE PRESIDENT. I evaluate it every day, and it is a very constructive role, as I have just said.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Khrushchev had some complimentary things to say about you and Mr. Rusk during his tour of Hungary. I wonder how you feel in response, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I am glad to see that Mr. Khrushchev is playing the role of peace and seeking to preserve peace in the world. That certainly is the desire of this country. When he talks in peaceful terms, he will always have our ear.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you think the debate on civil rights in the Senate should move faster?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter for the Senate to determine. I think it will go on for some time yet, but I believe at the proper time, after all Members have had a chance to present their viewpoints both pro and con who desire to do so, I think the majority of the Senate will work its will, and I believe we will pass the bill.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the Republicans have a new slogan, referring to you as \"Light Bulb Johnson.\" Do you regard that as a knock or a boost?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that they are plagiarizing the Washington Post.,Q. I will have to ask you to expand a little on that, Mr. President. I don't know quite what you mean.,THE PRESIDENT. I thought it first appeared there.,Q. Oh, no.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that they originated it.,Q. I used it, but I quoted them as saying it first.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are not very original.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of saving money, Secretary of the Air force Zuckert admitted the other day to Senator Williams that he used a Government plane to fly to Las Vegas for a party last April for Senator Cannon. Now, in view of your attempts to economize in Government, do you condone this kind of thing? He said it was an inspection trip. Was this the kind of a wasteful practice you are trying to eliminate?,THE PRESIDENT. I would suggest that you talk to the Secretary and get the details. I am totally unfamiliar with them.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, have you decided when you are going on your antipoverty trip? And where you might be going?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going, but we don't know when, or where.,Q. You think it might be next week?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't care to speculate.,Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a point raised by some Republicans in the House that the poverty program will benefit Negroes more than any group of whites. Do you have any comment on this approach by the Republicans?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it will benefit all Americans, and I don't think that we should speak in terms of benefit of any particular group. I believe that we have a comprehensive and workable proposal. I think that it is commanding the attention of the constructive and able legislators, and I have no doubt but what the committee in due time will act affirmatively.,I would hope that we would find very few people who would want to stand up and be counted as being against doing something on poverty. There will be some adjustments made, and some amendments proposed, and those will be reasoned out. But we have a unity of thought in the Cabinet. The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Shriver, and a good many private groups in this country have given a great deal of thought to this legislation. The 20 percent in the poverty group are not limited to any race or any religion or any section.,I would think we should approach this on what is good for America, instead of criticizing it because some group might get some benefits from it. Our goal is to wipe out poverty in this country. President Roosevelt spoke of the third that was ill clad and ill fed and ill housed. In a 30-year period, we have now got that down to the one-fifth that are ill fed and ill clad and ill housed. We hope, as a result of this beginning, that we can reduce that percentage materially. We hope to have the support of all good Americans of all parties.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there have been a number of stories printed recently concerning the television community antenna situation in Austin. Do you think there is any reason why the terms of the option agreement that is involved there should not be furnished to the FCC as requested?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said before that shortly after I entered office that I have no interest in any television any place. The interest that Mrs. Johnson held and my family held had been placed in trusteeship and any statements in connection with the operation of those interests would have to come from the trustees. I am unfamiliar with it, I am not keeping up with it, I am not concerned about it.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to go out to Arizona to dedicate the new Glen Canyon Dam sometime this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any plans to. I wouldn't want to foreclose it, but I have not accepted anything.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, is the fate of constitutional government in Brazil causing you any more concern this week since your message? 1,THE PRESIDENT. We are always concerned with any developments in this hemisphere, and we are always interested in them, and we understand that they are moving ahead. We hope that those moves will be good moves and that we can get our allies and others who are interested in the fate of the world to cooperate with us in building a strong, democratic society throughout this hemisphere.,1 To Ranieri Mazzilli, President of Brazil (Item 243).,[18.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of travel, it has been reported that you have made up your mind not to leave the United States mainland this year. Is that true, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. That is true, unless some unforeseen emergency should develop that I cannot now anticipate. That statement was made in the first few days I was in office, and I reiterate it now. I think we have a program before the Congress that requires my attention; we have problems in the foreign field that require constant evaluation; we have an election this year; I am new in the office. All of those things combined-we have no Vice President--indicate to me that unless there is some feeling that great advances could be made, or unless some unforeseen emergency develops, I would not plan on any trips out of the continental United States.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Wallace will be entering the primaries in both Indiana and Maryland in the weeks to come. If he should poll 25 or 30 percent of the votes there--,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to get into any \"iffy\" questions. If you can stand that, I would just wait and see what happens out there and then you will have the best evidence. I don't want to speculate on what might happen, because, very frankly, in my own races from time to time, I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that I am a very poor prophet. One time I thought I had won a race by 100,000 and I lost it by 100,000 in my own State.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us a progress report on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. They are moving out. They have fewer troops there than they had months ago. There are still some troops there, but the number has declined substantially.,Q. Could you give us a figure, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't want to get in any numbers game because I don't think, first of all, that anyone really knows--can speak with cool authority in that field. But our judgment is that they have moved troops out.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, pessimism has been expressed about the forthcoming Kennedy Round of GATT negotiations to get underway next month. I think there was quite a bit of that in Mr. Christian Herter's speech2 in Detroit on March 30th. What is your view as to your hopefulness of success of these negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. We hope for the best. I am optimistic. I never go into anything with a prediction of defeat in advance.,2 Printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 50, p. 671).,Q. Do you believe that they will be successful?,THE PRESIDENT. I have answered the question as best I could.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to appoint a campaign manager to handle your election to the Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. I plan to try to be President of all of the people up until the convention, and then we will let the convention determine where we go from there.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-04-04","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I want to maintain a policy of accessibility and this is a beautiful day and I have some time on my hands. I would be glad to talk to you about any of the problems that interest you, and if I have any information that would be helpful, I will give it to you.,If you have any questions, I would be glad to have them.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, within the past week there have been some very interesting developments in relation to Brazil and Panama. How do you assess the state of the United States relations with Latin America at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a lot of problems in this hemisphere. They are serious problems. They concern us greatly. We have brought the best people to cope with these problems that we know how to select. We are attempting to coordinate the efforts of the Government and the private sector in every respect to deal with these problems.,They are the problems that are the ancient enemies of mankind--disease and illiteracy. We are encouraged by the developments in Panama. We are pleased that we have not only been able to work out an arrangement that is satisfactory to both nations in every respect, but we are glad that the transition in Brazil has been constitutional. While the problems are immense there, we are prepared to join with our friends in the world in trying to help Brazil face up to them and meet them.,I would say that this has been a good week for this hemisphere.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some stories this week, sir, about your driving in Texas, saying that you had hit speeds of perhaps up to 90 miles an hour in a zone with a speed limit of 7° miles an hour. Some people have expressed concern that you are putting yourself in danger. Do you intend to perhaps drive more slowly, or are you concerned about your own safety?,THE PRESIDENT. I am unaware that I have ever driven past 70.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, to follow the first question, how do you feel about the situation in Brazil, where they threaten to continue expropriation of foreign-owned properties?,THE PRESIDENT. The new government has many problems that it will have to face up to. We hope to work with them in meeting those problems. I think it is a little bit too early to conclude what all of their policies will be, or just how they will work out. But we hope for the best.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican candidates and noncandidates for President seem to be leveling off in their criticisms of the way you have been conducting domestic affairs. But they seem to be intensifying their criticism of your handling of foreign affairs. I wondered if you had noticed this, and if you have any comment.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not particularly noticed any special constructive criticism on our foreign policies. We do have problems in many spots of the world that come up from day to day. We have only one country and one President, and we hope that we do not find ourselves divided in our policy toward our other neighbors and friends in the world.,We try to follow the national interest and we believe that both parties are interested in doing that. I do not like to think of foreign policy in terms of parties. We did have a serious situation when Mr. Ball 1 went to Greece and Turkey and London in connection with Cyprus, and we still have problems for the world there. But we are glad that the United Nations machinery is at work and the mediator has been selected and the nations have furnished troops to go there and aid in keeping the peace.,1 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,We have seen the transition in Brazil, and constitutional processes. We expect and look forward to brighter hopes there and better conditions in company with our other friends in the world who can be helpful.,Our disagreements with Panama have lasted longer than we thought, and it has taken us a little longer time. We have approached agreements several times, but there is always something that would come up that would postpone it or delay it. But there has been a complete meeting of the minds.,Both nations have now selected special ambassadors and both men have special experience and talent. I have selected Mr. lack Hood Vaughn to be our new Ambassador to Panama. He will be leaving for there just as soon as he can be confirmed by the Senate. As you know, he is a director of the Latin American Affairs for the Peace Corps. He has previously worked in Latin America for many years. few Americans know as many Panamanians personally as Mr. Vaughn does. So we think that we are well on the way to a solution of our problems in Panama.,We had some problems with our plane being shot down, but we believe those problems were created by perhaps an instrument error.,Q. You are speaking of the German instance.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, and faulty instruments, perhaps some mistakes on the part of the crew, itself. But I have issued instructions calculated to avoid any such errors in the future that are humanly possible to avoid.,In Viet-Nam, some have asked what the policy is, but I think it is pretty clear. We have roughly four alternatives there, to extend the war, to fold up and pull out, to try to bring about neutralization, and we have probed that thoroughly. We are unable to see that we could achieve neutralization of that area in the light of the situation that exists, so we are trying to do what we have done for many years, that is, to aid the South Vietnamese in carrying forward, giving them advice and materials, and making that operation as efficient as possible, as effective as possible in order to preserve their freedom.,We have a new team there, new men. They are dedicated men and we are happy with them. The Ambassador is happy with them. They have been selected, most of them, since I came into office. We have hopes that that situation will improve so all in all, while we do have problems and serious ones, we do not think that they are problems that should divide the country, or divide us according to political lines.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, since the speech by Senator Fulbright in the Senate, asking for abandonment of old myths, and so forth, there have been two developments which could be regarded as feelers on the part of Cuba, one by Che Guevara, in Geneva, and the other by Mr. Castro, himself, which could be regarded as feelers for reestablishing some sort of working relationship with the United States. Do you have any comments along those lines?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I spoke in some detail in my press meeting last week about Senator Fulbright's speech.2 I don't think I have anything to add to that. He did not speak after consulting with the administration. We had no knowledge of his speech. He spoke, as he said, for himself. The administration does not share his view with regard to Panama or with regard to Cuba.,2 See Item 242 [11].,[6.] Q. Mr. President, last week in Texas you said you planned to make a tour of some of the poverty-stricken areas of the Nation. I wonder if you have more definite plans in mind as to where you will go and when you will go?,THE PRESIDENT, We want to go into the Appalachia area. We don't have the day selected and we don't have the cities selected. We have a rather busy week and we will be busy the early part of the week. It could come the latter part of next week or the following week.,One of the disadvantages of these leaks is that you spend a lot of time trying to discuss these things before you can make your plans definite. But I am anxious to see firsthand the Appalachian area, to see some of the pockets of unemployment. While the unemployment among married males is the best situation we have had in many months, there still is much progress that must be made. I think that a trip like this would be helpful not only to the President, but to the area, and to the officials who are responsible for attempting to find solutions to these problems. We will make the trip. When and where is yet to be decided.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, on politics in your own party, Governor Wallace is running in the primaries in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Maryland against slates pledged to you, and largely on a platform of opposition to your civil rights bill in Congress. Could you comment on what effect you think the vote he might receive would have on the civil rights problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the people of those States will give their answer at the time designated. I don't care to speculate or anticipate it.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, sir, yesterday you were marking the 15th anniversary of NATO, with its considerable accomplishments in the past.3 Do you anticipate, sir, that in the coming years there is any need to revise or expand or enlarge the NATO concept to meet problems which didn't exist at the time it was created?,THE PRESIDENT. We will always be ready to face any problems as they appear, and we do have problems emerging constantly. We are, generally, very happy with the alliance. from time to time we have views expressed within it that are of concern to us, but my statement yesterday generally reflected my attitude toward the alliance and toward its past, and toward what I expect it to achieve in the future.,3 See Item 244.,We are happy with it, and we are proud of it. We think that it will be competent :o deal with the problems that face us.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you comment, sir, on the progress of the civil rights debate in the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they have been debating it for a good many days, and obviously there will be much debate yet in the offing. I would hope that they could start voting on some of the important matters that will be proposed. I expect the debate to be extended, but I hope that we can resolve the question at as early a date as possible. I do not want to set any time limit, because it is something over which I have no control. I don't think anyone can speculate. But I believe, after a reasonable time, the majority of the Senators will be ready to vote and I hope that a vote can be worked out.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you say, sir, whether, in the forthcoming discussions with the representatives from Panama, would there be circumstances under which the United States would discuss adjustment or revision of the perpetuity clause of the Canal treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not want to anticipate the specifics of those discussions before the ambassadors meet. We have made it very clear, in our agreement, that we would discuss the problems that exist between the two nations, without any precommitments or without any preconditions. As those discussions progress we will be kept informed and I will let you know anything that I can let you know.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Premier Khrushchev of Russia and the Chinese have been attacking each other during the past week. What is your reaction to this exchange, and what do you think it means as far as the United States foreign relations?,THE PRESIDENT. They obviously have problems in all of the countries of the world, and they are fighting for support among the Communist parties in those countries. That is a matter that concerns them and I do not see that there is anything I could say that would contribute to it.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the first quarter of the year has ended, and I wondered what you thought of the state of the economy at this stage of the year.,THE PRESIDENT. I think we have every reason to be very pleased with the operation during the first quarter. I am told that our balance of trade payments will be. roughly $7 billion for the last 3 months, which is exceptionally good. That is 58 percent above the corresponding average for the 6 months earlier. That is our exports.,Q. What was the figure again?,THE PRESIDENT. Fifty-eight percent above the corresponding average for 6 months earlier. It is running at the rate of $7 billion, the trade balance is. It is about 80 percent above a year ago. Almost all of this remarkable gain is due to higher exports. Imports have maintained a steady rate through most of the past year. Our unemployment, insured unemployment figures, reinforce the better feel on jobs. In the week of March 21, both the rate of insured unemployment and the number of State unemployment insurance rolls was the lowest for any March week since 1959.,On the balance of payments, I am told we still have 2 or 3 weeks to project in this quarter, but it looks as though it could be almost balanced off without any loss, which is very good news.,Q. What period is that for, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. The last quarter. The confidence of business and the effects, I think, that have flown from our getting the tax bill passed have been good. The Dow-Jones Industrials closed at about 822.,Q. Friday?,THE PRESIDENT. That is right. That is about 111 points above what it was November 22d. We don't know all that reflects, but that is an increase of some $60 billion in values on the Big Board and the American and unlisted stocks. That is encouraging.,With the advance we have made in the farm bill and the expectation that we should, and we hope, to pass it in the House this week, that will add to our jobs, potential jobs, and will give us additional needed and necessary farm income, still resulting in a reduction of storage costs and reduction of surplus supplies for the Government, which will add to our general economic picture.,All in all, our balance of trade, our balance of payments, our unemployment figures, our business expansion, our increases in values, have been good.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Horace Busby 4 joined the White House staff this last week. Do you plan any new additions to the White House staff?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. There will be additions from time to time. There have been a number of resignations and a number of people have taken other assignments. A good many of them have not been filled. I am bringing over today Mr. Hobart Taylor as Associate General Counsel. I am appointing Mr. Lee White Associate General Counsel. I have asked Mr. Myer Feldman to be my General Counsel when he returns from his trip. We will adjust the duties of various people. There will be additions from time to time.,4 special Assistant to the President.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the Red Chinese radio has been saying all along, but particularly in recent days, that General de Gaulle's actions are hurting the Western alliance, splitting the Western alliance. Do you believe that to be the case?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not believe that the Western alliance is being split. I think we have differences in the alliance from time to time between countries and between spokesmen and leaders of those countries, just as we have differences among ourselves from time to time. But on the serious problems, as I have said before, when the chips are down, whether it is Berlin, whether it is Cuba, or whatnot, we think that the alliance and the family will all be together. We will effectively defend freedom wherever it is challenged.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could I just clear up a point on that economic question, sir? In view of the good-looking aspects that you have cited to us, how do you reconcile those with the fact that unemployment still stays at 5 1/2 percent or so, and what can you do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. We still have too much unemployment. We are trying to do everything we can about it. We are making some progress. We want to make more, we hope, as further expansion takes place, and the effects of the tax bill are felt.,We hope as our productivity increases that extra jobs will be open. In this first quarter our auto sales, for instance, were the best first quarter in the history of the Nation. Total sales were 1,843,000 as compared to the record year of 1955 of 1,770,000.,We expect our poverty bill to be passed in the House shortly. We think that will make a substantial contribution to relieving some of our unemployment. We still have too much unused capacity and too many people to fill jobs that do not exist. But we are working at it, and we are making progress.,Q. Mr. President, again on that economic question, sir, are you concerned that this improvement of which you speak might be setting the stage for inflation later this year or early next year?,THE PRESIDENT. We think that in the light of the high unemployment that we have, we think in light of the large unused capacity that we have, we think in the light of the good judgment of both employers of this country and employees, and the assistance of their Government, while we must always be concerned about those problems, we are being very careful.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, along with the expressions of concern in the past week about your driving an automobile, there has been the suggestion that you leave the driving to a chauffeur. Would you give us your reaction to that, or tell us whether you plan to continue driving?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I will drive from time to time. I ride very little and drive very little, but I will be going from the bottom of the hill on the ranch to the top of the hill, and I may actually, every 3 or 4 months, go over to a neighbor's place. I would want to feel free to do that.,Q. Mr. President, are you going anywhere today?,THE PRESIDENT. Not that I know of. I don't plan to. I have no immediate plans. But I would not want to preclude getting out, if I got through with the matters at hand and got my desk clear. I would like to take a little walk. I might go out. I do not want to schedule anything.,Q. But how far, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. As far as I could, away from here.,Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate--,[17.] Q. Mr. President, as a matter of history, do you know of any instance where a President has failed of election in a prosperous period?,THE PRESIDENT. Eddie,5 you are a better historian than I am. I think there are many problems that will affect the elections this year, one of which, of course, is the economic condition of the country.,5 Edward T. Folliard of the Washington Post.,I believe that all men of all parties want to see that condition good. We do not have any mortgage on that in the Democratic Party. But somehow or other, I do believe that the Democrats have the policy that is more likely to achieve better conditions for more people than our adversaries.,I think the people recognize that, and, recognizing it, I think they will express themselves along that line at the ballot box. I think this will be a good year for the people from an economic standpoint, and I think it will be a good year for the Democrats from the political standpoint.,Q. And the incumbent President?,THE PRESIDENT. The Democrats, I said. That means all Democrats.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, as a cattleman, do you have any theory about the reason that cattle prices are quite low, yet the meat prices are quite high?,THE PRESIDENT. We have asked the Congress to legislate a study in that general field which we think will be more accurate and more enlightening than some of the speculation that has existed. Prices of fed cattle have gone down, and a good many people who produce them recognize that very forcibly.,The price of meat has not gone down in proportion to the price that cattle have gone down. So we have asked for a study in that field and we expect the Congress to support us in our request. It will be a long, drawn-out study. But we hope, before the year is out, to get the facts and make them available to the people.,I cannot speak with authority on the specific reason why producer prices are down and retail prices are still where they are. Some think that imports have contributed to it. Some think that the increase in production in this country, domestic production, has materially contributed to it.,In any event, the Defense Department has stepped tip its purchases of meat by 18 million pounds. The Secretary of Defense told me today, just a moment before I came in here, that he had issued instructions to buy an additional 3 million pounds per month of meat in this country to be distributed to our overseas installations, which would mean an additional 36 million pounds per year. He can get that meat now at a very reasonable price, and instead of acquiring it overseas we are acquiring it here and sending it overseas.,It will make a material reduction, in effect, in the imports. It will probably be 8 or 10 percent of the total amount that is imported into this country that we will be exporting out of this country. Also, it will help our balance of payments, because instead of buying it there, we will be buying it here and sending it there. We are facing up to that problem, and I think when the study is completed we will know more about it.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of imports, several groups have been in to see you lately, the wool group, and Mr. Blough, from United States Steel. Also, I understand you have a meeting with the shoe group. In view of the upcoming Kennedy Round of negotiations,6 do you believe you will be able to give any of these groups any help?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are giving study and thought, and, we hope, some assistance, to these individual commodity problems. We are working on them.,6 Sixth Round of GATT tariff negotiations; GATT ministerial meeting held at Geneva May 4-6.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, many books have been written about the loosening of morals among our young. Two of our national magazines have had cover stories on it, and seem to condone it. As a father, would you comment on the loosening of morals for the young in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. from my observation, there has been an improvement in morals since my day. It may be that I am seeing a little different type of youngster. I know the problems of unemployment, school dropouts and all of those are not to be overlooked or taken lightly. Nevertheless, from my observation, a good many young people that are in the age group of members of my family--I am very proud of their morals and their intense interest in the finer things in life and in their general conduct.,I think I would have made my parents happier if at 16 or 18, or even 20, I had conducted myself to the same high standards of morals as my daughters apply to themselves now. I find that pretty generally among their groups.,We do have problems of teenagers and unemployment. It is very high, 13 or 14 percent. That does contribute to situations that are not too pleasing. But we are going to hit at that and hit a body blow in our poverty program and the community action programs in the various areas in the country and in our work camp program, and so forth.,We think we will make substantial progress in that field.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-03-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] First [speaking of the earthquake in Alaska], Ed McDermott, my personal representative as head of the OEP, was airborne from Washington at about 2:30 Austin time; 3:30 Washington time. The delay was due to mechanical difficulty on the first aircraft. Their estimated time of arrival at Elmendorf is 6 p.m. Anchorage time; 10 p.m. Austin time.,Mr. McDermott is accompanied by Gen. James Jensen, the Commander of the Alaskan Air Command. Aboard the aircraft there is ample press representation, including representatives from AP, UPI, Tele-News, ABC, CBS, NBC, the Washington Star, the Washington Post, Time-Life, and the National Geographic.,In addition to surveys of the Anchorage area it is anticipated that a survey will also be made of the towns of Valdez, Cordova, Kodiak, and Seward. It is anticipated that our first report from Alaska from Ed McDermott will be received about 2 hours after their arrival, which will be around midnight Austin time.,[2.] We have a few announcements you might want to take. They are of appointments.,[At this point the President spoke off the record.],We have named, or planned to name, as Ambassador, Miss Margaret Joy Tibbetts, who is a Foreign Service Officer of the first class. She has been with the Department since 1946. She has a Ph.D. from Bryn Mawr. She was born in Maine. She is about 45 years of age. We have sent the papers to the appropriate country and as soon as they clear the papers, her name will be sent to the Senate.,Q. How do you spell her last name, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. T-i-b-b-e-t-t-s.,Q. Is this an Ambassadorship?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. What was the spelling again, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. T-i-b-b-e-t-t-s.,Q. Where is she presently serving, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. In the State Department in Washington.,Q. And her middle name?,THE PRESIDENT. Joy.,Q. Is it Miss or Mrs.?,THE PRESIDENT. Miss.,Q. Where is she from, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Maine.,[3.] The next announcement is Mary Ingraham Bunting to the Atomic Energy Commission. Mrs. Bunting is President of Radcliffe College in Cambridge, Mass. She is taking a leave of absence from Radcliffe. She is going to be on the Atomic Energy Commission, the first woman to be appointed. She received her A.B. from Vassar in 1930, and in 1933 a Ph.D. in microbiology and biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin. She taught at Bennington College from 1936 to 1937. She was married to the late Dr. Henry Bunting who died in 1954. She is the mother of four children, one boy and three girls.,Q. Who does she replace?,THE PRESIDENT. She serves out the unexpired term of Mr. Wilson.,Q. Is Ingraham spelled I-n-g-r-a-h-a-m?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are very fortunate and happy that we could get Mrs. Bunting to serve. I talked to her and we had many conversations back and forth.,[4.] We are appointing Mrs. Elizabeth Stoffregen May to the Republican vacancy on the Export-Import Bank. She has an A.B. from Smith College; she took postgraduate at Radcliffe; she has a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. She has been in the Budget Bureau and in international control in the nonferrous metals. There will be a sheet on her. She will be on the Export-Import Bank. Any of you who need any loans, particularly you girls, you can talk to her.,Q. Where is she from?,THE PRESIDENT. She is from Massachusetts.,Q. Does she have a position now?,THE PRESIDENT. No, She was an economic analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department from 1939 to 1941; principal fiscal analyst, U.S. Bureau of the Budget, 1941 to 1947; American Mission Aid to Greece, 1947 to 1948; the Committee on Economic Development in 1949, and professor of economics, Wheaton College, 1949' She is presently dean of Wheaton College in Massachusetts.,Q. It is another \"first,\" Mr. President, as far as being a woman on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, and a first-class woman, too. We are very proud to be able to get her.,Q. Is she a Republican?\nTHE PRESIDENT, Yes.,[5.] We are naming a commission to study Puerto Rico. It is a very important commission, and the President names three members and the House two, the Senate two, and six from Puerto Rico, to study statehood, commonwealth, and all of that study provided by congressional act. We are naming to that Mrs. Patricia Roberts Harris. She has a Doctor's degree, 1961, from George Washington, and an A.B. summa cum laude from Howard University, 1945 From 1945 to 1947 she was engaged in government and industrial relations, postgraduate study, at the University of Chicago; a Phi Beta Kappa; 45 years of age. She will serve on that commission with Mr. James H. Rowe, Jr., former assistant to President Roosevelt.,Mr. Rowe will be chairman of the commission. He is from Butte, Mont. He was the last Secretary to Justice Holmes, the last one that he had. He served President Roosevelt, as you know. He is trustee of the Twentieth Century Fund. He has been awarded two Presidential citations. You can get all of this information over there on the table.,Along with Mr. Rowe and Mrs. Harris, we have Dr. Brewster Denny. He is Director of the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, and consultant to the Rand Corporation.,[6.] You ladies will be interested in this: Mrs. Lee Walsh, Women's Editor of the Washington Star, has been named Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Evaluations. She served for the past 10 years as the head of the Star's Women's Department. She will be working under the supervision of Deputy Under Secretary of State William J. Crockett.,[7.] There is a long statement on this. Just to recapitulate, this gives us, since January 1, 89 new appointments of women from grade 12 to 18--from 10 through 20, I guess that is what the Atomic Energy pays, $22,500. We have made 389 promotions in the same grade from $10,000 up.,Q. Did you say since the first of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made about 50 Presidential appointments during that same period. The Atomic Energy post pays $22,500; the Export-Import post pays $20,000; the Puerto Rican Commission pays $100 a day. Roughly, that is 525 women that we have placed during that period. We are constantly reevaluating and trying to find qualified women to fit into vacancies that occur.,Q. Will there be more, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, many more.,[8.] I have three or four little statements I would like to make on the guidelines, somewhat detailing the Government's interest in them.,We support the principle of free collective bargaining and continued advances in wage and fringe benefits, as I said in Atlantic City,1 but we feel it is the duty of the Government to state the public interest in such a way that it is given proper weight in both labor and management positions in collective bargaining so that they can look and see what the Nation's increased productivity is and we hope will be guided by that and bear that in mind in their negotiations.,1 See Item 233.,We expect all the negotiations, though, to be handled by free collective bargaining. The guideposts are not steps to controls. On the contrary, they are the way that free economy faces up to the problem of price-wage spirals without invoking controls. In other words, if we can get them voluntarily to follow closely the guidelines, we can avoid a wage-price spiral.,The Government's point of view is broader than that of either labor or management, but the guideposts we think are important because we believe they are in the best interests of both.,We welcome a continuing dialogue about the guideposts. We think they will be better understood if they are more discussed. It will help improve our understanding, the effect of private price and wage decisions on the national economy. We believe in the preservation of stable prices and we think it is of continuing importance in our fight against unemplopment, poverty, and our effort to improve our balance of payments position.,[9.] I am drafting an Executive order setting up an advisory board that will report to me in connection with the supersonic transport,2 which is a very important development. We are making substantial progress on it. We now have a development cost estimate and we have the estimated unit selling prices. We have a number of orders. We have a number of proposals that have already been submitted. We believe the technical challenge of the supersonic transport is manageable. We think the main problem lies in the financial area. We believe that Government and industry participating is the key issue and we have to work that out.,2 Executive Order 11149, signed by the President on April 3, 1964 (29 F.R. 4765; 3 CFR, 1964 Supp.).,The men I expect to name in that Executive order which is now on the drafting board are: Secretary McNamara--we hope we can get the benefit of his experience not only in production, not only his personal experience, but the entire experience of the Defense Department in giving me counsel; Mr. Halaby, of the FAA, the FAA Administrator; Mr. Eugene Black, who made the report, former head of the World Bank; Secretary Dillon--we have a good deal involved in the balance of payments; Mr. John McCone, Secretary Hodges, and Space Administrator Webb.,I don't know whether you have any facilities for getting any of that in or whether you want any of it, or not.,[10.] I will conclude with this: I am preparing to send to the Congress--I worked on it today--letters to the Speaker and Carl Hayden. I don't have copies of them, but I guess you can get the thought if I read them real quickly:,\"I recommend that Congress enact legislation establishing a bipartisan commission to study and appraise the changes taking place in the American food industry. Enclosed is a draft bill which will accomplish this purpose.,\"The growth and stability of our entire economy depends to a large extent upon the food industry. Its vitality and strength are important to the farmers, the processors, distributors, and retailers who depend upon it for their livelihood. Its practices affect all of us as Consumers,,\"Information is not now available to permit an informed judgment concerning the effect of the recent changes in the food industry. We do not know whether benefits of advanced technology are being fairly distributed among farmers, processors, distributors, and consumers. We do not know whether shifts in bargaining powers require new laws. We do not know enough about, the new character of the industry to determine the extent of the benefits and the need for any relief from hardship which may be necessary.,\"The commission would gather necessary information and report to the Congress and the public.\" 3,The commission would be composed of 15 members, five from the Senate, five from the House, and five appointed by the President.,3 As released by the White House on April 1 the letter included a final paragraph as follows: \"In addition to the draft bill, there is also enclosed a memorandum from the Secretary of Agriculture explaining the need for the legislation in more detail.\" The draft bill and the Secretary's memorandum were released with the President's letter.,An illustration is, we have some commodities today where the producer is receiving 25 to 30 percent less for the commodity and the housewife is paying 25 to 30 percent more, at least the same price she did a year ago. We want to see why that is happening. It particularly pertains to meat. Senator McGee came down to visit with us, with the head of the Farmers' Union, the day before I left Washington. They point out that the producer's price of meat had a drastic drop, but the price the consumer pays is still approximately the same.,I think that is all I have for you. I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, is the administration giving any consideration to any revisions of policy, particularly with respect to Panama and Cuba, in connection with Senator Fulbright's speech?,THE PRESIDENT. We read with a great deal of interest Senator Fulbright's speech.4 He has made a goodly number of them as a Member of the House and Senate through the years. They are always interesting and generally provocative. He, of course, expresses his own individual views, as I made clear before I left Washington. I had dinner with him Sunday night and we discussed the Viet-Nam situation in some detail. We did not discuss Cuba and Panama. We do not share his views in those connections. I am sorry we didn't go into some detail in connection with our respective viewpoints. Perhaps the situation could have been cleared up some.,4 The speech, made before the Senate, is printed in the Congressional Record (vol. 110, p. 6028; March 25, 1964).,I would say no more than Senator Fulbright speaks for himself. He is entitled to his view. We always respect his Opinions. In this instance we do not agree with them. We feel that in light of the information we have the Panamanian situation is being handled as best we can. I think that answers your question.,Q. Did you have any idea when you had dinner with Senator Fulbright, Mr. President, that he was going to make this speech or express those views?,THE PRESIDENT. We talked about Viet-Nam. We didn't go into that subject.,Q. Mr. President, in your speech Tuesday before the building trades groups, you anticipated an early settlement on Panama. Do you still feel that way, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We don't know how many speeches we are going to have in the meantime, but we are working real hard. We have a very definite difference on the question of precommitments, and we do not know how to commit ourselves in advance to a treaty unless we know what commitment they want. It is up to Panama to resume diplomatic relations. We can't negotiate until we do resume relations. That move is up to her. In the statement I made Saturday a week ago,5 I think I was very clear on the subject. We consider her our friend. We want to work out an agreement with her. We are willing to sit down anytime, anywhere, and discuss anything, without precommitment.,5 See Item 232 [1].,[12.] Q. Mr. President, what are the prospects in your view for your wheat and cotton bill in the House when it comes up after recess?,THE PRESIDENT. We think it will be a very hard fight. We think that some 'people who are against our passing anything are opposing it very vigorously. We believe that it is very essential to continued prosperity of the agricultural industry and the American people that we pass the food stamp plan, and that we pass the farm bill. We are going to do everything we can to pass it. If it is not passed, the responsibility will be clearly on others, not on us.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the country is going through a new period of racial demonstrations, including the school boycott. I wonder if you could give us your views on the school boycott and some other methods of demonstrating in order to force integration.,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that we believe in the right of petition as guaranteed under the Constitution. We are hopeful that we can expedite action on the civil rights bill pending in the Senate. We think that will be a long step forward and will solve a good many of the problems that now bring about petitions from many groups. Our first big job, I think, is to pass the civil rights bill. We had two key votes on it last week and won them both. We hope we can get the bill passed at the earliest possible day.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, President Truman declared himself for reelection in March, a corresponding period. When do you think you will make your intentions clear on this year's election?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't studied that.,Q. Did you say you have not studied it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you think it is possible to get a cloture vote in the Senate on the civil rights bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't gone into that. I think that will have to be determined after the debate. I don't know whether it will be necessary or not. If it is, I hope it will be possible, because we expect to pass one.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, are you considering a visit to Alaska in the next few days, an aerial inspection?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have a personal representative on the way there now. I communicated with the Governor last night and communicated with many officials during the night and again this morning. We have the two Senators going up there. We are attempting to reach their Congressman.,We have all the authorities that we think can be helpful to make an on-the-spot study. They are doing it now and we will have reports around midnight, the first on-the-spot ones. We will make them available to you as soon as possible thereafter, if you want to get them at that time of the evening. I don't have any choice about when I get them.,Q. Have you talked to Governor Egan again today, during the day?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have talked to him. I expressed our sympathy to him and the sympathy of all of our people. I assured him that we had taken prompt action, to declare it a disaster area. I previously sent a wire. The order creating the disaster area, and so forth, are all available to you, and you can get the details without taking the time here.6,6 See also note to Item 241.,[17.] Q. Have you given the supersonic transport advisory board a specific assignment, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. The Executive order will do that. It is being drawn. I wanted you to know that we are doing that. It has not been finalized yet. It may be changed in the details. But we want to have the broad spectrum of the Government interested in it and working with it, to get the best judgements of all of our people in an advisory capacity.,Q. Mr. President, do you want to set a deadline on the report back to you?,THE PRESIDENT. No. This will be advisory. I am not asking for a report. I am asking them to advise in connection with the contracts and all the matters covered by the Black report and by the report that I made in connection with the testimony before the Congress. The Congress has already appropriated $60 million. We have already had an evaluation of the various proposals. But we just want to get this senior group of officials to sit in and counsel with us.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, is there any further word about the RB-66 fliers who were released?,THE PRESIDENT. No, except what you have seen in the newspapers. We are very happy that we were able to work out arrangements for their return promptly and safely. We have stated before they were not on any clandestine or spy mission. We have to wait until we can have full interviews to determine just exactly what happened, whether it was faulty metering or whether it was instrument failure, or what it was. I have given instructions, and I have followed through very, very vigorously, in connection with observing the corridor and trying to avoid a repetition of this thing. But as long as we have machines we will have failures.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, are you considering a trip to visit some of the poverty areas?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I told one person about it the other day and it has been leaked all over Washington since. I want very much to go into some of the poverty areas when time will permit and we can arrange it. I suggested to a Senator that I might go to his State, and suggested to a Department head--I guess I talked to two people about it--that I would like for him to give some thought about when his schedule would permit. I do expect to go into some of the unemployed centers, a very limited number, and view conditions firsthand, talk to the workers themselves, and try to get a picture not just of poverty but of unemployment generally.,Q. When? Do you know when, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. When I can work it out conveniently to the people involved and adjust it to my own schedule. I am sorry that it has had to be announced in advance because now we will have all the wires coming in from the various places and it will create more problems than it will solve. But I have seen reference to it. It is true. I wanted to answer you frankly.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable talk recently about Secretary McNamara as a possible vice presidential candidate. Do you think the fact that he is a Republican, has been a Republican in the past, would bar him from the Democratic ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we will have plenty of time to select our Vice Presidential candidate when we meet in August at the convention. The delegates will do that after the President is nominated and makes his recommendation to them. I am sure they will make a wise selection.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, would the unemployment visit include some of the large urban areas as well as the smaller ones?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,[22.] Q. Will you seek the .nomination, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. We will get along with that after we get rid of the Congress and they go home, when we get to the convention in August. There will be plenty of time for us to indulge in political matters.,What we want to try to do is get a good program through the Congress. We are very proud of the fact that we have the greatest education Congress in history. We got a good library bill passed. We got the foreign aid bill passed. We got 10 of the 15 appropriation bills passed already. We got the tax bill passed. We got the civil rights bill passed in the House, and we want to pass it in the Senate.,We are anxious to get a good foreign aid bill this year, and we expect to. We thought we had a good message on the subject that was realistic and was candid. We expect to pass the civil rights bill in the Senate. We expect to pass the poverty bill. We hope we can get the medicare bill reported by the House committee. It is going to take time. We hope we can get it reported by the committee and acted upon.,If we can get civil rights, taxes, medicare, and poverty behind us, we will have plenty to do for the next few months. Then maybe the American people will be willing for us to take a little time off and talk about who ought to serve us next year in the Congress and in the executive department.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us your view of Senator Goldwater's attacks on Mr. McNamara?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I haven't read them. I have very great confidence in Secretary McNamara, as I think the people of this country have. I have not seen the specific \"attack\" on Mr. McNamara. If so, I am not aware of any justification for such. I think he is a great public servant.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what the salary of Ambassador Tibbetts would be?,THE PRESIDENT. It depends on the country, but it will be in excess of $20,000.,Q. What about Mrs. Walsh?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have that, but it will be an Assistant Secretary's salary, up in the higher grade. The Atomic Energy will be $22,500. That is by law.,Q. But she is to be a Deputy Assistant Secretary.,THE PRESIDENT. And it is $20,000 for the Export-Import Bank. I would say you girls are doing right well these days.,[25.] Q. How are you enjoying your Easter vacation?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't had any.,Q. Can you tell us what your plans are for the rest of the trip, whether you are going to church, or if you are going to Fredericksburg tonight for the bonfires?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know about the bonfire. I want to see how things develop here the rest of the afternoon. If I can, I would like to go, but I don't know that I will go. I don't have a specific itinerary by the minute. We will go to church tomorrow. I don't know where or when, but I will let George7 know as soon as I do. I would hope that all of you would be going to church some place, too, and that we all don't go to the same church because the churches out here are not very large and they couldn't take care of all of you.,7 George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President.,Q. We can all contribute to the building fund, Mr. President.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask one more question on the fliers?,THE PRESIDENT. Carl Vinson one time, after I served on a committee about 8 years, was presiding and I asked a question about the Corpus Christi Navy Base. He said, \"Admiral, we must go on and get other matters taken care of.\" I said, \"It looks like after a man has been serving on this committee for 8 years he would be entitled to one question.\" And he said, \"All right, but just one.\",Q. How will the release of the fliers affect our relations with Russia?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very pleased that we were able to effect a prompt release. We don't agree with their statement that they were involved in any spying mission. We are happy that we were able to accomplish their release. We continually seek good relations with Russia and other countries, and we do all we can to ease the tensions that exist. We are happy that in this instance we were able to work it out promptly.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-03-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Is it all right with you folks if I monitor your press conference? 1,1 The President appeared unexpectedly during a news conference held at the White House by his Press Secretary, George E. Reedy.,[1.] I am sending this afternoon a state merit to the President of the OAS which may be of some interest to you. I will have copies made of it as soon as we can complete them. The statement reads:,\"The present inability to resolve our differences with Panama is the source of deep regret.,[At this point the President presented background material. He then resumed reading the statement.],\"Our two countries are not linked by only a single agreement or a single interest. We are bound together in an Inter-American System whose objective is, in the words of the charter, 'through mutual understanding and respect for the sovereignty of each, to provide for the betterment of all.',\"Under the many treaties and declarations which form the fabric of that system, we have long been allies in the struggle to strengthen democracy and enhance the welfare of our people.,\"Our history is witness to this essential unity of interest and belief. Panama has unhesitatingly come to our side, twice in this century, when we were threatened by aggression. On December 7, 1941, Panama declared war on our attackers even before our own Congress had time to act. Since that war, Panama has wholeheartedly joined with us, and our sister republics, in shaping the agreements and goals of this continent.,\"We have also had a special relationship with Panama, for they have shared with us the benefits, the burden, and trust of maintaining the Panama Canal as a lifeline of defense and a keystone of hemispheric prosperity. All free nations are grateful for the effort they have given to that task.,\"As circumstances change, as history shapes new attitudes and expectations, we have reviewed periodically this special relationship.,\"We are well aware that the claims of the Government of Panama, and of the majority of the Panamanian people, do not spring from malice or hatred of America. They are based on a deeply felt sense of the honest and fair needs of Panama. It is, therefore, our obligation as allies and partners to review these claims and to meet them, when meeting them is both just and possible.,\"We are ready to do this.,\"We are prepared to review every issue which now divides us, and every problem which the Panamanian Government wishes to raise.,\"We are prepared to do this at any time and at any place.,\"As soon as he is invited by the Government of Panama, our Ambassador will be on his way. We shall also designate a special representative. He will arrive with full authority to discuss every difficulty. He will be charged with the responsibility of seeking a solution which recognizes the fair claims of Panama and protects the interest of all the American nations in the Canal. We cannot determine, even before our meetings, what form that solution might best take. But his instructions will not prohibit any solution which is fair, and subject to the appropriate constitutional processes of both our governments.,\"I hope that on this basis we can begin to resolve our problems and move ahead to confront the real enemies of this hemisphere-the enemies of hunger and ignorance, disease and injustice. I know President Chiari shares this hope. For, despite today's disagreements, the common values and interests which unite us are far stronger and more enduring than the differences which now divide us.\",A copy of that statement will be sent to His Excellency Juan Bautista de Lavalle, Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States.,I will be glad to have any questions, if you have any.,Q. Mr. President, sir, do you feel that the American people outside the Washington area back up your stand On--,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to make any evaluation of the American people outside the Washington area. I haven't conducted any polls on it, and I don't know what their opinion might be on any specific subject.,Q. Mr. President, when you say his instructions will not bar any solution which is fair, would that include, sir, a renegotiation of the 1903 treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. This would mean just what the statement says. We will discuss any problem that divides us in any way, and then we will come up with a solution that is fair.,Q. Has the Ambassador been chosen, Mr. President or would that be Ambassador Mann?,THE PRESIDENT. No, We would select a special representative.,Q. Mr. President, before you get around to issuing the statement, could we have that-to put it up on the bulletin board so we can dictate from it?,THE PRESIDENT. I may want to use it to answer any questions.,Q. I mean when the conference is over.,THE PRESIDENT. Surely.,Q. Mr. President, I understood you to say, sir, that our position now is just where it was when you first talked to the President of Panama. This is no new position?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. Very shortly after the flag was not flown, and there was a march on the zone, and some of our soldiers were killed, I called the President of Panama and said that we have difficulties and problems, disagreements, obviously, and we are prepared to discuss those disagreements any time, anywhere, anyplace.,He said, \"When would your people be prepared to meet with mine ?\",I said, \"They will leave here in 30 minutes.\",He said, \"Very well.\",Since that time, although we have made very few public statements on it and we have tried and hoped that the OAS could work this out, and there have been a great many leaks back and forth, some of the stuff you call news interpretation, news analysis, and various things, some of which really took place and some of which was speculation, I think it is very important that the people of this hemisphere know that from the beginning, and now, just what this statement says: that we are willing and ready to discuss at any time, with any of their representatives, any problem, any difficulty, in a reasonable way, and to let only equity and justice determine what course we would take, subject to the constitutional processes.,Q. Mr. President, what is the reason for issuing the statement today?,THE PRESIDENT. No reason. I am sending it over there. I didn't think you would object to hearing it.,Q. No, I meant--I mean to the OAS. What is the reason for sending the statement to them now?,THE PRESIDENT. So that we may reiterate our viewpoint and in some detail.,Q. Mr. President, would you think that this statement might clear up any difference of interpretation they have--,THE PRESIDENT. I would not speculate on that. I am just making a statement and sending it over to the President of the OAS. What happens there, events will determine. I, of course, am hopeful that we can always reason out differences together, and that is one of the purposes of my expression.,Q. Mr. President, don't formal diplomatic relations have to precede a discussion like this?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, on another subject, can you give us your reaction to the release by the Russians today of one of the American fliers shot down over East Germany?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I have any comment on that. Talk to the Department about that.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you enlighten us on what did go on last weekend involving the Panamanian negotiations? There have been a lot of conflicting reports, as you mentioned earlier.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not sure that I know all that went on regarding it. So far as I know, our position at the beginning was what I just stated, and it still is. Up to this point there has been no meeting of the minds.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, were you at all disturbed, sir, that Mr. Salinger only gave you a few hours' notice of his resignation? Second, do you agree with some--,THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer one at a time.,Q. I am sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. No. The answer is no. That is, to the first question. What is the next one? I was not disturbed.,Q. Some of the newspapers have interpreted this as another sign that supporters of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy are anxious to leave your administration. Do you agree with that, or have you seen any signs of that?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is no to that question.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, can we have the Warren Commission open to the American public? Is there any reason why they cannot be?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter for the Commission to determine completely.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, a rather sticky situation seems to have developed in Cuba over the helicopter flight of the two defectors, and the slaying in the air. What is the U.S. position on that ?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter you should talk to the Department about. We are now looking into it very carefully. I have talked to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense about it this morning. I have no announcement that will be made at this time. Of course, when there is an announcement, it will probably come from the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you said a moment ago, sir, that there was no reason for the issuance of this statement.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't say that.,Q. I am sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't intend to say there was no reason. I think I would not issue it, if there was no reason. There is a reason, but I thought his question was what was the reason for giving it to them. I just thought you ought to be kept informed of what was happening in this field.,Q. Are you trying to clear the air, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I want everyone to know our position and I think this helps. This is a statement to the President that he can use in his deliberations. I would hope that all of us realized from the beginning that the United States position was that we were willing to talk to anybody that they designated at any time, anyplace, and review all problems and all difficulties.,I don't say discuss, because that is a sticky word. Some of them do not quite understand what it means. But I say review. We are glad to do that. I made that clear that day, and I have reiterated it. But I think it is good that the President of the OAS can have the details carried in this statement.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect any major developments in the field of East-West relations in the field of disarmament?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we always hope for the best.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you still feel that there are remaining misinterpretations about the statement last week on Panama?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't want to go into that, because--,[At this point the President spoke off the record.],[10.] Q. Mr. President, your guidelines for holding the wage-price line have been criticized by both labor and management recently. Do you still think that these will work, in view of this criticism?,THE PRESIDENT. We hope very much that they will. We believe that both labor and management can best solve their problems through collective bargaining, and we hope that that is the way it will be done. We have outlined what course we believe is best for America, all the people, and generally the criteria of that course is indicated by the guidelines. But in the wage negotiations and the working conditions that must from time to time be examined, and new agreements reached, we hope that that will be handled through the process of collective bargaining.,Q. Thank you very much, sir.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, can we have a picture of you and your new secretary,2 please?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,2 The reference was to George E. Reedy, Press Secretary to the President, successor to Pierre Salinger who resigned on March 19 to run for the Democratic senatorial nomination in California.,Q. Thank you very much.,[At this point the President again spoke off the record. At the request of one of the reporters the following statement was placed on the record, as indicated in the President's final remarks.],THE PRESIDENT. I was at lunch, and when I came back he told me what he was thinking. And the only thing that I could think about at the moment was that I was called when I was shaving in a bathroom in Houston and told that a Congressman had died in my congressional district and asked if I would not be a candidate to succeed him. Very shortly thereafter, I had to resign my job without notice and announce immediately, over the weekend--and this was Saturday-that I was a candidate. So I somewhat understood Mr. Salinger's problem.,Q. What day was that when you were having lunch, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. The day he announced. It was about 4 o'clock. We had gone to lunch real late and I had a group of editors with me. We were talking and I came back here, I guess--I don't remember--I would say 5 or 5:30, just before he announced to you. It was the first time that I knew about it.,Q. Can we get that story back on the record, Mr. President? It is a pretty good story.,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. That is a delightful story.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. In an attempt to encourage that good spirit that prevails here today, that story will be put on the record.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-03-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. President Truman and Mrs. Johnson will go as my personal representatives to the funeral of King Paul. In addition, other members of the delegation will include Archbishop Iakovos; Mr. John Plumides, President of the American-Hellenic fraternal organization; Judge John Pappas of Boston; Congressman John Brademas of Indiana; Mr. Mike Manatos, my Special Assistant; and Mr. George Vournas of Washington, D.C.,[2.] I am today reappointing Mr. Walter Tobriner to the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners. Mr. Tobriner has had a distinguished record of service in the community and while I understand his desire to return to private pursuits, I am very pleased that he has agreed to continue as Commissioner.,I am today reappointing Laurence K. Walrath as a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission. This will be for a new 7-year term. Commissioner Walrath is currently the Chairman of the Commission and, we think, has done an excellent job as a member.,I am today appointing Mr. James L. Robertson to a full 14-year term on the Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Robertson has served with distinction on this Board, having been appointed to serve out an unexpired term.,I am today appointing Mr. Hugh Owens to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Owens is a prominent lawyer in Oklahoma City, and currently the head of the Oklahoma Securities Commission.,I am happy to announce that Dr. Frank Stanton, President of the Columbia Broadcasting System, has agreed to serve as Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Information.,[3.] I have a brief statement on the economy. I am very pleased by early action to the tax cut and to the outlook for the economy in general. Mail to the White House has been running about 10 to 1 in support of the tax cut. I have a wire that I would like to read you as an example of some of the many hundreds of communications we have received since our last statement on this subject.,The President\nThe White House,I am spending my first weeks \"increase in salary\" just to express sincere appreciation to you and your administration for a much needed relief on the American taxpayer. I'm sure millions of others feel the same way.,WADE L . MAPLETHORPE,A Newspaperman, Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram, Long Beach, Calif.,The Department of Labor's report on unemployment1 yesterday was quite encouraging. Both total employment and the labor force are up more than seasonal. This is the buoyancy of the tax cut, the expectation effect, and I think it is making itself felt. The unemployment rate dropped in February to the lowest level since 1962, and as low a level as at any time in this expansion period.,1 \"Monthly Report of the Labor Force,\" for February 1964, issued March 1964.,New figures on business intentions to invest in plant and equipment will be released this week.2 They will confirm a very solid increase. Those figures will be released Tuesday and I cannot comment beyond the fact that they confirm rising business optimism and I think will be more than twice the amount of the increase of last year.,2 \"Business News Reports\" released by Office of Business Economics, Department of Commerce, March 10, 1964.,The price news continues to be reassuring. The Dow Jones Index of industrial stocks was 711 on November 22, and it was 806 yesterday. The previous numbers given were composites of all stocks and the increase in value of those stocks was approximately $45 billion. The revised Consumers Price Index last week was well paved in January--only one-tenth of a percent above December. Weekly indicators suggest that wholesale prices may have declined a bit in February. Businessmen have healthy vestment intentions but don't seem to be expecting \"overheating\" on the price side.,A survey of the National Association of Purchasing Agents last month shows a smaller percentage, only 21 percent, expecting price increases than in the preceding 5 months. This good price news is no reason to relax our vigilance on this front.,[4.] I think I should say that I have accepted the invitation of the three national television networks to appear in an informal conversation with the President, reviewing the first too days of the administration, next Sunday, March 15.3 The program will be taped in my office, on Saturday afternoon. The format and the ground rules will be similar to those set up by President Kennedy's conversation with the networks in 1962, and his projected conversation with them in 1963. The networks will announce the time they will show the program on Monday, March 9',3 See Item 218.,[5.] Here is an up-to-date report of women in Government, since January: Twenty-nine women have been appointed to Presidential positions. Twenty-two new appointments have been made in the professional level from GS-12 in excess of $10,000 through GS-18, to $20,000 One hundred and sixty-two promotions have been made in the professional grades from GS-12 through GS-18.,[6.] I have a brief announcement on the Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer, and Stroke. The leading causes of death in the United States are heart disease, cancer, and stroke. They have a greater impact than all other major causes of death in this country. Fifteen million Americans are today suffering from these diseases. Twenty-three million days of work are lost every year because of them. Two-thirds of all Americans now living will ultimately suffer or die from one of these diseases. I have therefore asked the distinguished panel of laymen and doctors to recommend steps that can be taken to reduce the burden and incidence of these diseases.,This panel will be chaired by Dr. Michael E. DeBakey of Baylor University College of Medicine in Houston, Tex. Five of these members are women. Also on the panel are Mr. Barry Bingham, Marion Folsom, Emerson Foote, Dr. Howard Rusk, Dr. Paul Sanger, Dr. Edward Dempsey, Dr. Hugh Hussey, Dr. Irving S. Wright, Dr. J. Willis Hurst, Dr. Charles W. Mayo, Dr. Sidney Farber, Dr. R. Lee Clark, Dr. E. M. Papper, Dr. Philip Handler, Mrs. Florence Mahoney, Mrs. Harry Truman, Dr. Samuel Bellet, Dr. John Meyer, Dr. Marion Fay, Dr. Helen Taussig, Dr. Jane Wright, Mr. John Carter, Dr. Frank Horsfall, Jr., Gen. Alfred Gruenther, Mr. Arthur Hanisch, Mr. James F. Oates, Jr., and Gen. David Sarnoff.,[7.] I have today signed an Executive order creating the Committee for the Preservation of the White House 4 to be made of seven public members and six official members. We have created this committee to assure the American people and those who have worked so hard to make the White House a living testament to the history of our country that this work will continue.,4 Executive Order 11145 (29 F.R. 3189; 3 CFR, 1964 Supp.).,As you are aware, the principal moving force in this work in the past few years has been Mrs. John F. Kennedy, under whose guidance and leadership this important White House project has been carried out. I am happy to report that at the invitation of Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Kennedy has agreed to serve as one of the seven public members so that her continued advice and counsel will be available to us.,The other members of this committee will be Mr. Henry Du Pont, Mr. James Fosburgh, Mrs. George Brown, Mr. William Benton, Mrs. Marshall Field, and Mr. Bruce Catton. The members of the Fine Arts, Painting, and Advisory Committees on the Restoration of the White House have been asked to continue in an advisory capacity to the new Committee for the Preservation of the White House. The Executive order and full information on the membership will be available immediately after this press conference, if you care to have the biographies.,[8.] I have accepted an invitation from the Council of the Organization of American States to make an address to them on March 16th concerning the installation of the new Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress5 The Committee's Chairman is a distinguished Colombian, Dr. Carlos Sanz de Santamaria, and he had I have already talked about the importance of his Committee's work.,5 See Item 220.,In those same days I look forward to meeting with all of the United States ambassadors and all of the AID directors to the Latin American nations, who will be here in Washington for a 3-day conference.6 My commitment to the Alliance for Progress is complete, and it also enjoys strong support from the Congress. So we will be working with our Ambassadors and AID directors to strengthen our efforts in this field.,6 The meeting of the U.S. ambassadors and AID mission chiefs was held March 16-18. President Johnson met with the group on March 18 at the conclusion of their sessions. (See Department of State Bulletin, vol. 50, p. 540.),[9.] I will notify the Congress on Monday that I have established new employment ceilings for most Federal agencies well below those contained in my 1965 budget estimate. These reductions will cut total Federal civilian employment by 6,526 below the budget estimate for the current fiscal year, and 7,265 below the estimate for the fiscal year July 1.,These and other economies will allow me to reduce my 1965 budget estimate by nearly $42 million. These reductions come as a result of the cost-cutting programs which I asked each agency head to put into effect last November and December. The results represent some progress in our drive to raise the efficiency of the Federal Government and to cut the cost. Details will be available from Mr. Salinger.,[10.] Today I have a report on the first results of our efforts to reduce the cost of Government publications. With only a few agencies reporting, with the bulk of the work yet to be done over the next several months, it is gratifying to note that already we have eliminated 158 existing or proposed publications for savings of more than $1 million to the taxpayers.,I will be glad to take any questions.,[11.] Q. Mr President, Soviet officials have told an American delegation that they would like to sign a long-term trade agreement with the United States. Do you favor more wheat sales to the Soviet Union, and do you favor a long-term trade agreement with the U.S.S.R.?,THE PRESIDENT. We would be very happy to explore that possibility with them. We have already concluded a wheat sale to them, and if they need additional wheat or anything else we have, we would be glad to discuss it with the appropriate officials at the appropriate time. I know of few things that the Soviet Union has that we are in need of, but it is a matter that we would be glad to pursue.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you think it is appropriate to test public sentiment for potential Vice Presidential nominees in party primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that that is a proper subject for the people to pass upon. I think that that is one of the reasons we have primaries, to ascertain the sentiment of the public.,We are going to have a very interesting report from New Hampshire in the next few days, and I am looking forward to hearing it. I don't know that the other States will necessarily be guided by what the judgment of the New Hampshire people will be, but it will be interesting.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, having been a busy Vice President yourself, and succeeding to the Presidency, would you favor a constitutional amendment as soon as possible for two Vice Presidents?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter that is being studied by the Senate committee at this time. I would not make such a recommendation. I think the Senate committee will hear from all who are interested in the subject, and after due deliberations make their recommendations.,A constitutional amendment would not be something the President would pass upon. I have individual views on it, but at this time I think it is a matter that more appropriately should be considered by the subcommittee that is considering constitutional amendments.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the physical dangers to which the dependents of the U.S. military have been subjected in Saigon, has a decision been made yet as to moving them out?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Secretary McNamara will no doubt have some observations to make on that question when he returns to this country, but no decision has yet been made.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of Vice Presidents, among those whom you might consider acceptable and qualified for the job, how would you rate Attorney General Robert Kennedy?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rate all the people who have been mentioned for Vice President as very high. I think they are all leading Democrats, all good citizens, and as the Attorney General has, have established a very fine record of public service.,As I have stated on numerous occasions before, I think this is a matter that will be determined after the President has been nominated, and after his recommendations have been sought, and after the delegates have voted.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, your civil rights bill begins in the Senate on Monday. Would you care to assess the chances and how you think it will do?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think we passed a good civil rights bill in the House. I hope that same bill will be passed in the Senate. I believe the Senate is prepared now to diligently apply itself, and I hope it stays on the subject until a bill is passed that is acceptable.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, just one more question on the Vice Presidency: Do I understand your answer to Mr. Cormier 7 that you are saying that it would be a good thing, it would be useful to you in perhaps picking a Vice President if there were competition among the many candidates in the primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said in response to that question that the people have a right to express themselves, and primaries are for that purpose; that I expect the Vice President will be selected after the President has been nominated, and after his suggestions and recommendations have been sought, and the delegates then will make the decision in their own wisdom.,7 Frank Cormier, Associated Press.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, high officials of the Chamber of Commerce have been drafting a new policy declaration that would urge the United States to reexamine its restrictions on trade with the Soviet Union with an eye towards relaxation of those curbs. What is your view of this?,THE PRESIDENT. As expressed before, in the question asked by Mrs. Thomas,8 I think that we will be glad to explore any suggestions made to us, and if there is anything that we have that other people need, we will give consideration to selling it. If there is anything that they have that we need to buy, we would explore the desirability of doing so.,8 Mrs. Helen Thomas, United Press International.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller said this week that he thought in view of the relations between France and the United States today it would be a good idea for you to meet with General de Gaulle. I would like to ask you first whether you have been in any communication with President de Gaulle, and secondly, whether you think such a meeting would be worth while at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have been in communication with General de Gaulle. I have met with General de Gaulle on two occasions since I became President. I met with him before I became President.,Our Ambassador is on his way home now to make a full report on his observations on conditions in France. I would be very happy to meet General de Gaulle any time that it can be appropriately arranged, satisfactory to both persons, and if there is anything at all that can be worked out.,We hope the French Government--we wish it well. We want to see it as strong in the world as possible. We want to believe that there are no irreconcilable differences between us, and we believe when the chips are down we will all be together.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, may I refer back to civil rights for just a minute, sir? Could you say how long you think the battle in the Senate may take, and whether you can win it without having to allow the bill to be either weakened or strengthened?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the leadership can best assess that. I would not want to estimate. I don't think anyone really knows how long the matter will be discussed, but I believe that there are Senators who feel very strongly, both pro and con, and they will be given adequate opportunity to express themselves. Then I believe the majority of the Senate will have an opportunity to work its will.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, more and more Republicans are hammering away at the administration's policy in Viet-Nam. These Republicans claim that the administration's policy is confused, and uncertain, and that the administration is deliberately hiding the facts. What do you say to these charges?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not aware of anything that we are hiding. I don't want to get into any debates on the basis of partisanship or membership in any party. We have had the problem of Viet-Nam for some time, in both administrations. I worked very closely with President Eisenhower when he was here, in connection with that problem. And I expect both Republicans and Democrats to work with this administration in attempting to help us do what is best for our country.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, a spokesman for Henry Cabot Lodge today said that Mr. Lodge would be entered today in the Oregon primary, and they are pushing a write-in in New Hampshire. Have you heard anything from the Ambassador whether he may be leaving his post, and do you think he can continue to serve, if he becomes a candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. I have heard nothing from the Ambassador about any intention to leave. I have every reason to believe that if he had any plans, he would make them known. I fully covered, in my conference last week, my views toward the Ambassador's service, and I believe when and if he has any plans to leave the State Department service, he will communicate them to me.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in your letter to Soviet Premier Khrushchev on Wednesday regarding Cyprus9 you mentioned basic misunderstandings. Because of this misunderstanding and others, would a personal meeting between you and Khrushchev be desirable at this point?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we are in adequate communication with each other. I would be very happy to see the Chairman when it is indicated that there are any things that we can explore that would be helpful. I know of no reason for such a meeting at this time.,9 Item 210.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, in answering an earlier question about the Soviet trade overture, did you mean to imply that trade between the Soviet Union and the United States should be on an individual item basis in the mutual interest of the two countries, or were you opening the possibility of a trade agreement between the Soviet Union and the U.S., such as the Russians have with some of the Western countries?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is \"No\" to both of your questions.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your announcement concerning various diseases, since the U.S. Public Health Service has so strongly condemned the use of tobacco as a health hazard, do you see any justification at all for continued Government subsidy to tobacco growers?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that the report has been made a Government report as yet. I understand this committee was appointed by the Surgeon General with the understanding that when they made their recommendations, that report would be submitted to all the departments of Government concerned, and that would be the second procedure followed.,They, in turn, would carefully digest and study its recommendations and then make the recommendations back to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Government agencies concerned are now making that study and in due time will make their recommendations.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, I believe you said early in your administration that you were not considering any trips overseas before election time. Has there been any change in your thinking on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, you said earlier that you had been in communication with President de Gaulle. Without asking you, sir, for any of the details of those private communications, could you say, sir, whether the United States and France have exchanged general views about their policies in Southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. I am aware of no detailed plan that General de Gaulle has concerning Southeast Asia. Our Government has discussed with representatives of his government certain phases of that situation, but so far as I am personally aware I know of no specific detailed plan that the General may have advanced.,[28.] Q. Mr. President, in talking to a group of senior citizens about medicare, you made this statement: \"We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the haves and give it to the have-nots that need it so much.\" I just wondered if you could elaborate, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that explains itself. We have taken about $3 billion out of the budget as constituted last year, 98.8. We reduced that budget by about $3 billion, by cutting $1,100 million out of Defense, almost $r billion out of Agriculture, and almost $100 million out of the Post Office, 150 out of Atomic Energy, and so forth. We reduced it $3 billion.,Now we thought that all of those reductions could be made. They had appropriations for them last year. We are not asking for appropriations for them this year. So we will save $3 billion there.,But we are asking for an additional $2 billion to be put in the budget. Roughly, that is $400 million extra interest rate on the public debt, $600 million for space. That is a billion. Then we have the poverty program and the Appalachia program, roughly a half-million dollars, $300 million extra for education, 75 for urban renewal, 75 for public housing, and we expect those programs to have money this year taken from those programs that we did not ask for money that they had last year.,We expect the total budget to be a little less than a billion dollars less than the Kennedy budget of last year. Now that is possible, we think, because $17 billion was spent on Defense needs during the 3 years of the Kennedy administration that we do not think is essential today.,While the population has been increasing between 2 and 3 percent, our budget has been increasing approximately 5 percent or $5 billion per year. This year, instead of it increasing $5 billion, it is going to be reduced $1 billion. This year, instead of our deficit being $10 billion, it is going to be less than $5 billion. That means that this year, our deficit will be reduced by more than 5° percent.,We have a provision in our budget for contingencies, for any possible supplementals. We hope that that will not be necessary, but we have provided for it. We are determined, and this administration is dedicated to see to it, that we live within the budget sent to Congress. As I told you now, we will have another quarterly report April 10th, and we hope we can further reduce budget ceilings at that time.,[29.] Q. Mr. President, going back to an earlier question, what is your reaction to the suggestion by General Eisenhower that whenever the vacancy occurs in the Vice presidency, that the President recommend a successor and the Congress act on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't studied General Eisenhower's proposals or suggestions. That is a matter that would involve a constitutional amendment. The President is not called upon to approve constitutional amendments. That is now pending in a Senate subcommittee. I think that they can be trusted to hear all the evidence and come to any conclusions that they think desirable.,Q. Do you have any plans, Mr. President, to recommend your views to--,THE PRESIDENT. I have stated my views just now.,[30.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater has charged that our long-range missiles are not reliable. What is your comment on that charge?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't agree with Senator Goldwater.,[31] Q. Mr. President, last week the Senate by a very narrow vote turned down the move to cut the imports of beef from foreign countries. Since then, a Republican Senator from the West said that the administration is going to pay heavily for this action, the pressure put on the Senate, at the polls next November. What do you think of that gloomy prediction?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we will have to wait until next November to see what happens at the polls. But I am very happy with the polls at the present time.,[32.] Q. Mr. President, are any major revisions planned in the Apollo-Gemini programs?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no such recommendations at this time.,[33.] Q. Mr. President, earlier this week, Secretary of Defense McNamara said that there is evidence that the North Vietnamese are introducing heavier weapons into the fighting, which would indicate larger scale and more organized campaigns. Will this development affect in any way your plans to withdraw American troops gradually and turn over more of the fighting to the South Vietnamese ?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that the American public has fully understood the reason for our withdrawing any advisers from South Viet-Nam, and I think they should. We have called back approximately 1,000 people. A good many of those people, several hundred, were there training guards, policemen. Once those people were trained, we felt that they could act as policemen as well as our people could act. So, we withdrew those people.,From time to time, as our training mission is completed, other people will be withdrawn. From time to time, as additional advisers are needed, or as people to train additional Vietnamese are needed, we will send them out there. But we see no reason to keep the companies of MP's out there, after they have already trained the Vietnamese who can perform the duty equally as well.,I think that a good deal will depend on what Secretary McNamara advises concerning who is withdrawn, when they are withdrawn, and who is sent out, and when they are sent out. The Secretary, with General Taylor, and a very able staff, are there now, carefully studying the question and will be there almost a week.,When his report is in, we will carefully evaluate it, and if additional men are needed, we will send them. If others have completed their mission, we will withdraw them. But because we withdraw some MP's from Saigon who have trained people to take their place, there is no indication that we are not still just as interested in South Viet-Nam as we have always been.,[34.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the economic picture you described at the beginning of this conference and the British action in raising their interest rates, do you see any prospect of American interest rates going up this year?,THE PRESIDENT. We are hoping that that will not be necessary. We believe it is unlikely. We cannot speak for the investment community, but we have hopes that we cannot materially increase our interest rates. We think that to do so might offset some of the advantages that have come from the tax bill, and we hope that capital will be available in ample quantities, at reasonable interest rates, to see new investment take place and new facilities built that will employ additional people.,[35.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell me in what capacity you believe Mrs. Kennedy will serve on the Committee for the Preservation of the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. I am terribly sorry, but I did not hear your question. Would you please speak louder?,Q. Could you spell out possibly in what capacity Mrs. Kennedy will serve on your Committee for the Preservation of the White House? Will she head it, or exactly what her job will be?,THE PRESIDENT. I will not go further than what I have said in the formal announcement. When the Committee meets and formalizes, I am sure that information will be available to you. But I don't think I should go any further today than I have gone.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Mr. President, thank you."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-02-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I take pleasure this morning in announcing my intention of nominating Mr. William P. Bundy as the Assistant Secretary of State for far Eastern Affairs. Mr. Bundy, currently the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, will bring to his new post great background and experience in the far Eastern field.,Mr. Bundy will be replaced in the Defense Department post by Mr. John McNaughton, the current General Counsel at the Department of Defense.,I also wish to announce the appointment of Mr. Daniel M. Luevano, of California, as Assistant Secretary of the Army. Mr. Luevano is the Chief Deputy Director of the State Department of finance in California, under Governor Brown, and has consistently demonstrated his ability in a number of governmental posts in his native State, having formerly been assistant to Dr. Clark Kerr, the president of the University of California.,I would also like to announce the appointment of Mrs. Frankie Muse freeman, Associate General Counsel of the St. Louis Housing and Land Clearance Authority, as a new member of the Civil Rights Commission. Mrs. freeman is a former Assistant Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and distinguished Missouri lawyer.,[2.] The United States has successfully developed an advanced experimental jet aircraft, the A-11, which has been tested in sustained flight at more than 2,000 miles an hour, and at altitudes in excess of 70,000 feet.,The performance of the A-11 far exceeds that of any other aircraft in the world today. The development of this aircraft has been made possible by major advances in aircraft technology of great significance for both military and commercial application. Several A-11 aircraft are now being flight tested at Edwards Air force Base in California.,The existence of this program is being disclosed today to permit the orderly exploitation of this advanced technology in our military and commercial programs. This advanced experimental aircraft, capable of high speed and high altitude, and long-range performance at thousands of miles, constitutes a technological accomplishment that will facilitate the achievement of a number of important military and commercial requirements.,The A-11 aircraft now at Edwards Air force Base are undergoing extensive tests to determine their capabilities as long-range interceptors. The development of a supersonic commercial transport aircraft will' also be greatly assisted by the lessons learned from this A-11 program. for example, one of the most important technical achievements in this project has been the mastery of the metallurgy and fabrication of titanium metal which is required for the high temperatures experienced by aircraft traveling at more than three times the speed of sound.,Arrangements are being made to make this and other important technical developments available under appropriate safeguards to those directly engaged in the supersonic transport program.,This project was first started in 1959. Appropriate Members of the Senate and the House have been kept fully informed on the program since the day of its inception. The Lockheed Aircraft Corporation at Burbank, Calif., is the manufacturer of the aircraft. The aircraft engine, the 1-58, was designed and built by the Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division of the United Aircraft Corporation. The experimental fire control and air-to-air missile system for the A-11 was developed by the Hughes Aircraft Company.,In view of the continuing importance of these developments to our national security, the detailed performance of the A-11 will remain strictly classified and all individuals associated with the program have been directed to refrain from making any further disclosure concerning this program.,I do not expect to discuss this important matter further with you today but certain additional information will be made available to all of you after this meeting. If you care, Mr. Salinger1 will make the appropriate arrangements.,1 Pierre Salinger, Press Secretary to the President.,On Monday I will release a report by Mr. Eugene Black and Mr. Osborne on the supersonic transport program.2 This report was submitted to me in December. It makes a number of recommendations dealing with the financing and the management of the supersonic transport program. It has been referred to those Government officials concerned for review and comment. On the basis of their analysis, a decision will be made on how the Government will proceed. I will be glad to take any questions.,2 The 109-page processed report by Eugene R. Black and Stanley de I. Osborne, dated December 19, 1963, was made available by the federal Aviation Agency.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, could you confirm or deny the published reports that security measures taken in Florida were prompted by a tip that some suicide pilot might try to ram your plane?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't handle my own security. I was informed that there had been reasons for taking additional precautions, and I asked that the matter be carefully examined and handled entirely by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover and the Secret Service, both of whom work closely together in connection with the President's security. And we followed the suggestions outlined, none of which I am familiar with in detail.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, how do you appraise the possible political impact of the Bobby Baker case?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a matter that the Senate is considering. They have witnesses to be heard. The Senate will make its report and take such action as they feel is justified, and I am sure they will take the proper action. We will have to see what the consequences are, following their recommendations when all of the evidence is in.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, sir, could you bring us up to date on the conflict in South Viet-Nam and North Viet-Nam, and whether or not you think that this conflict will be expanded? And, sir, are we losing there?,THE PRESIDENT. We have asked Secretary McNamara, who has made 'periodic visits to Saigon, to go to Viet-Nam in the next few days. He will go there and have his conferences and will bring back very valuable information. We have a very difficult situation in Viet-Nam. We are furnishing advice and counsel and training to the South Viet-Nam army. And we must rely on them for such action as is taken to defend themselves.,We think that Mr. McNamara will correctly appraise the situation on this trip and make such recommendations as he deems appropriate. I do not think that the speculation that has been made that we should enter into a neutralization of that area, or that we are losing the fight in that area, or that things have gone to pot there, are at all justified. I think that they do our cause a great disservice, but we are keeping in close touch with it daily.,We have Ambassador Lodge, who heads our forces in that area. He is in constant communication with us. He makes recommendations from time to time. We act promptly on those recommendations. We feel that we are following the proper course and that our national interests are being fully protected.,Q. Mr. President, do you see any reason to fear that an extension of the fighting in South Viet-Nam might bring Communist China or even the Soviet Union into the fight?,THE PRESIDENT. I know of no good purpose that would be served by speculating on the military strategy of the forces of the South Vietnamese. I think that too much speculation has already taken place--I think that a good deal of it without justification. I sometimes wonder if General Eisenhower, before the battle of Normandy, had been confronted with all the--if the world had all the information concerning his plans that they seem to have concerning ours in Viet-Nam, what would have happened on that fateful day.,So, I would answer your question merely by saying that I do not care to speculate on what might happen. The plans that have been discussed in the papers are not plans that have come to my attention, or that I have approved.,Q. Mr. President, Henry Cabot Lodge, your Ambassador to South Viet-Nam, was your opponent for the Vice Presidency in 1960, and is a very strong potential Republican nominee this time. Doesn't that make conduct of your policy in South Viet-Nam awkward, if not difficult?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. Mr. Lodge had a brilliant career in the Senate. He served in the United States Army after resigning from the Senate. He had considerable military experience there. He served his country well at the United Nations under the administration of President Eisenhower. He was selected by President Kennedy upon the recommendation of Secretary Rusk. He has been given full authority to act as our top adviser in that area. He had a long conference with me before he returned to Viet-Nam in November.,I am unaware of any political inclinations he may have. I have seen nothing that he has done that has in any way interfered with his work out there. I think that he has properly assessed the situation himself by saying that since he is our Ambassador there he cannot personally get involved in the campaign plans that some of his friends may have for him.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any hope of reaching an agreement in Panama before that country's Presidential elections in May?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that we could reach an agreement as early as possible. As soon as I learned that the Panamanians had marched on our zone and we had a disturbance there, and some of our soldiers had been killed, some of the students had raised the flag and this disturbance had resulted, I immediately called the President of Panama on the telephone and said to him in that first exchange, \"I want to do everything I can to work this problem out peacefully and quickly. Therefore our people will meet with your people any time, anywhere, to discuss anything that will result in bringing peace and stopping violence.\",The President asked me how long it would be before those discussions could take place, and I said we would have a team in the air within 30 minutes.,I designated Assistant Secretary Mann 3 to leave immediately. We have been pursuing those discussions ever since. We have reached no agreement. One day you see speculation that an agreement is imminent. The next day you see speculation that we are very pessimistic. I think both reports have been wrong.,3 Thomas C. Mann, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.,There has been no meeting of the minds. We realize that treaties were written in 1903\nand modified from time to time--that problems are involved that need to be dealt with and perhaps would require adjustment in the treaty in 1963 or 1964.,So we are not refusing to discuss and evolve a program that will be fair and just to all concerned. But we are not going to make any precommitments, before we sit down, on what we are going to do in the way of rewriting new treaties with a nation that we do not have diplomatic relations with. Once those relations are restored, we will be glad, as I said the first day, and as we have repeated every day since, to discuss anything, any time, anywhere, and do what is just and what is fair and what is right. Just because Panama happens to be a small nation, maybe no larger than the city of St. Louis, is no reason why we shouldn't try in every way to be equitable and fair and just. We are going to insist on that. But we are going to be equally insistent on no preconditions.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, returning to southeast Asia, the Pathet Lao in Laos has been stepping up its military activities in violation of the '62 Geneva agreement. Is the United States willing to concede that neutralization is not the answer to Laos today?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has made the proper protestations and is doing everything we can to see that that agreement reached is carried out. We have expressed our deep regret that it has not been. We are very hopeful that the interested governments will take the appropriate action to see that the agreement is carried out.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have said repeatedly that peace is the paramount issue on your mind. I wonder, sir, if during your first hundred days in the White House you have seen any encouraging signs along this road and, specifically, do you think a trend of the modern world is towards coexistence and conciliation rather than to strife.,THE PRESIDENT. We must be concerned not just with our foreign policy in the twentieth century but with the foreign policy of 110 or 120 other nations. We are today dealing with serious problems in many places in the world that seriously affect the peace. When we solve these problems I have no doubt but what there will be others that arise that have been in existence for centuries.,It is going to be the course of this Government to do everything that we can to resolve these differences peacefully, even though they are not of our own making. There are few of these situations which have been brought about by anything that we have done, but they are age-old differences that have existed for centuries.,I am an optimist. I spent 35 days in meetings with the Security Council in the Cuban missile crisis. I saw the alternatives presented there. I realized that we can, with the great power we have, perhaps destroy 100 million people in a matter of minutes, and our adversaries can do likewise.,I don't think that the people of the world want that to happen and I think we are going to do everything that we can to avoid its happening. Now there are going to be some very serious problems that we have to resolve before we achieve peace in the world, if we achieve it completely, but we are going to continue to try to resolve them.,I am encouraged and I am not pessimistic about the future. I believe that we have adequate machinery to deal with these problems and I sincerely and genuinely believe that the people of the world want peace more than they want anything else and that, in time, through their leaders, someway, somehow we will find the answer.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, some reference was made to your first hundred days. How do you size up your first hundred days generally?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have been reasonably close to the Presidency during the 30 years that I have been in Washington, particularly the last 3 years. But I have gotten many different impressions in the last hundred days than I had before I came to this awesome responsibility.,I am deeply impressed by the spirit of unity in this country, by the many people of all faiths and all sections who closed ranks and were anxious to unite the country following the tragic affair of last November.,I am quite pleased with the manner in which the executive personnel has carried on following the death of their great leader, how the Cabinet has functioned to a man in this crisis. I think the continuity and the transition and the organization of the budget and the various messages, and the outline of the program has created confidence in the country and in the world.,I am pleased with what the Congress has done in the field of passing 10 of the 15 appropriations bills in the first hundred days, that were carried over from last year, and in passing the education bills that made this Congress known as the greatest education Congress in the history of our land; in the passage of the civil rights bill in the House of Representatives after it had been considered there for some 6 or 7 months; in the passage of the tax bill in the United States Senate after it had been there almost 13 months, and now finally enacted into law.,While I have been lavishly praised by some, and I think lavishly criticized by some, I think generally speaking the American Nation has conducted itself as you would expect it to in a crisis and would get very good grades.,Insofar as I am concerned I am rather pleased with what has been accomplished in the first hundred days as a result of men and women of good will working together.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, a political question, sir. President Kennedy told us that he would be willing to debate his Republican opponent in this coming election, had he lived. Would you be willing to do that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I haven't been nominated yet. I think we will have plenty of time to decide that one after the convention. I will cross that bridge when I come to it.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, next month in Geneva a world trade conference will be started, organized by the United Nations, and more than 100 countries will participate in it. The other day Senator Fulbright said that he is going to have hearings in his committee on world trade. Would you tell us what is your attitude toward the developing of world trade?,THE PRESIDENT. We are very interested in that conference. We are going to participate in it and make every contribution we can.4 We think it is essential in the interest of the peoples of the world that trade barriers be pulled down. And we are going to contribute everything we can to that end.,4 for the President's message to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, see Item 237.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I have seen speculation in print that it is your guess that you will run against Richard Nixon. Is that true? If it is not true, can you tell us what your guess is in that respect, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't get the first part of your question.,Q. I have read in print speculation that you expect that you will be running against Richard Nixon next year.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't speculated on whether I will run or even who I will run against if I do run. That is a matter for the conventions of the two parties to determine when the delegates are properly chosen and they act. All I know about who may be interested in the job is from what I see in the papers, and the activities of the various individuals.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the American Ambassador from Cyprus has been recalled for consultations. Could you give us your views on the Cyprus matter, please?,THE PRESIDENT. We are deeply concerned with it. We think it is a very serious situation. We sent our Under Secretary, the very able George Ball, across the water to talk to the people in Cyprus, and the people in Turkey and the people in Greece and the 'people in Great Britain and the guarantor powers.,We felt that we should make every possible effort to resolve these differences and to avoid more serious consequences. The matter is now pending in the United Nations, and we are doing our dead-level best to find the solution. We are concerned as it is extremely serious, but we believe that it will be resolved and we certainly hope so.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday the Commerce Department, without advance notice, put lard, an important staple in the diet of the Cuban people, on the embargoed list. Could you tell us if you gave the order to put that commodity on the list, and if so, was your action the result of a telegram from Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois and a Senate speech by Senator Keating?,THE PRESIDENT. Yesterday, just before lunch, I was informed that the Commerce Department was giving consideration to adding lard to that list. Rumors had been circulating in the trade for a few hours that it was expected that there would be a huge sale of lard involved, and my judgment was requested. I concurred in the judgment of the Commerce Department that before a license was issued we should carefully consider what we were doing, and that if the rumors were true, the matter needed further attention.,Now we have no evidence that these rumors are going to develop into facts, but if they do, the Commerce Department will judicially examine all the facts and make a determination that justifies our Government acting in our national interests. Now what action it will take will be determined after the case is heard, if the rumors and speculation seem to be true.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, would it be your policy to go to the people to explain administrative policy, to explain to them by radio and television, in the fireside-chat tradition?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the President has a responsibility to do the very best job he can as President for all the people. I think in order to do that it is important for the people to know the problems that confront him. Man's judgment on any given question is no better than the facts he has on that question. So I go along with the view expressed by Jefferson, that the collective judgment of the many is much to be preferred to the selective decisions of the few.,I shall have my Press Secretary hold daily briefings, at least two a day, and make available all information that can be made available to the press. From time to time I will see individual members of the press about press business, and I may see some of my full-time friends socially, occasionally, I hope without too much criticism.,Other times I will have them in my office, if I have any announcements that I think worthy of their attention and taking their time. At other times I will have a meeting like this to reach the folks who the press may not be able to reach through the ordinary newspaper or magazine media so that we can have radio coverage and television coverage.,I know of nothing in the President's job that is more important than being held accountable to the people, explaining to the people the reasons for his action, and telling the people something about the problems that confront him, because they are a very understanding group once they have the facts.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there have been rumors, particularly from the Republicans, that you may be willing to compromise the public accommodations section of the civil rights bill. Is that true, and if not, is there any part of the bill that you feel might be the subject of compromise?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never discussed this with anyone and I would suspect that those rumors which you talk about, which I have read about, are strictly Republican in origin. I will say that the civil rights bill which passed the House is the bill that this administration recommends. I am in favor of it passing the Senate exactly in its present form. I realize there will be some Senators who will want to strengthen it, some who will want to weaken it. But so far as this administration is concerned, its position is firm and we stand on the House bill.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, much of the speculation on Viet-Nam in the past week has been occasioned by that phrase in your speech last weekend about a dangerous game in Viet-Nam.5 I think many of us are puzzled about what was the intention of that phrase and could you clarify your intentions for us?,THE PRESIDENT. The speculation on Viet-Nam has been going on for some time. I was out there in 1961. There was a good deal of speculation then. In my California speech I intended to say just what I did, that aggressors who intend to envelop peaceful, liberty-loving, free people, and attempt to do so through aggressive means, are playing a very dangerous game. That is what I said, that is what I meant, and that is a very dangerous situation there and has been for some time.,5 See Item 192.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, would you further assess the situation in the far East in the light of Mr. Bundy's appointment there, and the problems he may face?,THE PRESIDENT. We know that we have very serious problems in that area. We want to have the very best people that we can handling those problems. As I told you, on. the ground in Viet-Nam we have Ambassador Lodge. He has been sent additional assistance since I took office in November, and there are several new and very highly competent faces that have gone out at his request and with his approval.,Mr. Hilsman6 felt that he should return to his faculty duties and he submitted his resignation to us. We had a reasonable time to select his successor. We reviewed the several possible persons to succeed him. We felt Mr. Hilsman was a very able and a very conscientious and very effective public servant, and we realized it was difficult to fill his shoes.,6 Roger Hilsman, former Assistant Secretary of State for far Eastern Affairs.,We finally concluded, after conferring with Secretary Rusk at some length, that we should ask Secretary McNamara if he would be willing to let Mr. Bundy resign his place under his administration and move over to the State Department to take over Mr. Hilsman's duties.,Thorough consideration was given to it and Mr. McNamara reluctantly agreed, but did agree and we have been able to prevail upon Mr. Bundy to do that. We think that he is the best possible successor that we could have to Mr. Hilsman, and we do think that this whole area needs every bit of the best manpower that it can get.,Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-02-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT [1.] This past week the United States has demonstrated anew in at least eight different situations this Nation's determination to insure both peace and freedom in the widest possible areas. Progress toward these ends is frequently slow and rarely dramatic, but it should be viewed in the perspective of history and not headlines.,First, we have been patiently continuing our efforts to resume relations with our neighbors in Panama, and to reconsider with them, without preconditions on either side, all issues which threaten to divide us.,Second, we have been quietly working on the Cyprus crisis with our friends, to determine the most useful role that each of us can play in easing the present strains on the island.,Third, in response to my request, I have received assurances from the new and friendly leaders of Viet-Nam that they are proceeding immediately to step up the pace of military operations against the Viet Cong, with specific instructions to the corps commanders and a personal visit by General Khanh to the vital delta area.,Fourth, we have been consulting with all parties concerned in the Indonesian-Malaysian dispute, including the United Nations, to follow up on the Attorney General's successful efforts in arranging for a cease-fire and a discussion at the conference table.,Fifth, we have been in constant consultation with our allies regarding the troubled course of independence in several East African states where we can hardly expect to control events, but we can help these nations preserve their freedom from foreign domination.,Sixth, we have been confronted with the brutal shooting down of an unarmed American plane off course in East Germany, and the necessity for preventing further incidents of this kind.,Seventh, in view of the french recognition of Red China, we have been discussing with the free nations of Asia the necessity of resisting any further temptations to reward the Peking regime for its defiance of world peace and order.,And finally, we have witnessed and the whole world has witnessed with pleasure the remarkable success of our Saturn rocket, the most powerful rocket thrust known to man. This rocket, I am happy to say, was first recommended by our committee in 1958. It is not our desire or in our interest to create an air of emergency about these or other events. Our work proceeds both day and night, quietly, steadily, I believe confidently, and I think the American people have every reason to share in that confidence.,[2.] I have a few announcements to make in the defense area. first, I am gratified by the results from the letters to defense contractors 1 that I sent out less than a month ago. We have received almost 800 replies to that letter. The Defense Department has talked with many businessmen directly. This is going to be an important part of the effort which we believe is going to produce savings to the taxpayers of over $4 billion per year in fiscal 1967.2,1See Item 18.,2 The savings to be effected by the Department of Defense, the White House announced on January 27, would be the result of a \"vigorous program\" to shift from contracting on a cost-plus-fixed fee basis to fixed price or incentive contracts, and of reducing the number of letter contracts, preliminary agreements under which contractors may start work before a price is agreed on.,Second, I want to draw your attention today to the cost reduction section of the Defense Department budget statement which was released last week. Some figures in there should be of interest to every taxpayer. Next year's Defense budget, the one just sent up for fiscal 1965, includes, due to more efficient management of our defenses, $2 4/10 billion. That is more than $10 for every man, woman, and child in our country. That has come about because of more efficient management under Mr. McNamara and the men who serve with him.,That is money that is strictly saved in the coming fiscal year simply by following more sensible and efficient procedures. It is money saved not by risking this country's security, not by cutting our defenses, but by running the Department on a sound and businesslike basis, and with real unification. I have seen more unification present and achieved in the Defense Department than at any time since the Department was created.,[3.] We are, in fact, constantly making improvements in our strategic missile arsenal. We are improving the payloads, the accuracies, the reliability of all of these weapons. We are also adding new weapons to our arsenal. We are now completing development, for example, on three new and highly advanced weapons systems.,I think you would like to hear something about this, because you can take great pride in it. first, the first of these is the Redeye. for the first time our ground combat soldier will be able to fight back against a high performance enemy aircraft. The Redeye, which he can fire from the shoulder like a rifle, sends a heat-seeking missile in pursuit of the enemy airplane, with a very high probability of scoring. Once hit, the airplane will go down. Redeye has been developed by the Pomona Division of General Dynamics at Pomona, Calif.,Second, the Shillelagh has successfully completed engineering tests and is being released for production. It is an antitank missile mounted on a vehicle so light that we can parachute it into the battlefield, and so accurate that it can destroy a tank at a range of several thousand yards.,And finally, the Navy has recently demonstrated the Walleye, a glide bomb to be launched from an airplane and guided to its target by television. The bomb has a television camera which is focused through remote control by the pilot in the airplane. Once the pilot has focused the camera on the target, the mechanism in the bomb takes over, watches the television screen inside the bomb, and then guides it until it reaches the target.,The Walleye has been demonstrated and it has shown amazing accuracy at a range of several miles. It is being developed by the Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake, Calif., where the now famous Sidewinder missile was developed.,[4.] finally, I conferred at length yesterday with Sargent Shriver, who has just returned from a world trip, and I have asked him to serve as Special Assistant to the President in the organization and the ado ministration of the war on poverty program which I announced in my State of the Union Message.,Mr. Shriver will continue to serve as Director of the Peace Corps. He will begin immediately to study the formulation and the execution of the concentrated assault on the causes and cures of poverty in the United States. I expect to appoint a committee of the Cabinet to serve in an advisory capacity with him, a Cabinet committee to be made up of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney General, the various departments, that would be Interior and Agriculture, that would be concerned with our war on poverty.,Mr. Shriver is eminently qualified for this additional assignment. As you know, he is Executive Director of the Joseph P. Kennedy foundation, he was President of the Chicago School Board, he is a very successful businessman. He is an organizer and Director of the Peace Corps. He has demonstrated outstanding qualities of leadership, and I am sure that we will find that in the organization and draft of the message as well as the administration of the poverty program, if it is approved by Congress, we will find him an exceptionally well-qualified employee.,[5.] Now I would like to conclude by reading a brief message that I have just sent to General Khanh in Viet-Nam, in which I say:,\"I am glad to know that we see eye to eye on the necessity of stepping up the pace of military operations against the Viet Cong. I particularly appreciate your warm and immediate response to my message as conveyed by Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins. We shall continue to be available to help you to carry the war to the enemy, and to increase the confidence of the Vietnamese people in their government.\",A couple of days ago I sent General Khanh a message urging him to step up the pace of military operations. He immediately replied, as I announced in my more formal statement, and this is my personal, longhand reply to the General.,Now, any questions?,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you foresee a situation in the relatively near future where you might recommend or accept the admission of Red China into the United Nations?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, sir, I wonder what you think about a full-time Senate employee, or an employee of any Government agency, who would get himself involved on off-duty hours or in regular hours with consultants for defense contracting firms of the Government, with building motels, getting himself involved in deals with mortgage companies that are interested in pending legislation, and in visiting the Dominican Republic and talking to them about buying U.S. fighter planes by way of Sweden? Do you think this is the proper conduct for any Government employee?,THE PRESIDENT. The Senate committee is now making a study of the accuracy of some of the allegations that you have made. They will, in their wisdom, determine the accuracy of those allegations and, I am sure, render proper judgment.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, many of us are wondering why you would hold a news conference in a cramped little room such as this, limited to about 90 newsmen, when you have facilities available to accommodate all newsmen, such as at the State Department?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have an answer to that question of yours. I thought that this would be ample to take care of your needs. I am sorry if you find yourselves uncomfortable. It was much more convenient to come here at the time that I could come, and I was attempting to satisfy the newsmen. It is somewhat difficult to do sometimes, but they wanted a news conference this week, and I thought this was the appropriate place and could be best handled here.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, although it seems a little early, as a result of the Republican fund-raising dinners on Friday night they apparently consider it open season on you. Do you have any favorite opponent among the ones mentioned prominently to run against you next term, and do you think it will be a hands-off, pretty rough political type campaign between you and that opponent?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have any favorite opponent. It is not my duty to select my opposition. I think that the delegates to the Republican Convention will act wisely and select the best man that is available to them. And so far as I am concerned, I hope to keep as free from politics as I can, as long as I can, because I think it is in the interest of the continuity and transition of this administration and the unity of the country to keep free from mudslinging and petty politics and getting into any political battles.,I have asked the Democrats to refrain from indulging in any personalities if at all possible. We will have debates about principles and we expect differences of opinion. We don't want to suppress them or silence them. But I found in the 8 years that I served as Democratic Leader under President Eisenhower that it was not necessary to sling mud or to indulge in personalities, and I hope that our Democratic people will follow that course. What the Republicans do is a matter for them to determine in their wisdom.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke of viewing these foreign problems in the perspective of history rather than today's headlines. Looking at the problem of Viet-Nam that way, how do you look, what do you see down the road ? Is this a situation that can be settled in a military way? Do you rule out any neutralization such as General de Gaulle suggests, or what is your general perspective on Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. If we could have neutralization of both North Viet-Nam and South Viet-Nam, I am sure that would be considered sympathetically. But I see no indication of that at the moment. I think that if we could expect the Viet Cong to let their neighbors live in peace, we could take a much different attitude. But as long as these raids are continuing and people are attempting to envelop South Viet-Nam, I think that the present course we are conducting is the only answer to that course, and I think that the operations should be stepped up there. I see no sentiment favoring neutralization of South Viet-Nam alone, and I think the course that we are following is the most advisable one for freedom at this point.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us some idea of how you expect to participate in the choice of your own running mate, whether you will make your personal choice known to the convention, and what some of the factors are that you would weigh in the selection ?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that it would be premature and somewhat presumptuous at this point for me to go into any detailed discussion on the selection of a Vice President. I think that if I am nominated by the convention, selected as their standard bearer, my recommendations will likely be sought, and if so, I will be glad to give them. And at that time I will cross that bridge. I hope that I can act wisely and in the best interests of the American people.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, have you had the opportunity yet to study and make a personal decision on the rather bitter debate, dispute, rather, between Secretary McNamara and the joint Atomic Committee in the Congress over the atomic power plant for the carrier?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I feel that I have not gone into the details of the fight. I am aware of the issue. I concur in the judgment that Secretary McNamara has made. I think that we are looking far into the future and that those judgments are always susceptible to error. But at this moment I would conclude that his decision has been a reasonable one and a fair one and one in which I agree.,[13] Q. Mr. President, a two-part question on legislation: How confident are you that your two main pieces of legislation of top priority, namely, the tax cut and civil rights, are actually going ahead to become legislation that is satisfactory to you; and secondly, what are the pieces of legislation beneath those that you consider of importance as well ? for instance, is medical care virtually in the same order of priority?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to your first question is that I think that in the 60 days that I have held this office we have made great progress in legislation. When I came into it, we had gone along down the road with our educational bills, but we finally consummated them, and I think we have the best educational Congress in the history of the Republic.,We had 5 or 6 appropriations bills out of 15 passed. We concluded action on those during this period of time. We have reported the civil rights bill from the Rules Committee, and it is now being debated in the House. I hope and I believe that it will be passed without any crippling amendments. I think it should be passed without any crippling amendments. I think that due progress is being made there. I hope it is acted upon in the House before the Members leave to attend Lincoln Day birthday meetings throughout the Nation, because it would be a great tribute to President Lincoln to have that bill finally acted upon in the House before we go out to celebrate his birthday.,On the tax bill, it has been before the Congress now for almost 13 months. The Senate has reported it, the Senate committee has reported it to the Senate. It is being debated there. There are some 180-odd technical amendments and there will be dozens of other amendments. It will be carefully deliberated, but I hope that we can pass it before we take a recess for Lincoln's Birthday on February 12.,I am pleased with the progress made on both of those bills. I hope the tax bill can withstand the onslaughts that will be made by many in attempting to amend it in the next few days, and then will go to conference. And I would like to see it reported from conference as nearly to the administration's recommendations as possible, because before those recommendations were submitted to Congress, I participated in their formulation and embraced them.,Now, there are other important items. We have a good many items in the national resource legislation field, like the wilderness bill and others. We have a good many measures we must pass in the agricultural field, farm legislation, which we consider very important. We consider medical care a very important measure, and I have already talked to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee about it. I have talked to leading Republicans who have a substitute plan that they have proposed, which I am now studying and giving some thought to, trying to determine the merits of it. But I hope that we can pass a medicare bill out of the House Ways and Means Committee and through the Congress this year based on the social security principle. I can think of no single piece of legislation that I would be ha?pier to approve than that bill.,The housing legislation--I could spend most of this time telling you how important I think it is. It is one of the most comprehensive bills in the history of the Nation. I hope that we can work toward the goal of someday every American owning his home. I think that this message goes in that direction. I have reviewed it carefully, both at the ranch and here in Washington, with Administrator Weaver. We will start hearings on it very shortly in both bodies. It is extremely important.,I think that we have an administration program that is going to be difficult to enact before the conventions, but with cooperation from all people on both sides of the aisle I hope we will attain a major part of it.,To your second question, I would say that I do put medical care high on the priority list.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, does General de Gaulle's proposal for neutralizing Southeast Asia interfere with our objectives there or make our work there more difficult than it would be otherwise?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I do not agree with General de Gaulle's proposals. I do not think that it would be in the interest of freedom to share his view. General de Gaulle is entitled to his opinion. He has expressed it. We have expressed ours. We think the course of action that we are following in Southeast Asia is the only course for us to follow, and the most advisable at this time. We plan to pursue it diligently and, we hope, successfully on a stepped-up basis.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, 2 days ago, when Prime Minister Pearson of Canada was in Washington, he expressed the position that before long Russia would agree to a total nuclear test ban to include underground tests. Do you share this optimism ? And, also, are you optimistic that some meaningful disarmament agreements will come out of the present Geneva conference?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not express it in terms of optimism or pessimism. I would rather say that it should be the goal of every leader in the world today to try to find areas of agreement that will lead to disarmament. We are seriously, dedicatedly, doing our very best and trying to initiate and develop every conceivable fresh proposal we can that will lead to that end.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate a filibuster when the civil rights bill eventually reaches the Senate? Do you think in order to pass it in the Senate the bill will have to be substantially trimmed?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not think it will have to be substantially trimmed. And yes, I do expect a filibuster.,Q. Mr. President, Thursday in the Rules Committee an amendment was offered to include women in the ban on discrimination in the civil rights bill on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. That was defeated by one vote and will be brought up again on the floor of the House.,Now, in the Democratic platform it says-and if I may read you just a few words-\"We support legislation which will guarantee to women equality of rights under the law.\",Would you support an amendment to include women in the civil rights bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I supported that platform and embraced that platform, and stated that view in 43 States in the Union. I realize there has been discrimination in the employment of women, and I am doing my best to do something about it. I am hopeful that in the next month we will have made substantial advances in that field.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that Mr. Walter Jenkins should go up to the Capitol and testify under oath to clear up the conflicts that are appearing in the testimony?,THE PRESIDENT. The general question was raised with me at my last meeting. I spoke with candor and frankness on that subject, about all I knew about it. I said then that I did not plan to make any more statements on it, and I do not.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, could you elaborate, sir, on your statement that you might look with some sympathy on the neutralization of both South Viet-Nam and North Viet-Nam? How does this differ from President de Gaulle's idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you will have to ask General de Gaulle about the details of his proposal. But as I understand it, the neutralization talk has applied only to South Viet-Nam and not to the whole of that area of the world. I think that the only thing we need to do to have complete peace in that area of the world now is to stop the invasion of South Viet-Nam by some of its neighbors and supporters.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, some of your advisers have different views as to the proper strategy to follow in the war on poverty. Some think the program should emphasize a welfare aspect, some think an education aspect, some think job creation. Which of those three general areas do you think the program should focus on?,THE PRESIDENT. On all three of them. And I am unaware of any differences among my advisers in that field. We have a group from the Cabinet that has given considerable attention to that and we are now developing recommendations. Those recommendations will be contained in a message.,But my answer to your question is, first, I know of no disagreement among my advisers; two, I think the message will emphasize all three areas. That message is being very carefully worked out and will be coordinated with all of the advisers who have responsibilities in those fields. We expect to get through the regular appropriations bills in excess of a half billion dollars to be coordinated into the poverty program so that it will be essential that we have the cooperation of all the Cabinet departments to whom the money is appropriated.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-01-25","text":"THE PRESIDENT. So you know about your weekend plans, I am not going to Camp David. I will be here and I will be working all day. I may go out a time or two on little personal matters, but basically I will be in the office.,[1.] I have been working with McNamara some this morning on his presentation to the committee.1 We think we are making some real progress up there getting our authorization measures up in January so they can really get their teeth into these things. All this delay has not been solely attributable to Congress. I have said to these bureau people and agency and department people to get ready. That is why you are going to get your briefing on housing today. We have that scheduled for hearing early in February.,1 Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's military posture briefing before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.,People like Senator Russell are really leaning over backwards to hold the appropriation and authorization hearings together. The schedule that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee gave out was very good, very orderly, and very well planned.2 We are going to meet it.,2 Schedule of the House Appropriations Committee, printed in the Congressional Record, January 21, 1964, page 688.,I have been talking to Mr. McNamara about that, as well as some other matters, this morning.,[2.] I have also been talking to Mr. Mann on the Panamanian situation, and we are working very hard on that along the lines of my statement the other day.3 That statement is basically United States policy. It is the same policy we enunciated to the President when we first talked to him, and it is the same policy that applies to all nations. That is the policy of being fair and just and discussing any problem that arises between two countries. We have no precommitments. Either side can bring up anything they want to. We are hoping that we can have relations and, after we do that, then we can try to reason together.,3 For the President's statement on Panama, see Item 143.,[3.] Senator Byrd's group has done an excellent job on the tax bill, and the staff is working overtime.4 It is in line with our hopes. We had hoped that we could get it voted out this week and it has been voted out. Now we will have to get the majority report and the minority report, but I am assured by the leadership that they will take it up and go right on through with it as soon as they do, and we would like to see the tax bill taken up and go to conference before we get out of here, or even come out of conference, before we get out of here on Lincoln's Birthday. That is the schedule for the Senate.,4 Senate Finance Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Harry Flood Byrd.,We do lose $30 million every day in the difference between the 18 percent withholding and the 14 percent withholding. That much could be going into the economy. It is not going in because we are considering it on the Hill, but it was a very fine vote--12 to 5--and the cooperative attitude of the chairman, although he is not part of the bill, his procedure is to cooperate fully, and he talked to us about the budget. He thought it ought to be under $100 billion and, if we did that, he felt they could try to act promptly. I think people think we are trying to do the best we can on it.,In the meantime, we are following through on the budget. They have a staff set up in the Budget Bureau which is going to check each commission, department, and agency for the elimination of any possible waste or any unnecessary expenditures. These department heads and these chairmen of commissions are going to be judged on their ability to get a dollar's worth of value out of a dollar spent. We will be making further reports. There will be a reduced estimate go to the Congress before too long. It will be minor in dollars, but it will show the atmosphere and the general feeling.,[4.] We are very happy about the progress being made in civil rights. I have said to the leadership that I thought it would be rather unbecoming to go out and talk about Lincoln when we still had the civil rights bill, that Lincoln would be so interested in, locked up in a committee and couldn't act on it. Therefore, I was very hopeful that we would get civil rights out and get it voted on in the House, getting at least half of the job done, so that we could take it up as soon as we finish the tax bill in the Senate. When we take it up, we expect to stay on it until they act upon it.,[5.] Considering the fact that we have been here 60 days and we had 5 appropriation bills out of 15 that have been signed-and we have them all signed--we have the manpower development, which is retraining, which is very important to us. We have all the education bills signed, which are in the budget already. We have the budget formulated. We have the tax bill out of the committee, and we hope we will get it through by the 11th. We have civil rights ready to come out and we hope we will have it through by the 11th. I don't think the Congress should be charged with delaying it. They have been doing a pretty good job, including the foreign aid bill, despite the fight on it, even if we did have to come back Christmas.,I mentioned the education bills. We had the agriculture appropriation dealing with the laboratories, and all of them have been solved. So we are very happy about it.,We have hopes of getting medicare out. They have finished the hearings and I am going to talk to the chairman of the committee at the appropriate time and see what the problems are there, and I will express my hopes.,[6.] On foreign aid, that will be one of our later matters to go up this year. We got $3 billion. We asked for $3 billion 4 next year. We said to the leaders of the Congress beforehand that we are not going to put anything in here just for padding and cushioning. We are going to try to ask for in this budget what we really need.,We need a minimum of a billion dollars for military assistance for Viet-Nam, Korea, and these other places. We just need that minimum. We could ask for $1.8 billion and hope to get a bill, but we are going to ask for $1 billion.,We made our estimates realistic. We asked for $3.4 billion, although they just gave us $3 billion, and we are going to try to justify it, but that will be up to Congress to determine in their wisdom.,[7.] We have not received a report from the committee that I appointed.5 It has been delayed, and it is unfortunate. I have Mr. Black on it. I have a great deal of respect for him. Also Mr. Shriver who has been out of the country. Mr. Mann has been deeply involved in the Panamanian situation. First he was involved with Bolivia and then Panama, as well as some of these other things in the State Department.,5The Interdepartmental Committee to Review Programs of Foreign Economic and Military Assistance, appointed by the President on December 26, 1963, under the chairmanship of George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State. (See Item 69.),All those are coming along all right though, and we hope sometime during this coming week, if you all just don't jump the gun on me and have me having a closed mind on this and having already decided it, with each one of your leaks coming out with saying that this is what the President has done. If you will hold it in abeyance, I am going to hear from the committee.,My judgment is that the thing I will do before I even hear from the committee is to ask Mr. Passman to come down, and ask Mr. Ellender to come down, Mr. Morse to come down, and Cooper to come down here, and sit in and hear from them on their constructive programs as to how this committee can be improved.6 I will hear from the committee as to how this can be improved, and I am not going to make a judgment or base decisions on news leaks which might come from someone's cousin in one of these agencies who has to keep his job.,6 Representative Otto E. Passman of Louisiana, Senator Allen J. Ellentier of Louisiana, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, and Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, representing appropriations and foreign affairs committees.,Bear in mind we have made no decisions on this at all. We don't know whether military assistance is going over to the Defense Department or whether it is going to stay in the bill. We don't know how the Alliance for Progress will be considered. Senator Morse is chairman of that subcommittee.,On technical assistance, we have some views on what can be done on that. On loans, it could be by banks; it could be by a corporation; it could be just as it is. That decision just plain hasn't been made.,I guess the decision has been made as to which one of you is going to cover the convention. So don't write that it is all finished and settled and concluded; or that the President has made his decision, or that he has made a wise one or an unwise one.,[8.] I think that is all I have to say to you except the real news of the morning is that we are going to put George Reedy 7 out in this ring--the bull fight--where all of you can throw these daggers at him and let him give you the briefing. He has all of the news and reports, but I wanted to have the privilege of announcing to you that Pierre and Andy8 have gotten George away from his typewriter over there. He is going to go over some of the things he has for you over the weekend.,7 Special Assistant to the President.,8 Pierre Salinger, Press Secretary to the President, and Andrew T. Hatcher, Associate Press Secretary.,Don't run out of here if you have any questions you want to ask. Ask them. I will answer them. This is not a quickly news conference. I don't know what you call a formal one. I guess I ought to wear a white tie. I came to work this morning and I didn't think it was formal. I just thought I was supposed to be here, and if you are all here, I will give you anything I know at any time. Some of you, I think, feel that I don't see enough of you individually. I will be glad to do that.,I have seen 30 or 40 reporters who have asked to come in on special things that they wanted to do. Some of them wanted to write about Cousin Oriole.9 Some of them wanted to write about what I think about my wife. Some of them want to tell their editor that they saw me and here is what they think will happen in the wild blue yonder. I try to see all of them I can with my schedule, and I am very happy with them. I never enjoy anything more than polite, courteous, fair, judicious reporters, and I think all of you qualify. But George will be giving you a good deal of stuff before your housing briefing on the housing message.,9 Mrs. Oriole Bailey, a distant cousin of the President.,I am through, and if there are any questions you want to ask, I will be glad to try to answer them.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us generally how you feel about the Bobby Baker case and the way it is developing, whether it raised any serious question of ethics in Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that is a matter the Senate is working on, and I told you the other day about the two matters that had created some interest among you. I spoke fully on them and said what I had to say.,Q. I am not talking about those matters. I mean in a more general sense.,THE PRESIDENT. I understand, and I have covered your question as thoroughly as I know how.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the Republican criticism of the stereo set?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have learned to expect Republican criticism, and I have endured it for about 32 years. I get amused by it once in a while, but I don't want to charge it because I think that is kind of a hallmark of their party. You get accustomed to expecting it. I am a little amused when you talk about the stereo and the miniature television. I don't know what the difference is, but I guess there is some difference.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, if we can go to this \"blue yonder,\" there seems to be a wide divergence of views on the question of the multilateral force.,THE PRESIDENT. On the question of what?,Q. On the multilateral force.,Q. The Soviet Union says that this is in contradiction to the pledge for nondissemination of nuclear weapons. Thanks to your efforts, and thanks to the efforts of Mr. Khrushchev, the atmosphere seems to be pretty good. Do you think there can be a solution or compromise on this particular point?,THE PRESIDENT. We are hoping, praying, and working very hard to find some solutions to all of our differences. Our viewpoint is that we are consistent in our position. Our general position is that we want to do anything that responsible men of conviction and good will can do to preserve peace. Mr. Foster spent some hours with me before he left.10 We thought we put forth an affirmative program and we welcome anyone who wants to join us.,10William C. foster, head of the U.S. delegation to the Geneva Disarmament Conference. for the President's message to the Conference and his radio and television remarks on the reopening of the Conference, see Items 129 and 131.,[11.] Q. What do you think about the french intention to recognize Red China?,THE PRESIDENT. The Government has expressed its viewpoint to the Government of France. The Government of France is responsible for its foreign policy. We gave them our views and the general effect it would have on the alliance and on the free world, and it is a matter for them to decide.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater has asked for a Senate investigation of his claim that the ICBM's are not dependable. As the former chairman of the preparedness subcommittee, would you see anything to be gained by such an inquiry?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter entirely for the Senate. I think the Senators who are responsible for investigations in that field, such as Senator Russell and Senator Stennis, are men of good judgment, and if there is anything that they have not investigated, I would be surprised, because they are pretty knowledgeable in it. It is a matter for them to decide.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, have you sent any special message to the British Government about the sale of buses to Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of State has spoken on that subject. I think he has made the position of our Government very clear.11,11In an anniversary dinner speech on January 22 at Barnard College, New York City, Secretary Rusk stated that \"we cannot accept the contention that trade with Cuba is comparable to ordinary trade with any Communist country .... Those countries which for commercial reasons supply Cuba, especially with goods critical to the Cuban economy, are prejudicing the efforts of the countries of this hemisphere to reduce the threat from Cuba.\" (State Department Bulletin, vol. 50, p. 191.),[14.] Q. Mr. President, the Inter-American Peace Commission said today it was working on a new agreement or a new plan between the U.S. and Panama toward resolving this problem. Could you shed any light on this new plan we are talking about?,THE PRESIDENT. Do you think that would be desirable before we agreed?,Q. Maybe you can give us a little indication of which way we are going.,THE PRESIDENT. I think we hope, out of all of these conferences, that the Peace Commission has rendered very outstanding service, and there will be a meeting of the minds as to our position and we hope that they agree. There is no problem that exists between two persons or between two peoples or between two countries that should not be reasoned out if there is a difference of opinion. We are willing to do that. The question is the procedures we employ, and they are working very diligently on them. Within the hour I have spent a good deal of time talking about that.,I had a very fine meeting with the Peace Commission. I salute them for their fine work, and I am positive that the Panamanians will want to give them their views, and I am hopeful that after both views are carefully considered they can come up with a solution that is satisfactory to both of us.,Q. You had this meeting this morning with the Peace Commission?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not say a meeting. I would say a conference.,Q. With the Commission this morning?,THE PRESIDENT. No, yesterday; but I talked a good deal this morning about the results of their work, what they are doing, and what our position is, with Mr. Mann.,Q. Are you more encouraged today, say, than you were a week ago?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have that thermometer with me. I'll have to take a blood test next week. But I think agreement can be reached, and I think men on both sides, men of good will, will try hard. Nearly everyone in the world would rather talk than fight.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, have we received any expressions of concern from Asian countries about the french plan to recognize China?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there is a good deal of concern throughout the world about the action of the french Government. I told you about our concern. The Government has made it clear that we have views on it, but this is a matter for the french Government.,[At this point the President spoke briefly off the record. ],[16.] Q. Mr. President, are you optimistic about the outcome--,THE PRESIDENT. Putting women in Government-the answer is yes. You see, I want to have a report from the Cabinet officers next week, and then I am going to answer your question. I am going to have a report from all of the Cabinet next week, from all of the independent agencies next week, and the State Department, and you are going to find more attractive, capable women working for this Government than you ever saw before.,Now, go ahead with your question, Hazel.12,12Hazel Markel, National Broadcasting Company.,[17.] Q. I wanted to ask if you were optimistic about the Attorney General's visit to Malaysia.,THE PRESIDENT. I have wired the Attorney General commending him for his efforts. I told him I looked forward with great anticipation to receiving the full report on his return.,The Attorney General has worked very hard, undertaking a very delicate mission. He has handled himself very well, and I want to get the details from him.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, Republicans have said that the tax cut may add too much to the economy and may possibly lead to a recession in 1965. How about that?,THE PRESIDENT. My viewpoint on that is in the Economic Message.,[At this point the President again spoke off the record.],[19.] Q. Do you agree with Wright Patman--,THE PRESIDENT. I have not discussed Mr. Patman's ideas with him or anyone else.,[20.] If any of you have any other questions, Mr. Reedy can answer them. This is a formal press conference. If there isn't an element of the press here that is represented, I want them represented here. Incidentally, I will see you next week. There is nothing going on here that we want to keep secret, except some things which may fall within the national interest which must be kept secret. We are very anxious to help you do your job, with objectivity, and as enthusiastically as I hope you all want me to do mine.,Q. Are you going to have the press conference in this office or the State Department?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know where we will have it. I think it is good enough to say I am going to have one.,Q. Will it be on Saturday, Mr. President?,Reporter: Thank you very much, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1964-01-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I want to take this opportunity to restate our position on Panama and the Canal Zone. No purpose is served by rehashing either recent or ancient events. There have been excesses and errors on the part of both Americans and Panamanians. Earlier this month, actions of imprudent students from both countries played into the hands of agitators seeking to divide us. What followed was a needless and tragic loss of life on both sides.1,1 In defiance of an order of the Governor of Panama to eliminate the flying of flags at schools, American students on January 7 hoisted their own flag at Balboa High School. Two days later Panamanian students attempted to display their flag and disorder followed. On January 10 Panama broke diplomatic relations with the United States. (See also Items 95, 104, 114.,Our own forces were confronted with sniper fire and mob attack. Their role was one of resisting aggression and not committing it. At all times they remained inside the Canal Zone and they took only those defensive actions required to maintain law and order and to protect lives and property and the Canal itself. Our obligation to safeguard the Canal against riots and vandals and sabotage and other interference rests on the precepts of international law, the requirements of international commerce, and the needs of free world security.,These obligations cannot be abandoned. But the security of the Panama Canal is not inconsistent with the interests of the Republic of Panama. Both of these objectives can and should be assured by the actions and the agreement of Panama and the United States. This Government has long recognized that our operation of the Canal across Panama poses special problems for both countries. It is necessary, therefore, that our relations be given constant attention.,Over the past few years we have taken a number of actions to remove inequities and irritants. We recognize that there are things to be done and we are prepared to talk about the ways and means of doing them. But violence is never justified and is never a basis for talks. Consequently, the first item of business has been the restoration of public order. The Inter-American Peace Committee, which I met this morning, deserves the thanks of us all, not only for helping to restore order, but for its good offices.2 For the future, we have stated our willingness to engage without limitation or delay in a full and frank review and reconsideration of all issues between our two countries.,2 The Inter-American Peace Committee of the Organization of American States, composed of Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the United States (in connection with this matter the OAS Council elected Chile to serve in place of the United States), and Venezuela, was called upon jointly by the two countries to study the U.S.-Panamanian dispute and to recommend measures for its settlement.,We have set no preconditions to the resumption of peaceful discussions. We are bound by no preconceptions of what they will produce. And we hope that Panama can take the same approach. In the meantime, we expect neither country to either foster or yield to any kind of pressure with respect to such discussions. We are prepared, 30 days after relations are restored, to sit in conference with Panamanian officials to seek concrete solutions to all problems dividing our countries. Each government will be free to raise any issue and to take any position. And our Government will consider all practical solutions to practical problems that are offered in good faith.,Certainly solutions can be found which are compatible with the dignity and the security of both countries, as well as the needs of world commerce. And certainly Panama and the United States can remain, as they should remain, good friends and good neighbors.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, before you go, I wonder if you could entertain another question or so. For example, how do you think things are going up on the Hill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we signed the cultural bill this morning. We finished up the appropriation bill before we went home Christmas. We completed the education bills that were then in conference, and signed them.,We had two big items that are high on the agenda; the civil rights bill.,We have the feeling and the belief of the leadership that we will have that bill before the House early in the month and that we will have final action on it before they take a holiday for Lincoln's Birthday.,On the tax bill, Senator Byrd has called me within the hour and told me that they reversed the decision earlier made and today they took the language out, all repeal language, dealing with excises and restored $450 million in the bill by a 9 to 8 vote and then reported the bill to the Senate by a vote of 12 to 5.,[3.] You are also writing some other stories, I think, about an insurance policy that was written on my life some 7 years ago, and I am still here.,The company in which Mrs. Johnson and my daughters have a majority interest, along with some other stockholders, were somewhat concerned when I had a heart attack in 1955, and in 1957 they purchased insurance on my life made payable to the company. And the insurance premiums were never included as a business expense, but they thought that was good business practice in case something happened to me, so Mrs. Johnson and the children wouldn't have to sell their stock on the open market and lose control of the company.,That insurance was purchased here in Washington, and on a portion of the premiums paid, Mr. Don Reynolds got a small commission. Mr. George Sampson, the general agent for the Manhattan Insurance Company, handled it and we have paid some $78,000 in premiums up to date and there is another $11,800 due next month which the company will probably pay to take care of that insurance.,[4.] There is a question also which has been raised about a gift of a stereo set that an employee of mine made to me and Mrs. Johnson. That happened some 2 years later, some 5 years ago. The Baker family gave us a stereo set. We used it for a period, and we had exchanged gifts before. He was an employee of the public and had no business pending before me and was asking for nothing, and so far as I knew expected nothing in return any more than I did when I had presented him with gifts.,I think that is about all I know that is going on on the Hill, but I hope that covers it rather fully. That is all I have to say about it and all I know about it.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, sir."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1963-12-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] First, we have the announcement that I have invited President Adolfo Lopez Mateos of Mexico to meet with me in southern California on February 21-22, 1963. This invitation to the President followed an invitation that President Mateos and myself receive honorary degrees from the University of California at Los Angeles. The invitation for the honorary degrees was extended by Governor Brown, the president of the University of California Board of Regents, and the Board of Regents. The university plans to hold a special convocation on the morning of February 21 to confer the honorary degrees.,Following a luncheon in Los Angeles, which is currently in a state of planning, the two of us will fly to Palm Springs, Calif., where we will meet on Friday afternoon and evening, February 21, and Saturday morning, February 22.,President Mateos has accepted the invitation and they will make their own announcement in due time.,[2.] Federal civilian employment was reduced by more than 1,000 during November and stood nearly 3,500 lower than at the end of November of last year. Special significance of this is that if Federal employment had grown at the same rate as the population, 400,000 new employees would have been added instead of being able to make the reduction of 3,500. So you can see that we are trying to at least set a good example.,This reduction was achieved mostly by not replacing employees going off the Federal payroll failing to fill vacancies. Overall there were 2,470,571 regular employees in the Federal Government at the end of November 1963. Of this total, 42 percent work in the Defense Department, 24 percent in the Post Office Department, and 7 percent in the Veterans Administration. All the rest of the work of the Federal Government is done by 658,000 employees.,The Federal Government must be a model of competent and efficient management, with economy the watchword, and an end to waste our goal.,[3.] Secretary of Defense McNamara's recent announcement relating to the closing and reduction of activities at the 33 installations, taken in line with my announced goal of economical operations of all agencies of the Government, has resulted in mail almost 5 to 1 supporting the action. A telegram from James E. Bent, President of the Greater Hartford, Conn., Chamber of Commerce, says that the directors of the chamber passed a resolution which said in part, \"The Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce commends President Lyndon B. Johnson for his action in working to reduce spending by all departments of Government and also commends Secretary McNamara for his courageous step in ordering the closing of unnecessary military bases.\",A Seattle, Wash., man cabled Secretary McNamara that he had \"... five children coming up. I back you wholeheartedly on intelligent cutbacks.\",A Rockhill, S.C., man cabled, \"Closing unneeded installations is a brilliant move. Stick to your guns.\",Thomas W. Nelson, corresponding secretary of the Queen Ann Democratic Club of Los Angeles, Calif., said that the club at its monthly meeting \"heartily endorsed your action. We are heartened by your courage and leadership.\",A retired bishop from Cambridge, Mass., wrote Secretary McNamara that \"As a humble citizen I shout with joy that somebody has got the nerve to face up to such criticism to save the country money without cutting down necessary defense machinery.\",A Houston, Tex., man wrote, \"I want to congratulate you on the economy moves reported in yesterday's papers.\",A New Brunswick, N.J., business executive wrote, \"This will be painful, but with the support of the President I feel sure you will accomplish your objective.\",I want to point out that before these installations were closed, the Secretary gave us his judgment that every person employed at any of the installations could be offered another job, if he was willing to move, at some other defense installation where their existing vacancies had not been filled or where these combined installations would need more people. So, number one, everyone could have a job at some other installation. Number two, the Secretary felt that he could not justify spending a single dollar on any of the 33 installations. A good many of them were archaic, they were performing work that could be better performed if consolidated and combined elsewhere, and no additional expenditures could be justified.,At my direction, the Secretary has appointed a board of top Department of Defense officials to step up the study of military installations which has been going on since 1961.,The Secretary named Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) Thomas Morris to head this board with the Assistant Secretaries of Installations and Logistics from the three military departments as the other members.,In naming the board, the Secretary said, \"Since early 1961 we have been conducting a continuing review of the military installations .... In view of our President's direction to get maximum efficiency out of every dollar spent for defense, we are going to intensify this effort. I am asking Assistant Secretary Morris and the representation of Army, Navy and Air Force to apply themselves even more vigorously to this task so that we may have the maximum results in the earliest possible time. Secretary Morris' Base Utilization Division, composed of civilian installation experts and commissioned officers from the three departments will, of course, carry the bulk of the load as they have done so admirably in the past.,\"The new board will supervise studies to identify additional unnecessary installations which should be reduced or closed during the next several years. While each installation change is a matter of serious concern to the individuals affected, we are confident that in the national interest we cannot properly justify maintaining any installation which does not truly contribute to a strong defense in the most economical manner.\",You will have these releases and you do not need to copy all of this material. I want to review them with you briefly in case you have some question. I will try to either refer it or answer it.,[4.] I do want to point out there is a mistake by Pierre Salinger's girls that he brought down here from the East Coast. They say \"Office of the White House Press Secretary, LBJ Ranch, H-u-e, T-e-x-a-s.\" He didn't misspell Texas, but he did misspell Hye. I don't want any of you to follow the announcement literally. Correct all mistakes before using, please.,Another observation I want to make is that I gave Pierre that jacket he has on today because it is too large for me to wear--or too small.,[5.] Mr. Moscoso will be appointed U.S. Representative to the Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress and the U.S. Representative to the meetings of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council of the Pan American Union. He will also act as Special Adviser, with the rank of Ambassador, to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Mr. Thomas C. Mann.,Mr. Mann will assume Mr. Moscoso's responsibilities for administering the Alliance for Progress. His first job will be to explore all the possibilities for increased efficiency as well as operating economies which may be obtained through the exercise of his combined responsibility for the work of Inter-American Affairs and the Alliance for Progress.,These changes are designed to facilitate better use of United States resources, both private and public, in promoting economic development and social progress in Latin America. United States assistance programs supplement the self-help measures taken in other American Republics.,Those are the five little announcements that we have to make. We will make others from time to time.,[6.] I spent the evening working on the briefing papers for the meeting tomorrow. I will join you in welcoming Chancellor Erhard at Bergstrom Air Base in the morning at 10 o'clock.,[7.] This morning I had a chance to take a long walk with the Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary of State, and other folks who visited me. I had breakfast with the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. John McCone. He brought me up to date on affairs around the world. I directed him to seek an appointment with President Eisenhower, to review with President Eisenhower some of the matters that he briefed me on this morning, and to also bring him up to date on the action we had taken on some suggestions that he had made prior to the time I appeared before the joint session of Congress. Mr. McCone left shortly after 10 o'clock and the Secretaries came in.,[8.] I had a private meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture in which we discussed the more comprehensive farm bill to be considered in the next session of Congress. We talked about the results of his meeting with the farm organizations, at some length about my talks with Chancellor Erhard with regard to the Common Market area, our export agricultural commodities, and our access to the Common Market area.,[9.] I talked to Secretary Mann at some length about many Ambassadors for Latin American nations, about some of his deputies and personnel generally in his new organization.,I talked to both Secretary Mann and Secretary Rusk about reorganization of our various aid programs in an attempt to effect efficiency and economy, and discussed with him the work that is being done under the direction of Mr. Ball, the chairman of the group, Eugene Black, Sargent Shriver, and the group that is studying reorganization and our whole relation with other nations in the field of economic and military assistance.,In due time we will have more thorough announcements about that, more complete announcements, with regard to military aid and Latin American assistance, as well as whatever may be recommended in the way of consolidations on the entire aid program.,I think that is all I have to say this afternoon. I am going to take a horseback ride. Then I am going to study briefing papers until I go to bed tonight. I will see all of you in the morning. In the meantime, if you have any questions that are burning that need an answer, and I can help you, I will be glad to do it. 1,1 On the same day the White House released at Stonewall, Tex., the text of remarks to the press by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman, and Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas C. Mann. Brief introductory remarks by the President introduced each speaker.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any idea what Mr. McCone would review with President Eisenhower? What would be the nature of the discussions?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It will be the budget for next year; the steps we have taken with regard to effecting economies in the Federal Government; the ceilings that we have placed on each department; the new targets, the goals that we will have; the economic conditions that we anticipate for next year; the general intelligence developments and information from throughout the world.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, with, as you have indicated, popular support for the closing of unneeded military installations running so strong, do you have an explanation for this fierce opposition to closing from many Members of Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think that each Congressman and Senator that represents his area could be expected to express the hope that we give very careful attention to the economy of that area and the effect and impact that closing an installation would have. A good many of them have done that, but they have been very reasonable and very prudent. Most of them have taken the position that if they could not be justified in the national interest by the executive department, that they did not want to see them continue to operate when they were not needed.,The point I want to make about that is that every congressional district in this country that has a defense installation must understand that they are going to be reviewed from time to time. We are not going to be just satisfied with the status quo. When Mr. McNamara came into this administration we had 6,900 bases. We have cut out 400 of them, and we still have 6,700. That is not bad arithmetic. That means that we have built some missile bases in addition to the ones we already had, so we must constantly review these installations, combine them, and consolidate them if we are going to operate at peak efficiency.,We want to save every penny we can every place we can so that we may have some much needed funds to fill unfilled needs-educational needs, health needs, poverty needs generally. We think it is much better to curtail the production of unneeded military armaments and take the money saved thereby and put it into educating our children than following the former course--or taking care of the health of our citizens, or providing security in old age, or medical aid, or things of that kind.,So we are combing with a fine-toothed comb in every department and every individual agency. After meeting with the Cabinet the other day in a 3-day study, we came back with recommendations to the budget that reduced it $731 million and eliminated more than 10,000 jobs. I have a Cabinet officer coming a little later in the week to tell me how he succeeded in reducing his requests by 5,000 jobs. The Secretary of Agriculture told me today that he is very proud of the fact that he had reduced his request by in excess of 4,000 jobs. So we are trying to have the Cabinet set a good example in the hope that the people down at the lower echelon will increase their productivity without increasing expenditures.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, does this briefing with President Eisenhower indicate a continuing relationship between you and him?,THE PRESIDENT. It means that the President of the United States is going to keep the ex-Presidents of the United States fully informed and seek their counsel and advice from time to time. I have had extended conversations with Mr. Hoover, first with his son who talked for him over the phone right after I took the oath as President, and later with President Hoover personally. On Christmas Day I had another conversation with him. He has given me some very constructive suggestions on the operation of the Federal Government that grew out of his experience. We are studying those suggestions. We are applying them where they are appropriate. The Hoover Commission reports have been very carefully evaluated since I became President.,President Truman has given me his suggestions on how to increase efficiency, effect economies, and operate the Federal Government.,General Eisenhower has spent a good deal of time working with me. I found all of them to be very cooperative and I am very grateful for it.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, how important a part will the East-West relations play in your talks with Chancellor Erhard?,THE PRESIDENT. The most important part. There is nothing more important than East-West relations. As I have said on other occasions, and I want to take this opportunity to repeat it, the most important thing in the world to all of us is to live in a world of peace, to learn to live together. We are going to go down any road that can possibly lead to peace. I express the hope that all the other leaders of the other nations will do likewise.,We believe that there is progress which can be made. We are going to do our best to do our part. We have no doubt but what the Chancellor will have the same feeling and that other world leaders have the same feeling. I once said that I had served with over 3,000 men in the Congress in 32 years that I worked and served there. I don't believe I have ever seen a man, either Republican or Democrat, that ran on a platform of doing what was wrong. They all want to do what is right, but sometimes their ideas about what is right and what is wrong differ some. I don't think I know any leaders of the world that wouldn't prefer peace for their people. The job is how to secure it, what road to follow. We are going to be constantly and genuinely searching for that road.,Q. Mr. President, in that connection, there have been some optimistic reports from Germany about the recent Common Market discussions, particularly concerning industrial goods, reports that Mr. Erhard will say that they are going to be outward-looking, and so on. I wondered if this tied in with your knowledge and information on this subject, and if you found it encouraging, and useful.,THE PRESIDENT. I will probably talk much more fully after the visit rather than anticipating it ahead of time. Although you know our administration went to great lengths and made great sacrifices to pass the trade bill last year, we are very hopeful that we not only will continue to have increased opportunities for trade in the industrial field, but that we will also have access for agricultural commodities.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater has accused you of some un-Christmaslike behavior in keeping Congress in to work on the foreign aid bill. Would you care to comment on Senator Goldwater's remarks?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. I might say that the Senate asked me if it made any difference what day they took up the bill, and I told them it was a matter for the Senate to determine. I am sure if Senator Goldwater had been around, he would have known that.,Q. Mr. President, in connection with foreign aid--,THE PRESIDENT. I made no special requests of the Senate about their holidays. They determine when to have them. I am glad that they, in their wisdom, determined to go ahead and try to complete some unfinished business. I believe the people of this country want us all to do that. Of course, they understand when they have to be away on account of sickness or something, but I think generally speaking they want us to get our work done. That is what I want to do.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, when are you going to be prepared to talk politics, for example whether you will be entering any of the primaries, and what your own plans will be about seeking the nomination at the Atlantic City Convention?,THE PRESIDENT. I imagine when we get caught up with all these other things. If you have plenty of time on your hands, I wouldn't mind visiting about it with you sometime in the near future.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, returning to foreign aid, was the action of Congress in sharply reducing foreign aid funds a factor in your appointment of this interdepartmental review committee?,THE PRESIDENT. I have felt for some time that we ought to constantly appraise our expenditures, evaluate them, and try to modernize them. There has been a very strong report by the Committee on Foreign Relations, all of whose members I have great respect for. I did consider that in recommending it, but I have some definite views of my own. I communicated them to the committee appointed, on how the Alliance for Progress should be handled, on how military aid should be handled, and on how the Development Loan Fund should be handled.,They are considering my views and all other information they can get. They will come up with a recommendation. If they are as close to my views as I hope they will be, we will probably adopt them.,Merriman Smith, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1963-12-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. You mean I have that many friends out there that I have been missing all of these days? I thought everybody I knew had been in here.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us an exposition of your attitude toward perhaps an early meeting with Premier Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. I am ready and willing to meet with any of the world leaders at any time there is any indication a meeting would be fruitful and productive. When there are such indications, I will be glad to make a decision and inform you of it.,[2.] I have already made a decision this morning, which I had anticipated opening the meeting with, to follow through on my December 14th announcement of Mr. Thomas Mann, as Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs.,Because I want Mr. Mann to be the one man in the Government to coordinate the policies of this hemisphere after consultation with the Secretary of State, I am going to make him not only the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, but Special Assistant to the President. As Special Assistant to the President to coordinate our policies in Latin America, he will be dealing with many other American agencies and other international agencies. We expect to speak with one voice on all matters affecting this hemisphere. Mr. Mann, with the support of the Secretary of State and the President, will be that voice.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to ask for any legislation in the area of Presidential succession or disability, after your experience of the last few weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans. I have already carefully considered the disability matter and taken the action that I thought was necessary and desirable. I have a complete understanding and agreement with Mr. McCormack.,Q. Would you spell that out, Mr. President? Your agreement with President Kennedy was rather carefully spelled out in writing.,THE PRESIDENT. It is the same agreement.,Q. It is the same agreement. This is the same then.,THE PRESIDENT. Identical.1,1 See \"Public Papers of the Presidents, John F. Kennedy 1961,\" Item 319.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us any of the plans you have for Mr. Mann to take specific action? Apparently Latin America will also be one of your greatest problems and I wondered if you thought in terms of specific programs that can avert some dangers that seem to be in the making.,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Mann is in Mexico now, getting ready to come up here. He will review with all of the agencies of the Government concerned with Latin America his and the President's ideas. I have spelled those out to a limited degree in my letter to Mr. Mann, released last Sunday, and any amplification of them will come from Mr. Mann after he is inducted.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, Ambassador to Costa Rica Raymond Telles is in town for consultation. I wonder if you have any new assignment planned for him, and if you will see him.,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to see him. I have no new assignments planned.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us whether the budget will be under $100\nbillion or over?,THE PRESIDENT. No one knows what the budget will be now, because we are trying the case, so to speak. We have dozens of agencies, independent agencies and Cabinet departments, who have made their requests and have not yet had it acted upon. Once it is acted upon, they still have the right to appeal to the President. The Joint Chiefs will appeal to the President from the recommendations they have made on December 30th at Johnson City. We have set that date and at that time we will try to finalize the budget for the Department of Defense.2,2 On December 30 at Austin, Tex., the White House released a statement by Secretary McNamara announcing that he had met with the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric to discuss the Defense Department budget for fiscal year 1965. Secretary McNamara reported that, although final decisions had not been made, he believed that a billion dollar savings could be made without in any way reducing the Nation's defenses. \"As a matter of fact,\" he added, \"I believe that the budget that will be submitted to the Congress will yield defenses superior to those in any other time in our history in peacetime.\",I am working from a budget of $98.8 billion this year. It appears that we will expend about that amount, and maybe a little under or a little over, but substantially $99 billion will be the expenditures this year. That was the amount of Mr. Kennedy's budget. There are built-in increases of $1,790 million that are mandatory--military pay increase for 9 months, military retired pay, civilian pay, National Aeronautics and Space contracts, the Agency for International Development, Post Office rise, Federal Aviation Agency, urban renewal, and public assistance grants.,They run about $1 billion 8, and you have no choice about that. You will have to add that much. Then we have, as a result of the education bills that we have passed, the mental retardation bill, the manpower bill, and what we anticipate in the Appalachian program on poverty, about $1,650 million more. So roughly, you can say $1 billion 7, and $1 billion 8. That is $3 billion 5.,Now, in addition to that, you are going to have increases that are requested for additional functions in various agencies. Most agencies, I would say a majority of the agencies,,asked for an increase of some kind. They have to, because first, the civilian pay increase just makes the budget higher. But they have some new functions. We will add those to the two amounts that I have given you, and then we will start reducing from there. That is what we are doing now.,So no one can say with any authority, the President or the Director of the Budget or any Department, what the budget is going to be, because it hasn't been determined. We are going to cut out every dime of waste that we can in order to have as much to spend on the unfilled needs of this Nation. We are going to be very careful not to sacrifice our military posture or weaken our combat strength.,But where we can, we are going to reduce the expenditures that are not essential to the Defense Establishment. I anticipate that the first of the year, the Defense Department for the first time in 15 years will have below one million civilians employed. I anticipate there will be installations in 15 States that will be well on the road to being closed because they serve no essential defense need. I anticipate that other surveys will be made of the remaining 6700 bases. When and if and as they may become surplus to our needs, we will take them up with the persons properly concerned and then make announcements as to their closing.,We do have an increase in population. It is up 21 percent since Mr. Truman was President, so we must expect an increase in expenditures. We will have an increase in expenditures. The father that adds two or three extra children to his home and takes in a few of his nieces and nephews has to expect an increase in the food bill. When we have an increase in population, we are going to have an increase in the budget.,But we are going to keep that increase at the lowest possible level, first because we believe in frugality and thrift, and second because we hope that we won't send to Congress a budget that will require severe and drastic reductions by the Congress. We think that they are overworked now, and we don't want to add to it.,[7.] Q. Assuming that you are the Democratic nominee for President in 1964, will you agree to debate your opponent ?,THE PRESIDENT. I will make those decisions at the time I am the nominee, and in the light of the circumstances existing then. For the present, I am not going to discuss any political matter.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans, sir, to meet with any other world leaders in the near future that you might tell us about, after your meeting with Chancellor Erhard?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. First of all, yesterday there was a meeting with world leaders from 113 countries3 I had met most of them before. A good many of them had visited my home in Texas before. Some of them were here just a few days ago for the funeral. But it was a very productive meeting. I think it was very helpful to all of us. I think it created better understanding. I am very grateful for the invitation extended to me, and for the hospitality shown.,3 The President referred to a meeting with the U.N. members at a reception, following his address to the U.N. General Assembly on December 17.,I expect to meet with Mr. and hold the meeting he had planned to hold with Mr. Kennedy. I will meet him on the 28th and 29th of this month at my home. I expect to meet with the President of Italy in the early part of the new year, with the Prime Minister of Canada, with the President of Mexico, and with any other leaders where it is indicated a conference would be mutually desirable.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Freeman, referring to your remarks earlier, said he would consider poverty as an important concern of yours in the administration. Is there any attempt going to be made to coordinate the various approaches to the national problem in the rural areas?,THE PRESIDENT. Any kind of poverty will be a concern of this administration, and a very serious concern of it. All of us know enough about it to not want the people to have to experience it any more than is absolutely necessary.,I have in the next room now the leaders of the farm organizations of this country.4 I have asked them to try to find areas of agreement and to give me their recommendations and be prepared to give them to the Senate committee. We have passed a cotton bill, and there are some indications that the Senate may desire to act on a more comprehensive bill this year. I have asked these leaders, these experts in the field of farm legislation, not by commodity groups but by national organizations, to come in and give us their best thought. High on that agenda of priority is poverty legislation. They are two different things but they relate to each other--a general farm bill and specific poverty legislation for the lowest income groups.,4 The President referred to the leaders of nine major farm groups with whom he had met earlier on the same day, namely: William Brook, president, National Grain Trade Council, Harry B. Caldwell, chairman, National Agricultural Advisory Commission, Fred Heinkel, president, Missouri Farmers Association, Kenneth D. Naden, executive vice president, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Herschel D. Newsom, master, National Grange, James G. Patton, president, National Farmers Union, Charles Shuman, president, American Farm Bureau Federation, Oren Staley, president, National Farmers Organization, and Jerry Voorhis, secretary, American Cooperative League of the United States.,I spent some time this morning with the Farmers Union and various groups. I am very hopeful that there will come from these meetings that they are having a consensus which will be helpful to me and helpful to the committee that is considering it. I think while this Nation is very prosperous at the moment, not all of our people are fortunate enough to be in the upper income groups.,As I talk now, I am told by the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers that we are now passing the $600 billion gross national product rate. That is about as fine a Christmas present as could come to the people of this country. I am very happy about it. If we get the tax bill, we expect to increase that rate substantially. About every month that the tax bill is delayed, we lose about half a billion dollars in our economy.,We are very hopeful that we can help solve this poverty question and create additional incentives for our private enterprise system, and particularly our businessmen and our workers, by the early passage of the tax bill.,Senator Byrd has given me assurance that he is willing to have the bill voted on as soon as it can properly be voted on after amendments are offered. Although he does not agree to vote for the bill, he agrees that it can be voted upon at an early date.,What is really important in connection with our Government budget and our poverty program, with our whole economic picture, is the percentage of our gross national product, what our gross national product is first, and second, the percentage of that that we are actually spending for governmental purposes.,In the Roosevelt war years we spent as high as 46 percent of our gross national product for administrative budgets. During the transition period under Mr. Truman we spent 29 percent. In 1954, under Mr. Eisenhower, we spent 18.6 percent. We are hoping that we can come under that figure in our budget next year--in other words, that our budget expenditure as a percentage of our gross national product will be less for the fiscal year 1965 than it has been for any of these periods I mentioned.,Of course, a good deal of that depends on the size of the budget, whether we can keep it within bounds, and the size of the gross national product.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to propose any new programs that will cost money in the fiscal year coming up?,THE PRESIDENT. There will be new programs. We are not going to stand still in this country; we are going to move ahead. We are going to be enlightened. We are going to be forward looking. We hope that our private sector can make substantial contributions after the tax bill is passed in relieving our unemployment problem and increasing the number of jobs.,But we do expect to have programs that will deal with new situations and we do expect never to just be content to sit in our rocking chair and enjoy the status quo. We are a growing Nation, and we expect to keep moving if we are to lead our own people, as well as lead the world.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to send an administration wheat bill to Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I have discussed that to the extent that I think your question is answered by saying that I have asked the farm leaders to make their recommendations on an agricultural bill, to make them to the Senate committee. I should like to get the benefit of their recommendations, talk to the Senators concerned, and then determine what, if any, kind of comprehensive agricultural legislation could come from this next session.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a hard decision on changing the space program, including eliminating the Rover project? 5,THE PRESIDENT. No.,5 Development of a nuclear-powered rocket for possible future space missions.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, is this the type of press conference you intend to hold ? Is that the decision? Or is this just an interim press conference?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that we are going to maintain an adequate flow of information to the press at all times in the best manner that we can. We will do what comes naturally. Maybe it will be a meeting of this kind today; maybe a televised meeting tomorrow; with maybe a coffee session the next day. We don't want to be too rigid. We always want to be flexible.,One thing, though, that we are determined to do is to let you know as much about what goes on in your house and in your Government as we possibly can, consistent only with the interests of our country and self-preservation of our country.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, are you planning to send some warships to the Indian Ocean, part of the 7th Fleet?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I will have no comment to make there about the details of it. I have seen the statements that have been made about it, and the character of the operation. The contemplated plans that may be in the offing should come froth the Defense Department. Mr. McNamara will no doubt be glad to give you that when he gets back.,I talked to the Secretary of State this morning. He told me that his meetings in NATO were very satisfactory and he thought quite helpful. Everyone was quite understanding and united against any external dangers.,I talked to the Secretary of Defense. told him how grateful we were that he had been spared this accident which could have been very tragic.6 He told me he expected to be in Saigon a little later.,6 The Secretary of Defense's plane, on take-off December 18 at Orly Airport, Paris, had a near collision on the runway with another plane which had just landed. One of the tires of the Secretary's plane burst as a result of the emergency braking used by the pilot to prevent a collision. The Secretary, who had been in Paris to attend the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting and was en route to Saigon to confer with leaders of the new South Vietnamese Government, left a few hours later on another plane.,[15.] No controversies came up in the NATO meeting. The conference was a very satisfactory one. We expect to name very shortly an Ambassador to the OAS and a replacement for Mr. Mann. We have invitations out, but because of a health problem in one of the men's families, not with himself but some member of his family, he wanted to consult them before final acceptance. If you want to force someone to leak those names I will give them to you myself very shortly.7,7 The appointment of Ellsworth Bunker as Ambassador to the Organization of American States was announced by the President on January 2, 1964, in a statement released at Austin, Tex.; the President's intention to appoint Fulton Freeman as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico was announced by the White House in a release dated February 12. Mr. Freeman's nomination was confirmed by the Senate on February 25.,Q. Mr. President, does this elevation of Mr. Mann indicate any increased urgency on the hemisphere problems?,THE PRESIDENT. We know of no more important problems anywhere, any time, than the problems of our neighbors. We want to see our relations with them be the very best. We think Mr. Mann, who was the Assistant Secretary in the last administration, under Mr. Kennedy's administration, and who has served with great distinction as attaché, minister, and counsel at many of the embassies in this hemisphere, who has also served with distinction in this place before, is the best man to do it.,We also feel that we want to coordinate these programs, not eliminate them; to coordinate them and try to make them efficient in order that we can do the greatest good for the greatest number. We think that he is the man to do this job.,We would hope that we could operate with the same efficiency in all parts of the world. It does not mean a lessening of interest in any region, but it does mean that we are excited about the possibilities of advancement in growth and prosperity in this hemisphere. We want it to be under the very ablest and most experienced leadership that we can find. We will take whatever steps it may be necessary to take in other parts of the world, when and if they are necessary.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us about your Christmas plans yet?,THE PRESIDENT. I asked Mrs. Johnson about those just before you came in. I cannot be positive about them because that will depend on the situation here in Washington. But if God is willing and Mrs. Johnson is willing, I plan to fly to my home either the night of the 22d, after I light the Christmas tree and appear at the Lincoln Memorial, or sometime the 23d. I hope to spend Christmas Eve with my sisters, my brother, my uncles, cousins, aunts, and my family. Immediately after Christmas I am going to relax a little. I might even--I don't want to keep my secrets from you people--I might even go hunting. I haven't had a chance to do that this year and I would like to go and spend a day out in the hills, communing with myself.,Some of my staff members will be coming right after Christmas and we will receive the Chancellor on the 28th and 29th. We will receive the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 30th. We will be working on the State of the Union Message during that period. Except for just the Christmas Eve and Christmas holidays, I expect to be quite busy.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you can live with the foreign aid bill that the Senate Appropriations Committee has come up with?,THE PRESIDENT. That bill is pending in the Senate. I thought that the action they took yesterday was very constructive and very helpful.8,[ At this point the President spoke off the record.],8 The bill (H.R. 9499), passed by the House on December 16, was introduced in the Senate on December 17 and was referred to the Committee on Appropriations (Congressional Record, Dec. 17, 1963, p. 23669).,Q. On the record, now, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I am on the record.,I have no doubt but what the bill that is the product of both Houses of Congress will be a satisfactory bill, and while it may not give us all that we would like to see, and it may have some limitations that we think are undesirable, it is one that the best minds of both Houses have produced. I think it will be substantial enough to advance our national interest, and, if you want to so put it, to live with.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, coming to the international situation, what do you think would be the most appropriate basis, not only for lessening tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, but also for improving relations between those two great powers?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the realization that there are three billion people in the world, and that the number one obligation of the President of this country and every citizen of every country is to learn how to live together. Failure in that mission could mean disaster for most of the world. My number one 'priority, my number one goal, my number one objective, my number one ambition, is to try to provide the leadership for my country with vision, tolerance, patience, and strength that will convince the rest of the world that we court no territory, we seek no satellites, that we are trying to live in peace and prosperity, and we would like for our fellowman everywhere to be able to do the same thing.,Alvin A. Spivak, United Press International: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Lyndon B. Johnson","date":"1963-12-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I told Pierre a little earlier in the morning I was going to buy coffee later in the day, and I didn't really know how much coffee I was going to buy. He has more friends than I anticipated.1,1 The President referred to a conversation with Pierre Salinger, Press Secretary to the President, in preparation for the news conference. The informal conference, at which coffee was served, was attended by 25 reporters.,Q. More people work on Saturday than you think.,Q. It is a new administration, too.,THE PRESIDENT. If there is anything you would like to ask me, I would be glad to answer.,[1.] Q. will you be here today? 2,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. This will be your first night here?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,2 At the White House. Until December 7 President Johnson had continued to live at his residence at 4040 52d Street NW.,Q. How do you feel about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel like I have already been here a year.,Q. We didn't hear that, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. I feel like I have already been here a year.,[2.] Secretary McNamara has been in all morning. We have been going over the budget and over the military assistance program. I have asked him to go from Paris to Saigon next week to represent me and look over the situation out there. He will be there for a day or two.,I told you this. I did not tell him I was going to, but he is out there and he is prepared to discuss with you two or three other matters, and I told him we would not be long. You may want to ask him at that time about his trip.,Q. Is the Secretary on a specific mission or are you just asking for a general report on the picture in Saigon, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. He is going to be in Paris anyway,3 and it won't take him too long. He can go there pretty quickly and we want to have him make a few checks out there, not anything to be concerned about, but just to be sure that we are getting maximum efficiency.4,3 Secretary McNamara was going to Paris to attend the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council, held December 16-17.,4 On December 21 the White House released the following statement by Secretary McNamara:,The members of my party and I returned this morning from South Viet-Nam. We have just completed our report to the President of our observations. We observed the results of the very substantial increase in the Viet Cong activity, an increase that began shortly after the new government was formed, and has extended over a period of several weeks.,During this time the Viet Cong have attacked, and attacked successfully, a substantial number of the strategic hamlets. They have burned the houses, the fortifications, and in many cases have forced the inhabitants to leave. The rate of that Viet Cong activity, however, has substantially dropped within the past week to 10 days.,This rapid expansion of activity, I think, could have been expected. It obviously was intended to take advantage of the period of organization in the new government, a period during which there was a certain amount of confusion--confusion that you might have expected would result from the replacement of the province chiefs and other key administrators in the government.,We reviewed in great detail the plans of the South Vietnamese and the plans of our own military advisers for operations during 1964. We have every reason to believe they will be successful. We are determined that they shall be.,I made a reference to it the other day in my statement on the Hill, and in a statement to the State Department employees.5,5 See Items 11, 26, above.,[3.] I am going to the United Nations to speak on December 17th at 12 o'clock.,Q. December 17th?,THE PRESIDENT. December 17th, 12 o'clock, at the United Nations. We just told Mr. U Thant that we will go up that morning to make a brief appearance and meet with the delegates before they go back to their respective countries. It will not be a long speech. I don't want to play it down, but there won't be anything shocking to you, but I do want to establish an acquaintance with them and know some of them personally.,[4.] What I have really tried to do in the first 10 days here is to establish a continuity in Government, and we have asked the Cabinet to stay on to the man, and we have the staff staying on to the man, and we have gotten the Congress to cooperate very helpfully in several fields. We have their announcements that they are going to open hearings in January on the civil rights bill, and we are going to try to conclude the hearings and vote on the amendments on the finance bill where we will have it reported in early January.,We think that we have made very good progress in showing the continuity in our transition. We have tried to, second, give a sense of unity in the country and in the world. We have met with the leaders, some 90 of them from the various nations in the world. We have immediately set up more detailed discussions, although we had reasonable discussions with some 20 or 30 of them, and brief discussions with all of them, and lengthy discussions and somewhat longer discussions with Lord Home and General de Gaulle and Chancellor Erhard.,We plan to see Erhard in our home and we will have him there, and a very small part--a crew of all of you, and the rest of you can go into Austin. It is a very delightful place this time of year. Mr. Schroder 6 can go in there and brief you regularly, and Pierre.,6 Gerhard Schroder, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany.,Then we will be seeing the President of Italy and Lord Home in the months of January and February.,We think we have answered all of their cables and have assured them there is continuity and there is a sense of unity in the country, and with the people and with the policies, and I think that is reflected in our speech to the Congress, in our Thanksgiving speech, in our speech to the Business Advisory group, in our speech to the labor group, and in the speech to the independent agencies.,I have talked to the Cabinet and the National Security Council, and had talks with the Negro leaders.,We think that all Americans, regardless of their party, their race, or their region, or their religion, have been very helpful in helping us establish that sense of continuity.,Finally, I think we have made it pretty clear that we have embraced the programs that we helped to fashion which are now pending before the Congress, what they are, and we have inaugurated some new ones.,[5.] At this time of the year, in connection with the formation of our budget, we try to get a dollar's value for a dollar spent, and be sure that we spend all that we need to, but not that we spend any of it wastefully. We are just engaging in a good deal of introspection in that field, and the Secretary will have some detailed remarks to you, but he is going to spend several hundred million dollars less this year in his Department than he did last year, and he has been reviewing this in the last few days.,He brought us a program this morning to cut back 25,000 of the 997,000 civilian employees who are now employed by the Department.7,7 Secretary McNamara's program was outlined in a White House release dated December 7. The release pointed out that the cutback to 997,000 would be completed by July 1, 1965, and that it would be the first time Defense Department civilian employment had fallen below one million since the early months of the Korean war in 1950. The release also stated (1) that a reduction of 15 percent had been directed in personnel assigned to overseas headquarters staffs, (2) that in a move to effect greater economies in the administration of the Military Assistance Program the Secretary had directed a reduction of 10 percent, or well over a thousand, military, U.S. civilian and indigenous personnel abroad, to be effective July I, 1964, and (3) that there would be a reduction of 15 percent in the number of foreign nationals employed by the Department by the end of June 1964, including 9,000 direct-hire foreign national employees.,Q. He took off 29,000?,THE PRESIDENT. 25,000.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you failed to mention President de Gaulle. There have been reports from Paris that this trip now is in abeyance in contrast to, say, 2 weeks ago when De Gaulle indicated that he would come to the United States.,THE PRESIDENT. We have no definite plans yet, and when we do, I will make them available to you.,[7.] Q. Sir, have you made up your mind about the format and nature of the press conferences you will hold over the long haul?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I want to communicate with the American people, and I want to maintain accessibility, and I want there to be a free flow of information to the extent possible, and limited only by security. And I should like, of course, after the period of mourning, to try to determine just what would be the most effective way, with your counsel and cooperation.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, as you take hold of foreign affairs, have you received many invitations yet to make visits overseas to Britain, Japan, the Philippines, any other countries which Mr. Kennedy was thinking of visiting?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say in our discussions with the leaders that most of them expressed an interest in a possible visit at some time or other. Some were more definite, but I would say a goodly number. It is my own feeling at the moment that there could be a change, of course, but my own feeling is that I will be pretty much tied down here and I will not be leaving the country.,[9.] Q. Some of the leaders you have spoken with in the past week said that you dealt with the unemployment problem. Can you tell us anything about the expansion of the retraining program?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we are very concerned with the unemployment problem. It is much too high. We are going to make intensive drives to reduce it, reduce unemployment. We are considering the extent of those in our new budget that is now being formulated. President Kennedy had some plans for them. In reviewing those plans, we hope to have early passage of the tax bill. We think that will encourage investment and create more jobs and reduce unemployment. We think it is very, very important that we get that bill passed as early as we can. We think it very important, when the bill is passed, that it be retroactive to January 1.,I have met with Senator Dirksen, Senator Mansfield, and all of the Democratic leaders on three or four occasions, two or three here at the office. They had dinner with me the other night, too, and we have reviewed our plans, the necessity for making that bill effective January 1.,I have also talked with Senator Byrd at lunch and he has agreed to that. I have also talked to Senator Dirksen, and he has agreed to do that. We think that that will add considerably to our economy for the next year.,I have had since November 22 about 106 appointments, which runs almost 10 a day, but they have been with people like Secretary Harriman, Speaker McCormack, Congressman Halleck, Senator Mansfield, Senator Dirksen, Senator Smathers, Senator Morton, Secretary Rusk, Cabinet members, the Attorney General, Mr. Bundy, CIA-Mr. McCone--Secretary McNamara, President Eisenhower, and Mr. Lodge, and on through the list--Professor Goldman, Professor Melman, independent agency heads that I am not listing, and a good many of the Senators, individual Cabinet members.,[10.] Q. Are you shooting for a particular budget figure, Mr. President, that you can say?,THE PRESIDENT. I saw a good sentence this morning. Jack,8 give me that sentence that I asked you to get for my next speech. I think it rather explains my view on the budget.,8 Jack Valenti, Special Consultant to the President.,I want to spend everything that is necessary to spend to keep moving our country forward progressively. In order to do that, I don't want to waste a dime.,Last year we spent the proposed budget and expenditure of $98.8 billion. In addition to that, we have $1,800 million written in that you have to add to it, like civilian retirement and interest on the national debt and military retirement, and I have a breakdown of those.,Jack, if you will get me that figure, I would like to have it. It is on my desk, on the budget, on the top.,In addition to that, you have $800-odd million that will have been legislated. We anticipate it will be legislated for Health, Education, and Welfare, approximately $300 to $400 million extra for Labor, manpower retraining.,There is a one-line note there on the top of my desk, Jack, from the Director of the Budget, that has the chart on it. That makes $1.2 billion over the $1.8 billion, so that gives you $3 billion, and there is probably $500 million or $600 million more that are not in Labor or Health, Education, and Welfare.,To just run down it quickly: military pay increases, $300 million; military pay, retired, $130 million; civilian pay, $200 million; interest on the public debt, $250 million; contracts already awarded by NASA, $583 million; Alliance for Progress loan, $150 million; Federal Aviation, supersonic, $47 million; urban renewal contracts, $50 million; veterans' compensation, $48 million; public assistance, $42 million. That is $1.79 or $1.8 billion right there--$1,800 million.,There will be some reductions that we can make, but in addition to that, you have $800 million in the Health, Education, and Welfare, and you have approximately $400 million in Labor, or it is up from $492 million to $724 million--about $300 million in Labor.,You have the National Science Foundation which is up from $260 million to $335 million. There will be a good many like that which you can't do anything about. So, I would figure $1.8 billion, $1.2 billion, and another $500 million, $3.5 billion onto the $98.8 billion. That is what you have to start from. We will try to reduce anything we can there.,We don't want to just be a tightwad. Our feeling is we waste as much by doing nothing as we do by doing too much. But we do want to see that money is prudently ex?ended, and if Secretary McNamara can effect a reduction of 25,000 employees by the ceiling he has had, it will be helpful.,We are also making a review of all of our installations in the country. We have come to no conclusion on it, but seeing what can be consolidated.,We are talking over with each Cabinet officer and each independent agency, each one of the Joint Chiefs, each one of the Service Secretaries. I plan to go to the Pentagon to talk to them personally next Wednesday,9 talk to the Service Secretaries, talk to the Joint Chiefs again, then talk to the top people in the Pentagon, as I did in the State Department.,9 See Item 37.,So finally, we have tried to show the continuity in office and we have tried to show the programs we are going to have embracing the programs of the previous administration, and we have tried to show the unity in the country, and our response from the country and the world has been very good.,[11.] Q. Do you expect to be spending Christmas at your ranch?,THE PRESIDENT. That has not been determined yet.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, sir, can you tell us your thoughts about whether the report which is in the Justice Department now, and I take it has either been given to you or will be given to you, should be made public, or a summary of it?,THE PRESIDENT. That is a matter which I think would go from the Justice Department to the blue-ribbon commission that was appointed, and it will be a matter for them to review. 10,10 The reference was to a report on the results of an FBI investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy made prior to President Johnson's appointment on November 29 of a Commission established for that purpose.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us at the end of your first 2 weeks in office what you regard as the biggest single problem facing you as President?,THE PRESIDENT. Being President.,[14.] Mr. Salinger: May I say a couple of things ? In listing the foreign leaders coming here, Prime Minister Pearson of Canada is coming.,THE PRESIDENT. Also, you can mention I am going to invite the President of Mexico to come.,[15.] Q. Are you going to be spending weekends in the country?,THE PRESIDENT. I expect I am going to be at this desk pretty much straight through.,Helen Thomas, United Press International: Thank you very much, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-11-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, gentlemen and ladies.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, how menacing do you regard the Cambodian threat to reject our foreign aid, and can that country be slipping into the Communist orbit?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I regard it as serious. It is my hope that Prince Sihanouk, who must be concerned about the independence and the sovereignty of his country-he has after all been involved for many years in maintaining that independence-will not decide at this dangerous point in the world's affairs to surrender it. I would think that he is more concerned about Cambodian independence than we are. After all, he is a Cambodian. So my judgment is that in the long run he would protect that independence. It would be folly not to, and I don't think he is a foolish man.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, how do you regard the case involving Professor Barghoorn, and what are we doing about getting his release from the Russian Government?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, the American Ambassador--the United States Embassy has made six protests to the Soviet Government in the last 48 hours. Ambassador Kohler has been to the Soviet Foreign Ministry personally. The United States Government is deeply concerned about the unwarranted and unjustified arrest of Professor Barghoorn, by the fact that he was held for a number of days without the United States being informed of it, and that the United States officials in the Soviet Union have not had an opportunity to visit with him. He was not on an intelligence mission of any kind. He is a distinguished professor of Soviet affairs, he has played a most helpful and constructive role in arranging cultural exchanges, scientific exchanges. We are concerned not only for his personal safety, but because this incident, I think, can have a most serious effect upon what we understood the Soviet Government's strong hope was, certainly our hope, that we would find a widening of cultural intellectual exchanges. We have heard from a good many universities and private organizations, which have expressed their alarm--been taking part in these exchanges-and it is quite clear that the Professor's early release is essential if these programs are to be continued.,I can assure you that the Department of State, our Embassy in Moscow, will do everything it can to effect the early release of the Professor. His arrest is unjustified. I repeat again: he was not on an intelligence mission of any kind. I am hopeful that this will become quickly obvious to the Soviet Union and that they will release him.,Q. Mr. President, some persons view Professor Barghoorn's arrest as a sign the Soviets are now deliberately seizing innocent Americans with the aim of later swapping them for some of their convicted espionage agents or that the Soviets may be doing this with the hope of somehow extracting political concessions from us. How would you view any such tactics?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't think--obviously they would not be successful. I wouldn't attempt to make a judgment as to the conduct of the Soviet Union or what may motivate it from week to week, day to day, but I am certainly--it is quite obvious that if it is based on the presumptions you state, that it will not be successful.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, what are the prerequisites or conditions for resumption of some sort of trade with Red China?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not planning to trade with Red China in view of the policy that Red China pursues. When the Red Chinese indicate a desire to live at peace with the United States, with other countries surrounding it, then quite obviously the United States would reappraise its policies. We are not wedded to a policy of hostility to Red China. It seems to me Red China's policies are what create the tension between not only the United States and Red China but between Red China and India, between Red China and her immediate neighbors to the south, and even between Red China and other Communist countries.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, it now seems unlikely that you will get either your tax bill or your civil rights bill in this session of Congress. Does that disturb you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the longer the delay, I think--yes, I think it is unfortunate. The fact of the matter is that both these bills should be passed. The tax bill has been before the Congress for nearly a year. The civil rights has been there for a much shorter time; it didn't go up until June. I am hopeful that the House will certainly act on that in the next month, maybe sooner. The tax bill hearings have been quite voluminous. It would seem to me that it might be possible to end those hearings and bring the matter to the floor of the Senate before the end of the year. Otherwise, the civil rights bill will come over after the first of the year. There may be a very long debate. The tax bill may be caught up in that. I suppose some people are hopeful that that is so, but I am not. And I think that the economy will suffer. The economy will suffer and I think that--I certainly would not want to be responsible for that. Therefore, I would like to get the tax bill out of the way quickly and this important piece of legislation. I would think the Members of Congress would.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there have been published reports that General Harkins may have lost his usefulness in Viet-Nam because of his identification with the Diem regime and lack of contacts with the new generals running the country. Would you care to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is wholly untrue. I have complete confidence in him. He was just doing his job. I think he said in the interview yesterday he had seen Mr. Nhu, I think, only three times. He had seen President Diem on a number of occasions. That was his job, that is what he was sent for-to work with the government in power--that is what he will do with the new government. I have great confidence in General Harkins. There may be some who would like to see General Harkins go, but I plan to keep him there.,Q. Following up that, sir, would you give us your appraisal of the situation in South Viet-Nam now, since the coup, and the purposes for the Honolulu conference?,THE PRESIDENT. Because we do have a new situation there, and a new government, we hope, an increased effort in the war. The purpose of the meeting at Honolulu--Ambassador Lodge will be there, General Harkins will be there, Secretary McNamara and others, and then, as you know, later Ambassador Lodge will come here--is to attempt to assess the situation: what American policy should be, and what our aid policy should be, how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there.,Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country, and permit democratic forces within the country to operate--which they can, of course, much more freely when the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the north, is ended. So the purpose of the meeting in Honolulu is how to pursue these objectives.,Q. Mr. President, Madam Nhu has now left the United States, but indicated that she intends to return. Will we renew her tourist visa?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. And if she asks for it, will we grant her permanent residence--,THE PRESIDENT. I think we'd certainly permit her to return to the United States, if she wishes to do so.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, year by year, the foreign aid program seems to encounter more and more resistance in the Congress. And this year we are seeing Senators who ordinarily in the past have gone along with the program--,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. This is the worst attack on foreign aid that we have seen since the beginning of the Marshall plan.,Q. In the event that one of these years the Congress, the arguments for foreign aid notwithstanding, surprises itself by voting the program out, what would we then do?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be a great mistake. Of course, some of the difficulty is where the President sits and where the Members of the Senate sit. It has been said very many times, and I have never questioned it, that the Senate and the Congress have every right to decide how much money should be appropriated. That is their constitutional right.,But on the other hand, the President bears particular responsibilities in the field of foreign policy. If there are failures in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and South Viet-Nam, Laos, it is usually not a Senator who is selected to bear the blame, but it's the administration, the President of the United States.,I regard this--President Eisenhower regarded it, and President Truman--it is no coincidence that all three Presidents since this program began, and Presidential candidates-Mr. Nixon, Mr. Stevenson, Governor Dewey, that all of them, Governor Rockefeller today, others--it seems to me all recognize the importance of this program. It is because it is a very valuable arm of the United States in the field of foreign policy. I don't think it is recognized what an important influence this has.,Now, we spend $51 billion or $52 billion on defense. We spend $2 1/2 billion on the atomic energy program. We spend $5 bib lion on space, of which at least a good percentage has a military implication in the sense of our national security. We spend all of this money and yet we are going to deny the President of the United States a very valuable weapon in maintaining the influence of the United States in this very diversified world.,I can't imagine anything more dangerous than to end this program. I can assure you that whoever is President of the United States succeeding me will support this program.,Now, the second point I want to make is that what we are now talking about is only a fourth of what we tried to do in the early fifties. What I said in the--I don't understand why we are suddenly so fatigued. I don't regard the struggle as over, and I don't think it is probably going to be over for this century. I think this is a continuing effort, and it is not a very heavy one. It is a fraction of our budget, a fraction of our gross national product. The gross national product of the United States has increased $100 billion, will have by the end of this year, in a 3-year period.,So what we are asking is a billion dollars less than in the average program since '47. The need today is greater, these countries are poorer, there's a good many more of them; and yet we are being denied, the President of the United States is being threatened with denying him a very important weapon in helping him meet his responsibility. The Congress has its responsibility. But in the field of foreign policy there are particular burdens placed on the President, whoever he may be.,The Supreme Court in the Curtis Rider case said that the President is the organ of the country in the field of foreign policy. I just want to say personally as President, and my predecessor said the same, this program is essential to the conduct of our foreign policy, and therefore I am asking the Congress of the United States to give me the means of conducting the foreign policy of the United States. And if they do not want to do so, then they should recognize that they are severely limiting my ability to protect the interest. That's how important I think this program is.,Q. Before you leave the subject, sir, would you comment just a bit further? It is still a fact that a negative action by a Congress is something that an administration has great difficulty in coping with. Has the administration, has the Government, looked ahead to that possibility and prepared against it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't believe that the Congress of the United States is going to be so unwise unless we are going to retreat from the world. Are we going to give up in South Viet-Nam? Are we going to give up in Latin America?,I have said before that what we are talking about in the case of Latin America and the Alliance for Progress, for all of Latin America, is what the Soviet Union and the bloc are putting into Cuba alone. Now, can you tell me the United States is not able to do that? In addition, these amendments which are passed because they don't like a particular leader or a particular national policy as of the moment--it is a very changing world. Because they don't like the fishing policy we are going to decide to end all aid to the three countries in Latin America that are hard-pressed, rather than permitting us to negotiate the matter out. But anyway, as I say, they have their responsibilities and I have mine. I am just trying to make it very clear that I cannot fulfill my responsibility in the field of foreign policy without this program.,Now, the most important program, of course, is our national security, but I don't want the United States to have to put troops there. What's going to happen in Laos if it collapses? Are they going to blame the Senate or are they going to blame me? I know who they are going to blame. So I need this program.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, as a possible candidate for President, would you comment on the possible candidacy of Margaret Chase Smith, and specifically what effect that would have on the New Hampshire primary?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think if I were a Republican candidate, I would not look forward to campaigning against Margaret Chase Smith in New Hampshire-[laughter]--or as a possible candidate for President. I think she is very formidable, if that is the appropriate word to use about a very fine lady. She is a very formidable political figure!,[8.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to Professor Barghoorn for a moment, the negotiations for renewal of the exchange agreement with the Soviet Union were scheduled to begin next Tuesday, and now as I understand it have been postponed.,THE PRESIDENT. That is right.,Q. Do those negotiations depend upon the release of Professor Barghoorn?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it is helpful to the Professor to try to put these conditions upon it. I just say that there's no sense having a program if a man who is innocent of any intelligence mission, which is true in this case, is subjected to arrest without means of defense. How can you carry on that kind of a program? I am sure that everybody would agree that it would be hopeless under these conditions.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on the wheat deal with the Soviet Union, and tell us whether the Export-Import Bank, or whether any other agency of Government is doing more in this deal than it would for any friendly country?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it will not do more than it would for any friendly country. The matter is now in private negotiations, and I don't know what is going to happen on the deal.,[10.] Q. Would you expand, sir, on the changes in the travel restrictions for Soviet diplomats? For example, in Oregon there were five counties that were off limits during the last 2 years, and now it has been expanded to 13 counties. Could you expand on that?,THE PRESIDENT. In the case of the Soviet Union, 26 percent of their country is off limits to the United States, and we have put the same percentage of ours. If they would be willing to change that percentage and drop it, I think we would be willing to. Now, in the case of the bloc, we have attempted to put some limitations on the travel of bloc military attaches, because we feel that it is important to the security of the United States, and to the alliance. The base of the alliance rests upon the nuclear forces of the United States. I think we have to protect their security. And the Defense Department felt very strongly that this was important to the security of the United States, or otherwise it would not have been done.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I think a few minutes ago you said it would be unfortunate if the tax bill and the civil rights bill don't get through. You just said also it is the worst attack on the foreign aid bill since its inception. Several appropriations bills are still hung up in Congress, the first time in history this late. What has happened on Capitol Hill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are all interrelated. I think that there is some delay because of civil rights. That has had an effect upon the passage of appropriations bills. There isn't any question. On the other hand, of course, what we are talking about in both the civil rights bill and the tax bill are very complicated and important pieces of legislation, in fact more significant in their own way than legislation which has been sent up there for a decade. My judgment is that by the time this Congress goes home, in the sense of next summer, that in the fields of education, mental health, taxes, civil rights, this is going to be a record that is going to be--however dark it looks now, I think that \"westward, look, the land is bright,\" and I think that by next summer it may be.,Q. In view of what you just said, sir, you listed certain items. You didn't mention medical care for the aged. Now, even though Chairman Mills has promised to hold hearings this month, there doesn't seem to be any immediate prospect of clearing it. Since he was so helpful on the tax bill, are you prepared to ask him to cast his vote to get that out of committee so the House can vote on it?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we are going to get that bill out of committee--not this year, but next year--and I think we will have a vote on it, and I think it will pass. But I don't think it will pass this year, but I think it will next year. I did not mean to make an exclusive list. I am looking forward to the record of this Congress, but it may not come until--this is going to be an 18-month delivery!,[ 12.] Q. Mr. President, the bill--the program put forward by this distinguished committee of private citizens seemed to go farther than your bill on Medicare. Would you be prepared to sponsor a program, say, of Senator Javits joined with Senator Anderson in a bipartisan measure?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I am going to meet with them, and I think that that bill recognized the principle of social security. I thought it was a very valuable job because it was a bipartisan--the committee 1 had distinguished Republicans on it as well as Democrats. I am meeting with Senator Anderson and Senator Javits, and I think that this offers a good deal of hope for that bill. I think they have given it new life.,1 National Committee on Health Care of the Aged (see Item 460 and note).,[13.] Q. Mr. President, part of the disenchantment on Capitol Hill over foreign aid seems to be the feeling that the administration has not fully used the flexibility it asks. For example, on aid to Indonesia, when President Sukarno was threatening Malaysia.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have suspended the aid to Indonesia.,Q. But you have not suspended it, have you, Mr. President, to the United Arab Republic, which is defying the U.N.?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, in the case of Indonesia, though, we are suspending it.2 It seems to me it is much better--I don't know what the situation is going to be 3 months from now in regard to the relations between Indonesia and Malaysia. I hope they are better. But it is the possible use of passing a prohibition for assistance to Indonesia, because of its attitude toward Malaysia when 3 months from now it may or may not be the same as it is today. That's the point.,2 As explained by the State Department immediately following the news conference, the President did not mean that existing aid programs to Indonesia had been suspended. He had in mind the fact that the United States had suspended consideration of a large additional aid program which, until Indonesia's recent actions against Malaysia, was being developed in cooperation with other members of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,Now on the United Arab Republic, the United States, as you know, 80 percent of its assistance consists of food, surplus food. We have been working to try to get a withdrawal, an orderly withdrawal, in the case of the Yemen. There has not been a conflict--I think a good deal as a result of effort which we and others have made--between Saudi Arabia and the UAR. I am concerned about the Yemen because the rate of the withdrawal, of course, has been quite limited.,There are going to be further withdrawals by January, but unless those withdrawals are consistent with earlier statements. I would think that the chance of increased tension between the UAR and Saudi Arabia would substantially increase. But I don't think that the language that the Senate adopted, which calls upon me to make a finding which is extremely complicated to make, is particularly--strengthens our hands or our flexibility in dealing with the UAR. In fact, it will have the opposite result.,These countries are poor--I am not talking now about the UAR, most of them-these threats that the United States is going to cut off aid is a great temptation to Arabic countries to say, \"Cut it off.\" They are nationalist, they are proud, they are in many cases radical. I don't think threats from Capitol Hill bring the results which are frequently hoped. A quiet work may not bring it. But I think there is a great temptation to say--at the time the Aswan Dam was cut off, that produced--that did not bring the Arab Republic to follow us. It produced the opposite result. I am afraid of these other threats. I think it is a very dangerous, untidy world. But we are going to have to live with it. I think one of the ways to live with it is to permit us to function. If we don't function, the voters will throw us out. But don't make it impossible for us to function by legislative restraints or inadequate appropriations.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in view of congressional sentiment towards the Alliance for Progress program, is your administration going to make any special effort to persuade the Government of Argentina not to nationalize American-owned oil companies?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, Governor Harriman visited the Argentine, discussed the matter. It is now in negotiation. What we are concerned about is that if action is taken there will be adequate machinery for compensation, fair compensation. We can't deny the sovereign right of a country to take action within its borders, but we can insist that there be equitable standards for compensating those whose property is taken away from them.,We are attempting to work this out with the Argentine, but the Argentine is faced, as are all of the Latin Americans, with staggering problems. They have emerged from a military junta, Peronism, and all of the rest, and democratic election, and this was one of the commitments that was made. So now we attempt to adjust our interests. But we are concerned about the oil in Argentina and in Peru.,[15.] Q. You have been reported as saying you were very satisfied with the vote in Philadelphia. Why were you satisfied?,THE PRESIDENT. Because Mayor Tate was elected. As John Bailey said, the Republicans had the statistics and we, the offices. So that is why I was satisfied.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the Fred Korth and Bobby Baker cases have prompted some serious questions about the moral and ethical climate in Washington. What is your assessment of today's climate in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is always--in the first place I don't lump the two cases together. I think that there are differences between the two cases. I want to make that clear. So there are differences between the cases.,Now, if you are talking about--there are always bound to be in the Government, the newspaper business, labor, and so on, farmers-there are always going to be people who can't stand the pressure of opportunity, so that--but the important point is what action is taken against them.,I think that this administration has been very vigorous in its action, and I think that we have tried to set a responsible standard. There are always going to be people who fail to meet that standard, and we attempt to take appropriate action dealing with each case.,But Mr. Baker is now being investigated, and I think we will know a good deal more about Mr. Baker before we are through. Other people may be investigated as time goes on. We just try to do the best we can. And I think that--the governmental standards, let me say, on the whole I think compare favorably with those in Washington, with those in some other parts of America.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, last week the Soviet Union in Moscow showed what they claimed was an anti-missile missile. I wonder if you could tell us what you know about that missile. Is it what they claim it is supposed to be, and also what is the effectiveness of their anti-missile system?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think it is probably useful to discuss it in detail here. I don't think there is any doubt that they have an anti-missile missile, as do we. The problem, of course, is what you do with saturation. I don't think that the Soviet Union or the United States have solved the problem of dealing, as I have said before, with a whole arsenal of missiles coming at us at maximum speed, with decoys. That's the impossible. That, up to now, has been an impossible task.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, we seem to be in somewhat of a stalemate on recognizing the new regimes in two Latin American countries, the Dominican Republic and Honduras. I am wondering--the administration perhaps has been reluctant to tell these countries precisely what they had to do to get recognition.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have had discussions with both countries. As you know, this is not just a matter of the United States. This is a matter of nearly the whole hemisphere. In fact, by a vote of 18 to 1, the OAS voted to have a meeting on the problem of military coups.,We have attempted to indicate or inquire what steps each of these two countries, the governments of the two countries, are prepared to take to return to constitutional government, which we regard as the most desirable form of government and also the one that would be most effective in meeting the challenges of the hemisphere. So we have inquired of both of them what steps they are prepared to take, when elections would be, who would be in the government. So we have been working very assiduously.,Q. In general terms, sir, could you say whether we would be prepared to accept the same conditions for recognition there that we did in the case of the junta in Peru, elections within 1 year, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be unwise to attempt to negotiate it out here, but we did recognize the junta in Peru on the assurances that they would hold elections. They did hold them and the result was very fair. So it shows that it can be done. That is what we would like to see done in these countries.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to the Russian-American problem, given the fact that our relations seem to alternate between hot and cold--the Barghoorn case and the autobahn at the moment--what do you say to those Americans who say that in such a situation we should not sell wheat to the Soviet Union, certainly not without trying to use it as a method of, say, negotiating some better arrangement on the autobahn?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the wheat deal is desirable for us. It is desirable for the Soviet Union. I am not convinced--it may mean $200 million in balance of payments for us. It means wheat to the Soviet Union. But in view of the supplies that the Soviet Union has in its own country, in Australia, in Canada, I am not sure that the wheat can carry other loads. I think it pretty much stands on its own. It is of some benefit to us, some benefit to the Soviet Union, but this idea that other things can be hitched onto it--but obviously this kind of trade depends upon a reasonable atmosphere in both countries.,I think that atmosphere has been badly damaged by the Barghoorn arrest. In the case of the autobahn, this is a continuing matter over a good many years. We are going to maintain our rights in Berlin and we have made that quite dear. I expect that we are going to have difficulties, and the Soviet Union may have difficulties in other matters. But Professor Barghoorn I regard as a very serious matter.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you have a firm commitment from the Republicans and the House leadership to back and support in the Rules Committee and on the floor every provision in the compromise bill approved by the House?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to speak for them. I think they ought to speak for themselves. I will say that a substantial part of that bill bears Republican language and imprint. It wouldn't have been passed without their support. It is a bill which is Republican and Democratic. I think it is a bill which is bipartisan. I would hope it would have--it can't pass without bipartisan support. I would hope it would be able to maintain it on the floor of the House, because if we don't we are not even going to get it through the House.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the changed situation in South Viet-Nam, do you still expect to bring back 1,000 troops before the end of the year, or has that figure been raised or lowered?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are going to bring back several hundred before the end of the year. But I think on the question of the exact number, I thought we would wait until the meeting of November 20th.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, we will soon be getting some distressing news from Sao Paulo in Brazil in relation to the Alliance for Progress. Now the Post had a piece--this morning--saying that an idea has been circulated by which the Alliance would be made worldwide with the participation of Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union in this to help the Alliance reach its goals. Can you tell us in principle what you think about it?\nTHE PRESIDENT, No, I have never heard of that, and we are not proposing to engage in a joint effort with the Eastern Europeans. That is a matter, of course, of sovereign decision. But I don't regard them as interested at all in the Alliance because the Alliance and the charter of Punta del Este is based upon the development of free, democratic societies in Latin America, which is our objective. Their objective, of course, is different. So I don't see how you can join them in the Alliance.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, several months ago you nominated David Rabinovitz to be a Federal judge in western Wisconsin. Since that time the American Bar Association has opposed this nomination and a majority of lawyers polled by the State Bar Association said that he was unqualified. Do you still support this nomination, or in view of this opposition are you going to withdraw?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am for David Rabinovitz all the way. I know him very well, in fact for a number of years. And the American Bar Association has been very helpful in making the judgment, but I am sure they would agree that they are not infallible. Mr. Brandeis was very much opposed. There are a good many judges who have been opposed who have been rather distinguished. And I am for David Rabinovitz.,[24.] Q. Sir, do you mean to leave the implication by your remarks on the wheat thing that if the Barghoorn case is not satisfactory,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I wouldn't attempt to. I want to get Professor Barghoorn out of prison and it seems to me the best way to do it is to confine my remarks to what I have said. I am merely saying--in fact, I won't say it--any more!,[25.] Q. Mr. President, the Senators from New England met this morning in the office of Senator Kennedy and agreed to renew their annual appeal for relief on wool and for the lifting of restrictions on residual oil. What can you do and what will you do to help the people in New England on these problems?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I understand it, on one case there is a desire to limit imports and the other is to encourage imports. I used to take part in those meetings myself.,On the other hand--and there is a matter of concern--as a matter of fact, yesterday I met with the head of the coal producers-the coal association--they're very concerned about the imports of residual oil. But it is a fact that the imports of woolens and worsteds have gone up from about 15 to 22 or 23 percent. So there has been a sharp increase, and it is a matter of concern. In the case of residual, we are attempting to--that is a matter of great interest, as you know, to Venezuela, which is a country that is under Communist attack and, therefore, we have to consider that obligation as well as our obligations to the domestic coal industry. So we have not forgotten New England.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-10-31","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder, could you tell us something about this Government's policy toward reports we hear from Europe and from here about removal of American forces from Europe, or reduction in the size or the strength of American personnel in Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that Secretary Rusk explained quite clearly the American policy last weekend, as he reaffirmed it. The policy of the United States is to maintain 6 divisions in Germany, as long as they are required. In addition to these 6 divisions, and over and above our NATO commitments, we sent to Germany as temporary reinforcements during the Berlin crisis of 1961, 6 combat units consisting of 3 artillery battalions, 2 armored battalions, and 1 armored cavalry regiment.,This augmentation of U.S. forces in Germany was made to help meet the deficiency of other NATO members in fulfilling their commitments at a very crucial time when the buildup of West Germany's own forces was incomplete. Although some of these deficiencies have been corrected, and the German force buildup is progressing, we are prepared to keep these additional combat units in Germany as long as there is a need for them.,Thus, we are not planning any reduction in United States combat units in Germany. As part of the reorganization of the Army's European logistic forces, we are planning some reduction in noncombat personnel, a matter on which of course we are in touch with our allies.,But we do not intend to bring back any units or personnel whose return would impair the military effectiveness of our forces in Germany. In short, we intend to keep our combat forces in Germany as they are today--that is, more than 6 combat divisions.,Q. ,Mr. President, that being so, how many human beings are we going to bring back from our European stations now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, any we bring back may include some supply forces or--,Q. As much as a regiment, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have over, I think, 240,000 or 250,000, so a regiment is a very small--less than a percent of that, so I am sure that there will be movements in and out. But we are talking about the whole European theater. But, in the case of Germany, and I think it is important to make this clear, the 6 divisions which are our NATO commitment, are being kept. In addition, these other combat units are being kept in Germany also. If there is any change in personnel, and I am sure there will be some, it will be in logistic forces. There have been some changes, for example, in our logistic supply lines in France. There may be some changes in headquarters units and all the rest. They are relatively small. They may be spaced over a period of time. But our combat effectiveness, of course, is increasing as our materiel increases.,Q. Will these 6 divisions, sir, be kept at conventional divisional strength?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. There will be no change, no change in the number of combat forces in Germany; no change in the number of these extra forces which, as I have said, are beyond our NATO commitment but which will be also kept in Germany.,Q. Mr. President, you spoke of some deficiencies. Who is falling short?,THE PRESIDENT. We are talking about deficiencies in 1961, when we were having a serious crisis in Berlin and where the NATO forces were inadequate. And, as you know, I think the Secretary of State made a reference to the fact that a number of our allies had not, and in some cases have not, met their NATO commitments today, with the number of forces that should be stationed in Germany for the defense of Germany.,Q. But we still have to keep these troops there, although apparently, because--,THE PRESIDENT. There has been a buildup since 1961, particularly among the German forces, whose target is 12 divisions. Some other countries have not met their quota. But we are keeping our forces there primarily because we believe that it emphasizes the commitment of the United States to the defense of the Federal Republic, and our concern about the defense of Europe. In addition, it should be pointed out that the Federal Republic, West Germany, is purchasing military equipment in the United States which provides an offset to our gold losses for our forces in the Federal Republic. So they are making an effort and so are we, and we are going to continue to do it.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater accused your administration today of falsification of the news in order to perpetuate irself in office. Do you care to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. What was he referring to?,Q. He was making a speech here at the Women's National Press Club, and his point was that you and your administration are mismanaging the news, and using it to perpetuate yourself in office.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I have said before, I think it would be unwise at this time to answer or reply to Senator Goldwater. I am confident that he will be making many charges even more serious than this one in the coming months. And, in addition, he himself has had a busy week selling TVA and giving permission to or suggesting that military commanders overseas be permitted to use nuclear weapons, and attacking the President of Bolivia while he was here in the United States, and involving himself in the Greek election. So I thought it really would not be fair for me this week to reply to him.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, back to the question of troop reductions, are any intended in the Far East at the present time, particularly in Korea, and is there any speedup in the withdrawal from Viet-Nam intended?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, when Secretary McNamara and General Taylor came back, they announced that we would expect to withdraw a thousand men from South Viet-Nam before the end of the year, and there has been some reference to that by General Harkins. If we are able to do that, that would be our schedule. I think the first unit or first contingent would be 250 men who are not involved in what might be called front-line operations. It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans there by 1,000, as the training intensifies and is carried on in South Viet-Nam. As far as other units, we will have to make our judgement based on what the military correlation of forces may be. We are becoming increasingly mobile, as the Big Lift Operation suggests.,What is important in the case that Mr. Smith was talking about, we not only have these divisions that I described there, but we have--after the '61 experience, we moved equipment for 2 more divisions. So during the Big Lift, we actually have 7 divisions. So that we are able to move around the world much faster, and with new planes which are beginning to come off the production line, particularly the ones in Marietta, Ga., out of Lockheed. And so we are going to have increased airlift capacity over the next 2 or 3 years. So naturally our force will be more mobile.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, on the basis of your experience in Philadelphia, yesterday and last night, will you regard next Tuesday's mayoral election as a test of how civil rights will affect the voting?,THE PRESIDENT. In Philadelphia, or just--,Q. In Philadelphia, yes--as well as in other large northern cities.,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure that that may be a factor in the election, although I am not sure that the two candidates have taken different positions, but I suppose this is a matter of major concern in the country today, and it may be reflected in the voting. As I say, I am not aware, although it may be, that the candidates have taken different positions on it. My guess would be that they have taken relatively the same position on the question.,Q. The question is whether or not there will be some backlash from white minority voters against the Democrats because of their pushing of civil rights.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I--it is possible. We will have to wait and see, though, as I have said from the beginning, it seems to me both parties have taken a clear position historically and at present on civil rights. But there may be. We will have to wait and see Tuesday, and I am sure that a good many things will be written into it.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the United Nations Secretary General U Thant has withdrawn the mission from Yemen, which was supposed to secure peace and the withdrawal of Nasser's troops from Yemen. Since you are sponsoring this effort, could you tell us what further steps you have in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he is keeping his political people there and we are still hopeful that the governments of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.R. will come to some conclusion, either bilaterally or with the Secretary General, which will permit the cease-fire to be maintained, and the withdrawal which has been limited to be expanded. So, I have not given up on the hope of keeping that cease-fire.,Q. [Inaudible].--is not thinking of any bilateral moves?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We have expressed our great interest in seeing that fighting does not break out along the border, and I think it would be unfortunate if it did. We have indicated that to the countries involved. I am hopeful, as I say, that perhaps they will be able to work it out bilaterally, or at least keep a cease-fire.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, do you think the letters that Secretary of the Navy Korth wrote made his resignation advisable, and was it requested?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the letters which Mr. Korth and I exchanged explain the situation as I would like to see it explained.,Mr. Korth, I think, worked hard for the Navy and he indicated his desire to return to private life and I accepted that decision. But I think he worked hard for the Navy.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, thousands of jobs are lost every week to automation. The Federal Government is one of the leaders in automation. Do you think it is good for us, as human beings, to dehumanize work and sacrifice people to machines and money?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it is all a question of degree and how it is done. Obviously, most of the comforts we now enjoy are the result of automation, technology over a period of 100 or 150 years, and there were, historically, efforts at various times to stop the introduction of machines which made the labor of men easier.,So automation does not need to be, we hope, our enemy. What is of concern now is this combination of a rather intensive period of automation, plus the fact that our educational system is not keeping up, so that we are graduating or dropping out of high school so many millions of young men and women who are not able to operate in this new society who have only physical labor to perform and they can't find enough jobs.,So that is what concerns us. Now, as you know, job retraining is important in that area, vocational training. We are trying to combat school dropouts, trying to urge families to keep their children in school, and all the rest of these efforts with which you are familiar.,We have a proposal before the Congress for a new analysis of automation. In answer to your question: I think machines can make life easier for men, if men do not let the machines dominate them. And it is our intention to try to see that life is easier. The fact is, life is easier because of machines, and I think it can provide new jobs, but I think it is going to take a good deal of wisdom by those of us in the Government as well as labor and management.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, last week there was a certain amount of optimism that a sale of wheat would soon be reached for the Soviet Union. And a lot of this optimism seems to be gone in the last couple of days. I wonder if you could tell us quite precisely what seems to be holding up the sale and whether you are optimistic that the sale will go through?,THE PRESIDENT. We are involved in negotiations which, of course, are very intensive and it seems to me that this is the week when these negotiations are reaching a critical phase. I don't think that it would be useful for me to comment on them. I think we ought to know in the next days whether we are going to be successful in completing our sale. But obviously this is a matter in which the seller and the buyer have interests which are not always harmonious and we have to reach the best bargain possible. That is what they want and that is what we want, and so I think we ought to let the negotiators negotiate.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to use General David Shoup's services in the Government after he leaves?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope so. I would hope so--if he will--I would like to have him stay.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, just shortly after the Bay of Pigs I asked you how you liked being President, and as I remember you said you liked it better before the event. Now you have had a chance to appraise your job, and why do you like it and why do you want to stay in office 4 more years?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I find the work rewarding. Whether I am going to stay and what my intentions are and all of the rest, it seems to me it is still a good many, many months away. But as far as the job of President goes, it is rewarding. And I have given before to this group the definition of happiness of the Greeks, and I will define it again: it is full use of your powers along lines of excellence. I find, therefore, the Presidency provides some happiness.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there have been persistent reports in recent days that the State Department is negotiating with the Junta in the Dominican Republic looking toward a resumption of full diplomatic relations. Are these reports true, and is there some basis on which we would be willing to recognize the present Junta?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there have been conversations in the Dominican Republic to see what assurances can be given regarding the restoration of democratic rule, constitutional rule in the Dominican Republic. We have a charge d'affaires there, and quite obviously we are interested in that restoration. Those assurances are of free elections, so we are continuing to carry out these discussions, although actually they are relatively informal, and they have reaped no harvest as yet. But that would be our policy to attempt to see if we can resume relations with the Dominican Republic under assurances of a restoration of constitutional government. As yet we have had no success.,[12.] Q. Sir, when you approved the sale of wheat to the Soviet Union, you placed a condition on the sales that the shipments be in U.S. flagships to the extent that they were available. I wonder if you could explain to us how you came to place this condition on it; what the genesis of that condition was.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think we ought to let the negotiators negotiate this week. I don't mean to be evasive, but I think we ought to let those who are representing the United States point of view, we ought to give them a free hand. So I would rather not get into a discussion of the wheat deal. Next week I am sure we can.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how many Russian troops there are in Cuba now and what you--,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think we can ever give a precise figure. All I can say is that the numbers have steadily been reduced, and in the last 2 months there have been further reductions and since the first of January there has been a marked decrease in the number of troops in Cuba, according to all our. intelligence estimates. I couldn't give you a precise number that are still there, but I can give you a--the general trend is outward.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, since you approved the w-heat sale, other groups have come along and suggested we sell other products to the Russians, too, surplus butter, for example. And Congressman Cooley says maybe if we send them some tobacco it will quiet their nerves a little bit. Would you favor expanding this list to other farm surpluses, if they are interested?,THE PRESIDENT. They have shown no. interest in anything else, but they may show interest if this deal is consummated, and I would be responsive to any further request they made for farm commodities. But first, we have to get this deal. I think this is the bellwether.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, can you explain Secretary McNamara's rejection of the atomic power plant for the new carrier in the face of the experts, like Admiral Rickover and Chairman Seaborg, and others who think it is necessary? And will the same policy go over to the other warships that the Navy wants, of over 8,000 tons, with the atomic energy power?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are going to build a conventional carrier, which has already been announced at this time. That is what we think that the Navy needs. Now, we are not going to make any final decision until a later date on whether we are going to have nuclear power for important ships of the Navy.,As you suggest, there is no use having a nuclear carrier unless we have the ships that accompany it--and after all, there is a large train with a carrier--unless they have nuclear power. So that it requires a rather large investment. In the case of the nuclear carrier, it is about $160 million or $170 million more. If you add up the other ships that might have to accompany it, it gets into a large sum of money. What is the mission of that carrier? What is it going to be used for--limited war or strategic attack? What is the best use of that extra money? I think I am supporting Secretary McNamara in the decision that he has made so far in this matter.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the United States Steel Corporation has rejected the idea that it should use economic pressure in an effort to improve race relations in Birmingham, Ala. Do you have any comments on that position and do you have any counsel for management and labor in general as to their social responsibility in areas of tension of this kind?,THE PRESIDENT. Actually, Mr. Blough has been somewhat helpful in one or two cases that I can think of in Birmingham. I don't think he should narrowly interpret his responsibility for the future. That is a very influential company in Birmingham, and he wants to see that city prosper, as do we all.,Obviously, the Federal Government cannot solve this matter, so that business has a responsibility--labor, and of course every citizen. So I would think that particularly a company which is as influential as United States Steel in Birmingham, I would hope would use its influence on the side of comity between the races.,Otherwise, the future of Birmingham, of course, is not as happy as we would hope it would be. In other words, it can't be decided, this matter, in Washington. It has to be decided by citizens everywhere. Mr. Blough is an influential citizen. I am sure he will do the best he can.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you have signed one Executive order and one law banning conflicts of interest on the part of executive branch employees. In the light of recent events on Capitol Hill, do you think that that law should be broadened to cover members of Congress and congressional employees?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we ought to wait until the investigation is over. It has only begun, and it is a matter which Congress of course would have to consider. But I think that perhaps out of the investigation there may come a decision to develop new rules, procedures, or laws, but I would rather wait until the Congress has had the hearing and then we can make a better judgment about that.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that Premier Khrushchev has actually taken the Soviet Union out of the so-called moon race, and in any case do you think that the United States should proceed as if there were a moon race?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't read that into his statement. I thought his statement was rather cautiously worded and I did not get any assurances that Mr. Khrushchev or the Soviet Union were out of the space race at all.,I think it is remarkable that some people who were so unwilling to accept our test ban treaty, where there was a very adequate area of verification of whatever the Soviet Union was doing, were perfectly ready to accept Mr. Khrushchev's very guarded, careful, cautious remark that he was taking himself out of the space race and use that as an excuse for us to abandon our efforts.,The fact of the matter is that the Soviets have made an intensive effort in space, and there is every indication that they are continuing and that they have the potential to continue. I would read Mr. Khrushchev's remarks very carefully. I think that he said before anyone went to the moon, there should be adequate preparation. We agree with that.,In my opinion the space program we have is essential to the security of the United States, because as I have said many times before, it is not a question of going to the moon. It is a question of having the competence to master this environment. And I would not make any bets at all upon Soviet intentions. I think that our experience has been that we wait for deeds, unless we have a system of verification, and we have no idea whether the Soviet Union is going to make a race for the moon or whether it is going to attempt an even greater program.,I think we ought to stay with our program. I think that is the best answer to Mr. Khrushchev.,Q. Mr. President, it still continues to be the fact that we have had no responses to your proposal for a joint moon exploration?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. In addition, the two astronauts of the Soviet Union earlier that week had made a statement saying the Soviet Union was prepared to go on lunar expeditions, so I think that we should not disregard our whole carefully worked out program which is being carried on very impressively in Huntsville, Ala., and in other places, merely because Mr. Khrushchev gave a rather Delphic interview to some correspondents.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Fidel Castro claims to have captured some Americans whom he says are CIA agents, and he says he is going to execute them. Is there anything at all that you can tell us about this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, what is the status of the bilateral air transport agreement between the United States and Russia?,THE PRESIDENT. It was initialed some months ago, more than a year ago, in fact a year and a half ago, and there are still some technical matters which have to be discussed before it can be formally signed.,Q. Are you optimistic of it being signed, and if so, when?,THE PRESIDENT. I think there is a good chance it will be signed; yes.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, the plan to build a National Environmental Health Research Center has been hung up in Congress. Apparently they can't decide where to build it. Now there is a report that you would like it built in North Carolina. Would you?,THE PRESIDENT. North Carolina would be very acceptable. I think the Budget recommendation was Maryland, but North Carolina does have the facilities. But I think in our recommendations we made, HEW made, the first recommendation was Maryland. The site in North Carolina is a good one, as there is a triangle there of colleges and hospitals and medical facilities. And I have indicated that that would be satisfactory, if that was the judgment of the Congress. I think our first choice was Maryland.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, in spite of something you said here in May 1962, there is talk that Lyndon Johnson will be dumped next year. Senator Thruston Morton used the word \"purged.\" Now, sir, assuming that you run next year, would you want Lyndon Johnson on the ticket, and do you expect that he will be on the ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, to both of those questions. That is correct.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, Navy Secretary Korth had some correspondence which indicated he worked very hard for the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth while he was in Government, as well as for the Navy, and that during this same period of time that he negotiated, or took part in the decision on a contract involving that bank's--one of that bank's best customers, the General Dynamics firm. I wonder if this fulfills the requirements of your Code of Ethics in Government, and if, in a general way, you think that it is within the law and proper?,THE PRESIDENT. In the case of the contract--the TFX contract--as you know, that matter was referred to the Department of Justice to see whether there was a conflict of interest and the judgment was that there was not. That is number one.,Number two, the amount of the loan to the company. That bank was one of a number of banks which participated in a line of credit and it was relatively a small amount of money, as bank loans go. So in answer to your question, I have no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter. It has nothing to do with any opinion I may have about whether Mr. Korth might have written more letters and been busier than he should have been in one way or another.,The fact of the matter is, I have no evidence that Mr. Korth benefited improperly during his term of office in the Navy. And I have no evidence, and you have not, as I understand it--the press has not produced any, nor the McClellan committee--which would indicate that in any way he acted improperly in the TFX. I always have believed that innuendoes should be justified before they are made, either by me, in the Congress, or even in the press.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater also said today that if he is nominated, the Republican--for the Republican President-if he is the Republican Presidential nominee, he will gladly debate you. Would you accept this challenge?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have indicated that I was going to debate if I were renominated.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, a number of your congressional leaders have said they favor the so-called quality stabilization bill, but all of your executive departments are opposed to it. Can you tell us what your views are on this legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that hasn't come to me as yet. I am not--I have never been for the quality stabilization bill. I will have to look at the bill when it finally comes and the form it is in. I can't comment on the legislation before it finally comes to the desk of the White House, but the administration witnesses have spoken my views.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, unemployment is just about as high today as it was a year ago, but there are rumors that the administration has given up on getting Congress to extend the accelerated public works program. Is this a fact?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. The amount of money that is in the public works program runs through July so that there is still a good deal of money that is available for public works under that program.,Q. Doesn't the act, sir, expire in January?,THE PRESIDENT. The amount of money, though, given the pipeline runs through July. So this is not a matter for immediate decision before us.,[27.] Q. Sir, would you please tell us what is going to be the final decision on Mr. Otto Otepka, the Security Officer of the State Department, who is up for firing? And would you please, in a related question, tell us what was the final decision on whether the State Department employees can go before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and answer questions?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think any final decision has been made on Mr. Otepka. I think there is a hearing scheduled in the next few days on the matter. And I have said to you before that the Secretary of State would study the matter and so would I before any final decision is reached. Of course, if a decision is reached of the kind you describe, it would be possible for him to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.,Now, the question of--I have no objection, and I think it would be perfectly appropriate, for any employee of the Federal Government to appear before any congressional committee. I would think it would be proper that the head of the department would be notified, but I am sure that they will give permission.,[28.] Q. Mr. President, a little while ago you said that our present force of combat troops would remain in Germany as long as they are required. I wondered whether you planned to be the sole determiner of that or whether it would be a bilateral or a NATO-wide proposition.,THE PRESIDENT. I would think it would be a NATO--well, it would certainly be discussed in NATO, and, of course, the country particularly affected, in this case the Federal Republic. Its views would have very heavy weight, very heavy weight. I am sure that no action would be taken which would not meet the needs of the country involved, the Federal Republic as well as our own.,[29.] Q. Mr. President, in negotiating the limited nuclear test ban treaty we and the Russians avoided the issue of international inspection by limiting it to the three environments in which that, theoretically, was not required. Now we have joined at the U.N. in proposing a wider ban, including underground tests. Is there anything new in the state of the art of detection or in our understanding of the Soviet position that leads us to hope we can get anywhere with this approach?,THE PRESIDENT. I am doubtful that we can get any place. We are still insisting on inspection. The Soviet Union is still resisting inspection. And therefore, unless the art of seismology improves, I would think we would not get an agreement. Sometime it may improve so that it is not necessary for us to have the kind of detailed inspections that we believe necessary or perhaps the Soviet Union will change its policy. I would hope either event would occur. For the present, I am not optimistic.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-10-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [I.] I have a statement to make. The Soviet Union and various Eastern European countries have expressed a willingness to buy from our private grain dealers at the regular world price several million tons of surplus American wheat or wheat flour for shipment during the next several months. They may also wish to purchase from us surplus feed grains and other agricultural commodities.,After consultation with the National Security Council, and informing the appropriate leaders of the Congress, I have concluded that such sales by private dealers for American dollars or gold, either cash on delivery or normal commercial terms, should not be prohibited by the Government. The Commodity Credit Corporation in the Department of Agriculture will sell to our private grain traders the amount necessary to replace the grain used to fulfill these requirements, and the Department of Commerce will grant export licenses for their sale with the commitment that these commodities are for delivery to and use in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe only.,An added feature is the provision that the wheat we sell to the Soviet Union will be carried in available American ships, supplemented by ships of other countries as required. Arrangements will also be made by the Department of Commerce to prevent any single American dealer from receiving an excessive share of these sales.,No action by the Congress is required, but a special report on the matter will be sent to both Houses tomorrow.,Basically, the Soviet Union will be treated like any other cash customer in the world market who is willing and able to strike a bargain with private American merchants. While this wheat, like all wheat sold abroad, will be sold at the world price, which is the only way it can be sold, there is in such transactions no subsidy to the foreign purchaser; only a savings to the American taxpayer on wheat the Government has already purchased and stored at the higher domestic price which is maintained to assist our farmers.,This transaction has obvious benefit for the United States. The sale of 4 million metric tons of wheat, for example, for an estimated $250 million, and additional sums from the use of American shipping, will benefit our balance of payments and gold reserves by that amount and substantially strengthen the economic outlook for those employed in producing, transporting, handling, and loading farm products.,Wheat, moreover, is our number one farm surplus today, to the extent of about 1 billion unsold bushels. The sale of around 150 million bushels of wheat would be worth over $200 million to the American taxpayer in reduced budget expenditures. Our country has always responded to requests for food from governments of people who needed it, so long as we were certain that the people would actually get it and know where it came from.,The Russian people will know they are receiving American wheat. The United States has never had a policy against selling consumer goods, including agricultural commodities, to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. On the contrary, we have been doing exactly that for a number of years, and to the extent that their limited supplies of gold, dollars, and foreign exchange must be used for food, they cannot be used to purchase military or other equipment.,Our allies have long been engaged in extensive sales of wheat and other farm products to the Communist bloc, and, in fact, it would be foolish to halt the sales of our wheat when other countries can buy wheat from us today and then sell this flour to the Communists. In recent weeks Australia and NATO allies have agreed to sell 10 million to 15 million tons of wheat and wheat flour to the Communist bloc.,This transaction advertises to the world as nothing else could the success of free American agriculture. It demonstrates our willingness to relieve food shortages, to reduce tensions, and to improve relations with all countries. And it shows that peaceful agreements with the United States which serves the interests of both sides are a far more worthwhile course than a course of isolation and hostility.,For this Government to tell our grain traders that they cannot accept these offers, on the other hand, would accomplish little or nothing. The Soviets would continue to buy wheat and flour elsewhere, including wheat flour, from those nations which buy our wheat. Moreover, having for many years sold them farm products which are not in surplus, it would make no sense to refuse to sell those products on which we must otherwise pay the cost of storage. In short, this particular decision with respect to sales to the Soviet Union, which is not inconsistent with many smaller transactions over a long period of time, does not represent a new Soviet-American trade policy. That must await the settlement of many matters. But it does represent one more hopeful sign that a more peaceful world is both possible and beneficial to us all.,Q. Mr. President, do you have any misgivings about possible political repercussions from your decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I suppose there will be some who will disagree with this decision. That is true about most decisions. But I have considered it very carefully and I think it is very much in the interest of the United States. As I said before, we have got 1 billion bushels of this in surplus, and American taxpayers are paying to keep it, and I think we can use the $200 million or $250 million of gold which will help our balance of payments. I think it is in our interest, particularly in view of the fact that the sales are being made by other countries.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, could you discuss some of the recent public accounts of CIA activities in South Viet-Nam, particularly the stories or reports of how the CIA has undertaken certain independent operations, or independent of other elements of the American Government, that are in South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I must say I think the reports are wholly untrue. The fact of the matter is that Mr. McCone sits in the National Security Council. I imagine I see him at least three or four times a week, ordinarily. We have worked very closely together in the National Security Council in the last a months attempting to meet the problems we faced in South Viet-Nam. I can find nothing, and I have looked through the record very carefully over the last 9 months, and I could go back further, to indicate that the CIA has done anything but support policy. It does not create policy; it attempts to execute it in those areas where it has competence and responsibility. I know that the transfer of Mr. John Richardson, who is a very dedicated public servant, has led to surmises. But I can just assure you flatly that the CIA has not carried out independent activities but has operated under close control of the Director of Central Intelligence, operating with the cooperation of the National Security Council and under my instructions.,So I think that while the CIA may have made mistakes, as we all do, on different occasions, and has had many successes which may go unheralded, in my opinion in this case it is unfair to charge them as they have been charged. I think they have done a good job.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, you are meeting tomorrow with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko under somewhat different conditions than you met a year ago. I am wondering if you would care to give us your assessment of the principal objective of your talk tomorrow with him?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this continues to be an exchange of views on those matters which are at issue between the Soviet Union and the United States. In my speech before the General Assembly, I indicated those areas where the Soviet Union and the United States had disagreement. It is my hope that those disagreements will not lead to war. I am hopeful that what has happened in the last months will lessen that prospect. Really, what has happened since a year ago when I saw Mr. Gromyko will lessen the prospect of a military clash. But the differences go on. The systems are very different.,Mr. Khrushchev has said that there is no coexistence in the field of ideology. There are bound to be very severe matters which concern us on which the Soviet Union and the United States have very different views. As we don't want these disputes and frictions to escalate into military dashes, it is worthwhile to have consultations. The Secretary of State has been having them for several weeks, and I will see Mr. Gromyko this afternoon to just go over the ground which has already been laid by the Secretary of State.,Q. Mr. President, will you discuss with Mr. Gromyko the joint moon project proposal that you made before the U.N., and, if not, will that be pursued through some other channels?,THE PRESIDENT. We have received no response to our--to that proposal, which followed other proposals made on other occasions. As I said, our space program from the beginning has been oriented towards the peaceful use of space. That is the way the National Space Agency was set up. That is the position we have taken since my predecessor's administration. I said this summet that we were anxious to cooperate in the peaceful exploration of space, but to do so, of course, requires the breakdown of a good many barriers which still exist. It is our hope those barriers, which represent barriers of some hostility, some suspicion, secrecy, and the rest, will come down. If they came down, of course, it would be possible for us to cooperate. So far, as you know, the cooperation has been limited to some exchange of information on weather and other rather technical areas.,We have had no indication, in short, that the Soviet Union is disposed to enter into the kind of relationship which would make a joint exploration of space or to the moon possible. But I think it is important that the United States continue to emphasize its peaceful interest and its preparation to go quite far in attempting to end the barrier which has existed between the Communist world and the West and to attempt to bring, as much as we can, the Communist world into the free world of diversity which we seek. So the matter may come up. But I must say we have had no response which would indicate that they are going to take us up on it.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in the reported agreement in principle between Russia and the United States to ban nuclear weapons from outer space, has the issue of verification come up in any way, and if so, sir, in what way?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is not an agreement. The United States has stated it would not put weapons in outer space. We have no military use for doing so, and we would not do so. The Soviet Union has stated that it does not intend to. We are glad of that. There is no way we can verify that, but we are glad to hear the intention. We must recognize that there is no secure method of determining that someday they may not decide to do so. So we obviously have to take our own precautions. But we do not intend to, although we intend to protect our security, and we are glad to hear the Soviet Union does not intend to.,This is a matter, it seems to me, that can be best handled not through any bilateral agreement, but as a General Assembly matter, because other countries may someday have the same capability, and I think every country should declare that they are not going to put atomic weapons in the atmosphere, which could threaten not only the security of a potential adversary, but our own security, if for some reason the weapons should miscalculate and descend on us. I think it is a good thing to keep them out of the atmosphere.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, last week in California, you said something that led some people to believe that you had changed your opposition to a shorter workweek. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no, I am still opposed to it. What I was talking about was that inevitably as the century goes on, in my judgment, as machines increasingly take the place of men, that we will have more leisure, and therefore we should take those steps in the field of conservation, resource development, and recreation, which will prepare us for that period. But that is not talking about today or tomorrow. It would be a great mistake for us to reduce our 40-hour workweek now. It would affect our competitive position abroad, and I think that the needs of American production are such that we ought to stick with our 40-hour week. I see the time coming, as I was saying, at the end of the century, perhaps sooner than that, when there may be a change in that, but not now.,[6.] Q. Could you say, sir, how our policy is progressing in Viet-Nam in meeting what you established as desirable last month, a change of personnel and a change of policy that would help the government there better get on with the war?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that there have been significant changes of the kind that--,Q. For better or worse?,THE PRESIDENT. I say I don't think there have been changes in the situation in the last month. I think we are still dealing with the same problems we were dealing with a month ago.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, was Assistant Secretary Martin's statement cleared with you, and if so, does it represent a reversal of your policy on dictatorships in Latin America?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was informed generally of what Mr. Martin was saying, and in fact, I re-read it this afternoon. In the first place, our policy is not reversed. If attention could be drawn to Secretary Rusk's statement of Friday evening 1 in regard to the coups in the Dominican Republic and Honduras, we made it very clear that we are opposed to an interruption of the constitutional system by a military coup, not only because we are all committed under the Alliance for Progress to democratic government and progress and 'progressive government, but also because of course dictatorships are the seedbeds from which communism ultimately springs up.,1 Secretary Rusk's statement of October 4 is published in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 49. p. 624). The statement by Edwin M. Martin, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, is also published therein (vol. 49, p. 698).,So we are opposed to military coups, and it is for that reason that we have broken off our relations with the Dominican Republic and Honduras. It is for that reason that we attempted to work on the situation in Peru, which led, I think in part because of the American effort, mostly because of the Peruvian people's effort, to free elections.,Mr. Martin was merely attempting to explain some of the problems in Latin America, why coups take place, and what problems they present us with. But we are opposed to coups, because we think that they are defeating, self-defeating, and defeating for the hemisphere, and we are using our influence and I am sure the other countries of the hemisphere are using their influence in those areas where coups have taken place to provide for an orderly restoration of constitutional processes.,Q. Beyond the immediate action, sir, in relation to the Dominican Republic and Honduras, does the United States plan any general enunciation of policy in regard to military regimes, or does it contemplate asking any general hemispheric action in regard to this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have just described, I have just attempted to describe what our policy is towards coups. And as far as our national policy, it was described on Friday, with the withdrawal of our diplomatic--our Ambassadors, our aid, our military assistance, and all the rest. So I think we have made very clear our policy and our interest in providing for a return to, as I have said, constitutional processes in those two countries.,We are working with the other members of the Organization of American States so that together we can bring about a return to order in those countries and a return to peaceful procedures. That is the policy of the United States. I have just enunciated it again.,Q. I was asking specifically, sir, whether the United States contemplated any broader hemispheric action in terms of general action by the OAS in this respect.,THE PRESIDENT. Not at this time. This is a matter which I think all the other countries of the OAS have to decide what they are going to do. I think the United States has made its position very clear.,Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied in retrospect that the United States did all it could, short of the use of force, to prevent the Dominican and Honduran coups?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am. I have looked over the conversations, the minutes, of cables and so on, and I think we did. This idea that we ought to send the United States Marines into Honduras, which, of course, we couldn't have done under the conditions, because of the time gap, I think is a very serious mistake. That is not the way, in my opinion, and I think Mr. Martin was attempting to explain that that is not the way for democracy to flourish.,So I think we did the best we could. It may be possible to always do better, but we did the best we could, and we are going to continue to do so.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there is a widespread impression that you expect Senator Barry Goldwater to be the Republican nominee for President next year. I think your speech in Salt Lake City had something to do with that. Is that your expectation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think he can do it. I think it is possible for him to do it. But he has a long road to go, recalling the situation in September 1959, October 1959. I think Senator Goldwater has a trying 7 or 8 months which will test his endurance and his perseverance and his agility.,Q. Are you basing that on your own experience in 1960?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Former President Eisenhower wrote recently in an article that he was unclear about Senator Goldwater's views on certain major issues. I wonder, sir, whether you share this uncertainty and if so how you think Senator Goldwater should better express himself.,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Goldwater is speaking frequently, and he is saying what he thinks as of the time he speaks, and I think, therefore, we have an opportunity to make a judgment of where he stands. I don't think Senator Goldwater has ever been particularly deceptive. I think he has made very clear what he is opposed to, what he is for. I have gotten the idea. I think that President Eisenhower will, as time goes on.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, to keep the ball rolling, there are a couple of obvious candidates in another party who say they are going to make their announcement of their decisions in December or January. Have you set a timetable for yourself or are you already a candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no, I think I will wait--this next year--I can wait longer.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Valachi crime committee hearings are getting very mixed reviews. As a former congressional investigator, I wonder whether you feel they are serving any useful purpose?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't want--I haven't commented on the Senate procedures and I wouldn't now on this hearing or other hearings. That is a judgment for Senator McClellan and the committee. I do think that we shouldn't get a distorted idea from the hearings. I think--particularly as Columbus Day comes up I think there may be some feeling of some people that the name Valachi perhaps causes embarrassment to other American citizens. I don't think it should. These difficulties occur in a good many different racial groups, and I think that they ought to feel a good deal of pride in what they have done and not be concerned because a Valachi or an Irish name or some other name may occasionally get in trouble.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Pucinski of Illinois has said to me, and I think he has proposed to Secretary Wirtz, that we should have three categories instead of two in our labor statistics, general statistics. He is proposing that we have employed, unemployed, and unemployables, because of their lack of skills. Would you agree with the Congressman that this would be helpful in highlighting the problem we have in employment and education?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't want to put it in that kind of a category. I think I can see there might be some merit in trying to mark out those who are unemployed because of structural unemployment, those who are unemployed because of the seasonal nature of their work, those who are unemployed because of illiteracy or lack of motivation. I think all that information--we have a good deal of it--a good deal of technical information, but I don't think I would label anybody in the United States unemployable.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about Senator Gruening's proposal to set up a congressional committee as a watchdog over the CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the present committees--there's one in both the House and Senate which maintains very close liaison with the CIA--are best, considering the sensitive nature of the Central Intelligence Agency's work.,As you know, there is a congressional committee in the House, one in the Senate, composed of members of the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee. They meet frequently with Mr. McCone. He also testifies before the Foreign Relations Committees of House and Senate and the general Armed Services Committee. And I think the Congress has through that organization the means of keeping a liaison with him.,In addition, I have an Advisory Council which was headed by Dr. Killjan formerly, now Mr. Clark Clifford, which includes Jimmie Doolittle and others, and Robert Murphy, who also served as an advisory committee to me on the work of the intelligence community. I am well satisfied with the present arrangement.,[13.] Q. Sir, there seems to be some connection between the attempt of the State Department to discharge Mr. Otto Otepka, the Security Officer, there seems to be some connection between the fact that he gave much information to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee about various employees of the State Department--William Arthur Wieland and Walt W. Rostow and many others. Also Secretary Rusk has now put forth an order that employees of the State Department cannot talk or give information to this congressional committee. Isn't that a direct violation of law?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it isn't.,Q. That Government employees are allowed to give information to Members of Congress and to committees?\nTHE PRESIDENT, By what means? You mean secret dispatches?,Q. Well, any information. The law doesn't say what it will be. It says that any Government employee can give information to Members of Congress or to the committees.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me just say that the Secretary of State has been prepared to testify since August before the Internal Security Committee and discuss the case very completely,Q. Well, but--,THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me. There was a hearing scheduled for early September, but because of the Labor Day weekend that hearing did not take place. The Secretary of State stands ready; he is the responsible officer. Now the best thing to do is to give the Secretary of State a chance to explain the entire case, because in all frankness your analysis of it is not complete.,Q. Would you like to complete it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will be glad to have the Secretary of State talk to the Internal Security Committee about what it is that has caused action to be taken, administrative action within the Department of State, to be taken against the gentleman that you have named, the kind of actions he carried out, what the law said, how he met the law, how he didn't meet the law. This is all a matter which is going to be heard by the State Department board. Then it will be heard by the Civil Service Commission for review. Then it can be discussed in the courts.,In the meanwhile the Senate subcommittee can have all the information that it requires as to why Secretary Rusk has taken the action that he has. I think that is the best procedure. And I can assure you that I will examine the matter myself, when it comes time, as the Secretary of State will, who bears the responsibility, when it comes time to take any disciplinary action, if such a time does come.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, last spring there were selective price increases in steel, recently there have been price increases in steel. Are you concerned about these increases, sir, and do you feel you are going to take any action about them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are watching very carefully the rises which have taken place in certain industries. This country has avoided an inflationary spiral. We see no reason why there should be one now. The Wholesale Price Index has remained relatively constant for 5 years. We are concerned that price increases in one or two basic areas may stimulate other price increases which will affect adversely our competitive position abroad, and therefore affect our balance of payments, therefore affect our national interest.,In addition, profits are at a record high now--they have never been higher in history. The whole year of 1963 looks very good and, therefore, we should be concerned also with reducing prices as well as increasing them. For the time being we are watching the matter with concern and will continue in the days ahead to do so.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, has there been an official ruling that giving commercial credits to Russia would not violate the Johnson act?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is correct, because it is not a government-to-government transaction.,Q. It is not a government-to-government?,THE PRESIDENT. It is not a government-togovernment. These are private traders that will be involved and the credit will be granted by banks. In the case of Canada, as you know, the terms were 25 percent down, 25 percent then for every 6 months for a period of 18 months. But because the interest rate was of a certain figure, I think 4 7/8 percent, the Soviets decided to pay cash and, therefore, paid something like 80 percent cash. We will be dealing on the same matter with them on interest rates. Our interest rates would be slightly higher than the Canadian rate, possibly, under the private commercial system, and it may be that they will decide, therefore, to pay a very large percentage in cash.,But I have gotten a ruling from the Department of Justice that this does not contravene existing laws, particularly the Johnson act.,Q. Will the grain dealers take the risk, then?,THE PRESIDENT. The grain dealers will take the risk with the private banks.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, former head of the CIA Allen Dulles said in an interview in the Journal American today that reports of disputes between the CIA and the State Department and various branches of the government in South Viet-Nam have arisen because \"of a lack of a clearcut operational policy in Washington.\" And he goes on to say that he thinks what is needed is less backbiting between U.S. agency officials. In view of the defense you just gave CIA, would you care to agree with the Dulles charge or contest it?,THE PRESIDENT. I would agree with the last part of it, that the agencies--as we all know, they are faced with a very difficult problem in South Viet-Nam, which we are all familiar with, both on the military and political side. Men have different views about what actions we should take, and they talk to members of the press, to all of you, in Saigon and here in Washington. But I must say that as of today, and I think this is particularly true since General Taylor and Secretary McNamara came back, I know of no disagreement between the State Department at the top, CIA at the top, Defense at the top, the White House and Ambassador Lodge, on what our basic policies will be and what steps we will take to implement it. Now if down below there is disagreement, I think in part it will be because they are not wholly informed of what actions we are taking. Some of them are necessarily confidential. But I think our policy, though we can't say what effect it is going to have, I think we are in agreement about what we ought to do. I would think that Saigon, and personnel in the various agencies, should support that policy, because that is the policy we are going to carry out for a while.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, if I understood you correctly on the wheat statement, you said the Russian people will know they are receiving American wheat.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. Is that by some agreement with the Soviet Union or how would that come about?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but we have our own means of informing the Soviet Union. As you know, for many months the Voice of America has not been blocked, for example, and therefore we believe that we have adequate means to inform the Russian people of the arrangement.,In addition, I am not sure that there is any reason for the Russians themselves to keep it quiet as it is a commercial transaction. But in any case, we have the means to provide that knowledge.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, as the election year approaches, there is an unusual amount of political activity already, as the questions reflect. I wonder if you would give us your thinking as an experienced politician as to the prime assets of your administration next year, and the prime liabilities of your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that you would not want to--as we only have a relatively short time, I think we ought to make a judgment on that in 1964. And I say that without any--a lot of these matters we will have to decide whether the United States is better off economically than it was before, and whether our position in the world has improved, and whether our prospects for peace are greater, and whether our defenses are stronger, and whether we are making progress at home and abroad. That is a matter which it seems to me will be argued very strongly in '64. For example, we can't make a judgment about the state of the economy in '64. I think if they pass our tax bill, we are going to be able to demonstrate a very successful, ebullient economy for a period of 4 years. If they do not, we will have a different situation.,I cannot tell what our relations will be in Southeast Asia a year from now. I know what results our policy is attemptins to bring. But I think that result ought to be judged in the summer of '64 and the fall of '64, and I have hopes that the judgment will be that the economy is moving ahead, that the rate of growth has been almost $100 billion, will have been from about $500 billion to $600 billion, that we are substantially stronger militarily, that the chances of war have been reduced over Berlin and perhaps in other areas. But I would not want to make those judgments now, because I think we still have a long way to go before next summer, and I think that to say that this is the end of the road would be a mistake. I think we ought to be judged by what we do over a 4-year period, and that is the way it is going to be. It is too early now.,[19.] Q. Could I ask one final thing, sir? Have you brought back any dominant impressions from your two recent trips in the West and South, political impressions?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say we are going to have a hard, close fight in 1964. But that has been my impression for a good many months.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-09-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT, Good afternoon.,[1.] Ladies and gentlemen, I want to stress again how important it is that the United States Senate approve the pending nuclear test ban treaty. It has already been signed by more than 90 governments, and it is clearer now than ever that this small step towards peace will have significant gains. And I want to commend to the American people the two distinguished and outstanding speeches made by Senator Mansfield and Senator Dirksen, the Majority and the Minority Leaders, who in the great tradition of American bipartisanship and national interest I think put the case most effectively.,This treaty will enable all of us who inhabit the earth, our children and children's children, to breathe easier, free from the fear of nuclear test fallout. It will curb the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, thereby holding out hope for a more peaceful and stable world. It will slow down the nuclear arms race without impairing the adequacy of this Nation's arsenal or security, and it will offer a small but important foundation on which a world of law can be built.,The Senate hearings and debate have been intensive and valuable, but they have not raised an argument in opposition which was not thoroughly considered by our military, scientific, legal, and foreign policy leaders before the treaty was signed.\nThis Nation has sought to bring nuclear weapons under international control since 1946. This particular kind of treaty has been sought by us since 1959. If we are to give it now only grudging support, if this small clearly beneficial step cannot be approved by the widest possible margin in the Senate, then this Nation cannot offer much leadership or hope for the future.,But if the American people and the American Senate can demonstrate that we are as determined to achieve a peace and a just peace as we are to defend our freedom, I think future generations will honor the action that we took.,[2.] Secondly, I would like to say something about what has happened in the schools in the last few days. In the past 2 weeks, schools in 150 Southern cities have been desegregated. There may have been some difficulties, but to the great credit of the vast majority of the citizens and public officials of these communities, this transition has been made with understanding and respect for the law.,The task was not easy. The emotions underlying segregation have persisted for generations, and in many instances leaders in these communities have had to overcome their own personal attitudes as well as the ingrained social attitudes of the communities. In some instances the obstacles were greater, even to the point of physical interference. Nevertheless, as we have seen, what prevailed in these cities through the South finally was not emotion but respect for law. The courage and the responsibility of those community leaders in those places provide a meaningful lesson not only for the children 'in those cities but children all over the country.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, last year when you discussed resumption of nuclear testing in a public speech, you anticipated difficulty in being able to keep topflight scientists operating on standby preparations; you doubted that large-scale laboratories could be kept fully alert. And you said this wasn't merely difficult or inconvenient, but that after thorough exploration you had determined that keeping laboratories fully alert on a standby basis would be impossible. Could you tell us, sir, what has happened since then to change your mind about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I believe that what I was talking about then was a comprehensive test ban treaty. Obviously, if you had no underground testing, the laboratories would atrophy. I stated at that time, or on other occasions, that if we could get a responsible, comprehensive test ban treaty that I would be willing to take that risk. But we didn't get a comprehensive test ban treaty, but only a limited one. Under that limited agreement it is possible to carry on underground testing, and, therefore, we will not have the deadening of the vitality of the laboratories. Instead, the underground testing will continue, free from fallout, but the scientists will be able to engage in their work. They will be maintained, the laboratories will be maintained, and therefore I think that we are faced with a different situation than the one that I responded to earlier in the year.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to address the U.N. General Assembly session later this month, and will you meet with Mr. Gromyko there or here?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I plan to address the United Nations General Assembly later this month. The meeting with the Foreign Minister--and I am going to meet with other foreign ministers when they come--I assume will be in Washington.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the prevailing confusion, is it possible to state today just what this Government's policy is toward the current government of South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I have stated what my view is and we are for those things and those policies which help win the war there. That is why some 25,000 Americans have traveled 10,000 miles to participate in that struggle. What helps to win the war, we support; what interferes with the war effort, we oppose. I have already made it clear that any action by either government which may handicap the winning of the war is inconsistent with our policy or our objectives. This is the test which I think every agency and official of the United States Government must apply to all of our actions, and we shall be applying that test in various ways in the coming months, although I do not think it desirable to state all of our views at this time. I think they will be made more clear as time goes on.,But we have a very simple policy in that area, I think. In some ways I think the Vietnamese people and ourselves agree: we want the war to be won, the Communists to be contained, and the Americans to go home. That is our policy. I am sure it is the policy of the people of Viet-Nam. But we are not there to see a war lost, and we will follow the policy which I have indicated today of advancing those causes and issues which help win the war.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, some opponents of the test ban treaty have expressed the fear that once the treaty has been ratified it might then be possible later by Executive action to amend the treaty so as to further limit the freedom of action of the United States. What is your reaction to these suggestions?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can give a categorical assurance that the treaty, as you know, cannot be amended without the agreement of the three basic signatories. The treaty cannot be changed in any way by the three basic signatories, and the others, without the consent of the Senate. And there would be-of course any proposal to change the treaty would be submitted to the usual ratification procedure followed by or prescribed by the Constitution. In addition there would be no Executive action which would permit us to in any way limit or circumscribe the basic understandings of the treaty. Quite obviously this is a commitment which is made by the Executive and by the Senate, operating under one of the most important provisions of the Constitution, and no President of the United States would seek to, even if he could--and I strongly doubt that he could, by stretching the law to the furthest--seek in any way to break the bond and the understanding which exists between the Senate and the Executive and, in a very deep sense, the American people, in this issue.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, two books have been written about you recently. One of them, by Hugh Sidey, has been criticized as being too uncritical of you, and the other, by Victor Lasky, as being too critical of you.1 How would you review them, if you have read them?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought Mr. Sidey was critical, but I have not read all of Mr. Lasky, except I have just gotten the flavor of it. I have seen it is highly praised by Mr. Drummond and Mr. Krock and others, so I am looking forward to reading it, because the part that I read was not as brilliant as I gather the rest of it is, from what they say about it.,1Sidey, Hugh, \"John F. Kennedy, President\" (New York, Atheneum Publishers, 1963); Lasky, Victor, \"JFK, the Man and the Myth\" (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1963).,[8.] Q. Mr. President, as a parent, do you think it is right to wrench children away from their neighborhood family area and cart them off to strange, faraway schools to force racial balance? I notice you said that you did not approve of racial quotas in employment. Now, do you approve of forcing racial quotas in schools?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the question, as you described it--I would not approve of the procedure you described in your question. Now, a lot of these, of course, depend on the local school districts, and I would have to see what the situation was in each district. But I would not have any hesitancy in saying no to your question. I would not approve it. But this in the final analysis must be decided by the local school board. This is a local question. But if you are asking me my opinion, faraway strange places and all the rest, I would not agree with it.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there are consistent reports that you are about to consider a more sweeping Executive order dealing with an end to discrimination in housing. Have you any comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The order we now have is the one we plan to stand on.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, in the past you repeatedly stated that the United States strongly wished the United Nations to develop as an instrument of strengthening the peace and cooperation among the states. What concrete new efforts is your administration going to take toward that goal at the forthcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly?,THE PRESIDENT. That is going to be really one of the, I suppose, central matters that I will discuss when I speak before the United Nations in just a few days. Perhaps that will be the best place to discuss it.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in your statement of just a few moments ago on South Viet-Nam, would you consider that any significant changes in the policy of South Viet-Nam can be carried out so long as Ngo Dinh Nhu remains as the President's top adviser?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that, aside from the general statements which have been made, I would think that that sort of a matter really should be discussed by the Ambassador-Ambassador Lodge--and others. I don't see that we serve any useful purpose in engaging in that kind of discussion at this time.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller says that he may have to withdraw his pledge not to raise taxes in New York State. The grounds he gives is that you had promised to achieve a certain economic growth rate in the country and you failed to keep that promise and therefore he feels relieved of this pledge. Could you comment on his statement?,THE PRESIDENT. I saw all of those campaign statements that were made in the fall of 1962, about how New York had moved ahead, and all of the rest, and I didn't see any acknowledgment that it was due in any way to the economic measures we have taken since 1960 to provide for an increase in economic growth.,I think there has been a substantial increase in the economic growth, and New York has shared in it. I don't know what grounds on which Governor Rockefeller categorically made an assurance to the people of New York in the fall of 1962 that is now impossible to fulfill. If he feels it is my fault, then I am prepared to accept that.,I must say he is not really the only one. I got, I suppose, several thousands of letters when the stock market went way down in May and June of 1962, blaming me, and talking about the \"Kennedy market.\" haven't gotten a single letter in the last few days, about the \"Kennedy market\" now that it has broken through the Dow-Jones Average. So Governor Rockefeller is not alone in his disappointment.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of letters, there have been suggestions that you are putting Mr. Gronouski into the Cabinet to pay some old political debts in Wisconsin as well as to lay the basis for future political support elsewhere. Would you tell us your reasons for naming him?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I met Mr. Gronouski in 1960 in Wisconsin. He was--and he is--a distinguished public servant, and he has had a fine war record, and he was a Ph.D. of the University of Wisconsin, and he is in charge of taxation, and he was highly recommended, and is a very good administrator. I don't know why it causes quite so much excitement when the name is Gronouski as opposed to when it may be Smith or Brown or Day. I think that--or even Celebrezze.,I think that--the issue is whether he is of Polish extraction and therefore it must be political, but if he is not of Polish extraction, it is not political. And I am not sure that I accept that test. I think Mr. Gronouski is a fine public servant and I am glad to have him here, and I think we just happen to be fortunate that his grandparents came from Poland.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in a Chicago speech last night, Senator Goldwater said there are not 10 men in America who know the full truth about Cuba, all the facts of the test ban treaty, or the commitments made on behalf of this Nation with governments dedicated to our destruction. He seems to be hinting that you made secret agreements both in the Cuban settlement last fall and to obtain the test ban treaty. Could you say unequivocally that there were no commitments, or would you care to comment on Senator Goldwater's comments?,THE PRESIDENT. There are no commitments, and I think that Senator Goldwater is at least one of the 10 men in America who would know that is not true. I think there are a good many other men. The fact of the matter is, as you know, we offered to have the correspondence on the test ban treaty made available to the leadership of the Senate. It stands on its own. So I can tell you very flatly there were no commitments made that have not been discussed or revealed. I think most people know that.,Q. Would you care to comment further on this type of attack by Senator Goldwater? THE PRESIDENT. No, no. Not yet, not yet.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, some persons in criticizing your policies and your comments on Viet-Nam say that you are operating on the basis of incorrect and inadequate information. What do you have to say about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I am operating on the basis of, really, the unanimous views and opinions expressed by the most experienced Americans there--in the military, diplomatic, AID agency, the Voice of America, and others-who have only one interest, and that is to see the war successful as quickly as possible. I would say that I understated their concern about the matters in Viet-Nam. We have no other interest.,In addition, I think we are fortunate, as I have said before, to have Ambassador Lodge there, and I will say that any statement I have made expressing concern about the situation there reflects his view, and reflects it in a very moderate way.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the American Legion meeting in Miami adopted a resolution today asking the United States to \"proceed boldly alone\" to end the Communist rule in Cuba if the other hemisphere nations do not assist us, and they say that we cannot have coexistence with communism in this hemisphere, and that there has been a lack of effective action by our Government since the Castro regime began back in 1959. Could you comment, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, we have taken every step we could short of military action to bring pressure on the Castro regime-shipping, trade, all the rest. It has been relatively isolated in this hemisphere. It is quite obvious now that it is a Soviet satellite-Mr. Castro is a Soviet satellite.,Finally, though, once you get beyond these words, you finally talk about military invasion of Cuba. That I do not think is in the interest of this country. I regard that as a most dangerous action, an incendiary action which could bring a good deal of grief not only to the people of the United States, but to Western Europe and others who are dependent upon us. I do not think that is wise. Those who advocate it should say it, but I don't agree with it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, the Air Force Association yesterday openly condemned the test ban as a danger to this country. How do you feel about the propriety of an appreciable proportion of its members, being serving officers of the United States Air Force under your command, and thus contradicting their Commander in Chief and their Secretary of Defense?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't--I think the Air Force Association is free to give its views. I am sure--I don't know exactly the membership of its resolutions committee, and I do not know how the vote ran and who took what position. But the fact of the matter is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff favored this treaty, and the Secretary of Defense favored it, and General Lemnitzer favored it, and the Unified Command has favored it, and I think that the treaty is in our interest.,Of course there are going to be people that are opposed to these actions, but I think the greater risk is to defeat it. So I would not suggest any reproof in any way of those who made their judgments. I just don't agree with it.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about Senator Church's proposed resolution that you withhold further aid to Viet-Nam if certain changes in policy and personnel are not forthcoming?,THE PRESIDENT. I think his resolution reflects his concern. He is particularly interested in the Far East, as is Senator Carlson and some other Senators. I have indicated my feeling that we should stay there, and continue to assist South Viet-Nam, but I have also indicated our feeling that the assistance we give should be used in the most effective way possible. I think that seems to be Senator Church's view.,[19.] Q. The Young Democrats out in the West have taken some unusual stands on Red China and East Germany, Cuba, and Viet-Nam. Have you seen them and would you care to comment on them?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I didn't agree with any of them. I don't know what is happening with the Young Democrats and Young Republicans, but time is on our side.,[20.] Q. Are you giving any thought, sir, to the withdrawal of American dependents from Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. As I have said, I think that any matter which we are now considering should best be considered by the Government, and any conclusions we come to should be made public when it is the appropriate time.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, have you given any thought to some of the proposals advanced from time to time for improving the Presidential press conference, such as having the conference devoted all to one subject or to having written questions at a certain point?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have heard of that, and I have seen criticisms of the proposal. The difficulty is--as Mr. Frost said about not taking down a fence until you find out why it was put up--I think all the proposals made to improve it will really not improve it.,I think we do have the problem of moving very quickly from subject to subject, and therefore I am sure many of you feel that we are not going into any depth. So I would try to recognize perhaps the correspondent on an issue two or three times in a row, and we could perhaps meet that problem. Otherwise it seems to me it serves its purpose, which is to have the President in the bull's-eye, and I suppose that is in some ways revealing.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, a Negro leader who helped organize the March on Washington says that he feels you are greater than Abe Lincoln in the area of civil rights. Apparently a lot of other Negroes support you. The latest poll showed that 95 percent probably would vote for you next year. Now, in your opinion, Mr. President, does this political self-segregation on the part of the Negroes, combined with continued demonstrations in the North, pose any problems for you as far as the electoral vote in the North is concerned next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I understand what you mean, that there is a danger of a division in the party, in the country, upon racial grounds. I would doubt that. I think the American people have been through too much to make that fatal mistake. It is true that a majority of the Negroes have been Democrats, but that has been true since Franklin Roosevelt. Before that a majority of them were Republicans. The Republican Party, I am confident, could get the support of the Negroes, but I think they have to recognize the very difficult problems the Negroes face.,So in answer to your question, I don't know what 1964 is going to bring. I think a division upon racial lines would be unfortunate--class lines, sectional lines. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt said all this once very well way back. So I would say that over the long run we are going to have a mix. This will be true racially, socially, ethnically, geographically, and that is really, finally, the best way.,Q. Mr. President, this is a related question. It is about the Gallup poll. It has to do with a racial question. Agents of Dr. Gallup asked people this question: Do you think the Kennedy administration is pushing integration too fast or not fast enough? Fifty percent replied that they thought you were pushing too fast. Would you comment?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think probably he is accurate. The fact of the matter is, this is not a matter on which you can take the temperature every week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks, depending on what the newspaper headlines must be. I think you must make a judgment about the movement of a great historical event which is taking place in this country after a period of time. You judged 1863 after a good many years--its full effect. I think we will stand, after a period of time has gone by. The fact is, that same poll showed 40 percent or so thought it was more or less right. I thought that was rather impressive, because it is change; change always disturbs, and therefore I was surprised that there wasn't greater opposition. I think we are going at about the right tempo.,Q. Mr. President, in a related area of civil rights, after the events in Alabama this week, we have the situation now where the schools have been desegregated in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, practically all of the States of the Deep South. Do you have a feeling that perhaps a milestone has been reached in this area, or do you see a continued really step-by-step progress from one city to another?,THE PRESIDENT. Step by step, I would think. What is impressive, as I said--and I don't think we realize the full significance of it-is that most of the work really has been done by southerners themselves. In the case of Alabama, the five Federal judges who signed that order were all from Alabama--all grew up in Alabama--and I am sure shared the views of the majority of Alabamians who, I think, are not for desegregation, but, nevertheless, met their responsibilities under the law, which we are trying to do. And I think what has happened in South Carolina, Florida, in the last few days, Georgia--I think it is an impressive story. It is slow, step by step, but it will continue that way. But this Nation is passing through a very grueling test, and with the exception of a few aberrations, I think we are meeting it. And I say \"we\" in the national sense. We, as a country, are doing quite well. We have to do better, but I think there is some cause for satisfaction in most of the events that happened in the last 2 weeks.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in your view, what impact will the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Richard Russell's opposition to the test ban treaty have on the Senate vote on the pact?,THE PRESIDENT. I think he is highly respected, probably the most individually respected, perhaps, in the Senate, and therefore what he says is going to have some influence. On the other hand, it seems to me the whole weight of opinion makes this essential. I think the Senate is going to approve this. We can't turn our backs and tell 90 nations who have now signed it that the lid is off, the atomic age has come in all of its splendor, and that everyone now should begin to test in the atmosphere--which, of course, everybody would have to do if this treaty fails. This would be the green light for intensive atmospheric testing by a number of countries. You couldn't possibly stop it. This would be the end of an effort of 15 years. I don't think the United States would want to take on that responsibility.,Q. Mr. President, what significance do you see in the failure of Cuba so far to sign the treaty? Do you think, specifically, that this reflects any new friction between Cuba and Russia? And also I was wondering whether it is satisfying to be called more imperialistic by Castro than Eisenhower was.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, lately, I have had so many things said about me that I thought what Castro said was not particularly bad. He is attempting to demonstrate he is an independent figure. That is what he is attempting to do. I think probably he may sign finally, I don't know. We made it very clear in my letter to Senator Dirksen that if there is any breach in the treaty which involves Cuba, that appropriate action will be taken.,Therefore, this is a gesture of protest against what is obvious. But I don't put much significance on it. As far as what he says, I think it would be--I don't know.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, last week, Admiral Anderson expressed concern that there is too little trust and confidence between civilian and military officials in the Pentagon. Also, the Admiral said that he favored legislation introduced by Congressman Vinson to fix the tenure of members of the Joint Chiefs at 4 years. I wonder if you would comment on these points in the Admiral's speech.,THE PRESIDENT. He felt very strongly about the matter and made his speech, and that was all right. Now secondly, on the question of the 4 years, I am not for that. I think that any President should have the right to choose carefully his military risers. I think the 2-year term fits very well. I am for the 2-year term. I think, not just in my case but I would think for those who come afterwards, I think they will be better served.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, the President of Pakistan said yesterday in his interview that he may have to make an alliance with the Chinese because of his fear of our arming India further. Is there any way this Government can, or has it been able to give assurances either to the Indians or to the Pakistani which would quiet this mutual fear which seems to plague both of them?,THE PRESIDENT. I can tell you that there is nothing that has occupied our attention more over the last 9 months. The fact, of course, is we want to sustain India, which may be attacked this fall by China. So we don't want India to be helpless--there's a half billion people. Of course, if that country becomes fragmented and defeated, of course that would be a most destructive blow to the balance of power. On the other hand. everything we give to India adversely affects the balance of power with Pakistan, which is a much smaller country. So we are dealing with a very, very complicated problem because the hostility between them is so deep.,George Ball's trip was an attempt to lessen that. I think we are going to deal with a very unsatisfactory situation in that area. My judgment is that finally Pakistan would not make an alliance with China. I think she will continue to make it very clear to us her concern about the rearmament of India and her strong conviction that she must not be put at a military disadvantage in relationship to India. But that would be much different, I think, than a formal alliance, because that would change completely, of course, the SEATO relationship and all the rest.,So we are trying to balance off what is one of our more difficult problems. This is true, of course, in other areas, in the Middle East, but I would say it is most complicated right now in India. We had hoped that a settlement of the Kashmir dispute would bring about an improvement in the relations between the countries, but Kashmir is further from being settled today than it was 6 months ago. So I think we are just going to have to continue to work with this one.\nThank you.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-08-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.,General Clay and Mr. Bell, the director of the mutual security program, and I have met this morning to consider what actions we could take to strengthen the mutual security programs to be sure that they are adequately financed and to make every possible effort to assure that the security of the United States and the effectiveness of its foreign policy will be maintained in the coming months.,This matter is now before the Congress but, in a very real sense, it is before all of the American people.,This program of mutual security has helped protect the independence of dozens of countries since 1945. Most importantly, it has protected the security and the best interests of the United States. This effort is by no means over. We are going to have a difficult struggle in the 1960's. The peaceful coexistence which is frequently talked about will be very intense in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America. This struggle is going on every day, and I think that the United States has a part in it, as do other free countries, and I am confident the American people will recognize this effort involves their security, the maintenance of freedom, and our peace.,I am particularly glad General Clay came up this morning, as he studied this program very carefully and he continues to be head of the committee which oversees the aid program and advises with us on it. He might have a word to say on the matter.,General Clay: We are, of course, fully aware of the action that has been taken with respect to the foreign aid bill. We on the committee are greatly concerned in two fields particularly. It has endangered the whole program, and that is in the reduction of the funds available for our military aid and, further, in the reductions in the Alliance for Progress. We think these reductions in the authorization have gone too far and that they could seriously endanger these programs.,We are certainly most anxious that these programs continue; that there be sufficient authorization for the appropriations to permit the jobs to be done. Above all, we hope that they will be considered as in the best interests of the American people on a nonpartisan basis. It is to this end that certainly we on the committee are going to work, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much, General.,Q. Mr. President, what strategy are you going to try to use to get the total amount increased now?,THE PRESIDENT. It is not a question of strategy. We are trying to point out very clearly how significant these programs are.,General Clay has already pointed out the effect of these cuts on Latin America, which is perhaps the most critical area in the world today, the effects on our military assistance programs in Greece, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, South Viet-Nam, Thailand, South Korea.,I think that it is important that the American people understand that this is a matter which involves the security and the balance of power all over the world. So we are going to continue to work with the Congress.,General Clay and his committee will continue to make an effort to bring this home to the American people as well as to the Members of Congress.,This is a matter which involves very greatly the security of our country. This is the same view that was held by President Eisenhower, the same view that was held by President Truman, and it is no accident that three Presidents in a row, sitting where they do and bearing particular constitutional responsibilities for foreign policy, should all feel that this program is most important, most effective, most essential, and we hope that the American people will come to share that view.,Q. Mr. President, do you feel there has been a significant swing in the public's move away from support for foreign aid?,THE PRESIDENT. I think people don't enjoy carrying this burden. I never thought they did. I always thought in the forties, and the fifties, and the sixties that there were reservations about it. I think that is quite obvious, but I think in the final analysis most of them realize that it is as essential a part of our effort as the appropriations for national defense. This money is spent, nearly all of it, in the United States, and it helps keep the freedom of this country of ours. It represents much less of a percentage of our wealth than it did during the Marshall plan days. I think the American people realize that freedom does not come cheaply or easily.,Q. Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not completed its action on the authorization bill. Is there any possibility of getting a higher figure and then out of conference getting a fairly reasonable floor?,THE PRESIDENT. We hope so.,Q. Mr. President, are you going to seek the restoration of the entire amount cut by the House from the Senate, or is there some new figure that you gentlemen have agreed upon?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are going to try to get a figure as close to the recommendations. Obviously we won't get all the recommendations, but as close to the recommendations as we can in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in the Senate. Then there must be a conference. After that, there must be consideration by the Appropriations Committee. So, I think it is important that the Senate give us as much help as it can in this program.,Q. Mr. President, does this program look different to you now that you are in the White House than it did when you were in Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I supported it very strongly in the Congress as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.,Obviously, a President has a particular responsibility in the field of foreign policy, as I have said, constitutionally. Therefore, as I see very clearly how vital this program is in all of the countries of Latin America-you can see it week in and week out--as well as in these other countries, I perhaps feel it more strongly in the same sense that General Eisenhower did. But I supported this program in the Senate, and I think it is essential. I think it is essential. I think, as I say, I put it right alongside of our defense appropriation.,Q. Mr. President, in your meeting this morning, was there any discussion of revamping the program in terms of what the House has done?,THE PRESIDENT. No. This program we set up. Then General Clay and his group, which included Mr. Eugene Black of the World Bank, Mr. Lovett, and others, looked at it. They made some proposals. We reduced our request of the authorization after their report came in. They recommended a figure of over $4 billion. This figure now, of course, in the House is almost $600 million less than that.,As I say, we have not even gone through the appropriating procedure, which is usually less than the authorization. This will mean, as Mr. Bell pointed out, that the United States will not fulfill its commitments under the Alliance for Progress, and we are going to say to the Latin American people that we are not going to do what we said we were going to do. It will mean that we will have to cut back on our military assistance to countries which are right on the firing line, and it will mean that a good many of these programs in countries of long-term development loans will come to an end. I think it will limit very much our ability to influence events in these areas. That is why I am very anxious to see the program restored.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-08-20","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] The House of Representatives begins this week consideration of legislation vital to the security and well-being of the United States and the free world, the mutual defense and assistance bill of 1964. I hope the House will give full support to the authorization recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Our foreign aid program is essential to the continued strength of the free world. It gives us increased military security at a cost far lower than if we had to carry the entire burden alone. It gives protection against Communist internal takeover to free people who are yet not able to build solidly without outside help. It provides essential assurances to the new nations of the world that they can count on us in their effort to build a free society. Only with this assurance can they continue to maintain against the pressures that are brought upon them.,This does not represent an impossible burden for the United States; indeed, it is only half as heavy as it was during the Marshall plan. Then about 2 percent of our gross national product was allocated to foreign assistance. The program today costs only 7/10 of 1 percent. The bill before the House has already been cut $850 million from our original estimate last January. Fortunately, the bill now has bipartisan political support. More than half of the Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are in favor of the $4-1 billion authorization now before the House.,This program is not an abstract set of numbers, but a set of concrete and continued actions in support of our national security. No party or group should call for a dynamic foreign policy and then seek to cripple this program.,One wonders which concrete actions critics would like to stop. Should we scrap the Alliance for Progress, which is our best answer to the threat of communism in this hemisphere? Should we deny help to India, the largest free power in Asia, as she seeks to strengthen herself against Communist China? Do we wish to dismantle our joint defenses in Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and Greece, countries along the very rim of Communist power? Do we want to weaken our front in Southeast Asia?,This is no time to slacken our efforts. This fight is by no means over. The struggle is not finished. And therefore, as has been said on many occasions before, however tired we may get of this program, our adversaries are not tired. I don't think this country is tired and the cause of freedom should certainly not be fatigued. Therefore I think it is necessary that we continue to make this effort. I hope the House will support it. Eighty percent of these funds are spent in the United States and I think it is necessary and essential--as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, General Clay, and others--that the House figure be passed.,Experience shows us that the appropriations traditionally has been less. I think it is incumbent upon us to support the action of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I hope the House of Representatives will.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have approved a series of safeguards that they say will maintain our security under the limited test ban treaty, but there seems to be some feeling in Congress that perhaps these safeguards won't be carried out as vigorously and as fully as some of the Members of Congress would like. What do you have to say to that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know where that feeling would arise.,Q. It has been raised.,THE PRESIDENT. In view of the fact that the four safeguards they suggested, the Chiefs of Staff, were all mentioned in my address to Congress which preceded their meeting--there is a letter going to the Congress in response to a request from the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and we are going to describe in detail what steps we are going to take to implement the four safeguards.,Now, the four safeguards consist of: one, that we should keep our laboratories activated and vital. I have already met with Dr. Foster and Dr. Bradbury1--we have talked with others. We are going to do that.,1Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.; and Dr. Norris E. Bradbury, Director, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, N. Mex.,Secondly, we should prepare a standby so that if the treaty should be breached, abrogated, or if we should have what the treaty language describes as an imminent threat to our security we would be prepared to resume testing. Already, we have begun to prepare Johnson Island for that unhappy eventuality if it should occur. Twenty-two million dollars has been already allocated; $11 million has already been put out in contracts. We are dredging the harbor; we are building some piers. There are two dredges already out there. So I can assure you that we are going ahead very rapidly in that area.,Third, I think they wanted or suggested a vigorous series of underground tests. We have already--in the last 2 years we've conducted 97 tests underground. That is quite vigorous. We are going to continue to carry on, as I have said, a vigorous series of tests. So that I think that the areas of concern, the feeling of the Joint Chiefs, when they endorsed the test ban, that these areas should be met. I think--oh, and the fourth area, as I remember, was that we improve our methods of detection. And on that we have additional recommendations to make which will be unanimously endorsed, I think, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.,So we are just as anxious--we appreciate the concern of the Members of Congress, but this matter is of concern to us also and I can assure them we are going to do the job.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, this is probably the last time we will have a session with you before the August 28th civil rights demonstration here. I wonder if you have any new thoughts on that march, and whether you intend to participate or be involved in the activities that day, beyond conferring with a group of leaders of the movement?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have already given my view at a previous press conference, and I will, as I have said--I have been asked for an appointment, and I will be glad to see the leaders of the organizations who are participating on that day.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Teller1 has charged that the administration curtailed a number of the atmospheric tests last year for what he called political reasons, in order not to alienate public opinion. Senator Humphrey has called this a very serious charge. Could you say whether those atmospheric tests were curtailed and why?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, We had set up a committee in the National Security Council headed by Dr. Seaborg,2 and we heard recommendations from the various laboratories, Los Alamos and Livermore, from the AEC, from the Department of Defense, and others, what tests would be most valuable. Obviously, we don't like to test in the atmosphere unless the test is essential. Every test in the atmosphere produces fallout and we would, it seems to me, be remiss in not attempting to keep the number of tests to the minimum, consistent with our national security.,1 Dr. Edward Teller, professor at large and associate director of the E. O. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.,2 Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.,As you remember there were 28 atmospheric tests; 28 atmospheric tests, 97, as I have said, underground tests. That is quite a lot of tests. Before that there was a 3-year moratorium where there were no tests, underground or in the atmosphere.,In addition, as you recall, we have to proceed with some care in deciding what tests. You remember one test went out and built an artificial Van Allen belt, which was far different from what had been imagined, which could have endangered our whole space program and indeed that of any other country.,So we kept a careful eye, and we in fact did more tests, several more tests than we had originally planned 6 months before. So I don't think that the charge is valid. Quite obviously, we didn't test unnecessarily. Quite obviously there may have been tests that Dr. Teller would like to have run. I don't know about that.,But every test was considered by the National Security Council, was considered by the group of principals, of which Dr. Seaborg was the chairman. We carried out, as I say, several more tests, as I recall, than we had originally planned. We carried out in all 28. There may have been, as I say, several tests that different scientists wanted to run at one point or another, but I think we did the major tests, and I think that they were an impressive series. But it would be very difficult, I think, to satisfy Dr. Teller in this field.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, have you narrowed your search for a new Postmaster General, and are you seeking a man with a business background or a political background?,THE PRESIDENT. The search is narrowing, but we haven't--there are other fields that are still to be considered, including even a postal background.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the ranking House Republican expert on atomic energy says that in spite of all administration denials, he is sure that there was a side agreement at Moscow. Is there some way that you can present any proof positive?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I cannot. There is nothing I can say other than to say it isn't so. There is nothing the Under Secretary of State can say other than that it isn't so. There is nothing Governor Harriman can say than it isn't so. There is nothing the Prime Minister of England can say, who participated in it, Lord Hailsham, Lord Home, except that it isn't so. Now, we can't prove it.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, this promises to be a very long session of Congress. There is talk of it running into Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas dinner, and there is beginning to be talk heard among some of the rank and file that possibly it would be a good idea to put over both the civil rights bill and the tax bill into the next session. Do you think, sir, it will be possible for the leadership to keep Congress in town long enough to pass both of these major bills?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see why not. What is the advantage of putting it over until next year? We have other problems. We have the whole new appropriation series. We have an election year. There are a good many excuses next year to get out of town. It seems to me this is the year for us to consider these pieces of legislation. I think there should be a vote on both of them this year, and they are both very important. The civil rights legislation represents a response to a very serious national crisis. I don't think it is a matter that should be put off to next year.,The tax bill was recommended in January. It has not come to the House floor yet. It will come in early September. It should be possible for the Congress of the United States to dispose of this issue this year--12 months. This is a matter which affects employment, jobs, our economic prospects, the struggle against a recession. We are talking about a tax cut beginning in January '64, and we are talking about the state of the economy through the next 6 months, which I think is predicated in part upon a possible tax cut. If that proved to be disappointing, and we started all over again in January, when would you get it to a vote then--May, or June, or July of next year? What would happen to the economy in the meanwhile?,I think it is very important that we get a vote on both of these issues this year, and I think most Congressmen will agree that they should meet their responsibilities on two very vital matters before they go home, and should have voted on these matters. I hope \"up,\" but at least voted on them.,[8.] Q. Sir, there have been reports that if the limited nuclear test ban treaty is ratified, that you and Prime Minister Macmillan and Soviet Premier Khrushchev might go to the United Nations and register it there. If the treaty is ratified, do you see a possibility of conferring with them there, and with other leaders, such as Marshal Tito?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there has been no such plan. It has been suggested that I might speak at the United Nations, but I know of no decision which has been made on that. But as far as any ceremony of ratification or summit meeting involving ratification at the U.N., I would think that would be very unlikely.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in your view, what do you think the effect of the August 28 march will be, both on the country and on the Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't--I think the purpose, of course, is to attempt to bring to the attention of the Congress and the country the strong feeling of a good many thousands of citizens. I don't know, of course, how many are going to come. What we are really talking about is a problem which involves 180 million people. That 180 million people, it seems to me, have elected a Congress and elected some of us' to attempt to deal with that matter. So that this issue does not stand or fall on the August 28th. The August 28 is a chance for a good many people to express their feeling, but it is hard for them--a lot of other people--to travel; it costs them money, they all--many of them have jobs.,So that I think that what we are talking about is an issue that concerns all of our people and must in the final analysis be settled by the Congress and by the executive branch, working with 180 million people. This is an effort, however, to bring focus to the strong concern of a good many citizens. So that I think, as I said before, it is in that tradition that I meet with the leadership and in which I think it is appropriate that these people and anyone else who feels them-selves--who are concerned--should come to Washington, see their Congressmen, and see any of us if they feel that it is in the public interest.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, I would just like to ask a three-part question. Do you feel that Cheddi Jagan, Prime Minister of British Guiana, is a Communist? And what do you think of the possibilities of British Guiana becoming another Cuba should the British leave very soon? And is the United States exerting any--trying to exert any influence on the British to stay in British Guiana, or to suspend the Guiana constitution?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think it would be useful to respond, really, to any of those questions. With regard to Mr. Jagan's political philosophy, I think he has made it clear himself, and his associates have made it clear. The British still exercise a responsibility in the matter. I think we should leave it to them to exercise that in a responsible manner.,As to what might happen under hypothetical conditions in the future, quite obviously the United States Government is concerned about what happens in this hemisphere and observes matters in this hemisphere closely. But I think it is very important that we point out that this is primarily a British matter and we should leave the judgment to them.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in case serious negotiations will be started with the Russians around the proposal to place some stationary control posts on both sides of the Iron Curtain, in what area should these control posts be stationed according to the United States point of view, and could it be only in both parts of Germany?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I think we are a good, long way from reaching any conclusions or any position on the question of posts. This is a matter which I think would have to be discussed. I think it is a matter that has been discussed since it was first put forward\n4 or 5 years ago. It is being discussed today in the NATO Council. It is a matter on which I don't think the United States will have a United States view. But I think that there will be a NATO view. And that view, I think, will be evolving after a good deal of consultation.,So that in answer to your question, there is no--I don't think it would be proper to refer to an American view. I think this is a matter which we will have to work out in consultation, and then after the Allies have consulted about it, and come to conclusions, then I would imagine there may be conversations between the Allies and the Soviet Union. But we are a good, long way from that right now.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, some Negro leaders are saying that like the Jews persecuted by the Nazis the Negro is entitled to some kind of special dispensation for the pain of second-class citizenship over these many decades and generations. What is your view of that in general, and what is your view in particular on the specific point that they are recommending of job quotas by race?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think--I don't think that is the generally held view, at least as I understand it, of the Negro community--that there is some compensation due for the lost years, particularly in the field of education. What I think they would like is to see their children well educated so that they could hold jobs and have their children accepted and have themselves accepted as equal members of the community.,So I don't think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are trying to do. I don't think quotas are a good idea. I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion, or race, or color, or nationality. I think we'd get into a good deal of trouble.,Our whole view of ourselves is a sort of one society. That has not been true. At least, that is where we are trying to go. I think that we ought not to begin the quota system. On the other hand, I do think that we ought to make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified--not through a quota, but just look over our employment rolls, look over our areas where we are hiring people and at least make sure we are giving everyone a fair chance. But not hard and fast quotas. We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there have been charges that Senator Goldwater could become a captive of the radical right. Do you see any indications that the influence of the radical right is growing to proportions where it might be a major factor in the 1964 campaign, and could in effect get enough strength to make any candidate a captive?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know. I don't know who has captured who. I would think that this is a matter which can best be handled by the Republicans at this time. Then after we have a convention and a candidate, then I would discuss it in some detail.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the railroad management and unions have reached what appears to be an impasse by submitting differing proposals for arbitration procedures. Does this mean that the administration will now revise its proposals for compulsory arbitration in Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I understand that there is going to be a meeting tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock of a select group of the Senate Commerce Committee, who will meet with the parties with a proposal for settlement of the dispute. Then we will have a better idea, if this proposal is accepted by both of the parties, or one of the parties. If it is not accepted by the parties, then the Senate Commerce Committee must make a judgment as to whether they will accept the legislative proposals that we sent up or some proposal of their own. But I think we ought to have an answer to your question by tomorrow morning.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the economy in reply to a question about the tax bill. Could you appraise the economy at this stage: how we are doing, and how is the economy going--is it good, sluggish, bad?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say good. I think it is slightly better, although not much better, but slightly better than was estimated in January. So that looking over--I think, the Federal Reserve Board statistical comparisons based on the '57-'59 base as 100; it was 19 in January, and it is 127 now, and it rose, I think, a point in the last month. So that unemployment is 5.6 percent, and factory hours are strong. So, I would say that the state of the economy is good.,What we are concerned, of course, is about what's going to happen for the rest of '63 and '64, because we have now run from the winter of '61--the fall of '60 and the winter of '61--when we had our downturn, and in '58 the downturn, and then '60 and '61. And we have now run pretty steady with the exception of the difficulties of June of '62, and we have had a pretty steady rise.,Of course, you have to have a very substantial rise in order to take care of the number of people coming into the labor market. What I am concerned about therefore is that the tax bill be passed if we are going to see '64 another good year.,But to answer your question, standing as we do right now, I would say the state of the economy is good. What we must be concerned about always, of course, is the future. That is why I consider the tax bill so essential.,[16.] Q. Can you bring us up to date, sir, on the Soviet troop strength in Cuba? Has there been a net reduction in recent weeks and months?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there has been a decline in the last--since my last conference, I think--when we discussed it, about 2 months ago. The intelligence community judges that there has been a decline, and the primary emphasis of those who remain now is in training, and not in concentrated military units.,But there are still Russians there, and this is still a matter of concern to us.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Teller, in urging the Senate to reject the nuclear test ban today, said that it weakens American defenses and thus invites attack, because the information that is necessary to develop a sure-fire antimissile missile can only be developed through atmospheric tests. What do you have to say to this?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mr. McNamara answered that very clearly.1 Other scientists have answered it. I recognize Dr. Teller has made it very clear that he is opposed to it. He opposed it all last week and this week. Now, there are a good many other scientists with comparable experience--we have a Scientific Advisory Committee to the President, we have other scientists who work in nuclear matters, we have Nobel prize winners and others, we have members of the military and others--who think that the test ban is a source of strength to us.1,1 See \"Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,\" Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 88th Congress, 1st Session, August 12-27, 1963 (Government Printing Office, 1963).,1 On August 24 the White House released a statement by the President's Science Advisory Committee expressing \"strong support\" for the treaty. \"Public discussion of the treaty raises many important questions other than those of a technical nature,\" the statement declared. \"However. the questions raised with regard to the potential effects of the treaty on the future military capabilities of this country relative to the Soviet Union are primarily technical .... The Science Advisory Committee, drawing upon the assistance of outstanding scientists and engineers throughout the United States, has long been engaged in independent detailed examination of military technology as it affects our national security in broad aspects. The Committee believes that the continued unrestricted development and exploitation of military technology by both the Soviet Union and the United States would in time lead to a net decrease in our real security.\",I understand Dr. Teller is opposed to it. Every day he is opposed to it. I recognize he is going to continue to be opposed to it. I think that the question was very clearly answered by Mr. McNamara on what effect the atmospheric test ban would have on the development of an antimissile weapon.,Now just let us think of the other side of it. If we begin to test again and the Soviet Union tests again, and others begin to test again, how much security do we have? As I said before, in my message I sent to Congress, we needed only one test to develop the Hiroshima weapon. To anyone who works in the laboratories today, a 30-megaton\nweapon is perhaps not as sophisticated as a 60- or 70- or 80-megaton weapon. But it's still many, many, many times, dozens of times, stronger than the weapon that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.,How many weapons do you need and how many megatons do you need to destroy? I said in my speech what we now have on hand, without any further testing, will kill 300 million people in one hour. I suppose they could even improve on that if it's necessary.,So on your specific question, I refer you to Mr. McNamara's answer, which I think is the clearest and most specific answer that you could possibly get on what effect the atmospheric test ban will have on the development of this weapon.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, in this connection, Utah scientists have announced that Utah children under 2 years have received from 2 to 28 times as much radioactive iodine-131 last year in less than a month as our Government says is safe for an entire year. Does the Government have any plans to examine some of these children to detect possible damage?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have seen the report about the radio iodine and it is a matter of concern. As you know, the report is not unanimous. There is some controversy about it. In addition, the standards that were set do not--I don't think we should mislead the people there, that there is evidence on hand of a serious deterioration there. But, of course, it is a matter of concern to us that we not continue. But we are looking into it. But I would say that as of now that we do not believe that the health of the children involved has been adversely affected. But it does tell us--though of course these matters require further study-what it does tell us is that it is very desirable to get a test ban.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, apparently there is some consideration being given to the United States and Soviet Russia collaborating on the moon shot. I wonder, in view of that, if there is any plan to have Soviet observers when the Apollo moon shot tests start at White Sands, N. Mex.?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We haven't had any success in reaching any agreement. The kind of agreement to really be meaningful would require a good deal of inspection on both sides, and there is no evidence as yet that the Soviet Union is prepared to accept that. All we have ever gotten was an agreement to exchange weather information. We haven't had anything more substantial.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, do you see anything in the relationship of the Secretary of the Navy Korth to the TFX contract which would suggest a conflict of interest?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. I have the highest regard for Mr. Korth, Mr. Gilpatric, Mr. McNamara, and it seems to me the matter has been looked into for many months and I think they have emerged in a very good position.,[21.] Q. Ambassador George Kennan the other day said he thought the most promising area for further exploration in East-West negotiations was President de Gaulle's idea about controlling means of delivery rather than nuclear warheads. Does this Government have a position on that possible approach?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As I said, I think we would be interested to hear what General de Gaulle might propose. How you are going to control the system. Without inspection we can detect atmospheric tests. The Soviet Union has been reluctant to have the kind of inspection which would permit us--which after all, would be very limited inspection--to have underground tests detected. Is there any evidence that they would accept the kind of very detailed inspection that control of a delivery system would entail when it gives out no signal as a nuclear explosion does?,But General de Gaulle has not indicated the details of his proposal. We would be very interested in it. We would be delighted to join with him in any meeting to discuss it. But we have not had it described and I have not yet seen evidence that the Soviet Union would accept that kind of inspection. However, we will be very responsive if the proposal is put forward.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, going back to your earlier answer on Cuba, can you say what our estimate is of how many troops have been withdrawn?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it's difficult-as we can't call the roll--for us to say precisely. But based on the information we have about outward movements and inward movements it is the judgment of the intelligence community that there has been a reduction in the last 2 1/2 months.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the figures released yesterday by the Commerce Department on the balance of international payments, does the administration have any further measures it is going to recommend? It looks as though the deficit could be the largest since the war.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think it will be. The second quarter was particularly difficult. Since then the indications are better. In addition, as you know, we have taken two important steps--really three. One is the equalization tax. Two is the interest rates. And three is the reduction in military expenditures and tying our foreign aid expenditures here in the United States. So we think that is going to make an important difference. Quite obviously we will have to look at the effect of all of those proposals.,Q. Do you see an end in sight when there will be a balance?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do, because I think that by one means or another we are going to bring it into balance. Quite obviously we would not accept it. But we are reluctant--quite obviously we are not going to devalue, because there is no necessity for it. It would be a defeating measure. So I eliminate that. It may not be necessary for us to proceed any further.,You can see already the effect of even the rather limited steps we have taken--two effects. One, the effect in Canada and Japan of the equalization tax, which shows the deflationary effect of this kind of restriction, and therefore we were reluctant to do it.\nSecondly, there was an article in the paper, in the Times on Sunday about the effect on the Euro-dollar of our interest rate rise. So that everything we do shakes the West-the monetary system--so we proceed with care. We are still in good shape. A good deal of this outflow represents assets abroad. The United States, while a good deal of money is going out, has also picked up a good many assets in Western Europe and all around the globe.,While it means our position may not be as liquid as it might, it does mean that we are in a strong position in regard to our ultimate balance sheet.,Q. Will that call for any action at the next meeting of the I.M.F.?,THE PRESIDENT. Not that we have planned. But I think--let's see what effect the interest rate increase has on the short term flow. This tax can be important and this cut down on defense and our foreign aid can be important, and there are other steps we may be able to take. We feel that with the rising cost in Europe that we are going to begin to come into balance. We are going to bring it into balance. The question is, we would like to bring it into balance in a way that does not shake--as I have said, we don't want to have a 1928 situation where you take an action to protect your problem here and you cause a far greater problem.,I think this situation can be brought under control. What we are now doing, I think, is an important step in that direction.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-08-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] The end of this summer of 1963 will be an especially critical time for 400,000 young Americans who, according to the experience of earlier years, will not return to school when the summer is ended. Moreover, without a special effort to reverse this trend, another 700,000 students will return to school in September, but will fail to complete the school year. The greatest growth in labor demand today is for highly trained professional workers with 16 or more years of education. The second fastest growing demand is for technical and semiprofessional workers with 1 to 3 years of post high school education. Jobs filled by high school graduates rose 30 percent, while jobs for those with no secondary education decreased 25 percent in the last decade.,We must therefore combat, intensify our efforts to meet this problem. We are now talking about the lives of a million young American boys and girls who will fail to meet their educational requirements in the next few months unless we do something about it.,This is a serious national problem. A boy or girl has only a limited time in their life in which to get an education, and yet it will shape their whole lives and the lives of their children. So I am asking all American parents to urge their children to go back to school in September, to assist them in every way to stay in school. I am asking school principals, clergymen, trade union leaders, business leaders, everyone in this country, to concern themselves. Here is something that all of us can do in a practical way in the month of August and in the months to come.,One of the things which we are going to do here is to provide, out of the Presidential emergency fund, $250,000 on an emergency basis for guidance counselors in the month of August to see if we can get some of these boys and girls back to school. They will appreciate any effort we make for the rest of their lives.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, some Republican leaders, and some Democratic Senators as well, have expressed a \"wait and see\" attitude about the nuclear test ban treaty. Does this give you any concern about its ratification or about the size of the margin you expect?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think everybody ought to--I think there is nothing wrong with waiting and seeing. Sooner or later, however, if you wait long enough and you see long enough you have to do something, and then you have to vote \"yes\" or \"no.\",My judgment is when the testimony is all in that this treaty will be ratified. I think it would be a great mistake not to. I think the treaty has been carefully considered. I think it provides protection for the security interests of the United States and gives us some hope. Maybe that hope won't be realized but some hope of moving towards a more peaceful world. In my judgment, after the Senators--and they have a right to meet their responsibilities in a careful way, this is a constitutional power, as I said the other night, vested in them. They have to study the matter carefully; they should hear from the Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Secretary, the State Department, and the rest, and make their judgment. I believe they will vote \"yes.\",Q. Mr. President, have you made any policy decision on whether we will continue testing nuclear weapons underground as the treaty permits us to do?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Yes, we will.,Q. We will continue?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is correct.,Q. Mr. President, is the United States considering giving France some of its nuclear weapons secrets in order that that nation might stop testing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, France is a nuclear power and the United States and Britain have been in touch with the French authorities on this matter of how the interests of France, Britain, and the United States can best be protected in a test ban. At the present time, as you know, over a period of time, we have offered assistance to France on other occasions. After Nassau, we offered assistance to France on the Polaris program. That offer was rejected.,In Germany there are French aircraft with U.S. nuclear weapons, which are ready for the defense of the alliance which the United States has made available for sale, or tankers which could be used by the French military force, air tankers. So that we have been in some cooperation in this area. We have discussed--we have made some suggestions recently as to how that cooperation could be more satisfactorily developed if there were a test ban, but we have received no response from the French Government, other than the remarks of General de Gaulle at his press conference.,Q. Mr. President, Senator Dirksen and some West German officials have expressed concern that if the nuclear test ban is signed amongst others by this Government, by the Federal Republic of Germany, and by the East German regime, that this will amount to a tacit recognition of East Germany. What is your thinking on this point?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that is not correct. This matter was discussed and the position of the United States and Britain was made very clear to the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union mentioned a regime which it did not recognize and did not wish to recognize. So that a procedure was developed whereby a regime which is not recognized by one of the other parties to the treaty can file its assent with one of the three parties. This act would not constitute recognition by the remaining signatories. The fact of the matter is that we signed a part of a multilateral treaty on Laos which the Red Chinese also signed, but we do not recognize the Red Chinese regime. This is a matter of intent. Diplomatic procedure, custom, and law provide that recognition is a matter of intent. We do not intend to recognize the East German regime and, therefore, the language which is in the treaty was part of the treaty when it was tabled more than a year ago. It has been before us for a year and it does not provide for recognition of East Germany, and we will not recognize it, and we believe strongly in the reunification of Germany as a free, democratic country. That is our policy in the past and our present policy and our future policy and would not be affected by this test ban agreement.,I do think that it is important that we have as great a participation in this nuclear test ban agreement as possible. We have received no encouragement, but we would like the Red Chinese to come into the agreement. It looks like they will not, but it would obviously be in the interest of world peace, but that does not constitute recognition.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the Red Chinese hard line, the recent flare-up of violence in Korea, reported troop movements along the Indian-Tibetan border, do you believe that the situation has taken a turn for the worse in the Far East? If so, what should we do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. The potentiality is there for a turn for the worse. I don't think we can make a judgment as to what events will bring us. Broadcasts are very hard out of Peking. There has been a development of roads in the areas north of India's frontier. There are concentrations of troops. The potential for trouble is always there, and the same is true in other parts of Asia, but we have lived with a good deal of danger in Asia for a number of years. We have made quite clear, I think, our commitments, and we intend to carry out those commitments, and we would hope that there would not be a flare-up which would bring a direct conflict. That's our hope, and we cannot say as of yet there have been any actions which would indicate that in a final way that hope would be denied at this time.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, General de Gaulle has pledged that France will not commit aggression against any other country, and he says that therefore there is no purpose in a nonaggression agreement. Is it possible, in view of his attitude, to proceed with other NATO allies now, to see if a nonagression pledge or agreement or pact can be achieved with the Russians and the Warsaw Pact powers?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I understood it, General de Gaulle has made a nonaggression pledge himself. It would seem to me that it might be advisable for the other members of NATO to meet together and discuss the matter. One of our interests in a nonaggression agreement would be greater security for Berlin. If everyone is going to unilaterally make a nonaggression agreement, then you have a nonaggression pact in a sense, and it does not seem to me that our interests have been adequately recognized. So I would feel, personally, for the United States, that we should consult with our other allies. We should, as Governor Harriman agreed to do, take up the matter of a nonaggression pact with our allies, consider their interests and our own interests, consider, as I said, for one matter, Berlin, and then go back to the Soviet Union and see what the situation looks like. That is the procedure we are going to follow. Every country, of course, is free to follow its own.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, former Vice President Nixon has been making a number of suggestions on the American foreign policy recently. In doing so, do you think he is sounding like a would-be presidential candidate again?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I have taken him at his word, that he won't run again.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in some 24 States all over the country, there are miscegenation laws in various forms. California courts once found them unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and said that marriage is a fundamental fight of free men. Now, in your crusade against racial discrimination for all races, will you seek to abrogate these laws, and how would you go about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the law--if there was a marriage of the kind you have described, I would assume--and if a legal action was taken against the party, then they would have a relief, it would seem to me, in the courts. And it would be carded, I presume, to the higher courts, depending on the judgments, so that the laws themselves would be affected by the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court.,I think there are legal remedies for any abuses in this field now available.,Q. Does not the Department of Justice take some discrimination cases to the courts themselves?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure they could, as you describe it, because I am not sure they would be a party in the case. It would probably be--in order to have the case heard, and this is a legal matter which I am not familiar with, and I speak with some valor of ignorance as I am not a lawyer, I would think that they would have to be a party in interest, who would bring the suit. But this is a matter which I would be glad to have the Attorney General or the Solicitor speak to you about personally.,[7.] Q. There are indications lately that your policies on civil rights are costing you heavily in political prestige and popularity. Would you comment on that, and would you tell us whether civil rights are worth an election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I assume what you say is probably right. On the other hand, this is a national crisis of great proportions. I am confident that whoever was President would meet his responsibilities. Crises come in different forms. I don't think anyone would have anticipated the exact form of this particular crisis. Maybe last winter we were dealing with other matters. But I think it has come and we are going to deal with it. My judgment is that both political parties finally will come to the same conclusion, and that is that every effort should be made to protect the rights of all of our citizens, and advance their right to equality of opportunity. Education, jobs, security, right to move freely about our country, right to make personal choices--these are matters which it seems to me are very essential, very desirable, and we just have to wait and see what political effect they have. But I think the position of the Government, the administration, is well known, and I expect it will continue to follow the same course it has followed in the past.,[8. ] Q. Mr. President, when Lord Hailsham returned to London, he said Premier Khrushchev had expressed an interest in a summit meeting in the fall. I wonder, sir, if you could give us your view on the issue of the summit, now that a test ban treaty has been initiated?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not heard any discussion of the summit, and I don't really see at the present time it would serve a useful purpose. It seems to me that we have been able to conduct the negotiations, which are important, the matter of the hot line, for example, and the test ban treaty, the limited test ban treaty, through skilled negotiators, and that is really the best way unless there is an overwhelming crisis, or unless there is some new factor introduced into the international situation which is not now visible which would make such a meeting desirable.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Representative Adam Clayton Powell has said that Negroes should retain the leadership of the civil rights movement in their own hands, excluding, for the most part, whites. This has upset a great many people, both Negroes and whites, who support the civil rights movement. Could you give us your view of this position held by Mr. Powell?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I haven't seen the statement that you attribute to him, so it is hard to comment on it. I would think that this is a matter, of course--when you are talking about 10 percent of the population-it is a matter which affects Negroes and whites and the relations between them are what are at issue; not the relationship between the Negro community itself, but the relationship between Negroes and whites. Therefore, it requires the work of Negroes and white. It seems to me quite obvious. But I don't know what he said about it.,[10.] Q. A two-pronged question, please: Do you feel that the relaxation of cold war tensions resulting from the test ban treaty might in any way affect relations between Cuba and the United States, and do you think that the United States might take any action against the students who are now in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. That's really three questions. I don't know what the next step in regard to relaxation of tensions are. We can't predict it. I described it as the first step in a long journey, so I don't think we should make any presumptions about what the future will bring. I think we should maintain our strength. I don't think we should cut our defense budgets. I think we should pursue, however, the next step and the next step, to see if we can bring about a genuine detente--we don't have that yet--a genuine one, which covers a broad area.,What we have now is a limited test ban agreement, and we should realize it as an important step, but only a first step.,Now, secondly, our policy I described very clearly in regards to Cuba at the last press conference.,Thirdly, in regard to the students, their passports are going to be lifted when they come back here. Some of the leadership, it seems to me, are definitely Communists. The journey was paid for in cash by the Cuban Government. Some of the students may be just young men and women who are interested in broadening their horizons. But I think that they should have some concern for the security and foreign policy objectives of the United States.,In any case, their passports will be lifted, which may discourage their travel for a period, and, in addition, other steps may be considered in regard to a few who are not students but who are Communists.,[ 11. ] Q. Some reputable experts estimate that it will be at least 10 years before Communist China could become a full-fledged nuclear power. Against that background, could you expand a little bit your answer to a previous question on just how we assess the power and the threat of Communist China today?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we assess its power at 700 million people, increasing at 14 million or 15 million a year, surrounded by countries which are, in every case but one, much smaller, which are faced with very difficult geographic and social problems, which do not have a strong national history. So that we find a great, powerful force in China, organized and directed by the government along Stalinist lines, surrounded by weaker countries. So this we regard as a menacing situation.,In addition, as I said, that government is not only Stalinist in its internal actions, but also has called for war, international war, in order to advance the final success of the Communist cause. We regard that as a menacing factor. And then you introduce into that mix, nuclear weapons. As you say, it may take some years, maybe a decade, before they become a full-fledged nuclear power, but we are going to be around in the 1970's, and we would like to take some steps now which would lessen that prospect that a future President might have to deal with.,I would regard that combination, if it is still in existence in the 1970's, of weak countries around it, 700 million people, a Stalinist internal regime, and nuclear powers, and a government determined on war as a means of bringing about its ultimate success, as potentially a more dangerous situation than any we faced since the end of the Second War, because the Russians pursued in most cases their ambitions with some caution. Even in the case of the most overt aggression, which was the North Korean invasion of South Korea, other forces were used and not the Russians.,So what we are anxious to do, and one of the reasons why we have moved into the limited test ban, even though we recognize its limitations, is because we don't want to find the world in as great a danger as it could be in the 1970's, for the reasons that I have described.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, it has seemed that as the summer has progressed, the vigor or some of the fever has gone out of the Negro demonstrations that we had around the country earlier in the year. I wonder, sir, how you feel, or why this might have come about, what effect it might have on the opinion of legislation, and in short if you could assess the demonstrations that we have had with the spring, and what we have accomplished?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is partly because an awful lot of work is being done in the local communities by biracial groups, by responsible officials, and this is true north and south, east and west, partly because I think that the Negroes are aware that the Congress is considering the legal remedies for some of the difficulties that they face.,It is partly because the responsible Negro leadership, I think, realizes that this is a long drawn-out task to bring about, which requires jobs, which requires education, and all of the rest, and a quick demonstration in the street is not the immediate answer.,But merely because the demonstrations have subsided does not seem to me, those of us who are in a position of responsibility, does not mean that we should go to sleep and forget the problem, because that is no solution. So I think that it may be a good thing that the demonstrations, particularly in their extreme form, are subsiding. I think in some cases they were becoming self-defeating, and particularly demonstrations that I have seen, that I've read about recently, which seemed to me to be rather fringe actions. I thought that they were self-defeating.,But I would hope that if there is a period of quiet, we would use it and not merely regard it as an end of the effort.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, this is related to an earlier question. Senator Dirksen also expressed concern about Cuba, and he said that Cuba could become a party to the Moscow treaty, and then could test nuclear weapons in the caves down in Cuba. Do you share Senator Dirksen's concern about such a matter?,THE PRESIDENT. If they did not become a party to the treaty, couldn't they test in the caves or in the atmosphere?,Q. Search me, Mr. President!,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me that that doesn't--there is some logic, I am sure, to it. [Laughter] But the fact of the matter is that this testing underground is a very difficult business, very difficult, very expensive, and this will have a restraint on the development of nuclear weapons.,If you could get a complete, comprehensive test ban treaty, which we still are for, which I think we ought to pursue, then you would have an ending to all prospects. But to say that the test ban treaty itself is an encouragement to develop nuclear weapons, presents the problem in a way which does not add materially, it seems to me, to the illumination that I am confident that the debate will bring.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, this month we shall celebrate the second anniversary of the Alliance for Progress. With all of its frustrations and yours, and advancement in some areas, I wonder how you evaluate the movement during this 2-year period, since it was one of your inauguration ideas?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am always depressed, to an extent, by the size of the problems that we face in Latin America, with the population increases, the drop in commodity prices, and all the rest. We sometimes feel that we are not going ahead. In addition, in nearly every country there are serious domestic problems.,On the other hand, there have been some changes in Latin America which I think are encouraging. I think there has been a common recognition that there is the necessity for revolution in Latin America, and it is either going to be peaceful or bloody. But there must be progress, there must be a revolution. In my opinion, it can be peaceful. In my opinion given time and concentrated effort on behalf of all of us, in Latin America, and in this country, we can bring about success.,So I think the Alliance for Progress should be pursued, its efforts should be intensified. Wherever it has failed, if it has failed, and it has failed, of course, to some degree, because the problems are almost insuperable, and for years the United States ignored them, and for years so did some of the groups in Latin America themselves, but now we are attempting, we have a program, I think we should pursue it. I think we should do more about it. I am not sure that we are giving still enough attention to Latin America.,What I find to be almost incomprehensible are those who speak about Cuba all the time, and yet are not willing to give the kind of assistance and the kind of support to assist other countries of Latin America to develop themselves in a peaceful way. So I say on the second anniversary, we have a long, long way to go, and in fact in some ways the road seems longer than it was when the journey started. But I think we ought to keep at it.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to the French situation, you said, I believe, that you had made some suggestions with the British to the French in the nuclear field. Have you ever suggested or considered suggesting using the authority which I understand you have under the Atomic Energy Act, to treat France as we treat Britain, as a nuclear power, either under the present French policy or under a possibility of France joining with the U.S. and the U.K. and others in some form of Western or European nuclear force?,In other words, when you said the other night that France was one of the four nuclear powers, were you prepared to recognize it in the hard terms of the Atomic Energy Act as such?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do recognize it in terms of the Atomic Energy Act. As a matter of fact, at the time of the Nassau agreement, we thought that it would be profitable to enter into a dialog with the French, and as you remember in the Nassau accord, it said we would make a similar offer to the French. That offer was rejected. It was rejected because, while the British were prepared and have placed their Vbomber force under NATO and Polaris under NATO, their Polaris force under NATO, I think that the French regarded that condition as unsatisfactory, or that proposal as unsatisfactory. I think that is a more precise word, proposal, not condition.,Now, we have the question of where we should go from here. As the General made clear in his press conference, he has a somewhat different view of NATO than we do, and its importance, and he has suggested on several occasions that it should be reorganized. He also has some objection to the word \"integration,\" which we think is a good word. But he does not. So that the problem does not rest solely with an interpretation of the McMahon Act. The problem really goes to the organization of the defense of the West, and what role France sees for herself, and sees for us, and what kind of a cooperative effort France and the United States and Britain and the other members of NATO--and this is important, the nonnuclear powers of NATO--could join in.,Now, that is a very complicated political problem and this is a matter which we opened up for discussion some months ago, and which I would assume that we should continue to discuss. And, of course, we are always prepared to, and have indicated as much to the French.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, apropos the Nassau talks, we haven't heard much about the multilateral nuclear force lately. During your talk with Prime Minister Macmillan, he apparently gave you some rather discouraging answers about their interests. I wonder if you still have a timetable for the development of that force, or whether you have decided to abandon it, at least temporarily?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, there has been a meeting-since my trip there has been a meeting of some of the interested parties and there will be another meeting in the next few weeks in which other countries will join. What we have to concern ourselves with, though this may not seem very pressing, is the problem of the countries which do not have a nuclear capacity. How are they going to be included in? I think as the General said in his press conference last January, those who have a monopoly position always regard it as the wisest organization, and as the most beneficial. Well, we have a strong nuclear position, the British do, the French are developing theirs. What about those who do not have a nuclear capacity? How can we include them into this cooperative effort so that we do not break up the alliance? That is what we have been attempting to deal with.,Now, there are many shortcomings to our proposal, but my experience has been that there are shortcomings to every proposal, and those who do not like our proposal, it seems to me, should suggest one of their own. We hear frequently, for example, there should be a European deterrent. It seems to me that the General discussed that when he said that there was not the political organization of Europe that would permit the organization of a deterrent in a European sense. There may be someday. In the meanwhile, we think the multilateral force represents the best solution to hold the alliance together, which we believe to be essential, and I know of nothing that has happened which in my opinion lessens the need on both sides of the Atlantic for the closest cooperation on military matters, on economic matters, on political matters, on foreign policy matters.,Now, we don't have always that viewpoint and cooperation, but we intend to work at it. We intend to work at it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, one of the concerns voiced by some of the critics of the partial nuclear test ban agreement involves the relative status of the anti-missile-missile programs of the Soviet Union and the United States. And these critics point to last year's massive series of Soviet tests in which very large warheads were detonated as probably giving the Soviets an advantage in this area. Now have our scientific and technical intelligence people examined those tests, and can you give us your estimate of where we stand relatively?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that the problem is solved by the explosion of a large megaton bomb. The problem is really one, as you know, of discrimination, of being able to prevent saturation, of having to protect many targets while the adversary can select a few.,The problem would not be solved if the United States exploded a 100-megaton bomb. The reason that the United States did not explode or develop is because we had no military use for it.,When you talk about 100 megatons, which we do rather casually, we should realize what we are talking about. What is the blast effect? Would three 30-ton megaton bombs do more damage? Well the fact of the matter is they would, because the effect of a 100-megaton as opposed to a 50-megaton does not move up in arithmetical progression. So we have felt that lesser yields, combined with the means of delivery, provided the United States with the greater security.,The problem of developing a defense against a missile is beyond us and beyond the Soviets technically, and I think many who work in it feel that perhaps it can never be successfully accomplished, because the whole problem, as you know, is to have 100 objects flying through the air at thousands of miles an hour, to be able to pick them out. And if you can do that there is an advantage, it still seems to me, to the offense, because they can pour in 200 or 300. And therefore, the problem is not the size of the bomb, but rather the problem of discrimination and the problem of selectivity, targeting, and all the rest.,On those matters we can continue to work, but I must say those who work the longest are not particularly optimistic that a scientific breakthrough can be made, and polluting the atmosphere by further tests will not materially advance our security.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-07-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have two announcements.,[1.] I have a brief statement to make on the progress of the negotiations in Moscow. After 3 days of talks we are still hopeful that the participating countries may reach an agreement to end nuclear testing, at least in the environment in which it is agreed that on-the-ground inspection is not required for reasonable security. Negotiations so far are going forward in a businesslike way. It is understood, of course, that under our constitutional procedures any agreement will be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. It is also understood by our allies that the British and American representatives are not negotiating on other matters affecting their rights and interests. Any matter of this sort which may come under discussion will be kept open for full allied consultation.,Finally it is clear that these negotiations, if successful, should lead on to wider discussions among other nations. The three negotiating powers constitute the nuclear test ban subcommittee of the Geneva conference, and if the present negotiations should be successful, it will be important to reach the widest possible agreement on nuclear testing throughout the world. But all these questions are still ahead of us and today, while the negotiators are at work, I think we should not complicate their task by further speculation. And for that reason I do not expect to respond to further questions on this subject.,[2.] Second, I received a few hours ago the preliminary budget results for the fiscal year which ended June 30. The cash deficit was $4.1 billion, just half as large as we estimated some 6 months ago. The deficit in the administrative budget was $6.2 billion, $2.6 billion less than our January estimate. In both cases the deficit is below the level of the preceding fiscal year. The Treasury and the Budget Bureau will issue a more detailed statement later in the week.,Since the budget went to Congress, we have been able to reduce our request for 1963 supplemental appropriations by nearly $250 million.,Nearly every Federal agency reduced its expenditures below the figure estimated last January. Secretary McNamara announced last week that his campaign to cut costs in the Defense budget had produced 1963 savings of more than a billion dollars. We have also lowered net expenditures hundreds of millions of dollars by applying the policy of substituting private credit for public credit through the sale of Government-held mortgages and other similar assets.,Tax collections are also better than we estimated in January. But we still have too many idle plants and jobless workers. The recent improvement in business conditions has contributed to these higher revenues. This demonstrates again the 'point which I emphasized in my tax message to the Congress. Rising tax receipts and eventual elimination of budget deficits depend primarily on a healthy and rapidly growing economy.,The most urgent economic business before the Nation is a prompt and substantial reduction and revision of Federal income taxes in order to speed up our economic growth and wipe out our present excessive unemployment. A prosperous and growing economy is a major objective in its own right. It is also the primary means by which to achieve a balance in our Federal budget and in our balance of payments.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the increased contact between the Vatican and the Iron Curtain countries, do you feel it would be fruitful at this time to consider setting up some regular channel of communication between the United States and the Vatican?,THE PRESIDENT. No. It seems to me that the present methods of communication, which are the obvious ones and have been in effect, I suppose, for a great many years-any time anyone wants to get in communication, it's possible to get messages to the Vatican. The Embassy in Rome, I am sure, would be available. It doesn't seem to me that there is any need for changing procedures. I don't think there is any lack of information or communication back and forth.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, referring back to your reference to the tax cut, we wonder, could you appraise the status of your legislative program in Congress today, particularly would you want the Congress to dispose of the civil rights proposals before they begin concentrating on the tax bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I would--no, I think that the tax bill and the civil rights bill are both very important and also they are very complex pieces of legislation, and it is taking-Congress has been taking a good deal, amount of time, the Ways and Means Committee, in considering the tax bill, 6 months now. The civil rights bill, of course, in its latest form only went up about 6 weeks ago, 5 weeks ago, and that will take, I should think, a substantial amount of time. But they are both important pieces of legislation and I'm sure the Congress will be at it for a number of weeks to go. I would think--I would not attempt--this is a matter as to which bill should come to the floor first, and in which body is a matter for the leadership. It depends on the state of the hearings, it depends on the judgment of the committees involved, and of the Rules Committee. What I am interested in seeing is before the end of this year both bills enacted. That is what we will be judged on.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do the reports from Secretary Wirtz and others give you any reason to expect a negotiated settlement of this railroad dispute before next Monday's deadline, or the report to Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but I think both groups should be much better off to reach a settlement in the remaining days than they will be to have a strike, which affects the national economy, and interest, and have this matter before the Congress. No one can be certain in what form it would come out. There are a few days left, and I think that they ought to reach an agreement themselves and not depend upon the Government to do it.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there have been published reports that the Russians are having second thoughts about landing a man on the moon. If they should drop out of the race to the moon, would we still continue with our moon program; or secondly, if they should wish to cooperate with us in a joint mission to the moon, would we consider agreeing to that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, we don't know whether the Russians are-what their plans may be. What we are interested in is what their capabilities are. While I have seen the statement of Mr. Lovell 1 about what he thinks the Russians are doing, his information is not final. Their capacity is substantial; there is every evidence that they are carrying on a major campaign and diverting greatly needed resources to their space effort. With that in mind, I think that we should continue. It may be that our assumption--or the prediction in this morning's paper that they are not going to the moon--might be wrong a year from now. And are we going to divert ourselves from our effort in an area where the Soviet Union has a lead, is making every effort to maintain that lead, in an area which could affect our national security as well as great peaceful development? I think we ought to go right ahead with our own program and go to the moon before the end of this decade.,1 Sir Bernard Lovell, British astronomer.,The point of the matter always has been not only of our excitement or interest in being on the moon, but the capacity to dominate space, which would be demonstrated by a moon flight, I believe is essential to the United States as a leading free world power. That is why I am interested in it and that is why I think we should continue, and I would be not diverted by a newspaper story.,Q. What about the second part of my question?,THE PRESIDENT. The second question is what cooperation we would be willing to carry on with the Soviet Union. We have said before to the Soviet Union that we would be very interested in cooperation. As a matter of fact, finally, after a good many weeks of discussion, an agreement was worked out on an exchange of information in regard to weather, but we have never been able to go into more detail. The kind of cooperative effort which would be required for the Soviet Union and the United States together to go to the moon would require a breaking down of a good many barriers of suspicion and distrust and hostility which exists between the Communist world and ourselves.,There is no evidence as yet that those barriers will come down, though quite obviously we would like to see them come down. Obviously, if the Soviet Union were an open society, as we are, that kind of cooperation could exist, and I would welcome it. I would welcome it, but I don't see it as yet, unfortunately.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that Mrs. Murphy should have to take into her home a lodger whom she does not want regardless of her reason, or would you accept a change in the civil rights bill to except small boarding houses like Mrs. Murphy's?,THE PRESIDENT. The question would be, it seems to me, whether Mrs. Murphy had a substantial impact on interstate commerce.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, if the talks in Moscow do go well, would you be receptive to the idea of a summit conference?,THE PRESIDENT. The matter has never come up since Governor Harriman has been there. I have always said I would go any place if I thought it was essential to the making of an effective agreement. There is no evidence that a summit is indicated or needed. There seems to be every evidence if we can get an agreement that we can reach it in our respective capitals. So I must say in complete frankness that this matter has not been before us, and if it came before us, I would give it consideration in light of what the situation was. But as of yet there has been no talk about it.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there has been rising expectation since your visit to Europe that your next travels would take you to the Far East and South Asia. Could you tell us if you are considering such a trip, and, if so, if it could come by the end of this year or early next year?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no plans for a trip. I would like to go sometime--to go to the Far East. I think it is an area of great importance to us, but we have no plans for it, and I would think that we have a lot of work to do here for a good many months.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of public concern about the political situation in South Viet-Nam, and I would like to ask you whether the difficulties between the Buddhist population there and the South Vietnamese Government has been an impediment to the effectiveness of American aid in the war against the Viet Cong?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think it has. I think it is unfortunate that this dispute has arisen at the very time when the military struggle has been going better than it has been going in many months. I would hope that some solution could be reached for this dispute, which certainly began as a religious dispute, and because we have invested a tremendous amount of effort and it is going quite well.,I do realize of course, and we all have to realize, that Viet-Nam has been in war for 20 years. The Japanese came in, the war with the French, the civil war which has gone on for 10 years, and this is very difficult for any society to stand. It is a country which has got a good many problems and it is divided, and there is guerrilla activity and murder and all of the rest. Compounding this, however, now is a religious dispute. I would hope this would be settled, because we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence.,We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there. We hope with the great effort which is being carried by the Vietnamese themselves, and they have been in this field a lot longer than we have, and with a good deal more deaths and casualties, that behind this military shield put up by the Vietnamese people they can reach an agreement on the civil disturbances and also in respect for the rights of others. That's our hope. That's our effort. That--we're bringing our influence to bear. And the decision is finally theirs, but I think that before we render too harsh a judgment on the people, we should realize that they are going through a harder time than we have had to go through.,[11.] Q. A personal question, sir, if I may. It has been reported that you turned to playing golf again. I wonder if you could tell us how you feel and how you enjoyed returning to what has been reported one of your favorite sports.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I like it. I did not think I was going to play golf again until my trip. I don't want to get into a discussion of back difficulties, but my trip to Europe, I think, helped. Getting out of that office did something. So, I enjoy it.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, at Frankfurt you said the time has come for a common effort on the International Monetary Fund. Could you give us a more specific notion of what you had in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. We are sending tomorrow a balance of payments message which will have a good many of our suggestions. Quite obviously, the dollar is international currency and has served us well, and served the West well, and with the sterling has been the basis for a good deal of international liquidity. I have every confidence that it can continue to be. I think we can still continue on the gold standard. We have had good bilateral relations with a good many countries of Europe, who by prepayment of debt, and by other rather technical transactions, have eased some of the burdens of the balance of payments difficulties which we have been undergoing.,But I would confine my remarks to that at this time, and recommend my statement tomorrow on the balance of payments. It may be that as time goes on, other suggestions may be made to provide greater liquidity and greater security for the various currencies. I think if the program we are recommending tomorrow is enacted, it will make a substantial difference to our balance of payments. And I think the long-range prognosis for us--for our balance of payments--I think is quite good.,Our costs in relation to other costs have remained relatively stable. Brookings Institution makes a judgment that by the mid-sixties and beyond we can be in perhaps even a surplus position again.1 But what we want to do is prevent these large flows back and forth, which cause countries to adopt restrictive measures which affect adversely their domestic economy and therefore have a deflationary effect upon the entire Western monetary system.,1 The President referred to a study \"The United States Balance of Payments in 1968\" by Walter S. Salant et al. (298 pp., Brookings, 1963).,But to be specific to your question, I have no proposals beyond the ones I am making tomorrow, which will be before you. But it is a matter which I think we ought to continue to talk to the Western European powers about.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in an official reply to the Chinese Communists this week described the Chinese Communists' policy as one which would lead to a conflict with the capitalist world in which both the victor and the vanquished would wind up under nuclear rubble. Do you share this view as to the apparent direction of Chinese Communist policy at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. It would seem to be directed to that end, but, of course, if it came to that, the Chinese would be fighting with the Soviet nuclear arsenal. There are some countries which would like to have us fight a war with our arsenal of nuclear weapons, so I think the Soviet Union naturally is not anxious to engage in a nuclear struggle to carry out ideological doctrines that the Chinese Communists may develop. They have a natural reluctance to see their country destroyed for that reason, as do we.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, it's been reported that you hope to make a trip of 4 or 5 days duration around the country in the fall in the interests of conservation. Could you tell us a little bit about that, and might you consider starting or ending your trip in the middle of the Potomac River to survey and perhaps to smell the sewage disposal problem in the National Capital?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if we do make that trip, I will certainly observe it, pass over it, and even go further than that.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the United States Employment Service is seeking jobs for both the unemployed and the employed, and some of these jobs solicited and advertised by the USES run from $10,000 to $22,500, which is a salary level of Congressmen and a level at which job seekers wouldn't be thought to need public assistance. Some of your critics have charged that the USES is competing with private enterprise, both in the business community and on the campus.,THE PRESIDENT. What is your question I didn't hear the first part of it?,Q. The USES is soliciting jobs for people who have jobs and people who don't, and some of the jobs that they are soliciting for people who already have jobs run from $10,000 to $22,500--,THE PRESIDENT. What jobs are they talking about, for example?,Q. They advertise in the papers,THE PRESIDENT. Was it because we need special skills, perhaps, in the Government?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see anything wrong with that. We may need some skills. I am not familiar with the story, but just judging it from your question, I would assume that what they are talking about are certain skills which the Government needs, which may be in short supply, and therefore they are announcing that there are openings in the Federal Government for that purpose. That would seem--,Q. No, these are private jobs.,THE PRESIDENT. They are private jobs?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to look into the matter, whatever it is. I would assume they are right, but I will be glad to check it.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any indications that the Castro Government is seeking a more relaxed relationship with the United States, and, if so, are we prepared to meet them in that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have seen these verbal statements, but I have seen no evidence. As I say, I think the United States has indicated very clearly that we do not accept the existence of, and cannot coexist in the peaceful sense with, a Soviet satellite in the Caribbean. So I don't see that any progress is going to be made along these lines as long as Cuba is a Soviet satellite.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Britain's Lord Home who believes that the Sino-Soviet breach cannot be healed?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always said that I thought it would be unwise for the United States to talk about a matter over which we have only limited control. Therefore, I have not commented and would not comment on it until the actuality becomes more obvious than it still is today. Quite obviously there are strong indications of pressure there, but I would not make any final statements because history has shown that they are frequently reversed.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, in the 1960 campaign you used to say that it was time for America to get moving again. Do you think it is moving, and if so, how and where? The reason I ask you the question, Mr. President, is that the Republican National Committee recently adopted a resolution saying you were 'pretty much a failure.,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure it was passed unanimously. [Laughter],I think that we have made significant progress on the economic front--in the increase in our gross national product of nearly $90 billion, in a 25-percent increase in profits, in farm income up 10 percent, and all of the rest. I think those statistics are available; they are obvious, and I think that they indicate that the United States has made substantial progress.,The only thing is that the United States has to move very fast to even stand still. We are going to have to find in the next decade 22 million jobs to take care of those coming into the labor market and those who are eliminated by technological gains. But we have been attempting to do something about the problem. In our tax program and in our various economic and legislative proposals that we have made in the last Congress and in this Congress, we have attempted to deal with some of the economic problems facing the country.,I must say that I found a scarcity of useful resolutions coming out of the source which you name, dealing with this problem of unemployment, tax revision, tax reform, minimum wage, social security, trade expansion. All these are areas where we have taken some action. But I am not satisfied at all, and I think we have to go a good deal further. Unemployment is still too high and it is particularly concentrated among the unskilled, which is the hard core, and among those who are structurally unemployed because of technological changes, and particularly in areas like the Appalachians which are very hard to reach even if the economy is going ahead at a strong rate.,I think the tax bill this year will make an important difference to the economic effect of the country. If the tax bill doesn't pass this year, a good many economic plans, and a good many inventory developments of the last months which have helped, I think, to stimulate the economy, will, of course, be disappointed, and I think the effect would be very adverse. This is a matter which I would hope we would have the support of Republicans and Democrats on. I think the argument about whether the country is moving or not will be, of course, a discussion next year, and I think we can get a better analysis of it after a 4-year period. I'll be prepared to say it is; they'll be prepared to say it isn't.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to legislation, some of your critics have charged that your proposed domestic Peace Corps will be, in effect, a large waste; that it would merely duplicate the work already being done by Federal, State, and local agencies. Would you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't agree with that at all. That's the same kind of argument we heard about the Peace Corps when it was formed; that this was a useless effort. I think it has been very successful. I think if you go to so many parts of this country-the difficulty is, and I have seen some interesting articles written about this, that there is a good deal of poverty in the United States, but not many people see it. There are a good many people who are mentally retarded, but not many people see it. After all, 3 percent of the population of the United States, of our children, are mentally retarded, and x percent of Sweden.,There are a great many areas where we need to do a good deal more--Indian reservations, parts of this country where school dropouts, slums, chronic poverty now exist. Millions of Americans experience it, but they are scattered and frequently not able to bring their views to bear. All of us move in a rather different atmosphere, so we are not as aware of it as we should be, except statistically. Now the fact of the matter is I think these young men and women would be proud to give a year of their lives to the service of their country. They are willing to go abroad--I think they'd be more willing to stay home. Their example, I think, can be a catalyst. We have millions of people who work in the various agencies, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, all the rest. I think they do a wonderful job. We want to supplement their work. Most of those who work in the field say more can be done. The District of Columbia is a prime example of where we need dozens of volunteers to work with young people. We get a lot of them. There are a good many people who work in this District, but we need a lot more.,What we want to do is to make it possible for people in this country to give a year of their lives without compensation, but with enough to live on, to service in these various areas where people do not enjoy the prosperity which so much of our country experiences. I think those opposed to it are wrong. I think the program is a good idea.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, it's pretty generally acknowledged that your administration has done more for civil rights fundamental advances than any in many years. Do you find that the demonstrations. which are taking place are a handicap to you, specifically the Washington march in August? Do you think that this will--,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that the way that the Washington march is now developed, which is a peaceful assembly calling for a redress of grievances, the cooperation with the police, every evidence that it is going to be peaceful, they are going to the Washington Monument, they are going to express their strong views. I think that's in the great tradition. I look forward to being here. I am sure Members of Congress will be here. We want citizens to come to Washington if they feel that they are not having their rights expressed. But, of course, arrangements have been made to make this responsible and peaceful. This is not a march on the Capital.,Now, there are other places, of course, where the demonstrations--where there are grievances, but where the demonstrations get caught up in a cycle. We've got it in Cambridge, Md., where there is no peace. They have almost lost sight of what the demonstration is about. You have an increasingly dangerous situation. You could have violence any night. You have 400 National Guardsmen there now. I am concerned about those demonstrations. I think they go beyond information, they go beyond protest, and they get into a very bad situation where you get violence, and I think the cause of advancing equal opportunities only loses.,But I do feel also--so I have warned against demonstrations which could lead to riots, demonstrations which could lead to bloodshed, and I warn now against it.,Secondly, some of the people, however, who keep talking about demonstrations never talk about the problem of redressing grievances. I would hope that along with a secession of the kind of demonstrations that would lead to rioting, people would also do something about the grievances. You just can't tell people, \"Don't protest,\" but on the other hand, \"We are not going to let you come into a store or a restaurant.\" It seems to me it is a two-way street.,If the Congress will act, if, most importantly, individuals will act--and I am impressed by the fact that since May 22d we began our meetings at the White House, and Justice Department, and meetings have been held by Governors and Mayors all around the country, that there have been substantial gains made in areas of the country where before there was no progress in restaurants, movies, motels. So something can be done. So I would suggest that we exercise great care in protesting so that it doesn't become riots, and, number two, that those people who have responsible positions in Government and in business and in labor do something about the problem which leads to the demonstration.,[21.] Q. May I ask, sir, about the recent demonstration by the African States at the ILO conference with respect to South Africa? What is our American position with regard to South Africa's participation in the U.N. and many of its agencies?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have condemned the racial policy of South Africa, which is inimical, I think, to the future of South Africa, as well as repugnant to us. We also do not believe that it is useful to begin to expel nations of the United Nations. I think you have enough pressures on the United Nations. I think these countries ought to stay in the United Nations. The United Nations has every right to express hostility to policies which are pursued which are a threat to peace. But it would seem to me unwise to expel nations from the United Nations because if the hand were moved, others will come, and the United Nations will be fragmented. I think it ought to. be as broad as possible a coverage. But I think we ought to be very clear in our hostility to the concepts of racial separation.,[22.] Q. Sir, I want to ask you something in view of yesterday's interest raise.1 I want to read you a little bit from the Democratic Party Platform of 1960:,1 To stem the flow of dollars overseas, the Federal Reserve Board raised its lending rate from 3 to 3 1/2 percent. The raise was accompanied by authorization to banks to increase the interest paid to corporate depositors on short-term funds.,\"A Democratic President will put an end to the present high interest tight money policy. This policy has failed in its stated purposes to keep prices down. The Republican high interest policy has extracted a costly toll from every American who has financed a home, an automobile, a refrigerator, or television set.\",How can you reconcile this with what happened yesterday on interest rates?,THE PRESIDENT. Because, as you study the statement made yesterday by the Federal Reserve, you will realize we are talking about short-term rates, and that under this administration, mortgage rates and other rates which affect business have dropped since this administration took office, and have dropped in some ways in a significant way. It is our hope that in the effort which the Federal Reserve is carrying out, which will be an increase in the short-term rates which primarily affect the short-term flow out of the United States, they will also make an effort to maintain the stability of long-term rates. That is the policy of the Government, that is the effort of the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury, and, for that reason, the policy we took yesterday is in accordance with that statement you just read.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, you stated that the United States would never agree to coexistence with Cuba as long as it was a Soviet satellite. If the Soviet troops left Cuba and if Cuba started moving towards a Titoist type situation, do you see the possibility of perhaps coexistence?,THE PRESIDENT. It is very difficult to base a future policy on presumptions which are not today realized. The fact of the matter is the Soviet troops are there. The fact of the matter is that Cuba does follow a satellite role, and that is what we consider unacceptable to us. I would hope that the situation some day would change.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller and Senator Goldwater are sharply divided on what sort of an appeal the Republican Party should make to the South in 1964. Perhaps this question will be faced by you next year, and I wondered whether you plan to either repudiate or reject the support and the votes of segregationists in the South.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the record of this administration on this matter of equal opportunity is so well known to everyone, North and South, that in 1964 there will be no difficulty in identifying the record of the Democratic administration, what it stands for. And my judgment is, based on history, that the Republican Party also will make a clear stand on this issue. I would be surprised if they didn't.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, in the last week the Governor of Alabama, the Governor of Mississippi, and the Attorney General of Arkansas have all testified before the Senate Commerce Committee insisting that the integration move was Communist inspired. And this has led to some fears on the part of some Senators that we may be entering into a period of McCarthyism that will submerge this issue. Will you comment on it?,THE PRESIDENT. The fact of the matter is that the Communists attempt, and obviously, to worm their way into every movement, and particularly to worm their way into those movements where there is an obvious-where there is trouble. I would think that the relatively few remaining Communists in the United States, and they are very few, I would think that they would attempt to take advantage of whatever difficulties may arise in the United States. But I must say that we looked into this matter with a good deal of care.,We have no evidence that any of the leaders of the civil rights movements in the United States are Communists. We have no evidence that the demonstrations are Communist-inspired. There may be occasions when a Communist takes part in a demonstration. We can't prevent that. But I think it is a convenient scapegoat to suggest that all the difficulties are Communist and if the Communist movement would only disappear that we would end this.,The fact of the matter is, it is easy to blame it on the authorities in Washington, it is easy to blame it on the Attorney General or the President, and say, \"If they would just stop talking about these things the problem would go away.\" The way to make the problem go away, in my opinion, is to provide for a redress of grievances.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-06-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I want to take this opportunity to express the appreciation all of us feel to the German people for their very generous welcome. And I am delighted to accept the invitation of the German press corps to have this press conference here. Is there a question?,[1. ] Q. Mr. President, would you please tell us of what importance you attach to the relationships between your country and Germany at the present time, and what you think the German role should be in the European development in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we have consistently attached the greatest importance to the maintenance of a free Europe since 1945, and a whole series of collective actions have been taken by both of our countries and other countries since that time. That relationship is, I think, even more vital today because while I think the security of Western Europe against military attack is well guaranteed by the efforts that we have all made collectively, I think Western Europe and the United States, and Canada, Great Britain, and the Commonwealth, have a major role in serving as the center or the core of a great effort throughout the world to maintain freedom.,In addition, the Federal Republic and Berlin, are in the front lines of this struggle. It is a powerful country which has made an astonishing comeback. It has a great influence in Europe. That influence has been directed towards liberal, progressive, international monetary and trade policies. It is my hope that that policy will continue and, therefore, I am hopeful and I am confident that our countries will work in the closest relationship with each other.,[2.] Q. At the airport yesterday, there seemed to be a note of difference of emphasis between your remarks and those of Chancellor Adenauer. He seemed to be concerned mostly with your concern to defend Europe, while you were concerned with new approaches or approaches to a new peace. Has this difference manifested itself in your private talks with the Chancellor?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I thought that the Chancellor was quoting--most of his remarks were a quotation from a speech which I gave at American University a weeks ago. He was quoting statements that I had made in regard to our commitment to Western Europe which, of course, is very basic to American policy. I also feel that the effort that we are making is in behalf of freedom and peace. That is the object of our policy, the policy of the United States. It must be, it seems to me, the object of every free country, and I am sure is the object of the policy of this country.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, is there a possibility that you might attend the coronation of Pope Paul VI?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think the Chief` Justice is leading the American delegation to that coronation, although I hope to see him during my visit to Italy.,[4.] Q. You said yesterday that our common strategy had to be directed toward overcoming the division of nations and countries. In relation to that remark of yours I would like to ask you, do you specifically see any chance of overcoming the division of Germany, if nothing else, in the sense of perhaps reducing the pressures?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would hope that-and it has been the policy of the United States for a great many years not to recognize in the juridical sense the division of Germany. Quite obviously, the German people wish to be reunited. If the people of the United States had lost a struggle, and the Mississippi River divided us, we would wish to be reunited. I think the people of the Soviet Union, if they experienced a comparable fate, would wish to be reunited. People and families wish to join together. So that is the object of our policy. Quite obviously there is no immediate solution. We hope that time, the desire of people to determine their own destiny, will be sufficiently strong, the policies that may be developed as time goes on, as events may change, will bring about that reunification which is, I think, the very strongly held desire of the German people, even though today that future may be uncertain, that date may not be possible to mark. There have been so many changes in the world in the last 18 years that I don't think anyone should despair.,Q. Mr. President, the allies have protested as illegal the most recent spread of the so-called Prohibitive Zone by the Communists in Berlin, but they have not tested that zone with controls. This has caused some to feel and to speculate that this means that we are letting the Communists take another so-called \"slice\" of salami. Could you clarify our position in that respect, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the commandants have made very clear what our view is of the action which has been taken. This matter does involve the interests of two other countries which bear responsibilities comparable to ours, and we work in consultation with them as to what would be the most appropriate steps. Therefore, I fed that it is a matter which should be dealt with by the commandants in Berlin in connection with their government, rather than by me on a unilateral basis.,Q. In the framework of reducing East-West tension, is there any intention of picking up the plan of April of last year for an international approach authority toward Berlin, international access authority?,THE PRESIDENT. The matter which was-which came to the surface or was discussed last year was not considered to be a sound basis for negotiation. The Soviet Union did not respond favorably to it. Therefore, I would think it would lie on the table until such time as they might indicate some interest. My own feeling is that the--and I would say this in answer to this question and the previous one--that the position of West Berlin, the assurances we have given to it, are going to be fulfilled. And, therefore, in some ways it seems to me there is greater security in West Berlin--although, of course, the situation can always change--than there was, perhaps, in June of 1961. It is a continuing struggle because of the geographic location of West Berlin, but I think that the determination of those who have guaranteed Berlin is well known to the people of Berlin, to the other members of NATO who have joined in that commitment, and to those who make themselves our adversaries. So I expect West Berlin to continue to be free.,[5.] Q. Why are you making this entire trip?,THE PRESIDENT. Because I regard the relationship between the United States and Western Europe as vital to our security. This is a changing period in the West as well as in the East. We deal with problems of nuclear defense, of monetary policy, of trade policy. We are making decisions which may affect our relative positions through the world over the next decade. I think it is very appropriate that a President of the United States should come here to emphasize our strong convictions in these matters. The Chancellor of the Federal Republic has journeyed to the United States on 13 occasions. I think as a result of each of his visits the interests of the United States and the Federal Republic were served. I think it very appropriate that the President of the United States come to Western Europe. This is a matter of the greatest importance to us and I hope to the people here.,[6.] Q. Does the U.S. Government still have any objections to the German-French treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States never registered any objections to the treaty. What I think we are concerned about is the maintenance of the integrity of NATO. And it seemed to me that the form in which the treaty passed the Parliament here in the Federal Republic took very important cognizance of the NATO obligation and the NATO responsibility and the NATO defense. I don't think that we can find strength in bilateral arrangements that we can in multilateral arrangements.,The reconciliation of France and Germany, I think, is essential to the security of the West. Europe has been torn by civil wars over a good many hundreds of years. To end that prospect, to bring France and Germany together, is a matter I would think of the greatest priority to the French and German people and a matter of the greatest interest to us. Twice the United States has been brought into war across the Atlantic because France and Germany were not friends. So I want to make it very clear that we support strongly the reconciliation and the effort at friendship which is being made and has been made over a number of years. We also want to be sure that NATO stays strong, because I think NATO is essentially the security of the Federal Republic, and we regard it as essentially the security of the United States. Those who do not place comparable importance on it, it seems to me, are ignoring history and are over-optimistic of the future.,[7.] Q. What meaning do the talks scheduled in July in Moscow have in relation to the Federal Republic's role in any multilateral atomic forces? Is there any possibility that these Moscow talks will be concerned with the nonspreading of the use of atomic weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think they will be concerned with the nondiffusion of nuclear weapons. But we have felt that the organization of the multilateral force, as discussed between the Federal Republic and the United States, does not provide for a diffusion which would threaten this peace. In fact, I think it would give greater security and more satisfactory conditions of control.,The purpose of the talk basically, of course, is to get a test ban. I believe it essential that we get a test ban this year, or otherwise I think it greatly increases the prospect that there will be additional nuclear powers throughout the world in the months-in '64, '65, or '66. Now, I would regard that as a disaster. I do not regard the atomic weapon and the prospect of its spreading, and the realization that war has been the constant companion of mankind throughout our history and the conflict between the Communist system and the free system-when you mix all these factors together you have a highly explosive and a highly dangerous situation. When Pandora opened her box and the troubles flew out, all that was left in was hope. Now in this case, if we have a nuclear diffusion throughout the world, we may even lose hope.,[8.] Q. After the failure of the admission of Great Britain to the Common Market, do you have any new ideas concerning European trans-Atlantic economic cooperation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the management, the successful management, of our monetary policies and our trade policy is essential. I would think the experience of the twenties, which helped lead to the disaster of the thirties, should be sufficient warning to us that we should be able to give this matter the highest priority. No nation, by itself, can maintain its own security and a successful management of its own fiscal affairs. There has to be the closest cooperation. I would hope that we would not, in 1963, when the trail is still uphill, when we have great challenges from the Communist world-that we would not break apart, that the Atlantic would not be regarded as a wall between us. I think we have to work in very close harmony; or otherwise, I think you will find successively in various countries deflationary policies which will lead to a lower standard of living at home; which will lead to each country managing its own monetary affairs with indifference to the affairs of others; which will lead finally to the breakup of our defensive alliances. Now that is the prospect which we face unless we are successful in working out the new round of talks, trade talks, that are coming up in 1964, and unless we can use other means of successfully solving our monetary challenges, or otherwise they are going to master us.,So I regard this matter of monetary policy, which deals with the standard of living of all of our people, as a matter of first priority. In addition we can't help but be concerned by the fact that the price of raw materials of the underdeveloped world has steadily declined relative to the price of manufactured goods. Therefore, their economic position in some ways is worse off in spite of all the aid we have given. Therefore, we may find ourselves, unless we work hard, and progressively, and with imagination, and idealism-we may find ourselves a rich area in a poor world, which is subject to all the influences that poverty brings with it, and ultimately we will be infected. So I hope that this is a matter which will not be left merely to those trade commissions, but, instead, will be a concern of presidents, chancellors, prime ministers, finance ministers, and defense ministers--and in fact the concern of all of our citizens.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to an earlier answer, if a test ban agreement were signed by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, how can this prevent France, for example, China, or any other country who wasn't a signatory to the pact, how could this prevent them from going on and making nuclear weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, it is proposed in the treaty that those who sign the treaty would use all the influence that they had in their possession to persuade others not to grasp the nuclear nettle. Now, it is up to those countries. Quite obviously, they may not accept this persuasion, and then, as I say, they will get the false security which goes with nuclear diffusion.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, a German newspaper wrote today that, about your next visit to Italy, you are giving more importance as a Catholic to the visit to the Pope than to the meetings with the President, mostly because we [Italy] had a recent crisis and our Government is only a technical one. Could you say anything on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't attempt to comment on that. I am visiting the President of Italy and the Government of Italy. I shall certainly look forward to paying a call on the new Pope. We have a good many matters of concern to us in relations with the Italian Government, not only defense but also economic and trade matters. I think the visit is important. Now, there is never a time when every country in the world is secure and is not having an election. There is no perfect time for visits, I suppose, but I think that this is not an inappropriate time, because I think that 1963 in the summer is the time of change. I would like to see the change be useful and in our favor.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, when you addressed the American University, you used the phrase that reads, \"It is our hope to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others.\" Could you say what you mean by \"so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others\"?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what we mean is that we cannot accept with equanimity, nor do we propose to, the Communist takeover of countries which are now free. What we have said is that we accept the principle of self-determination. Governments choose a type of government, if the people choose it. If they have the opportunity to choose another kind, if the one they originally chose is unsatisfactory, then we regard that as a free matter and we would accept it, regardless of what their choice might be. But what we will not accept is the subversion or an attack upon a free country which threatens, in my opinion, the security of other free countries. I think that is the distinction we have made for a great many years.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, after your talks with Chancellor Adenauer today, do you have the impression that the Chancellor is no longer worried that there might be some arrangement between the Soviet Union and the U.S. at the expense of the Federal Republic?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sure that the Chancellor never thought that there was any prospect, any more than we have considered the prospect, that other allies of ours would sell out the interests of the Free World. The United States has never had that intention, and I think the record of 18 years demonstrates it quite clearly. If anybody needed to be reassured, I am glad they are.,[13.] Q. Senator Fulbright was quoted today in the newspapers as saying that it is obvious that the United States will have to pull some troops out of Europe unless the Common Market changes its trade policies. Is it also obvious to you--and would you explain, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen all of Senator Fulbright's statement.,The United States, as I said yesterday-our troops are in Western Europe because it meets a very vital need of the United States. The security of Western Europe, the freedom of Western Europe, is essential to the security of the United States. That is why we are here.,Now, we keep 400,000 troops here in Western Europe. That is a burden to the people of our country. We would hope that in considering what use these troops are-and I think they have been useful--I would think that most Europeans would think they should stay. It is our hope that these matters which we may discuss, of trade and monetary policy, that some cognizance would be taken of the fact that the United States has carried a very heavy load around the world for 18 years. The United States put into assistance in Europe after the Second War over $50 billion--$100 billion around the world--and we are prepared to continue, as I said yesterday, to make this effort because we think it is essential to our security. But we regard our security as tied up with the welfare of others.,We hope that as these matters of monetary and economic and fiscal and trade policy are discussed, that every country will take a look at the general welfare and not merely at the very immediate and sure to be temporary advantage which might come from following a policy of restriction.,I think that Senator Fulbright is concerned that we are moving in the winter, spring, and summer of '63 backwards rather than forward toward a closer accommodation of all of our policies. Quite obviously if that happens, then it becomes far more difficult for all of us to sustain our welfare. The Federal Republic cannot do as much as it is doing, for example, in India and Pakistan, unless it has the resources to assist. The same is true with the United States.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, when you said a moment ago that the Harriman-Hailsham talks will include the nondiffusion of atomic or nuclear weapons as well as a nuclear test ban treaty, will those topics be extended to include other topics in dispute?,THE PRESIDENT. The primary purpose is the treaty, but I am sure the other matter may come into the conversation. They are dealing primarily with the treaty but, of course, relative to the treaty and the purpose of the treaty is nondiffusion, and therefore it is certainly going--I am sure will come up.,[15.] Q. Have you any comments, sir, on the most recent notes that France is withdrawing additional naval forces from the control of NATO?,THE PRESIDENT. No. They withdrew most of their forces in 1959. I think that Secretary McNamara said the other day that what concerns him most is the condition of the forces, land, sea, and air. We are confident that if an attack occurred that the French would certainly meet their obligations for the defense of Europe.,I am a strong supporter of NATO. Some others may not be. But what we are concerned about primarily is not only the command distribution, and organization, but also the condition of the forces. And we hope that the French will maintain their forces at peak strength, as we are, and we are confident that if trouble comes that General de Gaulle, as he has in the past, will definitely meet his responsibility.,[16.] Q. On Wednesday, when you are at Checkpoint Charlie, sir, you will be just a few yards away from the entrance of East Berlin. If there were any thought given to your entering East Berlin, what was your reasoning behind not going, or are you planning to go?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there wasn't; we had not planned to go into East Berlin.,Q. What was the reasoning behind the idea of staying away from East Berlin, where you have every legal right, of course, to go?,THE PRESIDENT. Because the trip that we planned is to take us to West Berlin. I don't think that any gesture, however spectacular, of this kind would materially improve the lot of the people of East Berlin. That is why we are not going.,[17.] Q. Do you have any intention this year to have any talks with Mr. de Gaulle about the strategic differences within NATO policy?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have no meeting planned.,[18.] Q. In your 10 June speech at American University, you spoke of the desire to end the cold war. Which role, in your opinion, could the Federal Republic play in attaining this goal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the role of maintaining our strength, of providing a better life for the people of the Federal Republic, joining in an effort in Europe to build a strong Europe, a Europe which can not only take on the burdens and responsibilities of partnership here in Europe but also play the role that its strength and its traditions entitle it to play throughout the world-Latin America, Africa, and Asia.,I hope, in other words, that the Federal Republic will, as it has for the past decade, look outward. I hope Western Europe will, as it has, look outward. I do not regard our effort as one that concerns only Western Europe and only the United States. I regard us as chosen by nature and our own decision to play a role throughout the world, or otherwise there is no security for any of us.,[19.] Q. It has been said once in a while that there were some plans to exchange nonaggression statements between East and West, but this, in our opinion, would amount to a recognition of the zonal regime. Is any consideration still being given to such an exchange?,THE PRESIDENT, I know of no consideration being given to any proposal which would involve the concern which the questioner expressed.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, what is the feeling the West has towards the recent African conference in Addis Ababa, and have you any plans of visiting any of the African countries?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no plans to visit the African countries. I welcome the effort which the Africans are making not only to meet their own problems but towards unity. I think it sets a good precedent-the unity of Africa--for the unity of Europe, a unity which is very encompassing in Africa and which may some day be in Europe, and I regard it as a very important step forward.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-05-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, how do you regard the Alabama Governor's announced intention to block the integration of the University of Alabama? For instance, do you or does the Government plan to use Federal marshals as it did in Oxford, Miss., if the Governor does go through with his announced intention to prevent these Negro students from entering?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hope that would prove unnecessary. I hope this is a matter that can be settled by the local authorities in Alabama. The university since last October has--the Board of Trustees have taken the position that they would accept a court order. They have now indicated that they will accept these students. The courts have made a final judgment on the matter, and I would hope that the law-abiding people of Alabama would follow the judgment of the court and admit the students. Every other State in the country has integrated their State university, and I would hope that Alabama would follow that example.,I know there is great opposition in Alabama, and indeed, in any State, to Federal marshals and Federal troops. And I would be very reluctant to see us reach that point. But I am obligated to carry out the court order. That is part of our constitutional system. There is no choice in the matter. It must be carried out, and laws which we do not like must be carried out, and laws which we like. This is not a matter of choice. If it were a matter of choice, it would not be law. So these decisions must be enforced. Everyone understands that.,Now, I cannot believe that the Governor wants us to send Federal troops there. I cannot believe he wants us to send Federal marshals there. I cannot believe he would not prefer to have the people of Alabama govern this matter and accept the order of the court and maintain law and order. The Governor has taken action against Federal troops who are now stationed at Federal bases in Alabama, and has taken the action to the Supreme Court. I said I welcomed that. This is where these disputes should be settled. So I would hope that the fact that the Governor has chosen to carry out our dispute in the courts indicates that in the final analysis he will accept the judgment of the court, in the cases coming up in June, as I would accept the judgment of the courts as to my powers to use--control Federal troops under certain conditions in various States. We are a people of laws, and we have to obey them.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, you have predicted a sharp drop in the price of wheat as a result of yesterday's referendum. I wondered if consumers can look forward to proportionate reductions in the costs of certain foodstuffs as a result?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the amount that a farmer gets in a loaf of bread is about 1 cent, so that you won't expect a very sharp drop. What I am concerned about has been that you would have a drop in prices because you would have a great buildup of surpluses. A free market is regulated by supply and demand. If the supply is greater than the demand, then quite obviously it can be and will be because everyone is now free to plant what they wish.,Then, of course, that knocks the price down. So that we will have a combination of lower prices and larger surpluses. We sought to avoid that. But this is a free country and the farmers were offered their choice and they made the choice by--a great number of them voted for the free market and unlimited production. So we are going to be faced with the problem, but I don't think it will have much effect on the consumer. It might, but I think it is going to cause more difficulty to the economy, because it is going to provide these large surpluses and it is going to, I think, reduce farm income, particularly wheat farmers, and that is not to the interests of the consumers, of course, or the farmer.,Now, our feed grain bill will give him some relief. We will administer the laws that are now in effect in such a way as to give him maximum protection--the wheat farmer. We will cooperate in every way we can to maintain his income as high as we can. But I am concerned, as I said before the vote, that production will be increased and income will drop and prices will drop.,Q. Mr. President, if there is no new legislation and the price of wheat does decline rather sharply, what would be the political consequence of that for you in 1964?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I have tried to make it very clear what the alternatives were and what I thought was in the best interests of the farmer, the wheat farmer. I felt that his best interests would be served by attempting to bring production in line with demand with an adequate income for him. Now the farmers have chosen to plant freely without controls and without that high support. We will have to see what the effects will be.,In any case, under the law that was passed, there is a chance for another referendum next year, and then we can see what the effect of this action has been. But we want to help in every way we can. But the farmers have made a choice, and even though I didn't agree with the choice, I recognize it and accept it and we hope that it does not have an adverse effect. I think some of the people who put material out to the farmers may have misled them on what the effect will be. We tried to make it as clear as possible.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, a high-ranking Indian mission has been discussing with you and your advisers India's military assistance requirements. Can you say if the picture has clarified somewhat now and if there is any commitment by the United States to help India in this regard?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, at the time of Nassau, we both--Great Britain and ourselves--agreed to proceed ahead with the program of assistance. The Indian Defense Minister is now proceeding on to Great Britain. We are going to be in consultation with the Commonwealth, and we will be giving further assistance to India.,[4.] Q. Did the astronauts raise with you, sir, their desire for another Mercury flight? And do you have any opinion yourself tentative or otherwise as to the desirability of another Mercury flight?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they feel that it is worthwhile. I haven't discussed it with Mr. Webb. NASA should make the judgment and will make the judgment, and I would not intervene, but they do feel that a flight is useful, and that the experience of Major Cooper has indicated that the time between the last Mercury flight and the new Gemini flight, which is a period of almost 18 months, they feel may represent a gap which could be filled very usefully by another Mercury flight. This will be a matter which I think they are going to be talking about this week with Mr. Webb and which I would discuss with them next week. But the final judgment must be NASA's.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel now about the compromise settlement that was reached at the GATT talks in Geneva? Don't we still have a very long and hard row to hoe, sir, before we start realizing any of the objectives of the Trade Expansion Act?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think we have a long road to hoe, but we have always known that. When you are talking about economic matters, and tariffs, these are all matters which involve very strongly the interests of countries, but I think that the settlement was satisfactory. We have got a situation where there are different tariff structures in many different countries, where you have great, contrasting economic interests not only between the United States and the Common Market, but between other newly emerging countries as well as those completely dependent upon agriculture. So I think it was a satisfactory settlement. But I quite agree with you that during the next year when this matter will be coming down to final negotiations, we will have a long road, but one that I think we can travel and should travel and must travel. And because that was a common realization by both the Europeans and ourselves is why I think finally an adjustment was reached and we didn't have a breakup. I think the fact that we did make that adjustment, compromise, final agreement, indicates that both sides realize that the West cannot possibly afford to have a breakdown in trade relations.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, a recent lecture by Mr. Sorensen1 disclosed that we apparently fell down on the job at a recent press conference when you had prepared-by recalling your own boyhood, apparently-your answer to a possible question about what you would think of corporal punishment in the District of Columbia schools. Could I make up for that slip now and ask you that question?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't--I don't-[laughter]--I thought the idea was that that conference had passed into history, and that you would never have a chance to ask that question.,1 Theodore C. Sorensen, Special Counsel to the President, had delivered the Gino Speranza Lectures at Columbia University on April 18 and May 9, 1963. They are published with a foreword by President Kennedy as \"Decision-Making in the White House: the Olive Branch or the Arrows\" (Columbia University Press, 1963).,But as long as it hasn't, I think when we talk about corporal punishment, we have to think about our own children, and we are rather reluctant it seems to me to have other people administering punishment to our own children. But because we are reluctant to do so, it seems to me it puts a special obligation upon us to maintain order and to send children out from our homes who accept the idea of discipline. So I would not be for corporal punishment in the school, but I would be for very strong discipline at home so that we don't place an unfair burden upon our teachers.,[7.] Q. Sir, on your forthcoming trip to Europe next month, can you tell us whether you plan or have any hopes of meeting with Pope John in Rome?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would hope to. I plan to, yes. We have a plan to and I am hopeful that we will.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Republicans have charged that some kind of agreement exists or may exist someday for our abandoning Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Could you comment on that, please, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that that charge indicates as some people have suspected before, that there was some political motivation in some of the attacks upon our policy with regard to Cuba. That of course is completely untrue. It has never been considered. It will not be done. And to raise that with no evidence merely because we happen to be putting in an acoustical center for improving our underwater detection system in Bermuda and strengthening a naval base in Puerto Rico--from those two actions it was deduced that we must be giving up Guantanamo. I would hope that we would find a good deal more realism in the Republican conversations about foreign policy, because that is untrue. They know it is untrue. But it may be the sort of thing we are going to hear now for the next 18 months.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller, Governor Romney, and Senator Goldwater, none of these gentlemen are willing to admit that they are candidates in 1964. I wonder if to your experienced eye any of them looks like a candidate, and would you be a little more frank than they are about your plans? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. If I had to, I would say that if the party, if the spirit of the party comes to them that they will answer the call in all three cases, and I would say that is about my position, too. [Laughter],[10.] Q. Mr. President, the brother of the President of South Viet-Nam has said that there are too many American troops in South Viet-Nam. Could you comment on that, and give us some progress report on what is going on?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I hope we could--we would withdraw the troops, any number of troops, any time the Government of South Viet-Nam would suggest it. The day after it was suggested, we would have some troops on their way home. That is number one.,Number two is: we are hopeful that the situation in South Viet-Nam would permit some withdrawal in any case by the end of the year, but we can't possibly make that judgment at the present time. There is still a long, hard struggle to go. We have seen what happened in Laos, which must inevitably have its effect upon South Viet-Nam, so that I couldn't say that today the situation is such that we could look for a brightening in the skies that would permit us to withdraw troops or begin to by the end of this year. But I would say, if requested to, we will do it immediately. As of today we would hope we could begin to perhaps to do it at the end of the year, but we couldn't make any final judgment at all until we see the course of the struggle the next few months.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, are we providing any material assistance currently to any Cuban refugee organization, any Cuban exile organization?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we may well be, but you would have to make the question more precise.,Q. Any arms or financial assistance on a regular basis to any specific organization?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, none that I am familiar with. In addition, I don't know whether it would be a matter I would want to discuss here, in any case. But to answer your question, I don't think as of today that we are. But I wouldn't want to go into details, if we were.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I think new legislation is being introduced today by some of the people who opposed your wheat plan, providing for a soil bank arrangement of acreage retirement and other features. What is your attitude toward legislation of that kind?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would have to take a look at it and see what effect it would have on production and how much it would cost. Of course, any plan that offered us a hope of reducing the surpluses, of maintaining the farmer's income, and that was not excessive in cost, we would certainly listen to. I don't know why--I am not familiar with any proposal which was made by any of the Republicans, if that is who is proposing it, at the time we proposed our wheat plan. But if there is any plan that offers us hope of accomplishing those three objectives, we would, of course, look at it. I think it would be difficult to get a bill by the Congress. As you recall, the bill which led to the referendum was very close. There is no indication that there is a consensus on agricultural matters in the Congress, between the House and Senate. The feed grain, itself, which I think has been very successful, passed by a very close vote. So we would have to take a look at the details of the bill. But as of now--I looked at the statement of Congressman Albert, the Majority Leader. He indicated that he did not think any bill would pass this year.,[13.] Q. Sir, in El Paso there are 900 jobs in the smelter dependent on some executive action by you. And according to the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and management there, and even the Chamber of Commerce, there are plants in Denver, Colo., and California and other. States that are also dependent on executive action that you might take in reallocating lead quotas from South Africa. I wonder how you think this affects domestic mining and what you plan to do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not familiar with the matter. I will be glad to look into it, but I am not familiar with what the executive powers might be in regard to the importation of lead from South Africa, nor am I familiar with the exact quantity of lead we are receiving from South Africa. But I will be glad to look into it.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there is still quite a lot of discussion in the Congress, Senator Lausche among others, on the increasing buildup militarily of Cuba. Is there anything you can say that would be in any way encouraging about the removal of the Russian troops there, or of the military situation in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. We do not have any evidence of increasing military buildup of the Soviet Union. I think in previous press conferences I have given an answer in response to the question of how many Russians were there and the comment in regard to the withdrawal of Soviet troops. We have no evidence that there is an increasing military buildup. There has not been a satisfactory withdrawal as yet. That is quite true, but we have no evidence that there is a number coming in larger than going out.,Q. Pardon me, sir. I was thinking more in terms of military equipment going into Cuba.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I understand that. We have no evidence that there is an increasing military buildup in Cuba. The intelligence community has not found that.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you think Mr. Freeman's effectiveness as Secretary of Agriculture has been seriously impaired by the results of the wheat referendum?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no; I think he is doing very well. If you compare farm income this year--the last 2 years, 1961, 1962--it is higher than it has been any time since 1953 at the end of the Korean war. The farmers are better off today than they have been for 10 years. In addition, if we had not had the feed grain proposal, there would have been a much higher surplus and there would have been a much lower farm income.,So I think that while this is a very complicated problem, because automation has hit the farmers much harder than it has hit any other element in our community and their production is growing faster than our consumption, and therefore this has a tremendous effect on support prices and it has a tremendous effect, of course, upon the market price. Mr. Freeman is attempting to deal with them. My judgment is that he has met with some successes, because he has prevented us from spending a lot more money than we would have spent.,We are getting rid of our grain surplus. We are hopeful in 2 years it will be gone. I think we could have made important progress with our wheat surplus if we had been successful. It may be that with the experience we are going to have now, the farmers may agree with that next year. But the fact of the matter is in 1963 the farmers are better off than they have been for 10 years, and I think Mr. Freeman deserves some of the credit for it.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable discussion in the Far East that Chiang Kai-shek might be preparing to invade the mainland of China. How would our Government view an attempt of that sort?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the treaty relationship, as you know, provided by the 1954 treaty--the so-called Eisenhower Resolution-provides for very close consultation between the two governments before any such action would be taken.,As a practical matter, this of course does involve the United States, and we have expressed our views to the Government of Formosa on the matter.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, just a year ago we talked about the fact that several independent scientific studies have shown a causal connection between cigarette smoking and cancer. And the next week I think the Public Health Service appointed a blue ribbon panel to look into it, and you expected to hear from them in some months. I wondered, have you heard anything lately, and when do you expect a report from the panel on this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think very soon. We haven't received it yet, but I think it will be very soon.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, how much will the negative vote on wheat affect the GATT negotiations at Geneva?\nTHE PRESIDENT, Well, we will have to see. As you know, there was the agreement that agriculture would be included in those conversations, which I think was helpful. In addition I think the Secretary has indicated today--or if he hasn't he will--that we are going to do everything we can to sustain our international agreements on wheat, and to prevent dumping and all of the rest.1,1 On May 22 the President issued Executive Order 11108 \"Delegating Authority Under the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949, as Amended, to the Secretary of Agriculture\" (28 F.R. 5185; 3 CFR, 1963 Supp.).,But quite obviously, we are in the process of attempting to persuade others to limit their agricultural production so we don't have a worldwide surplus and a worldwide depression in agricultural commodities. And when we make a choice for overproduction, which is what the choice was, and what the effect will be, it is bound to make it more difficult for us to persuade other countries not to open wide the gates themselves.,So that we have to operate the CCC and all of the other laws, and international laws, in such a way as to prevent worldwide results from the decision of yesterday.,[19.] Q. I would like to ask you a hypothetical question addressed to you as a politician of some considerable skill. Do you think that a potential presidential candidate who divorced his wife and married a recently divorced woman would damage his chances for the Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I must say that neither as a--if I occupied the position you described, or speaking personally, would I want to comment on it.,[20.] Q. Sir, are you considering asking Congress for new civil rights legislation as a result of the recent developments down South?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we are considering, as a result of the recent developments and as a result of the Supreme Court decision yesterday, we are considering whether any additional proposals will be made to the Congress. And the final decision should be made in the next few days.,As you know, we have several proposals up there now, dealing with voting, extension of the Civil Rights Commission and the Conciliation Service. But I think there may be other things that we could do which would provide a legal outlet for a desire for a remedy other than having to engage in demonstrations which bring them into conflict with the forces of law and order in the community.,I would hope that we would be able to develop some formulas so that those who feel themselves, or who are, as a matter of fact, denied equal rights, would have a remedy. As it is today, in many cases they do not have a remedy and therefore they take to the streets and we have the kinds of incidents that we have in Birmingham. We hope to see if we can develop a legal remedy.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, a group of students in California are very perturbed because their prom has been evicted by your $1,000-a-plate dinner. I wonder if you might comment on the dilemma and offer any advice?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I just heard about it a few minutes before I came here, and I can assure you that if there isn't a satisfactory place for them we will postpone our dinner and I will come out on some other occasion.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, I have a question about the nuclear test ban proposal. Mr. Harold Brown 1 has said before a Senate committee that we could accept as few as six onsite inspections. Do you think that there is further ground for us to move now to approach the Soviet Union in the test ban situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is--the position we have taken more publicly--there've been seven. There has been discussion of six. Mr. Brown, whose judgment I value highly has not set the official Government position. He was giving his judgment as a scientist. There are a good many other questions that must be settled. We have suggested to the Soviet Union that we would consider the makeup of the inspection team, the rules under which the inspection team would operate, the area where there could be drilling, all these questions, and then if we can get those settled, we could then come finally to the question of the number of tests. The Soviet Union has refused, however, to consider these other matters until we agree with their position of three. Now that has not been an acceptable negotiating position. We feel that we ought to try to wind up all the other questions which divide us. Then we could finally come and decide what would be--given the arrangements we have made for these other matters--what would be a responsible number of tests. But we are back and forth to the Soviet Union and we are still hoping that we can find a perhaps easing of their position.,1 Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense.,Q. Where is the genie, sir? Is it out of the bottle or in the bottle?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is neither in nor out right now. But I would say that we will know by the end of the summer whether it is finally out. I have said from the beginning that seemed to me that the pace of events was such in the world that unless we could get an agreement now, I would think the chance of getting it would be comparatively slight. We are therefore going to continue to push very hard in May and June and July in every forum to see if we can get an agreement which I regard as of--but I will say as of now, since December there has been no change in the Soviet position on the number of tests nor willingness to discuss in any way any of these other questions until we accept their position of December, which is not a satisfactory position for us.,Q. Are we about to move, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not going to move. On the question of the number of tests? As I indicated, what we are proposing is we settle the other matters and then come to the number of tests. So in answer to your question, we are not moving at this time on the number of tests.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-05-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] I am gratified to note the progress in the efforts by white and Negro citizens to end an ugly situation in Birmingham, Ala. I have made it clear since assuming the Presidency that I would use all available means to protect human rights and uphold the law of the land. Through mediation and persuasion, and where that effort has failed, through lawsuits and court actions, we have attempted to meet our responsibilities in this most difficult field where Federal court orders have been circumvented, ignored, or violated. We have committed all the power of the Federal Government to insure respect and obedience of court decisions and the law of the land.,In the city of Birmingham the Department of Justice some time ago instituted an investigation into voting discrimination. It supported in the Supreme Court an attack on the city's segregation ordinances. We have, in addition, been watching the present controversy to detect any violation of the Federal civil rights or other statutes. In the absence of such violation or any other Federal jurisdiction, our efforts have been focused on getting both sides together to settle in a peaceful fashion the very real abuses too long inflicted on the Negro citizens of that community.,Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall, representing the Attorney General and myself on the scene, has made every possible effort to halt a spectacle which was seriously damaging the reputation of both Birmingham and the country. Today, as the result of responsible efforts on the part of both white and Negro leaders over the last 72 hours, the business community of Birmingham has responded in a constructive and commendable fashion and pledged that substantial steps would begin to meet the justifiable needs of the Negro community.,Negro leaders have announced suspension of their demonstrations and when the newly elected Mayor who has indicated his desire to resolve these problems takes office, the city of Birmingham has committed itself wholeheartedly to continuing progress in this area.,While much remains to be settled before the situation can be termed satisfactory, we can hope that tensions will ease and that this case history which has so far only narrowly avoided widespread violence and fatalities will remind every State, every community, and every citizen how urgent it is that all bars to equal opportunity and treatment be removed as promptly as possible.,I urge the local leaders of Birmingham, both white and Negro, to continue their constructive and cooperative efforts.,Q. Mr. President, against the background or possibility of similar trouble developing in other Southern towns, I wonder if you could tell us how you regard the techniques that were used over the last few days in Birmingham by either side, dogs and fire hoses used by one side, and the use of school children and protest marchers by the other side?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think what we are interested in now is seeing the situation peacefully settled in the next 12-24 hours. I think all of our statements should be devoted to that end. Quite obviously, as my remarks indicated, the situation in Birmingham was damaging the reputation of Birmingham and the United States. And it seems to me that the best way to prevent that kind of damage, which is very serious, is to, in time, take steps to provide equal treatment to all of our citizens. That is the best remedy in this case and in other cases.,Q. Mr. President, do you see any hope of Birmingham serving as a model for a solution in other communities facing similar problems?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have to see what happens in Birmingham over the next few days.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you consider the situation in the Middle East, the balance of power there, to have been changed as a result of recent developments, and what is the U.S. policy towards the security of Israel and Jordan in case they are threatened?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that the balance of military power has been changed in the Middle East in recent days. Obviously there are political changes in the Middle East which still do not show a precise pattern and on which we are unable to make any final judgments. The United States supports social and economic and political progress in the Middle East. We support the security of both Israel and her neighbors. We seek to limit the Near East arms race which obviously takes resources from an area already poor and puts them into an increasing race which does not really bring any great security.,We strongly oppose the use of force or the threat of force in the Near East, and we also seek to limit the spread of communism in the Middle East which would, of course, destroy the independence of the people. This Government has been and remains strongly opposed to the use of force or the threat of force in the Near East. In the event of aggression or preparation for aggression, whether direct or indirect, we would support appropriate measures in the United Nations, adopt other courses of action on our own to prevent or to put a stop to such aggression, which, of course, has been the policy which the United States has followed for some time.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, a proposed commission to draw up legislation on Puerto Rico's future status consists of 12 members. Four would be from Congress and 4 would be named by you and the remaining 4 by the Governor of Puerto Rico. Republicans complain that there should be people on the committee only from Congress and the Puerto Rican legislature, and I wondered what are your own feelings on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Are you talking about the commission that would be set up by the Puerto Ricans?,Q. That has been introduced in Congress.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, by Congressman Aspinall?,Q. Yes, the 12 men.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well we are going to take a look at that. It seems to me Congressman Aspinall's proposal might be useful in making more precise the alternatives before the Puerto Ricans. We'd have to make a final judgment on it later, but I would think it offers a basis for consideration. But I couldn't give you a final United States Government position on this at this time as yet.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in the Alabama crisis at Birmingham, according to your interpretation of the powers of the Presidency, was there power that you possessed either by statute or the Constitution that you chose not to invoke or did you use your powers in your view to the fullest in this controversy?,THE PRESIDENT. There isn't any Federal statute that was involved in the last few days in Birmingham, Ala. I indicated the areas where the Federal Government had intervened in Birmingham, the matter of voting, the matter of dealing with education, other matters. On the specific question of the parades, that did not involve a Federal statute as I indicated in my answer. And that is the reason why Mr. Marshall has been proceeding the way he has--and we have not had for example a legal suit as we have had in some other cases where there was a Federal statute involved.,Q. Two Negro graduate students apparently plan to apply for admission this summer in the Huntsville branch of the University of Alabama, and the Governor of Alabama has said that he will physically bar their entrance. Is there anything the administration can do to avoid this collision?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we would hope that the decision of the court would be carried out--this is our continual view--in a way that maintains law and order. This of course does involve the Federal Government, because it's a Federal statute. But we would hope that all people would follow the dictates of the court whether they agree with them or not, and that law and order would be maintained by the local authorities and that all those who have a responsibility under any local or State constitution for the maintenance of law and order would meet their responsibilities. This is a matter of course, as I said, that does involve the Federal Government.,[5.] Q. Sir, the fact that Admiral Anderson was not retained as Chief of Naval Operations has been written about in such a way as to imply that he did not measure up to your expectations as a head of the Navy, that he might have bucked reorganization plans, that he opposed Defense Secretary McNamara on the TFX, and other things which you probably are familiar with. Is it true that he was not retained as a sort of warning to others in the Navy to get in line with the Secretary and yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that isn't the reason. As a matter of fact, Admiral Anderson is going to continue to serve the United States Government. I am very gratified that he has. I talked with him today and he has agreed to accept--to continue to serve the United States Government in a position of high responsibility. So quite obviously, the reasons--if I did not have the highest confidence in him I would not want him to continue.,Q. Could you tell us what post, sir, he will serve in?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I--he continues as, of course, head of the Navy through August and therefore at an appropriate time this summer we will make an announcement. But he has agreed to continue to serve and I am delighted because I think he will be a great addition to the Government in this new position which requires a good deal of skill, which .requires a good deal of dedication, and to which I would appoint someone for whom I had only a high regard.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the strained relations that have existed with the former Canadian Government, would you be willing to share with us a discussion of the objectives of your meeting with Prime Minister Pearson at Hyannis Port?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the central objective is to go over all the areas which involve the common interests of our country--defense, trade, the various matters of concern of distribution of natural resources, the flow of investment, and all the rest, which are of concern to either Canada or the United States. As close neighbors we have a whole spectrum of interests and problems in common and I am looking forward to going over them all with the Prime Minister. So we will, I think, cover the entire waterfront.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in the most prominent park in London, Grosvenor Square, with which you are familiar, there is a statue of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Do you know of any plan for us to erect here a statue of Winston Churchill, our most honored honorary citizen?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't know of any, although it seemed to me that the action which the Congress took by overwhelming vote, the ceremony which you witnessed, is perhaps really the best indication of our strong support for him.1,1 See Item 126.,Q. Americans who go to London always go there, and every time there's Britishers laying little tributes and wreaths. And it seems to me we ought to have one of him here.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he is still very much with us, and I think we ought to lay our wreaths at his feet. [Laughter],[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have spoken out before against the dangers of the so-called radical right in politics. Could you update those observations today, in view of the fact that a dozen States or so, influenced in part by extremist groups, have given varying degrees of approval to legislation which would change the form of amending the Federal Constitution and would undercut the powers of the Supreme Court as well?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it has always seemed to me remarkable that those people, and organizations who are founded in order to defend the Constitution, should seek always to change it, and particularly to change it in such a basic way, either to affect the power of the Congress, to amend the Constitution and put severe limitations upon the Congress which after all represents the people most directly, or otherwise to affect the power of the Supreme Court, which is one of the most important protections of individual rights and one of the most important securities we have for an amicable settlement of disputes, and which, after all, became such a significant part of our American constitutional development under the leadership of an American who is usually heralded-Mr. John Marshall. So I would think that the efforts will come to nothing, and I will be glad when they do not.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, what conclusions, if any, have you drawn from the recent discussions in Moscow between Under Secretary Harriman and Chairman Khrushchev and between Ambassador Kohler and Chairman Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the conversation between Governor Harriman and Mr. Khrushchev dealt with the maintenance of the agreement of Geneva and also of Vienna that Laos should be neutral and independent. Mr. Khrushchev, at the time of the visit of Mr. Harriman, reaffirmed his commitment to a neutral and independent Laos. But that was in Moscow and now that commitment, we hope, will be implemented on the Plaines des Jarres. Quite obviously, the action a few days ago of attacking the ICC helicopters, action taken by the Pathet Lao, indicates that they are not at the present time living up to this commitment.,I would hope that the Chairman would be able to convince them that it was in the long-range interest of all concerned and most especially of the people of Laos and of peace in the area. So we are going to have to wait to see whether that happens. Now, Mr. Kohler did not have any direct conversations, except to deliver a message to the Chairman dealing with testing.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, back on the subject of Presidential advisers, Congressman Baring of Nevada, a Democrat, said you would do much better if you got rid of some of yours--and he named Bowles, Ball, Bell, Bunche, and Sylvester.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, he has a fondness for alliteration and for \"B's.\" And I would not add Congressman Baring to that list as I have a high regard for him and for the gentlemen that he named. But Congressmen are always advising Presidents to get rid of Presidential advisers. That is one of the most constant threads that runs through American history and Presidents ordinarily do not pay attention, nor do they in this case.,[11.] Q. Back to the subject of Viet-Nam, could you explain to us, sir, why we have committed ourselves militarily in Viet-Nam, but have not committed ourselves militarily in Laos, depending instead upon this neutralist government?,THE PRESIDENT. Because the situations are different. That's why the remedy has been different. We have had a commitment for a good many years to the integrity of South Viet-Nam. We are anxious to maintain the neutrality of Laos. It may not be possible to do so, and it may be necessary to seek other remedies. But we have adopted what we considered to be, considering the geography, the history, the nature of the threat and the alternate solutions--we have adopted for each country what we regarded as the best strategy. And we'll have to wait and see what happens on them.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the OAS should apply diplomatic or economic sanctions against the Duvalier regime?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we ought to wait until the peace-keeping group which has just gone out with new instructions from the OAS, which are broader than the previous ones--I think we ought to wait and see what they are able to do in the next 2 or 3 or 4 days.,Q. Do you have the feeling that the OAS should take further action than it has?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the OAS action at the present is the proper one. I think it is very important that we proceed in company with the OAS, and therefore I'm supporting the action the OAS has taken in setting up this peace machinery.,[13.] Q. Sir, there has been a good deal of discussion about this forthcoming wheat referendum. The opponents have suggested that should the farmers reject the control plan, substitute legislation could be passed. Spokesmen for your administration and congressional leaders have said they oppose this. I wonder whether you could tell us whether the administration would not merely not support new legislation, but whether you would oppose the passage of a substitute?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure there won't be new legislation, because the fact of the matter is, this legislation passed by the closest of votes. The legislation on the feed grains passed in the Senate by the closest of votes. We have not got a consensus on dairy legislation. We have not got a consensus today on cotton legislation. We may not have any cotton bill.,There is such a division among the farming groups themselves as well as among those in the non-farming congressional groups that I don't think you could get a majority. If this legislation is defeated, I don't think you can get a majority in the House and Senate.,It is not a question of not wanting to do the best we could, but this seemed to us the best proposal. The farmers can vote it up or down. I think those who suggest that if this is defeated there will be some new bill that will come forward, I think they mislead the farmers. I don't think that you will see new legislation this year, because I don't think that there is an agreement on it. And if they will look at the record of the last 2 years and see the limited--in the last 5 or 10 years--how few agriculture bills have passed, they will come to the same conclusion that the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee has come to, the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has come to, and the Secretary of Agriculture: that there cannot be a new bill because there is not a general agreement on what that new bill should be and this, therefore, represents the choice that the farmers will be faced with this year. And I think they should judge it on that, and not on some hope that some new bill will come which will solve all of the problems. There's just no such thing in the wings.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, to try to improve race relations in a non-crisis atmosphere, last Sunday, according to the UPI, 160 Knoxville, Tenn., white and Negro families visited each other's homes. Do you feel it would be in the public interest for you to use the prestige of your office to encourage similar church- and civic-supported projects nationally?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be very helpful, and I think it can start right here in Washington, D.C., where this is greatly needed. And all groups, it seems to me, can afford not only to concern themselves as they do with Birmingham but also to look into their own lives and their own eating habits, and all the rest, to see whether they are living up to the spirit you have expressed in your question.,[15.] Q. Sir, do you believe a tax cut program which does not directly benefit people in the lower income brackets will sufficiently develop the consumer demands, stimulate the economy, and overcome unemployment as you wish?,THE PRESIDENT. Do I think it will?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. The total tax cut as estimated, I see, most recently by the Joint Committee on the Economic Report would provide a stimulation of nearly $40 billion to the economy. This would have a great effect upon employment and job security, as well, of course, as it would lighten the tax burden of those in all classes. But in the bottom classification it amounts to nearly 40 percent reduction, so that we've tried to provide a balance. The overall effect, of course, is what we are most looking at and a $40 billion increase in the economy I think would provide a substantial reduction in unemployment and a substantial increase in economic well-being.,Q. May I ask whether the Ford 1 committee, the businessmen's committee on tax cuts, has a program which meets with your approval?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I said at the time, I disagree with some of their proposals. They don't agree with the reform section of our bill, but they are in favor of a tax cut of the same amount that we are. There is the exception, however, on reforms. This is a matter about which a good many members of Congress and citizens disagree, but the central point is that they are in favor of the 10 1/2 billion tax cut which I am in favor of. They would redistribute it somewhat differently, but they have their views and I have mine. But we are in favor and join on the necessity for a tax cut for the economy.,1 Henry Ford 2d, Chairman, Business Committee for Tax Reduction in 1963. See Item 145, above.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, ever since you permitted the telecast of press conferences, a great deal of attention has been paid to little things that occur, especially in the home offices and newspapers. Would you save us a couple of hours of work tonight and explain what the Band-Aid is doing on your left hand?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I cut my finger when I was cutting bread--unbelievable as it may sound. [Laughter],[17.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the Clay 2 report, do you think the Bokaro steel mill project in India should be rejected on the grounds of public versus private?,THE PRESIDENT. No. There is such a need for steel that is going to be unfilled and providing it is an efficient project, I would think we could assist if it meets what the economy of India requires. I must say that I don't quite get the logic of those who so vehemently oppose this very much-needed project; not just take possession of a steel mill already constructed but to build one. So that there is an important distinction. At the same time, when we lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Canada to join in the nationalization of the electric lights in Quebec--in order to--private companies. Now I think that this is a stimulus which will go up. All the evidence we have is that it will not go up unless the United States joins in. The Soviet--I think we ought to do it--I think we ought to do it. Now, the Congress may have other views, but I think it would be a great mistake not to build it. India needs that steel.,2 Gen. Lucius D. Clay, Chairman, Committee to Strengthen the Security of the Free World. See also Item III,[18.] Q. Mr. President, on the test ban issue, are you--do you join what seems to be the general feeling that prospects for a test ban at this time are zero, that the Moscow atmosphere is so chilly, or is there something in your private correspondence with Chairman Khrushchev which will give you some hope?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I'm not hopeful, I'm not hopeful. There doesn't seem to be any sense of movement since December on the offer of two or three that the Soviets have made. We have tried to see if they will change that figure. We have, as you know, reduced our requirements. We have indicated a willingness to negotiate further. We have tried to get an agreement on all the rest of it and then come to the question of the number of inspections, but we were unable to get that. So I would say I am not hopeful at all.,Q. Mr. President, would you assume that we will have another round of testing by both the Soviet Union--,THE PRESIDENT. I would think if we don't get an agreement that is what would happen. And I would think that would be--personally I would think that would be a great disaster for the interests of all concerned. If we don't get an agreement this year--they almost had one in 1958 and 1959--at least in retrospect it seems it might have been possible. We thought maybe we were moving toward it in December. Now we seem to be moving away from it. If we don't get it now I would think--perhaps the genie is out of the bottle and we'll never get him back in again.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, on the matter of improving race relations in the United States, do you think a fireside chat on civil rights would serve a constructive purpose?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it might. If I thought it would I would give one. We have attempted to use all--what happens is we move situation by situation and quite obviously--and all these situations carry with them dangers. We have not got a settlement yet in Birmingham. I've attempted to make clear my strong view that there is an important moral issue involved of equality for all of our citizens and that until you give it to them you are going to have difficulties as we have had this week in Birmingham. The time to give it to them is before the disasters come and not afterwards. But I made a speech the night of Mississippi--at Oxford-to the citizens of Mississippi and others. That did not seem to do much good, but this doesn't mean we should not keep on trying.,Q. May I ask you a question on your statement on Birmingham? I believe you said that the results of the efforts by Mr. Marshall have been that the business community has pledged that substantial steps will begin to meet the needs of the Negro community. Could you expand that? What kind of substantial steps?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said as the result of responsible efforts on the part of both white and Negro leaders over the last 72 hours, the business community of Birmingham, and so on. So it's their efforts and not the Federal Government's efforts. I would think that it would be much better to permit the community of Birmingham to proceed now in the next 24 hours to see if we can get some--and not from here.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, a number of observers have noted that morale among the military at the Pentagon is particularly low and they ascribe it usually to the heavy-handed treatment by Mr. McNamara and his civilian secretariat, in addition to the wide dissatisfaction with the military pay bill. I understand that you recently went over to the Pentagon and spoke to an assemblage of military officers. I wondered whether you found any morale situation there that concerns you, or can you tell us the purpose of your visit?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I went over last year and this year and will go every year. I think the problem--pay is one of the problems. Housing is another. There are some shocking examples of inadequate housing for our military people. Obviously, there are bound to be some disappointments with the decisions of civilian leaders. Somebody has to decide whether we are going ahead with the Nike-Zeus or the Skybolt or one .plane or another; or what the size of our conventional forces will be, our strategic forces, missiles. The military, as they always will agree, always feel more is needed. Mr. McNamara had to scale down their request some $13 billion even to reach the very hard budget figure and now there is some understanding that there may be a billion dollar cut in the budget we set up, which I think would be a serious mistake. That budget was very hard. As I say, $13 billion had been cut out of it. Now, any time you cut any amount of money some important interests are sacrificed. That causes some reaction. But I think this administration has put a good deal of attention in strengthening the military. We have increased the budget substantially. There have been those who said it could be cut 10 billion. I don't think it can be cut hardly at all, so that I would hope that we would be able to proceed ahead.,There are bound to be some friction's and differences of opinion. They're strong-minded men but I must say I have great confidence in their loyalty to their country and I think they will go on. I am sure there will continue to be disputes. But that is why we have the organization that we have. We have to have a Secretary to make the final judgment. You have four services. I think everybody will get along.,Q. Mr. President, aside from the top command, I was thinking more of a morale problem throughout the--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that is a somewhat different problem. And I think part of that is pay; part of that is housing; part of that is the feeling that perhaps the military is not recognized for the service they are rendering at rather inadequate compensation; part is some disappointment or feeling of the Reserves that perhaps their services are not recognized, sometimes companies don't give them the kind of treatment that would permit them to carry on their Reserve activities.,I hope--as we depend very much upon our military and as we have been very well served by our military in the last 2 years, and as I said the other day, one of the things that impresses me greatly when I write letters on the death of servicemen--and 3500 lost their lives in the service from one action or fatalities of one kind or another in the last year-that the tremendously strong letters that come back from their families indicate a great interest in the love of their country. So this is a terrifically valuable asset for us. I would hope we can keep it and if there is anything we can do to improve the morale, I think we ought to do it.,[21.] Q. Can you tell us what our central objectives will be at the forthcoming trade talks at Geneva, and are you hopeful that they will lead to a big round of cuts in 1964?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The objective of this, as you have described it, is to provide for satisfactory negotiations with the Common Market in 1964, and this GATT meeting is essential for that success.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-04-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] Prime Minister Pearson of Canada and I have agreed to meet at Hyannis Port, Mass., on May 10 and 11 for a first discussion of the many important questions that are of common interest to the two countries.,[2.] Secondly, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs W. Averell Harriman, having consulted in Paris with French Foreign Minister Couve de Murville and in London with Foreign Secretary Lord Home, British Co-chairman of the International Control Commission for Laos, will proceed to Moscow tomorrow to discuss the Laotian situation with the Soviet Co-chairman, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. He does have a short message for Premier Khrushchev from me, explaining the purposes of his trip.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, with Laos boiling up, could you assess for us the relative threats posed to the United States by the Soviet Union and Red China?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think it would be a mistake to attempt to make that assessment on this occasion. We have difficult problems in Southeast Asia. They directly involve, of course, the Soviet Union, as the Soviet Union is the co-chairman and is also, as I have already said, a signatory to the Geneva accord. It has assumed in the past a special responsibility for the maintenance of a neutral and independent Laos, in the Vienna statement which the Chairman and I made in June 1961,1 committing ourselves to that result. We have also of course been conscious of the threat to the security of independent countries of Asia and Southeast Asia, which has been made quite clear by the Chinese. So I would say that we have serious problems with them both. We would hope that the Soviet Union would make an effort to fulfill its commitments under the Geneva accord as the United States is attempting to do.,1 See 1961 volume, this series, Item 225.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there were reports from Moscow earlier today that the British and American Ambassadors during their meeting with Chairman Khrushchev had presented a new proposal on inspection in an effort to break the deadlock on the nuclear test ban treaty negotiations. Is it correct that the United States has presented such a proposal, and is there anything you can tell us about prospects now on this issue?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States made proposals for intensification of the negotiations and suggested some procedures by which those negotiations might be speeded up. I am not overly sanguine about the prospects for an accord. We have been caught, really, since December, on the disagreement between the number of tests that should take place in any one year--the United States discussing seven and the Soviet Union three. No movement from the Soviet Union has taken place. In addition there are other details which are still unresolved, not so much the matter of tests but the area of inspection, the means by which the inspection will be carried out, the freedom of the teams, and what will be the composition of the inspection teams; all these questions are still unresolved.,As we feel time is running out, the Prime Minister and I wrote to Chairman Khrushchev in an effort to see if we could develop some means by which we could bring this matter to a climax and see if we could reach an accord, which we feel to be in the interest of the nuclear powers, the present nuclear powers, to prevent diffusion. But, as I say, I am not sanguine and this represents not a last effort but a very determined effort to see if we can prevent failure from coming upon us this spring.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, back on Laos, it has been more of a testing ground for coexistence since the Geneva accord than perhaps any other place in the world. Would you interpret a Soviet refusal to go along with efforts to maintain peace in the government of national union there as a shift toward a hard line by the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't want to say anything that will prejudice Secretary Harriman's trip. I think we will know a good deal more about the prospects after he has visited Moscow. Quite obviously, we regard the maintenance of the Geneva accord as very essential to the security of Laos itself, and also, as you quite rightly say, as a test of whether it is possible for an accord to be reached between countries which have serious differences, an accord to be reached and maintained.,If we fail in Laos, then I would think the prospects for accords on matters which may be geographically closer to us would be substantially lessened. But I think we will have an idea as to whether the Soviet Union is prepared to meet its commitments and whether the other countries who are also signatories--which include the Communist Chinese and the North Vietnamese, and others--are prepared to really see a neutral and independent Laos, or determined to try a military takeover. I think we should have a clearer idea of that after Governor Harriman's return.,Q. Could I ask just one more question on Laos? Do we have any evidence that the Soviet Union is not in control of the ground in Laos, as they seemed to be in control in 1961 and last year, when the Geneva agreement was signed?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that, I think, is a matter which I think time will tell us. There was a direct control because of the supply lines which were being maintained by the Soviet airlift. Whether the Soviets maintain the same degree of control now, whether they desire to maintain their influence, and whether their influence will be thrown in the direction of a maintenance of the Geneva settlement are the questions which I think we should find answered in the next 3 or 4 weeks.,What, of course, is happening in Laos is a struggle between the neutralist forces of Kong Le, who were allied with the Communist forces in 1961. So that it seems to me that the very nature of the struggle and the forces that are involved in the struggle are the best answer to the charges that have been made in the last 24 hours, that it is the United States which has disturbed the status quo. The struggle is not between the forces of Phoumi and the neutralists, but between the Pathet Lao and the Kong Le forces which, of course, are the army of Souvanna Phouma, whom the Communists themselves supported in 1961. So I think we have a very clear idea of where the responsibility lies, and it would be a distortion to attempt to place the burden for the breakdown upon the United States.,I think the world can tell very clearly who is struggling in the Plaine des Jarres and who, therefore, must bear the responsibility. Now, the solution is not to engage in polemics or debate, but to bring about a cease-fire, and to see if we can maintain what is a very fragile structure today.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and also of Professor John Rock of Harvard, that the Federal Government should participate actively in an attack on uncontrolled population growth?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know--I am familiar with the general thesis of Professor Rock. As you know, the United States Government today, through the National Institutes of Health, gives assistance to research in the whole area of fertility, biological studies, reproduction, and all the rest, which I think are important studies, and there are several millions of dollars of Federal funds involved, and I think they are very useful and should be continued.,Q. I think the recommendations are that our Government should take the lead and should participate much more actively and strongly than it has done before. You, sir, have never taken a position on this, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what is your question?,Q. The question is: Will you accept the recommendations of the National Academy that we should participate in international birth control studies--supply funds?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are participating in the study of fertility and reproduction in the United Nations, which is an international study, at the present time. Now, if your question is: Can we do more, should we know more about the whole reproduction cycle, and should this information be made more available to the world so that everyone can make their own judgment, I would think that it would be a matter which we could certainly support. Whether we are going to support Dr. Rock's proposal, which is somewhat different, is another question.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, do you see any prospect for a meeting between yourself and Mr. Khrushchev any time in the next couple of months, in Europe, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't heard any, and there is none planned.,Q. The British, according to reports from London, are hoping for a three-way summit perhaps on the test ban.,THE PRESIDENT. There is none planned, and it doesn't seem to me that it would be useful unless we were in agreement upon a test ban, which we are not now.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to address yourself to criticism expressed by some Republicans, including Mr. Nixon recently, about the administration's attitude toward Cuba, and suggesting, perhaps, that we are not taking as firm a stand toward them as we should? Would you care to speak to that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I know there is a good deal of concern in the United States because Castro is still there. I think it is unfortunate that he was permitted to assume control in the 1950's, and perhaps it would have been easier to take an action then than it is now. But those who were in positions of responsibility did not make that judgment.,Now, as to what the present situation--we have, as you know, without going through the entire list, we have--and the other countries of the free world have--cut free world trade in the last 2 years from $800 million to $80 million. We are working with the OAS to set up an organization which will limit the movement of potential guerrillas in and out of Cuba. We have--the OAS have almost diplomatically isolated Castro in this hemisphere. I think the members of the OAS have made it very clear that Marxist-Leninism and the Soviet presence is not a matter which is acceptable to the people of the hemisphere. We have been working through the Alliance for Progress to prevent a repetition of the Cuba incident. We have made it very clear that we would not accept a Hungary in Cuba. We have made it very clear we would not permit the movement of troops from Cuba to another country for offensive purposes. We maintain surveillance. We do a good many things.,Now, coming down to the question which is rather sidestepped, that is, if the United States should go to war in order to remove Castro. That nettle is not grasped, and it would seem to me that we have pretty much done all of those things that can be done to demonstrate hostility to the concept of a Soviet satellite in the Caribbean except take these other steps which bring in their wake violence, and may bring a good deal of worldwide difficulty. If they are advocating that, then I recognize that as an alternate policy, but if it is merely a policy which says that we should do something without defining it, except perhaps as I have said, unleashing the exiles, which cannot do the job, it seems to me that we deserve in a question of this importance a good deal more precision in our prescriptions for its solution.,Q. Mr. President, now that the 21 Americans who were imprisoned in Cuba have been released, what do you think that the U.S. policy will be toward exile raids in the future if no U.S. laws are violated, and if these raids may have some military value, perhaps done in conjunction with the underground within Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think a discussion of that kind of a question, if the question is as you put it, is really not very useful to the exiles, or to the cause of Cuba. It does not seem to me that public discussion of these sorts of activities is worthwhile at this time, or beneficial.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that at the request of the Defense Department, the United States Information Agency is now supplying two 5-minute commentaries daily on international affairs which are being broadcast by Armed Forces Radio Service transmitters on both the East and West Coasts, and in Germany. And I would like to respectfully ask you whether you feel it is the business of an official Federal agency to be disseminating comment and opinion to our citizen soldiers and their families overseas.,THE PRESIDENT. What did these programs consist of that is objectionable?,Q. Comment and opinion on international affairs.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, is there anything about the comment that is at all objectionable or slanted?,Q. I am not overseas, and so I haven't heard them.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll be glad-[laughter]--you and I share--[laughter]-I would be glad to check into it and find out if there is anything that is improper about it.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, France is not on your itinerary for this summer, and apparently no invitation has been extended, and certainly you have not solicited one, but I wonder in the light of Secretary Rusk's talk with President de Gaulle if you think a talk between yourself and President de Gaulle would be useful this summer?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I went to France last year. We are going to go to Italy and Germany and Ireland for good reasons in every case. We have not--I think actually according to protocol, which need not stand in our way, it would be the time for the French President to come to the United States. I think General de Gaulle would be glad to come or, protocol aside, I would be glad to go to France if there were some matters which we felt an exchange, a personal exchange would solve. I think that perhaps both of us feel that on those matters which concern us in common, France and the United States, that they can be best discussed at the diplomatic level.,[11.] Q. Another point on the exile problem, sir, rather in line with an admonition that you yourself made last December; the Attorney General suggested the other day that the Cuban exiles should compose their differences and speak with more of one voice, particularly in terms of their relationship with the Government. Is there an implication here, sir, of an approval or enthusiastic approval on the part of your administration toward the setting up of an exile government, a government in exile?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we supported the arrangement of the Revolutionary Council in order to give the exiles a voice which we hoped would be speaking for the exile community in all those matters which affect their relations with the United States and the United States Government. For us to agree and support a government in exile, however, is an entirely different question, because you have to--we would want to support a government which would strike a responsive chord in Cuba itself. The experience with governments in exile have not been particularly felicitous, historically speaking. There is no evidence that exiles themselves could develop a government which would necessarily be the government which the people of Cuba would freely choose.,It would seem to me what would be most valuable now would be a greater degree of cohesion among the exiles regardless of their political view, and there are substantial differences among them, so that they can negotiate with us, if that is the proper word, and bring their case before other Latin American countries, in the OAS, so that we can talk to someone about the many problems which we face and the exiles face with 200,000--250,000 people coming into our country- But a government in exile, I think that is a different question, and in my view it would be imprudent today and I don't think it would help the struggle.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Keating says that according to his information there has been no reduction in the number of Russian troops in Cuba. He said several thousand have left, several thousand have arrived there, with no change in the overall number since November. Would you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have already said that the best information we have from the intelligence community--and I rely upon the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency as chairman of the intergovernmental intelligence community for the information which I have given publicly. We attempt to ask any Congressman or Senator who has information to the contrary for his sources so they can be evaluated. I have stated that our information was, I think the last time we met, that 4,000, we thought, left in March, and that no substantial number had come in this winter. There is some evidence that some have left in April, but not a large number. Of course, the equipment itself seems to still be there, however, so that I would think there has been some reduction this winter in the number of Russian personnel on the island. There has not been a substantial reduction in the equipment. There has been no evidence, however, of any substantial introduction.,It is not, in my opinion, a grave question as to whether there's 17,000, 15,000, 13,000. There are still important elements on the island, and there's still Soviet equipment on the island. So I don't think Senator Keating and I are debating a serious question, unless there is a challenge on one side or the other of good faith, and I am sure there isn't. It is our best information that 4,000 or 5,000 have left since January and that there has not been an equal number come in. In fact, much, much less--300 or 400 at the most. That's our best evidence and I repeat it as it has been gathered by our intelligence sources.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, you have rejected the Civil Rights Commission's proposal for the withholding of funds from the State of Mississippi in particular; yet Negroes and other persons in some Southern States are encountering violence and the withholding of some of their rights. Could you discuss with us what alternative steps the Federal Government might be able to take to bring some of these States into line with the law of the land?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in every case that the Civil Rights Commission described, the United States Government has instituted legal action in order to provide a remedy. The Civil Rights Commission gave a number of cases, the dogs, of a denial of equal rights at the airline terminal, and all of the rest. We are attempting through the established procedures set out by the United States Constitution to give protection, through lawsuits, through decisions by the courts, and a good deal of action has been taken in all of these cases.,Now, it is very difficult. We had outrageous crime, from all accounts, in the State of Alabama, in the shooting of the postman who was attempting in a very traditional way to dramatize the plight of some of our citizens, being assassinated on the road. We have offered to the State of Alabama the services of the FBI in the solution of the crime. We do not have direct jurisdiction, but we are working with every legislative, legal tool at our command to insure protection for the rights of our citizens, and we shall continue to do so.,We shall also continue not to spend Federal funds in such a way as to encourage discrimination. What they were suggesting was something different, which was a blanket withdrawal of Federal expenditures from a State. I said that I didn't have the power to do so, and I do not think the President should be given that power, because it could be used in other ways differently.,But I can just say to you that the Federal Government has been extremely active in the State of Mississippi, from before Oxford and since, in an attempt to provide for constitutional guarantees. We hope the State of Mississippi will do it, we hope the local police will do it, we hope the mayors will do it. Where they don't do it, the Federal Government will do it within the limits of our authority.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Budget Director Gordon says there are fewer Federal employees for every hundred people today than in 1952 or 1957. Much of the press has always given the opposite impression. Hasn't the administration been making correct information available, or do you think this is an instance, perhaps, of the press managing the news?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would not ever suggest that anyone would manage the news. You have two kinds of statistics. One, you have Federal employment rising and therefore that's printed. That's news. Federal employment is rising. Then you have the question of whether Federal employment is rising in relation to the population, and it isn't. It is, as you suggested, declining. Federal expenditures in relationship to the population--nondefense expenditures--are declining. The Federal debt in relationship to the gross national product is declining. The Federal debt has gone up in the last 15 years, but in relationship to the gross national product it is declining. It seems to me this is the framework in which these statistics should best be put. If the population increases 3 or 4 million a year it's quite obvious you are going to have to have additional services. But the question is whether this increase is excessive. And, in nearly every case, in percentage of expenditures and in employment we have gone down.,I hoped the budget would make that point, because otherwise the people get an impression that there are excessive expenditures by the National Government; that we are in a very difficult economic position, when the fact of the matter is our national debt was 120 percent of our gross national product 15 years ago, and today it's 53 percent. So we are far stronger economically than we were 15 years ago. We are far stronger economically than we were 10 years ago or 5 years ago. And we have every chance to be far stronger through this decade if we will follow monetary and fiscal policies that encourage the growth of this country instead of stifling it.,And one of the reasons why I think we have such difficulty getting an acceptance of our expenditures and our tax policies is because people misread the statistics or are misled.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, this has to do with the Wall Street Journal survey on grassroots apathy which has just been published. Do you agree, sir, that such apathy actually exists, and if so, how do you account for it, and if it does exist, what do you plan to do about eliminating it?,THE PRESIDENT. Every April the Wall Street Journal writes a story on the left-hand side of the paper, reporting that Congressmen who have come back find great apathy about the President's programs. [Laughter] The fact of the matter is that in the last month we have had five or six important votes on the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate which I think indicates a support of a program of expansion for the United States economy. Today we are going to pass in the House of Representatives, I am sure, a bill to assist us in building medical schools so we will have enough doctors.,We passed the other day in the Senate a bill on mass transit. We passed a bill yesterday to provide important research facilities for water, which we are going to need greatly in the United States in the next 20 or 30 years. We are going to pass other programs. So I don't accept that at all. If we can get a chance to get these bills on the floor of the House so that they can be voted upon--through the Rules Committee, and give the Members a chance to vote for them--in my opinion this program to a substantial degree will pass. The only thing that has ever concerned me is whether the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives will release it for a vote. But if they release it for a vote, I think that the Members of the House will make very clear that the American people are still committed to progress on all of these fronts, which I believe is essential if we are going to maintain a viable economy. So that I think that is the best answer to the Wall Street Journal.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, on Laos again, several years ago we heard a great deal about the \"falling domino\" theory in Southeast Asia. Do you look upon Laos in terms of that country alone, or is your concern the effect that its loss would have in Thailand, Viet-Nam, and so on? Would you discuss that?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. The population of Laos is 2 million and it is scattered. It's very rough country. It's important as a sovereign power, the people desire to be independent, and it is also important because it borders the Mekong River and, quite obviously, if Laos fell into Communist hands it would increase the danger along the northern frontiers of Thailand. It would put additional pressure on Cambodia and would put additional pressure on South Viet-Nam, which in itself would put additional pressure on Malaya.,So I do accept the view that there is an interrelationship in these countries and that is one of the reasons why we are concerned with maintaining the Geneva accords as a method of maintaining stability in Southeast Asia. It may be one of the reasons why others do not share that interest.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there has been suggestion in the Congress that the Government, the United States Government, might use more effectively the vehicle of the Organization of American States in the Cuban problem. I know there have been certain things done there already. And I understand that we are now prepared to go to the OAS shortly with a plan for intensified security measures. I wonder if you could discuss those and also whether you think there is general support among the Latin American countries for such a program?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Out of the San Jose meeting some proposals came which were amplified by the Managua meeting for providing additional security, which we presented to the OAS. In addition, the whole Alliance for Progress will pass through the OAS machinery. The efforts we are taking on surveillance is a result of an action of the OAS. So I think that the OAS is very active, even though I think we recognize the particular responsibilities we bear because of our geography and also because of our military strength.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, you have no intention to withdraw funds from the Civil Rights Commission, do you?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. No.,[19.] Q. Sir, this regards the agreements with Soviet Russia, between the United States and Soviet Russia, regarding programs in outer space. We have two that are about ready. Those are not coming back to the Senate for ratification, I don't believe. I wonder why?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the kinds of agreements--the executive agreements to cooperate on weather? That is not a treaty.,Q. Well, should it not be a treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it doesn't seem to me that it involves issues which are substantive enough to warrant a treaty. The Congress has been kept fully informed. It is an exchange of information on weather and customarily that is not submitted to the Senate for treaty ratification. Any substantive agreement involving issues, for example, a test ban treaty, multilateral force, those sorts of issues, will definitely be submitted to the Senate.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a fairly lively debate developing on the question of the wisdom of our man-to-the-moon program and the amount of money that we have assigned to it. Have you had any cause at all to reconsider your commitment to that goal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are looking at-we looked at it, of course, when we proposed our budget for this year. We are looking at it again in relationship to next year's budget. We are also looking at it because of the concern that has been raised in the Congress and out of the Congress. I have seen nothing, however, that has changed my mind about the desirability of our continuing this program.,Now, some people say that we should take the money we are putting into space and put it into housing or education. We sent up a very extensive educational program. My judgment is that what would happen would be that they would cut the space program and you would not get additional funds for education. We have enough resources, in my opinion, to do what needs to be done in the field, for example, of education, and to do what needs to be done in space.,Now, this program passed almost unanimously a year ago. What will happen, I predict, will be a desire perhaps, possibly, to cut it substantially, and then, a year from now or 6 months from now, when the Soviet Union has made another new, dramatic breakthrough, there will be a feeling of why didn't we do more. I think our program is soundly based. I strongly support it. I think it would be a mistake to cut it. I think time will prove, even though we can't see all the answers which we will find in space, that the overall expenditures have been worthwhile. This country is a country of great resources. This program in many ways is going to stimulate science. I know there is a feeling that the scientists should be working on some other matter, but I think that this program--I am for it and I think it would be a mistake to arrest it.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, there is reported to be a growing feeling on Capitol Hill that because of the brightening economic picture it might not be necessary to push your tax bill, that is, it might be all right to delay the effective date of your tax bill. Do you share that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't agree with that at all. The fact of the matter is that the economy today is moving along at relatively the same figure as was estimated by the Council of Economic Advisers. It might be about $2 billion more. But the fact is I think that one of the reasons why the economy has moved along has been partly the level of governmental expenditures, combined, of course, with the private vitality in the economy, and also the prospect of the tax cut. The tax cut would put $10 billion directly, in an 18-month period, into the hands of our people, which under the multiplier will mean $30 billion, and I think can make a very important difference in reducing our unemployment. We have to find a tremendous number of jobs in the next 2 years for new people, and, in addition, we have a 5.6 percent level of unemployment already.,So I think it would be a great mistake to stop the tax cut. It is a long-range program. And it would be a great mistake to delay it, because we have all been through experiences, even in the last 12 months, to know that no one predicts with certainty the level of the economy. And I think the prudent action is to go ahead with the program we suggested.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-04-03","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, when a Government department feels it necessary to check on a news story that is displeasing to that department, how do you feel about using lie detectors on men you've appointed to office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, are you talking about a hypothetical case or an actual case?,Q. I am talking about a case that started at the Pentagon, but was called off today.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the case--Secretary McNamara was asked to investigate how this Air Force document was put out to the press. And at the suggestion of the committee, investigation was begun. I think that it was a mistake to suggest a polygraph. And I think Secretary McNamara, when he learned that in the investigation that a document was suggested which would indicate that the witness might be willing to accept a polygraph, I think he decided that that was in error, and he and Secretary Zuckert changed it. So I don't think we need concern ourselves in the future about it. The fact of the matter, no polygraph was given.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you intend to support SEC staff recommendations for legislation designed to curb certain abuses in the securities industry?,THE PRESIDENT. I will have to see the recommendations when they come to the White House. And then we will have a chance to look at it and then I can give you a better answer, after we have examined it.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago you said you wanted to wait until the end of March before taking another look and saying something about the Soviet troops in Cuba. Do you have any new information for us on how many have been pulled out and what can be done to get the rest of them out?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we estimate that 5,000 Soviet troops left in November, immediately with the missiles and with the bombers. And we estimate that in the last month approximately 4,000 Soviets have left. If we accept the figure, which was always a rough calculation, that there were 21,000, 22,000, Soviets there at the height of the crisis, we could get some idea of where approximately we think the figures are today. It is bound to be a generalized figure because it is impossible to take a detailed head count. That still leaves some thousands on the island. We hope they're going to be withdrawn. And we will continue to observe very closely in the next days, the immediate weeks ahead, whether there are going to be further withdrawals which, of course, we wish for.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, again 2 weeks ago you indicated that the situation in Korea had not yet hardened to a point where any talk by you would be helpful. There does appear to have been a hardening situation in the meantime. Would you say how you feel now about the continuation of military rule in Korea?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, the conversations have been going on between the military group and the civilian opposition. It is our hope that a situation will develop which will permit the blossoming of democratic rule, in responsible and stable democratic rule in South Korea. These conversations have not finished. The United States Government feels that this is a finally--in a final sense, a decision for the people of South Korea. We've indicated what our hopes are, but this is a judgment which the people of South Korea must make, and the responsible officials in South Korea. In any case, it is our hope that an accord will be reached between the military group, its chairman, and the civilians, so that we will see in the future a merging pattern of democratic rule. But as of today, the situation is not clear.,[5.] Q. Would you be willing to discuss with us, sir, the political and military difficulties of preventing these hit-and-run raids by Cuban exiles who believe they are striking a blow for freedom?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously Florida is a long coast, and it is possible for some people to go from Florida and strike at a target and come back. We have attempted to discourage it for a number of reasons. We believe it is ineffective. There was a raid conducted in Cuba, left around the 17th, I think, the evening of the 17th or 18th, that shot at a Soviet merchant ship as a target of opportunity. It returned, a number of the people who took part in it came to Washington and held a press conference. It does not seem to us that this represents any real blow at Castro. It gives additional incentives for the Soviet Union to maintain their personnel in Cuba, to send additional units to protect their merchant ships. It is not controlled. No one in a position of responsibility knows about it. So that it will bring reprisals, possibly on American ships. We will then be expected to take a military action to protect our ships, which may bring a counteraction.,I think that when these issues of war and peace hang in the balance, that the United States Government and authorities should-and when American territory is being used-should have a position of some control in the matter. So we don't think that they are effective; we don't think they weaken Castro. We don't think a rather hastily organized raid which maybe shoots up a merchant ship or kills some crewman, comes back, holds a press conference, it doesn't seem to us that that represents a serious blow to Castro and, in fact, may assist him in maintaining his control.,Now, I want to contrast that kind of action with action of some other Cubans, and I don't criticize these men who took part in this. They are anxious to see their island free, but we just don't feel that this advances their cause. I contrast that with some others.,For example, between 400 and 500 members of the brigade who were prisoners, who were at the Bay of Pigs, have joined the United States Army, 200 as officers and 250 as men who are now in training, and who, I think, will be very fine soldiers, and can serve the common cause. The head of the-the commander of the brigade, Oliver, who is a Cuban, a Negro, got all of his marks at 100 in joining the service. So I think there are a good many very determined, persistent Cubans who are determined that their island should be free, and we wish to assist them.,We distinguish between those actions which we feel advances the cause of freedom and these hit-and-run raids which we do not feel advances the cause of freedom, and we are attempting to discourage those.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, two weeks ago six Republican Members of the Joint Economic Committee, House and Senate, wrote you a long letter of suggestions about Federal expenditures, including a request that you establish a Presidential Commission on Federal Expenditures, somewhat similar to the Clay Commission on Foreign Aid. What would be your position on that suggestion?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we have the Bureau of the Budget which oversees and gathers together all of the recommendations which we wish to make for programs. We then submit it to the Congress--the House and Senate. And they finally appropriate the money; we do not. So that the House and Senate has its opportunities with its staff, the Appropriations Committee. We have probably the most effective staff in Washington, for the amount of work they do and the men employed, in the Bureau of the Budget. I am very satisfied with this procedure.,[7.] Q. Is it valid, sir, for the Government to give a defense contract to a firm in order to keep that firm as part of the production arsenal of this country? And, two, did that happen in the case of the TFX award to General Dynamics?,THE PRESIDENT. No, to the last part. In the first case, if it is a hypothetical case, I would say it would depend on the circumstances, how great the need is. Is it for particular kinds of tools which we might need in the case of an emergency? I can think of cases where it would be valid. It has nothing to do with the TFX.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, even though this is a new Congress, hasn't it in its 3 months of life made a very low record of accomplishments, and what do you think is the trouble?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I must say that I am familiar with these stories in March and April that the Congress isn't doing anything, and I think this Congress is going to act on the major pieces of legislation.,The House Ways and Means Committee is now considering the tax bill. The House Rules Committee reported out the bill for aid for medical construction and education today in the House. The Senate this afternoon is considering the transit bill. It will be considering in the next few days the youth employment opportunities bill.,So I would say that you will see in April and May and June a good many important pieces of legislation coming to the Floor. But I think that this is, if I may use that word again, a rhythm of January and February, and then March the story starts to be written about the Congress not doing anything in April, and then in May we begin to get some bills to the Floor and some are defeated and then there are those stories about Presidential leadership. [Laughter],[9.] Q. Is there a lesson in the recent New York newspaper strike that might lead to the settling of labor disputes in this particular industry by means other than strikes in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't see it. I think that unless the unions and the employers are ready to accept compulsory arbitration, and there is no indication that either would be, I don't see that we are going to be able to set up any mechanical operation which would stop a city strike.,Now, a State may want to set up emergency procedures, which the Federal Government has in cases affecting the national health and safety. That's a State judgment. But I don't see any Federal actions that can be taken. I do fed, looking at that strike, that that strike could have been settled many days before it was, on conditions quite similar to what was finally accepted. But neither side was prepared to take those actions which would have brought it to an end. But I don't see any mechanical changes we can make in laws which would affect the situation.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Israel has been evidencing growing concern over the 'manufacture of missiles in Egypt, and unofficially has asked the United States to use its good offices with Bonn to discourage the use of German scientists in this endeavor. Can you tell us anything about that point, and, secondly, can you tell us anything about Israel's requests for more armaments from this country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the German Government itself has indicated its displeasure, and there is some question of whether it may be a breach of the law, the German scientists who are working on missiles, air engines, and airframes for the U.A.R. There is not a great number of them, but there are some of them, and of course they do affect the tensions in the Middle East. So I think this matter has been very strongly brought to the attention by the Israeli Government and by other interested parties who are seeking to diminish rather than increase the arms race in the Middle East.,Now, on the question of what military assistance we would give the Israelis: as you know, the United States has never been a supplier of military equipment directly to the Israelis. We have given economic assistance. The Israelis themselves have bought equipment, a good deal of it from France. We will just have to see what the balance of the military power may be in the Middle East, as time goes on. We are anxious to see it diminished rather than participate in encouraging it.,On the other hand, we would be reluctant to see a military balance of power in the Middle East which was such as to encourage aggression rather than discourage it. So this is a matter which we will have to continue to observe. We have expressed our strong opposition to the introduction or manufacture of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and we have indicated that strongly to all of the countries. So we have to wait and see as the time goes on. At the present time, there is a balance which I think would discourage military action on either side. I would hope it will continue.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisenhower has taken a crack at the national budget. He told Charlie Halleck in a letter that he thought it could be reduced by about\n$13 billion. The General was especially critical of your space program. He said that there were enormous sums being wasted in that field. Would you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that President Eisenhower referred us to Maurice Stans, his budget director, for guidance, and I have examined that record. Under Maurice Stans, this country had the largest peacetime deficit in history. It took a $500 million surplus and put it into a $12.5 billion deficit. It had the largest outflow of gold in dollars in our history, 1959, about $3.9 billion. We had two recessions, 1958 and 1960, and we had the highest peacetime unemployment, 1959, since World War II. That is not a record that we plan to duplicate if we can help it.,Secondly, the United States Congress almost unanimously made a decision that the United States would not continue to be second in space. We are second in space today because we started late. It requires a large sum of money. I don't think we should look with equanimity upon the prospect that we will be second all through the sixties and possibly the seventies. We have the potential not to be. I think having made the decision last year, that we should make a major effort to be first in space. I think we should continue to do so.,Now President Eisenhower--this is not a new position for him. He has disagreed with this, I know, at least a year or year and a half ago when the Congress took a different position. It is the position I think he took from the time of Sputnik on. But it is a matter on which we disagree.,It may be that there is waste in the space budget. If there is waste, then I think it ought to be cut out by the Congress, and I am sure it will be. But if we are getting to the question of whether we should reconcile ourselves to a slow pace in space, I don't think so. This administration has concentrated its attention since it came into office on strengthening our military. That is one of the reasons why you could not possibly put in the cut which has been recommended, $9 or $10 billion, without cutting the heart out of the military budget. The fact of the matter is, when we came into office we had 11 combat ready divisions; we now have\nWe increased the scheduling on Polaris, nearly double per year. We've increased the number of planes on the 15 minute alert from 33 percent of our strategic air force to 50 percent. In a whole variety of ways--in the Navy we have added about 46 vessels, we've strengthened ourselves in defense and space.,The fact of the matter is, in nondefense expenditures we have put in less of an increase in our 3 years than President Eisenhower did in his last 3 years. I am concerned that we may not be putting in enough, rather than putting in too much, because the population of this country is growing, 4 million people a year. So that I think we ought to go ahead with what we are talking about. We ought to have effective, tight budget control, which we have tried to have. The Congress may be able to improve on it. But this idea that you can cut the budget wholesale without cutting very essential national programs, and, number two, taking $9 billion out of the economy, is just bound, in my opinion, to put you in an economic decline instead of a rise.,I think we ought to recognize that the percentage of our budget expenditures as a percentage of our gross national product are about the same as they were all through the riffles. The budget may have gone up because the country is growing and the population is growing, but so is our gross national product. And the debt as a percentage of our gross national product is steadily declining.,So I think we are in good position, providing we can prevent an economic decline of the kind we had very rapidly in 1958 and 1960. Then I think we can do that if we have effective programs of the dimensions that we are talking about, plus the tax cut, because we have to have, just to absorb the people coming into the labor market, we have to have a $25 billion increase in our gross national product just to absorb the people coming into the labor market, let alone cut down the number who are now unemployed. So that is my view of the matter.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, we have had difficulties lately in both Guatemala and Argentina, two countries which under the Alliance for Progress were making efforts to get on their feet economically and politically. I wonder how you feel about these developments? Do you regard these as symptomatic of the problem the Alliance is trying to attack? What are your views?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think so. That's right. I do regard it as symptomatic. There is instability, part of it through the hemisphere comes from maldistribution of wealth, part of it comes from inadequate wealth, part of it comes from the fact that they have been in a depressed state really since 1957 and 1958, because of a drop in commodity prices. Part of it comes from illiteracy, and it is very hard to maintain a democratic form of government as we have seen even in Western Europe, which has many advantages. So that to do it in Latin America, with so many disadvantages, is extremely complicated. Great progress has been made, and a good many democratic governments now exist. I saw one of the finest in Costa Rica the other day. But I certainly would agree with you that what is happening in Guatemala and what's happening in the Argentine is symptomatic of the challenges which face us in this hemisphere and which the Alliance is trying to meet.,Q. Mr. President, Venezuela has said that it does not intend to recognize the new government in Guatemala because it took power by force. This is a recurring problem in various places. Are we going to have any consistent or uniform policy on whether or not to recognize governments that take power by force?,THE PRESIDENT. No, We haven't got a consistent policy, because the circumstances sometimes are inconsistent. What we are interested in now is what assurances we get as to when a democratic government--or when elections will be held. This government which has taken over in Guatemala has indicated that it will provide a return to democratic rule. When we have a clearer idea of that and also what the position will be of the other Central American countries who are so intimately associated in the Common Market and other ways, we will then be able to make a judgment as to whether it is in our interest to proceed ahead.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, we have a brand new issue in Kentucky in the Democratic primary. The question is: how much time Governor Chandler spent with you on Monday. Mr. Salinger and Mr. O'Donnell were there, and you popped out and shook his hand. Mr. Chandler got back home to Kentucky and said he spent more than half an hour with you and he says Mr. Salinger has quit managing the news and is now not telling the truth. Can you tell us how much time you saw Mr. Chandler? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have never attempted to--Governor Chandler called up and talked to, I think, Mr. O'Donnell on Monday morning and he said he was in town and he was there with his wife and two sons and his granddaughter and would like to pay a friendly call. And I was glad to see the former Governor--Senator--and one whom I have known for a good many years. So I was delighted to have him by and I wouldn't possibly clock him. [Laughter],[14.] Q. Mr. President, on your trip to Europe, there have been a lot of rumors about other cities than Rome and Bonn and Berlin .wanting you to visit them. I wonder if there is anything you can tell us now about what other cities, you might visit, possibly London or even Paris, and also if you could tell us when you might be going?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have no plans to visit London or Paris. We will be going, I would think, the last half of June, to Rome and Bonn, and Berlin. That is our present schedule.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, we are told that the principal reason that you have asked Congress to increase the size of the Peace Corps to 13,000 is because of the new emphasis on Latin America. But isn't there some danger that these countries will be disappointed if that goal isn't reached?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are going to attempt to make a major effort in Latin America in the Peace Corps. I would hope that this month, when we must really get our applications for the summer, when most of the students will be available, I would hope they would put their applications in, in April.,We need nurses, teachers, those who are knowledgeable in the mechanical arts, liberal art school graduates. I would hope that we would get a good, strong, volunteer group in April. We will concentrate on Latin America, and I think, based on our experience already with them, it will be most useful.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, tomorrow they start hearings in the Senate on the new Foreign Service Academy. Why is this necessary? Why wouldn't it be better to have returning officers go to the schools in Pennsylvania, Harvard, or Chicago, and see something of the country to which they are returning, while they are doing their studies?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you might say \"Why don't we eliminate the National War College?\" I think that the problems which they face are very specialized, particularly those Ambassadors or Ministers or Foreign Service officers who go to Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the Middle East, where you have got a good many paramilitary, economic, social, political problems, all the rest. I think the Foreign Service Institute has indicated a response to that need, but we need a much stronger service in the same way that we need the National War College. Now that doesn't mean that some students may not continue to go to the places you named. But I think we need one here in Washington which is directly tied to the work of the State Department, particularly the work in the areas which I have described, where an Ambassador--I just looked. I saw Ambassador Gullion this morning, from the Congo.,When you think of the decisions, for example, which our Ambassador in Guatemala must now make, our Ambassador in South Korea must have made over the last 3 weeks, and we depend heavily, of course, upon the judgment of the people there, the judgment that our Ambassador in Laos has had to make over the last year, the judgment of our Ambassadors in Pakistan and India, these are the most important, significant--the judgment of our Ambassador in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, I think we need this school, because I think these men deal with questions which are so intimately related to the work of the Department, itself, that I think that the institute ought to be here, close to the Department and working with it.,[17.] Q. Sir, do you plan to take any action to head off the threatened railroad strike?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we will, and by this afternoon we are going to announce the appointment of a board.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, what is your evaluation of Khrushchev's present status, and the nature of the political struggle that is apparently now going on in the Kremlin? And is the uncertainty in the Kremlin affecting U.S. policy decisions right now, for instance, over Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but I would think it is possible that Khrushchev is subjected to the same--I don't think we know precisely, but I would suppose he has his good months and bad months like we all do.,Q. By when do you think we will be first in space, and in view of Russia's current lunar probe, do you think we will beat Russia with a man to the moon?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. We started well behind. Quite obviously they had a tremendous advantage in big boosters, and we are still behind, because obviously we haven't gotten our new boosters yet, which we won't get until 1964, '65 and '66. So that we will have to wait and see, but I can assure you it is an uphill race at best, because we started behind, and I am sure the Russians are making a major effort. Today's indication of what they are doing makes me feel that their program is a major one and is not spongy, and I think that we would have to make the same ourselves.,So I would say we are behind now, and we will continue to be behind. But if we make a major effort we have a chance, I believe, to be ahead at the end of this decade, and that is where I think we ought to be.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, will we be able to maintain our special relations with the United Kingdom if Mr. Harold Wilson and the Labor Party win the next election?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any reason why our relationship should change with Great Britain. It has existed with Labor governments and Conservative governments. I think it is a relationship based on history and common interest. And we also have strong relations with other countries of Western Europe, and we have special relations in Latin America. I think Mr. Wilson said, and I think probably Mr. Macmillan has said, that the word \"special\" is probably not the most appropriate word to describe it. It is a very strong, intimate, and reassuring relationship, and I think it will exist regardless of who is in power.,[20.] Q. Sir, I wonder if you think that there should be a double standard for Congressmen and one for men in the executive branch of Government. I am referring to these articles on cheating Congressmen which lack Anderson wrote about the other day. And I wonder if you think that since you have been in Congress and the executive branch, if there should be the same standard for no conflict of interest and honesty as Congress insists upon for the executive, and if you think these should be the same thing for Congressmen?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a matter where the Congress is the best judge of their own standards. As a matter of fact, I think the Constitution so states. And I would think that they would be jealous of their reputation as really any man or woman should be.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, you said a moment ago that your administration had no intention of emulating the record of the Eisenhower administration in a number of economic respects, and you have often stated your desires to move the country ahead in a number of social fields, education, for instance, and yet you say that in your first three budgets your nonspace, nondefense expenditures are less than in the last three Eisenhower budgets. My question is this: does this balance of resources, this commitment of resources, disturb you?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would like to see the United States able to do more in some areas, even though the programs we have suggested in education, if accepted by the Congress, would be very important, not only this year but also in the other years. That is a major program. So I think that we have a solid basis for action. But I do think it is.,On the other hand, I think that the defense program is, in my opinion, essential, and I think the space program is vital. But what we are now talking about are those who wish to cut this program, the civilian and the nondefense expenditures, by such a substantial figure. For example, those who say that we should cut our foreign assistance by a billion and a half, even though this assistance is vital to the maintenance of a good many countries' independence, while at the same time, as I have said before on other occasions, anti-Communist speeches are made, they want to prevent any Communists taking over in Latin America, they want to deny Latin America any economic assistance and they want us to do something about Cuba, because it is Communist. I don't understand that logic. I think the budget we have sent up is soundly based. I do think there is always a question of whether we are expending enough for civilian needs. But it still is a large budget, a large deficit, and I think that we have done about as much as we now can do. In other years we may have to do more, because this year we held our nondefense expenditures to the same figure as last year.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday according to reports comedian Dick Gregory was manhandled by police in Greenwood, Miss. Do you have any comments on the voter registration drive in Greenwood, and particularly do you think the Justice Department can do more in terms of speed and effectiveness to enhance the effort down there?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had a suit there since last August against the registrar on the ground of discrimination in the voting. We have now a suit which we launched the other day against the denial of the rights of the voters themselves, and that is due for a hearing very shortly, perhaps this week.,Then I would hope that the court would find that there has been a denial of rights, which seems to me evident, but which the court must decide. Now if we secure the passage of the voting bill which we sent up to the Congress this week, in the case of the voter registrar case, a registrar would be permitted to sit during the period that the case was being considered, because what we now have is a registrar who is charged with discrimination in denying certain citizens the right to vote, and he has been sitting since last August when our suit was filed, and the suit, because of the law's delay, has not yet been settled. So that is an area where there is a vacuum in the law, and I would hope we could fill it. But on the subject, itself, we have two Federal suits and both of them are very important and both of them, I hope, will result in actions which will bring justice in Greenwood, Miss.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-03-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good evening.,[1.] Last night I returned from a 3-day meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica, with the Presidents of the five Central American Republics and Panama. This was a most useful meeting. For the first time a President of the United States journeyed to Central America and conferred with all of the leaders of this vital area, which in terms of history, geography, common interest, and common goals is as closely allied with the United States as any area in the world. We agreed to continue our efforts under the Alliance for Progress to build and strengthen the machinery for economic cooperation with and among the nations of Central America and Panama, including the creation of a unified economic community in Central America. And we also agreed on the necessity for measures to halt the flow of agents, money, arms, and propaganda from Cuba to Central America.,Every nation present was determined that we would both protect ourselves against immediate danger and go forward with the great work of constructing dynamic, progressive societies, immune to the false promises of communism. This is the fourth Latin American country which I have visited. Here, as in all the others, we found a spontaneous outpouring of friendship and affection for the United States; and here, as in all the others, we saw impressive evidence of the work now being made and done under the Alliance for Progress.,Each trip makes it clear that Latin Americans, by an overwhelming majority are ready to work, to sacrifice, to fight if necessary, to maintain their own freedom and to build societies which serve the welfare of all their people. They lack only the full measure of resources necessary to build a hemisphere where all can be secure and free. They know that they bear the fundamental responsibility for their own welfare and progress, but the receptions we have received in Costa Rica, in Mexico, in Venezuela, and in Colombia demonstrate that they also know that we in the United States today have a deep concern for their problems, a common dedication to their aspirations, and a faithful commitment to help them in their efforts. For all these reasons, I return from San Jose with increased confidence that we will continue to live in a hemisphere of independent, firm, and faithful friends.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, did the Soviets honor their commitment on withdrawing troops from Cuba and where do we go from here?,THE PRESIDENT. We estimate that they have withdrawn approximately 3,000 troops in these past weeks. We are waiting to see whether more will be withdrawn, as we would hope they would be. The month of March is not finished yet and we should have a clearer idea as to what the total numbers should be in the coming days.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, could we speak, for a moment, about your travel plans. One, on your forthcoming trip to Italy and Germany, do you plan to visit Berlin? And second, do you intend to make a trip to South America later in the year?,THE PRESIDENT. I would hope that when I go to Germany that I would go to Berlin. I have no plans for any trip to Latin America this year. Though we have an agreement to visit Brazil, that trip has been postponed and no final date has yet been set.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, the TFX contract is causing a lot of controversy on Capitol Hill. Senator Symington told the Senate today that the investigation was affecting military morale and ought to be wound up quickly. How do you feel about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I see nothing wrong with the Congress looking at these matters. My judgment is that the decision reached by Secretary McNamara was the right one, sound one, and any fair and objective hearing will bring that out. Mr. McNamara chose the plane he chose because he felt it most efficient, because he thought it would do the job and because he thought it would save the Government hundreds of millions of dollars. Everything I have read about the TFX and seen about it confirms my impression that Mr. McNamara was right. We have a very good, effective Secretary of Defense with a great deal of courage, who is willing to make hard decisions, and who doesn't mind when they are made that a good many people don't like it.,This contract involves a large amount of money and naturally some people would prefer it to go another place than the place which the Secretary chose. I think the Secretary did the right thing and I think this investigation will bring that out, and I have no objection to anyone looking at the contract as long as they feel that a useful function is served.,Q. Do you think the hearing that has been held has been fair and objective?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that I'm confident that we all know a lot more about the TFX than we did before, and that's a good thing. And my judgment is that the more this hearing goes on, the more convinced people are finally that Secretary McNamara is a very effective Secretary of Defense and that we're lucky to have him.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the United States has long had a deep interest in South Korea and its independence and democracy. Last weekend there was an announcement by the military government of a bid to continue its power for 4 more years rather than turn affairs back to a civilian government after an election. Would you give us your views on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the situation has been changing in South Korea very greatly in the last few days, and it's in some position of flux, so I don't think that it would be possible to make any final statement today.,We are continuing to maintain very close contact with what's going on there. We are anxious for stability in the area. We regard South Korea, of course, as an important interest in the security of Asia and therefore we are continuing to follow very closely the present discussions about the return of democratic government in South Korea. But as the situation is still not hardened, I don't think that anything I would say on it would be helpful, at least this week.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything to the reports that Postmaster General Day will be replaced before the next year's election campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. No.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, there were some reports in San Jose that the Central American Presidents wanted to take stronger action or decide upon stronger measures against Cuba than you were. I wonder if you could clarify whether that was the case or not.,THE PRESIDENT. No, no proposal came in any of the meetings that I had with the Presidents. As you know, one of the conclusions reached at San Jose was to take effective measures, by the countries involved, and also to ask the other countries of Latin America to take effective measures to stem the flow of arms and particularly of men who move by subterranean means, frequently, without passports, from one country or another in Latin America, to Cuba, are trained and then come back for subversive activity. We are going to take effective means to attempt to control that traffic. There was no proposal.,I think they are quite aware that we have taken every conceivable action to isolate Cuba, that that's our ambition as long as Cuba maintains an association with the bloc, the Communists, and is used as a Communist military base.,I don't think that the Presidents of Latin America thought that further action, invasion, or blockade at this time would be fruitful. At least none of them made that proposal to me. And as you know, the burden of such an action would fall on the United States, and I think they're quite aware that the United States would have to carry out the action. We have responsibilities all through the world. You've just mentioned South Korea and Berlin, as an example of two areas where we have vital commitments, so that I think the Presidents of Central America are well aware that the United States is as anxious as they are to prevent the flow of communism in this hemisphere and that we are taking every action that we believe to be responsible and effective to achieve that end.,They also recognize that one of the most effective ways is to meet conditions in their own countries, to make sure that communism doesn't get a grip because of the failure of the economies. In one of the countries that we visited, 400 out of 1,000 children do not attend any school. We cannot expect stable, democratic societies to develop in an atmosphere where half of the population is illiterate.,Now, that's the kind of problem which has traditionally affected and infected Central America. The governments are attempting to meet these problems. We are attempting to help them through the Alliance for Progress. We believe that this is the most important step we can take now, combined with the actions we are presently taking against Cuba, which are well known.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, concerning effective action in another area, the Olympic games, some time ago you expressed concern that the amateur groups were bickering to such an extent that the U.S. might not be able to field a qualified team in the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. Has that question been settled to your satisfaction? 1 And two, will the United States grant the usual Federal money to aid in the effort to get the Olympic games to the United States and to Detroit specifically for the first time since 1932, in 1968?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, as you know, General MacArthur did the arbitration, and did it most effectively; therefore, we feel that problem is going to be solved, in the question of accrediting amateur athletes.,1 See 1962 volume, this series, Item 546 [2]. See also Item 7, above.,Secondly, on the question of where the 1968 Olympics will be, that's a matter for the Olympics Committee. If there is a chance to get it to the United States, we will strongly support it, and if Detroit is chosen, I would certainly be wholly in favor of the United States doing everything it could to make it a success. I'm a strong believer in the Olympic games, and I hope the United States has a strong amateur team representing this country, because this is a vigorous society, and we would like to demonstrate it.2,2 On September 16, 1963, the President approved a joint resolution \"favoring the holding of the Olympic games in America in 1968\" (Public Law 88-124, 77 Stat. 156). The International Olympic Committee later announced that Mexico City had been selected as the site for 1968.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you have been warning with repeated frequency lately about the possible dangers of a recession. Some of your supporters, both in and out of the administration, are expressing concern that your main thrust against it, namely, a large tax cut, may not get through this session. If that should happen to be the case or if you got an inadequate tax cut, do you have another alternative against recession?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place we don't believe that there will be a recession this year. The most recent economic indicators seem to me to be more encouraging than the ones that we had in January when we stated that the chances were against a recession in 1963. But we also live with history, and we realize the rhythm of the 1958, and 1960, two recessions, and we don't want to duplicate that.,Now, our tax cut is predicated on the assumption of a $10 billion tax cut over a period of 18 months, which combined with the budget we had we felt combined thrust to the economy and also a degree of fiscal responsibility. If you are suggesting that I would look with equanimity upon the failure of Congress to act this year on a tax cut, that would be wholly wrong.,If we get through this year in good condition economically, we come into 1964. We know, as I said, something about the rhythm of the business cycle. We had two recessions in 2 years in the end of the fifties.,So I would think that merely because our prospects look good in 1963, I would think that that is all the more pressing for us to take action in time. Now, if we don't take action in time, and we move into a recession, we have to take a good deal more action than we would have if we had taken it before the recession came upon us, and we have to take action to put people to work. We already have too high a rate of unemployment, and if we get into a recession, it would go much higher than that.,So that I would think that everything, most of all common prudence, indicates and dictates that we get a tax cut this year which, combined with the expenditure level we have in the Government, we believe represents the best combination. So I would be very concerned if we did not get it this year.,Q. What I really meant, sir, was what do you plan to do if you don't get the tax cut?,THE PRESIDENT. I plan to get the tax cut.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you aware of any international significance to the meeting between Pope John and Mr. Adzhubei, Khrushchev's son-in-law?,THE PRESIDENT. No, some historic interest, but not any underlying international significance. As you know, Mr. Adzhubei stated when he got through that there was no coexistence between the ideologies of Pope John and Mr. Khrushchev, and that has been my view for a long time. But I think that what Pope John is interested in, of course, is seeing--and I think other religious leaders are interested in preventing a nuclear war. So that he believes, I think probably, that communication is one of the means by which we can achieve that objective.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, would you now give us a report on the exploratory talks on the NATO nuclear force, and what you see as the prospects for that force?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'm going to see Mr. Merchant 1 tomorrow. I understand he is encouraged by his trip. He is going back again in April. We are hopeful that it may be worked out. As I have said before, this is a proposal that we are making to the Europeans to meet a need which they've suggested. This is not a proposal which we feel essential to the security of the United States. It is a proposal which we have advanced to meet the security needs of Western Europe. So Mr. Merchant will travel again to the countries, the NATO countries, that he did not visit. Now we ought to know by May whether we are going to be able to make some progress.,1 Livingston T. Merchant, Special Representative for Multilateral Force Negotiations.,In any case, by the Ottawa meeting 1 we should have made some progress on multinational nuclear forces, and we should have a clearer idea on whether we are going to carry through on multilateral nuclear forces.,1 NATO Ministerial Council meeting in Ottawa, May 22-24.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, sometime in 1963, the Soviets are scheduled to launch two spacecraft and perform a rendezvous and a docking and the men are supposed to change ships. Now I am told if this happens it puts them in a position of being able to mount a nuclear weapon in space, and if that happens, what would be the American response? Would we try to do likewise? Or would we try to shoot it down?,THE PRESIDENT. These are all presumptions that I wouldn't be able to comment on. The United States is making, as you know, a major effort in space and will continue to do so. We are expending an enormous sum of money to make sure that the Soviet Union does not dominate space. We will continue to do it. And we will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent any action against the United States.,The fact of the matter is the Soviet Union today with a nuclear weapon can reach the United States with a missile. So that I would have to know in more precise detail than you have described the exact nature of our threat before I suggested what our counter action would be.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Radio Moscow said today that the Cuban exiles who say they shot up a Russian ship and an army camp on Monday, that these men were hirelings of the United States and that they were carrying out secret American orders. What have you to say to this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, our best information is that they did not come from the United States. We have already indicated that we do not feel that these kinds of raids serve a useful purpose. It seems to me in some ways they strengthen the Russian position in Cuba and the Communist control of Cuba and justify repressive measures within Cuba which might otherwise not be regarded as essential. So that we have not supported this and these men do not have a connection with the United States Government. I think a raid which goes in and out does indicate the frustrations of Cuban exiles who want to get back home and who want to strike some blow, but I don't think that it increases the chances of freeing Cuba.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I believe the British Commonwealth-U.S. military survey team is back from India and has made its report to you. And I wonder what your views are now, sir, regarding India's military needs now that the spring is upon the country and the snows have melted and presumably the Chinese menace can be looked at more realistically?,THE PRESIDENT. We haven't completed the report or our consultation with the British as a result of the report.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the trade of our Western European allies, the four principal ones, reportedly has quadrupled in the last 8 years in trade with the Soviet Union. Is this alarming to the administration and, if so, are any effective measures being taken to curtail it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have attempted, in NATO, to maintain the Co-Com list which is a list of those materials which are shipped from the free world to the Communist world which would help them strategically and would help them in the event of War.,There is pressure always to dilute this list, and a good many of these countries depend upon trade and they want to trade with the Soviet Union. We have kept our trade, as you know, to a minimum, particularly because the Soviet Union does not show a great desire to trade in consumer items but instead wants heavy industrial items which could be important strategically.,We strongly believe in supporting the Co-Com list and we would continue to do so. There are pressures against it. But so far there has been general observance by NATO.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, the Cleveland-New York newspapers have been out of operation for almost 4 months now. After your last rather strong statement on the situation1 there was an improvement, but now it has lapsed back again. Is there any comment that you care to make on this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there seems to be some hope that in the next few days that there will be an acceptance of the offer that Mayor Wagner made in the New York case which I thought was a very fair offer. I understand that the head of the printers is attempting to use his influence as well as the influence of others in attempting to have the printers accept it.,1See Item 35 [11].,That also leaves the Cleveland strike which has gone on for a longer time than the New York strike. I hope we can get that one adjusted, too, because that city also needs its papers. I am hopeful that if New York moves in the next few days that Cleveland will also.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, the House Un-American Activities Committee has been trying since last October to get some information from the Justice Department and the State Department about traveling United States citizens who are going in and out of Cuba by way of Mexico. They don't seem to be able to get any information on this, but some of these citizens come back and advertise lectures on the advantages of Castro's Cuba.,I am wondering how we can expect offer countries to restrict this type of travel, as you say we plan to do in Nicaragua, I believe,THE PRESIDENT. No, in Costa Rica.,Q. Well--I am wondering how we can expect other countries to stem this travel if we don't try to stem it by enforcing the McCarran-Walter Act?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think the Justice Department would be delighted to give any information. We have taken action, as you know, against some people who have gone to Cuba without a permit, or without permission of the United States Government. There has been some criticism, as a matter of fact, of an action we took against a newspaperman. We would attempt to and I would be delighted--I would ask, if it has not already done so, and I would be surprised if it has not already done so--I would be very surprised if the Justice Department has not made available all the information that the congressional committee requested. But if they have not done so, I will be sure to instruct them to do so.,Q. Mr. President, at the Costa Rica meeting the Declaration of Central America 1 carries a rather intriguing phrase. It is that: \"Cuba will soon join the family of free nations.\" I wondered if there is anything that you gentlemen know about that that you could tell us that we don't know.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think the strong conviction is that the people of Latin America want to be free, they don't want to live under a tyranny, and that Cuba will be free. That is the conviction of the people of Central America and Latin America. And that's the conviction of the people of the United States.,1Printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 48, p. 515).,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the Civil Rights Commission for months has been trying to hold a hearing in Mississippi. Do you feel that this hearing should be delayed any longer?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that is a judgment the Civil Rights Commission should--any time, any hearing that they feel advances the cause or meets their responsibility which has been entrusted to them by the law, then they should go ahead and hold it.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the TFX fighter plane controversy has drawn more attention to Senator Case's criticism of those politicians who in recent campaigns have urged the public to elect candidates on the grounds that they can bring more big defense contracts into those particular States, the implication being that they could use political influence to do this. Now, do you feel that this sort of a proposition to the public builds confidence that these big defense contracts are being let fairly?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the contracts are being let fairly. But of course, there's great competition, and it's no wonder because thousands of people, jobs are involved. The fact of the matter is defense contracts have been concentrated in two or three States, really, in space contracts, because those States have had the historical experience and also because they have a concentrated engineering and educational infrastructure which puts them in a successful position.,For example, a good percentage of the contracts traditionally in space have gone to the State of California, and in defense, because the great defense plants--for all the reasons, really, since the end of World War II. So Senators and Congressmen who are concerned about unemployment among their citizens, who are concerned about the flow of tax dollars, will continue to press. But the fact of the matter is that we have a Secretary of Defense who's making very honest judgments in these matters, and I know from personal experience that some Senators and Congressmen who recently visited Secretary McNamara, asking to present plans from being turned down, who happen to be members of my own party, and indeed, even more closely related, have been rejected by the Secretary of Defense.,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow that up, Senator Case has proposed that a watchdog committee be created to look into. these,THE PRESIDENT. To watch the Congressmen and Senators? Well, that will be fine if they feel they should be watched!,[20.] Q. Mr. President, after all of the years of failure in attempting to reach a nuclear test ban agreement at Geneva, and in view of the current stalemate at the Geneva conference, do you still really have any hope of arriving at a nuclear test ban agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my hopes are somewhat dimmed, but nevertheless, I still hope. The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union did accept in September a position which it had denied over the past 2 years or so, of inspection. Now, what we are disagreeing about are the number of inspections, but at least the principle of inspection is accepted. Now, the reason why we keep moving and working on this question, taking up a good deal of energy and effort, is because personally I am haunted by the feeling that by 1970, unless we are successful, there may be 10 nuclear powers instead of 4, and by 1975, 15 or 20.,With all of the history of war, and the human race's history unfortunately has been a good deal more war than peace, with nuclear weapons distributed all through the world, and available, and the strong reluctance of any people to accept defeat, I see the possibility in the 1970's of the President of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons. I regard that as the greatest possible danger and hazard.,Now, I am not even talking about the contamination of the atmosphere which would come when all of these nations begin testing, but as you know, every test does affect generations which are still away from us. So I think that when we are now talking, the Soviet Union and the United States, whether we will have seven or three, we've come this far, and I think that we ought to stay at it. So I am not disturbed at all by those who attack every effort we make to get a nuclear test ban.,The fact of the matter is that when the treaty is signed, if it ever is signed, and I hope it is, it must go to the Senate and it must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Therefore, it seems to me great protection to all of us. Now, the other point I want to make is that we test and test and test, and you finally get weapons which are increasingly sophisticated. But the fact of the matter is that somebody may test 10 or 15 times and get a weapon which is not nearly as good as these megaton weapons, but nevertheless, they are two or three times what the weapon was which destroyed Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, and that was dreadful enough.,So I think that we have a good deal to gain if we get a test agreement, and so we are going to keep at it. Now, Members of Congress, who may object to that will have their chance to vote \"aye\" or \"nay\" if we are successful in a treaty and we present it to the Senate. In the meantime, we are going to stay at it.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, many, if note most, of the witnesses before the Ways and Means Committee and the members of the Joint Economic Committee say that your tax program is too little and too slow. Would you accept an immediate tax cut at the figure they are now using, around $6 billion or $8 billion, at once?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but the only thing is they also then come out against the essential governmental programs. I have seen very few people who have said that they would support what I regard as essential programs, national security, domestic security, and all the rest, and a tax cut of the kind of figures you are talking about. What you are asking us to do is to choose between these programs, which involve, as I have said, the national security in many cases, or domestic welfare. They are asking us to choose between those programs and the tax cut. I think the best combination is the present figure that we have reached of our expenditure level plus the tax cut.,Now, if economic conditions warrant a speedup and the Congress believes it, I would accept that. But I don't think we ought to be under any misapprehension that when they talk about a speedy tax cut they are also talking about a decline in defense expenditures as well as space expenditures, as well as domestic. For example, a bill which I think is vital to this country, which is a bill to provide for building medical schools so we will have at least the same number of doctors in proportion to our population 10 years from now as we do today, is held up now in the Rules Committee seven to seven. I think that bill is very important, not so much for today, but 5 years from now, 10 years from now. It has the support of the doctors. We need doctors in this country. We don't have enough. They are reluctant to vote that out. It is tied seven to seven. I want this tax cut to stimulate the economy, but I also think we ought to have enough doctors. So I think the combination we've got is the best one.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, there have been some published suggestions that you have amended the Monroe Doctrine in your statements made at Costa Rica. Would you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have not heard that suggested and it isn't so. We did not amend the Monroe Doctrine in Costa Rica.,Q. Mr. President, at Costa Rica you agreed to support a number of projects for regional developments, but no figures, dollar figures, were mentioned in connection with any of them. Would you care to explain why we did not agree?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, because these countries are putting together an integrated economic plan, and they are then going to present it under the procedures of the Alliance for Progress at Punta del Este, to the Nine Wise Men, so called, who will then approve the plan. When the plan is approved, it will then be submitted to us, and we will, if it meets the conditions of self-help, reform, economic growth, and the rest, we will support it. What we have indicated to them is if their plan is sound, if they are making the necessary commitments themselves, the tax revenue, agrarian reform, and all the rest, and if it meets the approval of the Nine Wise Men, who are Latin Americans and North Americans, then we will support the plan. But I think we can decide what that figure of support will be better when we have seen the plan and gotten the approval. But we did not want to leave them in any doubt that they will have, and I think they should, our wholehearted support when the time comes. Anyone, as I have said, who has seen these countries and knows how much they want to do well, how vital they are, must feel that we should be of some help. We can't be satisfied to have the hard conditions of life which so many of them face. So we are going to support them, if the Congress agrees, but we first have to see the details of their plan.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to the TFX contract, would you describe your personal role, specifically? Did you make any suggestions as to who should get the contract?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I did not. No. This was completely the Defense Department.,Q. Mr. President, do you share the view of some officials in the Pentagon that members of the McClellan committee, particularly those up for reelection next year, may have been politically motivated in attacking the award to General Dynamics?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said, when a contract goes to one State, then the company may involve or the Senators may involve or the Congressmen want it to go to another. I would not get into that question, because I do not think that is the important point. I assume that the McClellan committee, on which I once served, will render a fair judgment.,Number 2, I am confident of the TFX contract because I am confident of Secretary McNamara. Therefore, as I've said, this hearing can go on as long as they feel it serves a useful result, and whatever the motivations may be--and I wouldn't attempt to explore them--I have confidence in the committee and the members involved.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, how do you explain the undue reluctance, it seems to me, in the large segment of Congress to support your domestic programs such as the support for medical schools, the youth service corps, and many of the other programs that you have advanced in order to help segments of our population?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the fact of the matter is the hospital plan came out of the committee and it came to the Rules Committee. In the Rules Committee, one of the members who supported the plan was sick, and so it came up for a vote. The five Republicans on the committee voted no. Judge Smith and Colmer, of Virginia and Mississippi, voted no. The seven Democrats voted yes. Mr. Madden was sick, so the bill is tied seven to seven. I hope he gets well. I hope he has an opportunity to vote on it again, and then maybe we will have some hospitals.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-03-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.,[1.] Important steps are being taken in the Congress this week with respect to three major parts of the administration's program and I want to take this opportunity to stress their importance to every American family.,First, hearings are being completed in both Houses on the youth employment opportunities bill, and I hope this measure can be enacted before the Easter recess. One million of our youths are out of school and out of work, creating an explosive social situation in nearly every community. This bill would put their hands to work, and minds, in our parks and forests, manning our hospitals and juvenile centers, and developing skills and work experience which will help them in later life.,Secondly, hearings have been completed in the House on our bill to train more physicians and dentists, to expand our medical colleges, and to provide loans to deserving students. With our population increasing every year, with the number of doctors and dentists in relation to that population increase deteriorating, it really seems a waste of our most valuable resources, which are our skills, to turn deserving young men and women away from our medical schools because they can't afford to go. We need them and we need their talents, and I hope this bill will pass.,Third, hearings begin in the Senate this week on our bills to combat mental illness and mental retardation. Almost every American family at some stage will experience or has experienced a case of mental affliction, and we have to offer something more than crowded custodial care in our State institutions. Our task is to prevent these conditions. Our next is to treat them more effectively and sympathetically, in the patients' own community. I hope the Congress will act on this bill.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, is it fair to assume from the language you used before the American Bankers symposium that, if necessary, if all else fails in Congress, you would accept a $13 1/2 billion tax cut without any reforms at all?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that isn't what I said. The program which we have sent up is the fairest and most equitable program, and the most fiscally responsible program. It provides for a combination of tax reduction and tax reform, and I think that a good many of the reforms make more equitable the tax reductions, make more equitable the burdens which the great mass of our taxpayers carry.,So that I think that the best program is the one we sent up which provides for $13 1/2 billion in tax reduction and $3 1/4 billion revenue in tax reform. I think that's the best combination. What we will do will depend of course on what kind of a bill the Congress enacts, but my judgment is that they will enact a tax reduction bill which will include important elements of the reforms that we sent up.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, can you say whether the four Americans who died in the Bay of Pigs invasion were employees of the Government or the CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say that there are a good many Americans in the last 15 years who've served their country in a good many different ways, a good many abroad. Some of them have lost their lives. The United States Government has not felt that it was helpful to our interest and particularly in the struggle against this armed doctrine with which we are in struggle all around the world to go into great detail.,Let me say just this about these four men: They were serving their country. The flight that cost them their lives was a volunteer flight and that while because of the nature of their work it has not been a matter of public record, as it might be in the case of soldiers or sailors, I can say that they were serving their country.\nAnd, as I say, their work was volunteer.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, on Monday Adrian Fisher of the Disarmament Agency said that even if the Russians were able to test underground indefinitely this would not alter the strategic military balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. He said this was the executive assessment. Given that assessment, can you tell us what considerations then would prevent accepting a test ban on the terms set by Russia?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think, if I may say so--in my opinion that is not what is the administration's position. We have suggested that we would not accept a test ban which would permit indefinite underground testing by the Soviet Union. We would not accept a test ban which did not give us every assurance that we could detect a series of tests underground. That's the administration's position. We wouldn't submit a treaty which did not provide that assurance to the United States Senate. Nor would the Senate approve it.,Q. You believe that the present insistence on seven will have to be maintained--is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that we will insist upon a test ban treaty which gives us assurance that if any country conducted a series of clandestine underground tests that that series would be detected.,Now we have not only the problem of the number of inspections, but the kinds of inspections, the circumstances under which the inspections would be carried out, so that we have a good deal of distance to go in securing an agreement with the Soviet Union. We've not been able to make any real progress on the question of the numbers, but I want to emphasize that this is only one phase of it. We have to also discuss what the area would be, in each test, what would be the conditions under which the inspectors would move in and out.,I want to say that we have made substantial progress, as a result of a good deal of work by the United States Government in recent years, in improving our detection capabilities. We have been able to determine that there are a substantially less number of earthquakes in the Soviet Union than we had formerly imagined. We have also been able to make far more discriminating our judgments from a long distance of what would be perhaps an atomic test and what would be an earthquake. But we have not been able to make those discriminations so effective that we can do without onsite inspections and without a sufficient number to prevent a series of tests being carded out which would be undetected. I can assure you that no agreement will be accepted which would permit any such conditions.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, the Republicans in Congress are saying they can cut your budget all the way from $5 billion to $15 billion. Do you think there is any room for substantial cuts in the budget?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Congress can make a judgment on that, but I think we reduced the requests of the three services by $13 billion, and we cut out the program such as Skybolt and we decided not to go ahead with the installation of Nike-Zeus. There are many very hard decisions made in reaching the figure that we reached.,Now, this idea that there are three services and therefore you can save $3 billion by cutting $1 billion out of each and at the same time when a good many members make speeches which are very militant, which would suggest that the solution to our problems can be best obtained by war actions or warlike actions, it doesn't seem to me that we ought to be cutting our defenses at this time.,Now, in addition to that, it's been suggested that we cut school lunches, that we cut aid to dependent children. I want to see these in more detail. I think we have been generalized enough. Are you going to cut these kinds of programs which are essential to a better life for our people? Are we going to make a determination that we are going to be permanently second-best in space? Because if you cut the space programs substantially, that's what you are writing into law, and I thought the United States made a commitment that we were not going to be second permanently. And we are not going to be second in the field of national security. The fact of the matter is the Congress last year appropriated half a billion dollars more than we had requested for national security. Now they are talking about cutting it $3 billion or $5 billion.,I don't think that the struggle is over. So I would be opposed to those kinds of cuts, and my judgment is that we sent up a hard budget. The fact of the matter is that the nondefense, non-space expenditures were held even, though in the previous years for the last 10 years or so they increased by nearly 7 percent.,I think we made a hard budget. Now you may be able to cut some of it. But I think that I want to know where they're going to cut it and whose life is going to be adversely affected by those cuts.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, three related questions: Do you have any accurate information on the number of Russian troops that have been removed from Cuba? Are you satisfied with the rate of troop removal? And was there in the Russian aide memoire any suggestion or provision for verification of troop removal?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the answer to your question would really be no to all of them. [Laughter],[7.] Q. Mr. President, your policies in Europe seem to be encountering great difficulties. Cuba continues to be a problem. At home unemployment is high. The school bill seems far off. There seems to be more concern in the country for a budget deficit than for a tax cut. In view of all these things there is some impression and talk in the towns and country that your administration seems to have lost its momentum and to be slowing down and moving on the defensive. I wonder if you could comment on this feeling in the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I've read that. There is a rhythm to personal and national and international life and it flows and ebbs. And I would say that we are still--we have a good many difficulties at home and abroad. And the Congress has not acted yet on the programs we've sent forward so that we are still in the gestation period in those areas. Some of our difficulties in Europe have come because the military threat to Europe is less than it has been in the past. In other words, whatever successes we may have had in reducing that military threat to Europe have brought with it in its wake other problems. And that is quite natural and inevitable. I prefer these problems to the other problems.,I think that in the summer of 1961-and of course this all may come again--we were calling up reserves in preparation for what might be a collision of major proportions between the Soviet Union and the United States in Berlin. I would say our present difficulties in Europe, while annoying in a sense, or burdensome, are not nearly as dangerous as they were then. As far as Cuba, it continues to be a problem. On the other hand there are advances in the solidarity of the hemisphere. I think we've made it clear that we will not permit Cuba to be an offensive military threat. I think that we are making some progress in other areas so that if you ask me whether this was the \"winter of our discontent\" I would say no. If you would ask me whether we were doing quite as well this winter as perhaps we were doing in the fall, I might say no, too.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday Governor Rockefeller charged that you had been appointing \"segregationist judges\" to the Federal bench in the South. Privately, some NAACP officials have said before that that they, too, had been critical of some of the judgeship appointments that you had made in the South, and that that had blunted a certain amount the aggressive stand that the executive branch had taken against segregation and race problems in the South. Will you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that some of the judges may not have ruled as I would have ruled in their cases. In those cases there is always a possibility for an appeal. On the whole, I believe--and this is not true just of this administration, but the previous administration--I think that the men that have been appointed to judgeships in the South, sharing perhaps as they do the general outlook of the South, have done a remarkable job in fulfilling their oath of office.,So I would not generalize. There may be cases where this is not true, and that is unfortunate. But I would say that on the whole it has been an extraordinary and very creditable record and I would say that of Federal judges generally that I have seen in the last--certainly in the last 10 years.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, of late some of your congressional critics have started to charge that your administration has been deliberately withholding important information on the Cuban situation. Among the claims that have been made is that your Central Intelligence chief, John McCone, actually knew before October 14th that the Soviets had planted offensive missiles in Cuba. Is there anything that you can say on this?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I've seen charges of all kinds. One day a distinguished Republican charges that it is all the CIA's fault, and the next day it is the Defense Department's fault, and the next day the CIA is being made a scapegoat by another distinguished leader. So that we could not possibly answer these charges, which come so fast and so furiously. Mr. Arerids 1 said the other day that the testimony by the Air Force before the committee indicated that we knew all about this October 10th, even though General LeMay 2 made it very clear in the same testimony that the Air Force didn't have such information. So we are not in a position to answer these.,1 Representative Leslie C. Arends of Illinois ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.,2 Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.,I think in hindsight, I suppose we could have always, perhaps, picked up these missile bases a few days earlier, but not very many days earlier, because the missiles didn't come in, at least in hindsight it now appears, until some time around the middle of September. The installations began at a later date. They were very fast, and I think the photography on the same areas, if we had known that missiles were going in, 10 days before might not have picked up anything. The week before might have picked up something. Even the pictures taken October 14th were only obvious to the most sophisticated expert. And it was not until the pictures taken really the 16th and 17th that you had pictures that would be generally acceptable. So this was a very clandestine and fast operation. So I feel that the intelligence services did a very good job. And when you think that the job was done, the missiles were discovered, the missiles were removed, the bombers were discovered, the bombers were removed, I don't think that anybody should feel that anything but a good job was done. I think we can always improve, and particularly with the advantage of hindsight. But I am satisfied with Mr. McCone, with the intelligence community and the Defense Department, and the job they did in those days particularly taken in totality.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, as you prepare for your visit to Costa Rica this month, there seems to be a position there among the Central American countries in Panama that the United States should take a more active leadership in attacking the problem of Cuba. I wonder if you could give us some of your thoughts about how you think this project should move along that you might find it possible to discuss with your colleagues there in San Jose?,THE PRESIDENT. Well one of the matters, of course, that is of interest to us is the question of the movement of people in and out who might be trained by the Communists in Cuba for guerrilla work or subversion in other parts of the hemisphere. This is an action which must be taken by each of the countries in Latin America. We are making proposals to them bilaterally. There has been an OAS Committee which has reported on the need for control. Now it's up to the Latin American countries, I would hope in common consultation as well as individually, to take those steps which will control the movement of people in and out. So we'll know who they are, why they're going, what happens to them when they get there, and when they're coming out, and what happens to them when they come out. This is the kind of thing which each country finally has to do itself because it is part of the element of sovereignty that the control of movement is within the country of citizenship, but we are bringing this to the attention of the Latin American countries as perhaps one of the most important things we can do this winter. In addition there have been other things which have been done on trade, diplomatic recognition, and all the rest. But I think we've indicated very dearly that what we feel is the wisest policy is the isolation of communism in this hemisphere. We would hope that the countries of Latin America with us will participate actively in that program.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, recognizing the interdependence of Canada and the United States and of course conscious that the current anti-American flare-up is about defense, are there any attempts being made to ease the irritations that are chronic, such as wheat surplus policy or the trade balance between the two countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on the wheat we're in constant communication with the Canadians and other wheat producers, that our disposal under P.L. 480 would not disturb their normal markets. In the question of trade balances, we were able to be of some assistance to Canada during its difficulties some months ago, on the Canadian dollar, with other countries, and I would hope that the United States and Canada would be able to--having been joined together by nature-would be able to cooperate.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, for 20 years the Justice Department has assured Congress that it had evidence showing that Interhandel was a cover for the German firm of I. G. Farben, and therefore the seizure of General Aniline and Film in this country during World War II was justified.,Now in the past few days there has been an agreement between Justice and Interhandel on the division of the proceeds from the sale of General Aniline. Has Justice Department discovered that its facts are wrong, or has there been, or is this the result of pressure from the Swiss Government?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would say that the agreement is an equitable agreement. It could have gone on 10 years more in the courts, and it has been now 15 or 20 years. The lawyers have enjoyed it, but I don't think that there is anything else--I don't think we would get a better arrangement if we continued the litigation for another 10 years. We feel that the arrangement which has been worked out will return the assets to those who have a claim to them, and I think the division of resources is fair.\nSo that I think it was the best solution.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, reports from Texas seem to indicate that the United States is ready to transfer the Chamizal to Mexico. If this is true, could you give us some idea of the timetable expected?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but there have been negotiations on Chamizal for a good many years, and they were stepped up following the visit to Mexico. We are close, I would hope, to an agreement, and I think that the next week should tell us whether we can get an accord. The advantage of course of the Chamizal is that if we can get a solution, is that it will wipe out a black mark in the record of the United States where we refused to accept an arbitration claim 40 years ago and as a result we have never been able to get the Mexicans to agree to any arbitration with us. So I am very anxious to see it settled, and we have made pretty good progress on it. There are still some questions that have to be settled but the prognosis I would think was hopeful, and I would think we would know in the next few weeks.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I have a two-prong question on the NATO nuclear force. First, can you tell us how goes the Merchant 1 mission? And secondly, the lack of enthu-,1 Livingston T. Merchant, Special Representative for NATO Multilateral Force Negotiations.,siasm, if we can believe the press, reflects a certain amount of public opinion in Europe as to the Polaris-armed surface force because of its alleged greater vulnerability as compared to the atomic submarine. Why haven't the proposals for a conventionally powered submarine force been put forth, a proposal which would not apparently annoy Congress as much as an atomic submarine and would cost only about half as much as the atomic submarine?,THE PRESIDENT. There are some people who are opposed in Europe to the multilateral concept because of national reasons. Now if we had come forward with a proposal for submarines, those submarines would have to be built in the United States. They would be quite expensive; they would take at least 2 years or so longer than this program would; there would be elements of control by the United States inevitably because of various technical reasons, and that system would have been under attack.,Now I think that if anyone will examine the argument between surface and submarine they will feel there's a good deal of merit to the surface argument. In the first place, the submarine is a very difficult weapon system to operate. We are going into what is really a unique experience, the multilateral manning. It's not easy to find merchant ships at sea. It took us more than a days to find that recent Venezuelan ship in the Caribbean. They are not easy to find. It took us longer to find the Portuguese ship some months ago. The ocean is a large ocean.,Now we are going to be part of that multilateral force. Can you imagine a situation where the Soviets could discover every one of these ships and mark them and then attack them, destroying the American flag and the Americans aboard and not expect that that would not launch a general conflagration which would include Polaris, Minuteman, and every other weapon which might be involved? That they could isolate this force which the United States was part of and expect that they could attack the surface ships successfully without any of these ships firing a missile and not initiate the use of all the nuclear weapons?,I just don't think that the logic is on the side. This way the ships can be built there; the force can be built more quickly; there is not a balance of payments drain; it's much easier to operate from the surface if you are going to have a multilateral force.,Now, number two, how goes the Merchant mission? In the first place, we have indicated that we would keep our commitments to Europe, and we have indicated that our atomic strength is sufficient to defend Europe and the United States and our other interests. There has been concern however in Europe about what might happen over a long period. So, in an attempt to meet that concern without providing for the ultimate distribution of nuclear weapons to every national entity which would increase the danger and increase the expense and not increase the security, this concept of a multilateral force was put forward. We are responding to European suggestions. And it may be that when the proposal is examined in detail they may not feel that it provides sufficient additional security to warrant the additional expenditures of money and may decide that the present arrangement is satisfactory. That, we, of course, would accept. But if they are interested in the multilateral force, if they feel the multilateral force does provide extra security, the United States wants to he responsive. We take the lead in this matter because we are the nuclear power and have had the nuclear experience. It may take some months of negotiation to determine whether such a force can come into being, but if there is a desire for it we are responsive to it. And that is why Ambassador Merchant is going because we feel this is a way of maintaining the close ties between Europe and the United States.,So I think that if we decide in the final analysis, or Europe decides that this isn't what they want, we would be glad to hear any other proposals and we would feel that the exploration itself has been interesting and useful, because if we had refused to cooperate, then the burden really would have been on us.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Leonard Farbstein has announced that he will introduce an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act which would give the President the right to deny aid to any nation that discriminates against American citizens because of race, creed, or color. How do you view this and would you exercise this mandate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would like to take a look at his language, and find out under what conditions it would give us this power, before I could comment on the amendment.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, former Ambassador Guillermo Belt, the Ambassador from Cuba to the United States in the old days, said in a lecture at Georgetown Visitation Convent last Sunday that Castro would not be able to survive 2 weeks if he was denied Soviet oil. I wonder if there isn't something that you can do about this, or maybe bring greater pressure on some of our allies who are shipping Soviet oil in their ships to Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but those are not our figures. There isn't any doubt that over a long period of time that denial of oil would make a difference. To deny the oil would require, of course, a blockade, and a blockade is an act of war, and you should be prepared to go for it. I think we indicated last October that in periods where we considered the United States was in danger, we were prepared to go as far as was needed to remove that danger, and we would, of course, be willing always to do so again, if we felt there was a situation which carried with it that kind of danger to the United States.,But you should not be under any impression that a blockade is not an act of war, because when a ship refuses to stop, and you then sink the ship, there is usually a military response by the country involved. We are attempting to persuade NATO and other countries not to ship into Cuba, but the primary source of shipments into Cuba are bloc ships, and at this time we do not believe that war in the Caribbean is to the national advantage.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, it is 10 years now since the death of Stalin, and it's a fact ironically noted much more in the Western World than the Communist world. Could you give us your appraisal, sir, of the significance of the changes in the Soviet Union in terms of the future, of the East-West relations in this period of time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that it would take at least a half hour program on a national network, and I couldn't comment on that. [Laughter],[18.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday U.N. Secretary General U Thant received a letter from the Cuban Foreign Minister in which he hinted that the Cubans might like to discuss the resumption of friendly relations with us. I wonder if you think that this might be possible, and if so, what conditions would have to be met first?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I understand the note had some reference to it from Havana but the note actually delivered at the U.N. did not have any such references. We have had no indication that there's a desire to resume friendly relations to us. We have said on many occasions that we regard the present Soviet presence in Cuba as unacceptable to us and we regard the communization of Cuba and the attempt to subvert the hemisphere as matters which are not negotiable. I don't see any evidence that there is in prospect a non-realization of relations between Cuba and the United States.,[19.] Q. The length of your joint communique with the President of Venezuela, you say \"The President of the United States pledges the full support of his country to the Republic of Venezuela,\" et cetera. Could you tell us something about the nature of that full support in case there was a serious or a successful coup d'etat revolution against President Betancourt?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it would depend a good deal on the conditions and what our obligations might be under the Rio treaty. We strongly support President Betancourt's efforts in Venezuela in a good number of ways. But if you are asking me, I would have to see what the conditions were, what the responsibilities were under the Rio treaty, the OAS, if we knew we were going into a more substantial situation. If you are talking about aggression from outside, the answer is very clear. If you are talking about internal acts, we would have to judge those acts and depend a good deal on what the Government of Venezuela decided was the appropriate response.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, I think you've had a preliminary or tentative meeting with the Clay 1 committee on foreign aid. Can you tell us whether they're taking that hard and hardheaded look at foreign aid that you asked them to when you appointed them?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, they are, very definitely.,1 Gen. Lucius D. Clay, Chairman, Committee to Strengthen the Security of the Free World.,Q. Mr. President, the Mansfield committee, sent at your suggestion to the Far East and Europe, has recommended a thorough security reassessment in the Far East and a clamp down, if not a reduction in our aid to that part of the world.2 Would you have any comment on this, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see how we are going to be able, unless we are going to pull out of Southeast Asia and turn it over to the Communists, how we are going to be able to reduce very much our economic programs and military programs in South Viet-Nam, in Cambodia, in Thailand.,2 See \"Viet-Nam and Southeast Asia,\" Report of Senators Mike Mansfield, J. Caleb Boggs, Claiborne Pell, Benjamin A. Smith to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, committee print, 88th Congress, 1st session (Government Printing Office, 1963, 22 pp.).,I think that unless you want to withdraw from the field and decide that it is in the national interest to permit that area to cob lapse, I would think that it would be impossible to substantially change it particularly, as we are in a very intensive struggle in those areas.,So I think we ought to judge the economic burden it places upon us as opposed to having the Communists control all of Southeast Asia with the inevitable effect that this would have on the security of India and, therefore, really begin to run perhaps all the way toward the Middle East. So I think that while we would all like to lighten the burden, I don't see any real prospect of the burden being lightened for the U.S. in South. east Asia in the next year if we are going to do the job and meet what I think are very clear national needs.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-02-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] I have sent to the Congress today a message on the needs of our 17 1/2 million senior citizens. The number of people in this country age 65 and over increases by 1,000 every day, as science prolongs the life span. But it is not enough for a great nation merely to add to the years of life. Our object also must be to add new life to those years. I have recommended a reduction in the taxes of older citizens by nearly $800 million, an increase in social security and old-age assistance protection, and new efforts in employment, housing, education, recreation, and community service.,My most important recommendation is a revised hospital insurance program for senior citizens under social security. Only 10 to 15 percent of the health costs of senior citizens today are reimbursed by private insurance. Hospital costs have quadrupled since the war, and now average more than $35 a day. And since a great many retired workers have little more than $70 a month on social security, prospects of the usual two or three bouts in the hospital after age 65 confronts them with an impossible choice. They either have to ask their children or grandchildren to undergo financial hardship or accept poverty and charity themselves, or suffer their illness in silence. I think this Nation can do better than that. Social security has shown for 28 years that it is a logical first line of defense in this field.,The revised bill would give every individual the option of selecting the kind of hospital insurance protection that will be most consistent with his budget and health outlook, to be administered without any interference with medical practices, much as Blue Cross is administered today.,It would include a special provision for those who do not have social security coverage. I feel very deeply that this legislation should be enacted this year if we are to fulfill our responsibilities as a great free society.,[2.] There is one other statement I wish to make. The New York newspaper strike is now in its 75th day. The situation has long since passed the point of public toleration. The essence of free collective bargaining in this country is a sense of responsibility and restraint by both sides, not merely an effort by one side or the other to break those who sit across the bargaining table from them.,It is clear in the case of the New York newspaper strike that the Local of the International Typographical Union and its president, Bertram Powers, insofar as anyone can understand his position, are attempting to impose a settlement which could shut down several newspapers in New York and throw thousands out of work. Collective bargaining has failed. The most intensive mediation has failed. This is a situation which is bad for the union movement all over the country, bad for the newspaper management's and bad for the New York citizens, more than five million of them, who are newspaper readers.,In my view, one solution to this prolonged strike, if no immediate progress is made, would be for the striking printers, companies, and other involved unions, to submit their differences to independent determination of some kind. I cannot see any other alternative which at present would bring about a solution to this critical labor dispute which has already had a vital effect on the economic life of this great city of New York.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, could you elaborate on what is meant by \"all necessary action\" to prevent attacks on our shipping by Cuba-based planes? 1,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I have asked the Department of Defense to make any necessary revisions in standing orders so as to insure that action will be taken against any vessel or aircraft which executes an attack against a vessel or aircraft of the United States over international waters in the Caribbean.,1 Shortly before the news conference the Press Secretary to the President had read the following statement to the reporters:,\"A strong protest has been sent forward through diplomatic channels against an attack by Cuban aircraft on an unarmed American fishing vessel. The United States Government will expect a full explanation from Cuba. Orders have been given to the armed forces to take all necessary action against any repetition of such an attack.\",Q. Mr. President, in the same vein, taking your announcement about the message from the Russians on removal of some of their troops and this incident involving the fishing boat which has produced some very loud reaction in Congress, including Speaker McCormack saying it is an act of aggression, Senator Russell advocating a \"hot pursuit\" policy, these two things together, how does it affect the net situation with Cuba? Are we better off or worse?,THE PRESIDENT. Better off or worse than when? Yesterday?,Q. Than before the Russian message was received or before this fishing boat incident.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know whether these two incidents can be--these two matters can be that clearly linked. I think that we are very interested in seeing the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Cuba and we'll be watching the progress that's made in that area over the next 3 weeks.,I don't think we know the full reasons behind this attack on this vessel, whether it was a deliberate decision by the Cuban Government or a decision by the pilots involved. In any case, I think we made it very clear what our response will be and we would hope that this response would make any future attacks such as this unlikely.,Q. Mr. President, does the fact that the note of protest was sent to the Cuban Government mean that the United States Government holds the Cubans accountable for the use of Mig's instead of the Russians?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. These planes came from Cuba and flew under a Cuban flag and, therefore, unless the Soviet Union should claim that they were flying them, we would hold the Cubans responsible.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, the USIA is keeping secret so far the prestige polls about United States prestige abroad, which you referred to last week. Do you think that is justified or might you direct them to release those polls?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't--there are only--there are some polls which would probably be not in our interest to release. They really go to the polls which may have been taken which involve the personalities of other countries, policies of other countries, which might provide some diplomatic embarrassment. There is no poll involving the standing of the United States or the standing of any political figure in the United States that would be embarrassing to release.,We are, I think, going to have a--USIA is going to have a conversation with Congressman Moss, and also with the ranking minority member, and go over the polls. If it seems to be--these polls will be available to any Member of Congress. Most of them could be released at any time.,There are several which would be unwise to release, but which do not involve the prestige of the United States. So that I think that at periodic intervals we will be able to release really all polls unless they involve directly the interests of the United States. I would not think that any poll dealing with the prestige of the United States would involve such an interest, so we would be glad to release those at periodic intervals.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, today's incident has caused some people in Congress again to say that the rocket-firing proves that the Soviet weapons in Cuba are not defensive. Will this incident cause the administration to reevaluate its definition between offensive and nonoffensive weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think we made that very clear. When we are talking about offensive weapons, we are talking about weapons which have the capacity to carry great damage in the United States, bombers, particularly missiles. A Mig, with its rather limited range, is not regarded ordinarily as an offensive weapon, and the attack which took place on this vessel, which was lying in the water and which did not, as I understand, carry any flag, was relatively--it was 40 miles or so off the coast of Cuba. I don't think that that changes our definition.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the hospital plan that you just discussed, of course, failed of passage in the 87th Congress. What do you think its chances of passage are in this current session of Congress; and also, how willing are you to enter some sort of compromise with those Republicans who are in favor of a hospital plan to help its passage?,THE PRESIDENT. There were five Republicans last year who joined with Senator Anderson, and they have introduced a bill which is comparable to the Anderson bill of last year. I would hope that it would be 'possible for the Members of the Congress, regardless of party, to support the program. Now, it failed. A change of one Senator would have passed it last year. I would hope that this year it could pass the Senate. It has the problem of coming out of the Ways and Means Committee.,I think it has a good chance this year, and I would hope that Members on both sides would support it. I think it's a vital piece of legislation. As I say, the people who really have the most to win in this matter are not only those who are over 65, but also their children who support them, and who must also educate their children at the same time. If an adult is sick for a prolonged period of time, and I know very few people who have not had some experience with this, they have some understanding how quickly these bills can mount up. So I think we might get the bill by this year.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell has been in the news quite a bit recently. Much of the publicity has been evoked by an attack on him by Senator Williams of Delaware on the floor of the Senate. There have also been published reports that his activities are embarrassing to the White House. Number 1, since you are a former Member of the Senate, what do you think of the propriety of Senator Williams' attack on Mr. Powell; number 2, are the activities of Mr. Powell embarrassing to the White House; and number 3, as President of the United States, what is your assessment of him as a Congressman and as a Negro leader?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not comment on the dispute between Senator Williams and Congressman Powell. Congressman Powell has proved in his life that he is well able to take care of himself. [Laughter],Number 2, I have not been embarrassed by Congressman Powell.,Number 3, I would not attempt to rank Congressmen. What I am most interested in is the passage of legislation which is of benefit to the people. I thought last year that committee did a good job, in the House Education and Labor Committee, in passing out bills which were very useful--minimum wage, the education bill. I would hope we would have the same kind of record this year.,I think that is the best answer to any attacks. And I hope the chairman holds that same view.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would it be possible to say, in the event of future attacks upon our shipping in the Caribbean, whether we would turn to the doctrine of hot pursuit?,THE PRESIDENT. I would prefer to leave our status as I have described it, and to make judgments as they come along. We've made it very clear now that the United States will take action against any vessel or plane which attacks our planes or vessels. But the details of those standing engagements, I think, can wait on events. But there will be an initial response. How far the pursuit would go, and all the rest, is a matter which I think the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, we all might consider as the situation develops, and as we see whether today's action was an isolated incident, the result of a pilot decision, or was a deliberate decision by the Cuban Government which forecasts other attacks. I would think when we have got a clearer pattern, then we could make a judgment on whether hot pursuit should be carried out to the shores of Cuba.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the practice of managed news is attributed to your administration. Mr. Salinger says he has never had it defined. Would you give us your definition, and tell us why you find it necessary to practice it?,THE PRESIDENT. You are charging us with something, Mrs. Craig,1 and then you are asking me to define what it is you are charging me with. I think that you might--let me just say we've had very limited success in managing the news, if that's what we have been trying to do. Perhaps you would tell us what it is that you object to in our treatment of the news.,2Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald,.,Q. Are you asking me, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Well, I don't believe in managed news at all. I thought we ought to get everything we want.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that you should, too, Mrs. Craig. I am for that. [Laughter],[10.] Q. Mr. President, spokesmen for the Indian Government said today India will ask the United States, Britain, Australia, and Canada to provide air defenses in the event that they are attacked by Chinese Communist aircraft. Would you tell us how you feel about this air support to India, and under what circumstances we would give it?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, there was an original request made in November, and then the British Government and the United States Government have sent a mission out at the present time to explore this matter of air security with the Indian Government. The mission has not completed its task or made recommendations. We are anxious to help India maintain itself against an attack, if such an attack should come again, and I think it's a matter which we ought to explore with the Indians in the next 4 or 5 weeks. India is a key area of Asia--500,000,000 people. It was attacked without warning after trying to follow a policy of friendship with countries on its border. We will find ourselves, I think, severely--the balance of power in the world would be very adversely affected if India should lose its freedom. So we will be responsive to India, when we have a clearer idea of what the challenge is and what their desires are, and what our capabilities are. But we don't have that now and won't have it until the joint mission comes back.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, does the fact that Secretary Wirtz, just a few days ago, informed the AFL-CIO Executive Council that the administration would not object to a negotiated 35-hour week represent a change in policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have only seen the newspaper report because Mr. Wirtz has been on an island in Florida, and so I haven't had a chance to talk with him. I think he made it clear that we were opposed to a change in the 40-hour week by statute.,I would be very reluctant to see any change by negotiation of the 40-hour week to a 35-hour week if it was going to substantially increase the cost, the labor cost, per unit of Production, if it was going to make it more difficult for us to compete abroad, if it was going to launch an inflationary spiral of wages and prices in the United States. So I would prefer to wait until I have a chance to see Mr. Wirtz' statement in detail. My Own position is opposed to the 35-hour week.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, just before Senator Humphrey left Geneva, he said that unless a nuclear test agreement were in final stages of preparation by April, that mankind might lose forever this unique opportunity for agreement. Do you think that April should be more or less the deadline month which will determine whether the Soviets ever intend to agree to this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think April 1st in the sense of sort of an ultimatum. I would hope that we would have progress by April 1st, but that's 5 weeks away. There are a good many detailed matters to be settled. I would think by springtime we should know whether the Soviet Union is willing to make those arrangements which can provide for a satisfactory test. But I wouldn't put down the date and say by this date we will know finally.,We've been on this business for 15 years. I must say that a good many people are opposed to this effort which is being directed by Mr. Foster in Geneva, and quite obviously it's a matter which we should approach with a good deal of care. But the alternative, if we fail, of increasing the number of nuclear powers around the world over the next 5, 10, 15, or 20 years, that alternative which I think is so dangerous keeps me committed to the effort of trying to get a test ban treaty. I think it's what motivates Mr. Foster and others who have been involved in this for many months. There are, of course, critical areas which must be very carefully defined. But I think people who attack the effort should keep in mind always that the alternative is the spread of these weapons to governments which may be irresponsible, or which by accident may initiate a general nuclear conflagration. So we are going to keep at it if not by April 1st, beyond April 1st.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, as I understand it, the New York printers are very firmly opposed to arbitration as you suggested. Do you see the need of legislation in strikes like the New York and Cleveland strikes, in the public interest?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't suggested-I tried to use a different phrase rather than arbitration, because of the traditional position of the printers against arbitration. But I did suggest a third party might be able to play abridging role.,I don't think that today we ought to consider compulsory arbitration. As I have said before, this is a matter which involves a community, a city; it's not a national issue, it doesn't affect the national health and safety. And I think the best solution is for the union to demonstrate a sense of responsibility and not merely try to carry this to its final ultimate of cracking the publishers, because if they do it they will close down some papers and I think will hurt their employment possibilities themselves.,I think the best thing now is to see if we can get a third party in who can move perhaps a step beyond mediation but still perhaps not to the final step of arbitration which, as you say, historically they have been unwilling to accept.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there is obviously quite a strong opposition in Congress and in some segments of the country to your tax .program. Yet you've made it quite plain that you consider the economic stimulus of that program to be very important to the economic future. Well, now, in the event that the program is cut down to the point where that stimulus would not be forthcoming, what alternatives are there, or in preparation, and would these include a large increase in public spending?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that we have a number of programs which we've sent up since the first of the year--retraining and youth employment and all of the rest-which will be of help, but I think the most useful thing can be the kind of tax cut that we've suggested.,I quite agree that it ought to be large enough to do the job, and I think that the expenditures which we're now making, plus the proposed tax cut, plus the revisions, I think will give us a stimulus to prevent the kind of downturn I talked about last week.,My judgment is we're going to get the tax cut. There isn't any doubt that the NAM want a tax cut of a certain kind, the AFLCIO want another one, and CED want a different kind, some economists want another kind, but at least there is a consensus there should be a tax cut.,There is a majority support, in my opinion, among those who are closest to the economy who understand it the most, there should be a tax cut.,What they are arguing about is who should get the cut and how it should be divided, but I think the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can deal with that task. I believe we're going to get a tax cut because I think the argument is overwhelming in favor of it, and those who oppose it would have to take the responsibility for any deterioration in the economy which might come about over the next months--or rather years, because the prospects still look good for the economy now-but would have to take the responsibility. And I would think that they would be reluctant to take that responsibility in view of the pattern of the economy in the late fifties.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on our recurring difficulties with Haiti?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but it is a very critical situation in Haiti.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, now that the Soviets apparently have agreed to remove some of their troops from Cuba, do you feel that you should press for the removal of the remainder of the Russian troops in view of the fact that if they leave without their weapons, that these weapons will fall into the hands of the Cubans themselves?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, I would think that--we have indicated very dearly that we would find it difficult to accept with equanimity a situation which continued Soviet troop presence in Cuba. I think we have made that very clear. Now there has been, as I have said, a series of withdrawals of missiles, planes, and some men. We have to wait and see now in the coming months, and we will continue to work on the matter as we have over the last 4 months.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you met with New England and Western Senators about a month ago and promised them an answer on their request that you impose further restrictions on imports of wool textiles. Have you reached that decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have discussed the problem of wool imports increasing from about 17 percent up to 21 or 22 percent, and then the danger of going to 25 percent. This is a matter of concern.,On the other hand, the countries which are exporting to the United States are very anxious to maintain this market. I get periodic meetings from chicken growers who are anxious for us to provide a free flow of chickens into Western Europe, and from other Members of Congress who are anxious for us to prevent a free flow of textiles into the United States, others who wish us not to limit the importation of oil, and others who wish us to encourage the exports of various other things into the market.,It's quite difficult to get a balance, but that's what we're attempting to do. Governor Herter is working on it. We are attempting in this rather varied economy, with interest, some of which wish to encourage exports, some of which wish to diminish imports, we are attempting to get a fair balance. Quite obviously we cannot have it all our way, just exports without accepting some imports. Woolens, however, are a particularly sensitive problem. This administration had conversations last year about woolens which have made us anxious to see if we can limit. We are in touch with the various governments. It's rather a difficult time now, however, because of the British not getting into the Common Market, which has made them more sensitive about their export markets.,In addition, we have some difficulties with the Japanese over cotton textiles. So that so far we have not been successful, but it is a matter which Governor Herter is talking about a good deal.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, some French newspapers seem to be convinced that there is a quid pro quo arrangement between Washington and Moscow on removal of troops and other matters. Could you indicate what sort of diplomatic leverage this Government has used to bring about the troop withdrawal?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think on November 6th, in a letter to Mr. Khrushchev, I indicated that the continued presence of troops, as well as the bombers, was a matter of great concern to us. And he wrote back, as I said before, in November, saying that in due course or in due time that he planned to remove those troops which were necessary to the defense of the offensive weapons.,We have been back to him on this matter several times, most recently by Mr. Rusk and Mr. Dobrynin, and Saturday Mr. Dobrynin gave the message which has been already announced. So that we've kept at it, indicating that we believe it creates tension in the Caribbean and also makes it more difficult for us to adjust our other problems between the Soviet Union and the United States as long as this is being used as a military base by the Soviet Union.,Q. Mr. President, would you please give us a picture of the current economic condition of Cuba and how much of an Achilles' heel it might present currently to the Castro regime?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think they've had a bad economic situation. It's costing at least $1 million a day for the Soviet Union to sustain the economy. The sugar crop has not been very good, even though the world price of sugar is up. They have other economic difficulties. It is not in my opinion an ornament of the Communist system. And those in Latin America who may have been attracted at the beginning by whatever plan that Mr. Castro had I should think would be disillusioned by the economic deterioration which has taken place in the island, and which is obscured to some degree by Soviet subsidies.,Q. Mr. President, you indicated in answer to a previous question that you have told Mr. Khrushchev that it would be difficult to solve other problems until we have the Cuban problem settled. I wonder if you could tell us what other problems may be solved after the Cuban problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've got a good many matters which are of concern to us. I didn't put it quite that way. But there are a good many matters involving disarmament and all the rest, matters which we're now in conversation with, and quite obviously what happens in Cuba affects our ability to work out equitable arrangements with them. You can go all around the world, and the Soviet Union and the United States are in discussion or in disagreement, beginning with Laos, and all the way through Europe, Latin America, and other places, in space and on the ground and underground.,Q. Would you think Berlin would be a problem that could be settled, and if so, perhaps how?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know whether an equitable solution can be worked out in Berlin. We don't know. That's a matter which has been considered, and as you know, we've had over the past 2 years exploratory talks to see whether serious negotiations could be undertaken. But we have never found that these talks have indicated that there was a basis for an accord about Berlin.,At the present time this question of further exploratory talks has come up, and we are now considering whether there is a satisfactory basis for negotiations. I make a distinction between the talks and negotiations, but we've not been able to reach any understanding with the Soviet Union on some of the basic principles which we believe-accepted by them--which we believe essential for the maintenance of the viability of the city.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us how the Nassau Pact jibes with the new reports that are making the rounds now about a surface fleet of NATO nuclear weapons? And can you tell us whether there is any difference in the difficulty it might be for you to get permission from the Congress to share either the warheads or the nuclear-propelled shipping?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the principle of the Nassau accord would carry whether it was a submarine or a surface ship. There are technical advantages and disadvantages to both. The surface fleet could be probably more easily multination manned; it would come sooner. It would not involve a balance of payments loss for the countries which would be involved, as the ships could be built there as well as here. So this is a matter which Mr. Merchant will be discussing with them.,Q. But, Mr. President, I mean on the matter of getting permission from the Congress, would not the Congress have to approve American warheads--,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Congress should approve any arrangement which is made, which is as important as this, whether it's a submarine or whether it's a surface ship. In my judgment this matter should be submitted to the Congress, to the Senate, and we would plan to do so, because regardless of any legislative limitations, I think it's an important matter which the Congress should have a chance to give its views on.,Q. Mr. President, what basis do you have for your belief that a test ban treaty would inhibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and if you got a test ban treaty, how would this be used in the case of France?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in my judgment, the major argument for the test ban treaty is the limiting effect it might have on proliferation. Quite obviously, if it did not have that effect, then the treaty would be abrogated, and any treaty would so state that either side would have the right to abrogate the treaty if proliferation resulted.,Now, on the question of France, France has been recognized as a nuclear power by the Soviet Union. It would be up to the Soviet Union to make a judgment as to what action they would take on the treaty, if France continued to test. This is a matter which we will have to discuss with the Soviet Union. In addition, we are concerned about other countries testing, so that we would have to--the Soviet Union and the United States and Great Britain would have to make a judgment as to the position of France, after consultation with France, and would also make a judgment as to what action we might take if other countries tested. There is no guarantee, if we sign a nuclear test ban, that it will end proliferation. It is, however, our feeling that the Soviet Union would not accept a test ban unless they shared our view that proliferation was undesirable. And it might be a weight in the scale against proliferation, and I so regard it.,Now we are quite far apart on the details of a test ban treaty. Even if we get the test ban treaty, it may not have the desired effect, but in my opinion it's very much worthwhile making the effort and we will continue to do so.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the action of the Cuban Mig's in firing on this two-man shrimp boat, is the Government making an inquiry as to the possibility that this may have been the fate of the Sulphur Queen, the industrial tanker which left Beaumont on the 2d of February and has not been heard from since the 3d of February?,THE PRESIDENT. We've no information that that is the reason. Certainly, we would examine it, but we have no information.,Q. Mr. President, Secretary McNamara, I believe, has testified that we have intelligence that in Russia they have hidden missiles in hard stands underground. Have you explored the possibility that perhaps we might have those in similar sites in Cuba that would not show up in the aerial reconnaissance?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Secretary McNamara, himself, stated that he felt beyond a reasonable doubt that that situation did not exist.,Q. Mr. President, the Defense Department announcement on the incident in the Florida Straits said simply that the Mig's fired near the shrimp boats.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. And you used the term \"attack.\" Did these Mig's attack the boat and miss or did they harass the boat?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a--I don't think we have the answer to that question. I think the shots came within--what? 40 yards of the boat? I would think, if you are on the boat, that is regarded as an attack, and whether they were trying to hit the boat or whether they were merely attempting to target practice--all these things, I think, we will have to look at in the next day or so.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-02-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have a preliminary statement.,[1.] I have sent to the Congress today a special message on legislative measures affecting our Nation's youth, stressing in particular the administration's bill to promote youth employment opportunities. This measure, which I hope will be among the first to be considered by both Houses, is urgently needed. A number of young people in the potential labor market age group will increase in this decade nearly 15 times as fast as it did in the 1950's. Seven and one-half million students are expected to drop out of school during the sixties, without a high school education, entering the labor market unprepared for anything much other than unskilled labor, and there are fewer of these jobs all the time. Young men and women no longer in school constitute already 18 percent of our total unemployment, although they comprise only 7 percent of the labor force. These figures reflect a serious national problem. Idle youth on our city streets create a host of problems.,The youth employment opportunities act will give many thousands of currently unemployed young people a chance to find employment, to be paid for their services, and to acquire skills and work experience. It will give them a solid start in their work in life.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, when you submitted your tax plan in the 1964 budget with its 11.9 deficit, you anticipated a certain amount of resistance to it. Walter Heller, however, says that some of this opposition comes from what he calls the basic puritan ethic of the American people. Do you think the time has come to abandon or at least update this puritan ethic he speaks of?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that people are concerned about the size of the debt, and I am, and I think they're concerned about the deficit. But what I am most concerned about is the prospect of another recession.,Now, a recession is what would give us a massive deficit. I have already pointed out that in 1958 President Eisenhower thought he was going to have a half billion dollar surplus. At the end of the 1958 recession he had a $12 1/2 billion deficit, the largest peacetime deficit in the history of this country.,We had another recession in 1960, which also increased our deficit. Now we have had an increase since the winter of 1961 in our economy. I am anxious, however, not to see a slide into another recession. In 1958, a recession, in 1960, a recession; the large deficit will come if we move into another recession.,And, in my judgment, the best argument and the one which was most effective as far as I was concerned was that the reduction in taxes was an effort to release sufficient purchasing power and was an effort to stimulate investment so that any downturn in business would be lessened in its impact and could be possibly postponed.,Now, if we don't have the tax cut, it substantially, in my opinion, increases the chance of a recession, which will increase unemployment, which will increase the size of our deficit. So that's what it comes down to. And I think that with the record we have had in the last 5 years of over 5 percent .unemployment, two recessions, I think the Important thing for us to do is prevent another one. Therefore, I think the tax cut should be looked at not as a method of making life easier, because if that were the only issue I think we would all be willing to pay our taxes to keep our economy going. But the tax cut argument rests with the desire to stimulate the economy and prevent a recession which will cost us the most-domestically, internationally--on our budget and on our balance of payments.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the review of U.S. policy toward Europe, I wonder if you're even thinking about cutting down on the number of troops in Europe or adopting any measures of economic or political reprisal against President de Gaulle.,THE PRESIDENT. No. In answer to your second question, definitely not.,In answer to the first question, as you know we have withdrawn over a period of some months some logistic forces, but we've kept our combat troops constant and, in addition, their equipment has been improved. We still have our six divisions and plan to maintain them until there is a desire on the part of the Europeans that they be withdrawn, and we've had no indications from any country in Europe that there is such a desire. If there was, of course, we would respond to it. They are there to help defend Europe and the West, not because we desire to keep them there for any purpose immediately of our own.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, back on taxes, I realize it's too quick to make a precise reading on the fate of your tax reform and tax cut bill in the Congress, but there seems to be unusual resistance, not only to the tax reform, but several Senators and Congressmen are telling reporters that their constituents show a resistance to tax cuts. And then today, the administration received another setback in the defeat of the attempt to increase the size of the Senate Finance Committee.,Taking all these things together, could you give an assessment of how you think the bill is going to do; and, secondly, could you say whether you think it may be necessary for you to carry the problem to the people directly in a series of speeches or something of that kind?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's a hard fight. The tax reform cuts across some of the most dearly held rights of any of our citizens. Some of them have been written into law, partly as a balance to rather high tax rates--in fact, very high tax rates. It's hard to get them changed.,Tax reform is, of course, a wonderful principle, but when you begin to write it in detail, it becomes less attractive. But we are talking about a $13.5 billion tax cut, with about 3 billion, 2 or 3 hundred million which would be recouped by the reform. In addition, we would find ourselves with a better balanced tax system and one which would be more effective for the economy. If we're not able to get the tax reform which we had suggested, there probably would be adjustments made in the overall reductions.,But I must say I recommend this because I think it's in the best interests of the economy of the country. In 1954 there was a tax reduction. Within a year the economy had been sufficiently stimulated that there were higher revenues at the lower tax rates than there had been the year before.,We have a tax system that was written, in a sense, during wartime to restrain growth. Now if you continue it, this country will inevitably move into a downturn and I would think our experience of '58 and '60 indicates that something has to be done. And in my opinion, the most effective thing that can be done at this time is our tax program.,Now, those who are opposed to the tax program should consider what the alternative is. And I think it's a restricted economic growth, higher unemployment. If we fail to do something about unemployment and begin to move into a downturn, higher unemployment, there'11 be increased pressures for a 35-hour week as a method of increasing employment, and I think it would be far more costly in the long run to the Government and to the economy to defeat our bill. I think it ought to be approached that way.,What alternative does anyone have for increasing and maintaining economic growth in view of the large deficit of 1958 and in view of two recessions, in 1958 and 1960? Our plan to prevent a recession this year and the years to come is our tax bill and I think the Congress, I hope the Congress will adopt it. And I think the country, those who oppose it, should consider very carefully what they will have as far as economic growth for this country if it is defeated.,Now we can take it to the people, as I am today, and on other occasions, and do the best We can.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, a number of Republicans have questioned the qualifications of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., to be Under Secretary of Commerce. Would you like to answer them?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. They questioned the qualifications of his father to be President, and I think that Mr. Roosevelt--I am hopeful will be confirmed. I wouldn't have sent him up there unless I felt that he would be a good Under Secretary. I served with him in the Congress, and I am for him strongly. I hope the Senate confirms him.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of talk between Europe and here about interdependence and about partnership. Is this Government at the stage of making the decision in fact to share command and control of nuclear forces with our European allies?,THE PRESIDENT. We are, as you know, putting forward and have suggested a multilateral force as well as a multinational force, which will, I think, substantially increase the influence that the Europeans have in the atomic field. It is a very difficult area because the weapons have to be fired in 5 minutes, and who is going to be delegated on behalf of Europe to make this judgment? If the word comes to Europe or comes any place that we're about to experience an attack, you might have to make an instantaneous judgment. Somebody has to be delegated with that authority. If it isn't the President of the United States, in the case of the strategic force, it will have to be the President of France or the Prime Minister of Great Britain, or someone else. And that is an enormous responsibility. The United States has carried that responsibility for a good many years, because we have placed a major effort in developing a strategic force. I said in my State of the Union address that we put as much money into our strategic force as all of Europe does for all of its weapons.,Now, it's quite natural that Western Europe would want a greater voice. We are trying to provide that greater voice through a multilateral force. But it's a very complicated negotiation because, as I say, in the final analysis, someone has to be delegated who will carry the responsibility for the alliance. We hope, through the multilateral system, through the multinational system, that we can provide Europe with a more authoritative position, a greater reassurance that these weapons will be used with care for the defense of Europe. I am hopeful that the negotiations which will be carried out by Mr. Merchant will have that effect, but I think we deal, because of the time problem which I just mentioned, we deal with a very difficult problem.,Q. If I may just follow up, would you expect to have the U.S. position clarified and nailed down before the NATO ministers meeting in Ottawa in the spring?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right. Mr. Merchant will be going ahead in about 10 days and begin discussions in Europe of a more detailed kind.,I just want to point out that because of the enormity of the weapon and because of the circumstances under which it might be fired, there is no answer which will provide reassurance under the most extreme conditions for everyone. We feel, however, that with what we now have and what we are ready to propose, carrying out the Nassau proposal, that additional assurances can be given which we believe will--which we hope will satisfy the Europeans. Now, if it doesn't, then we will be prepared to consider any other proposals that might be put forward. But in the case, for example, of France, we are not talking in that case of a European nuclear force. We are talking about a French nuclear force. So that to make it a European force would require substantial Political developments in Europe. That time might come and if it does, we would be glad to consider joining with them or cooperating with them in any system which they might wish to develop.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports from London that the United States and the Soviet Union are about to resume discussions on a Berlin settlement. What could you tell us about that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no conclusion has been reached on that. As you know, we have had a series of talks over the last 2 years, which have not been promising enough to lead to negotiations, and we have had--no decision has yet been reached by the alliance as to whether exploratory talks will be resumed, or whether the conditions would be such that they would have some hope of advancing the common interest. So in answer to your question, this matter has not been determined.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, what do you consider the major problems and their priorities right now within the Atlantic alliance, in view of General de Gaulle's veto?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's the military problem which we have just discussed, and also the economic problem. Those are the two, and they're both important and I would not rate a priority. Economic problems, maintaining trade, maintaining a cohesive economy between the Western Europeans and ourselves, providing for development of orderly markets, and perhaps most important, providing some better opportunity for the underdeveloped countries which supply the raw materials, who have seen their commodity prices drop in the last 3 years and the cost of the goods they buy go up. So I would say those are the problems that are immediately before the Community.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, on the NATO matter, I wonder if you could comment on General Norstad's suggestion that an executive committee be established within the NATO Council, which would have the power to decide perhaps by a majority vote rather than a unanimous one on the use of nuclear weapons.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think that we ought to consider that. As you know, General de Gaulle has not been prepared to discuss a multinational force. If he was, we would be prepared to discuss General Norstad's proposal. General Norstad's proposal, however, might not reach the needs of those countries which are not nuclear powers. But if the European countries chose to delegate their authority to General de Gaulle or to Prime Minister Macmillan, we would certainly be prepared to discuss General Norstad's proposal.,But we are talking about--when we talk about Europe, we have to realize there are a good many countries of Europe, some of which are nuclear and some of which are non-nuclear. The question always is whether the arrangements between the nuclear powers will meet the genuine needs of the non-nuclear powers, or whether they're going to have to go the national deterrent route, which we believe will be both expensive and dangerous.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Special Security Committee of the Organization of American States has reported that the present military situation in Cuba now constitutes a much more serious threat to the peace and security of the American Republics than it did when this committee was authorized at Punta del Este last January, a year ago. In view of that, I wonder if there is anything you have in mind that these American Republics could and should be doing at this time to meet that threat in a collective way?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the part of the report which is most significant is the emphasis they put on subversion in the continent, the movement of men and perhaps money against the constituted governments. That is a matter which the United States Government is giving its greatest attention to this winter, the question of the lessening not only of the subversion that may come from Cuba but from other parts of the hemisphere. And I consider that our primary mission for the hemisphere this winter.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, before the Cuban shipping orders were issued, there was quite a discussion about our pleas to our allies to have their shipping companies not let themselves be used as vessels to carry goods from Soviet Russia to Cuba. But when your shipping orders came out, there was no mention of penalty or policy on that. Will you tell us why?,THE PRESIDENT. There has been a substantial reduction. I think the number of free world ships going into Cuba in January was about 12. So that our order has just gone out.1 There has been about a 90-percent drop in free world trade in the last 2 years to Cuba. Free world trade in Cuba--that is, Latin America, Western Europe, and ourselves-was 800 million 2 years ago. It is down to about 90 million. I think it is going to be reduced further. Our proposals have just gone into effect but there has been a substantial reduction in free world shipping to Cuba in the month of January. As I said, it amounted to only 12 and is steadily declining.,1A White House release dated February announced that steps had been taken m assure that U.S. Government financed cargoes were not shipped from the United States on foreign flag vessels engaging in trade with Cuba. The release stated that Government agencies concerned had been directed not to permit shipment of any such cargoes on vessels that had called at a Cuban port since January r, 1963, unless the owner of such ship gave satisfactory assurances that no ship under his control would thenceforth be employed in the Cuban trade.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, last weekend, the Republican leadership turned upon the administration an argument that you very effectively used in the 1960 campaign that the prestige of the United States abroad had fallen. You were able to substantiate those charges by citing polls taken by the Eisenhower administration. What do you think of these charges and are polls now being taken?,THE PRESIDENT. USIA takes surveys on the standing of what they think of the United States, or what they may think of the President, or what they may think of us technically, and all the rest in different groups.,One of the reasons I was able to speak with some confidence of the reduction in Castro's standing was that other governments in the hemisphere have taken studies, surveys, and have made them available to us. I think that we have difficulties because, of course, as Winston Churchill said, \"the history of any alliance is the history of mutual recrimination among the various people.\" So there are bound to be difficulties.,But I think that the United States is known to be a defender of freedom and is known to carry major burdens around the world. Now, we have to wait and see both what our prestige is abroad and at home, when we get clearer ideas, I think, in the next 2 years.,[13] Q. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller has been attacking you more and more vehemently, giving rise to the suspicion that he wants to be the Republican candidate next year. Is he the man that you think you'll be running against?,THE PRESIDENT. No, but I do think--I've felt the same suspicion. But whether he will be successful or not, I think only time will tell. That's a judgment that the Republicans will have to make. I think that all these discussions of our policies and criticisms can be very useful, but I feel that we should put forward some alternative proposals-that's number 1. Number 2, whenever the United States has a disagreement with a foreign country, I think it's a mistake always to assume that the United States is wrong, and that by being disagreeable to the United States it's always possible to compel the United States to succumb. One of the results of that has been that the United States is paying the major bill all around the world for a good many activities that serve the interests of others besides ourselves. So that I think that we have to realize that we are going to have disagreements. They go to the heart of the alliance and the purposes of the alliance. They all involve the security of the United States. Those questions which involve disagreements on the atom, which were mentioned earlier, are very important questions. There are bound to be differences of opinion. And there should be, because as I say, they involve life and death. So that we're not involved in an empty argument about nothing.,Now, in addition, these arguments come more frequently when the danger, outside danger, decreases. There isn't as much of an overt Soviet military threat to Berlin now as there was some months ago. Whatever success we may have had in reducing that threat, of course we pay for it by increased problems within the alliance. But if the threat comes again, the alliance will join together. But I think we just have to make up our minds that we have paid an enormous bill in the last 15 years, amounting to billions of dollars. We pay today, the United States, six divisions in Western Germany; the other countries have one or two or three. We pay a large share of foreign assistance. Other countries pay much less. Our bases overseas, about which there has been some argument, they are there to serve to protect Western Europe. We don't mind paying for them, but we would like to at least have it recognized that the primary beneficiary may be those who are closest to the Soviets. So I expect there're going to be these disagreements. But that's because we're moving into different periods, and it's partly because some of the outside military dangers which so threatened us just a short while ago have become lessened. They may come up again, but for the period now we're enjoying the luxury of internal dissention.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, most of the Cuban dialogue has been confined to military personnel and military operations. Does the Government have any information on the nationals of the Soviet bloc who may be in Cuba to train the Cubans in sabotage and subversion and political penetration of the Latin American countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am sure that among the technicians or military people there, or paramilitary, there are those who are participating in that kind of training. And that's why we are anxious to stop the flow in and out of those who may be the beneficiaries of those studies.,Q. Do we have any idea of the number or any idea how we can stop them?,THE PRESIDENT. . Well, the problem is to get the cooperation of other Latin American countries in limiting the flow in and out, at schools, colleges, which also includes political indoctrination. I think there were 1200 students from Latin America that went into Cuba last year. I'm sure a good many of them were politically indoctrinated; some of them obviously were given training in more direct forms of political action.,I don't think we should regard, however, the Communist threat as primarily based on Cuba, the Communist threat to the hemisphere. There's a good deal--there is local Communist action unrelated to Cuba which continues and which feeds on the hardships of the people there, northeast Brazil, and other places. So that Cuba is important, but even if we are able to stop this kind of traffic, we will still deal with the native Communist movement.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you elaborate a little on an earlier statement you made in connection with the control of the multinational nuclear force? You seemed to stress the time element of 5 minutes, perhaps, to make a decision. Isn't this force essentially to be a submarine or seaborne force, and isn't one of the beauties of this kind of a force that you don't have to come to a quick decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but there is still the need for relatively quick time, so that I think you are still dealing--you may not be dealing in every case with 5 minutes, but you're dealing with--very difficult to hold a vote of all the members of NATO, take a majority vote, on firing these missiles. What we hope to do is to indicate guidelines for any action which a commander might take which will give assurance to the Western Europeans. Our feeling is very strong that they have that assurance now. The presence of 400,000 American troops and their families in Western Europe, people who we would not permit to be overrun, I think is a testament to our determination to honor our commitments. In addition, the very obvious fact that Western Europe is essentially the security of the United States.,The loss of Western Europe would be destructive to the interests of the United States. So we feel that there is no question that these weapons would be used to protect the security of Western Europe. General de Gaulle has said that monopoly always serves those who benefit from it. I don't think that we alone benefit from it. I think Western Europe benefits from the enormous efforts which Americans have made. However, if these two factors, the presence of our troops and our security guarantees, are not good enough, we hope to be able to work out devices which will give a stronger participation to the Europeans and, therefore, strengthen their sense of participation and their common sense of allegiance to the NATO cause which we share.,I must say, in looking at the dangers we face, I put dangers in other areas to be higher than the prospect of a military attack on Western Europe. But Western Europe is the one that lives under the gun, and we are going to do everything we can to work out devices which will increase their sense of security.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you were speaking a few moments ago about paying bills. I wonder if there is anything that you believe we could or should do to stop paying for farm aid to Cuba and the publication of pro-Communist propaganda through the United Nations, as we've recently learned we may be doing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are not going to put any money into the program in Cuba. There aren't any United States dollars that will go into that program. Now on the book, as I understand, the book was published a year ago. There was a book written by an American group and it was balanced off by a book written by a Communist. The Soviet Union are members of the United Nations. It's difficult to prevent their participating in some of these programs unless you broke the United Nations and the bloc withdrew. So you are going to have some cases of the kind described. We try to minimize them, but quite obviously, they are members, they pay, they receive. But I don't think the book, which I understand came out a year ago-it doesn't seem to me that--I think we are going to survive the book.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, to get back to our problems of our allies, it would seem like, in a way, that President de Gaulle's intention to develop France's own nuclear capability and his recent pact with Chancellor Adenauer would meet in perhaps a rather perverse way, and certainly not as you envisaged it, our desire to begin withdrawing from Europe and having Western Europe assume more of its own defense. I'd like you to comment on that.,And, also, I understand that the Department of Defense is studying a new proposal whereby servicemen will go overseas for r year without their families, both to Europe and all over the world. Would you comment on that, too, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I don't think that certainly the speeches in the German Parliament last week or speeches subsequent to the Franco-German treaty indicated that the Germans felt that their security could be guaranteed without the presence of the United States. If they felt that, then our purpose in being in Europe would be ended, and of course we would want to withdraw our forces. But as long as Western Europe does not feel that their security can be guaranteed without the presence of the United States, the United States will stay, and we hope that we will be able to work in cooperation on other matters. Now we'll have to wait and see. We are attempting to develop means of cutting our dollar losses. As I said, a year ago they were $3 billion a year--our balance of payments losses--because of our security commitments overseas. We're trying to cut them. But we will announce it if we're going to go into a plan such as you suggested.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us, on taxes, again, are you satisfied with the support that you've gotten from the business community on the tax bill, so far?,THE PRESIDENT. . Well, as you know, the Chamber of Commerce wants a tax cut, but they want it in the higher income areas and, in addition, they're opposed to the reforms we suggested, because some of them remove loopholes which means, of course, others have to pay. But I think at least they do support a tax cut. I think out of the Committee on Ways and Means we are going to get a bill for a tax reduction which will provide a consensus. It won't be perhaps the bill we sent up, but I think it will be a good bill. I think the more people look at the alternative, I think the more general support we'll get.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, back on the subject of American troops in Europe, the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday knocked down stories that there were plans to withdraw some American troops from Europe. On Wednesday, it announced that 15,000 had already been pulled out. What I'd like to know, sir, is why was this withdrawal done secretly, and also if you could expand some on your plans with respect to the shape of the American forces in Europe.,THE PRESIDENT.. Well, to the best of my knowledge--I'm not familiar with the events you described--it was not intended to be secret. It's been going on for some months. It's a lessening of the number of logistic forces there, particularly those that were built up during the summer of 1961, subsequent to the Vienna meeting. But we have not at all lessened the number of our combat troops. As I said, the United States has six divisions with the best supporting equipment of any of the divisions on the Western front, according to the NATO studies. Our forces are more equipped to fight, can fight quicker, with better equipment, for a longer period, than any other forces on the Western front. That will continue to be true. Some countries--France has only a division and a half in West Germany and it's quite close to the French border. Ours are further ahead, and our can fight for quite a number of days. So that we are keeping our strength in Western Europe. The fact is we are stronger than we were a year ago.,It was not intended in any way to be a 'private withdrawal, which is impossible.,Q. Mr. President, you spoke of dangers in other areas. Do you consider dangers developing in Southeast Asia as a result of the proposed formation of Malaysia? This is Britain relinquishing her colonial ties.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct. We have supported the Malaysia Confederation, and it's under pressure from several areas. But I'm hopeful it will sustain itself, because it's the best hope of security for that very vital part of the world.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-02-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have one announcement to make.,[1.] I am pleased to announce that I intend to reappoint Mr. William McChesney Martin, Jr., as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Mr. C. Canby Balderston as Vice Chairman for another term when their present terms expire in a few weeks.,Mr. Martin has been a member and Chairman of the Board since 1951. Previously he had served the Government with distinction as Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. As Chairman of the Board of Governors, Mr. Martin has cooperated effectively in the economic policies of this administration and I look forward to a constructive working relationship in the years ahead.,As you know, the Federal Reserve System is a fully independent agency of the United States Government, but it is essential that there exist a relationship of mutual confidence and cooperation between the Federal Reserve, the economic agencies of the administration, including especially the Secretary of the Treasury, and the President.,Mr. Martin has my full confidence, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and his colleagues on the Board in the interests of a strong United States economy.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in your view, do you believe that the Cuban threat, militarily, has increased, decreased, or stayed on status quo since the removal of the offensive weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there has been, since the removal of the offensive weapons, a reduction of 4500 people, we estimate. So to that degree the threat has diminished. And, of course, it is substantially different from the kind of threat we faced in October when there were offensive missiles and planes present. There still is a body of Soviet military equipment and technicians which I think is of serious concern to this Government and the hemisphere. But there has not been an addition since the removal of the weapons, there has not been an addition and there has been the subtraction of that number of personnel.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, since your last news conference, General de Gaulle has blocked the admission of Britain to the Common Market. De Gaulle has also indicated that he wants an independent nuclear deterrent. Some people feel that these are fatal blows to Western allied unity. What do you think?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, he has, of course, been committed to an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time. We are concerned at the failure of the British to secure admission to the Common Market. We have supported the unification of Europe, economically and politically. There have been some references, I know, in some parts of the European press, that the United States does not seek to deal equally with Europe as an equal partner.,I think anyone who would bother to fairly analyze American policy in the last 15 years would come to a reverse conclusion. We put over $50 billion worth of assistance in rebuilding Europe. We supported strongly the Common Market, Euratom, and the other efforts to provide for a more unified Europe, which provides for a stronger Europe, which permits Europe to speak with a stronger voice, to accept greater responsibilities and greater burdens, as well as to take advantage of greater opportunities.,So we believe in a steadily increasing and growing Europe, a powerful Europe. We felt Britain would be an effective member of that Europe. And it was our hope, and still is our hope, that that powerful Europe, joined with the power of the North American Continent, would provide a source of strength in this decade which would permit the balance of power to be maintained with us, and which would inevitably provide for an attraction to the underdeveloped world.,I think it would be a disaster if we should divide. The forces in the world hostile to us are powerful. We went through a very difficult and dangerous experience this fall in Cuba. I have seen no real evidence that the policy of the Communist world towards us is basically changed. They still do not wish us well. We are not, as I said at the last press conference, in the harbor. We are still in very stormy seas and I really think it would be a mistake for us to be divided at this time when unity is essential.,Now, the United States is prepared to make every effort to provide Western Europe with the strong voice, to join with Western Europe, to cooperate with it to work out mechanisms that permit Europe to speak with the power and the authority that Europe is entitled to.,What we would regard as a most serious blow would be, however, a division between the Atlantic, the division between the United States and Europe, the inability of Europe and the United States to coordinate their policies to deal with this great challenge. There is the danger to Europe and the danger to us. And that must not take place. If it does, it will have the most serious repercussions for the security of us and for Western Europe.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, at a time when the Secretary of State and his department have been coming in for some criticism, Senator Jackson's subcommittee on national security policy has said the Secretary should play a larger role in national security affairs. What do you think the Secretary of State's role should be? And do you think your view and his are the same on this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. . Yes, my view and his are the same. The Secretary of State is the principal adviser to the President in the field of foreign policy. He is also the chief administrative officer of the Department of State which includes many responsibilities but whose central responsibility, of course, is to carry out the day-to-day business, as well as to set down the larger--and advise the President on the development of larger policies affecting our security.,Mr. Rusk and I are in very close communion on this matter. We are in agreement and I have the highest confidence in him, and I'm sure that--but I do think that Senator Jackson's suggestions deserve very careful study. One of our great problems is we deal with the whole world, and the Department of State is involved, the Treasury may be involved, Agriculture may be involved, Defense may be involved, and the intelligence community involved. The coordination of that in an effective way which finally comes to the White House is one of the complicated tasks of administering our Government in these days.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, what, if anything, do you propose to do about the continued presence in Cuba of the Soviet military personnel? Are you just going to let them stay there?,THE PRESIDENT. . Well, as you know, we've been carrying out a good many policies in the last 4 months, since October. We were able to effect the withdrawal of the missiles. We were able to effect the withdrawal of the planes. There has been a reduction of 4,500 in the number of personnel. That was done by the United States being willing to move through a very dangerous period and the loss of an American soldier.,The continued presence of Soviet military personnel is of concern to us. I think the actions the United States has taken over the last 4 months indicate that we do not view the threat lightly.,Q. Mr. President, Defense Secretary McNamara apparently failed to convince some Republicans that all offensive weapons are withdrawn from Cuba. What more, if anything, do you believe the administration can do to convince some of the critics?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know what more we can do. Mr. McNamara went to great length. As he pointed out, he exposed a good deal of information, and also he went further than under ordinary conditions we would have liked to have gone in telling our story.,Now, he has asked, and I endorse, and Mr. McCone has asked, that if anybody has any information in regard to the presence of offensive weapons systems or, indeed, the presence of any military force or weapons on the island of Cuba, I think they should make it available to General Carroll, who's in charge of intelligence for the Defense Department-if they would turn the information over.,Now, we get hundreds of reports every month, and we try to check them out. A good many of them are just rumors or reports, and even some of the Members of Congress who've come forward either refuse to say where they've heard the information or provide us with reports which do not have substance to them.,Now I cannot carry out the policy of the United States Government on the question if obviously there were offensive missiles found in Cuba contrary to Mr. Khrushchev's pledge. It would raise the greatest risks, much greater, in my opinion than we faced in October, and we faced great risks in October. But to take the United States into that path, to persuade our allies to come with us, to hazard our allies as well as the security of the free world, as well as the peace of the free world, we have to move with hard intelligence. We have to know what we're talking about. We cannot base the issue of war and peace on a rumor or report, which is not substantiated, or which some member of Congress refuses to tell us where he heard it.,This issue involves very definitely war and peace. And when you talk about the presence of offensive weapons there, if they are there, I think the Soviet Union is aware and Cuba is aware that we would be back where we were in October but in a far more concentrated way.,Now, if you're talking about that, and talking about the kinds of actions which would come from that, it seems to me we ought to know what we are talking about. Now it may be that there are hidden away some missiles. Nobody can prove, in the finite sense, that they're not there, or they might be brought in. But they're going to have to be erected, and we continue complete surveillance. They have to be moved. They have to be put onto pads. They have to be prepared to fire. And quite obviously, if the Soviet Union did that, it would indicate that they were prepared to take the chance of another great encounter between us, with all the dangers.,Now, they had these missiles on the pads and they withdrew them, so the United States is not powerless in the area of Cuba, but I do think we should keep our heads and attempt to use the best information we have. We've got, I think, as Secretary McNamara demonstrated--we're taking the greatest pains to try to be accurate, but we have to deal with facts as we know them, and not merely rumors and speculation.,Now, as I say, these things may all come about and we may find ourselves again with the Soviet Union toe to toe, but we ought to know what we have in our hands before we bring the United States, and ask our allies to come with us, to the brink again.,Q. Mr. President, what is the administration's position now about the on-site inspections that you were insisting upon in October? Is that now a dead letter?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right. Cuba did not agree to on-site inspection unless there was inspection of the United States, which we did not agree to, and part of that was the question of the no-invasion pledge, and the rest. So that there has been no onsite inspection and I don't expect to get any. And I don't expect that Cuba will agree to the kind of on-site inspection that would give us more assurances than we have at the present time through photography.,Q. Mr. President, because we depend so much on photo reconnaissance, what would be our position if the President of Cuba should forbid that and perhaps take a protest to the United Nations about what you call our daily scrutiny over their territory?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think we would deal with that situation when it comes up. This is a substitute, in a sense, for the kind of on-site inspection which we hope to get and which was proposed by the Secretary General of the United Nations at the time of the October crisis. The United States cannot, given the history of last fall, where deception was used against us, we could not be expected to merely trust to words in regard to a potential buildup. So we may have to face that situation, but if we do, we'll face it.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the New York newspaper--and Cleveland--strikes do not fall at the present time under the Taft-Hartley law, and the impact of the New York strike can be seen by the fact that New York's economy is off 8 percent in department store sales. Do you feel that there should be some sort of legislation to bring strikes of this nature which affect the economy within the Taft-Hartley law, or do you see a larger role for the Government in these types of strikes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's hard to have a strike under the Taft-Hartley law or under any language. You mean, really, that the Government would be involving itself in hundreds of strikes, because a good many strikes which do not affect the national health and safety can affect local prosperity, so that you would find the Government heavily involved in dozens of strikes.,I must say that I think that I believe strongly in free, collective bargaining, but that free, collective bargaining must be responsible, and it must have some concern, it seems to me, for the welfare of all who may be directly and indirectly involved. I am not sure that that sense of responsibility has been particularly vigorously displayed in the New York case, this trial by force. It may end up with two or three papers closing down, and the strike going on through the winter.,It would seem to me that reasonable men--there should be some understanding of the issues involved, and I don't think in my opinion that the bargaining there has been particularly responsible.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Khrushchev apparently gave you some reason to believe last October that the Soviet military personnel were going to be withdrawn from Cuba. That hasn't happened. And my question is: Is there any official dialogue going on now to find out why the Russians are still there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I say, there has been this reduction which we already described. In addition, as Mr. McNamara described yesterday, a picture of some evidence of some equipment being moved out. This is a continuing matter which is being discussed, obviously, with the Soviet Government, and we would expect that we would have clearer information as to the prospects as these days go on. But it has not been completed, and quite obviously in that sense is unfinished business.,Q. Mr. President, what chances do you think or do you believe there are of eliminating communism in Cuba within your term?,THE PRESIDENT. . I couldn't make any prediction about the elimination. I am quite obviously hopeful that it can be eliminated, but we have to wait and see what happens. There are a lot of unpleasant situations in the world today. China is one. It's unfortunate that communism was permitted to come into Cuba. It has been a problem in the last 5 years. We don't know what's going to happen internally. There's no obviously easy solution as to how the Communist movement will be removed. One way, of course, would be by the Cubans themselves, though that's very difficult, given the police setup. The other way would be by external action. But that's war and we should not regard that as a cheap or easy way to accomplish what we wish.,We live with a lot of dangerous situations all over the world. Berlin is one. There are many others. And we live with a good deal of hazard all around the world and have for 15 years. I cannot set down any time in which I can clearly see the end to the Castro regime. I believe it's going to come, but I couldn't possibly give a time limit. I think that those who do, sometimes mislead. I remember a good deal of talk in the early fifties about liberation, how Eastern Europe was going to be liberated. And then we had Hungary, and Poland, and East Germany, and no action was taken.,The reason the action wasn't taken was because they felt strongly that if they did take action it would bring on another war. So it's quite easy to discuss these things and say one thing or another ought to be done. But when they start talking about how, and when, they start talking about Americans invading Cuba and killing thousands of Cubans and Americans. With all the hazards around the world, that's a very serious decision, and I notice that that's not approached directly by a good many who have discussed the problem.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, General de Gaulle has indicated that it was the Nassau Pact which made him declare for an independent nuclear force. Yet, there are reports that as long ago as June of 1961 he told you in Paris that he had his own plans for organizing Europe, once there was no European crisis. Now do you feel it was the Nassau Pact or the easing of the Berlin crisis by the Cuban showdown that caused him finally to declare publicly for this?,THE PRESIDENT. . Well, as you know, the independent nuclear force he has been committed to for a number of years. There have been a number of explanations and reasons given, some contradictory, as to why he finally made--why he took the action that he did.,If you will re-read the Nassau Pact, we did give assistance to the British, the Polaris. The British did commit their forces to NATO. We did agree to make a similar offer, because there may have been technical reasons why the French were unable to accept the same kind of offer, and we did open the dialogue with General de Gaulle as to what progress we could make in this field. And we also agreed to a multilateral force. The whole emphasis of Nassau was on strengthening NATO and on the NATO commitment. So General de Gaulle has indicated that he is not an admirer of NATO. In my opinion, NATO is what keeps the Atlantic and Europe together.,Now what he said in Paris, he said he would have some suggestions for reorganizing NATO. Therefore, your quotation was not quite in the context in which he used it, and he obviously sees Europe as strong and France as occupying a particular position. And the question really is whether we are going to be partners or whether there will be sufficient division between us that the Soviet Union can exploit.,But I must say that the whole purpose at Nassau was to meet our obligations to the British, Skybolt having failed, and also to contribute together to the strengthening of NATO and therefore, those who object to that, it seems to me, in a sense, really object to NATO. And those who object to NATO, object to this tie between us which has protected the security of Europe and the United States for 15 years and can still, in this decade, if given support which it needs on both sides of the Atlantic.,Q. Could we pursue this a little bit further? Some thoughtful observers are saying that in view of the United States difficulty with General de Gaulle, and in a slightly lesser and slightly different way with the Diefenbaker government in Canada, that one of our basic problems with our allies is in convincing them of the sincerity of our desire for partnership, and that, therefore, we've got to seek some new kind of relationship with our allies to demonstrate that we really are interested in partnership.\nDo you agree with this, and if you do, would you think it would involve some kind of a formula in which they would actually participate in the control of nuclear weapons, and the kicker is, could this formula be sold to the United States Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. The Nassau agreement, as you know, did attempt, by its emphasis on the contributions which we would commonly make to the multinational force, and our support of the multilateral force, was an effort to deal with this problem of providing the Europeans who lacked a nuclear capacity a greater voice in the management of the weapons, and in the political direction of the weapons, and in its control.,We thought that it was unwise to provide for--encourage the development of national deterrents. The Germans, in their '54 statement, took themselves out of the national deterrent and indicated that they would not develop it. I must say that it seems to me we should attempt to build on what we started at Nassau, in the multilateral force, to give those who do not have a deterrent, who do not wish to develop it for economic or political reasons, a larger voice and control in nuclear weapons.,To be successful and do something more than merely provide a facade, a different facade, of United States control, will require a good deal of negotiation and imagination and effort by both of us. When we have come to a conclusion, or during a conclusion, we will continue to consult with the Congress which has special responsibilities. We are conscious of our obligations under the McMahon act and, therefore, it will be very sensitive and difficult but I think a possible operation for us to carry out in the coming months. The purpose of it is the one you described, to prevent the Alliance from dissolving on this very difficult and sensitive question of control of nuclear weapons, which is tied up with sovereignty.,The Nassau agreement was an effort to meet that. Now, it is important to realize that a good many Europeans hold this view of the support of the multilateral force, and also there's been great evidence of strong support for NATO, a support which I'm hopeful will be indicated not only by words, but by actions in the coming months.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you consider the settlements reached in the dock workers' strike, which is generally pegged at 5 percent, within your wage-price guidelines, and would you consider a comparable settlement in the upcoming steel negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. . Well, I wouldn't attempt to get into steel right now, thank you. [Laughter],[10.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to Cuba, you have said that the presence of Russian forces on the island are a matter of concern. I would like to ask this question, sir: Do you think that Cuba is a serious military threat to the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we ought to keep a sense of proportion about the size of the force we're talking about. We are talking about four groups, 1100 to 1200 men each. Those are the organized military units. That's about 6,000 men. Obviously, those forces cannot be used to invade another country. They may be used to maintain some sort of control within Cuba, but obviously are not a force that can be used externally. And in addition, Cuba cannot possibly--it lacks any amphibious equipment, and quite obviously our power in that area is overwhelming.,I think the big dangers to Latin America, if I may say so, are the very difficult, and in some cases desperate, conditions in the countries themselves, unrelated to Cuba. Illiteracy, or bad housing, or maldistribution of wealth, or political or social instability-these are all problems we find, a diminishing exchange, balance of payments difficulty, drop in the price of their raw materials upon which their income depends. These are all problems that I think are staggering, to which we ought to be devoting our attention.,Now, I think Castro has been discredited in the past months substantially, as everyone of our surveys in USIA show. One of the reasons has been the missile business and also the presence of Russian forces which, in a sense, seem to be police units. So that what I think we should concern ourselves with, quite obviously, is Cuba, but Cuba as a center of propaganda and possibly subversion, the training of agents--these are the things which we must watch about Cuba. But in the larger sense, it is the desperate and in some cases internal problems in Latin America, themselves unrelated to Fidel Castro whose image is greatly tarnished over a year ago, which caused me the concern and why I regard Latin America as the most critical area in the world today and why I would hope that Western Europe and the United States would not be so preoccupied with our disputes, which historically may not seem justified, when we have a very, very critical problem which should concern us both in Latin America.,Q. Now that I have your answer, I think the answer is that you do not think that it is a great military threat, but rather a threat in these areas that you speak of?,THE PRESIDENT. The military threat would come if there was a reintroduction of the offensive weapons. But the kind of forces we are talking about, which are 6,000, do not represent a military threat. Cuba is a threat for the reasons that I have given, but it is a threat--I don't want to give the whole answer again--but it is a threat for the reason I have tried to explain to you.,Q. Mr. President, according to the recent remarks of Secretary Rusk, he said Mr. Khrushchev indicated that Soviet troops would be removed from Cuba in due course. Do you feel you have a commitment from Mr. Khrushchev in this regard, and what do you take \"due course\" to mean?,THE PRESIDENT. . That's what we are going to try to find out. That was the statement that was made. As I say, that's why I think in the coming days and weeks we may have a clearer idea as to whether that means this winter or not. And that's a matter of great interest to us.,Q. Do you feel you have a commitment, sir, from Mr. Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. . I have read a statement of Mr. Khrushchev's that these forces would be removed in due course or due time. The time was not stated and, therefore, we're trying to get a more satisfactory definition.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, because Britain did not get into the Common Market, the zero tariff authority in the Trade Expansion Act is virtually meaningless now. At the time you proposed it, you said this was vital authority, to get our exports into Europe. Do you propose or do you plan to ask Congress to restore the authority, or if not, do you support the Douglas, Javits, and Reuss bills that are in to do that now?,THE PRESIDENT. . No, we hadn't planned to ask the Congress, because we do have the power, under the trade expansion bill, to reduce all other tariffs by 50 percent, which is a substantial authority. We lack the zero authority.,On the other hand, it's going to take some months before these negotiations move ahead. It's possible there may be some reconsideration of the British application. I would be responsive and in favor of legislation of the kind that you described. It is not essential, but it would be valuable, and if the Congress shows any disposition to favor it, I would support it.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, ever since Mr. Sylvester talked about what is called \"managing the news,\" there's been a lot of confusion on the subject.1 Do you feel the administration has a responsibility to engage in a sort of information program, educating people in the fact that under certain circumstances this practice has some ethical validity, and if this is not done, how will the public know when it's getting factual information and when not?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it gets a good deal of factual information. The problem of the Federal Government, the National Government, what information it puts out, and I think we're trying to give the information, on the matter of Cuba we've been trying to be accurate. And there's also, it seems to me, the information of the press to make a judgment as to whether information that is coming out is accurate, not only by the National Government, but by others, and to subject that to careful scrutiny as they do our information.,1 Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). See 1962 volume, this series, Items 410 [8], 515 [7, 14, 19].,Now, I remember a story the other day in one of our prominent papers which had a report of a Congressman about the presence of missiles--no supporting evidence, no willingness to give us the source of his information. We are not, after all, a foreign power.,And on page 10 was the statement of the Secretary of Defense, giving very clear details. That was page 10 and the other was page 1. So it's a responsibility of ours and, it seems to me, also the press. I would think a good many Americans, after the last 3 weeks of headlines, have the impression that there are offensive weapons in Cuba. Now it is our judgment, based on the best intelligence that we can get, that there are not offensive weapons in Cuba. I think it is important that the American people have an understanding and not compel, because of these various rumors and speculations, compel the Secretary of Defense to go on television for 2 hours to try to get the truth to the American people and, in the course of it, have to give a good deal of information which we are rather reluctant to give about our intelligence gathering facilities.,Q. Mr. President, do you feel that it is possible that the defensive weapons now going into Cuba, or there now, could be used for offensive purposes? For example, could not a defensive missile be used, launched from a PT boat or some other vessel? And if you do find this to be true, do you feel that any action would be required?,THE PRESIDENT. . The range of the missiles on the Komar, the 12 Komars, is, I believe, 18 miles. So we would not regard that as a weapon which would be used in an attack on the United States. If there is going to be that kind of an attack on the United States, then you're going to have an attack from places other than Cuba, and you're going to have them with much larger weapons than a Komar torpedo boat can carry. Then you are talking about the willingness of the Soviet Union to begin a major war. Now if the Soviet Union is prepared to begin a major war, which will result in hundreds of millions of casualties by the time it is finished, then, of course, we all face a situation which is extremely grave.,I do not believe that that's what the Soviet Union wants, because I think they have other interests. I think they wish to seize power, but I don't think they wish to do so by a war. I therefore doubt if a Komar torpedo boat is going to attack the United States very soon. Now, it's possible--it's possible everything is possible. And after our experience last fall, we operate on the assumption while hoping for the best, we expect the worst. It's very possible that the worst will come and we should prepare for it. That's why we continue our daily surveillance. It is possible, conceivable.,We cannot prove that there is not a missile in a cave or that the Soviet Union isn't going to ship next week. We prepare for that. But we will find them when they do and when they do, the Soviet Union and Cuba and the United States must all be aware that this will produce the greatest crisis which the world has faced in its history.,So I think that the Soviet Union will proceed with caution and care, and I think we should.\nReporter: Mr. President, thank you."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1963-01-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have an opening statement.,[1.] It would be well to remind all concerned of the hard and fast realities of this Nation's relationship with Europe--realities of danger, power, and purpose which are too deeply rooted in history and necessity to be either obscured or altered in the long run by personal or even national differences. The reality of danger is that all free men and nations live under the constant threat of the Communist advance. Although presently in some disarray, the Communist apparatus controls more than a billion people, and it daily confronts Europe and the United States with hundreds of missiles, scores of divisions, and the purposes of domination.,The reality of power is that the resources essential to defense against this danger are concentrated overwhelmingly in the nations of the Atlantic Alliance. In unity this alliance has ample strength to hold back the expansion of communism until such time as it loses its force and momentum. Acting alone neither the United States nor Europe could be certain of success and survival. The reality of purpose, therefore, is that that which serves to unite us is right, and what tends to divide us is wrong. The people and Government of the United States over the three past administrations have built their policy on these realities. The same policy has been followed by the people and governments of Europe. If we are to be worthy of our historic trust, we must continue on both sides of the Atlantic to work together in trust.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, as you may be aware, there seems to be some conflict on the part of history involving the Bay of Pigs invasion. As you know, the Attorney General says that no United States air support was contemplated, so therefore there was none to be withdrawn. Yet today, editor Jack Gore of the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., News says that to a group of editors who visited you on May 10, 1961, you told them that air cover was available, but you had decided not to use it.,Mr. Gore says you told these editors that one reason for your decision was that Ambassador Stevenson had complained that any such action would make a liar out of him in the U.N. Now also today, a Mr. Manuel Penobos, who has been rather vocal for the last day or two, a member of Brigade 2506, says that the United States military instructors of that brigade promised the men that they could expect air cover. Now, out of this welter of seemingly different stories, I wonder if you can set us straight on what the real situation was?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. There was no United States air cover planned, so that the first part of the statement attributed to the Attorney General, of course, is correct. Obviously, if you're going to have United States air cover, you might as well have a complete United States commitment, which would have meant a full-fledged invasion by the United States. That was not the policy of the United States in April 1961.,What was talked about was the question of an air strike on Monday morning by planes which were flown by pilots, B-26 planes which were flown by pilots based not in the United States, not American planes.,That strike, as the Attorney General's interview in U.S. News and World Report described it, was postponed until Monday afternoon. I think that the members of the brigade were under the impression that the planes which were available, which were the B-26 planes, would give them protection on the beach. That did not work out. That was one of the failures. The jets, the training jets, which were used against them were very effective and, therefore, we were not-the brigade was not able to maintain air supremacy on the beach.,So I think that the confusion comes from the use of the word \"air cover,\" not to talk about United States air cover as opposed to air cover which was attached to the brigade, some of which flew from various parts this continent, not from the United States. So I think that will make it dear. As I've said from the beginning, the operation was a failure and the responsibility rests with the White House.,We engaged in intensive analysis of the reasons for the failure afterwards, headed by General Taylor, who is now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the Congress the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted an investigation, and it seemed to me that the conduct of operations in October 1962 indicated that a good many lessons had been learned.,As to the recollection of the editor, there was no such conversation of the kind, at least that has been read to me. The problem of air cover and one of the reasons that the invasion failed may have well been discussed, but only in the terms that I have described, because what I have described are the facts.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Gromyko has said that France must sign any nuclear test ban treaty if it is to be meaningful. In view of that, are you still encouraged by the prospects for such a treaty? And also can you tell us what this Government's position now is on whether Communist China should also be a signatory to the treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the first problem is to attempt to negotiate the tails of the treaty while these conversations are now going on with the Soviet Union, the British, and the United States. Then, if we are successful, if we work out a treaty which we believe gives us assurances, which we believe can provide for an end of testing and security for the countries involved, the Senate of the United States accepts it under the constitutional provisions. Then I would hope that other countries would be willing to sign it. If other countries signed it, then, of course, great progress would be made. If other countries did not sign it and began to test, then we would have to make a judgment-and I'm sure that this would be written into the treaty--we would have to make a judgment as to whether this destroyed the treaty, the purpose of the treaty, and that therefore, the treaty was at an end. But I think we ought to go at it one step at a time.,The first step is to see whether the British and the Americans can work out an effective test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Once that's done, then I think we can move on to these other questions.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there are new reports of a Soviet military buildup in Cuba. I wonder if there's any truth to this report and if it might pose a threat to our intelligence operation there, our surveillance.,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have been conducting continued surveillance. The best information we have is that one ship has arrived since the October crisis, which may have arms on it, and possibly military cargo. But there has not been a military buildup, in that sense, of equipment coming in from outside of Cuba. There's no evidence that this ship carried any offensive weapons.,Now, on Cuba itself, there are still--we think that probably about 4,500 Soviet technicians who were connected with the offensive weapons were withdrawn after the late October agreement. We figure there are still approximately 16 or 17 thousand Russians there, that the Soviets are continuing to operate the SAM sites and other technical pieces of equipment, and there are some organized units, the same organized units we've described before, which are still on the territory of Cuba. They are exercising, building some barracks. That is the kind of activity which is going on. There is no influx of military equipment, other than the ship. And, as I say, our scrutiny of Cuba is daily.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to go to the Congress to ask for a revision of the foreign aid treatment to Yugoslavia and Poland, an alteration of the most-favored-nation clause?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would hope that the Congress would reconsider the action it took last year in connection with the trade bill. We are in a very changing period in the world, in fact in all parts of the world, behind the Iron Curtain and indeed on this side of the Iron Curtain. To take legislative action which denies us an opportunity to exploit or to develop whatever differences in attitude or in tempo which may take place behind the Iron Curtain seems to me to be unwise. Once the Congress takes its action, that legislation exists for 2, 5, or 10 years. The situation during that period of lime may change.,Now, I believe that we would be better off if we had--if the President, whoever he was, was given the option of extending the most-favored-nation treatment to Poland and Yugoslavia. The trade really is better in this case than aid, and we could then make a determination, based on the situation in both of those countries, whether the most-favored-nation privileges should be granted.,I'm not suggesting that in every case they should be. I'm not suggesting that in some cases they shouldn't be removed. But I do think that it should be a weapon in the arsenal of the President, with the President reporting to the Congress, the Congress maintaining close scrutiny, and not merely to make a judgment today on events when events may entirely change in the next 12 months. So I will recommend it to the Congress.,[6.] Q. Going back to the Caribbean, sir, would you favor letting the residents of Puerto Rico vote in presidential elections, even though they retained their commonwealth status, and thus pay no Federal income taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. I hadn't heard that that was a proposal. The proposal that I heard might be put before the voters of Puerto Rico in regard to a commonwealth status did not include the right to vote in presidential elections. If they're going to vote in presidential elections, you raise a question of whether you should be a State, and take on the burdens and the privileges of statehood, so that I'm not prepared to say today that we should extend that particular privilege to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has seemed well satisfied with the present arrangement, which gives them a very advantageous position for their own economic and political development.,[7.] Q. In connection with the test ban talks, sir, your science advisers have said that the main issue now is the number of onsite inspections. Do you see any room for compromise between the 3 Mr. Khrushchev has offered and the 8 to 10 that you feel is adequate?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that Mr. Foster is conducting the negotiations, and would be able to conduct them better probably if he developed the American position as time goes on, rather than attempting to develop it here at this time, when the negotiations are still in process. There is not only the question of the onsite inspections, but the location and the number of the automatic devices, and all this has to be meshed in, kinds of inspection, how free the inspectors will be, these are all questions which really ought to be negotiated at the table.,Q. Could you tell us, sir, in your own mind you must have seen some hope in the original letter.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the fact that the principle of onsite inspection was accepted was very important, and that's the reason that we are participating in these negotiations at the top level to see if we can make a breakthrough here, because I think a breakthrough would be most important. There was an earlier reference by Mr. Lisagor to other countries beginning to test. This might have far-reaching repercussions and therefore we're very interested in keeping them going, to have them be successful. But I think Mr. Foster should determine the American position as time goes on.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, a joint resolution has been offered in Congress to make Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the United States. I think it has been sponsored by Senators Young and Randolph, and by Mrs. Bolton. I know you took a stand on this as a Senator, but you've never been asked about this as President. What is your sentiment, your judgment about honoring the old guy this way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it isn't essential as far as indicating our regard for him, but I would be delighted if the Congress passed a resolution, whether it's honorary citizenship or an expression of esteem. Some way or other it would be appropriate perhaps to remind Sir Winston Churchill of our regard for him. But it's written very large in any case. This would be a gracious act at this time.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, it has been 34 years since Houston. How do you feel about the Democrats going south again for a national convention, namely, Florida?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be fine, but I think it is really a question, once again, that is a negotiation which is extremely intense, being conducted by the National Committee, and involves the amount of the South is prosperous and perhaps they would be able to compete successfully with Chicago, Philadelphia, and some of the other areas. Geographically, I think it would be very good.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you have said that you are in favor of the two-term limit to the office of the Presidency. How do you feel about former President Eisenhower's suggestion that the terms of Congressmen also be limited?,THE PRESIDENT. It's the sort of proposal which I may advance in a post-presidential period, but not right now. [Laughter],[11] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment you care to make on the New York and Cleveland newspaper strikes?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I wish that strike could come to an end. It doesn't come under the Taft-Hartley because it's not a national emergency, but it is a hardship on the men involved, and it affects adversely the prosperity of the city, and it affects the abilities of the people, particularly because New York is such a center. I hope it's going to be possible to compromise it. This sort of struggle to see who can stand the pressure the longest may be of interest to one side or the other, but it's hard on those involved, and I would hope that reason would motivate both sides and that they would reach the compromise which ultimately they're going to reach anyway. So I'm hopeful that the two sides will make a judgment that free collective bargaining must be responsible if it's going to be really free.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, this has no relation to Skybolt, but are we not putting too many eggs in the Polaris basket if we're going to give Polaris missiles to the north and south of Europe, and doesn't the land mass of Russia and the position of the seas-doesn't that make it very hard to maneuver this Polaris to really hit at the heartland installations in Soviet Russia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we also maintain the Minuteman, which does have a wide range, and Titans, and we still have bombers and still have planes based on Europe itself. If you look at the total arsenal, it's a very, very large one, and I think it gives very, very adequate assurances for the protection of Europe and the United States. We don't rely only on Polaris, even though Polaris is a very, very good weapon.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, when you were Senator, you were very active in efforts to liberalize our immigration laws. Have you any plans to advance this ambition of yours now?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We are going to make some proposals in regard to redistributing particularly the unused quotas.,Q. Could you expand on that at all now?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As you know, there is a total quota limitation on those permitted to come into the United States. Some of the countries do not use the quota. We have had some suggestions over a period of years as to how these unused quotas could be redistributed. That's the area that we're interested in now.,[14-] Q. Mr. President, on the tax bill, in your mind how much interdependence is there between the size of the revisions and the size of the reductions?,THE PRESIDENT. Could you expand that?,Q. Well, Congress seems to be more interested in reducing taxes than in making reforms.,THE PRESIDENT. In reforms versus--right. Well, as you know, our proposal was for a $13 billion cut, more or less, and a $3 billion reform. Congressman Mills has been particularly interested in the reform, not only because it secures back some of the revenue, because there are inequities in the present tax law, but also there are some reforms which will stimulate growth and steer income or investment into areas which better serve the national purpose. So I consider both very important. I think it's essential we get a bill by this year, that we begin this tax reduction this year, if we're going to maintain or develop or stimulate our economic growth. The Congress will have to make the judgment whether both reform and revision, reduction, can be done this year. I would hope that they could be. In the final analysis, it's going to be their judgment, however.,Q. Mr. President, would you accept a revision and a tax cut which did not embody these reforms either this year or in some agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be too early to make a judgment. I would think it would be unwise to carry out our total tax reduction package, which would then be $13 1/2 billion, unless we picked up revenue some other place, or reduced the amount of the cuts. So my judgment is that the package is the best approach. I'm hopeful that Congress will hold on to both. I put as the first priority, however, action this year, so we'll just have to wait and see whether both can be done this year. In any case we should be able to make progress, come what may, on the first step of the three-stage reduction, and I think it's physically possible to do both the reform and the revision this year and I think that is Chairman Mills' idea, too.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, most of our racial dramas have been played in the deep South, but recently there was one here in the Nation's Capital, commonly referred to as the Thanksgiving Day riots in the D.C. Stadium, in which a large group of Negroes attacked a smaller group of whites. Since you last met with us, a citizens committee has investigated the matter and issued a report referring to this lawlessness and mass misbehavior and criticizing the lack of discipline in the schools, classrooms, and so forth. I wonder, Mr. President, as President and as first citizen of the District of Columbia, if you could comment on the riot itself and the report; whether you think it's a fair report?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that there was a bad situation after that game. There have been riots connected with a lot of sports events, but this had a force to it which was worse than most. One of the purposes of our separate budget was to try to highlight the need for additional funds for schools, for housing, for changes in the environment, for assistance to young people who are neglected, orphans, or who are with one parent or another. I think that what we ought to do is realize that the riot of that day highlighted a very bad situation in the District of Columbia, that a good many of our young people are neglected, that they are not counseled and they are not--the District doesn't pay as much attention to them, that the funds are inadequate and Congress has probably limited the appropriations too greatly, that the Executive has not paid enough attention to it.,We have appointed Mr. Horsky, who has been acquainted with this problem for years, to work in the White House on this problem of the District of Columbia, so that I'm hopeful that we will, in the next 12 months be able, together with the Congress, to do something to ease the situation in the District. It's up, of course, to the families involved, the schools involved, but I'm sympathetic to both the families and the schools because they deal with a very strange situation here in the District. A good many changes have taken place, and there is social unrest, and it ought to concern us all.,I might not have agreed with all parts of the report, but if the report serves to turn the attention of the Congress and the Executive and the District and the people who live here on the problems of the District, instead of always looking at our wide boulevards, I think it would be very useful.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, have you looked into reports by some civil service employees that they were subjected to pressure to buy $100 tickets to the Gala, and what do you think of this practice?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'm not aware of anyone who was pressured. I haven't received any report. It would be unfortunate. I can only say that anyone who bought a ticket or didn't buy a ticket are on the same basis.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in the event that Great Britain is shut out of the Common Market, how would that be likely to influence the United States plan to associate itself with the Economic Community? And how will it, in general, affect American interests?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we don't plan to associate ourselves with the Community. We plan to negotiate with the Community in order to provide for the admission of American goods as we had planned to negotiate with countries which are not members of the Common Market. We have strongly supported Britain's admission to the Common Market, however, because we think it helps build a united Europe, which, working in equal partnership with the United States, will provide security for Europe, for the United States, and together Europe and the United States--we can concern ourselves with the very pressing problems which affect so much of the world and Latin America, Africa, and Asia.,The United States concerns itself particularly, as distinguished Europeans--Dr. Adenauer, Mr. Schuman, Mr. de Gasperi, and others--in building a strong, vital, and vigorous Europe. Now that is coming about. I would be reluctant to see Europe and the United States, now that Europe is a strong and vital force, to go in separate directions because this battle is not yet won. In Latin America alone, we face critical problems in this decade. If Latin America is unable to trade with Europe and with the Common Market, we face very, very great economic problems which we cannot solve alone in Latin America. So our invitation to Europe is to unite, to be strong, and to join with us as an equal partner in meeting the problems of other parts of the world in the same way that some years ago the United States helped Europe build its strength.,Now, that's our hope. That has been the object of the American policy for 15 years. That's been the object of the policy of great Europeans who helped bring about a reconciliation some years ago between France and Germany. We've seen the recent manifestation of that reconciliation.,But there are problems throughout the globe that should occupy our attention, and the United States does not have the resources to meet them alone. We hope Europe and the United States together can do it on the basis of equality. That is why we have supported the admission of Britain to the Common Market.,In the final analysis this must be a judgment of the countries in Europe, the six. What kind of a Europe do they want? Do they want one looking out or looking in? What do they see as the balance of forces in the world today?,Now Europe is relatively secure. The day may come when Europe will not need the United States and its guarantees. I don't think that day has come yet, but it may come, and we would welcome that. We have no desire to stay in Europe except to participate in the defense of Europe. Once Europe is secure and feels itself secure, then the United States has 400,000 troops there and we would, of course, want to bring them home.,We do not desire to influence or dominate. What we desire to do is to see Europe and the United States together engaged in the struggle in other parts of the world. We cannot possibly survive if Europe and the United States are rich and prosperous and isolated. Now, we're asking that Europe together, united, join in this great effort, and I am hopeful they will, because after all that has been in the object of the policy of, as I have said, a great many Europeans for a great many years. And now, when success is in sight, we don't want to see this great partnership dissolve.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the Foreign Ministers of Turkey and Italy have announced that some of our missile bases are being withdrawn from their countries. Since these missile bases have often been the target of Soviet wrath, is there any expectation or possibility that there might be return concessions now for those?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. We are going to put Polaris submarines in there, a much more modern weapon, in the Mediterranean. We feel that provides a more adequate security. The British are phasing out the Thor missile, a missile which came into existence after the Jupiter, and in favor of the Polaris also. So I think we are going to be in a stronger position.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the Foreign Minister of Argentina, as you know, is in the United States this week, and it seems to be one of those refreshing cases where we've found a very loyal friend in a very major country down there. I wonder if there is anything you can say about that relationship in view of your discussions with the gentleman here this week?,THE PRESIDENT. The relationship has been good. As you know, the Argentine sent destroyers and air units to the assistance of the United States at the time of the quarantine, which we were very grateful for. There is an International Monetary Fund group down there in Argentina now considering the Argentine's economic problems. We are watching that very closely and we're analyzing--when that study is completed-what we can most usefully do to be of assistance to the Argentine.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in your long-range defense planning, do you foresee a need for a manned strategic bomber after the current B-52's and B-47's are worn out?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there may be--yes, there may be a need. That plane will last through 1970. We are securing, as you know, three B-70's. We have no further plans to develop at this time, but there may be a good many struggles in the globe in the late sixties or early seventies which are not subject to solution by missiles, but which may be more limited war, and where manned bombers may be very useful.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the expanded powers and functions of the Federal Government, have you thought of establishing a President's Conference of Governors to discuss your mutual plans and problems?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As you know, there is a Governors' Conference that does take resolutions, and we are in liaison with them. As a matter of fact, I met with about 12 or 13 Governors last Saturday morning. But there is not a formal conference under way. But the liaison is very immediate. And, as you know, the United States budget today would be balanced if it were not for the assistance that the United States Government is giving to hard pressed States and local communities.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, there have been published reports that some high placed Republican people have been making overtures to your Secretary of Defense for him to be their 1968 candidate for President. Mr. president, if you thought that Mr. McNamara were seriously considering these overtures, would you continue him in your Cabinet?,THE PRESIDENT. I have too high a regard for him to launch his candidacy right now. [Laughter],[23.] Q. According to unofficial estimates, the Federal Government has already spent more than $4 million on the enforcement of the desegregation orders at the University of Mississippi. To this point, do you consider that effort worth it? And would you consider it to be an effort that had failed if, for some reason, Mr. Meredith had to leave the university during this winter?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall, it's not only $4 million but, of course, two people were killed and a good many were wounded, and it's had wide repercussions and some of them have been unfortunate. However, if the United States Government had failed to exert its influence to protect Mr. Meredith and Mr. Meredith had been denied admission by force, or if he had suffered physical attack, that would have been far more expensive.,This country, of course, cannot survive if the United States Government and the executive branch do not carry out the decisions of the court. It might be a decision in this case which some people may not agree with. The next time it might be another matter, and this Government would unravel very fast. So there's no question in my mind that the United States executive branch had to take the action that it did.,I would be sorry if Mr. Meredith leaves. College is difficult enough under any conditions. He's been subjected to a good deal of harassment, and anyone who has gone through his experience in college would find it difficult to continue. I hope he continues. If he doesn't, that is a loss not only to Mr. Meredith but I think the University of Mississippi.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, the theory was put forward in Europe this week that France must have its own separate nuclear deterrent because the Europeans cannot be sure that the United States 5 or 10 years from now would defend Europe with as much determination as we acted with during the Cuban crisis, whereas the Europeans could be sure that the French would. How do you answer such reasons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, actually, wasn't it put more directly than that, that what happened at Cuba proved that the United States might not defend Europe? That is a peculiar logic. If we had not acted in Cuba, that would have proved we would defend Europe? I don't think it would. So that once you accept that as the thesis, whatever we did in Cuba can be used to prove a point. Now the point is that since the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear capacity there is a balance, in a sense, between these two forces and neither will use it, and, therefore, Europe cannot rely on the United States.,Now, there may be reasons for a country to wish a nuclear force of its own, and France has put forward its reasons. But in my judgment, it's inaccurate and not really in the Alliance interest to justify it on the grounds that the United States would fail to defend Europe by whatever means are necessary.,I think the United States over the last 15 years has given--and in fact before that, the last 20 years--has given evidence that its commitments are good. Some in some parts of Europe may not believe that commitment, but I think that Chairman Khrushchev does and I think he's right.,In addition, once you begin to say that the United States will not come to the assistance of \"X,\" can't someone say that perhaps France will not come to the assistance of Germany, and then everyone decides they must rely upon their own deterrent, and pretty soon you have as many deterrents as you have countries.,I think if France wishes to develop its own deterrent, that that's its judgment. It's done so. I have never had the slightest doubt that General de Gaulle would respond to the needs of the alliance. He responded when we were in difficulty in Cuba. I would hope that our confidence in him would be matched by his confidence in us.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-12-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT, Good afternoon.,[1.] On behalf of the American people, I wish to express my gratitude to the French Government for its decision to lend the Mona Lisa of Leonardo da Vinci for exhibition in the United States. This incomparable masterpiece, the work of one of the greatest figures of the greatest Western age of creativity, will come to this country as a reminder of the friendship that exists between France and the United States. It will come also as a reminder of the universal nature of art. At the National Gallery in Washington, beginning January 8, the Mona Lisa will be exhibited with the special care so great a work of art merits.,Mrs. Kennedy and I particularly want to thank President de Gaulle for his generous gesture in making possible this historic loan, and Mr. Andre Malraux, the distinguished French Minister of Cultural Affairs, for his good offices in the matter.,[2.] And now to turn to the more physical side: For the past 21/2 years the American Athletic Union and other amateur athletic groups organized as federations, have engaged in a dispute which now threatens proper representation for the United States in international competition. This includes the Pan American games at Sao Paulo and the 1964 Olympic games in Tokyo. A number of efforts have been made to resolve the differences between the AAU and the federations. This administration has made and is making its good offices possible in every way. Ultimately the Attorney General was called in to attempt to further settle these differences.,After this final effort last month, it appeared that these organizations had agreed to put aside their differences long enough to permit the United States and its athletes to compete in international competition, and particularly in the Olympics of 1964.Now, however, even that coalition has been tangled by a whole group of conflicting interpretations. The governing bodies of these groups apparently put their own interests before the interests of our athletes, our traditions of sport, and our country. The time has come for these groups to put the national interest first. Their continued bickering is grossly unfair. There is no winner, but there are many losers--thousands of American amateur athletes, the American athletic community, and the traditions of American sportsmanship. On behalf of the country and on behalf of sport, I call on these organizations to submit their differences to an arbitration panel immediately. If we do not, we will not have an Olympic team in 1964. It is my earnest hope that these groups will quickly abandon their concern with victory for themselves at the conference table and focus on their more proper concern, victory for sportsmanship.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in his speech today Khrushchev said, among other things, that he was holding the United States to its pledge against invading Cuba or was ready to take measures of his own. What is your reaction to the speech and what is the situation now regarding a no-invasion pledge? Would we ever make one such a formal declaration without first obtaining on-site inspections?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I haven't had a chance to analyze the speech with the care with which such a speech obviously should be studied. Number two, Governor Stevenson and Mr. McCloy are now up in New York, and have been for some weeks, discussing this matter of our future position toward Cuba and the Soviet Union's position toward Cuba, the question of weapons, inspection, aerial observance, invasion.,At present, I would say that our situation was best described in the statement that I made at our last press conference. I am hopeful that the negotiations that are now going on in New York will come to some conclusion in the not too distant future. But pending that, I would say that we are going to stay with what I said 2 weeks ago. In the meanwhile we will maintain--take every step that's necessary to make sure that these missiles are not reintroduced into Cuba or that offensive weapons are not reintroduced. And we are taking those means daily.,[ 4. ] Q. Mr. President, in connection with Governor Stevenson and Cuba and some of the recent reports on the position taken by the Governor in the National Security Council, against this background, can you tell us, sir, whether prior to your announced decision on October 22, that Governor Stevenson took at any time a position that was contrary or counter to the final decision as you announced it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I said before, I would not attempt to describe, verify, or in any way discuss the position that any member of the National Security Council has taken. The National Security Council is an advisory body to the President; in the final analysis, the President of the United States must make the decision. And it is his decision. It's not the decision of the National Security Council or any collective decision. That was my view and my statement on Cuba a year ago, and it's my view on Cuba and the policies we followed recently this year.,I don't really think that there's much advantage to various press speculations on various positions which the members of the National Security Council took on the days from Tuesday to the next Sunday. Quite frankly, those positions frequently changed as members of the Council examined the alternatives and the possible repercussions of various courses of action. And it is my view that when the final consensus was reached and when I finally made a judgment--and that judgment was not really completed in its ultimate sense until the Sunday morning-that every member of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council supported the policy we finally adopted.,I would say, after having read various statements of the past 10 days, that any historian-and I think this matter should be left to historians--who walks through this mine field of charges and countercharges, should proceed with some care.,Q. Do you agree with Ambassador Stevenson, that the authors of this article acted irresponsibly?,THE PRESIDENT. I've never attempted to characterize members of the press. I think that they have to meet their responsibilities. I've had some criticisms with various points which have been made, and I wouldn't attempt to characterize writers of this article or any other.,Q. Do you plan any inquiry to learn who it was that breached the security of the National Security Council?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, well, I've satisfied myself that these matters have never, as you know, never can be or very seldom are ever really determined with precision. It's my judgment that this statement or interpretation of Governor Stevenson's position did not come from a member of the National Security Council. I satisfied myself on that. I never heard anyone characterize Governor Stevenson's position in that way and I am satisfied, myself, that no one did.,Now, there are other people that might have. But that's a matter for the reporters and it's a matter that, as I say, I think can be much better left to history when the whole record will be spread out in great detail.,Q. You don't know, then, who leaked it?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I don't know who, and I think it's unfortunate if anybody discusses any matter that comes before the National Security Council because I think it lessens its effectiveness. But I have satisfied myself that the remark did not come from a member of the National Security Council.,[5.] Q. Sir, if it becomes necessary to cancel the Skybolt missile program because of missile operational inability, what role can Britain play in our mutual atomic defenses?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it will play a significant role as a nuclear power, and the problem with the Skybolt is that it is the most sophisticated weapon imaginable. To fire a missile from a plane moving at high speed to hit a target 1,000 miles away requires the most advanced engineering, and of course it has been, really, in a sense the kind of engineering that's been beyond us.,We've put a half a billion dollars into it already. To complete the system might cost another--and to buy the missiles that we would want might require $2.5 billion. The five tests have not been successful, so that there really is the question of how much it is worth to the British and ourselves to put in that kind of money when we have competing claims for our available funds.,On the other hand, the British have a very important equity in the matter. It was to discuss that equity that Mr. McNamara went to Great Britain. I'm sure that it will be a matter which will be discussed with the Prime Minister in Nassau, and the United States, which is reviewing its budget, will take no final decision until these conferences have been completed.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, has the opposition expressed by Chairman Wilbur Mills of the Ways and Means Committee changed the administration's position on tax cuts that it has proposed for next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that Mr. Mills' interview should be read in entirety. And if you read the entire article, it does not suggest that the administration, under some circumstances, and Mr. Mills may be so far apart. In fact, I'm going to see Congressman Mills today.,I'll be talking about the matter somewhat further on Friday night at the New York Economic Club, and will make detailed proposals.,We intend to go ahead with our program. And then, of course, it will be up to the Ways and Means Committee and the Congress to make a judgment as to whether they will accept it. What I think should be of concern to us all is not the question of the immediate business prospects for the next 3 or 4 months, but, really, the general trend of our industrial growth, our employment lag, over the last 5 or 6 years.,And really we should consider not only our own economic situation but that of Western Europe. I think that Mr. Jacobsson, of the International Monetary Fund, made a speech in 1959 or 1960 saying that the great period of the inflationary thrust might be coming to an end and what should concern the Western capital countries was really deflation.,And I'm hopeful that as we have a chance to explore this matter with the Congress that they will give it very close attention. Quite obviously Mr. Mills will have a very decisive voice in the final decision, but we hope to adjust our viewpoints so that we can get some action on this program next year.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, your speaking of historians induces me to ask you this: most former Presidents have put their official papers in libraries in their home States where they are not readily available to scholars and historians who come here to work with the Library of Congress and other agencies here. Have you decided where to put yours and would you consider putting it in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am going to put it in Cambridge, Mass. [Laughter],Let me say I know that we have a library now in Independence, Hyde Park, Mr. Hoover's library at Stanford, Mr. Eisenhower's library at Abilene. There are advantages and disadvantages. In some ways it helps stimulate scholarship in those areas; in addition, through scientific means of reproduction, microfilms, and all of the rest, it's possible to make documents available generally here in Washington, and through the Archives, the Library of Congress, and at the libraries. The number of scholars who deal with these subjects in detail, it seems to me, will find it possible in a central place to get the kind of documents that they need. So that while there is a problem, as you suggest, I think that we can, and this will certainly be increased as time goes on, we will find it possible to so reproduce the key documents that they will be commonly available, I would hope, in Washington. There are a great many other advantages to a library--if you've gone to Franklin Roosevelt's library and to Harry Truman's library. It offers a good deal of stimulus to the study of American history, besides being a place where you can keep for a long time documents. There are many other things of interest which I think are rather advantageous to have spread around the country, particularly as it stimulates the study of the Presidency.,[8.] Q. Speaking of scholars, Mr. President, you and Dr. Wiesner have been putting heavy stress on the need for more scientists in this country.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right. They are just releasing their report on the shortage of engineers.,Q. I wonder what your reaction is to a program in some of the New York City schools, where scientists from private industry, I believe at General Sarnoff's suggestion, are going into classrooms and giving lectures and demonstrations with the object of encouraging scientific careers?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be useful, because I think motivation is one of the problems. In addition, lack of funds is the problem to which the committee just addressed itself. We're going to have a big shortage of engineers, mathematicians, scientists, a good many of these men who would have the potential cannot afford the doctorate studies. It will require an investment by the Federal Government. But the kind of program which provides motivation you've talked about will be very useful.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, six distinguished Negro leaders convened a conference on foreign policy in the Negro community at Arden House. They passed a number of resolutions and they also passed resolutions to confer with you. Have you received the resolutions, and if so, do you have any comment? And number two, do you intend to meet with the six Negro leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'm supposed to meet with them. I am not familiar with all of the resolutions. I remember one of them with regard to the question of Ambassadors in the foreign service, and a good many other places. And I am meeting with them.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what's being done to curb Western and other shipping to Cuba, the measures that are being taken, if any, curbing shipping by Western nations, and other unaligned countries shipping material into Cuba. There's a great deal of shipping en route there now, according to the information we get.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. As you know, the shipping of any kinds of goods of the kind that would be used as offensive weapons, of course, action would be taken by the United States. Regular shipping, the United States has attempted to use its influence with members of NATO and others to discourage shipping. Some countries have responded and the United States is preparing other regulations which will affect shipping which should be available within the next 2 weeks.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, after your trip to Los Alamos Laboratory, New Mexico, is it your intention to ask for more money to speed up Project Rover, or for nuclear propulsion in space?,THE PRESIDENT. We're going to let these tests go on, of the reactor. These tests should be completed by July. If they are successful, then we will put more money into the program, which would involve the Nerva and Rift, both the engine and the regular machine. We will wait until July, however, to see if these tests are successful.,It should be understood that the nuclear rocket, even under the most favorable circumstances, would not play a role in any first lunar landing. This will not come into play until 1970 or '71. It would be useful for further trips to the moon or trips to Mars. But we have a good many areas competing for our available space dollars, and we have to try to channel it into those programs which will bring us a result, first, on our moon landing, and then to consider Mars.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could bring us up to date on what is being done to get the prisoners out of Cuba, and whether you think it's in the national interest to give food and medicine to Cuba to get these men back?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is being done by the private committee of the--,Q. But is that in the national interest? Do you favor that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. It is being handled by a private committee composed of the families of the prisoners, and a committee of which Gen. Lucius Clay and others are members, and I'm very sympathetic to their efforts.,[13] Q. You stated, sir, that you were going ahead and present your tax program to the Congress. Two questions about that program, in view of Mr. Mills' statements and the talk there has been about tax reduction: do you still plan, in your program, to ask for a reduction that would be retroactive to January 1, 1963; and will this program be in two parts, a program of quick tax reduction and a program of long-term reform?THE PRESIDENT I think it would be better to wait until the first of the year before we get the precise details. But there would be, in our proposals, tax cuts involving 1963.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, it was just a year ago that you ordered stepped-up aid to Viet-Nam. There seems to be a good deal of discouragement about the progress. Can you give us your assessment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are putting in a major effort in Viet-Nam. As you know, we have about 10 or 11 times as many men there as we had a year ago. We've had a number of casualties. We put in an awful lot of equipment. We are going ahead with the strategic hamlet proposal. In some phases, the military program has been quite successful. There is great difficulty, however, in fighting a guerrilla war. You need 10 to 1, or 11 to 1, especially in terrain as difficult as South Viet-Nam.,So we don't see the end of the tunnel, but I must say I don't think it is darker than it was a year ago, and in some ways lighter.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you define for us the term \"offensive weapons\" in the context of the Cuban situation, and are you satisfied that such weapons no longer are in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. I would refer you back to the exchange of letters between Mr. Khrushchev and myself for our definition of offensive weapons.,On the second part of your question, it is our best judgment that the missiles have been removed from Cuba, and the planes. Now, these things are never 100 percent, and it is for that reason that we are insisting on verification, or if we can't get the kind of international inspection we will continue to use our own method of verification, which we believe gives us assurance against a reintroduction of these weapons into Cuba. And I think that the methods we are using to determine the status of military activity in Cuba are very effective, and are being used frequently.,[16.] I think we have the President of Chile. We are very glad to welcome him here on his first visit to the United States.,And he told me that he had a press conference yesterday and that the press in America were far gentler than they were in Chile. [Applause],We don't want to give him the wrong impression, so I'll call on Mr. Chalmers Roberts. [Laughter],[U.] Mr. Roberts: Mr. President, the administration proposed in Geneva today some sort of direct communication between the White House and the Kremlin, either a telephone or teletype. Could you tell us what was in your mind in proposing this and how it is related to the Cuban affair, and the fact of the delay?,THE PRESIDENT. There was a delay, as you know, in the communications back and forth, in the Cuban affair. In some degree I think that on one or two occasions it was necessary to rely on open broadcasts of messages, rather than sending them through the coding procedure which took a number of hours. What was happening was that when we finally concluded our day and sent the message to the Soviets, they were just waking up, and when they finished their day and prepared their messages for us, we were just waking up. So that it was taking time. The coding procedures were slow. In a nuclear age speed is very desirable. So we are hoping that out of this present conversation we can get instantaneous communication or at least relatively instantaneous communication.,Q. Were you speaking, sir, of teletype or telephone? You once told us you didn't think a telephone was very useful.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that that's probably true. I'm not convinced that telephoning would have speeded, or that conversation on the telephone between Mr. Khrushchev and myself would have speeded a solution of the Cuban crisis. Teletype I think might have made it a safer situation. A phone might be the solution but teletype certainly seems to have some advantages, yes.,Q. Mr. Khrushchev's speech today is considered a major policy declaration. It seems to be moderate in tone. I was wondering if you found any encouragement in that tone.,THE PRESIDENT. No, as I say, I've only had a general description and it seemed to be directed really more to the members of the bloc, but I haven't really concluded an analysis of it.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, Brazil has not fully carried out the anti-inflation measures which she pledged herself to carry out last year when she got large new loans and rescheduling of old loans. And now she is in very deep economic trouble. What effect do you think this has upon the other nations in Latin America who are trying to meet the demands of the Alliance for Progress program, and what is the possible effect upon members of Congress in their attitude towards aid and the Alliance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the situation is most painful to the Brazilians, themselves, with inflation of 50 percent--which is almost unprecedented over any period of time without causing the most severe dislocations-50-percent inflation increase in the cost of living within a year. So that I think that this is a matter which the Brazilians must deal with. There is nothing, really, that the United States can do that can possibly benefit the people of Brazil if you have a situation which is so unstable as the fiscal and monetary situation within Brazil.,So this is of concern to the Government. It must be and it certainly is of concern to us. I understand that the Finance Minister of Brazil will be coming to Washington in January. Our Ambassador to Brazil has just been back for consultations which we discussed this matter with them, and I think that the Brazilian Government is aware of the strong concern that we have for this inflation which eats up our aid and which, of course, contributes to a flight of capital and, therefore, diminishes rather than increases the stability of the state.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, it's been a long time since a President and his family have been subjected to such a heavy barrage of teasing and fun-poking and satire. There have been books on \"Backstairs at the White House,\" and cartoon books with clever sayings, and photo albums with balloons and the rest, and now a smash hit record.,Can you tell us whether you read and listen to these things, and whether they produce annoyment or enjoyment?,THE PRESIDENT. Annoyment? No. Yes, I have read them and listened to them and actually I listened to Mr. Meader's record, but I thought it sounded more like Teddy than it did me--[laughter]--so he's annoyed.,[20.] Q. We understand there will be a communique concerning your discussions with the President of Chile, but meanwhile we are wondering if these discussions, in your judgment, have accelerated or will accelerate the Alliance for Progress in that country and in Latin America generally.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it definitely will accelerate it.,Q. Mr. President, this also has to do with the Alliance for Progress. Aside from the good intentions expressed by various governments in Latin America, how much real advance has been made in the area of economic, social, and political reform, and number two, is there any procedure by which those reforms can be evaluated here or in the OAS?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, there is a procedure under the Alliance for Progress, the so-called wise men, who have been analyzing and approving the various steps that we take under the Alliance for Progress, without attempting to be in any way exclusive. I know that a good many reforms have been made in Venezuela, Colombia. In fact, in Chile we have been discussing, and the President has described some of the agrarian and tax reforms that Chile is now undertaking, which give us greater promise for the future. So that I think, even though as I said in my toast yesterday, the problems of Latin America are staggering, lack of resources and the overdependence on one or two commodities, these governments in many cases are making a very determined effort under staggering difficulties. We had a visit from the President of Honduras the other day. Fifty-six percent of the people of Honduras are illiterate. These are terribly difficult problems. So that I don't think we should be impatient with failure, but we should not desist because we've not solved all the problems overnight.,In the case of Chile, as the President has pointed out, they depend, as many other Latin American countries do, on one or two commodities for their foreign exchange. The prices of these commodities in the case of nearly every country of Latin America have dropped in the last 3 or 4 years. The price of raw material exports of Colombia, as I pointed out in another press conference, has dropped more than our aid has given them. Brazil depended on coffee and coffee has dropped, though we hope the coffee agreement will make some difference.,So that I am disturbed, but I think we ought to realize that we are dealing with the most staggering problems.,Q. If I may follow up on that, sir, recently the OAS sent down a task force to Latin America, and they came up with a report that there wasn't sufficient participation by labor and other groups of that sort in the planning areas of the various government and that seemed to be an objective of the Alliance for Progress. Is there any way by which that process could be speeded up?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the strengthening of the labor movement would be really one of the most desirable things we can do. Otherwise, the labor movement is going to be disaffected and go to the radical left. This is a problem Mr. Moscoso was dealing with all the time, and I am glad to be reminded of this particular point.,[21.] Q. Sir, I wonder if, as a matter of policy, you would tell us if you favor important Government stories going to a restricted few reporters who may be specially called in for this, or if, as a matter of policy, you would let the people of your administration know that you think news should flow freely to all reporters at the same time?,THE PRESIDENT. I think--yes, I will let them know, and I think it ought to. I'm not aware that the privileged few--I think that obviously some of the weekly magazines do different kinds of stories than the daily reporters, but I don't think there should be a discrimination because of size or sex or any other reason. [Laughter],[22.] Q. Mr. President, in some of our major cities, John Birch or right-wing-type groups have been organizing boycotts against stores which carry imports from Iron Curtain, so-called Iron Curtain countries, and in some cases intimidating the stores. The State Department suggests that this is contrary to our policy of encouraging non-strategic trade with those countries. I wonder if you share that view about those boycotts?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I don't really think that--I think that it harasses merchants and I don't think it really carries on much of an effective fight against the spread of communism. If they really want to do something about the spread of communism, they will assist the Alliance for Progress, for one thing, or they will encourage their children to join the Peace Corps, or they will do a good many other things which are very greatly--they will be generous to students who come to the United States to study, and show them something of America. Those are the things that really make a difference. Not going down and because some merchant happens to have Polish hams in his shop, saying he is unpatriotic, doesn't seem to me to be a great contribution in the fight against Communism.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, there was a very specific denial from your office about the authenticity of the second article to appear in relation to what went on or what didn't go on in the Security Council. I am referring to the Life magazine article. There has been a good deal of speculation which has arisen as a result of a failure to say whether or not the first article which created all the furor was authentic.,THE PRESIDENT. I want to say now the White House statement dealt with only two points in the second article. One was whether the White House had in any way authorized or suggested the article in the Saturday Evening Post, and, number two, whether the White House had made members of the National Security Council available. Both of those were untrue. The White House had nothing to do with the determination to write the article or with its preparation. And that was what we addressed ourselves to. I will not get into a discussion of the various positions of the members of the National Security Council. Governor Stevenson has already made a reference to his position.,The fact of the matter is that Governor Stevenson renders very distinguished service, as I have said. I nominated him for the Presidency in 1956. I would not have supported him for the Presidency if I had not believed that he would be an effective and responsible President. He has done an excellent job at the United Nations.,I am surprised that anyone would possibly think that it would be in the interest of the country, or the administration, or the White House, that any lessening of his influence would be provided.,The reporters who happened to be--the Presidency is not a very good place to make new friends. I'm going to keep my old friends. But I am responsible for many things under the Constitution, but not for what they write. That's their responsibility and that is the way we will continue it.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, Congress has appropriated and you have approved a $10 million expenditure for the construction of an aquarium here in Washington. It has been noted that the dependent and needy children in Junior Village, who are urgently in need of additional housing, have not been similarly favored. Would you comment on this unusual order of priority?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that one of the unfortunate things, and I think the Congress should bear responsibility in part for it, is that we have inadequate expenditures for the needs of the people of the District, particularly the younger people, for our schools, our teachers are overburdened, recreational facilities are inadequate, and we're dealing with a very difficult situation right here in the District of Columbia.,Now, some people make a judgment that that's an indication that there is something wrong with the District and the way to deal with it is just to squeeze the District harder. I don't think the Congress has appropriated sufficient funds for the interests of the District, particularly of the younger people in the District, and this is the center of the capital of a leading country of the free world and it will be to our disgrace if we have any situation develop in the City of Washington, this rather beautiful city in some ways, which is not a credit to all of our people. So I think that there may be need for an aquarium, there may be need for a good many buildings, but in my opinion the resource of youth here should be more adequately developed.Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-11-20","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several statements.,[I.] I have today been informed by Chairman Khrushchev that all of the IL-28 bombers now in Cuba will be withdrawn in 30 days. He also agrees that these planes can be observed and counted as they leave. Inasmuch as this goes a long way towards reducing the danger which faced this hemisphere 4 weeks ago, I have this afternoon instructed the Secretary of Defense to lift our naval quarantine.,In view of this action, I want to take this opportunity to bring the American people up to date on the Cuban crisis and to review the progress made thus far in fulfilling the understandings between Soviet Chairman Khrushchev and myself as set forth in our letters of October 27 and 28. Chairman Khrushchev, it will be recalled, agreed to remove from Cuba all weapons systems capable of offensive use, to halt the further introduction of such weapons into Cuba, and to permit appropriate United Nations observation and supervision to insure the carrying out and continuation of these commitments. We on our part agreed that once these adequate arrangements for verification had been established we would remove our naval quarantine and give assurances against an invasion of Cuba.,The evidence to date indicates that all known offensive missile sites in Cuba have been dismantled. The missiles and their associated equipment have been loaded on Soviet ships. And our inspection at sea of these departing ships has confirmed that the number of missiles reported by the Soviet Union as having been brought into Cuba, which closely corresponded to our own information, has now been removed. In addition, the Soviet Government has stated that all nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from Cuba and no offensive weapons will be reintroduced.,Nevertheless, important parts of the understanding of October 27th and 28th remain to be carried out. The Cuban Government has not yet permitted the United Nations to verify whether all offensive weapons have been removed, and no lasting safeguards have yet been established against the future introduction of offensive weapons back into Cuba.,Consequently, if the Western Hemisphere is to continue to be protected against offensive weapons, this Government has no choice but to pursue its own means of checking on military activities in Cuba. The importance of our continued vigilance is underlined by our identification in recent days of a number of Soviet ground combat units in Cuba, although we are informed that these and other Soviet units were associated with the protection of offensive weapons systems, and will also be withdrawn in due course.,I repeat, we would like nothing better than adequate international arrangements for the task of inspection and verification in Cuba, and we are prepared to continue our efforts to achieve such arrangements. Until that is done, difficult problems remain. As for our part, if all offensive weapons systems are removed from Cuba and kept out of the hemisphere in the future, under adequate verification and safeguards, and if Cuba is not used for the export of aggressive Communist purposes, there will be peace in the Caribbean. And as I said in September, \"we shall neither initiate nor permit aggression in this hemisphere.\",We will not, of course, abandon the political, economic, and other efforts of this hemisphere to halt subversion from Cuba nor our purpose and hope that the Cuban people shall some day be truly free. But these policies are very different from any intent to launch a military invasion of the island.,In short, the record of recent weeks shows real progress and we are hopeful that further progress can be made. The completion of the commitment on both sides and the achievement of a peaceful solution to the Cuban crisis might well open the door to the solution of other outstanding problems.,May I add this final thought in this week of Thanksgiving: there is much for which we can be grateful as we look back to where we stood only 4 weeks ago-the unity of this hemisphere, the support of our allies, and the calm determination of the American people. These qualities may be tested many more times in this decade, but we have increased reason to be confident that those qualities will continue to serve the cause of freedom with distinction in the years to come.,[2.] Secondly, I would also like to announce that I have today signed an Executive order 1 directing Federal departments and agencies to take every proper anti legal action to prevent discrimination in the sale or lease of housing facilities owned or operated by the Federal Government; housing constructed or sold as a result of loans or grants to be made by the Federal Government or by loans to be insured or guaranteed by the Federal Government; and housing to be made available through the development or redevelopment of property under Federal slum clearance or urban renewal programs.,1 Executive Order 11063 (27 F.R. 11527).,With regard to existing housing facilities constructed or purchased as a result of direct loans or grants from the Federal Government, or under Federal guarantees, or as a result of the urban renewal program, I have directed the Housing Agency and other appropriate agencies to use their good offices to promote and encourage the abandonment of discriminatory practices that may now exist.,In order to assist the departments and agencies in implementing this policy, and to coordinate their efforts, I have established the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing. It is neither proper nor equitable that Americans should be denied the benefits of housing owned by the Federal Government or financed through the Federal assistance on the basis of their race, color, creed, or national origin.,Our national policy is equal opportunity for all and the Federal Government will continue to take such legal and proper steps as it may to achieve the realization of this goal.,[3.] And finally, over the last weekend, the Chinese have made great advances in northeastern India. Now they have offered some kind of cease-fire proposal and we are in touch with the Indian Government to determine their assessment of it. In order to better assess Indian needs, we are sending a team to New Delhi, headed by Assistant Secretary Averell Harriman, including Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze and other representatives of the Defense Department and State Department. It will leave tomorrow.,In providing military assistance to India, we are mindful of our alliance with Pakistan. All of our aid to India is for the purpose of defeating Chinese Communist subversion. Chinese incursions into the subcontinent are a threat to Pakistan as well as India, and both have a common interest in opposing it.,We have urged this point in both governments. Our help to India in no way diminishes or qualifies our commitment to Pakistan and we have made this clear to both governments as well.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, with respect to your non-invasion pledge, there has been considerable discussion and speculation in the press as to the exact scope of this pledge. I believe that Chairman Khrushchev, in his letter of the 28th, made the assumption, or the implication, or the statement, that no attack would be made on Castro, not only by the United States, but any other country in the Western Hemisphere. It appeared to be an implication that possibly you would be willing to guarantee Castro against any and all enemies anywhere. Now I realize that in your letter there was nothing of that sort and you've touched on this today, but I'm wondering if you can be a bit more specific on the scope of your no-invasion pledge.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that today's statement describes very clearly what the policy is of the Government in regard to non-invasion. I think if you re-read the statement you will see the position of the Government on that matter.,Q. Mr. President, in speaking of \"adequate verification,\" does this mean that we insist upon onsite inspection? Would we be satisfied with anything less than actual, on-the-spot inspection in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have thought that to provide adequate inspection, it should be onsite. As you know, Mr. Castro has not agreed to that, so we have had to use our own resources to implement the decision of the Organization of American States that the hemisphere should continue to keep itself informed about the development of weapons systems in Cuba.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your statement on India, would you say if you foresee any need for direct U.S. participation in the border difficulties there in the way of manpower? Will we have to send troops there?,THE PRESIDENT. There's been no indication of that. I think we can get a more precise idea of what the Indians need to protect their territorial integrity when Governor Harriman returns, and also, I understand a similar mission may be being sent from London. And I think by the end of the week we ought to have a clearer idea of what the cease-fire offer means, what the military pressures are in India, and what assistance they would like to receive from us, but as of today I've heard nothing about American troops being requested.,Q. Does that include trainers and advisers?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think--we can't tell precisely what the Indians require, and that's why this mission is going tomorrow, composed of representatives of State and Defense.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, apparently you've established quite a free-flowing channel of communications with Chairman Khrushchev. I wonder if you could comment any on this, perhaps telling us how many messages you've exchanged, some of the tenor of those, and if this will be a pattern for the future?,THE PRESIDENT. We've exchanged several messages in an attempt to try to work out the details of the withdrawal of the IL-28's and also a system of verification, in an attempt to fill in, in detail, the assurances given in the letters of late October. So that's what the correspondence has been about.,I think that's been very clearly stated. And as I say, today a message was received, several hours ago, indicating that the IL-28's would be taken out. The main burden of the negotiation, however, has been borne by Mr. McCloy and Governor Stevenson in their conversations, but I have continued to indicate how we defined offensive weapons, which has been the subject of this correspondence and, really, the subject of the negotiations between Mr. McCloy and Mr. Stevenson on the one hand, and the Russians on the other.,In addition, the question of adequate verification has been a subject of the correspondence and a subject of the negotiations.,Q. Mr. President, in the various exchanges of the past 3 weeks, either between yourself and Chairman Khrushchev or at the United Nations, have any issues been touched on besides that of Cuba, and could you say how the events of these past 3 weeks might affect such an issue as Berlin or disarmament or nuclear testing?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I instructed the negotiators to confine themselves to the matter of Cuba completely, and therefore no other matters were discussed. Disarmament, any matters affecting Western Europe, relations between the Warsaw pact countries and NATO, all the rest--none of these matters was to be in any way referred to or negotiated about until we had made progress and come to some sort of a solution on Cuba. So that has been all we have done diplomatically with the Soviet Union in the last month.,Now, if we're successful in Cuba, as I said, we would be hopeful that some of the other areas of tension could be relaxed. Obviously when you make progress in any area, then you have hopes that you can continue it. But up till now we have confined ourselves to Cuba, and we'll continue to do so until we feel the situation has reached a satisfactory state.,[7-] Q. Mr. President, your administration, like others, is being criticized for its handling of information. The point is being made that reporters are being hampered in carrying out their role as the link between Government and the American people, that we're not keeping the American people well informed, as a result of Government policies. LeRoy Collins, former Governor of Florida, now head of the National Association of Broadcasters, has accused both the Defense Department and the State Department of news suppression in the Cuban crisis. Would you care to comment on your general feeling about that, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is true that when we learned the matter on Tuesday morning until we made the announcement on the quarantine on Monday afternoon, that this matter was kept in the highest levels of Government. We didn't make any public statement about it. And I returned to Washington that Saturday morning because I had a campaign trip that was going to take until Sunday evening, and f had to come back, and we did not want to indicate to the Soviet Union or to Cuba or anyone else who might be our adversaries, the extent of our information until we had determined what our policy would be, and until we had consulted with our allies and members of OAS and NATO. So for those very good reasons, I believe, this matter was kept by the Government until Monday night. There is--at least one newspaper learned about some of the details on Sunday evening and did not print it for reasons of public interest.,I have no apologies for that. I don't think that there's any doubt it would have been a great mistake and possibly a disaster if this news had dribbled out when we were unsure of the extent of the Soviet buildup in Cuba, and when we were unsure of Our response, and when we had not consulted with any of our allies, who might themselves have been involved in great difficulties as a result of our action.,During the week, then, from Monday till Sunday, when we received Mr. Khrushchev's first message about the withdrawal, we attempted to have the Government speak with one voice. There were obvious restraints on newspapermen. They were not permitted, for example, to go to Guantanamo because obviously that might be an area which might be under attack.,Since that Sunday we have tried to, or at least intend to attempt to lift any restraints in the news. And I'm really--as a reader of a good many papers, it seems to me that the papers more or less reflected quite accurately the state of our negotiations with the Soviet Union.,They have, in a sense, been suspended because we've been arguing about this question of IL-28's, so there hasn't been any real progress that we could point to or any hard information that we could put out until today, which we're now doing.,Now, if the procedures which have been set up, which are really to protect the interest and security of the United States, are being used in a way inimical to the free flow of news, then we'll change those procedures.1,1 Earlier, on October 24, the White House had released a memorandum to editors and radio and television news directors listing 12 categories of military information vital to the national security concerning which no further releases would be issued by the Department of Defense. The memorandum requested that during the tense international situation all news media exercise caution and discretion in the publication of such information which possibly might come into their possession from other sources.,[8.] Q. Sir, in another area, could you give us your analysis of the election results and your analysis as to what effect this may have on your program in Congress next year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we'll probably be in a position somewhat comparable to what we were in for the last 2 years. We did better than we had hoped in the election, but we still did not pick up seats, and we lost and won a number of votes by very close margins, particularly in the House.,It really will depend on whether we can maintain a good deal of unity in the Democratic Party and also whether we receive some assistance from some Republicans. If the Republicans vote unanimously against us and we lose 40-odd Democrats--about one-fifth of our number--then we will have difficulty. If we get the kind of Republican support that we got at the beginning of last year in the rules fight, then we can put some of these important programs through. So I think we have to wait until they come back before we can make a judgment, and we may be about in the position we were in the last 2 years.,[9'] Q. Mr. President, the people of Florida are hoping that you and your family will again spend Christmas with them. Can you tell us what your present plans are, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. My father and mother are going to Florida in December, and my wife and children hope to go there for Christmas, and if my situation here permits, I will go for Christmas. If the question is a result of some stories that the tourist business in Florida is off because of our difficulties, I hope it will not be too dangerous in Florida this year. [Laughter],[10.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to your housing order, could you explain, first, why you've taken so long to sign the order; second, does it become effective tomorrow morning for loans and guarantees and everything, that quickly?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's correct.,Q. And, third, what assessment have you made of the possible economic impact of it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I said that I would issue it at the time when I thought it was in the public interest, and now is the time.,Secondly, it will become effective immediately. Thirdly, I don't think that its immediate effect--there may be some adverse reaction, but I think that we will be able to proceed in the development of our housing industry, which is important to our economy. I know one builder the other day in part of New York said that he would be very much against the housing order because it would hurt his development, and he was reminded that there was a more stringent law in effect in New York at the time. So that I think some of the fears have been exaggerated. In any case, it's sound, public, constitutional policy and we've done it.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, another question on Cuba. Is it your position, sir, that you will issue a formal no-invasion pledge only after satisfactory arrangements have been made for verification and after adequate arrangements have been made to make sure that such weapons are not reintroduced once more?,THE PRESIDENT. Quite obviously, as I said in my statements, serious problems remain as to verification and reassurance, and, therefore, this matter of our negotiations really are not--have not been completed and until they're completed, of course, I suppose we're not going to be fully satisfied that there will be peace in the Caribbean.,In regard to my feelings about what remains to be done, and on the matter of invasion, I think my statement is the best expression of our views.,Q. Mr. President, what would we accept as a guarantee, as a safeguard against reintroduction? Can that be achieved by anything short of continuous aerial reconnaissance?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I think that what we would like to have is the kind of inspection on the ground which would make any other means of obtaining information unnecessary.,Q. A continuing inspection after the settlement--,THE PRESIDENT. Inspection which would provide us with assurances that there are not on the island weapons capable of offensive action against the United States or neighboring countries and that they will not be reintroduced. Obviously, that is our goal. If we do not achieve that goal, then we have to use other resources to assure ourselves that weapons are not there, or that they're not being reintroduced.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the other day Khrushchev stated that Communists could learn something even from capitalists, and he even had a few kind words to say about profit incentives. Do you read any great amount of significance into this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. No. Except human nature is the same on both sides, fortunately, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, which is why I'm optimistic about the ultimate outcome of this struggle.,[13.] Q. Sir, would you please clear up for us our relationship with the United Nations? If we wanted to invade Cuba, if we wanted to take unilateral action in any way, could we do so without the approval of the United Nations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think a question-you have to really give me a much more detailed hypothetical question before I could consider answering it, and even under those conditions it might not be wise. Obviously, the United States--let's use a hypothetical case, which is always better--the United States has the means as a sovereign power to defend itself. And of course exercises that power, has in the past, and would in the future. We would hope to exercise it in a way consistent with our treaty obligations, including the United Nations Charter. But we, of course, keep to ourselves and hold to ourselves under the United States Constitution and under the laws of international law, the right to defend our security. On our own, if necessary--though we, as I say, hope to always move in concert with our allies, but on our own if that situation was necessary to protect our survival or integrity or other vital interests.,[14-] Q. Mr. President, with regard to the information policies, much of the controversy has centered on two specific orders: there's the Sylvester directive at the Pentagon which is for policing the contacts of the press with individuals in the Pentagon. And there's another order by Manning in the State Department which deals with the same general area. There's been quite a lot of criticism where some of the veteran correspondents have contended that this could cut down on the contacts, the normal flow of news, and also could cut down on controversy, I wonder if you have thought in terms of revising this, modifying it, or changing it?,THE PRESIDENT. As I said, we would modify it or change it if it turned out that it has the result that you suggest. As it is, we are tonight suggesting that there be lifted the 12 points that we made to the press in regard to voluntary restraints on the movement of troops and so on. That will be lifted tonight. There will be a change, I think, in the State Department policy directive, became the need there is somewhat different from what it is in the Defense Department. In the Defense Department we are dealing not only with the problem of movement of troops, but also with the question of the very sensitive intelligence, and the methods by which that intelligence is received, and I don't think that, as yet, it's been demonstrated that this has restricted the flow of essential news out of the Pentagon. Now if it does, we'll change it. But, I haven't been convinced of that as yet.,[15-] Q. Mr. President, Brazil has urged that a ban be declared on nuclear arms and delivery vehicles not only in Cuba, but in the rest of South America. Do you support this proposal and would you favor extending a similar ban on other areas, such as the Middle East, where Senator Javits has said that the continuing buildup of Soviet arms in Egypt, Syria, and other Arab states may provoke the next East-West crisis?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're interested in the Brazilian proposal, which is under discussion at the United Nations. We're interested in it, and a similar proposal has been made for Africa. We would be interested in that, too.,The question comes down to the willingness of the countries of Latin America to accept the Brazilian proposal, and the development of an adequate inspection system. That's the issue.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, how did you feel about the appearance of Alger Hiss on a television program on the career of Richard Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't see the program, but I thought Mr. Hagerty and Mr. Minow expressed a view with which I'm in sympathy.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to ask Congress for a $10 billion income tax cut in January, as recommended by your Labor-Management Policy Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. The question of the tax cut is going to be discussed in the administration in the next 10 days, and we'll have recommendations to make the first part of January. Until then, I'll have to withhold, until we finally decide what we are going to do--the amounts, and where the cut will come.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us your estimate as to the current relations between Communist China and Communist Russia, particularly in relationship to the events in Cuba and in India?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think that any comment that I might make would necessarily be accurate, because there's a variety of opinions in regard to the matters which may be in dispute. And in addition I think that it's a matter which we should study. There're no assurances that it means it is helpful to us or harmful, as yet, but I think we have to wait. I said the other day that I thought this was a rather climactic period, and I think that we can perhaps tell in the next months what is going on in the world beyond this hemisphere with more precision. As of tonight it would be just estimates, and I think it would be a mistake to indulge those right now.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you said you will change this procedure at the Defense Department when it's been demonstrated that the present is too restrictive--,THE PRESIDENT. That the public interest isn't being met, that's correct.,Q. How are you going to find out? The present situation is that the officers and others down there are reluctant to have any contacts with newspapermen because of not only the time they spend with the newspapermen, but the time in writing of the reports.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll bring that to Mr. Sylvester's attention, but I do--I'm not sure that we're suggesting that--in the first place, this rule has been in effect in the CIA for many years. Are we suggesting that any member of the Defense Department should speak on any subject to any newspaperman and the newspaperman should print it or not print it as he sees fit without any effort to attempt to limit the printing of news which may deal with the collection or the methods of collection of intelligence information?,Q. No, sir. It was just a question of-there are many areas other than the movement of troops and so forth.,THE PRESIDENT. And intelligence. And in those areas which are not involved there, I would be delighted to talk to Mr. Sylvester and with representatives of the press and see if we can get this straightened out so that there is a free flow of news to which the press is entitled, and which I think ought to be in the press, and on which any administration really must depend as a check to its own actions.,So I can assure you that our only interest has been, first, during this period of crisis and over a longer period to try to--not to have coming out of the Pentagon information which is highly sensitive, particularly in the intelligence areas, which I can assure you in my own not too distant experience has been extremely inimical to the interests of the United States. Now that is our only interest.,Beyond that, I think it ought to pour out. And as far as I'm concerned, I'll be glad to discuss with Mr. Sylvester and Mr. Manning. Now, as I've said, Mr. Manning is going to attempt, now that we passed at least a phase of this crisis, he will, I think, attempt to improve his order and improve the flow of information.,I will say, as an example that information has not necessarily been cut off, is the fact that Governor Stevenson sent a message on his conversation with U Thant--reporting U Thant's 2-day visit to Cuba--it was finally distributed in the Department of State by 8 a.m. By 10, before the Secretary of State had seen it, it was on a wire and one of the wire services had it completely, including some of the quotes from it, and it caused Governor Stevenson some pain. So that I think information has been flowing out, but if it isn't, we'll get it out, so I can assure you that we'll work on it.,Q. I mean in the area other than national security.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, when you speak of this as a climactic period, can you sketch in what you think some of the ultimate possibilities are?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think we can, but I do think if 5 years ago we had looked at the world, I don't think we would have made a judgment that it would have moved quite the way it has moved, that China and India would be involved in a very serious struggle which may lead to a full-scale war if it hasn't already, and that relations in many parts of the world would be as changing as they are.\nI think this is a very climactic period.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-09-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Secretary.,[1.] You gentlemen look very well after having been talked at all day. But we want you to know how much we appreciate your coming to Washington and giving the members of the administration who are concerned with those matters which are of particular interest to you, and to us, a chance to explain our policies and also, I hope, and from all I've heard, the exchange has been back and forth, so that I think the Government will benefit.,This is an artificial city, a governmental city, and well removed by design from a good many of the influences and pressures of ordinary life which you deal with on every occasion. So that it's very advantageous to us to have you come to Washington and tell us about some of your thoughts on us, which we read about with great interest, and also have a chance to talk to you.,I wanted to just sum up more or less what our view was of the economy, where it is now and where we're falling short, and what our target should be in the coming months. In the first place, I think that while we're all proud of the accomplishments of our economic system, and it has been an extraordinarily effective system in serving the needs of our people over a long period of time, we also do have a responsibility to look with candor at our shortcomings in order to attempt to develop courses of action which will make our system even more effective.,We all know that in spite of impressive economic advances during the last months, the last year and some months, there are several areas across a broad economic front that must still give us serious concern.,First, we have a rate of unemployment which is unacceptably high.,Two, we have significant industrial capacity which is not fully utilized, the steel industry being the most obvious example.,Three, we have persistent economic distress in certain regions. This is an old problem that's been with us for a great many years. But we still have the serious structural unemployment in the coal regions, steel--eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, southern Illinois, parts of Indiana, and eastern Ohio. And we still have a shrinking but troublesome deficit in our international balance of payment. And we still have a rate of economic growth which has lagged behind that of other major industrial nations.,These problems affect us all and none of us can escape responsibility for trying to meet them. We have attempted in the past 20 months to set forth policies and carry out programs which would provide a sound and solid basis for economic progress at home and abroad.,For the first time since the war I believe the American economy has moved forward simultaneously towards a number of major economic goals: full employment, though as I say we still have some to go; faster growth, at the same time avoiding inflation; and moving a long way towards a balance of payments equilibrium and also keeping a free competitive market and their functioning in operation.,Your copies of the summary of the 196162 economic expansion policies give you the particulars of what our economic growth rate has been since January 1961. I want to say, however, that with the problems that we still have, I think all of us in Government and in business should be thinking of what additional steps we could take which would be of assistance in maintaining an economic growth rate which will absorb the increase in our population and also those who are technologically dislocated.,We have to do that at home while at the same time maintaining a competitive position abroad, particularly with our European neighbors which will permit us to compete in their markets on a satisfactory basis in order to protect our balance of payments position.,So that, therefore, while we want to maintain a steady growth of the economy here at home, we also want to maintain the strictures that we can against inflation here at home which would deprive us of an increasingly advantageous economic position--particularly a position which has developed in the last 3 years in our ability to get our goods into Western Europe on a satisfactory basis.,This balance is very fine because, quite obviously, if we have an increase in costs, which are excessive in the United States, it could throw our hopes--upon which we are building so much of the success in our trade bill--it could cause us a drop in our exports and an increase in our imports, another critical period for our balance of payments, and therefore for the dollar, with all that that could mean to the United States at home and abroad.,I want to indicate, therefore, how complicated I think our task is. But there is so much slack in our economy that I think we should be able to take steps, and I'm hopeful our tax policies next year will provide an additional stimulus to the economy without threatening us with inflation.,And it seems to me that the fiscal--the monetary--procedures which we have available could effectively prevent any new inflationary pressure which might come because of a particular fiscal policy which we might follow.,I would like to say one word about the competitive market system because I think there seems to be, on occasion, some question among businessmen as to the views of those of us in Washington on this matter. Our experience during the present expansion has also demonstrated our ability to achieve impressive economic gains without shrinking the area of market freedom. I regard the preservation and strengthening of the free market as a cardinal objective of this or any administration's policies.,It is well to remind ourselves from time to time of the benefits we derive from the maintenance of a free market system. The system rests on freedom of consumer choice, the profit motive, and vigorous competition for the buyer's dollar. By relying on these spontaneous economic forces, we secure these benefits:,(a) Our system tends automatically to produce the kinds of goods that consumers want in the relative quantities in which people want them.,(b) The system tends automatically to minimize waste. If one producer is making a product inefficiently, another will see an opportunity for profit by making the product at a lower cost.,(c) The system encourages innovation and technological change. High profits are the reward of the innovator, but competitors will soon adopt the new techniques, thus forcing the innovator to continue to push ahead.,The free market is a decentralized regulator of our economic system. The free market is not only a more efficient decision maker than even the wisest central planning body, but even more important, the free market keeps economic power widely dispersed. It thus is a vital underpinning of our democratic system.,Price and wage controls paralyze the operation of the free market, and that is why we have opposed them. Likewise, unnecessary Government regulation undermines the efficiency of the market. That is why, in my transportation message to Congress last April,1 I urged that Government controls be curtailed, and the scope for competition broadened in the important transportation sector of our economy. A market, of course, is not a fact of nature. It is a creation of man and, as such, we have no guarantee that it will work effectively and impartially if we pay no attention to it.,1 Item 129.,We must encourage and protect the availability of full information, safeguard competition, and extend freedom of opportunity to individuals and businesses to participate fully in the economy in accordance with their desires and their abilities. The full benefits of the market system can only be felt when all of our people and all of our resources are used as wisely and effectively as possible.,It is, of course, natural that we will disagree as to how these goals can be implemented on occasion. Such controversies are essential to the democratic system, and also essential to democratic progress. I think it's important, however, that the controversy be based as soundly as possible on facts and on the most detailed information, that this information be made available as widely as possible in order to make sure that the businessmen of the country play as significant a role as their responsibility warrants.,As editors and publishers of the Nation's business magazines, you have a responsibility to bring to your readers accurate information concerning the activities of the Federal Government in those areas in which you are particularly concerned. I hope that this conference has helped to clarify the substance and rationale of Federal Government programs and policies, and that it will be helpful to you in your task of reporting on these activities to your readers who depend so much upon the information you provide them.,I'll be glad to answer any questions that anyone might have.,[a.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe that your administration is unduly sensitive to the alleged hostility of the business world?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, we're unduly and alleged, I would say. [Laughter] I would think that we are sensitive naturally to hostility, if that were the appropriate description, by any segment of the economy. This system of ours really depends upon comity, upon cooperation, if it is going to function. Therefore, hostility from the business section, labor, agriculture, East or West, North or South, would make it much more difficult for us. So I would be sensitive to hostility from the business community.,I recognize that there is a political difference between this administration and most businessmen. I'm not really concerned about that political difference, because I think that it's traditional and, quite honestly, no Democratic administration has banked heavily on the amount of support it would get politically from the business community. What I'm concerned about is, however, in all these very intimate interrelations--whether it's the dollar, whether it's the new trade bill, all the rest, transportation--that we have as close an understanding as possible. A good many of the proposals that we may make to improve the state of the American economy require congressional action. We want to try to make sure to the extent that it's possible that we secure the support where we can of the business community.,In my judgment, we had a good deal of misunderstanding with the business cornmunity which did not serve the public interest this year on our tax bill. We really didn't get the kind of support that the investments credit, in my opinion, would warrant as a stimulus to our economy. The whole fight against the withholding, the impression that was widely created that this was a new tax, rather than a method of collecting a tax which had been in effect for many years-and now, as I look forward to an intensive study of taxes this fall by us, and presentation to the Congress, I would like to describe the relation between business and the Government as one of cooperation, and one of amity, and one that disregards the alternate Novembers, when we may be divided politically, and instead work on the common task of making this economy move ahead.,[3-] Q. Mr. President, you spoke a moment ago of the significance of the free market. May I ask how that statement jibes with what we heard from Mr. Ball 1 this morning, who told us that we have just concluded our first international global commodity price support operation, or how that statement jibes with our current agricultural program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that if we talk about the first, we are attempting to get an agreement on coffee because if we don't get an agreement on coffee we're going to find an increasingly dangerous situation in the coffee producing countries, and one which would threaten investments, private investments, from abroad, in those countries, and would threaten, in my opinion, the security of the entire hemisphere.,1 George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State.,I must say that I was looking yesterday at some figures on what the drop in coffee prices has done to a country with which we have the closest relations, Colombia. And all the aid that we have given Colombia has, of course, not amounted to the amount that Colombia has lost in foreign exchange due to the drop in the price of coffee.,So I think we have to be concerned with the problem of our primary producers, whose prices have been declining in the last 3 years and who are faced with very serious instabilities in their own countries. So that while we would like to have what we might call a completely free competitive market, I think in these cases the national interest is served by the international agreement.,Now in agriculture we have--of course, a good deal of our agriculture is in the free market. The problems that we have particularly, of course, are in wheat, in the feed grains, and, of course, in cotton, tobacco, peanuts, the so-called basics.,There it has been felt that a withdrawal of governmental support would precipitate a decline in prices which would be of such an extraordinary range that it would bring an economic collapse in the Middle West which would adversely affect the entire economy. The Purdue University study of the effect of a drop in or withdrawal of the Government from the support business has indicated the very serious effects this would have on the entire economy. On the other hand, of course, we pay a very large bill. We have been attempting in this Congress, with some success, but not total success, to provide that those who receive the supports will not plant an unlimited amount.,We have had, as I say, some success. But I think that those members of the business community who feel that the solution is a total withdrawal of the Government's support program, I don't think we're going to see that in the very near future and, number two, I'm not sure that it would serve our long-range interests. But there are, of course, obvious limitations.,The transportation industry is regulated. There are, of course, limitations on the free market. But basically this is a free market economy, and the fact of the matter is, it is the freest market economy of any industrialized society in the world today, and I think we can take some satisfaction in that. It's the freest in the world.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned business cooperation. The administration's target date for you to proclaim the Tariff Classification Act is January 1st. Would you give consideration to postponing that about\n45 days so that Government and the import trade can get a chance to study that 2-inch volume of our new tariff?,THE PRESIDENT. I will give that consideration, definitely.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the problem of inflation, would you agree that the fact that the excessive supply was greater than the effective demand was a greater factor in keeping the prices stable than any Government action?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think that's fair, though I think we made a contribution which was unacknowledged and comparatively unsung last spring.,But I would think that--I would think your thesis is right. I think that as everything has a good and bad side, the good side is the stability of the price level. Unfortunately, it comes from an excess, to a degree an excess of supply. And this is also true of the fact we have wage stability.,The manufacturing wage rate--because we have unemployment--the manufacturing wage rate increase in the United States in 1960-61 was a 2.8 percent increase in annual rate and in 1961-62 was 2.4 percent, which is the lowest it's been since 1947. The reason has been the one that you in part stated.,The hourly earnings in June 1961-62, of the United States show about a 3.0, while Belgium, for example, was 7.7. In fact, we had less than any country except Canada. Germany, for example, was 12.9 percent. As you know, that has been true since 1959. That 's why I say our competitive position has improved but the reasons for it in both the wage rates and in commodities owe a good deal to the reasons you suggested.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, business leaders in the aerospace industry feel very strongly that you have demonstrated your alleged anti-business attitude in forcing a union shop on them. An JAM official has indicated that he is not particularly pleased with this approach to a union shop. In view' of its significance for all industries, would you comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. As you know, we set up a committee headed by Dr. Taylor because we--most of these missile companies, aerospace companies are really very much dependent upon the Government. The Government is their major purchaser. Therefore, any contract or any increase would, of course, be paid for in good measure by the Government.,Number one, any interference with production would be paid for by the American people because all these programs are vital. So that I set up a committee which was acceptable to both labor and management which was headed by Dr. Taylor from Pennsylvania, who had performed a similar function for President Eisenhower in the steel case in November of 1959, and included on it an arbitrator for Bethlehem. And it was a panel which, as I say, was acceptable. They made the report.,This was not done by the United States Government. As part of the report was the exceptions to the union shop. The fact is the wage section of the report was not as generous as the unions felt that they must have. On the other hand, the union shop was unacceptable to some of the companies. But as I said the other day at a press conference, the union shop in major industries has been accepted for a great many years--automobiles, steel, aluminum. This is not something new or radical. We've had that, as I say, in our basic industries. I can't think of any of them, really of our basic industries, that have not had the union shop.,So I don't think that this is asking very much. And as I say, it's not my report. It is Dr. Taylor's report. Now you can have an economic struggle out there on the coast in these industries, and you can have a strike, and then where are we all going to be on missiles and planes and all the rest?,So this was an attempt to work out an equitable solution. Obviously, neither side is very happy with it. The unions feel the wage section is too limited, and the companies don't like the union shop section. But I think that probably it's as equitable a solution as you would get from a long economic struggle.,And I think our experience in the steel industry, where you had a 6-month strike and then finally settled on terms you probably could have settled on 6 months before, indicates that if we can prevent the strikes, particularly in the vital industries, it's in the public's interest.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, what is the status of the wilderness bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, unfortunately, it's quite far out, in the sense that the bill is unsatisfactory and not very satisfactory in the House. It is in the Senate. And I hope we can get a good bill. I think many of us who travel around the United States know what an asset this is, and I hoped the bill would pass in a form similar to that in which we originally discussed it. I think if I may say so, this bill is an example of some of the problems which we have here in dealing with the business community. This is a bill which conservationists and others feel strongly is in the national interest. It does, possibly, cut across the interests of mineral producers or lumbermen and others, and they, therefore, may feel that the very sponsorship of such legislation is anti-business. But it isn't. It's an attempt to protect the public interest. And it's quite natural that those who may be adversely affected may suffer. But that doesn't warrant the general labeling of anti-business. As a matter of fact, a good many businessmen who complain about the antitrust actions of the Federal Government, this administration or others, if they would see the letters that come in from businessmen demanding that we take such action they would realize how difficult it is to keep all businessmen, or indeed, all of everybody else, happy.,[8.] Q. In the last few months it has become increasingly difficult to report in the aerospace field. There is, however, a DOD order outlining the mechanics of working with the press. Yet the order is secret. How can we get copies of it?,THE PRESIDENT. Arthur Sylvester--I'll ask him about it.,Q. I asked him Tuesday.,THE PRESIDENT. What did he say? You are with which magazine?,Q. Western Aerospace.,THE PRESIDENT. Fine. I will talk to him, without success, I'm sure.,[9.] Q. A couple of weeks ago, Mr. President, you said you'd recommend to the Department of Agriculture that it prepare legislation to eliminate the inequity of the twoprice system in cotton. Did you have in mind the substitution of a one-price system?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we will, in January, present a program which will eliminate the inequities. I think it would be better for the Agriculture Department to finish its analysis of the various alternatives, but it definitely will be presented. Now there isn't any doubt that when it is presented, it's going to make some people unhappy. It will make the textile manufacturers happy. It will perhaps make some other people less happy. Otherwise, it would have been done long ago. There's no magic to this. It means a struggle, but I think the struggle is worth while, because I think it is really foolish to pile on this extra burden on the manufacturer, and then at the same time try to hang it on another way on the importation of textiles.,Q. Did you have in mind removing the inequity of the one-price system at one step, just eliminate it, or would it be a phased proposal?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I would prefer to wait until we get it through the Department of Agriculture, but we will have it in January.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, what are your views on H.R. 10, the self-employed pension bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I am going to take a good look at it after the Senate has acted, which may be today. It does represent a budget loss, as you know, of $100 million or $125 million, depending on which figures you use. In addition, it would be ideally more suited to a reform bill and I think would be part of any reform bill which we would be presenting next January, so that we have to weigh the factor of the loss versus the factor that it did pass the House unanimously and has widespread support. I expect that it will pass very generously in the Senate if it hasn't already done so, and then will come to us. And then we will have to take action.,It is--the principle has equity to it. The problem is that it does represent additional loss of revenue this year, and there are other groups who have a claim which is equal but which we have suspended in action because of budget losses, and so we really have to decide whether this is the fair way to do it this year for this group or whether it should be part of a package in January.,Perhaps we can have about two more questions. I know you are tired.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, several weeks ago the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning presented to you a study on the crude oil import control program. Have you anything to say at this point particularly as to when there might be a decision, or what direction the decision might take?,THE PRESIDENT. The report was not wholly accepted by me, so that I don't expect any announcement will be made about the matter at the present time.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in time of a hot war, we are asked to sacrifice time and money and lives. Do you believe that this country can win over the Communists in the long run without greater sacrifices?\nTHE PRESIDENT Yes, I think that the United States or the free world is going to be successful. And now, the question of sacrifices--I think the United States will do whatever must be done to provide for that success. What is difficult is the operation of a free society and who sacrifices.,Talking about one of our problems, which is gold, we have been attempting to cut down, as you know, the amount of money we lose from the expenditures abroad for the maintenance of our national defense, from $3 billion to about $1.5 billion. There have been suggestions that there be even further cuts. We also have been cutting the $1.3 billion loss we incur in our AID program down to $800 million. To do that, of course, we have to give up a good many projects which are very important. We have the Buy American, and in the case of Viet-Nam it requires them to buy products in the United States, which they could buy next door substantially cheaper. We do that in order to protect our gold balance. At the same time we lose net a billion dollars a year from tourists abroad. Our tourists spend a billion dollars more than their tourists, and therefore that is spent particularly in Western Europe, which already have dollar surpluses.,We also invest abroad about two and a half billion dollars. No other country would permit that kind of movement of capital. But we do it as a free society. I indicate this only because at the time when we're talking about writing a tax bill, which would deal with loopholes, and which would put American businessmen in a position of equity with American companies who might be investing abroad and selling here in the United States the products they make abroad, a good many businessmen felt that was unfair and was perhaps anti-business. But it isn't at all. We just have to attempt to balance what is the national interest between cutting down on the number of troops we have abroad or cutting down the very vital programs abroad as opposed to losing a billion dollars on tourists or two and a half billion dollars here, and other funds other places.,I mention that example because I think it indicates quite clearly the complexities of the alternatives which we have, to us as a Nation, and though you may have a private interest in an expenditure abroad, it also affects the public interest, because each of those expenditures has some effect upon the supply of the United States gold at Fort Knox, and its movement.,So in answer to your question, I've some feeling that a good many of the calls for sacrifice are very genuine. But the difficulty is, without a central authority of a kind repugnant to us, it's difficult to make these sacrifices equitable. And that is where we get into a difference of view. But in answer to your question, I think the job can be done, and I think the United States, as one of a number of countries, can do it.\nDelegate: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-09-13","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a preliminary statement.,[1. ] There has been a great deal of talk on the situation in Cuba in recent days both in the Communist camp and in our own, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the matter in perspective.,In the first place, it is Mr. Castro and his supporters who are in trouble. In the last year his regime has been increasingly isolated from this hemisphere. His name no longer inspires the same fear or following in other Latin American countries. He has been condemned by the OAS, excluded from the Inter-American Defense Board, and kept out of the Free Trade Association. By his own monumental economic mismanagement, supplemented by our refusal to trade with him, his economy has crumbled, and his pledges for economic progress have been discarded, along with his pledges for political freedom. His industries are stagnating, his harvests are declining, his own followers are beginning to see that their revolution has been betrayed.,So it is not surprising that in a frantic effort to bolster his regime he should try to arouse the Cuban people by charges of an imminent American invasion, and commit himself still further to a Soviet takeover in the hope of preventing his own collapse.,Ever since communism moved into Cuba in 1958, Soviet technical and military personnel have moved steadily onto the island in increasing numbers at the invitation of the Cuban Government.,Now that movement has been increased. It is under our most careful surveillance. But I will repeat the conclusion that I reported last week: that these new shipments do not constitute a serious threat to any other part of this hemisphere.,If the United States ever should find it necessary to take military action against communism in Cuba, all of Castro's Communist-supplied weapons and technicians would not change the result or significantly extend the time required to achieve that result.,However, unilateral military intervention on the part of the United States cannot currently be either required or justified, and it is regrettable that loose talk about such action in this country might serve to give a thin color of legitimacy to the Communist pretense that such a threat exists. But let me make this clear once again: If at any time the Communist buildup in Cuba were to endanger or interfere with our security in any way, including our base at Guantanamo, our passage to the Panama Canal, our missile and space activities at Cape Canaveral, or the lives of American citizens in this country, or if Cuba should ever attempt to export its aggressive purposes by force or the threat of force against any nation in this hemisphere, or become an offensive military base of significant capacity for the Soviet Union, then this country will do whatever must be done to protect its own security and that of its allies.,We shall be alert, too, and fully capable of dealing swiftly with any such development. As President and Commander in Chief I have full authority now to take such action, and I have asked the Congress to authorize me to call up reserve forces should this or any other crisis make it necessary.,In the meantime, we intend to do everything within our power to prevent such a threat from coming into existence.,Our friends in Latin America must realize the consequences such developments hold out for their own peace and freedom, and we shall be making further proposals to them. Our friends in NATO must realize the implications of their ships engaging in the Cuban trade.,We shall continue to work with Cuban refugee leaders who are dedicated as we are to that nation's future return to freedom. We shall continue to keep the American people and the Congress fully informed. We shall increase our surveillance of the whole Caribbean area. We shall neither initiate nor permit aggression in this hemisphere.,With this in mind, while I recognize that rash talk is cheap, particularly on the part of those who do not have the responsibility, I would hope that the future record will show that the only people talking about a war or an invasion at this time are the Communist spokesmen in Moscow and Havana, and that the American people defending as we do so much of the free world, will in this nuclear age, as they have in the past, keep both their nerve and their head.,Q. Mr. President, coupling this statement with the one of last week, at what point do you determine that the buildup in Cuba has lost its defensive character and become offensive? Would it take an overt act?,THE PRESIDENT. I think if you read last week's statement 1 and the statement today, I made it quite clear, particularly in last week's statement, when we talked about the presence of offensive military missile capacity or development of military bases and other indications which I gave last week, all those would, of course, indicate a change in the nature of the threat.,1 Item 352 [14, 17].,Q. Well, Mr. President, in this same line, have you set for yourself any rule or set of conditions at which you will determine the existence of an offensive rather than a defensive force in Cuba, and, in that same connection, in your reading of the Monroe Doctrine, how do you define \"intervention\"? Will it require force to contravene the Monroe Doctrine or does the presence of a foreign power in any force, but not using that force in this hemisphere, amount to contravention of the Doctrine?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have indicated that if Cuba should possess a capacity to carry out offensive actions against the United States, that the United States would act. I've also indicated that the United States would not permit Cuba to export its power by force in the hemisphere. The United States will make appropriate military judgments after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others, after carefully analyzing whatever new information comes in, as to whether that point has been reached where an offensive threat does exist. And at that time the country and the Congress will be so notified.,[2.] Q. Would you state, sir, whether or not the United States has given export licenses for the export of U-2 aircraft to other nations, other than Nationalist China? And if so, what is our policy?,THE PRESIDENT. No, We have not. These export licenses were given, as you know, in July of 1960, and were sold to the Nationalist Chinese Government. And we have no plans to sell any further ones or grant any other export licenses.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment, please, on the Soviet announcement that they apparently will shelve discussion on Berlin until after our elections in November?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought that the leaders of both political parties in the Congress indicated very clearly that on this matter of Berlin there was not a political division within the United States, and that our position in Berlin, which carries over a long commitment, stretching back through many years, several administrations, would not be affected by whatever the results may be in the November election.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us why the Alliance for Progress has not made more progress in the past year on Latin American problems, in your judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Alliance for Progress is a tremendous effort which is, by the united effort of the free countries of Latin America and the United States, to attempt to bring about an increase in the standard of living and the opportunities for the peoples of Latin America.,Latin America has been neglected for many, many years. I would hope that a good many Americans who are particularly concerned about Cuba today would also take a very careful look at the very low standard of living of much of Latin America, the bad housing, the unemployment, the bad health of so many of the people there. We are engaged in a monumental task in attempting to increase the standard of living of the people of Latin America, and we have available for that purpose a good deal less money than we had available for the rebuilding of Europe, which had a highly developed labor force, great technical skills, and which required only an infusion to provide an increase over the prewar standard of living.,Here we do not have the technical skills. We do not have the planning staffs. We have, in a sense, neglected Latin America, so that we are engaged in a tremendous operation with insufficient resources. And I think we are moving ahead since Punta del Este. But there's an awful lot of business left unfinished, and will be for some time. You cannot remake the face of Latin America overnight and provide better opportunity.,In addition, I'm very anxious that the countries of Western Europe, particularly the Common Market, will concern themselves with Latin America. Latin America depends on its export markets to Europe in order to maintain its economy.,Latin America has had a flight of capital in recent months which has been serious. In addition, the price of its primary products has also dropped in recent months. So that even the assistance we have given has not been enough to keep Latin America even, and particularly when its population increase amounts to almost 3 percent. So we're faced with staggering problems in Latin America and I hope that in our concentration on the particular problem which I discussed at the opening, we will extend our view and realize that what's at stake here is the freedom of a good many countries which are in very dire straits today.,[5.] Q. What did you think, sir, of the rather harsh things that Republican Congressman Joel Broyhill in nearby Virginia had to say about you and your Press Secretary because Mr. Salinger gave a party last night for his Democratic opponent?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can see why he would be quite critical of that, but I will say that I've never read as much about a Congressman who's in the paper as I do about that Congressman and see less legislative results. [Laughter],[6.] Q. Mr. President, Martin Luther King has telegraphed you asking for Federal action against anti-Negro terrorism in the South, and at least one Negro organization has threatened to picket you with the allegation that the Federal Government has not done enough. Could you tell us whether you have answered Dr. King, and give us the thought that you gave him, and whether you can say that or not, can you give us a comment on the problem?,THE PRESIDENT. We are in contact with Dr. King and others who have communicated to us about it. I don't know any more outrageous action which I have seen occur in this country for a good many months or years than the burning of a church--two churches--because of the effort made by Negroes to be registered to vote.,The United States Constitution provides for freedom to vote, and this country must permit every man and woman to exercise their franchise. To shoot, as we saw in the case of Mississippi, two young people who were involved in an effort to register people, to burn churches as a reprisal, with all of the provisions of the United States Constitution-at least the basic provision of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship--I consider both cowardly as well as outrageous. The United States now has a number of FBI agents in there, and as soon as we are able to find out who did it, we'll arrest them and we'll bring them before a jury, and I'm sure that they'll be appropriately dealt with.,But let me say that nothing, I think-and I'm sure this is the view of the people of the States--the right to vote is very basic. If we're going to neglect that right, then all of our talk about freedom is hollow, and therefore we shall give every protection that we can to anybody seeking to vote. I hope everybody will register in this country. I hope they will vote. I commend those who are making the effort to register every citizen. They deserve the protection of the United States Government, the protection of the State, the protection of local communities, and we shall do everything we possibly can to make sure that that protection is assured and if it requires extra legislation and extra force, we shall do that.,[7.] Q. Sir, in connection with the Chicago Northwestern Railway strike, how long do you believe such a major transportation tie-up can be allowed to run on before the public interest requires Presidential intervention or congressional action?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act in that case. The only provision which is available to us would be the Taft-Hartley under a finding that the national interest and security was affected, so that we would have to make that legal judgment. It's my understanding that representatives of both of these parties have been meeting with Mr. Wirtz during the last few days, and that some progress has been made.,I think it's very important that the parties come to an agreement immediately because there are great interests of nine States affected: a good many farm crops, which should be coming to harvest, which are in the field--and public welfare suggests that these two important groups come to a conclusion, I would hope, over the weekend.,I am hopeful of it, and, as I say, the latest report I had today was that progress had been made. So I'm hopeful that both sides will make the sufficient concessions, if that's the word, to permit an agreement, because the public interest suggests an agreement is due.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, it was generally understood that the current test series would be over by now and it now appears that the atmosphere tests may continue on into November. Can you tell us why this decision was made to continue?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there're two reasons. One is that, as you know, because of the blowup in the pad at Johnston Island and because of the earlier failures of the communications system in the missile, we are not able to carry out these tests which were the most--among the most important, if not the most important, of our series. So we're going to finish those.,In addition, as a result of the earlier tests of this Dominick series, there were certain things learned which we would like to prove out. So that we have agreed to a limited number of tests in concluding the Dominick series. And also we have taken some steps to prevent a repetition of the incident which caused an increase in the number of electrons in the atmosphere, by lowering the altitude and the yield so that lunar flights will not be further endangered.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us whether you discussed the Cuban situation with General Eisenhower on Monday, and, if you did, whether there was any agreement between U.S. part leaders that it shouldn't be an issue in this fall's campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. We discussed all problems, and, of course, that was one of them, but I didn't request any such agreement from him.,[10] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your plans for next month, do you think you will find time to visit the National Automobile Show in Detroit?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm hopeful I will. Yes, I think I might.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, in the recent Soviet statement on Cuba, the Russians implied that perhaps the main reason the United States is so exercised about Cuba now is because of our election coming up. I'd like to ask you if you agree with this premise, and, more pointedly, do you think that the Republicans are going to make political hay out of Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would not want to comment on the extent of the Soviet knowledge of our pre-elective process, nor would I suggest that the concern over Cuba is due to the election. I think that the concern is due to the fact that Cuba is close to the United States territory and that Cuba is obviously tying itself closer to the Communist bloc. The arrival of these weapons and technicians has caused increasing alarm by not only the Members of Congress but also by the administration and by the American people. I would think that it's part of our serious problems in which we are engaged in a tense concentration in many parts of the world at a dangerous time and it's quite natural that this action would bring a good deal of concern. I would not suggest that those who are concerned about it are motivated by political purposes or that the Soviet judgment that they are is accurate.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your intention to try to close some tax loopholes next year, do you find either the House or the Senate version of H.R. 10 acceptable this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I want to wait until the conference, and of course the Senate version is much more acceptable than the House version, but even the Senate version requires some careful analysis and I'm sure-I think it would be more useful to wait until after the conference and then make a judgment as to whether we should go ahead with this bill or whether we should wait until the general reform of next year.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the same Soviet statement which was mentioned earlier implied that the Soviet Union might intervene militarily on the side of Cuba in the event the United States was forced to take military action. Would this implied threat be a major factor in any decision you might be called upon to make?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, the United States will take whatever action the situation, as I described it, would require. As far as the threat, the United States has been living with threats for a good many years and in a good many parts of the world. But the United States will not take any action that the situation does not require and will take whatever action the situation does require along the grounds which I indicated in my opening statement.,[14'] Q. Mr. President, in the area of peaceful uses of space, you've said that we shall be first, but if we refrain from competing with Russia for warlike space vehicles, as Mr. Gilpatric has said, doesn't this almost condemn us to a second place finish in the military field?,THE PRESIDENT. No, AS I said last week, in the first place we're spending $1,500 million a year on our military space program.1 What is key for the success both of peaceful exploration of space as well as the military mastery of space are large boosters, effective control of the capsule, the ability to rendezvous, and all of the rest, so that there is an obvious usefulness if the situation should require--military usefulness for our efforts, peaceful efforts, in space.,1 See Item 340 [5].,There is no sense--in addition, as you know, very recently we determined to go ahead with the Titan III, which gives the United States Air Force a very strong weapon if that should become necessary. So that the work that NASA is doing on Saturn, the work the Air Force is doing on Titan, the work that's being done on the Apollo program and Gemini and the others, all have a national security factor as well as a peaceful factor.,Q. Mr. President, could you say a little more about what Mr. Gilpatric meant by allowing the Russians to go first with hydrogen weapons in space?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not aware that we're intending the Russians to go first with hydrogen weapons.,Q. He said we wouldn't go until they did.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the United States is attempting, and this administration, as you know, is making a very massive effort in space. As I said, we are spending three times what we spent last year in space, and more in this year's budget than the 8 previous years, so that this is a tremendous effort, $51/2 billion as well as the money that we're spending for the military use of space.,As I say, the size of the booster, the capsule, and the control all would have, if the situation required it, a military use. We hope it does not; we hope that space will be used for peaceful purposes. That is the policy of the United States Government. But we should be prepared if it does not. In addition, as I've said from the beginning, both the Soviet Union and the United States both have a capacity today to send a missile to each other's country with a nuclear warhead on it. So that we must keep some perspective as to where the danger may lie. But the United States, in the effort it's making both in the peaceful program and the military program, all of this will increase our security if the Soviet Union should attempt to use space for military purposes.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Robert Frost, the poet, recently came back from a trip to Russia and said he had a message from Premier Khrushchev for you. I think the American people would like to know what that message was, and what message he might have taken over from you to Premier Khrushchev. Would you tell us what that was?,THE PRESIDENT. No, he didn't take a message, except the message of his own personality and poetry, to Russia and to Mr. Khrushchev, and his character. I have not received his message, though I hope to see him shortly, and if I do, I will if it's--I'm sure I'll be glad to communicate it to you and to the American people.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned in your opening statement that proposals might be made to the Latin American countries. Could you give us some idea of your philosophy of what the Latin American countries' role should be in this Cuban situation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think it would be more appropriate--as you know, Mr. Rusk plans to meet with them this month at the time the General Assembly opens, and I think it would be more appropriate for they and he to meet and confer on the matter, and at that time we will have some suggestions.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, have you received any response from the Soviet Union to indicate that they are, in fact, considering cooperative ventures with the United States in space, other than those negotiated earlier in satellite weather research by the late Dr. Harry Wexler? If not, are you still hopeful that such cooperation is likely in the near future?\nTHE PRESIDENT No. As you know, Dr. Dryden had some conversations in Geneva in regard to the matter, and some progress was made, but it's limited in its scope and we would hope more could be done. And more, perhaps, could be done if the atmosphere between the two countries should be improved.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, you said in your opening statement that you now had full authority to act in the Cuban affair. In view of this, do you think there's any virtue in the Senate or the Congress passing the resolution saying you have that authority?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the Members of Congress would, speaking as they do with a particular responsibility--I think it would be useful, if they desired to do so, for them to express their view. And as I've seen the resolutions which have been discussed--a resolution which I think Senator Mansfield introduced and which Chairman Vinson introduced in the House--and I would think that--I'd be very glad to have those resolutions passed if that should be the desire of the Congress.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, will you tell us some of your thinking on your request for special reserve mobilization powers? The international situation has led you twice to request such special legislation. You could call a million reservists if you declared a national emergency. Why don't you do that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there're several stages of a possible crisis. The call of a national emergency, I would say, is near the final step of a crisis. But there may be increased threats which would require us to call some reservists, particularly in the air, maybe at sea, possibly on the ground. Last year, when we called the reservists, the two divisions, the Wisconsin and Texas Divisions, we also laid plans for making two more divisions permanent, which came into effect this summer--August and September-so that those two divisions served a purpose of giving us this reserve during the period of the crisis at that time, and at the end of it we had two permanent divisions.,We have, as you know, of course, increased our Army strength from 11 to 16 divisions in the last year and a half. Now, if we need--of course, if we're in a national emergency, where the United States is threatened with very serious military action, of course there would be no hesitancy in declaring it. But we might be in a situation where the declaration of a national emergency might not be the most appropriate step, and in that case we would use the power granted to us by the Congress.,Q. Mr. President, in that connection, your request for only 150,000 reservists would seem to not enforce the opinion expressed because it seems no stage at all.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that--,Q. You said that you've strengthened the Armed Forces.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. Then we have 150,000 more that we could call. They could be in very critical areas. As I have said, the air and the sea are two, and, of course, there could be Guard divisions called. If the United States were obliged to reinforce its forces any place, the ability to call up needed men would make an appreciable difference. Now, as I say, we always have the final weapon, or nearly final weapon, of a national emergency and the power to call a million men. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense felt that this intermediate step could be very useful during the period when Congress is out of session.,[20.] Q. This question concerns the aerospace dispute. As you know, the autoworkers and the machinists unions have accepted the Presidential board's recommendation, and recommendations, sir, which I believe you have also found acceptable as a basis for settlement. The four leading aerospace manufacturers, especially Lockheed, have rejected the basic union shop recommendation. Now the unions feel they are being forced into a strike posture, as a result of the company's attitude. Could you tell us something of your opinion and your reaction to the situation and what the equities in this area are?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, most major industrial companies or industries in the United States have accepted the union shop many years ago--the steel industry, the auto industry, the aluminum companies, other basic industries. The union shop is part of collective bargaining and particularly under the terms suggested by Dr. Taylor--a two-thirds vote--people do not have to join the union to get the job. After they've come to work, if it's an opinion of a large majority of the members, then they would join the union. This, as I say, has been acceptable for many years to many companies which are even larger than the ones that are involved. That's the first point.,Now the second point is that the total package, it seems to me, should be considered as a package. The economic proposals made are not excessive. They come well within the guidelines suggested by the Council of Economic Advisers. The unions are accepting a financial settlement which is not particularly generous in relation to certain other unions in recent years. They feel that the total package, however, is acceptable. I would hope the companies would accept it, because if a strike comes, in view of the fact that the recommendation of the fact-finding board headed by Dr. Taylor, who also was given a comparable assignment by President Eisenhower in the steel strike case--which indicates his own high reputation and that of the panel--I would hope that the companies would accept it, because if there is a strike, the responsibility would be very clear, I think, to the American people for such an action. I would hope there wouldn't be a strike, that business would go on, that the companies would accept the report.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, do you favor the election of every Democratic candidate for Congress? How many seats do you feel you need in the Senate and the House to get a Congress that will put across your legislative program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would be glad to go through the names with you. I've said from the beginning that I would probably be supporting any Congressman who was interested in my support. I think there are probably some Democrats who might not be particularly anxious for my support and, therefore, my endorsement would not be required across the board. Those Congressmen who are interested in my supporting them are usually people who hold the same general view of the necessity for this country making progress that I do.,Now, secondly, this Congress is ending. I think that it is somewhat like Lazarus. It has revived. It's moving and we are going to see the session end, in my opinion, with the passage of a good trade bill, with a tax bill which will come out of the conference, I hope a higher education bill, and a good many other bills which 2 months ago seemed to be in the deep freeze. So I think that we're making progress.,What I think is important is because these votes--and we will get a farm bill, I hope-because these votes are so close, because their program is opposed by the opposition party, almost across the board, and because some Democrats join, I would hope that we could hold the number of seats we have and perhaps pick some up, even though I recognize that it's going to be a very intensely fought election.,[22.] Q. Sir, when you went to Houston the other day you didn't take along Congressman Casey whose district you went to, and you also didn't take along Senator Yarborough from Texas. I wonder why you did this and I also wonder if you were motivated in leaving Casey at home because he had opposed you on some issues.,THE. PRESIDENT. Well, you say I didn't take Senator Yarborough, and he and I have been in close concert so, of course, the reason was not that which you have suggested. We did not take any Congressman or Senator along to Florida though we visited it. We didn't take any Congressman or Senator along to Alabama because this was a program trip.,Q. One was already there, wasn't he?,THE. PRESIDENT. Oh, yes, and we invited all the Congressmen and Senators who were in the districts to come with us on the trip. For example, Senator Long from Missouri, came with us to the McDonnell plant. We would have been glad to have anyone come. But we invited the members of the Space Committees of the House and Senate, the ranking Democrat and Republican. We also brought Congressman Thomas along, who is Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for the space program. And that was the total invitation because this was a nonpolitical trip.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-08-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] I regret to announce that Associate Justice frankfurter has retired from regular active service on the Supreme Court. He has served in the Court for 23 years, and for many years before that had an illustrious career as a lawyer and teacher. During his service on the Court, the direction of the law has been channeled by many important decisions which he has rendered. He has always been a vital force in directing those decisions. Few judges have made as significant and lasting impression upon the law. Few persons have made so important a contribution to our legal traditions and literature. Now regard for his health has compelled him to take a less active part in the Court's labors, and we shall miss him.,To the vacancy created by Justice frankfurter's retirement, I intend to appoint Secretary Goldberg. Secretary Goldberg will bring to the Court a wealth of experience gained from the active practice of law for over 30 years. He has had an enviable record of accomplishment at the bar and his character, temperament, and ability superbly qualify him for service on the Court. I believe that his scholarly approach to the law, combined with his deep understanding of our economic and political systems, will make him a valuable member of the Supreme Court. His place as an adviser and as head of the Department of Labor will be difficult to fill, but I am confident that he will find an equally wide opportunity for public service in his new position.,[2.] In Geneva this morning the Soviet representative proposed that agreement should be reached on a cutoff time for all nuclear weapon tests and that this date should be set as of January 1, 1963. I'm happy to say that the United States Government regards this as a reasonable target date and would like to join with all interested parties in a maximum effort to conclude effective agreements which can enter force on next New Year's Day. To accomplish this purpose the governments involved must accelerate their negotiations looking toward an agreed treaty.,For our part in the United States, such an agreed treaty must be presented to the Senate for consent to ratification. We therefore have no time to lose. The world will welcome an agreement that a way should be found to stop all nuclear testing at the end of this year. But I must point out again that in order to end testing, we must have workable international agreements, gentlemen's agreements and moratoria do not provide the type of guarantees that are necessary. They do not give assurance against an abrupt renewal of testing by unilateral action. This is the lesson of the Soviet Government's tragic decision to renew testing just a year ago. Nor can such informal arrangements give any assurance against secret underground testing. That is why we must have a definite agreement with reasonable and adequate assurance. The United States cannot be a party to any renewal of false hopes which the Soviet Government shattered last September. The two treaties now before the Geneva conference have been prepared with care to meet the technical necessities of an effective test ban. If the Soviet Government will accept a serious and formal agreement in either form, a real downward turn in the arms race is possible. The United States Government for its part will spare no effort to this end.,[3.] finally, I am very happy to announce and express great pleasure that the Schola Cantorum of the University of Arkansas won first prize for a 4n-voice choral group at the Arezzo International Polyphonic Group contest in Italy. This is the first time this contest has ever been won by an American group. They were sent by private citizens. The prize of 300,000 lira was presented by President Segni and Prime Minister Fanfani. We are inviting them to the White House at the Rose Garden at 12 noon, September 4, and we are very proud of them.,[4'] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the prospects of the National farmers Organization holding meat and grain off the market until processors promise to pay higher prices? Do you think, for example, the farmers have the same rights as an industrial union to strike and thus deprive consumers of their product?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's no evidence that they are planning to deprive consumers of their products. What they would like to do is get a higher price for their products and it is a fact, of course, that farm income is low. Last year it was $2 billion above the figure of 1960, the highest it had been in 9 years, but farmers are very--particularly those that live on small farms, work a very hard day, and are paid a relatively low wage.,This kind of an effort has been tried, in the twenties and the thirties and other occasions, and it's not been successful because there are so many farmers. They are so separated that it's not been possible to have them together present a bargaining position, and it is because of that that the federal Government has entered into the matter. So I could not speculate on what their success will be.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, we were told the other day that Wilkes Thrasher of Chattanooga had been in to see you and that you were inclined to support his candidacy for Congress from Tennessee. Today we had an announcement that he is on the American delegation that's going down to observe, or help Trinidad celebrate its independence. I was wondering if this constitutes your idea of support or whether you have any plans, perhaps, to do a little political or nonpolitical campaigning in the South.,THE PRESIDENT. No, this does not constitute the action which I would hope to take to support his candidacy, this visit this weekend. This is a nonpolitical trip of his. As far as coming to Tennessee, I've no plans as yet and in fact, I haven't worked out my schedule for any State. But I support his candidacy.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the United States has been urging four-power consultations in order to reduce tensions in Berlin. In this connection there have been reports of a foreign ministers meeting in advance of the General Assembly and also there has been speculation that you may personally meet with Mr. Khrushchev at the U.N. Would you give us your views on this, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. On the first matter there will be a meeting of the foreign ministers before the meeting of the General Assembly. It's been agreed to in principle; the time and location has not been set.,On the second matter, I think I responded last week to the question of Mr. Khrushchev's coming. We have no information and I've nothing really to add to what I said last week on this matter.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, some time ago you spoke about the problem of dealing with preparations of nuclear tests which can be carried on in a secret society to our disadvantage, as you pointed out. Can you tell us what has happened to this problem in these current negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. We have indicated that if we could get an across the board agreement which would include a cessation of atmospheric tests and underground tests with adequate inspection for the underground tests, that we would feel that our security would be advanced, and we would accept that.,If there is only an atmospheric test ban which does not require inspection, of course, then other underground tests would continue. Quite obviously, the first agreement is the most desirable one. If we can't get that because of the Soviet Union's reluctance to permit us to have an effective inspection system, then we would like to get the second, because that would have an effect on the arms race and it would also have an effect, of course, on the problem of radiation. In that case, of course, underground testing would be permitted and we believe that that would give us sufficient assurance against the kind of event which happened last September.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, a recent decision of the Supreme Court said that the Postmaster General does not have the authority to keep pornographic material out of the United States mails except in a limited way, and the most dreadful stuff is coming into our homes into the hands of our children, brought by the United States mails. Now, have you or will you talk with the Attorney General and the Postmaster General as to how this can be remedied?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the statutes on the distribution of pornographic literature are well, I am sure, known. There's always been a problem, of course, of what is pornography and what is not. And the courts have made judgments in regard to several well-known books recently which some people regard as pornographic and others regard as great literature. I would not make the judgment today.,I think it is a problem, not only in the mails but on the magazines, and it's a matter of concern for parents. I don't think that the Post Office can be expected to do anything but carry out the laws, nor can the Attorney General, and the laws, which are interpreted by the courts, are quite clear.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with Berlin, there have been reports that the Soviets are interested in holding a fourpower meeting, that is, a meeting of the four occupying powers in Berlin, to discuss the Berlin situation. Have you seen any indications of this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I'm not familiar with any proposal by the Soviet Union to discuss--perhaps you'd repeat exactly what it is--,Q. There have been indications or there have been reports that the Soviets are interested in a four-power meeting.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have seen nothing about that. I've seen no recent proposal by the Soviet Union that there should be a four-power conference in Berlin to discuss the future of Berlin. We've had no indication that the Soviet Union has made that proposal.,[10.] Q. Sir, your brother is campaigning for the Senate on a slogan that he can do more for the State of Massachusetts. Does this imply that if he were elected, he would have more advantages as a Senator than other Members of the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. I think what he assumes is--as a matter of fact, I believe that the slogan is very similar to the one that I used in 1952, and we worked very hard for Massachusetts. I think he thinks that he can work very hard for Massachusetts and do more for it than the other candidates. I don't read any more into it than that. And I'm sure other candidates feel that they can do more. Only the people of Massachusetts, fortunately, can make the judgment, not the Republican press.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the decision of the House leaders to put off consideration of your foreign aid bill until September 19 is being interpreted as a sign that it is weak and in some danger of losing. Is this your attitude?,THE PRESIDENT. I know the hazard in committee, but that has happened before. There are two primaries next week and we have the problem of the U.N. bonds, so it's really a scheduling matter, not a question of attempting to delay its coming up. I would say I can imagine nothing more shortsighted than to cut the heart out of this program, as some people wish to do. I was looking at some figures today which showed that the Soviet Union had given in economic and military assistance to one country, Indonesia, over $300 million in the last 12 months. They are giving, as we all know, substantial military and economic assistance to Cuba, as well as many other countries. Now, here are these countries, particularly those in Latin America, which have many economic, serious economic problems, those countries in Africa which are newly emerging, those countries along the Soviet Union border beginning with Greece, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India, Thailand, and the others, South Viet-Nam, many of them are hard pressed, South Korea, the Republic of Chinasthey depend upon the United States to assist them in maintaining their freedom. Now we have an appropriation of $50 billion for national defense, and a large appropriation for defense, an appropriation for the Atomic Energy Commission. It seems to me to be the height of folly to appropriate these large sums of money for military organization, and let these very vital countries pass into the Communist bloc. I find it very ironical that those who make the strongest speeches against the Communist movements are the ones who want to cut this program the hardest, which is the most valuable weapon immediately that we have on the front lines against the Communist advance. This is a position which I've held, which President Eisenhower holds, and President Truman before him. I can assure any member of the Congress, or any citizen sitting here, this is a very vital program, and I would hope that it would be approached from a bipartisan point of view as it has in the past. This is completely removed from the Democratic-Republican dialog. We would not have been successful last year without help of Republican members in the House and Senate, and I'm sure that a good many of them are going to help again, because this is in the vital interests of the United States.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, could we make quite sure of the import of your remarks on inspection against preparation, because in a news conference last February you said that this would be necessary for even a ban on atmosphere tests. Were you saying just now that we do not believe that this kind of inspection against preparation is necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. What I am suggesting is if the test agreement covered only the atmosphere, that there would be under such an agreement possible--quite obviously--a continuation of tests underground and there would be other steps which we could take under those conditions which would keep our preparations, if there was a sudden breach of the kind we had last year, which would keep our preparations in a position to protect our interests.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, was it when you called on Mr. Justice Frankfurter about 2 weeks ago at his home that he informed you of his intention to retire--,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. --and could you also shed some light on when you decided to appoint Secretary Goldberg?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I received a letter from the Justice. He did not discuss it with me nor did I with him. I received a letter from him yesterday and I wrote him last night, and I will release both of those letters right after this news conference. I decided after I received the Justice's letter that I would appoint Secretary Goldberg, last night, and discussed it with him on that occasion.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Capehart of Indiana in a speech the other day said that the Communists are sending troops into Cuba, not technicians, as you told us last week. Capehart, according to the UPI, also called for United States invasion of Cuba to stop the flow of troops and supplies. Would you comment, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We've no evidence of troops. And I must say that I know that this matter is of great concern to Americans and many others. The United States has obligations all around the world, including West Berlin and other areas, which are very sensitive, and, therefore, I think that in considering what appropriate action we should take, we have to consider the totality of our obligations, and also the responsibilities which we bear in so many different parts of the world.,In response to your specific question, we do not have information that troops have come into Cuba, number one. Number two, the main thrust, of course, is assistance because of the mismanagement of the Cuban economy which has brought widespread dissatisfaction, economic slowdown, agricultural failures, which have been so typical of the Communist regimes in so many parts of the world. So that I think the situation was critical enough that they needed to be bolstered up.,However, we are continuing to watch what happens in Cuba with the closest attention and will respond to--will be glad to announce any new information, if it should come, immediately.,Q. Mr. President, did you answer my question, or Capehart's suggestion that we invade Cuba? What was that answer?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not for invading Cuba at this time. No, I don't--the words do not have some secondary meaning. I think it would be a mistake to invade Cuba, because I think it would lead to--that it should be very--an action like that, which could be very casually suggested, could lead to very serious consequences for many people.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the Soviets, as you well know, are continuing to use armored cars to transport their military personnel into West Berlin. Some persons on the scene have expressed the view that unless we object to this, it will give the Soviets additional rights in West Berlin which they have not had in the past and correspondingly reduce our rights in West Berlin. What could you tell us.--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't hold that view at all. I don't agree with that. In my opinion, it doesn't have that effect at all.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia has proposed that the 14 nations involved in the Laos conference be reconvened in order to guarantee Cambodia's neutrality. How feasible is such a proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. We are examining his proposal, and we've had conversations with officials of that government. We of course strongly support Cambodia's independence, neutrality, and the sanctity of its borders, and we would of course be glad to take any step which would advance the maintenance of those rights to which Cambodia as a sovereign power is entitled. So we are attempting to consider what step will most usefully advance the objectives which Prince Sihanouk wrote us about.,The question of the conference, and whether this would advance it, is a matter which is being considered, but his interests as expressed in the letter are our interests, and in my opinion should be the interests of other free nations.,[U.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if a distinction could be made with respect to the troops in Cuba. Some of us were told at the State Department the other day that there is Russian military personnel in Cuba, that these are military technicians, and are the people who are probably going to operate missiles, similar to the Nike missiles. Is this in accord--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know who told you that at the State Department, that they're going to operate Nike missiles, because that information we do not have at this time. There certainly are technicians there. They may be military technicians. We don't have complete information about what's going on in Cuba, but in the sense that troops--the word \"troops\" is generally used, they've had a military advisory commission there for a long period of time, so there may be additional military advisory personnel there or technicians. But on the question of troops, as it's generally understood, we do not have evidence that there are Russian troops there. There is an expanded advisory and technical mission.,Q. Are there no antiaircraft missiles shipped into Cuba?\nTHE PRESIDENT, We have no information as yet. That doesn't mean that there haven't been, but all I'm saying is that we have no such information as yet.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, William C. Foster, head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, has said that even if an East-West nuclear test ban treaty with adequate safeguards were negotiated, there's no insurance that it will not be violated. In view of this, and the rising levels of fallout, would there be then much of a risk in signing a treaty to ban all tests in the atmosphere, in the air, outer space, and water, and undertaking then a voluntary moratorium on underground testing?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there would be a great risk, because we've been through the moratorium route. I would hope we could sign the atmospheric test, which does not require inspection. The underground tests do require inspection to determine if there's been cheating. We went that road before for 3 years, and we found while we were negotiating, the Soviet Union had been preparing for many months to test, so we couldn't accept that again.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, this morning's newspapers carried reports out of Moscow to the effect that traffic from the Soviet Union to Cuba has increased so substantially that they're using ships from NATO countries to deliver some of these goods. Is this a matter you think the United States should take up with the NATO countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, definitely, definitely, and I should think that those who are associated with us would consider this matter very carefully, and consider what steps they could take to discourage it.,Q. We have up to now not asked our NATO partners?,THE PRESIDENT. We've been in consultation with them about the matter.,[20.] Q. Sir, I wondered if you've had time this last week to figure out some means whereby we might insist that if we give money to the U.N. by bonds, buying bonds or through a contingency fund, that there's some way that we could make them guarantee that the money we give them would not be used in military action against Katanga, and also be used by troops that commit atrocities.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I thought we went over this road last week, but I'm glad to go over it again.,Q. You said that you had not immediately agreed with the part about atrocities, and I thought maybe this last week you might have had time to reconsider.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have thought about it, and I would say that I'd just like--I know the interest some have in Katanga, which I have always found to be interesting, but I will say that the situation in the Congo is very critical. And it's not only the matter of the Congo, of Kantanga, but also the situation in the rest of the Congo, which has no funds except those that have been supplied by the United Nations and by the United States, in very limited amounts of trade, and if we are unsuccessful or if the Congolese are unsuccessful--in bringing about a union on a satisfactory basis between the Katanga and the Congo--the remaining of the Congo-you are liable to find a very critical situation in the rest of the Congo, which would be very dangerous to the free world. So I would hope that those who have enlisted on one side or another would consider the general interest of a united Congo in a peaceful non-Communist Africa, which I believe very much at issue.,Now, in regard to the U.N. bonds, I strongly support it and I think that the cause of the United States as well as the free world would be advanced if the bonds were passed and the United Nations kept going. I don't want to see the United Nations go bankrupt and all of its peacekeeping machinery go into the ash can.,[21.] Q. Sir, would you tell us what the Monroe Doctrine means to you today in the light of world conditions and in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere. And that's why we oppose what is being--what's happening in Cuba today. That's why we have cut off our trade. That's why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That's why we'll continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, on the question of nuclear tests, can you explain how the security of the United States can be adequately protected by an agreement on our part 4 months hence to sign a test treaty, ban treaty, while the Soviet Union is in the middle of an extensive series of tests? Does this mean that you have determined that in this series they cannot catch up or overtake us?,THE PRESIDENT. We do not believe that they could make sufficient progress in this series of tests to adversely affect our security, number one; and number two, if we do not get an agreement, and I would say the chances are not--I'm not sanguine about the chances of an agreement--if we do not get an agreement, the danger to the United States will be greatly increased as more and more countries develop an atomic capacity and present us with an increasing danger as the decade goes on. So in answer to your question, I believe that the quicker we can get a test agreement the better off we will be.,Q. Mr. President, did you once say that you would make a determination at the end of any Russian series as to whether there would be a need for another American series?,THE PRESIDENT. I tried to respond that in our judgment our security would be assisted by an effective agreement if we could secure it by January 1st, or by any other date, because I consider the constant development of new and more dangerous weapons by not only the United States and the Soviet Union, but by other powers, and particularly the very strong possibility that proliferation will mark this decade if we don't get an agreement, as a matter of maximum peril to the United States, as well as the free world; and, therefore, if we can get an agreement it's in our interest and in our security.,Those who oppose an agreement should consider what our security will look like at the end of this decade if we do not have the agreement and we have the possibility of 10 or 15 countries having these weapons, and when one goes off, it may mean they all go off. So this administration will leave no stone unturned to get an agreement, if we can get it, and provide for our security on the basis which I enunciated in my original statement.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, a memorandum from the FCC has been reported sent to the White House relating to censorship of international telecasting and broadcasting. Would you care to comment upon your attitude towards such censorship?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not familiar with it. No, I haven't seen such a memorandum.,Q. What is your attitude toward such a proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to see the memorandum. Then I can give you a much more responsive answer.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, there appears to be growing concern among scientists as to the possibility of dangerous long-range side effects from the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides. Have you considered asking the Department of Agriculture or the Public Health Service to take a closer look at this?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, and I know that they already are. I think particularly, of course, since Miss Carson's book,1 but they are examining the matter.,1 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962).,[25.] Q. Mr. President, a day after you left California last week, the proposed debate between our Governor and Mr. Nixon blew sky high, and it's been suggested since in public speculation that you advised our Governor to avoid this kind of confrontation. As the reigning champion in this field, f wondered if you would like to tell us whether or not you did discuss this with Governor Brown and also if maybe the time has come when you would tell us what you once suggested you would have advised Mr. Nixon.,THE PRESIDENT. No, but I will say I never did discuss the format with Governor Brown. I understand that Governor Brown is suggesting the format which was used in the '60 campaign, which was used the other night in Boston and which I think is very satisfactory. But they have to work out those details. Now I think that the best-in answer to your last, I will be glad to tell you in November.,[26.] Q. Sir, would you explain how an agreement to be signed only by the currently existing nuclear powers would prevent the arising of other nuclear powers?,THE PRESIDENT. Quite obviously, if other powers went ahead with testing, of course, then the agreement would cease to have very much effectiveness.,It is our hope that the signing by the major nuclear powers today will arrest the spread and not make it essential. But it is only a hope.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-08-22","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] first, two of our nuclear powered submarines have completed an historic rendezvous under the polar ice pack, and then surfaced together through a small opening in the ice at the North Pole. The submarines-the U.S.S. State from the Atlantic fleet and the U.S.S. Sea Dragon from the Pacific fleet--are now on their way back to the United States. This is the first time that two of our submarines have worked together in this manner under the Arctic ice pack and I want to congratulate all those who were involved in this exceptional technical feat.,[2.] Secondly, this Congress in the next weeks has an opportunity to write what I think will be a very impressive record, for there are many bills of great importance now pending before the Congress. I want to take this opportunity to stress five particularly important measures which will be acted upon very shortly:,First, the farm bill, which the Senate passed today, gives us an opportunity to bring some sense and reason and control into an area which has been marked by excesses and chaos in recent years. It extends for another year our presently successful feed grain program while repealing the 1958 Benson feed grain approach, and gives us our new wheat program essentially as we originally requested it, and it contains other important steps toward a wiser use of our land resources and rural area development.,Secondly, the drug bill, which has been tightened in the Senate Judiciary Committee, much along the lines that I requested, will give us every safeguard to protect our American citizens.,And third, a constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax in federal elections will be taken up by the House of Representatives on Monday, where a two-thirds vote is essential if we are to finally eliminate this outmoded and arbitrary bar to voting. American citizens should not have to pay to vote.,Fourth, the trade expansion bill, the most important measure to be considered by many a Congress, must pass the Senate with bipartisan support as it did the House and without restrictive amendments that will make it impossible for us to bargain for our factories and our farms into the Common Market.,Fifth, and finally, the U.N. bond issue, as I have said many times, poses a test of this Nation's good faith in supporting the peacekeeping efforts of the U.N. and opposing those who try to starve it to death. This bill has had overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House foreign Affairs Committee. But this is one of the issues that is not Democratic or Republican, but is American. This bill will help the U.N. and it will help the United States. It will save us money in the long run and will help keep the peace, which is most important. I'm confident it will be approved by all thoughtful members of both parties in the House.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Russia has announced the abolition of its commandant's office in Berlin. I wonder if you can give us your appraisal of the meaning and importance of this action and what you think the Western Powers should do as a result of this action.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I believe the Department of State has already issued a statement and in that statement they indicated we're going to be consulting with the British and the French who also bear a responsibility. I think our statement indicated, certainly our view, that the Soviet action cannot unilaterally affect our rights, which are quadripartite in Berlin. This will be the central theme of our response.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I wondered, could you tell us your general feeling about countries which receive aid from the United States and still do business with the Communist bloc nations? Specifically, do you think a country receiving aid from us has a moral right to engage in business deals for military or economic purposes with the Communist bloc countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that nearly every country that I know of engages in economic deals with the Communist bloc. There are other countries which we have for a long period of time assisted which have also received--which we assisted economically-which have received assistance of various kinds from the Communist bloc. So that I don't think it's a moral issue. I think we have to make a judgment as to what serves our interest, whether the country is attempting to maintain its freedom, whether the country is pursuing policies which are not inimical to the long-range interests of the United States.,We make that independent judgment on each occasion. I know that I can judge the countries that you are thinking of, and I would say that at least in one country, which I assume you are thinking of, we have felt that the assistance which we have given them has helped maintain a very significant country-if you're thinking of the question of India. While the matter of military assistance has not been settled as I understand it in India, most of their assistance in the past having come from the British, it is an extremely large country, 450 million, extremely important; it is free, it is non-Communist. It has indicated it is going to attempt to maintain its freedom, and therefore I think it's in our interest to support it because if it ever passed behind the Iron Curtain, if the present efforts to maintain democracy should fail, then I would think the cause of freedom would have been very adversely affected not only in Asia but all through the underdeveloped world.,[5'] Q. Mr. President, the Soviet Union's latest exploit, the launching of two men within 24 hours, seems to have caused a good deal of pessimism in the United States. You hear people say that we're now a poor second to Russia. How do you size up the situation, Mr. President, for the present and the future?,THE PRESIDENT. We are second to the Soviet Union in long-range boosters. I have said from the beginning--we started late, we've been behind. It's a tremendous job to build a booster of the size that the Soviet Union is talking about, and also have it much larger size, which we are presently engaged in the Saturn program. So we are behind and we're going to be behind for a while. But I believe that before the end of this decade is out, the United States will be ahead. But it's costing us a tremendous amount of money. We're presently making a tremendous effort in research and development. But we just might as well realize that when we started late, last year as you know, we made a decision to go to the moon, with bipartisan support. And it's going to take us quite a while to catch up with a very advanced program which the Soviets are directing and there's no indication the Soviets are going to quit.,So there they started with a lead and they determined to maintain it. We've started late, and we are' trying to not only-we're trying to overtake them, and I think by the end of the decade we will, but we're in for some further periods when we are going to be behind. And anybody who attempts to suggest that we're not behind misleads the American people.,We're well behind, but we're making a tremendous effort. We increased after I took office, after 4 months, we increased the budget for space by 50 percent over that of my predecessor. The fact of the matter is that this year we submitted a space budget which was greater than the combined eight space budgets of the previous 8 years. So this country is making a vast effort which is going to be much bigger next year and the years to come and represents a very heavy burden upon us all. But we might as well recognize that we're behind now and we're going to be for a while. But what we've got to do is concentrate our efforts. And I think we're doing that, but we can always do better.,Q. Mr. President, in that same area, would you agree with Senator Cannon and others who believe that the space program not only should be expanded, but should be militarized in something like a Manhattan District crash program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, we are spending, for military purposes in space, three times what we were in 1960, about $1,500 million. The two--at least at present--the two important points that should be kept in mind are, one, the ability to build a large booster which can put a larger satellite into the atmosphere. That is being done. NASA is doing that, although there has been, of course, under the Titan III contract, a booster program for the military.,In addition, the guidance, navigation, etc., that's extremely important. That we are making a major effort in. So that I recognize that there are those who oppose this program and then suddenly a month later say we ought to suddenly go ahead on a different basis.,The fact of the matter is that 40 percent of the R and D funds in this country are being spent for space. And that's a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous concentration of our scientific effort.,I'm not saying that we can't always do better, but I think the American people ought to understand the billions of dollars we're talking about, which I believe a month ago was mentioned as a great boondoggle. I think it's important, vital, and is a great interrelationship between space, military, and the peaceful use of space. But we're concentrating on the peaceful use of space which will also help us protect our security if that becomes essential.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, it's been almost a year since you nominated Thurgood Marshall for the federal Bench. Senator Keating of New York charges that the subcommittee hearing this nomination is delaying it by ridiculous and unlawyer-like questions. Do you share the Senator's view of the holdup on this confirmation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it has been much too much delayed. I am confident, in fact I am sure, that the Senate will not adjourn, and I've been given those assurances, that the Senate will not adjourn without action being taken by the United States Senate on the Thurgood Marshall appointment. When it does come for a vote, and it will, it is my judgment the Senate will confirm him overwhelmingly.,In regard to Senator Keating, I do think it's interesting to point out that there were seven Circuit Court vacancies during the previous administration which the Senators from New York had something to say about the appointments to those, and Thurgood Marshall was not nominated on any of those occasions.,[7-] Q. Mr. President, could you say anything about the letter which you have written to Chancellor Adenauer, which was delivered yesterday? There is a certain difficulty here for us because so often in the exchange of these letters, the word of it first comes out in Bonn, and it necessarily reflects the German point of view, and we're somewhat at a disadvantage to present the point of view of our own Government.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wrote Chancellor Adenauer a letter. It was a general statement of our policy and of our interest in satisfactory relations with the West German people, and also an attempt to respond to some of the rumors which had been discussed at a previous press conference in regard to possible changes in strategic policy or tactical policies by the United States in Western Europe. Those are the matters we dealt with, and I think that it would be--I don't think it's customary to release a letter from the sender to the receiver. I don't know whether the letter is going to be released, but I think it is in the hands of the receiver.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you say what military significance, if any, you see in the recent Soviet double orbiting, and also in view of the fact that we're spending about twice as much money for civilian space activity as for military activity, do you expect any possible change in this ratio?,THE PRESIDENT. We're considering in the Defense Department whether there are further steps that might be taken to protect our security. But I want to emphasize that the distinction which is made by some, and perhaps suggested by your question, doesn't seem to me to be wholly applicable. The important things at the present time, as I said, are the size of the booster and the size of satellite, and the navigational control. Now, those are carried on by both the Defense Department and by NASA. But of course the information is interrelated; and also whatever skills we acquire in those three areas are interrelated and serve many purposes.,Q. Mr. President, do you see any military significance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, we're not quite clear as to what the military significance will be, because at the present time it is possible to send a missile from one country to another with a warhead, and with a great degree of accuracy. But it's very possible that there will develop military significance. And it is for that reason that the military program is being carried on--$1.5 billion. And there is also of course the benefits we get from the civilian space program, upon which we're spending many billions of dollars, in these three areas which can tie in, if necessary, into the military field.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, it's been well over a year now since you met Chairman Khrushchev at Vienna. The Berlin affair seems to be blowing up towards a cold winter of some sort. There are rumors that he may come to the U.N. this fall. If in fact he did, do you think it would be useful about that time for you to have another talk with him?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be unwise to attempt to make a judgment. I don't know whether he's coming. We've received no information about it. Of course, if he did come, he would be--I would hope I would have a chance to talk with him. But I haven't heard that he is coming and we have no information to that effect. But I hope to see--whatever heads of government that come in the fall for the U.N. session I would hope to see.,[10.] Q. There have been reports, sir, that you are considering some more nonpolitical journeys around the country, specifically this time to the urban centers such as Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia, to deal with urban renewal problems. Can you comment on these reports?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we haven't made any judgment about it, though the matter has been considered. I thought the trip, the nonpolitical trip, of last weekend was useful. In addition, in early September we have the anniversary of the Housing Act, but we haven't made any judgment as to whether it should be appropriately celebrated by such a trip.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, at the present time there are 97 ambassadors, of which 2 are Negroes. In view of the fact that this is the same number of the previous administration and you've made significant strides in the domestic field as far as rights are concerned, how do you feel about the fact that it is only 2 percent and do you think this should be changed?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think we should, definitely. Definitely we should, not only in the higher ambassadorial level but all through the Department as well as the AID agency. I quite agree we have to do better.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, after your conference with Mayor Wagner last week, there were reports that you had agreed to endorse Robert Morgenthau as the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in New York. This, presumably, is an election of some considerable importance to you. Could you tell us, do you have a preference for this election and who he might be?,THE PRESIDENT. No, and I wouldn't take any position on the matter until the Democratic convention meets in mid-September. I think the choice ought to be made there.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, referring to the recent disclosures by Wright Patman, do you think that the ford or Rockefeller foundation or any other tax-exempt foundation should be able to control the ownership of a large segment of the business community by owning manufacturing plants and retail establishments and such?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Patman made several points. Of course, he was critical of some foundations which are being used as tax dodges or for the purposes which you suggested. Other foundations, certainly the two that you named, of course, that's not true. I think his only point there was the rather enormous amount of money contained in both foundations and, therefore, the effect that this might have upon the economy. But I was most particularly interested in the first point, which is whether some foundations are being used as a tax dodge or as a method of avoiding taxes and all the rest. And I think that what we are now examining is whether this is a question of tighter administration by the Internal Revenue, which Mr. Caplin is looking into, or whether we need new legislation.,On the other hand, I think it fairness to point out that this is an extraordinary development, these foundations, and have done a tremendous job in wide ranges in a most efficient way. So I think we want to be fair, but we want to be sure to catch those who are penalizing the others.,[14-] Q. Sir, I wonder if you could tell us whether or not the $100 million in U.N. bonds which you want the Congress to vote, if you can guarantee that that will not be used for military action against the Katanga--in Katanga--with a repetition of some of the atrocities that have been verified by such eye witnesses as the reporter Smith Hempstone and others.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the purpose of the loan, as you know, is to prevent the United Nations from collapsing, which it will economically unless we're able to secure this special fund, which will come partly from the United States and partly from the other countries. The long-range financing of the United Nations we put on a sounder basis, we hope, as a result of the decision of the Court, the World Court.,Now, on the question of the Katanga, I have supported the effort of the U.N. to prevent a complete chaos and dissolution in the Congo which, in my opinion, would lead to the setting up of a radical, possibly undemocratic government in the Congo. So that I feel the most important step now that can be taken by Mr. Adoula, Mr. Tshombe, joining together in a constitutional arrangement which will provide for an accord in the Congo.,But I can just assure you that if the U.N. is denied funds, it will mean the collapse of peaceful efforts not only in the Congo but in many other parts of the world. The recent agreement over West Irian was carried on under the auspices of U Thant. I would think that this money is vitally important, and I cannot accept such an immediate identification as your question suggests between this fund and atrocities.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, some months ago from this platform you announced the stockpiling investigation. It's now well along. What do you think of the case that the committee has made out against Mr. Humphrey?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought that everyone should read Senator Engle's speech. I thought it was clear and indicated that this matter should be looked into further.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, was there any significance in your omission of the 1962 tax bill in your list of desirable legislation? Does it mean that--,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, no, no. I was just thinking really of the bills coming up in the next 7 days. I was not attempting to set out a program for the Congress, which I did suggest in my speech a week ago.1 I'm just talking about the bills which will be before the Congress within the next week.,Q. Is that coming up now?,THE PRESIDENT. But the tax bill, if it comes up next week in the Senate, definitely, of course, is one of our priority items.,But I mentioned the trade bill, because it seems to be--it's in a very important stage now, being considered by the committee. What concerns me most about the trade bill is we'll get a trade bill, but we may get a bill so limited, which is so circumscribed on negotiating power that we will have the shadow of a bill and not the substance. And to attempt to protect our markets abroad, which in this last few months we've had a tremendous balance--export balance over imports. If we fail to get the power that we need it will be a very bad blow to us all. So that's the reason I separated that from the tax bill, which I'm hopeful will pass also.,Q. Do you think the withholding is an important part of the tax bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Very desirable. I think, as you know, they have an alternate language suggested by Senator Byrd, which will bring in some money. I don't think it's as effective as the withholding, however, and I'm sorry that the Senate has not, or at least the Senate committee did not accept withholding. Sooner or later we will. I'm confident if we don't do it in this session we're going to, because it is quite logical that those who receive money should pay their taxes in the same way that people who receive wages find their taxes withheld.,[17'] Q. Sir, are you going to take any further action to end the missile strike at Huntsville?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, the National Labor Relations Board is involved with an injunction there, the Missile Committee, Mr. Goldberg is involved. I am very hopeful those men will go back to work. I think it is a great mistake for them personally, and also it is a great loss to the country. The strike should be ended definitely. They all should return.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the National Committee for an Effective Congress in a recent statement said that the candidacy of Edward M. Kennedy for the Senate in Massachusetts has hurt you personally politically, and has hurt the Democratic Party nationally. Now the suggestion is that you could have headed off your brother's candidacy if you had wished. Do you have any comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the people of Massachusetts can make a more effective judgment for a more effective Congress than even this committee. And I think they will.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, 2 months ago you invited the Nation to join in a great debate on economic myths and realities in pursuit of fresh ideas and fresh thinking. Could you tell us, first, if you're satisfied with the response and, second, if you have any plans or proposals for uplifting that debate?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think we can always-we need a good deal more light on it, this matter.,I think that the Joint Economic Committee hearings have ken very useful. The discussions by not only Americans but by Europeans of our fiscal and monetary policies have been very beneficial. I think that there's a good deal more consideration being given to them now than there has been in the past. We can do a lot more about it. I intend to continue to discuss what the proper mix should be under certain economic conditions. But it's quite a long struggle to try to change the thinking which has been driven into us for so many years. The concept--I talked to a distinguished banker the other day, who was one of those who most strongly believed that the fiscal deficit of 1962 was going to bring inflation in the winter and spring of 1962. Now he agrees that of course that didn't happen. So we've got to attempt to make more successful judgments and try to determine what should be both our interest rate policy and also our debt policy in times of economic slowdown.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of former President Hoover's suggestion that a council of free nations be formed to supplement the United Nations and to act when Communist obstruction prevents the U.N. From acting?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've been attempting to do that, of course, through the OAS, NATO, SEATO, and SENTO, and I think that we could certainly consider means of improving those agencies. I think one of the problems which we now have is how to improve the NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Council, OECD, and all the rest, and how we can improve the functioning of the OAS.,It isn't really a question of a new organization as much as breathing new life and a community spirit into the organizations that we have. But I thought President Hoover's speech was worthy of a good deal of thought by us.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any information or indication that Communistbloc troops or new supplies of any kind have been landed in Cuba recently?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, new supplies definitely, in large quantities. Troops? We do not have information, but an increased number of technicians.,Q. What is the significance of this, in your opinion?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are examining it now.,Q. Do you think it is aimed at any other Central American country?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is no evidence of that. And we're not talking about--as far as the numbers--we're not talking about the kind of entrants in numbers which would provide support for the sort of operation you suggested. What we are talking about are supplies and technicians of a rather intensive quantity in recent weeks.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, the Acoma Indians of New Mexico recently asked the Government to send Peace Corps technicians to their reservation. They were turned down. In view of the extensive efforts being made abroad, why can't we extend this kind of service to Indian groups within our own borders that are every bit as depressed as some of the foreign groups that we're helping?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not familiar with that. I think the Peace Corps was set up to be sent abroad. Mr. Shriver and others have suggested setting up a Peace Corps at home and we have now been looking into that. But I haven't heard of this proposal. Whether we should particularly do it with the Indians I think is worth looking at.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us how much time you expect to be devoting to the campaign this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I can't, but I will be devoting some of my time in October and in late September.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of nonpolitical matters, as you were a minute ago, the recent defeat of Congressman Frazier in Tennessee and the very close call of Congressman Loser have been blamed by some of the labor groups on their opposition to your bill on Medicare through the higher social security taxes. Are you pleased with these results? Do you agree with that analysis and do you think you'll use this issue a little bit more in the other races?,THE PRESIDENT. I've always said that I thought health care for the aged would be a very important issue this fall, and that the American people would make a judgment. I think that that will certainly be one of the factors they will take into consideration in deciding which members they will support. I think this bill is essential, very valuable, very important, very responsible, and I think it will be an important issue in the fall. And I think it's been proven already to be.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that airlines between the United States and Europe are already heavily booked for U.S. tourist travel to Europe as soon as the lower fares go into effect in the fall. My questions are two:,First, are you concerned about this heavy spending and what it's going to do to our gold reserves for the last quarter of the year; and, two, do you think that service families will be happy to be separated from their military husband-fathers who are again being sent to Europe, this time for a 6-month tour, starting in October, when they read of other Americans free spending in Europe while they are being kept home to save the gold drain?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very difficult for a good many of them to understand the difference between the burdens and obligations put on those in the public service and the freedom which is available to those in private life. We lose a billion dollars a year in our balance of payments between what we spend abroad as tourists and what we spend-- what tourists spend here. But Americans move freely and I think we have to do the best we can to bring our balance of payments into balance.,We're asking the servicemen to accept this sacrifice. We've not attempted to limit Americans going abroad, and I don't think that it would be desirable. We're trying to emphasize the freedom of goods to move, people to move, and all the rest, capital to move, and we are hopeful, however, as I've said before, that by the end of 1963 we'll have brought our balance of payments into sufficient balance to permit American troops greater freedoms than they now have in this regard.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke of the increased supplies going to Cuba. What countries are they going there from?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, the bloc.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on George Humphrey's charge that the stockpiling investigation is a stab at the back of President Eisenhower, and also do you think that the profits made by his Hanna Nickel Company are the unconscionable profits that you referred to back in January?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are extremely large profits with very little risk to the company--extremely large profits. Now of course, the Hanna Company, itself, was investigated, not Mr. Humphrey as a responsible official of the Hanna Company, so I don't really see how--I can quite understand the desire of some witnesses to identify themselves with President Eisenhower or to limit the investigation by charging that it's an attack on President Eisenhower, but I think the Congress ought to do its job.,There are billions and billions involved in this stockpiling and I think it's important that the American people know how much was paid and who made the money out of it and that's what's being done in this case. And there'11 be other cases coming up after the Hanna case, because there are other very large profits involved by a good many other people.,[28.] Q. Mr. President, 4 months ago you nominated former Governor Almond of Virginia to the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Since that time the Senate Judiciary Committee has done nothing whatever towards his confirmation. I wonder if you will comment on that situation, and also if you will say whether you plan to make a recess appointment if the Senate fails to act?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't quite understand why the Senate is failing to act. Governor Almond is a distinguished Governor of Virginia. It was my understanding when his name was sent up there that there was no objection by the Senators involved. I regret very much that the Senate isn't acting. I hope it will before the Senate has ended. I will make a judgment on what we do if it doesn't act at that time. But I'm still hopeful that the Senate will act because I think Governor Almond would be a very good judge.,[19.] Q. As a result of your agreement with President Sukarno, Mr. President, you have sent an economic survey team to Indonesia known as the Humphrey mission. Would you comment on the content or recommendations of the Humphrey report?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think we better wait until the matter has been examined by the Government Reporter.\nThank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-08-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have several announcements.,[1.] Recent events in this country and abroad concerning the effects of a new sedative called thalidomide emphasize again the urgency of providing additional protection to American consumers from harmful or worthless drug products. The United States has the best and the most effective food and drug law of any country in the world, and the alert work of our food and Drug Administration, and particularly Dr. Frances Kelsey, prevented this particular drug from being distributed commercially in this country. Nevertheless, the drug was given to many patients on an investigational basis. We are reviewing what steps can be taken administratively to make this stage in the future less dangerous. We have recommended a 25 percent increase in the food and Drug Administration staff, the largest single increase in the agency's history, and the full amount was voted today by the conferees of the Congress.,And it is clear that to prevent even more serious disasters from occurring in this country in the future, additional legislative safeguards are necessary. The bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 19, while embodying many of the recommendations contained in the message of March of this year,1 does not go far enough, as Senator Kefauver and others have pointed out in their supplementary review on the committee report. I hope the Members of Congress will adopt those more careful provisions contained in the administration bill introduced by Congressman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, in the House. The administration bill, for example, unlike the Senate judiciary bill, will allow for immediate removal from the market of a new drug where there is an immediate hazard to public health which cannot be done now, and contains with it many other very essential safeguards which I hope the Congress will act on this year.,[2. ] Secondly, we are completing a careful review of the technical problems associated with an effective test ban treaty. This review was stimulated by important new technical assessments. These assessments give promise that we can work towards an internationally supervised system of detection and verification for underground testing which will be simpler and more economical than the system which was contained in the treaty which we tabled in Geneva in April 1961. I must emphasize that these new assessments do not affect the requirement that any system must include provision for on-site inspection of unidentified underground events. It may be that we shall not need as many as we've needed in the past, but we find no justification for the Soviet claim that a test ban treaty can be effective without on-site inspection. We have been conducting a most careful and intensive review of our whole position with the object of bringing it squarely in line with the technical realities. I must express the hope that the Soviet Government, too, will reexamine its position on this matter of inspection.,In the past it has accepted the principle, and if it would return to this earlier position we, for our part, will be able to engage in an attempt to reach agreement on the number of on-site inspections which is essential. Ambassador Arthur Dean has been participating in these deliberations and will be returning to Geneva promptly. He will be prepared for intensive technical and political discussions of these problems.,[3.] And finally, I want to express my very strong hope that the House of Representatives will give approval to the U.N. bond proposal. The U.N. is engaged at this very time in two very important negotiations, one involving the Congo, the other involving the future of West Iran. And it is daily proving its effectiveness in maintaining the peace and stability of much of the world.,This would be a most unfortunate time if we withdrew our support from it. And I'm therefore hopeful that the House will follow the Senate's example and give us the power to participate in this U.N. bond program which I believe to be essential for its survival, just as I believe that the survival of the United Nations is essential for the peace of the world.,[4. ] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your opening statement in this period of anguish over the use of this drug, with women asking for abortions, there's apparently been some difficulty in running down all of the remaining stocks of thalidomide still in this country. Is there anything short of what you told us or is there anything additional that the Government can do without legislation to run down these remaining supplies of this drug and take it into custody?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The food and Drug Administration has had nearly 200 people working on this and every doctor, every hospital, every nurse has been notified. Every woman in this country, I think, must be aware that it is most important that they check their medicine cabinet, and that they do not take this drug, that they turn it in. Every citizen, of course, should be aware of the hazards. And I'm sure they are.,Now, what we have to concern ourselves about is the, first, appreciation to Dr. Kelsey who spared us this terrible human tragedy which has been visited on families in Germany, and to provide both administrative and legislative safeguards to lessen the chance of such action coming in this country again. Also, I think, to see if we can assist our other countries in providing effective safeguards for their own citizens, because the interrelationship between them and us is very intimate.,[5-] Q. Mr. President, has the new information we've turned up--from our underground tests--affected our position on the need for international controls stations on Soviet territory, and have we any indication that the Russians are now disposed to negotiate or modify their position?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that our position, which Mr. Dean will elaborate, has been that the national control posts should be internationally monitored or supervised. That's the first point.,The second point: we have no information in regard to the Soviet position. What we've been attempting to do is to bring our own position in line with new scientific data which became available to us in late June. We are completing that with a final meeting before Mr. Dean goes back this afternoon. But the general position will be developed by Mr. Dean, but at least I've outlined it.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, the British announced earlier today the decision to terminate the agreement on the Thor missile bases. Two questions: Were you given advance notice of this decision? And secondly, what will be the effect, militarily and psychologically?,THE PRESIDENT. We were given advance notice. Mr. Watkinson, Mr. Thorneycroft's predecessor, had discussions with Mr. McNamara, and Mr. Thorneycroft informed us of the statement he was going to make in Parliament today.,Secondly, it should have no adverse effect, psychologically. Our ability to meet our commitments to the defense of Western Europe in the conventional and in the nuclear field remains unchanged by this announcement, and the United States commitment remains unchanged.,[7'] Q. Mr. President, in the last 10 days there have been a series of developments beginning with the agreement on Laos, and yesterday ending with the announcement of an agreement on Indonesian-Dutch settlement on New Guinea. There was also the Malaya and Britain announcement that a Malaysia federation will be formed. Will you comment on these developments and the effect it has on that area and what danger spots you perceive?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the agreement, of course, on West Iran has to be approved by the two governments involved, although we are very much indebted to Ambassador Bunker and to those who participated on behalf of the two countries in the negotiations here, and, of course, to the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant.,We are also hopeful that the full significance of the Geneva accord on Laos will be recognized by all the countries that were signatories, and that there will be withdrawal of foreign troops, that Laos will not be used as a springboard, and that the ICC will be effective and be given full powers. This will be determined, of course, for the future.,As to the general situation there, we are still concerned about the implementation of the accord, and also about the situation in Viet-Nam. We have made two--we have a chance for two significant--three significant steps now as you described them. If we could get an agreement satisfactorily between Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe in the Congo, this would be an important summer, though we still have very significant problems that still involve our relations with other countries coming up. But at least there is progress in those areas.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, it was, I believe, on July 11th that you asked the Attorney General to prepare a report for you on events in Albany, Ga. If you have received this report, will you tell us what it says, and if the federal Government can or contemplates action to preserve Negro rights in Albany?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been--I have been in constant touch with the Attorney General and have received more or less daily reports, and he's been in daily touch with the authorities in Albany in an attempt to provide a solution. There is--what is involved here is partly local laws and partly those laws which involve the National Government, particularly as they might involve public facilities, and some of these matters are in the court.,Let me say that I find it wholly inexplicable why the City Council of Albany will not sit down with the citizens of Albany, who may be Negroes, and attempt to secure them, in a peaceful way, their rights. The United States Government is involved in sitting down at Geneva with the Soviet Union. I can't understand why the government of Albany, City Council of Albany, cannot do the same for American citizens.,We are going to attempt, as we have in the past, to try to provide a satisfactory solution and protection of the constitutional rights of the people of Albany, and will continue to do so. And the situation today is completely unsatisfactory from that point of view.,[9'] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision yet as to the extent and timing of additional nuclear testing required by this Government?,THE PRESIDENT. No, as you know, we are repairing the pad at Johnston Island, and we will make a judgment in regard to those three tests when the pad is completed. That will of course conclude--if we go ahead with those tests--that will conclude this series of tests.,Q. Excuse me, sir. Did you say three tests?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe there were three that are still to be done.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Gallup poll published today shows that some 72 percent of those polled are opposed to a tax cut if it means the Government will go further into debt. Can you tell us what factor this will be in your decisions about the tax cut?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I have said before, we are going to wait until we get the July figures, which will be available in this first 10 days, after the first 10 days of August. In addition, we'll make a judgment as to whether those figures indicate we're in a plateau or whether we are in more serious economic difficulty. And the figures, of course, today on unemployment, which are the lowest they've been for the last 18 months, are somewhat encouraging, but we can make a more final judgment in early August. Then we will discuss that matter with the appropriate members of the responsible committees.,Now, that question was asked in a particular way. You might get a different answer if you'd asked the question differently. If you said, \"Do you believe in a tax cut as a means of preventing a recession at some future date, and unemployment which will bring potentially a larger deficit and a further increase in the debt?\" I think you might have gotten a different percentage, and particularly if the 1958 experience had been recalled, where there was no tax cut and there was the largest peacetime deficit in history because of a drop in income levels. All this must be taken into consideration as well as the views of the members of the House and Senate, the schedule of the House and Senate. For example, the Senate finance Committee will not even conclude its hearings on the trade bill until the first of September, and then have to go into executive session. We recommended a tax bill last year which has just been reported out yesterday from the Senate finance Committee, 18 months after we recommended it. So that it does require very careful judgments, not only of the economic factors, but also of the legislative situation.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, it's been a long time since we've had a definitive report on your health from the best possible source. How is your aching back?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it depends on the weather, political and otherwise. It is very good, though, today.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports or indications that Ambassador Gavin is resigning, at least in part because of the financial burden of maintaining his post in Paris. Does this indicate that your Palm Beach agreement with Congressman Rooney is not working, or do you feel that Ambassadors now have adequate representation allowance?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think Representative Rooney has done everything he said he would do, but I think the situation still squeezes, because Ambassador Gavin has some family, some children to educate. And while he has received sufficient funds to keep his nose above the water, he has not been given funds which would permit him to meet his family responsibilities in a proper way. 10 that we are going to have to-I hope to have another talk with Congressman Rooney and see if we can be somewhat more generous. The fact of the matter is we are far more stringent with our Am.bassador to Paris than I believe the French Ambassador to the United States is treated. And the same is true with London and some of our other major posts. So I think that while Congressman Rooney has met the requests we made, I think we might have to change the request.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater says that if the economy continues to move sideways, then the economy will become an issue in this year's political campaign. Are you willing to match the record of your administration in the economic field with that of the last administration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think the record of the last administration, particularly from '57 on, was satisfactory. I'm not satisfied with our record. And I don't think that any American ought to be. Now if we wanted to compare the economic statistics, the day that I assumed office and today, you'd find that the gross national product was up 10 percent, that the incomes are up about 10 percent, that--in a whole variety of areas the improvement is between 10 and 15 percent. Even profits have gone from an annual average of about $40 billion to $50 billion, and the Standard and Poor level of stock prices is about 5 points above what it was at the time that I took office. But that still is not sufficient.,We have to provide a greater rate of growth because of our increase in population, and even though our gross national product may have gone from around $500 billion to $550 or $555 billion on an annual basis this year, it still--there is still a gap between what we are doing and what we could do, based on our manpower and on our plant capacity.,So that Senator Goldwater--I would be glad to compare statistics, but where I think we disagree is that there are some things we think we should do about it. I think if we could get the standby tax bill, which would meet the problem which I responded to in an earlier question, that we could then apply that tax reduction if the economy, for example, began to drag in the fall or the winter of 1963.,The problem is now that if we go by this session without a tax reduction then recommend one in January--if you go through the usual procedures the bill will not come to the floor of the Senate possibly until late summer, and by then we would have gone through nearly a year more. So I support that bill. It's my understanding that the Senator in question does not.,In addition, I support the public works bill, the youth employment, youth opportunities bill, manpower retraining, additional funds, and so on. So I think that we have suggested some areas where action would help us meet the problem that I am very conscious of, which is that as a country since 1957 we have not been fulfilling our capacity. But if we want to just compare statistics we will be glad to compare them to the recession which was in effect when I took office.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, you said some time ago that Ambassador Galbraith was taking up with the Indian Government the question of the purchase of Soviet jets. Has he had any success in dissuading Mr. Nehru from making such a purchase?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he has talked to Mr. Nehru some time ago, some weeks ago. I don't believe he has had a recent conversation with him. Since that time, a mission has gone to London to look at Lightnings. I understand a mission has gone to Moscow to look at Migs. The Indian Government itself will make its final judgment as a sovereign power. Mr. Galbraith only attempted to suggest some of the factors which were of interest to us as a friend of India.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in your initial statement on nuclear testing, you said that it was perhaps possible to rely on fewer control posts. Does this mean that we formally plan an offer reducing the number that we've suggested or will you wait to talk about numbers only after the Soviets first accept the principle of on-site inspection?,THE PRESIDENT. We first have to have an acceptance of the principle. Then as the scientific information is made available, a conclusion could be reached as to what would be the appropriate number of on-site inspections. In addition, because of the new scientific information, we believe that we can provide a more immediate worldwide system of control posts, at substantially less cost than the former proposals that we made, less in number but more effective in determining seismic explosion, or movement. So that we believe that this system, the new data, can provide a more effective control than we've ever had before, but it does not provide a substitute for on-site inspection because there will still be a good number of events which may occur in the Soviet Union for example, and we will not be able to detect without inspection whether these are earthquake or seismic events.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Senate opponents of the administration's communications satellite bill contend that some provisions of this bill would infringe on your authority in the foreign affairs field. How do you feel about that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't agree with that. This bill was carefully drafted. We've had a number of conferences about the matter. We believe that it is the most effective way of providing for the development of a communications satellite. The responsibilities of the federal Government are very well reserved, both in the membership of the Board, the powers of the federal Communications Commission, the power of the State Department, the general Executive powers of the Presidency, so I must say that I think the bill is the best way to do it. The Senate itself must reach a judgment as to whether they agree.,[U.] Q. For clarification, sir, if I understood you correctly, you said originally that research would now permit a reduction in the number of on-site inspections and would also permit an internationally monitored system of control posts. Does this mean, sir, that we could now forego the international control posts?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think the language I used was carefully chosen and is precise. Mr. Dean can develop our thoughts in more detail, but the phrase I used is the one that describes our position on that matter--internationally monitored supervised national control posts.,Q. In place of our previous proposal, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that Mr. Dean can describe our proposal, but I've described it in general phraseology as I have our general position, which will be filled in by Mr. Dean at Geneva.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some criticism by some disarmament specialists, among them Dr. Louis Sohn of Harvard, who is consultant to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, that far too much time and effort have been spent in trying to negotiate a nuclear test ban and too little attention has been given to the more basic problem of limiting and controlling production of delivery vehicles. Would you give us your view?,THE PRESIDENT. We are now involved, as you know, at Geneva, on this question of general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Union has stated that it will not permit inspection of what may be left over. We can inspect what they destroy but not what they retain. As Mr. Lovett said this morning, in a particular image that we can count the bodies but not the births. So that's our particular problem, and until we are able to get an inspection of what is in production we cannot get an agreement on general and complete disarmament. But it is to secure that agreement that we're now at Geneva.,Q. Mr. President, we're getting ready to negotiate on this disarmament at Geneva and why, can you tell us, was this proposal of the United States made there not presented first to the American people fully and to the Congress rather than just to a few individuals, not even to the leaders of both the Presidents House and Senate or both parties before it was made at Geneva? Won't it be much harder to vote down a treaty that results from this negotiation later on? And wouldn't it have been better for the American people to have debated this first before the proposal was made internationally?,THE PRESIDENT. There're a number of facts in your question which I am not sure I agree with. In the first place, there has been testimony before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, making available to the Joint Committee the information which was secured scientifically in late June. In addition, that information, all that we had, was published in early July.,Now, we are not proposing to reach any agreement that will not be submitted to the United States Senate in accordance with our traditional procedures. I am describing our position. All the technical information which we have will be made available, so that I think that we are acting in accordance with our traditional position.,The point is that the information in regard to our improved ability to detect seismic events, this only became scientifically available to the United States really in late June. So we are attempting to get this information out as widely as possible. We will discuss it fully at Geneva. We'll make it available to the Joint Committee. Mr. Foster, our disarmament administrator, has discussed it with various members of the Congress. We've met about it in the National Security Council. We are proceeding in an orderly way and I can assure you that we are as concerned about the security of the United States--the people who are involved in this discussion--as anyone could possibly be. We're also anxious to get a treaty if we can get it. And we feel that we have struck a very appropriate balance between these two facts.,Q. Sir, wasn't it true that Mr. Foster didn't go before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy until after the proposals had been made public in Geneva?,THE PRESIDENT. Not the proposals, because the proposals--the first discussion of any proposals we may make were made by me this afternoon. What was made public was the new scientific information as to our ability to detect an earthquake or a nuclear event below ground, what the difference of materials might be, alluvial, granite, and all the rest. That is the only information which has been made public, because we are attempting, therefore, to bring our policy position up to date with our new scientific information. But we are not talking about--we have made available fully the scientific information through Mr. Dean and we are discussing what effect this might have on our policy. And the Members of Congress and the country will be kept fully informed about it. I quite share with you that they are entitled and must know because obviously any treaty that we would sign would require the support of two-thirds of the Senate, and therefore they are going to be kept step by step in touch with us.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us any recent steps that have been taken to reduce the flow of gold abroad?,THE PRESIDENT. Any recent steps? A good many recent steps have been taken involving negotiations between the Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Roosa, and the foreign banks. In addition, as you know, I made a comment about the efforts which Secretary McNamara was making to lessen our balance of payments for our military from $3 billion to $1.6 billion and we hope, in a year, to a billion a year, our loss there. We are tying our aid more and more, and we will bring it this year, the loss in dollars in aid, from $1.3 billion to $800 million, and we are--in the tax bill we are providing additional provisions in the tax bill which will make it less attractive to take dollars abroad. And this is a matter under very constant concern and, as I said before, we hope by the end of next year to bring our balance of payments into balance.,I think we discussed last week why drastic remedies of the type of devaluation would be self-defeating, and would not be employed by this Government. I think that if we proceed on the basis that we are, that by the end of next year, if our exports maintain their present rise and our wage-price structure remains the same as it is now, relative to Europe, that we can bring this into balance.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, after the resignation of General Norstad was announced, there have been many speculations in Europe that there may occur a complete change in American strategy going as far as to a nuclear engagement. Could you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't understand possibly how anyone could come to that conclusion. General Norstad requested that he be permitted to resign. He'd held the position for a great many years. The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs, General Lemnitzer-there may be those who for their own reasons wish to put this story out, but there is no evidence for it. General Lemnitzer will carry on the policies of the United States Government the same way as General Norstad has done. So those rumors are wholly unfounded, wholly untrue, and the slightest check by those who transmit them through Europe would demonstrate that they are unfounded. I can assure you we are continuing our defense of Europe. And I've said before, we cannot maintain the defense of Europe without also maintaining our nuclear strength on which this administration has spent a good deal of additional funds. So I can assure you that the stories are untrue, though I have some idea of where they come from and why.,[21] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us if you consider the developments in Peru encouraging toward the point of our recognizing the new government there? And also, is there any comment you'd like to make on the discussion of your policy toward Peru?,THE PRESIDENT. We are encouraged by the release of President Prado. We are encouraged by the fact that civil liberties have been restored. We've been encouraged by the assurances of the junta that free elections would be carried out in a period of time, and we are anxious that some clear assurances be given that there will be--that they will abide by the results of these elections.,We had relations with President Prado's government. When that government was overthrown and the President imprisoned, it was quite natural that we would reexamine our relations. That reexamination is going on and we have been encouraged by those signs which I've named and we hope that there will be other evidences that there will be a return to constitutional free government, which is the object of the Alliance for Progress.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to the fallout which has been discovered in milk in Utah, has your administration planned any precautionary steps and, specifically, will there be more air bursts in Nevada?,THE PRESIDENT. Any radioactive materials that come from the tests in Nevada have been dissipated, or if they have not completely been dissipated, will be very immediately.,Now, secondly, I am not aware of any further test--in fact, there are not any further tests in Nevada.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, although there are not going to be any celebrations on this first anniversary of the Alianza para el Progreso, do you feel satisfied or pleased with the rate of progress so far obtained by the Alianza, by the Alliance for Progress?,THE PRESIDENT. Measured by all that has to be done, I think we have to do much better, but that is the point of Ambassador Moscoso's determination to mark the day rather than celebrate it.,[a4.] Q. Mr. President, is it correct to infer from your earlier remarks on drugs that you would like to see reversed the present situation whereby pharmaceutical houses are able to distribute drugs on an experimental basis through doctors without federal approval?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like to see--I think that we can administratively improve the control of the food and Drug Administration, of the distribution of drugs during this period. So, in answer to your question, while the worst--I would say that generally I am in favor of a greater degree of federal supervision.,Now I want to say, on the other hand, that of course we've had remarkable medical progress from these drugs. There is--the fact is that this drug was tested on animals, and at least for a year, my information is there were no signs of deformity. Very recently, in a test there was. But we cannot always get a clear indication from animals. These tests may show up as being wholly safe, and after very careful work these may be distributed with due warnings, and there may be hazards in them. But I think we have to improve, which we can administratively, this phase of our procedures.,But I do want to say that all of our advances, I suppose, require some risk. In this case, however, fortunately, due to the very fine work of a doctor, we were spared a good deal of disaster which, as I've said, the Germans have experienced. But in answer to your question, I think we ought to be tougher on this phase of it.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-07-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] I understand that part of today's press conference is being relayed by the Telstar communications satellite to viewers across the Atlantic, and this is another indication of the extraordinary world in which we live. This satellite must be high enough to carry messages from both sides of the world, which is, of course, a very essential requirement for peace; and I think this understanding which will inevitably come from the speedier communications is bound to increase the well-being and security of all people here and those across the oceans. So we are glad to participate in this operation developed by private industry, launched by Government, in admirable cooperation.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, again there are reports that the Soviet Union is preparing to sign an early and separate peace treaty with East Germany. These reports come at a time when the Soviet attitude on Berlin seems to harden and at a time when Mr. Rusk's talks with Gromyko have reached a standstill. Can you tell us what you know of Soviet intentions and how you view the present prospects for a Berlin settlement?,THE PRESIDENT. We have made no progress recently on a Berlin settlement. Mr. Rusk, of course, will be seeing Mr. Gromyko again before he leaves Geneva, and in fact would stay in Geneva if a useful purpose could be served. There has been a strong difference of opinion in regard to Berlin, its viability and its guarantees, and we have not been able to reach an accord on our very different and vigorously held positions. So that I cannot report progress; and it is, of course, of concern to us all because, as I said from the beginning, when the vital interests of great countries are involved, in one area on which there are very varying views, it's a source of concern and some danger to us all.,[At this point transmission to Europe via Telstar began. ],We hope that an accord can be reached. We continue to try to reach one. But we've not made progress recently forward.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, the Russians appear to insist on being the last ones to conduct nuclear tests because we were the first. Would you see any basis for hope that there could be an agreement on a test ban reached after they finished their next series of tests?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the tests that we carried out were due to the breach of the moratorium by the Soviet Union last fall. We will have to make an analysis of their tests and see whether they present a further risk to our security. In this constant pursuit, everyone desiring to be last, of course, increases the danger for the human race. We are very reluctant to test. We will not test again unless we are forced to because our security is threatened and because as a result of new Soviet tests we find ourselves unable to meet our commitments to our own people and those who are allied with us. We will, therefore, have to wait. I'm sorry the Soviet Union is testing. They tested-they broke the agreement and tested last fall. We tested in response. Now they carry out another series of tests and the world plunges deeper into uncertainty.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, as a result of some of the congressional action on measures you've submitted to them, including the vote on the Medicare plan in the Senate, some Republicans on the Hill have suggested that perhaps this Congress could not accomplish anything further, that it might be best to adjourn and go home. Would you go along with that view, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that would be a disastrous course of action. There are still most important measures, which I recognize a good many Republicans oppose, the trade bill, the youth employment and opportunities bill, aid for higher education, the U.N. bond issue--these are merely some of the bills which are still before the Congress and on which the Congress should act before it goes home. The tax reform, the farm bill-Congress has no farm bill, and we would be reduced to relying on the 1958 act if the Congress doesn't act this year. Now I recognize that the Congressmen who said that the Congress should go home oppose our action in all these areas. But I believe this Congress should stay here and take action on them, and I think it will. But I think we have in that one statement a very clear indication of what the issue is going to be this fall, those who are opposed to action on all these fronts and those who feel that there should be action. The choice, of course, will belong to the American people.,[5-] Q. Mr. President, was the decision of the Ways and Means Committee to open hearings on the tax cut, proposed tax cut, taken at your recommendation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I had a consultation with Chairman Mills. I'm not sure that the description of the purposes of the hearing are exactly the ones that--as I understand it they're looking at the economy and getting recommendations from various groups. I discussed it with Congressman Mills and it was his decision and that of the Committee but I thought it was useful.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, several times recently you expressed concern about the gold drain. Why does the United States, of all of the major nations in the world, permit foreign holders of its currency to exchange it for gold, and while this practice continues, even if we achieved a balance of international payments, would we be able to stop the drain of gold?,THE PRESIDENT. If the United States refused to cash in dollars for gold, then everyone would go to the gold standard and the United States, which is the reserve currency of the whole free world--we would all be dependent upon the available supply of gold, which is quite limited.,Obviously, it isn't enough to finance the great movements of trade today and it would be the most backward step that the United States has taken since the end of the Second World War. We have substantially improved our position this quarter, the second quarter over the first quarter. Our loss is down to almost a third of what it was in the first quarter. Our loss, based on the first and second quarter of this year, is about half of what it was last year, and about a third of what it was the year before. We hope that we can bring our balance of payments into balance by the end of next year.,We are not going to devalue. There is no possible use in the United States devaluing. Every other currency in a sense is tied to the dollar; if we devalued, all other currencies would devalue and so that those who speculate against the dollar are going to lose. The United States will not devalue its dollar. And the fact of the matter is the United States can balance its balance of payments any day it wants if it wishes to withdraw its support of our defense expenditures overseas and our foreign aid.,[Telstar's transmission of the conference ended at this point.],Now, these have been undertaken, and we have put over $50 billion into Europe alone since 1945. We are not requesting them to do anything but to meet their responsibilities for their own defense, as we are helping to meet them. We spend $1.5 billion in the defense of Europe and the NATO commitments. Thirty percent of the infra structure of NATO is paid for by the United States. We don't object to that. We are not going to devalue. We are going to be able, we think, to bring our balance of payments into balance by the end of next year, and I feel that those who hold dollars abroad have a very good investment and-we have over $16.5 billion here in the United States; we have over $50 billion held by American citizens in investments overseas. This country is a very solvent country. So that I feel it requires a cooperative effort by all those involved in order to maintain this free currency, the dollar, upon which so much of Western prosperity is built.,I have confidence in it, and I think that if others examine the wealth of this country and its determination to bring its balance of payments into order, which it will do, I think that they will feel that the dollar is a good investment and as good as gold.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, a great many people are giving their opinion of the domestic economy. Could you give us your evaluation at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that--as you know, there are some indications which are very good and some indications which are disappointing. I've said from the beginning that I think we can probably get a better look at what prospective actions the Congress and the Executive should take when we get the July figures. We can make a better determination then as to whether we are in a plateau, or whether this is a period which would require more vigorous Executive action. Some of the profit reports which came out last weekend showed that some of our major companies are making the highest profits in their history. In fact, as you know, General Motors, RCA, and others were far beyond--50 to 75 percent above last year. There are encouraging indications--auto sales, consumer purchases have held up. Investment is down. Housing has been down. They've been, as I say, a mixed bag, and I think we can get a better look at where we're moving when we get the July figures in early August.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there's been some confusion over what Arthur Dean did or did not say at Geneva a week ago. I wonder if you can clarify for us whether he was suggesting that it might be possible to enforce a nuclear test ban without going into the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. That's not the position of the United States at this time. As you know, there has been additional information gathered as a result of our underground tests, in the ability to detect an underground test at a range, and to distinguish between an underground test and an earthquake. This material which has just come through the Defense Department is being studied by the Disarmament Agency, the State Department, and the Defense, and whatever information we have will be made available to the disarmament conference at Geneva very shortly. The national governmental considerations of this information should be concluded by the end of this week. It is information which is in a sense encouraging as to our ability to distinguish. But whether we can do--the range at which we can do it, the sharpness of the distinction, what kind of instruments would be required, what would be the role of inspectors themselves--those will have to wait until our conclusions in the next few days.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, I think you welcomed the President of Ecuador to Washington today, and you mentioned a moment ago the expense of this Government in the defense of Europe. I wondered if you feel that countries such as Ecuador and others are getting enough help from Europe in their economic and social development programs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what concerns me is not only this question of whether sufficient aid has been given. As you know, actually there hasn't been aid in the sense that we understand it. There've been some long-term loans, but at reasonably high rates of interest. What has concerned us most about Latin America has been the fact that these countries are nearly all of them dependent upon very few commodities. Ecuador itself is dependent really on the export of three commodities; these prices have been dropping in the same way that coffee has been dropping. They are dependent upon the European market, and we are concerned that the Common Market will be open and 'not take restrictive steps against the importation's from Latin America, which would increase greatly their already very, very serious problems. So that what we are most concerned about now is not the question of aid, but rather that Europe will be open to the commodities of Latin America--the bananas, the cocoa, the coffee, and the others upon which these countries depend. Otherwise, their foreign exchanges are going to drop out of sight and you're going to have more and more desperate internal situations. So we're asking Europe to make the Common Market, as I've said from the beginning, an increasingly open institution which radiates prosperity, and not a closed shop with particular ties to former colonial possessions in Africa. But this is, of course, a matter we must negotiate with the Western Europeans, and I'm sure that Monsieur Monnet and others who have been so instrumental in developing the Common Market, share this view of an expanding free world economy.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, some have criticized the administration for withholding aid from the military dictatorship which has taken over Peru, and at the same time asking Congress for permission to give aid at your discretion to Communist dictatorships such as Yugoslavia and Poland. Do you feel free to discuss with us reasons for this distinction?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at the present time the President of Peru is imprisoned. President Prado, who was a guest of this Government a short while ago, and who was a guest of Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, is in prison. We are anxious to see a return to constitutional forms in Peru, and therefore until we know what is going to happen in Peru, we are prudent in making our judgments as to what we shall do.,We think it's in our national interest, and I think the aid we're giving in the other areas is in our national interest, because we feel that this hemisphere can only be secure and free with democratic governments. We wish that were true behind the Iron Curtain, and it is to encourage a trend in that direction that we have given some assistance in the past, and advocate it now.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the Congo appears to be receding rather than progressing towards integration.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. Do you have thoughts on this and what might possibly be done?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have been very concerned about the Congo because we have been unable to reach an accord between the Katanga and the Government of the Congo and all and time is not running in favor of the Adoula Government. It has very little funds. The great resources of the Congo are in the Katanga. Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula have been unable to get together. This is very, very serious. The Union Miniere, the company which controls these vast resources in the Katanga, pays its taxes just to the Katanga, not to the central government. It leaves Mr. Adoula without resources. It has weakened his position and I think that those who are sympathetic to the Katanga's effort are liable to find complete chaos in the rest of the Congo. So that I support the United Nations effort there to encourage the integration of those areas on a reasonable and responsible basis. The United States stands very strongly behind that policy and I'm hopeful that under the leadership of U Thant we can make that policy effective, with the support of Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe, who will come to see that together this country can be viable, and separate it will be chaotic.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Martin Luther King said yesterday that you could do more in the area of moral persuasion by occasionally speaking out against segregation and counseling the Nation on the moral aspects of this problem. Would you comment on this, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I made it very clear that I'm for every American citizen having his Constitutional rights, and the United States Government under this administration has taken a whole variety of very effective steps to improve the equal opportunities for all Americans, and will continue to do so.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in the absence of any agreement on Berlin, could you discuss with us what the consequences might be were the Russians to go ahead now and sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would rather not look into that clouded crystal ball because, of course, our rights to Berlin are based upon World War II and the agreements coming out of World War II, and are not subject to unilateral abrogation. But I think I'd rather talk about what we can do to work out an equitable solution rather than to talk about what might happen under these conditions. At the present time we are still talking with the Soviet Union, still negotiating, and I think that we ought to continue on that track as long as we possibly can before we consider where we are going to go on other roads.,Q. Mr. President, are you making any progress toward a direct telephone line to Mr. Khrushchev for use in case of emergency?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not done that, no. We have communications with the Soviet Union. I think the problem is not at the present time communications. The problem is that there is a difference of viewpoint. We understand each other, but we differ.,Q. In that same connection, sir, could you tell us anything about your talk with Ambassador Dobrynin and whether or not this was the beginning of perhaps a series of direct consultations between you and the Ambassador?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I hope to see Ambassador Dobrynin periodically. Mr. Khrushchev is seeing our Ambassador fairly frequently. And I think that it's useful in order to indicate our viewpoint. I've said for a long time that any study of history, particularly of this century, shows the dangers of governments getting out of touch with each other and misunderstanding each other. Therefore, I want to be sure that we have the closest understanding of our position and of their position. These meetings, I think, help indicate what we believe and also they are very helpful to me in hearing an exposition of the Soviet viewpoint. So I will continue to see him.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, according to Dr. Gallup's latest poll, there's been a sharp rise in pro-Republican sentiment in the Middle West and a parallel or opposite drop in your popularity stock of about 10 points. Do you have any explanation of your own for this phenomenon, if it is one, and does it bother you with the administration facing now a mid-term election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it said I dropped personally from 79 percent to 69 percent. I think that if I were still 79 percent after a very intense congressional session I would feel that I had not met my responsibilities. The American people are rather evenly divided on a great many issues and as I make my views clearer on these issues, of course, some people increasingly are not going to approve of me. So I dropped to 69 percent, and will probably drop some more. I don't think there is any doubt of that.,President Eisenhower, I think, in the November election of 1954 was down to 58 percent. But he survived, and I suppose I will.,Now, as to the congressional drop, I thought it was abnormal in the winter, before the Congress began. I think what the American people have to understand is that the Republican Party, by and large, with very few exceptions, has opposed every measure that we have put forward, whether it's in agriculture, whether it's in medical care, whether it's in public works, whether it's in mass transit, whether it's in urban affairs. And they have been joined by some Democrats who for a great many years have opposed a good many Democratic programs.,Now this grouping has cost us--we lost Medicare, a change of 2 votes would have won it, and in the House a change of 10 votes would have passed our farm bill. And that's why this election in November is a very important one. If the American people are against these programs, then of course they'll vote Republican, and we will have a state of where the President believes one thing and the Congress another for 2 years, and we'll have inaction. There are those who believe that is what we should have. I do not. That is why I think this election is quite important. I think the choice is very clear, in other words. November 1962 presents the American people with a very clear choice between the Republican Party which is opposed to all of these measures, as it opposed the great measures of the 1930's, and the Democratic Party--the mass of the Democratic Party-the administration, two-thirds or three-fourths of the Democratic Party, which supports these measures. Fortunately, the American people will have a choice. And they will choose, as I have said, either to put anchor down or to sail. So we'll see in November.,Q. Mr. President, do you plan any reprisals against the Democrats who haven't supported you?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that most of the Democrats who have not supported me are in areas where--are in one party areas. And what I am going to do is attempt to elect, to help elect, Democrats, though I've never overstated what a President can do in these matters. I'm going to help elect Democrats who support this program. The areas I will be campaigning in are seats where there will be a very clear choice between Republicans who oppose these actions and Democrats who support them. That's where I am going to go.,[15.] Q. In view of the increase in strikes and other major labor disputes, could you tell us, sir, why you have not yet sent up a labor message, and when you intend to do so?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think there has been an increase in strikes.,Q. I think the figures show they are up this year over last year.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, these figures are still very limited in the amount of strikes. There was a serious one out in California in the construction trade that went on for some length of time. But we are attempting to use the powers which have been given to us, and also particularly the Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the Secretary of Labor, and myself to attempt to bring about peaceful solutions. We will continue to do that. If I thought there were any congressional power that would assist us, then I would ask for that, but I'm not aware or any strike which we've had this year, which would have been settled more amicably and more responsibly by an additional grant of power by the Congress.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that President de Gaulle is irritated over your swift appointment of Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer to be Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in Europe upon the retirement of General Norstad on November 1. Would you please tell us if you have received the same reports, and also give us your opinion on whether the next Supreme Allied Commander of NATO should necessarily be an American?,THE PRESIDENT. General Norstad informed me in May when he was here that he wished to retire this fall. After that, during the Secretary of State's visit, and by other means, we discussed this matter with other governments, including the French Government, to find out whether they wished--if it was in their view satisfactory to have an American appointed. Now we were informed that they accepted the appointment of an American, and supported it. Then when General Norstad came this time to see me, it was arranged that his resignation would become effective October 1, and we then sent in the name of General Lemnitzer, who is our senior military officer, and a distinguished one.,So that I am not aware that there was haste in the matter of naming an American, or nominating an American which is after all the responsibility of the North Atlantic Council. And quite obviously if the North Atlantic Council asked us to nominate an officer, I would nominate our senior officer, General Lemnitzer, who is very adequately equipped to deal with these matters.,Now, I've seen some stories that might suggest a contrary view, but the fact of the matter is General Lemnitzer could have retired in October and there would have been a vacancy as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Therefore, when I nominated him to be the Commander of American forces in Europe and also indicated that if we were invited by the North Atlantic Council to nominate an American, that he would be our nominee. I did it with complete freedom, because I felt that after working with General Lemnitzer for a year and a half, he was the best officer for that position at this time.,Now, I am sorry that General Norstad is leaving. He did an extraordinary work, and he was particularly--I found his judgment to be particularly reliable during this last spring, and I think every one in Europe shares the same feeling of confidence. I think that they'll develop the same confidence in General Lemnitzer. So I'm not sure that the stories are wholly accurate.,[t7.] Q. Mr. President, in your January economic report you said that if demand falls short of current expectations a more expansionary policy will be pursued. Actually, sir, as you know, demand has fallen substantially short of your target for the past 6 months. I wonder if you can tell us what the factors are that have caused you to postpone taking action to stimulate the economy.,THE PRESIDENT. I think I made that rather clear, that we are waiting until the end of July, the July figures. The expansionary policy which we've talked about is in the area of a tax cut, which is a matter, of course, which must go through the Congress. And I think the Congress, as well as the administration, would want to be convinced that this remedy, which is not an easy one and which can be very controversial, that this remedy is the most desirable at this time. And I think that as long as the figures are as mixed as they are, as long as there are such strong differences of opinion among people who are well informed about where the economy is going, I think that it's wiser to wait for the July figures to see if that will give us a clearer picture. Because we may be in a plateau which may carry through 5 or 6 months to January of next year, when we've proposed a tax cut anyway, or we may be in a different period. But there are all kinds of figures and many of them are contradictory.,As I said, the profit figures for the first half in some industries are extraordinary. The consumer purchasing power is held up. What has been particularly disappointing has been investment, and we have to consider whether a tax cut, and if so, what kind of a tax cut, would stimulate investment, if that becomes our need. This matter is so complicated, must go through so many different committees of the Congress, and will be subject to the most careful scrutiny, that we want to be convinced that the course of action we're advocating is essential before we advocate it.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the other day Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish economist, said in Stockholm, after a return from a visit to the United States, that he regarded it as inexcusable for so rich a country as ours to have so many slums, to have inadequate schools, and lacking a variety of social services. And he described our economy as stagnant and he traced the roots of this alleged stagnancy to the Eisenhower administration. Would you care to comment on this estimate of our situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it is regrettable that we have not been able to develop an economic formula which maintains the growth of our economy. If we were moving ahead at full blast today, of course you would have full employment. Also, he made the point that a stagnant economy falls heaviest on the Negroes, who, of course, are the first out of work and the last re-employed. I think he felt that the emphasis upon the traditional budget had served us ill. I have been exploring that question somewhat myself.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, on the political front, what is your goal in November, given the fact that despite the big Democratic majority currently, you're having a lot of trouble? Does that mean your goal is to increase the House Democrats, say by 20, and the Senate by some number?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we lost 20 seats in 1960. As I've said before, the rules fight, which I regarded as a very important one in January 1961, we won by only 5 votes, with 19 Republicans. Now, we don't get any Republicans any more for any measure--with the exception of the trade bill, and even there the leadership opposed us--but fortunately I think a good many Republicans realized that this was not a party issue, but a national issue. And I hope that they feel the same way in the Senate, because I regard it as such, and the bill has equal sponsorship from the Republican and Democratic sides. So we put that and the aid bill outside of the political dialog, fortunately.,But I would like to see us win even a few seats. I am not as ambitious as your figures would indicate, because history is so much against us. If we can hold our own, if we can win 5 seats or 10 seats, it would change the whole opinion in the House, and in the Senate, because we lose by 5 votes. There really isn't a measure before us that I don't think we couldn't pass with a change of 5. That was the farm bill and the same is true in the Senate on Medicare, a change of 1 or 2 seats in the Senate. So we're not required to do any more than hold our own and gain between and 10 seats. Now that, of course, is going to be an extremely difficult job and has been done, I believe, since the Civil War only twice--in this century, of course, only once.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, now that the U.S. image is being transmitted instantaneously overseas by Telstar, do you think the U.S. networks should make a greater effort to do something about the \"vast wasteland\"?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm going to leave Mr. Minow to argue the wasteland issue.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, the other day after the Medicare vote, you said that a handful of Democrats voted against you. There were 21. This prompts two questions: wasn't it a pretty big handful, and won't this tend to inhibit you in setting this forth as an issue?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Two-thirds of the Democrats voted for it, a third of the Democrats voted against it. About six-sevenths or seven-eighths of the Republicans voted against it. So that this combination of almost total Republican opposition with a third of the Democrats defeated us by 52 to 48.,Now the issue in November, every seat that is being contested between Republicans and Democrats, really, I would say, in 80 percent or 90 percent of the cases, would be between those who oppose Medicare and those who are for it. So that there isn't any doubt that there is in a party as large as the Democratic Party those who do not support a good many of the programs. The alliances may change but, of course, we lose a third or a fourth, and we have since 1938. But the fact of the matter is this administration is for Medicare and two-thirds of the Democrats are for Medicare and seven-eighths of the Republicans are against it. And that seems to me to be the issue.\nReporter. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-07-05","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have two statements on two bills now before the Congress.,[1.] I want to express my very strong support for the foreign aid bill which the House leadership now expects to bring to the House of Representatives next week. Our foreign aid programs have made great demands on our people, and still do, but they are vital to our security and are carefully designed to respond to the national interests of the United States, as well as the maintenance of the peace and security of the free world.,Three facts should be kept in mind. Almost half of the money authorized in the foreign aid bill is for military assistance, or supporting funds for the defense of countries directly threatened by aggression or subversion. More than 80 percent of the money committed to economic assistance is in the form of loans, not grants, and these loans will have to meet our aid criteria and be repaid in dollars.,More than 80 percent of the money appropriated for the foreign aid program will be spent here in the United States on goods and services supplied by American businesses and American workers, under new and tighter procedures which are being developed. Most importantly we simply cannot stand aside in the face of the needs of developing countries. In Latin America, for example, it is more urgent than ever that the Alliance for Progress should go forward. Here is an area with an income per capita one-eighth of our own. In some of these countries they are overwhelmingly dependent on a single export commodity, and they have to sell at wholesale and buy at retail. It is estimated that Latin America has 50 million underprivileged adults, and 11 million children of school age who are not in school. The stirrings of revolution can be felt in this hemisphere. It will either be peaceful or violent. We want it to be peaceful. But we have to do our part with our sister republics in assuring that. This is a bipartisan bill, supported by my predecessors since 1945, and I hope we can get favorable action this year.,[2.] The second matter is to urge strong support for the Senate effort which is now going forward under the leadership of Senator Anderson to pass a medical care for the aged bill, under Social Security. The bill which is now coming before the Senate is a strong bill. It meets the problems of those who have not been covered by Social security. It provides participation by the Blue Cross, by private insurance companies. It is an effective bill, and I think could mean a good deal to our older citizens and their children who must sustain them. I hope the Senate will act and then the House.,[3-] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be growing sentiment in various sectors, both labor and business, for a tax cut this year. Have your discussions with Secretary Dillon this week opened the door at all to such action in 1962?,THE PRESIDENT. No. We are continuing to watch the economy. We have, as you know, planned a tax cut and tax reform to come next year. We, of course, would prefer to maintain that schedule. We are continuing, however, to watch the basic indicators of the economy, and if we feel that the situation in the economy warrants a tax cut, then, of course, we would recommend it. At the present time we are maintaining our previous schedule. But I think the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce, which is, of course, intimately in touch with the business community, and also the recommendations of the AFL-CIO, in regard to the need for tax cuts, should be very seriously considered by the Executive, as it is by me, and by the Congress, because representing as they do business and labor, giving their recommendations in favor of a tax cut, we have to take that judgment into very careful balance, which we are.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, regarding your proposal for a declaration of interdependence and a concrete Atlantic alliance, can you give us any particulars on how these goals can be achieved? I am thinking in terms of how long a period of time may be involved and whether eventually this would be based on alliances or some form of political union.,THE PRESIDENT. As I said yesterday, 1 the first task is for Europe, in its own way and according to its own decisions, to complete its organization. When a decision is reached in regard to Great Britain's joining, which we hope this summer, then, of course, this work will move ahead at a more accelerated pace. What I was attempting to suggest yesterday was that any view in Europe or any stories which might appear that we regard this strong and increasingly united Europe as a rival, were not true. We regard it as a partner. We regard it as a source of strength.,1 Item 278.,It is true that when this united Europe develops, that, of course, its relationship with us will be different than it has been in the past. The NATO alliance of a series of independent countries placed special responsibilities upon the United States which we were glad to assume, but which--of course, the relationship would be different between a single powerful Europe or a union of powerful European states and the United States. We would have to work together on economic matters.,As you know, we have been carrying great burdens in many parts of the world, the dollar has--military, economic, political-and I am hopeful that when Europe has completed its work, that Europe and the United States can then attempt to complete and harmonize its relationship in a way that will benefit not merely the United States and Europe but also, as I said yesterday, would look outward. We do not want this to be a rich man's club while the rest of the world gets poorer. We want the benefits of this kind of union to be shared. The first task is Europe's and then it will be the United States'.,15.] Q. Mr. President, today you named a new Soviet Ambassador. No doubt you have talked in general terms or will talk in those terms with him about his mission. I wondered if you could discuss briefly in a general way your feelings about the relations with the Soviet Union since you have taken office and what you expect in the months ahead.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the case of our new Ambassador, Mr. Kohler, I have worked very intimately with him for the last year and a half, because he has been the head of the so-called task force on Berlin and has participated in all the ambassadorial meetings. So that he goes to the Soviet Union with complete knowledge of the Government's policy and also my complete confidence.,We've continued to attempt to work for an adjustment of those major tensions which disturb the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and between the free world and the Communist world. We have not always been as successful as we had hoped, but we are continuing. We're continuing the discussions over Berlin. We are now in conference in Geneva on Laos, where we are hopeful that a satisfactory treaty can be reached. We are going to be hack in conference on July 16 on disarmament with the Soviet Union, so that we are continuing to see if it is possible to reach an accommodation for the peaceful use of space. In a whole variety of ways we are attempting to lessen the chance of conflict with the Soviet Union and maintain our own security and the peace of the free world. That is the object of our policy.,It cannot be accomplished quickly. It will require, I think, some time to come. But that is the object of our policy and we are going to attempt to continue to live in peace with all countries, and particularly those countries whose military potential is such that any great conflict would involve the future of both of our countries, and of the race. And Ambassador Kohler will attempt to carry out this policy which I have stated, necessarily, in a most general way.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you say that the Atlantic partnership would be an advance on what we now have. How would it better achieve those things you claimed for it yesterday in Philadelphia? That is, a greater deterrent to aggression; a banishment of war and coercion; and some of the other things?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this will represent an extremely powerful body of people and productive power--the North Atlantic, North America, and Europe having nearly four or five hundred million people, having a productive power which is enormous, and steadily increasing. This represents a very vital source of strength.,My concern is that the relationship between Europe, using it in the single sense, and the United States, be intimate. We have been dealing, as I have said, with a great many countries which are smaller than the United States. Now we are going to have not one country but one great organization, if the effort is successful in Europe. And, I'm hopeful that we can reach accommodations on the economic relations, of trade, and also the problem of currencies and all of the rest; on the problem of military policy; and then that we can emphasize, which I suggested yesterday, that we look outward.,We do not want a Europe, as I have said, and a United States to be a core of an increasingly disintegrating world. And therefore we're concerned with the admission of the raw materials of Latin America to Europe; we're concerned about the Pacific community--the Philippines, Japan, and the others--and we are concerned that Europe and the United States play their proper role in assisting the underdeveloped world.,These are statements of general policy. They must wait, therefore, for precise implementation while Europe completes its work. But I wanted to indicate yesterday how much we favored this, and we do regard it as a source of strength and satisfaction and not as a rival. Europe does not want to be dependent upon the United States and we do not want that relationship, and I think we meet as equals when this work is completed.,[7'] Q. Mr. President, two questions based on the passage of the sugar act and the foreign lobbying attending it. First, what do you think about the exercise by the House Agriculture Committee of what is essentially the power to make foreign policy by allocating quotas? And, secondly, on the lobbying itself, do you believe there is involved the kind of double standard here? The Executive is controlled by very strict rules on conflict of interest. Do you think something similar to this should be expected of Congressmen?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the bill that we sent up to the Congress did not provide for this allocation of quotas. The final bill which was passed by the Congress, which I have not yet signed, plus the amendments made today--in the legislation before the Senate today--I think provide for an improvement over the situation as it was in the original House bill. Now, the second-though it is not everything that the administration wished for.,The second question is this matter of lobbying. I don't think it's a double standard. These men are all private people, they're not Government people, so that I wouldn't say it's a double standard. But I think it is an unfortunate situation when men are paid large fees by foreign governments to secure quotas and where, in some cases, there are contingency fees. For every ton of sugar they get allocated to their country, they secure a payment of so much. Well, now, that is not satisfactory.,I understand that appropriate committees of the Congress may look into the matter. And I think the fact that so much publicity has been given to this may serve as a deterrent. As you know, the bill which has passed the House and Senate, combined with today's bill, provides for a gradual phasing down of these quotas and we will have less of it. And I think we ought to have less of it.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, I think Mr. Shoemaker's question included a question about whether this Atlantic partnership would be a political unit. Could you elaborate on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would think that in a sense we have a political union--it depends on how you define \"political.\" We have in NATO alliance the obligations to accept it under the NATO alliance. The North Atlantic Council, OECD, DAG, and all the other organizations which have been set up represent political commitments. And of course these political commitments will, perhaps, take a different form as Europe changes its form, and I hope a more intimate one. But as I've said, the first task is Europe's, and it will not be accomplished overnight any more than, of course, the length of time which elapsed between the Declaration and our own Constitution.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the propriety of the Reverend Martin Luther King intervening privately with the Chairman of the Home Loan Bank Board in a controversial case pending before that agency?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I understood that this is a matter which you brought to the attention of the White House and it's now being looked at to see whether there were any--what the actions were. As far as I know, so far, there is no illegal action. But our examination of the matter is not completed.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, without regard to your statement in Mexico, do you consider that progress has been made in enlisting the cooperation of the Latin American countries in handling the Cuban situation? And with specific regard to Mexico, do you feel that anything that occurred there has weakened your position, or ours, or the Organization's in any way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the answer to the last part, I would say no. In answer to the former part, as you know, the action taken at Punta del Este indicated, I think, a general recognition that Marxist-Leninism was incompatible with this hemispheric system.,[11. ] Q. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee has not scheduled any hearings on your request for $460 million for a big fallout shelter program, and apparently it has had no prodding from you. My question is, do you expect to renew your appeal for this program?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have talked to the responsible officials involved. I hope the hearings are held. I hope they can be held this month. I hope we'll secure the money we requested. As you know, within the last 10 days I've sent up a supplemental appropriation request for around $35 million for the distribution of food throughout the country, which would be available in case of an attack. These matters have some rhythm. When the skies are clear, no one is interested. Suddenly, then, when the clouds come--after all, we have no insurance that they will not come--then everyone wants to find out why more hasn't been done about it. I think we ought to take the action recommended by the administration. It may be that there does not seem to appear to be a need as of today, but that does not mean that there may not be need for it at a later date. Then everyone will wonder why wasn't more done. I think the time to do it is now.,Under the program which we started some months ago, nearly 60 million shelters have been identified. We want to have food in them and other necessities, and I'm hopeful that the Congress will implement the program we have sent up.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the United States has reportedly invited Japan and other industrialized countries to invest in the building of plants in this country. Would you explain the thinking behind that, sir, and does it imply also that we are discouraging U.S. investment overseas in plants?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, United States investment overseas has been very heavy. In fact, it has been one of the matters which of course affects our balance of payments. Over the long run it does not; over the immediate run it does. We are anxious to have others invest in the United States, and particularly to invest in those areas where there may be higher unemployment. So this program is being operated through the Department of Commerce.,We've also attempted to speed up the number of tourists who come here. We want investment to come here. All of these will affect our balance of payments and affect our employment. We don't want our capital merely to be invested outside of the United States. We want foreign capital matching to come here. And that's the purpose of this program.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there are proposals to suspend the equal time requirements to permit major candidates for House and Senate and Governor to debate this year. Do you favor this?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'd like to see the legislation, but I think the purpose as you've described it--I would favor it, yes.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, this morning Governor Welsh of Indiana visited you about the conflict between the Port and the Lake Michigan-Lake Shore area. He has referred us to you about your comments on that. Did you give him any encouragement on it?,THE PRESIDENT. No. He explained the concern of Indiana--the effect on the jobs. As you know, there is an opposition to this proposal based on the effect it will have on the national park there. The Budget Bureau is having an analysis made tomorrow, which I think Governor Welsh and the representatives will attend. There also will be a White House representative there to hear that discussion, and then we'll make a report or recommendation to the Congress, shortly.,[ 15.] Q. Sir, the Democrats of Michigan are hoping to invite you to a $1,000 a plate brunch for a select group of businessmen, with the understanding, which is rather interesting, that if the list is complete, of about 40 men, the list will then be sent to the White House. Whereupon you are to write them invitations for a meeting to discuss the Government's relations with business. Would you care to comment on that idea, and whether this is something that might--or what this might do to the idea that the Democrats are not the party of business?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think, let me say I haven't heard of this brunch--[laughter]-so we have no plan. We are having luncheons to which businessmen and others will be invited. That doesn't cost any amount of money. I would think the problem of political parties raising funds is a difficult one. I'm not familiar with this one. I don't think that I'll be able to participate in it. But I'm very concerned about the problem which both parties have, of the difficulty of raising funds to carry on campaigns.,Now, the last part, I agree that the Democratic Party is not the party of business. There are an awful lot of businessmen who have supported the Democratic Party. I think its base is very broad traditionally. It includes wide spectrums of the American public and does not confine itself to merely one section.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, I believe you've been in office about 17 months and still haven't signed that order against racial segregation in Federally financed housing. Could you tell us when you do plan to sign that?,THE PRESIDENT. I will announce it when we think it would be a useful and appropriate time.,Q. You will sign it before the end of your term?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said already I will meet any commitments of that kind that I've made. I will point out that we have carried on a great many activities in the field of civil rights, Executive actions, including actions by the Department of Justice and others, and I will take action as it appears that they will accomplish the result which we want to accomplish, which is providing equal opportunities.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, you indicated that one of your prime interests is the lessening of tensions with the Soviet Union. I believe Mr. Khrushchev and Radio Moscow indicated in the last few days that they think Mr. McNamara's Ann Arbor speech enunciating a counterforce doctrine was an aggressive policy. Do you see any conflict between the two?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Mr. McNamara's speech was an attempt to explain why the United States opposed the idea of expanding national deterrents. He was devoting himself to that. That was his purpose, to try to explain and put theory behind the practice of American policy which is to discourage the expansion of national deterrents as inimical to the cause of peace. So that I regarded it in that sense as constructive and, if read from that point of view, I would hope that others would regard it so.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the name of Robert Weaver has frequently been mentioned as a possible successor to Secretary Ribicoff, who has announced he will resign in a week or so as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Can you tell us what your plans are to fill that post?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, not until the Secretary resigns.,[ 19.] Q. Mr. President, two related questions on the economy. Could you spell out a little bit the formula that you will use to make the decision, whether you will ask a tax cut this year or not? And secondly, did Mr. Heller's observations in Europe as to the remarkable status of their prosperity draw you in any way further toward being convinced that deficit spending is a good idea in terms of our own problem?,THE PRESIDENT. No, well, I think I explained in a previous address at New Haven about my view that the budget should of course, at times when there is a strong inflationary pressure in the economy, we should pursue a different budgetary policy than we do at a time when the economy is sluggish, because if the economy remains sluggish you have a deficit anyway. Witness the '58 deficit of $12 billion because of a drop in earning power and a drop therefore in tax revenues. In addition, as the International Bank at Basel pointed out, there will be times when you'll want to run a deficit budget policy and a higher interest rate policy in order to protect your gold. So that these fine judgments have to be made.,Now as to the first part of your question, we will look at the indicators, the basic indicators which have had some sort of historical significance in previous years as indicating a prognosis for the economy. In addition, we are going to come out next week with the tax depreciation schedule, which is now at the printers. We are hopeful we will get action on our tax credit bill. We are hopeful we will get action on the public works bill, and some of the other programs which we have talked about, tax power--set-aside tax power. All these could affect our judgment as to whether we should go to Congress this year. But the basic question will be to try to make an analysis as to the health of the economy over the next months, and whether '63 is the appropriate time, or now.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Premier Khrushchev said yesterday that in his view there had been some progress in settling the Berlin problem, and in a speech later on in the day he said the time for decision seemed to be at hand. Do you agree?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we should continue to examine whether we can reach an accord on a matter in which we have powerful interests, and on which we do not see alike. So it is a very difficult negotiation. Mr. Dobrynin and the Secretary spoke just before the Secretary's visit. I am sure they will be meeting shortly again.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in line with your communique in Mexico, I wonder if you think there will be a solution soon to the Chamizal Zone in El Paso? And if you think this will mean a dividing up of the property between the two countries? Or what are your personal views about it?,THE PRESIDENT. AS you know, there have been long negotiations about the Chamizal. This territory was awarded to Mexico in the arbitration award of 1911, but the United States did not accept it. Since then, as a result of the United States failure to accept the arbitration, Mexico has been unwilling to take any other matter into arbitration, which has, of course, therefore--lessened the harmony between the two countries. We are anxious to see if this matter could be disposed of. The difficulty is that since 1911 there have been schools, a lot of people have moved in there, and you have a different situation in the area involved than you did in 1911 because of the interests which have built up there. That's what's made it so difficult to solve. But what we indicated was our strong desire to reach an accord on this matter, which we're going to attempt to do, taking into account the problem which is now there in El Paso and the interests of the people involved, and the interests of the Mexican Government. But it is a matter that we cannot afford to continue to treat with some indifference, because the United States failed after agreeing to arbitration, then backed down and did not accept the award.,[22.] Q. Sir, this is somewhat related to an earlier question. The other day General Eisenhower described the Republican Party as the party of business. Now do you consider this fair or accurate as to the Republican Party or the business community?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that--as I say, I dislike disagreeing with President Eisenhower, and so I won't in this case. [Laughter],[23.] Q. Mr. President, last week I believe you indicated that you'd like to have a somewhat better Congress, and you hinted that you would campaign this fall for that purpose. -Does that mean, perchance, that you might campaign only for those Democrats who have supported the major part of your programs, or will you campaign for all Democrats who want you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I suppose you have answered the question. Those who want me to campaign for them are people who have generally supported the major part of the programs. So I don't think we are going to have a problem.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, concerning the Medicare bill, would you elaborate on why you don't favor inclusion of doctors' fees? Is it a matter of legislative strategy or of philosophy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the doctors are very strong against being included. They feel that this would involve the Government in the doctor-patient relationship. Therefore we have concentrated our efforts in attempting to assist people to pay their bills, hospital bills, and, quite obviously, if they find that eased, they will be in a better position to work out their relationship with their doctors. It is because we have not included doctors that I have found it very difficult to understand why the American Medical Association has found this legislation so unsatisfactory. It does not involve them directly. It involves the payment of hospital bills. And in view of the fact that the Federal Government participates in the construction of hospitals through the Hill-Burton Act, from which doctors benefit in their practice, I found the AMA's extreme hostility to this bill somewhat incomprehensible.,[25.] Q. There have been a great many dope stories on the matter of a NATO or European nuclear force and America's attitude towards it, so much so that some of us, at least, are a little hazy as to what the real situation is. Can you give us an up-to-the-minute statement on America's attitude towards the building of such a force, and how far we would go to help them build it, including also whether we favor a truly independent European nuclear force, that is, one not subject to United States veto?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the United States Government feels that the present arrangement under NATO gives full and sufficient guarantees for the integrity of Europe. It places special responsibilities upon the United States, but I think the United States in the last 17 years has indicated its determination to meet its commitments, and to implement its responsibilities. But of course, as time passes, Europeans become increasingly concerned, particularly as the Soviet Union has developed not only atomic power but also missiles, which puts Europe directly under the gun, as well as the United States.,Therefore, stronger pressures have arisen in Europe for a European nuclear force not as dependent upon the United States as the present one. What we have suggested is that this is a matter that Europe should consider carefully, that we would, of course, be responsive to any alternate arrangement they wish to make. We would examine it. We recognize their problem. But we think it's a matter in which Europe should come forward with some suggestions, and not for the United States to attempt to impose its views, particularly as we regard the present arrangement as a secure one for Europe. But if Europe does not agree with that, and she may not--particularly as she develops this additional union--then we'd be prepared to discuss an alternate arrangement. But so far no such proposal has come forward.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Brown is coming here to see you this afternoon. I wonder if you have any advice for him in the contest with Mr. Nixon and what your overall view might be of the campaign in California, with eight new seats, and all?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I saw Mrs. Brown here. I don't know whether this has helped give her any advice. I would not advise Governor Brown. I think this is a matter for the people of California. He seems to be doing very well. He was running far behind in the beginning, in .polls. And now he is leading in the polls by substantially more than I led at the end of the election. So I will be glad to--I want to see Governor Brown on matters which involve the interest of California. But on how he should conduct the campaign and all the rest, he's a much better judge of that than I am. I think he carried California by a million votes the last time he ran, or very close to it. So I think he knows more about California and how to run than I do.,Q. Mr. President, if you will support Democratic candidates who ask for your help, does that include the primaries as well as the election? And what is your view of the man you are going to finally end up supporting in Massachusetts?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I am not planning to get involved in any more primaries any place.\nReporter. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-06-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. I have two statements.,[1.] The situation in the area of the Taiwan Strait is a matter of serious concern to this Government. Very large movements of Chinese Communist forces into this area have taken place. The purpose of these moves is not clear. It seems important in these circumstances that the position of the United States Government be clearly understood.,Our basic position has always been that we are opposed to the use of force in this area. In the earlier years President Eisenhower made repeated efforts to secure the agreement of Communist China to the mutual renunciation of the use of force in the Taiwan area, and our support for this policy continues.,One possibility is that there might be aggressive action against the offshore islands of Matsu and Quemoy. In that event the policy of this country will be that established 7 years ago under the Formosa Resolution. The United States will take the action necessary to assure the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores. In the last crisis in the Taiwan area in 1958, President Eisenhower made it dear that the United States would not remain inactive in the face of any aggressive action against the offshore islands which might threaten Formosa.,In my own discussion of this issue in the campaign of 1960, I made it quite clear that I was in agreement with President Eisenhower's position on this matter. I stated this position very plainly, for example, on October 16, 1960: \"The position of the administration has been that we would defend Quemoy and Matsu if there were an attack which was part of an attack on Formosa and the Pescadores. I don't want the Chinese Communists to be under any misapprehension. I support the administration's policy towards Quemoy and Matsu over the last 5 years.\",Under this policy sustained continuously by the United States Government since 1954, it is clear that any threat to the offshore islands must be judged in relation to its wider meaning for the safety of Formosa and the peace of the area.,Exactly what action would be necessary in the event of any such act of force would depend on the situation as it developed. But there must be no doubt that our policy, specifically including our readiness to take necessary action in the face of force, remains just what it has been on this matter since 1955. It is important to have it understood that on this point the United States speaks with one voice. But I repeat that the purposes of the United States in this area are peaceful and defensive. As Secretary Dulles said in 1955, \"The Treaty arrangements which we have with the Republic of China make it quite clear that it is in our mutual contemplation that force shall not be used. The whole character of that Treaty is defensive.\",This continues to be the character of our whole policy in this area now.,[2.] Secondly, I want to emphasize once again how deeply I am convinced that the passage this year of the trade expansion bill, on which one House will vote tomorrow, is vital to the future of this country. To recommit this bill back to the committee is to defeat it. To extend it for 1 year is to defeat the purpose, because we have exhausted the powers given under the previous--under the present law. All its bargaining authority has been used up, and it will mean that we will fall back and behind at a time when the Common Market in Europe is moving ahead. This is no time to penalize our industry and agriculture by denying them markets. If we cannot make new trade bargains with the Common Market in the coming year, our export surplus will decline, more plants will move to Europe, and the flow of gold away from these shores will become more intensified.,It is for these reasons that this bill has enjoyed bipartisan endorsement from the very beginning, and I am confident that the members of both parties will support this bill in the national interest tomorrow.,[3-] Q. Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was and what effect it would have on the first amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.,In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy and that is to pray ourselves. And I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us. And I would hope that as a result of this derision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in a somewhat related field, there seems to be an impasse in a conference committee on a bill to aid higher education over a 5-year period, that $1 1/2 billion bill. There are some administration figures who have been advocating the House bill which provides across the board grants for all types of colleges, including church-related colleges, as opposed to the Senate version which provides loans only for church-related colleges, and I wonder what your position is. Which of these two versions do you prefer?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the administration sent up a program which is somewhat different from the bills that are in the Congress now, which provided loans to all schools. As you know, based on the brief on which I relied last year in my comments on the question of aid to nonpublic schools, secondary schools, I stated at that time that the brief indicated, and my own analysis indicated, and that of the Department of HEW, that there was not a comparable constitutional question on aid to higher education, to non-State colleges or universities.,In my opinion there are very clear limitations based on the Supreme Court decisions on aid to nonpublic schools in the secondary field. But in those fields the attendance is compulsory, it is universal. There is particular tradition connected with our public school system which has placed it in a special place in the traditional and constitutional life of our country. This is not true of higher education. So I did not feel, based on that, that there was a constitutional question, a public policy matter. And I am hopeful that the Congress will report out legislation which will assist schools of higher learning and also that some arrangement will be made on scholarships, and that all schools will be treated as they are in research grants and other ways--will be treated in the same fashion.,[5.] Q. In connection with your China statement, would you say, sir, what the position of the United States would be toward a return to the mainland by Chinese Nationalist forces? There have been reports recently, from Taiwan, that the time may be approaching for such a move.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me that the statement indicates the view that I wish to express today. I think the statement at the conclusion emphasized the defensive nature of our arrangement there. That was true in 1955, General Eisenhower made that clear, I think, in his letter to Senator Green in 1958. I have made it clear today that our arrangements in this area are defensive.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in your television interview about a month ago now, explaining your new trade expansion bill, I was impressed with your emphasis on the need for the European nations to take over more of their own defense. My questions are two: Does this mean that you would like to see a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe; and, two, are you also considering sending men to Europe on shortened tours of, say, 1 year, without their families?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would hope that we could withdraw or lessen the number of forces at some time but certainly not under present conditions until we have had a clear indication of what the future is going to be in Berlin. Quite the reverse, as you know, we have in the last 12 months strengthened our forces in Berlin and we have expressed our hope that other members of NATO would strengthen theirs. The United States has six divisions in Western Germany. Other members of NATO have substantially less, with the exception of the West German Government itself, and I would hope that they strengthen their forces. They represent a large geographic area with ever-increasing wealth. The United States cannot sustain this burden of maintaining the atomic deterrent, maintaining the sea strength we do, our ground commitments all around the globe, and still maintain such a large force in Western Germany. But we shall continue to do so as long as we feel it contributes to the security of Western Europe and the maintenance of our commitments.,Now, in regard to your second question, that is not a matter which is before us at the present time. At the present time we are planning to continue the tours of duty that we have on the books.,[7-] Q. Mr. President, in your campaign for the Presidency, in connection with the offshore islands, you suggested in advance of any violent attack in the area that might be construed as an attack upon Formosa and the Pescadorcs that we might reduce our commitment to Quemoy and Matsu, that this was not the appropriate place to draw the line because the islands were strategically indefensible and unnecessary. What is your view now?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that my statement represents the view of the United States Government, and the view of the United States Government is regulated by the resolution which was passed in--by the Congress in 1954, and which has been interpreted by President Eisenhower and again by me.,President Eisenhower, as you know, had some views about what should be the extent of the commitment of the Chinese Nationalist forces to these islands and, as a matter of fact, sent Admiral Radford out in the mid-fifties to discuss it. I also made some statements. My views on the matter in 1954 when the treaty came up are well known. But the fact of the matter is I also said in the fall of 1960 that there should be no withdrawal from these islands under the point of a gun, and that the matter of these islands--that the President must make a judgment based on the resolution of the Congress, that the action he will take will depend upon his judgment as to the effect of any action which the Chinese Communists might take on Formosa and the Pescadores.,Now, that is what my statement says. We stand in the traditional policy which has been true since 1954.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, speaking generally about your legislative program, do you feel that it has had the proper degree of support from the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, We haven't gotten the legislative program. I don't think we ought to go home until we get a good deal more of it by. I think that is the wishes of the majority. We should realize that some Democrats have voted with the Republicans for 25 years, really since 1938, and that makes it very difficult to secure the enactment of any controversial legislation. You can water bills down and get them by, or you can have bills which have no particular controversy to them and get them by. But important legislation, medical care for the aged and these other bills, farm programs, they are controversial, they involve great interests, and they are much more difficult.,Now, if you recall in January 1961 when we had a very basic issue before the Congress, which was whether the administration and the National Democratic Party would have the power to put its program on the floor of the House, the fight over the rules with Speaker Rayburn coming to the well of the House and making this a matter of his own personal prestige, we won that by five votes.,That indicated how close the balance was in the House of Representatives. Some Democrats vote with the Republicans, and have for a good many years. So that we have a very difficult time, on a controversial piece of legislation, securing a working majority. That is why this election in November is an important one, because if we can gain some more seats, we will have a workable majority, and if we don't, then of course we will not. So that I am concerned about what progress we make. There is no sense in the Congress going home without taking action on a whole variety of steps which will strengthen our country and our economy.,Now, on the farm bill, where we got defeated, as you know, by a close vote, there were powerful interests against it. In the first place, there was the unanimous opposition, with the exception of one Congressman, of the Republicans. And in addition there was the opposition of those who store surpluses. They like to have additional surpluses built up. There are 9 billion of them now, but they want more because they make money out of it. Then there were those who want cheap feed, and they want--the more surpluses there are, the cheaper the feed is. So that those who feed livestock, they did not want it. Then there are other parts of the country who want to plant corn, and who figure that if there are restraints on production they won't be able to plant it. So there are powerful interests that build up, and to try to get a program under control is very difficult. The fact of the matter is if we secured passage of that bill, it would have meant a saving of $1 billion, and that means that if we do not get a bill this year, it will cost $7 1/2 billion in the next budget, instead of $6 1/2 billion for agriculture. In addition, the farm income will drop, as it dropped in the fifties, because the surpluses will pile up. We will try to buy them under the support price, which is compulsory--the permanent bill--the surpluses will pile up, the farmers' income will go down, and no one will benefit. So I think it is a great mistake.,Now, what is interesting, if I may conclude, is that there was support indicated, after our bill was defeated, for the emergency feed grain bill. The Republicans indicated they would support it. Yet last year when that bill was up, all but four or five voted against it. Now, it is hard to get bills by, that put restraints, but these are the kinds of bills, the tax bill and others, that a complicated economy such as ours must have passed.,They may not be of great emotional public issues, but we have got to pass them or otherwise we will begin to lose control of the management of our economy and of our governmental finances.,So that I think the Democrats have to do better and I hope that some Republicans would support us. We supported President Eisenhower in important matters, and I would hope some Republicans will support us on the trade bill, which is vital, and on other measures as the summer goes on.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Rusk has just about completed his rounds of the Western European capitals. I wonder if you can give us an evaluation of his trip, with particular reference to whether this Government has now accepted France's determination to build its own nuclear power, and whether we will seek to coordinate and integrate that power into the NATO system?,THE PRESIDENT. We have always accepted its determination to do so. What we have not agreed to is to participate in the development of a national deterrent. We believe that is inimical to the community interest of the Atlantic Alliance, that it encourages other countries to do the same.,Now, France has determined to do so, she is going to do it. But I think that for the United States to associate with that effort, to associate with the concept of additional independent national nuclear deterrents, to play our part in its development, would be a mistake, both from the point of view of the United States, of the Atlantic Community, and of peace, because other countries will be compelled to do the same. And in my judgment, the NATO Alliance and the steps we have taken to implement the NATO Alliance give adequate security to Europe and the United States. I think we should stay with that. Now, the French do not agree, and they are going ahead. We accept that. But we do not agree with it.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the fall election, there has been considerable criticism of the candidacy of your brother, Ted, for Senator from Massachusetts. Among your most vigorous supporters it is said that there are going to be too many Kennedy's in Washington and that Ted has not demonstrated a capacity for this. Would you comment and tell us whether you think this might be an issue in the fall?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether they--I would characterize them as my most vigorous supporters, but I would say that there has been criticism. But as Ted, my brother, pointed out, there are nine members of my family. It is a big family. They are all interested in 'public life. So public life is centered--at least the great issues--in the United States Capital. Now, the people of Massachusetts are going to decide that. He had a very vigorously contested convention. He is going to have a primary in September. He will have a very vigorous fight in November. And I would think the people of Massachusetts could make a judgment as to his qualifications and as to whether there are too many Kennedy's.,Now, as far as my own judgment, aside from the fraternal relations, I did put him in charge of managing my campaign in '58 in Massachusetts. But more important, he was in charge of our western campaign in the pre-convention period which was a very intensive campaign, where we secured the support of a good many delegates, and in charge of our campaign in the West in the campaign itself, so that I have confidence in his ability. The people of Massachusetts must make the judgment, however.,[11.] Q. The organization of a committee to raise $62 million to ransom the invasion prisoners held by Castro was announced yesterday. One of its members is your sister-in-law, Mrs. Radziwill. Do you approve of public subscription to ransom these prisoners? And don't you think this money would contribute a great deal towards easing Castro's economic difficulties?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall, I am not informed about it. She is a good citizen and is free to make a judgment and anyone who wishes to contribute certainly is free to do so. And I certainly sympathize with the basic desire, which is to get a good many hundreds of young men out of prison whose only interest was in freeing their country. So I am certainly not critical of any efforts that are being made in this field.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, some members of your own party have a feeling that it might be a good idea to get Congress out of town and get them out to campaigning. On the other hand, you have outlined today quite a program remaining, and I wonder if you had any specific date in mind when you would like to see them go?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that is up to them. It is much easier in many ways for me, and for other Presidents, I think, who felt the same way, when Congress is not in town--[laughter]--but it seems to me that we cannot all leave town. We ought to all stay here. I think Congress is determined to try to bring up a program which is useful: higher education; we've got medical care coming up next week; we've got the trade bill. I think that we've got a number of things left to do and I am confident the Congress will stay and try to do them.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in December 1954, following the signing of the Mutual Security Treaty with Nationalist China, there was an exchange of letters between the United States and Nationalist China under which Nationalist China pledged itself not to take forceful action against the mainland without the consent of the United States. Do you think it is within the spirit of that exchange of letters that Chiang Kai-shek should be making statements proclaiming his intention of regaining a foothold on the mainland?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that that letter still governs. We would regard the agreement which was part of the '54 action, that no such action as you mention would take place without the agreement of the United States, and I have indicated that our interest in this area is defensive, and we would like to have a renunciation of the use of force. Does that explain it?,[14.] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned Berlin in connection with the presence of our sizable forces in Europe. Have you thought of any reduction or withdrawal of those forces with respect to having a written agreement on Berlin, or would lessening of tension suffice?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it would be a strategic and tactical judgment as to the use of our resources which would include, of course, men and financial resources, and the assessment of what effort the other countries were making.,For example, and this is only for example, we would have to make a judgment as to whether a conventional force of sufficient size could be developed in Europe to maintain itself without the use of atomic weapons, short of an all-out attack by the Soviet Union. This would require a different force level than it would if we derided to use weapons under different conditions. These are all part of the matter which we must consider. We must also see what the Europeans themselves are doing about conventional forces. And we also must take into account our dollar-our balance of payments problems. As you know, it costs about $750 million to keep our forces in Germany. That is balanced off by German purchases here. But it costs us $325 million to keep them in France, and that is not balanced off--$200 million-odd in Britain--$100 million in Italy. We have to make a judgment of what is in the best security interests of the United States.,But let me just make it clear that a good deal of what we are now talking about is in a sense academic. We plan to keep the six divisions in Europe for the foreseeable future.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisenhower said the other night that he felt the current present administration was spending too much money on defense. He also said that he felt the administration was floundering in the face of various problems. Would you care to comment on those two points?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think, I would be glad--I think we are spending a good deal of money on defense, and I don't enjoy it. But on the other hand, I think we live in a very dangerous world, and I believe that being strong helps maintain the peace. I must say on the one hand that we seem to be under attack by some Republicans for not doing enough to stand up to the Communists, and on the other by those who say we are spending too much on defense. There should be some coordination of policy, because it seems to me that otherwise it may appear that the Grand Old Party may be floundering. [Laughter],[16.] Q. Mr. President, a poll of about 30,000 businessmen by the Research Institute of America came up today with a vote of a to 1 in favor of your legislation, including the tax credit and the trade bill. Yet at the same time a substantial majority considers the administration hostile to business. What does this apparent inconsistency suggest to you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that it suggests that most businessmen, number one, are Republicans, and, number two, that they realize what is in the best interests of business and the country, and that is the trade bill and the tax credit.,I am glad to have that poll even though it did not result in a resounding vote of confidence for the administration. I think the fact that businessmen so strongly support these two pieces of legislation which have been somewhat--which have been attacked by a few, or relatively few, who have mounted a very effective attack--I thought this was a poll which every member of the Congress should look at carefully. I think the businessmen are fight. Both of these pieces of legislation are useful. I think the administration is, also. But more importantly is the fact they are supporting two important bills which I hope will pass, and which will be in the interest of the American economy, this year.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us something about your plans for your Mexican trip and any comments you have relating that to the general Latin American situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is important. Mexico is extremely important. I am following where President Roosevelt and every other President since then have gone to pay a visit. We have been honored by visits from the Presidents of Mexico. We are neighbors. There are a good many problems that we have in common, as well as opportunities. And, in addition, we are anxious--I am anxious--to discuss not only the bilateral relations but also what we together can do to strengthen the democratic fabric in all of Latin America.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, 4 weeks ago you said that you had no plans to propose tax reduction at that time, at the moment, but that in new conditions you might think about it again. In the past month, the economic situation has not gotten markedly better, and the stock market has gotten worse. What do you think of tax reduction now?,THE PRESIDENT. I think if we decide it is needed we will propose it, though I do point out that we do have one bill which would give us standby powers on tax reduction which I think would be very useful. It doesn't seem as if we are going to get action on that, but that is a tax reduction bill which would give us powers to move if the economy turned down. It has taken us nearly 18 months and we haven't finally gotten a judgment on our tax credit bill, which indicates the length of time it can take moving through the ordinary procedures of the Congress. That is why the standby power is important.,However, we will continue to watch the economy. There are good signs in the economy and there are signs which are not so good, so we will continue to watch it very carefully and make a judgment.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the recently released report of the National Advisory Committee on Radiation has pointed out that in the event the fallout contamination from weapons testing should exceed acceptable limits only you have the authority to halt testing and order countermeasures. The report also points out that responsibility for action against other nuclear hazards has not been clearly assigned. Under what circumstances would you halt nuclear tests or order countermeasures to protect against these hazards, and are you considering assigning responsibility for countermeasures against all nuclear hazards to a special agency?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as of today, the situation is such that our interests are served by testing. In addition, as you know, the iodine content has increased recently. The hazard is not present and will not be present, from our tests. Quite obviously, if tests are carried on for a long period of time all over the world this will become an increasingly serious problem. It is not today, however, and there is no health hazard here in this country nor will there be from our tests.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, aside from your constitutional responsibilities, as an individual American citizen do you personally approve or disapprove of the Supreme Court decision outlawing prayer in public schools?,THE PRESIDENT. I think my answer was responsive to that question.,[21] Q. Mr. President, did you ask Walt Whitman Rostow to draw up this paper on foreign policy and defense policy, or did he just undertake it on his own to interpret the policies of the Government?,THE PRESIDENT. To interpret the policy-he was acting as the successor to Mr. George McGhee and fulfilling his function of policy planning and one of the functions of the policy planning staff is to plan policy. [Laughter] And that is what he is attempting to do.,Now, the fact of the matter is that we have in the National Security Council voluminous papers from the fifties which are the general guide of policy lines in the United States. But there have been a good many changes since the 1950's. In the first place, we discussed one of them today, the French atomic rearmament, the question of the Sino-Soviet relations. There are a great many problems, Castro and all the rest.,We are examining to see--guerrilla warfare, anti-insurgency\n--what should be our military policy in it, what should be our force levels. These are matters which the State Department and the Department of Defense are examining and will come through to the National Security Council to see whether there should be any changes in the policies that were laid down in the 1950's. So Mr. Rostow is fulfilling his function. I have not studied the paper; the Secretary of State has it. But Mr. Rostow is acting under instructions and acting very responsibly.,Q. Mr. President, what are your views of the present situation in Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am concerned that the agreement which came into effect in June among the three princes, that it shall be successfully implemented, and that the Geneva accords agreed to last summer shall be amplified at the coming Geneva conference. Laos continues to be a matter of great concern to us. We have never suggested that there was a final, easy answer to Laos. On the other hand, there is a cease-fire, there is a government; they are meeting in Geneva. We will continue to cooperate in every way we can. It is a situation which is as uncertain and full of hazard, which life is in much of the world, and we will continue to support the concept of an independent and neutral Laos, to which Mr. Khrushchev has also given his personal commitment.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-06-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have one opening statement.,[1.] The welfare and economy of the American public would be seriously damaged by the strike now being threatened by the flight engineers union against three major airlines, TWA, Pan American, and Eastern. This action would create and have a significant impact upon our economy, and we have made every effort during the past months to bring about a happy solution.,This dispute stems from the recommendations made last year by the special commission I established that flight crews on jet aircraft be reduced from four men to three men. No one has questioned either the wisdom or the necessity of that recommendation.,The commission also recommended that all presently employed flight engineers are to be given prior job rights on the three-man crews, and that any changes made in the transition would in no way prejudice their representational rights. The companies agreed to pay all costs of training the flight engineers to enable them to serve on three-man crews,,The Air Line Pilots Association, in a related dispute involving Pan American Airways, agreed that arbitration was the responsible means of settling this matter, and the airline companies in this dispute have accepted my request made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Railway Labor Act that all issues be voluntarily submitted to the final and binding judgment of a three-man arbitration panel composed of outstanding public, labor, and management leaders.,But the flight engineers union has ignored this request. They are threatening to strike for still more job and representational security, for wage increases of more than 20 percent over a 3-year period, for reduction in working hours--from 85 hours a month to 75 hours a month--and other demands.,Eighteen hundred men are threatening a strike which would cause the immediate layoff of some 60,000 employees, the immobilization of 40 percent of the Nation's airline service, and the loss of over $1 million a day from international flights, which our balance of payments cannot afford.,We have been, under the Railway Labor Act procedures, seeking a settlement for 17 months, but the flight engineers have not accepted the decision of the National Mediation Board. They have rejected the report of the special Presidential commission on jet crews. They have refused to accept the careful recommendations of the three Presidential emergency boards. They have failed to cooperate with the long and thoughtful mediation efforts offered by the National Mediation Board, the Secretary of Labor, and the Special Mediation Panel. And this morning they rejected my request to submit these issues to arbitration.,A strike could have, as I have said, a significant impact on our economy at this time. I strongly urge the flight engineers to meet their public responsibilities, to reconsider their action, and to either submit this case to arbitration or agree with the carriers on some other means of settling this dispute without any interruption of operation.,Q. Mr. President, should the flight engineers not meet your request, would you then be prepared to go to Congress with a request for emergency seizure powers?,THE PRESIDENT. We would have to wait until--I am hopeful that the flight engineers will heed my request and submit this matter, as I have said, to arbitration, or find some other satisfactory method of settling it peaceably. We have been working, as I have said, for more than a year, because of the responsibilities placed upon us by the Railway Labor Act which covers the airlines. And I am very hopeful that the engineers will reconsider this matter. If they do not, of course, we then will have to consider what would be the proper action.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, following up your recent statements on the economy, particularly your speech at Yale the other day and the Solicitor General's yesterday, is it the Government's intention to play an active role in major labor and industry wage and price discussions and, if so, how would this role be played?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that--I have not read the speech of the Solicitor. My speech at Yale, I think, was quite clear. It dealt mainly, chiefly, with another subject, which was that we should attempt to engage in a dialog on the very intricate questions which are involved in the management of a very complicated economy such as ours, in order to maintain full employment and keep our economy moving.,As far as the--we have attempted to indicate, of course, through the Council of Economic Advisers and by other means, our concern that we follow policies--particularly in those basic industries which affect our competitive position overseas--that we follow policies that permit us to continue to compete, and to continue to keep our economy moving. But these--this is a free economy in the final analysis and we have to attempt to work out the solutions on a voluntary basis.,[3-] Q. Mr. President, India is reported leaning toward the purchase of MIG aircraft from the Soviet Union, and the equipment to manufacture such aircraft in their country. Does the United States have any alternative plan or offer to such an arrangement, and what effect might this have on the tensions within the area?\nTHE PRESIDENT This is a matter which is being considered in this Government, and also being considered with other governments. It is a matter on--Ambassador Galbraith is returning to India at the end of the week and will, I am sure, be reporting to us on the situation as well as giving our views.,It would seem to me that we should keep it at that level at the present time.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in a note to the Japanese Government today, Soviet Premier Khrushchev said that it is a criminal act that \"a certain element is trying to prepare for a surprise attack on us, by trying to attain the upper hand in the application of nuclear weapons.\" Would you address yourself to that remark?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't seen that statement. We are not preparing, if he is referring to us and I don't know who else he might be referring to, but the United States is not, quite obviously--it has not been our policy, we made it clear what our policy is, which is to build for our own security. The United States has gone to great lengths, as far as nuclear weapons, to secure effective means of control over their testing. The world knows the history of how this present series of tests began, and our great reluctance to commence them. And we have been engaged for many, many months in Geneva in the test ban discussions and also in the disarmament conference to secure some effective means of bringing an end to the arms race, including the nuclear arms race, and also bringing world tensions under control.,We are seeking to do so in Berlin; we've been seeking to do so in Southeast Asia. And I'm confident that if there is good will on both sides, that there can be a lessening of tensions- But there has to be good will on both sides.,[5'] Q. Mr. President, this is a question about a recent report called \"Does Overpopulation Mean Poverty?\" It recommended expanded Government research on fertility control and expanded technical assistance to underdeveloped countries seeking to solve problems of overpopulation. What is your attitude toward those recommendations?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't seen those recommendations. I've said from the beginning that these were matters which every country must decide for itself. This is not a matter-as it goes to basic national feelings, personal feelings. This is a matter which each individual, each family, each country must determine. It cannot be determined by the actions of another country.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in your Yale speech you spoke of deficits as not being necessarily inflationary or harmful. As you know, the attitude about deficits among the American people is largely an unfavorable one. I wonder in light of that if you can elaborate on why you think that deficits may not be bad or harmful.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it depends. As I tried to say at Yale, the key word is \"necessarily.\" I think there has been a feeling that deficits bring inflation with them. And I attempted to make the point at Yale that we had had surpluses in the 3 years after the war, rather large budget surpluses, and still had very sharp inflation; that we had had deficits in 1958 and in 1962, and that there had been a stable price level. The largest deficit was in 1958, $12 1/2 billion. The point I am trying to make is that what we must be concerned about is trying to maintain the vitality of our economy. And that the administrative budget, which is the budget people talk about, is not wholly revealing of the amount of money that the Government takes in. If the administrative budget were balanced, the Federal Government would be taking in about $4 billion more than it was spending. On the cash budget side--these are all rather complicated subjects because of the trust funds and all the rest--that has a deflationary impact on our economy.,Now, we have to realize that we had a recession in 1958 and a recession in 1960. We do not want to run through in this country, which is the--on which so much depends, which is the source of strength for the free world--we do not want to run into periods of recurrent recession. One of the ways that has been considered to avoid this is by following a budget policy which is related to the economy and not related to what I called rather formal traditional positions which may not be applicable to the present time. And I thought the experience of Europe, which has had a decade of unequaled progress, partly because they have managed their economy with some skill, partly because they are in a different period of growth, partly because of the Common Market, that it had some lessons for us. These are the matters, I said at Yale, that we should be talking about: how we can manage our economy, what should be our budget policy, what should be our fiscal policy? And the automatic response that a deficit necessarily produces inflation is not necessarily true.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, a lot of people seem to feel that the idea of a Democratic administration trying to win the confidence of business is something like the Republicans trying to win the confidence of labor unions. Do you feel, sir, you are making headway in your efforts? Have you seen anything to indicate that business is coming around to your point of view on the economy and that the confidence you asked for is being restored in the market place?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I said, what is necessary is not really whether some businessmen may be Republicans--most businessmen are Republicans, have been traditionally, have voted Republican in every presidential election. But that is not the important point--whether there is political agreement.,The important point is that they recognize and the Government recognizes, and every group recognizes, the necessity, as I have said, of attempting to work out economic policies which will maintain our economy at an adequate rate of growth. That is the great problem for us. They feel, as I said, that they would be happier if there were a Republican in the White House, but there was a Republican in the White House in 1958 and we had a recession, and there was in 1960. So I think that what we have to realize is, is that I could be away from the scene, which might make them happy, and that they might have a Republican in the White House, but the economic problems would still be there. So that what I hope is that we can address ourselves to those and not to a political matter because, after all, the presidential race isn't until 1964 and at that time it would seem to me to be the appropriate time to argue politics.,Right now we should be concerning ourselves with the real problems of our country, which are of great interest to me economically-which are to them, which are to labor, which are to all American people.,Q. Mr. President, there is a feeling in some quarters that big business is using the stock market slump as a means of forcing you to come to terms with business. One reputable columnist, after talking to businessmen, obviously, reported this week their attitude is now, we have you where we want you. Have you seen any reflection of this attitude?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't believe I'm where business--big business, wants me. [Laughter] I read that column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as a matter of fact, and I found that Mr. Childs made the point that some, as I believe his phrase was, rich men were quoted as having said what you have said. I cannot believe that anybody thinks that in order to take some political--gain some political benefit, it would be a source of pleasure to them to see the stock market go down or see the economy have difficulties. I don't believe that anyone who looks at our problems at home and abroad could possibly take that partisan an attitude. So I don't accept that view. I know that when things don't go well they like to blame the Presidents, and that's one of the things which Presidents are paid for. But I think what we want to be concerned about, as I have said before, is not a personal dialog as much as it is a dialog on the problem of what tax policies, what budget policies, fiscal policies we should pursue. Because if it were merely a matter of the party, or of personalities, we would not have had our experience that we had in the late fifties. So that shows there's something more substantive here. And this is what concerns, I think, all of us--or should.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Mansfield a few days ago suggested a review of far Eastern policies because he said they seem to him either marking time or, at worst, on a collision course. Do you think such a review is necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've been reviewing it. As you know, we've been attempting in the case of Laos to work out a policy which would prevent either one of those situations. Whether we shall be successful or not, only time will tell.,I know that we have put large sums of money, and the situation there is still hazardous. What is true there of course is true all around the world. This is a period of great tension and change. But if the United States had not played a part in Southeast Asia for many years, I think the whole map of Southeast Asia would be different. I am delighted--as you know, I have the highest regard for Senator Mansfield, and I think we should constantly review, and I think as he suggested, we should make judgments between what is essential to our interest and what is marginal. We have been attempting with great difficulty to carry out a policy in Laos which would permit a neutral and independent government there. In Senator Mansfield's speech he used the examples of Burma and Cambodia. Those were the examples that were also used at the Vienna meeting by Chairman Khrushchev and myself in which we stated the kind of government that we both said we hoped would emerge in Laos. That is the commitment that was made by the Soviet Union and by the United States.,Now we've moved to a different plateau and we are going to see whether that commitment can be maintained. But on the other hand, if--and I am sure Senator Mansfield-and I know Senator Mansfield does not think we should withdraw, because a withdrawal in the case of Viet-Nam and in the case of Thailand might mean a collapse of the entire area.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate passed a number of restrictive amendments on the foreign aid bill besides that limiting aid to Yugoslavia and Poland. Do you think this reflected a growing disenchantment in the Senate on the whole question of foreign aid, and do you think such actions as that contemplated by India in purchasing jets from the Soviet Union has anything to do with that disenchantment?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, well, it's a--we've carried it a long time--and Senator Mansfield's speech showed it's a--the world is still with us, and still uncertain, and all of our effort and all of our sacrifice has not produced the new world. But it is not going to.,What we are attempting to do is to maintain our position. There have been a good many changes in the Communist bloc in the last 10 years, and some of those have been-should encourage friends of freedom. So what we want to do is maintain our position and that of our associated nations with us in this effort, and not to desist in 1962 because the race is not over and we have not been completely--we have not come to home port. We are still at sea. Now, I think we ought to stay there and continue to do the best we can.,There was, as has been revealed in the press, Mr. Kennan--Ambassador Kennan--who has been very realistic in his appraisal of our relations with Yugoslavia, is extremely disturbed about what has happened. He feels, and the story quoted him in the paper as saying, that this has been a great gift to the Kremlin at this particular time. And Mr. Cabot, our Ambassador to Poland-both of these men are long experienced, Mr. Kennan probably the longest experienced, almost, of any American, in his studies of the Soviet Union--both of them regard this action as a major setback and as a great asset to Moscow. I don't think we should do those favors to them if we can help it.,Q. Mr. President, in this same connection, you have had a great deal of trouble with the Democrats on other parts of your legislative program. Have you arrived at any new formula for 'persuading them to come along?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I think the Democrats--except for a few Democrats who have habitually voted with the Republicans--the Democrats have done pretty well today, for example, on the debt limitation. Every year during, I think, President Eisenhower's administration, except 1953, he had to ask for a change in the debt limit. Every time I voted for it, to give him that power. Today on the final roll call on a measure which instead of giving us our request of 308 would have rolled it back to 285 billion, which would, of course, have meant that every defense expenditure--space, agriculture, veterans, and every other commitment of the Government--would have been in great difficulty and would have been, of course, extremely difficult for us to maintain our--meet our obligations. Every Republican in the House except nine voted against us. Now it passed, however, because the Democrats met their responsibility. They did in the House on the tax bill; they have on the trade bill. I think that we do expect, however, that all these matters will not be made matters of party loyalty and we have to get some support from the Republican side, and on occasions in the Senate we certainly have gotten it.,We now have a farm bill upcoming next week. That farm bill can save $1 billion a year to the taxpayers of this country; over a period of 4 years, $4 billion. Now this is a vote which is in the best interests of American agriculture and is in the best interests of the country, and is in the best interests of the economy of the United States. I hope that this will not be made, as it's indicated, a party issue on which every Republican will then vote against us and we will find ourselves with a very close vote on a matter which has the first chance of bringing some order out of what is a very chaotic situation.,If we fail and our farm bill is defeated, we go back to the program which is in permanent legislation, the Benson program, which has brought us great so-called--which has brought us tremendous surpluses and expenditures of over $61/2 billion by the Government every year.,So there is a very good chance, and I think that we have a right to expect that on these matters of great national import, that at least we will receive some help from across the aisle, because on other occasions many of us voted to give assistance to the President of the United States when he was a member of the opposite party.,On the question of aid to the Poland-Yugoslavia matter, I voted twice to give President Eisenhower the flexibility he felt he needed in order to conduct foreign policy. He bears a great responsibility and the Congress does also, but I thought that he should have that power, if the situation required it. I would hope that those who are on the opposite side would also, at a time particularly when there are so many things which are encouraging in the world to us, would be willing to sustain us in giving us a similar power.,Q. Mr. President, on the farm bill: you have said, and others in the administration have said repeatedly, that the present programs, because of their expense, cannot go on indefinitely. If Congress should refuse to enact your current program, would you feel required to request the Congress to repeal the existing price support program without controls?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the choice, it seems to me, is very clearly--the satisfactory provision is the one that we have suggested. Now, if we fail there, of course, then we have, as you have said, the permanent legislation in which we have price supports and no controls, which of course will pile our surpluses up bigger and, I think, depress our farm income. We would then have to consider what appropriate legislation would be asked for. But the bill we have sent is the one we need. We don't want a bill which has no support for the farmers; we don't want to go to the Congress and say, \"Now that you have refused to permit us to have a balance between supply and demand of the kind you have in tobacco and cotton, now we are going to pull out and have no support for the farmers.\" So that this is the best solution--the one we have before the House next week, and which has already passed the Senate.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to the Hong Kong refugee problem, yesterday the Colonial Secretary said that food and clothing relief would not resolve the colony's problems, nor would immigration, but that Hong Kong would welcome the assistance of other governments in building hospitals, schools, and clinics, and so forth. Is the administration considering this type of assistance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have contributed very heavily, as you know, toward food. I am not aware that any request has been made for additional assistance, but we would certainly be prepared to consider it, and we-along with other governments.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, proposals for a Senior Service Corps, patterned after the Peace Corps, for the older members of our population have been discussed by your Council on Aging at its first meeting. How do you view this?,THE PRESIDENT. I think--at the Council on Aging that's one of these things they're looking at, and I think they're going to make a report to me very shortly. And I think that they'll give us some recommendations on it.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel the Latin American countries are making the contribution that they should within the problems they face on the Alliance for progress?,THE PRESIDENT. Some countries are making a major effort, in some countries the effort is slower. As you know, in nearly every country they're dealing with staggering problems, including exchange problems, which are partly induced by the decline in the price of the raw materials they're getting, so that Latin America faces--in many of the countries, they're making a real effort. They face great problems, and I'm hopeful that the United States will be persistent in supporting the Alliance for Progress and not expect that suddenly the problems of Latin America, which have been with us and with them for so many years, can suddenly be solved overnight merely by, within a period of a few months. It's going to take a long time, but at least in some countries they are making progress towards it.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in reference to your exchange of letters with Chairman Khrushchev on Laos,1 with both of you suggesting that this might lead to settlement of other international problems, could you comment on two aspects of that: one, is the Laotian formula in any way applicable to divided Berlin, or divided Germany, and secondly, if it is not, is there still a hope perhaps that this might be a step toward another summit meeting for settling outstanding problems?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't see the parallel. The situation is different in Berlin than it is in Laos, quite obviously. Obviously if we can solve by peaceful means and not only get an agreement, but make it work, and both parties demonstrate a sincere commitment to a solution of what has been a difficult problem over a period of time, then it would encourage us to believe that there has been a change in atmosphere, and that other problems also could be subjected to reason and solution. That is why I regard the Laos matter as so important. We have to wait now and see whether we can make this agreement, which has been signed, make it work. If we can, then it will be an encouraging step forward to more amicable relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, and we can discuss other problems. There is nothing on a summit as yet.,[r4.] Q. Mr. President, President Chiari of Panama said at his press conference this morning that the bi-national commission which will be set up to consider points of difference between Panama and the United States would have the power to consider renegotiating of the Panama Canal treaty. I was wondering if this was your attitude also or what your attitude is towards this interpretation of your talks?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I haven't seen--I would rather not comment on the statement until I have seen President Chiari's statement in total. I think the communique 2 describes quite clearly the responsibilities of the commission, and it is going to get to work right away. I would have to look at his statement and read it in detail before I could tell about his interpretation.,[15-] Q. Mr. President, about a year ago you sent to the Congress a greatly expanded space program, and I was wondering if you could give us your own assessment of how we stand technologically, how you think the American people as a whole have responded to the space effort, and when you plan any major realignment such as a bigger military role.,THE PRESIDENT. Such as a what?,Q. Such as a bigger role for the military in space.,THE PRESIDENT. Starting at the end, the military have an important and significant role, though the primary responsibility is 1 Item 2392 Item 242. held by NASA and is primarily peace, and I think that that proportion of that mix should continue. I think the American people. have supported the effort in space, realizing its significance, and also that it involves a great many possibilities in the future which are still almost unknown to us and just coming over the horizon. As far as where we are, I don't think that the United States is first yet in space, but I think a major effort is being made which will produce important results in the coming months and years.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, in. view of the Common Market retaliation, would you perhaps be prepared to concede that it was an error to raise the duties recently on carpets and glass?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Do you have any intention of rescinding it or will it stand?,THE PRESTDENT. No, it is going to stand. Carpets and glass were a unanimous recommendation of the Tariff Commission. They were very hard hit. We were quite aware of the fact that actions would be taken by the Europeans. If we had had passage of the Trade Act, we could have then offered an alternate package which I think would have prevented retaliation. Retaliation is not the most satisfactory device, but as you know, we were limited under present law, and, therefore, not able to be as forthcoming as we might have hoped. But there was a particularly drastic situation facing us in carpets and glass, and the Tariff Commission found unanimously that relief should be granted and we went ahead and granted it, and I would not change it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you think the Congressmen yesterday were justified who said that there had been pressure put on them to get them to vote for the rise in the debt limit and that this pressure had come from the Defense Department to people in districts with large defense contracts; who were told that these defense contracts under negotiation might not be completed if they did not vote for the debt limit?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think--I'm sure-I hope that it was explained to every one what the effect would be if we did not--if we had to have a stretch out--were not able to pay our bills. And that would have been the situation. I recall very clearly in the fall of 1957, in my own State of Massachusetts, when there was a stretch out and the contractors and others had to assume the--pay their own bills. It not only had a very drastic effect on them, but according to Brookings Institution and a good many other studies it was one of the factors which helped lead to the 1958 recession. This would have taken, in effect, in a period of 4 months, $2 billion out of our economy at a time when we need money flowing into our economy. So they were only being informed of what was a fact, which was that we could not pay the bills in some of these areas if we were not given the kind of flexibility which had been requested of the Congress. It's the same flexibility, as I have said, that President Eisenhower requested and which he received, and which we have now received.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, while most of business certainly doesn't oppose your income tax reduction plan, many businessmen have said if you really want to give business and the economy a shot in the arm, that you should give them a better break on depreciation, tax write-offs, and so forth. Now I know that a new schedule is coming out, I think within the month, but in addition to that, do you contemplate anything in this area that will help?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to, as I said before, by the 6th of July come forward with the quicker depreciation write-offs under schedule f for $1,200 million. That could have been done any time in the last 15 to 20 years. We have been working on it now for a year. That is going to be important.,In addition, under the tax bill itself, it provides very important assistance to business if we are able to secure its passage by the Senate. And, of course, the third provision of the tax bill is the standby tax authorities in case unemployment begins to move up, which will permit us to have a temporary tax reduction in many brackets. All those I regard as very important.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-06-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [I.] Good afternoon. I have a brief preliminary statement. I would like to say a few words about our economic outlook and program.,I think most financial experts have realized for some time that an overpriced market could not hold up once investors recognized that inflation was ending. Price-earning ratios which averaged on Dow-Jones 23 to 1 could not be justified unless there was heavy inflation in prospect. And we have been working to prevent inflation, which gives a very misleading and spurious picture of economic health. We must not permit the effects of this adjustment, however, to hamper the growth rate of our economy, with which we have, as you know, not been fully satisfied. While our recovery from last year's recession has been a good one, production, profits, and employment are at all-time highs, and the prospects for continued economic expansion remain favorable. In view of corporate and consumer cash on hand, we should take every appropriate step to make certain that recovery is stronger and longer than before and is not cut short by a new recession.,Taxation: In the first place, our tax structure as presently weighted exerts too heavy a drain on a prospering economy, compared, for example, to the net drain in competing Common Market nations. If the United States were now working at full employment and full capacity, this would produce a budget surplus at present taxation rates of about $8 billion this year. It indicates what a heavy tax structure we have, and it also indicates the effects that this heavy tax structure has on an economy moving out of a recession period.,We saw that after the '58 recession, we've seen it after the '60 recession in the last months. We have proposed, therefore, the following:,One: A $1,300 million tax credit of 8 percent on new investment in machinery and equipment, which will increase the typical rate of potential profits on modern plant expansion in this country to the same extent, for example, as a 20 point reduction in corporate income taxes, from 52 to 32 percent on the profits to be realized from a new 10-year asset. The tax bill containing this stimulus and offsetting revenue measures has been before the Congress for well over a year. And I am hopeful, particularly, that it can be passed very shortly, because one of the areas of concern in the economy has been the slowness of plant investment, and I think that if we can settle this matter of the tax credit quickly, I think it can have a most stimulating effect on new plant investment this year.,Two: Administrative revision of the Internal Revenue guidelines on the economic life of depreciable assets, to make them more realistic and flexible in terms of actual replacement practices. These revisions to be issued within the next month will also make over $ 1 billion in added cash reserves available for additional business investment and, thus, these two actions combined, which we hope will be taken in the next 30 days, constitute in effect a tax cut for American business of over $2.5 billion.,Three: A comprehensive tax reform bill which in no way overlaps the pending tax credit and loophole-closing bill offered a year ago will be offered for action by the next Congress, making effective as of January 1 of next year an across-the-board reduction in personal and corporate income tax rates which will not be wholly offset by other reforms--in other words, a net tax reduction.,Four: I have asked the Congress to provide standby tax reduction authority to make certain as recommended by the eminent Commission on Money and Credit, that this tool could be used instantly and effectively should a new recession threaten to engulf us. The House Ways and Means Committee has been busy with other important measures, but there is surely more cause now than ever before for making such authority available.,Five: I have asked the Congress to repeal the 10-percent transportation tax on train and bus travel, resulting in a tax saving of $90 million a year, and to reduce it to 5 percent on airlines. Action on this tax package will provide our economy with all the stimulus and safeguards now deemed necessary, and I hope such action will be forthcoming.,Mention should be made also of other measures already pending before the Congress which would be of immediate help to our economic expansion and our unemployed workers. A bill to help youth employment-and one out of every four of our boys and girls out of school under 20 are unemployed--a bill to help youth employment has been pending before the Rules Committee since March 29. I hope action can be taken on it.,A bill to authorize Federal, State, and local public works this year in areas of heavy unemployment and to provide standby authority for the future has already passed the Senate. Inasmuch as last year's temporary unemployment compensation program has benefited no additional unemployed since April 1, a pending bill to extend that program for 1 year should be passed by the Congress before they go home. Every week thousands of people find their unemployment compensation exhausting, must go on public assistance, and this should be a matter of great concern to all of us.,Improvements in our welfare program to help those at the bottom of the economic ladder passed the House on March 15. Other pending bills--the trade bill, the pay reform bill, and others--will all have a beneficial effect on our economy once they are enacted by the Congress. There is no need for this country to stand helplessly by and watch a recovery run out of gas. We have a program to boost it and I hope that all those who are concerned about their stocks or their profits or their jobs will help us get action on this program.,I have full confidence in the basic strength and economic potential of this country and the free world. We in the United States, business, labor, and the government, all of us working together, rather than at cross purposes, must rise to our responsibilities to maintain the forward thrust of our economy. The economic productivity and potential of the United States is the heart of our strength. Unemployment last month declined. Consumer income has been rising rapidly. New homes are being built at a remarkable rate. And this administration intends to do its full share of the task required to realize our full economic potential.,Q. Mr. President, I take it from your statement that you have no intention of recommending a tax cut to take effect before next year. Would you confirm that? And also tell us if you can envision any circumstances which would require tax reduction before next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think my statement goes into the various tax proposals that we make in some detail. Of course, this is our best judgment at this time. Of course, if new circumstances brought a new situation, then we would have to make other judgments. But this is our judgment and we believe that this is the most responsible and effective line to take. And I think that if we get action in all the areas which I have described--and they are all very possible--that we can provide a good sustaining lift to the economy.,Q. Mr. President, in the same subject, can you discuss any thinking on rates or how far the reduction will go that you intend to propose in January? And second, sir, if you don't get some of these provisions or proposals which you regard as quite vital, are you thinking in terms of asking Congress to return in the fall if they don't pass them, say, by mid-September?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the tax--the proposed tax bill you are talking about for next January, the work on it should be completed later in the summer. So at that time I think we could discuss it in more detail.,On the other matter, I would--already it has passed the House. The depreciation we can do by administrative action, and we are going to do that, and, as I say, that amounts to over $1 billion. That will be completed in the next 30 days. It has already been done in the textile industry. But the whole job will be completed in the next 30 days.,The other bill, the tax credit, has passed the House. It is now in the Senate finance Committee. It can be of most valuable assistance in the area where our economy has had the most difficulty, and that is on the question of plant investment. So that if you could put these two together, as I said, it amounts to $2,500 million, and I think would be of great assistance to the economy. So I am very hopeful that the Senate will act on this legislation. If they do not, of course we will have to take a look at the situation. But this bill was proposed last year, and a year now has gone by, and now we are going through other months. I think the very fact that some companies are uncertain as to whether they are going to get the tax credit does have a depressing effect upon their investment plans.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report, unofficial report, from Paris this afternoon that a meeting between you and General de Gaulle is in the process of being arranged. Is this correct?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't heard that. No.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, why do you think the Senate voted so sharply yesterday to tie your hands on sending aid to Communist countries, especially in defiance of pleas from the White House on the point? And do you think anything can be done to rectify the situation beyond the amendment put in today on food?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the amendment that was put in today on food will be very helpful, because the primary assistance that we have been giving, for example, to Poland, has been through food. In addition, it permits the private organizations to continue to function.,In Yugoslavia we have been giving aid in food; there was some limited development assistance which would not be possible under the Senate amendment. There has been a good deal, of course, of frustration about these programs. They have been under attack for many years and we've carried this aid program since the Marshall plan days, and I suppose people do get tired. But our adversaries are not tired. The desire of people to remain independent--the Polish people want to be independent, they are not Communist by choice but by hard circumstances forced upon them, and I think that we should continue to hold out some hope for them. We are not prepared to take military action to free them, quite obviously, and we did not undertake anything like that during the Hungary revolt, but I do think that we should not slam the door in their face. So that I am glad that the Senate went as far as it went today.,Yugoslavia has been more complicated, and I know that the programs of assistance have been under attack, but the primary assistance now is foodstuffs and it has been quite limited. But Yugoslavia is not a member of the Warsaw bloc. The break between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in the late forties probably did more to maintain the independence of Greece, when that border was closed, than any other single action. And those who were associated with that effort know how close it was in Greece, and I think there is an advantage in encouraging national independence. We may not approve of the government of Yugoslavia, or they may not approve of our government, but at least they have maintained an independent status in regard to joining the Warsaw bloc, or in regard to their dependence upon Moscow. Now, that might change. In that case, of course, our policy could change. But I do think that flexibility is necessary. No one has any idea what the circumstances will be in the next 12 months. We might find it necessary or desirable to give some assistance to a country which was following an independent policy; we might find the language of yesterday denying us that flexibility. I am glad the Senate went back as far as it did. I do think that they should give us the right to give assistance when we deem it in the national interest. I remember this fight was made under President Eisenhower and I supported his efforts at that time to maintain this flexibility--on two occasions--and I am glad at least we have had given some flexibility by the action of the Senate today.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in your introductory statement, you didn't mention two items which are in this year's tax bill, the withholding on dividends and interest, and the payments on earnings of American firms overseas before those earnings are repatriated. Are you prepared to relinquish this request now or to postpone it until next year?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the major one of course, which is the withholding, is not a new tax. That tax is on the books today and has been for many years. All we are now talking about is a more effective way of collecting a tax. So that is not a new tax.,Now, the other tax of course is the tax on so-called tax havens, and on dividend--and on money, which would put those companies on a basis comparable to American companies. This has been tied to making it less attractive to American capital to leave this country. That is the purpose of that amendment and I am hopeful that it will pass, in as close a form as it is possible to what it was when we introduced it, because the gold flow concerns us all.,But those taxes, in my opinion, represent responsible actions. But what I was talking about is the stimulus that will be given by the total tax package--putting all this together to the American business, plus the depreciation, of course, which represents, as I say, a clear gain for business.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the aid fight in the Senate yesterday, there continue to be reports that you are dissatisfied with the reorganization of the aid program administratively. Could you discuss that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no, that is not correct. I am concerned about the progress we are making in the Alliance for Progress. I think the aid agency has made important gains. I think the long-range authorization which was given to us by the Congress last year has been most helpful, and I think we benefited from it in our programs. It permitted us to associate in consortiums which I think have produced much better economic planning. The matter, of course, of primary concern to me is the Alliance for Progress. We are engaged in a tremendous new joint venture. All these countries are faced with very difficult economic problems--balance of payments problems, great dependence on one or two commodities, raw materials which suffer in price fluctuations, and all such internal difficulties as we've seen in the case of two or three countries in the last month. So that we are not dealing with a situation even as stable as it was in Europe at the end of World War II when we began the Marshall plan. So that this matter continues to be of concern to me, that the Alliance move forward.\nBut I would say that generally I think that the aid agency is improved over what the situation was before the Congress gave us the additional tools.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, last Friday, John Bailey, the Democratic National Chairman, made a speech in which he accused Governor Rockefeller of racial prejudice toward Negroes. I wonder if you felt even in an election year this was a justified statement.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think--I haven't seen any evidence that Mr. Rockefeller is prejudiced in any way towards any racial group. I am glad to make that statement, and I am sure that some of the statements the Congressman--the Chairman of the Republican Committee--has made about me will be, I am sure, similarly repudiated by leading Republicans. [Laughter] I have been waiting for it for about a year and a half!,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you have given Congress an awful lot to chew in this session and some of them are getting a little impatient, this being a campaign year. Do you think that the Congress ought to stick around, at least until Labor Day or later, nonetheless, to get through the bulk of this program, or do you propose to give them some top priority list and say, that is it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm sure we'll probably have to come to a priority, as you say. Time is coming on, it is election year, and the Congress wants to get home. These programs are important, however. Going down the list: medical care for the aged, youth employment, aid for higher education, the trade bill, the tax bill, there's a good many of very great importance so that the normal authorizations and appropriations the legislation which I named here--it's hard to pick a list. But obviously, we're going to have to, because we've only got a limited time left.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us your first impression on the Inter-American Center proposal which was presented to you today?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I listened to the presentation. I'm going to have a meeting with the Department of Commerce to listen to it in more detail and then, with the Senators and Congressmen who are involved, see if we can come to some decision about it.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there have been persistent reports that either the American Government or Britain intends to offer nuclear information or equipment to France in order to get better terms for Britain to enter the Common Market or to improve relations with General de Gaulle. I think the latest version is that General Gavin is to come to Washington with an alleged recommendation that American nuclear equipment be provided. What do you think of this concept?,THE PRESIDENT. I think these matters are not related. Secondly, General Gavin, I think, has already issued a statement in regard to his position. He had not planned to come to Washington. I think he was going to address a commencement audience in New England next week, and that was the purpose for which he was coming back. But I don't think the matters are related, and--either in the minds of the French or in the minds of the United States.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, this is a question about American and British aid to Egypt. In Cairo in March I was told that you and President Nasser had engaged in a rather extensive correspondence, not all of which has been made public. And I wondered if he told you anything in that, that you can tell us, about his Middle East activities or gave any assurances that would make him more eligible for aid now than he used to be?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't know about that. We haven't had any extensive correspondence, and as you know, most of the assistance we have been giving Egypt has been in foodstuffs. We continue to attempt to have good relations with the U.A.R., but I have received no information or assurances from President Nasser in regard to any future policy decisions which he might make.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, did you meet with some Spanish Republicans in Caracas in December of 1961? And did you tell them that you would work to overthrow the Franco Government in Spain?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to both questions is no.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe that the economy will reach the 4 percent unemployment target that you have set for mid-1963, with a balanced budget in the fiscal year?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously we are going to have to wait and make a judgment as to whether we are going to reach 4 percent. We are down to substantially lower, of course, than it has been--unemployment, but still not satisfactory. And I think it would be impossible to make a precise judgment today about whether we are going to reach that figure.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, could you clarify the situation on medical care legislation? The opponents of the administration measure, the Anderson-King bill, which is tied to social security, say that the passage of that law or that measure would cause the repeal of the Kerr-Mills law, which now affects protection for certain needy. Are these the facts?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the fact--in fact, the argument against passing the Anderson-King--one of the arguments has been that there are some people who were not involved and covered by Social Security. But they would still be covered by present law. They'd still be covered by the Kerr-Mills bill. It doesn't seem to me that that is a substantial argument against covering nearly 14 million other people who are entitled and-who are covered by Social Security. In addition, it may be possible to take other measures, to provide additional assistance for those who were not covered by Social Security. Many States, as you know, of course, have not passed the Kerr-Mills, I don't think that the State that the A.M.A. spokesman comes from--Dr. Annis--has passed the Kerr-Mills bill, enabling legislation on the State level. I think that we ought to pass the King Anderson bill, medical care for the aged under Social Security. And I think the argument that we shouldn't do it because we're not going to be able to include everybody under it seems to me to be wholly misleading. We can include 14 million people, and we can continue the legislation we have on the books for the others, and in addition we can take additional special steps for them, which I would support.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, yesterday, the Mexican Ambassador to the Organization of American States made some statements which could be regarded as offensive to some of your appointees, to this country and to its residents. Normally, when an official spokesman for a country makes such a comment it could be construed as a deliberate way of withdrawing an invitation for a visit, which has been extended to you. Could you comment?\nTHE PRESIDENT, No, I have seen--no, as far as I know, and I am sure I know, the invitation by the Mexican Government stands, and I am sure that this is a matter which the Mexican Government themselves can deal with more effectively than I could. The OAS is an international body, and that speech--statements are made in debate, and I think this is really a matter between the representative and his own government rather than between this government and the Ambassador.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Republicans in Congress put out a statement of policy today, which among other things, says this: a stable dollar is not likely to result if control of the Federal Reserve System rests in the White House. This is taken to be an attack on your proposal that the President have authority to appoint his own Federal Reserve Chairman. How important is this to you?,THE PRESIDENT. First, the point of the matter is that what we have proposed is with the strong support of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that the term of the Chairman be the same as with the President, which was the original intention of the legislation when it was first passed. But it has no effect upon me, if that is what they are thinking of, which I presume they are, because the matter of the Chairman's position comes up in 1963. So that I have no--if I were anxious to get control of the Federal Reserve, the matter comes up in 1963. What we are talking about is for other Presidents in other days. And it is a reform which the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Commission on Money and Credit, and many others have thought would be very helpful in the liaison between the President and the Federal Reserve.,We, after all, are very closely associated in our responsibilities, though the Federal Reserve is independent and reports to the Congress. So that it has no application to me, and it is like a good many other things that are said. They are not wholly based on fact, but they sound rather good when those speeches are made.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do your economic counselors still believe that the gross national product will reach $570 billion this year and do they also believe that you can balance the Federal budget in the fiscal year?,THE PRESIDENT. They are--I would think they are not as convinced as they were that we will be up to $570 billion. But we will, I think, have a good chance, if we carry out the steps I recommended, of being close to $570 billion.,As I say, we had the best month, almost, in our history in autos; houses are up, personal savings are up, actually consumer goods are moving very fast. The one area which is causing concern in the economy has been plant investment, which has not been as high as they originally hoped it would be in January.,Now, if we can, by the various tax measures I have discussed, and by other steps which may become useful as time goes on, give sufficient demand so that business can go into new plant investment, or be persuaded to, encouraged to, then we can make this a very good year. It's going to be, we hope, a good year anyway, but I don't think we can get to $570 billion unless plant vestment steps up beyond the projected 8 percent. And quite obviously, the sharp decline in the market is not--certainly is bound to make it somewhat more difficult, though it is--I believe there is very strong-there is very good vitality in the economy and I think it can be substantially boosted by the steps I've recommended.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your January tax proposal, for next January, without going into rates can you give us any idea of the range of the net tax cut that you are thinking of, in total amount?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think it would be better to wait until the program is completed.,[i8.] Q. Mr. President, can you comment on the Public Health Service announcement of a special panel of experts to study whether there is a link between cigarette smoking and certain killer diseases? And can you tell us whether the study will be a matter of months or years, or just what the--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the statement that the Surgeon General issued this morning, I think, gives the position of the Surgeon General, which I have supported, and is in direct response to the question which you asked 2 weeks ago, and now that the survey will take some months--it will go into 1963, but I think that that announcement is in response to your question. You've been answered.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the National Advisory Committee on Radiation has reported that there are serious gaps in our fallout detection and surveillance and monitoring system. And they have recommended a very substantial increase in spending over the next 7 years that will amount to almost half a billion dollars. Can you give us your reaction to this, and whether or not it is being seriously considered, or whether you feel that we should increase our funds by that much?,THE PRESIDENT. I couldn't make a judgment on that yet. I think that we ought to do more than we're doing but we have not determined on our program as yet.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how you size up Mr. Nixon's showing in California, and give us any inkling of your own political plans this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the primaries are difficult--[laughter]--and I think that he emerged from a tough one, which I congratulate him for. Now, as far as my plans, I will be active in the fall, but we haven't fixed a definite schedule.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, that Republican statement you mentioned earlier, called the \"Declaration of Party Principles,\" charges, among lots of other things, bankruptcy in leadership in foreign affairs and incompetence of the New frontier destroying confidence. Would you care to comment upon that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. It isn't true, but--no.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, the three princes of Laos are getting together at last in the formation of a coalition government. Assuming that such a government should be agreed upon, to what extent would the United States go in backing it up economically, and to what extent would we expect them to preserve a neutral policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the first talks were encouraging. If it worked out and we had a neutral and independent Laos, we would of course support it with every proper means, and we would hope it would be able to maintain its position of being neutral and independent.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. I have one more. [Laughter],[23.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a serious disagreement between you and Mayor Wagner of New York about the reelection of Congressman Buckley. Do you feel this is a serious split and are you doing anything to heal this split either between you and the mayor, or the split in the New York party?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith was right, as usual! [Laughter],No, we have a different opinion about it, and we've made our views known, and I am continuing to hold mine and I am sure he does. I am for Congressman Buckley and he's for someone else, and that's the way it's going to be, I guess."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-05-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. Are there any questions?,[1.] Q. Mr. President, assuming that the King-Anderson bill passes, as you have predicted, do you then envision, perhaps next year or the year after, going to Congress again and asking for a plan which would provide similar coverage to pay doctor bills?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that is not planned. I notice that legislation was criticized one day for going too far in limiting the relationship between doctors and their patients, and on another day, the next day I believe, certain members opposed to the King-Anderson bill attacked it for not including doctors. This bill includes provisions for payment of hospital bills, nursing care, out-patient care. It does not attempt to interfere in any way with the relationship between the doctor and the patient, and we have no plans to provide such legislation.,[a.] Q. Has the administration any plans for dealing with the refugee problem in Hong Kong?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I notice in the press this afternoon that some effort now seems to be, at least is reported to be, made by the Chinese Communists to stop the flow of refugees. We are, of course, providing food for about a half a million refugees in Hong Kong, and have been for some years. The British have been doing an extraordinary job in finding employment, feeding the people who are there. There are several thousand refugees in Hong Kong and surrounding areas who have been cleared by our consular people for admission to the United States, and under the authority of Congress, which has been granted in similar cases, we are attempting to expedite their admission to the United States, under the power given to the Attorney General by the legislation--the same legislation which has permitted us to bring in Hungarian refugees and Cuban refugees.,It should be pointed out, however, that this does not get at the basic problem, which is that of a tremendous country, 650 million people, where the food supply is inadequate, and it swamps and dwarfs, obviously, Hong Kong and any effort we could make in regard to admission But at least we are helping to feed those who are there, though the primary responsibility has been very ably borne by the British, and we are attempting to bring in some refugees who have been cleared for admission to the United States.,Q. Would you consider it in the national interest, sir, to make an offer of American surplus grains as a food for Peace Program to mainland China, to Communist China, at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's been no indication of any expression of interest or desire by the Chinese Communists to receive any food from us, as I said at the beginning, and we would certainly have to have some idea as to whether the food was needed and under what conditions it might be distributed. Up to the present we have no such indications.,[3.] Q. There are published reports today, sir, that the Army group which originally remained in Thailand is not equipped with live ammunition. There seems to be some discontent among the troops over this. Would you discuss the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the ammunition is there. They haven't had--of course this is a friendly country--they haven't had ammunition clips in their guns, in their barracks, at all times. But the ammunition is available in case they were forced to move into a military area, or where military action might be taken of course the ammunition would be given. But it's not customary, in this country or in a friendly country like Thailand, these troops are not under attack--for ammunition to be inside the guns. But the ammunition is there, and it's quite adequate for any situation that might come, and further ammunition will be stored in appropriate places. It's merely a question whether all guns are loaded at all times in a friendly country, and unless there is sharp control, of course, by the military commanders, practice firing and all the rest. Until that is organized well, the ammunition is naturally under control.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what you thought of the American Medical Association's reply on Monday night to your proposal--your speech on Sunday--about medical care? And also could you tell us what sort of reaction you have had so far in the White House to the two television speeches, yours on Sunday 1 and the American Medical Association's?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I read the statement and I gathered they were opposed to it. [Laughter] What I thought was remarkable was that the language used was so similar to the language which the AMA used when it opposed and successfully defeated the proposal which President Eisenhower sent up a number of years ago, to provide for reinsurance of private health schemes. That was a proposal--I was on the committee, as a matter of fact, that heard it and supported the legislation--and the AMA led the fight against it and defeated it. In addition, the AMA was one of the chief opponents of the social security system in the thirties. The words, \"a cruel hoax\" were used against the social security system at that time as they are used today.,1 See Item 202.,The statement--the description of our bill I did not recognize. Now I think that the American people know quite well what this problem is. There isn't anyone in the United States who will not have or has not already had a case of a parent who is sick for a long period of time, with the burden falling very heavily upon either them, or their savings, or upon their children.\nThere isn't any doubt that we take care, in this country, of those who have no resources. They are treated. We take care of those who are well enough off to pay for all of their bills. What this bill would particularly help are those who have some savings and who nevertheless find themselves hard hit, or their children who have some savings and find themselves faced with these large bills which in the short space of 1, 2, 3, and 4 months can run up into several thousands of dollars. So that I feel that the AMA may not support this bill, but I think the American people will, and I think more and more doctors are supporting it. And I think it's extremely important legislation.,Now, in regard to the mail, I would say that the mail we've gotten as a result of the speech is about evenly divided. But I will point out that I'm not as convinced--I was just looking at the White House mail. I got last week 28 letters on Laos, which is an extremely important problem, of which 14 disagreed with our policy and I think 6 supported it and others were undecided. I got 440 letters on a tax--the cancellation of a tax exemption for a mercy foundation, so-called, in a State in the United States, which is of not, I wouldn't think, great national significance-about 20 times as much mail on it. So that mail, unfortunately, is not true as an indicator of the feelings of the people.,In my judgment, if this matter comes to the floor of the Senate, it will pass this year. If it comes to the floor of the House, it will pass. And it will serve just as effectively as the social security bill has served us since the 1930's. Those who are opposed to social security should oppose this, but those who believe that social security has served this country well should support this because it is in that tradition.,[5.] Q. Sir, do you feel there is anything besides hunger, besides this great flood of refugees going into Hong Kong? There have been reports that some of these refugees have exit visas from China. Is there anything more here than meets the eye?,THE PRESIDENT. As I understand it, the British have accepted those who are political refugees; those who are not they have been forced to turn back because Hong Kong is so crowded. I read reports that they do not seem to be suffering from acute malnutrition, but there isn't any doubt that there is a food crisis. The distribution of food, the structure of the economy and the state in some of these areas in China have broken down, and many people desire to leave. If they could leave, I think many more would.,Q. Do you feel that the Chinese Government has perhaps become more oppressive and that this is a cause rather than hunger?\nTHE PRESIDENT I think it would be difficult to make an informed judgment as to all the motivations of those who are leaving but it's certainly a combination of those factors.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the Billie Sol Estes case, there appears to be a possibility that a federal official was murdered in this case. In view of that, do you think that Secretary freeman was altogether justified in saying, as he did, that this case had been .ballooned out of proportion?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we should wait until the FBI has completed its investigation of the matter. I couldn't--Mr. Freeman is not--I don't think the Texas local officials made a judgment in regard to the case which has been accepted until recently. Now the FBI and the local authorities are reexamining the case and we'll get a much better idea when the examination is completed.,[7-] Q. Mr. President, apart from your statements last week in the press conference and your speech that evening on the future of the Atlantic alliance,1 are you making your views clear to President de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer before they meet on June 2?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the views of all the parties are well known to each other. I don't plan any further communication on the matter.,1 Items 198, 199.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, would you accept a Medicare compromise that did not include social security financing?,THE PRESIDENT. Social security is the heart of the financing, the heart of the legislation. That isn't a compromise. That'd be--just be giving up on the bill, and we don't plan to do that.,[9-] Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied that our misunderstanding with West Germany over the Berlin proposals have now been straightened out, and that discussions will be resumed with the Soviet Union with the full support of the West German Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the misunderstandings have been straightened out. As far as the positions of the parties, that we must wait on until we analyze the German proposal, which has just been received, as you know, within the last 24 hours. That will be analyzed and a proper response will be made to the West German Government. As far as the talks, as I have said, they will continue.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to take any action to help the stock market, if it gets any worse?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I think the economy, which is moving steadily forward, is the best stimulant to the stock market--the most natural one. The figures we have for April are encouraging. Car sales, increased retail sales, and all the rest indicate that the economy has a good deal of strength, so that I believe that the stock market will move in accordance with the movement of the economy, as a general rule.,Now, there have been many, at least four, occasions since the end of the Second War when the stock market has dropped at the time the economy was rising. I think last week we talked about this. I gave an example of 1956, when the stock market went down at the time when the economy was steadily rising. The economy is rising, unemployment is down, the prospects in this month are good and, therefore, I think that the stock market will follow the economy.,As I said before, the stock market was very high. If, when you're talking about valuation of 22 times earnings or dividends, that's a very high sale and twice as much as it was, for example, in 1957. But as far as the long haul for the stock market, I think it will keep in line with the economy. I think that the prospects for the economy for this year, as I've said, are good.,[11. ] Q. Mr. President, is our true commitment to Southeast Asia similar in principle to the one we have in Western Europe, that is, are we ready to deny Communist force throughout Southeast Asia?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, our treaty relationships with Laos and Viet-Nam and Cambodia are somewhat different than our NATO relationship. As you know, they were covered by SEATO, and they were protocol states of SEATO. Thailand itself, is, of course, a signatory, which is in a comparable way the same as NATO.,Q. My question, sir, is this: would we pull our forces out once the Laos Government is formed, or would we feel we had to stay there until we were sure that Communist force would not exert itself in that area?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we'll have to make a judgment of what the situation is in those areas. I quite agree that when you put troops in they become difficult to take out, unless the situation is stable, so that I've not ever said that the troop movement in Thailand--its end could be predicted. But we are staying there and then we will make a judgment as to how long they should stay, based on the events, as we have in Europe.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the Agriculture Department has given only one reason for withdrawing its grain from the warehouses of Billie Sol Estes in Texas, this being that it is in the public interest. They have declined further comment. In view of the fact that the Department has previously said that there was nothing wrong with the warehouses or the operations, could you comment, sir, on how it would be in the public interest to remove the grain when the creditors are depending on this income to help settle their bills?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are not, as you know, removing the grain immediately. We are removing it--moving it into the normal channels of trade over a period of time. If we moved it out immediately it would cost the Government about $2 million. We're moving it out, with more speed out of this terminal than we would out of others because of all the circumstances surrounding the case. But we are going to move it out, but it's over a period of time and it will not be moved from one terminal to another terminal, but instead will be moved into the normal channels of trade in a way which will not cost the United States Government anything. But I think it's appropriate that under reasonable conditions the grain is moved away from that terminal.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to evaluate the White House Conference on National Economic Issues that has just concluded? Do you feel there is a value in having this mass ventilation of ideas between labor and--\nTHE PRESIDENT Yes, I do. The meeting, of course, had two phases. One was of public speeches. I wished in the public speeches that we could have discussed what I feel are some of the newer problems that the economy faces and which labor-management faces. I understand that in the private meetings that there was a much more--there was a willingness to forget some of the old basic arguments between labor and management and consider some of the new challenges. But I think that this is the first of what I hope will be a series.,I believe that there really isn't much sense in having a long argument about the union shop or about industry-wide bargaining. Those arguments are well known, the positions are hard, and are taken clearly on both sides. As I said, in my opening, what I would like to hear them talk about is how the Government, labor, and management can function so as to provide for a steadily increasing economy, what we can do about the flow of gold, how we can prevent periodic recessions at every 2 or 3 years, how we can maintain full employment as other free countries have, what's the proper relationship between government and business and labor, what should be our budget policies, our debt policies. These are all matters which concern us today and about which we must do something. I would like to have their views on it. Not so much their views on questions which have been debated, about which we're fully informed of the point of interest of each of the parties, but rather these new, and as I've said, rather sophisticated and technical questions.,It's my understanding that in the private meetings there was discussion heading in this direction. I hope, therefore, we will have another conference quite soon so that we can continue to talk about these things. I will be very appreciative to the business advisory committee, which is now looking into giving us some suggestions on the flow of gold, and the CED's committee, which is going to study the economy of several European countries. I have asked our Council of Economic Advisers to consider particularly the case of France, which has had rather extraordinary economic vitality, so that I hope we can begin to focus our attention on these matters in the next few months.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, last weekend in New York you made it quite clear that you were anxious to help Brazil with emergency food shipments,1 and about the same time one of the maritime unions began picketing the ship which was to carry that food to Brazil. I wondered if you had any feeling of disappointment in that, or whether you had any fatherly advice on union leaders?,THE PRESIDENT. I understand that the ship is now being moved to the dock to load and is going to Brazil, that this matter has been settled.,1 In a statement released in New York City on May 19 the President announced an increase in emergency food shipments to drought-stricken Northeast Brazil.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Harry Wexler of the United States Weather Bureau and his counterpart in the Soviet Union jointly have presented a plan to be approved by the Economic and Social Commission of the United Nations for studying world weather by earth satellites. Do you view this as an optimistic sign that the United States and Russia may ultimately cooperate both on space and on earth?,THE PRESIDENT. We felt the first place to start was on weather, and I think that any progress we can make on that would be very welcome. I must say that we strongly support any cooperative effort we could make on weather, predictions of storms, and all of the rest, and I hope it will lead to other areas of cooperation in space.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, on this matter of the growth rate of Western Europe, you have several times pointed out that it is twice ours. What relationship do you think this has with deficit financing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's what I think we ought to be--one of the matters we ought to be talking about. Their budgetary system, as opposed to ours, is somewhat different and that's one of the matters which I've asked the Council of Economic Advisers to look at; it's one of the matters which the CED should look at. I'm not sure that our budget keeping is as modern as the economy demands.,In addition, I think we ought to look at our tax structure, which of course we're doing, as part of the overall tax reform we're going to send up next year. Does our tax system stimulate the economy or does it serve as a drag on the economy because of the way it hits the structure at a time when the economy is moving out of a recession into a period of prosperity?,The 1958 and '60 experience and perhaps the experience this winter all indicate that these are matters which should be very carefully looked at. In other words, I don't think we should be satisfied with the way we are operating our economy as long as we are not going at full blast, as they are.,Now, the question is, how much of this, as I've said, is due to the Common Market, how much of it's due to a different stage of economic growth, and how much of it is due to different economic planning, different relationships between the various segments of the economy? These are all matters which I believe all of us in government, management, labor, and the public ought to be looking at, to see if there's something that we can learn that's to our advantage.,What we don't always realize is that while the economy may be in a--the budget may be in a deficit overall for a fiscal year, that deficit may be concentrated in the first few months. Then as the year goes on the taxes begin to come in and you then begin to get a surplus which, of course, has a brake effect on the economy. In addition, the cash budget as opposed to the administrative budget has an entirely different impact on the economy. So that all these are the kinds of questions which I would like to see us-by \"us\" I mean all of us who are concerned-talk about and not merely concentrate our attention on these rather old slogans and fights which shed heat but not too much light on the matters which are directly before us.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there is another health problem that seems to be causing growing concern here and abroad and I think this has largely been provoked by a series of independent scientific investigations, which have concluded that cigarette smoking and certain types of cancer and heart disease have a causal connection. I have two questions: do you and your health advisers agree or disagree with these findings, and secondly, what if anything should or can the federal Government do in the circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. That matter is sensitive enough and the stock market is in sufficient difficulty [laughter] without my giving you an answer which is not based on complete information, which I don't have and, therefore, perhaps we could--I'd be glad to respond to that question in more detail next week.,[18.] Q. Sir, from your knowledge of the stock pile investigation which Senator Symington is developing for public consumption, I was wondering if you think the amount of money lost to the Government there will in time dwarf the Billie Sol Estes defraud?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as we have said, there is no evidence that the Billie Sol Estes fraud has cost the United States Government any money.,Q. Yes, I realize that--,THE PRESIDENT. There have been improprieties-but let me, if I may, finish--the amount of money in this case, as came out yesterday, which revealed that because of an intervention by certain public officials that it cost the Government $650 million and the company made a $5 million windfall, of course, when you compare the amounts of money, this is obviously a greater loss to the Government. But I would not attempt to make a judgment of either case and its ultimate effects until these investigations are completed, both Senator Symington's and the FBI's.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the British appear to be facing difficulties in their negotiations with the Common Market group regarding safeguards for their trade with the Commonwealth nations. In the possible event that the British did not affiliate with the European Economic Community, would that cause us to reappraise our plan to cooperate with the Common Market?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Of course, we're going to cooperate with the Common Market. The Common Market is in existence. We believe that it will contribute to the political stability of Europe as well as its economic well-being if Great Britain should become a member. So we have supported the admission of Great Britain. If Great Britain does not join, of course--which we believe would be unfortunate--the Common Market, the six, would still exist, and we would deal with the six and with Great Britain. But we think that the interests of Europe, the interests of the free world, of the Atlantic Community, would be best served by Great Britain being a member.,[20.] Q. Sir, would you be willing to participate with former President Eisenhower in a TV discussion of domestic issues before the country in the elections this fall?\nTHE PRESIDENT- Well, I would have to wait and see. Neither one of us are candidates this fall. [Laughter] There will be many candidates- I've already stated that I would debate, if I were a candidate in 1964, against whoever I was running against. I haven't heard any suggestion that we debate this time. We'd have to wait and see what the situation was. President Eisenhower and I are both appearing on a program this week on the necessity for the passage of an effective trade bill in cooperation, and I think that that is, in this case, a constructive relationship in the national interest. What next fall will bring we will have to wait and see.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the Government pay raise you proposed is inflationary? How does that square with your--,THE PRESIDENT. Not the proposal we sent. No, it is not inflationary. It fits within the guidelines?1,1 See Item 55.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, the Indonesian Government has accepted the Bunker proposal. In the meantime, the Netherlands has not. In the meanwhile, guerrilla warfare activities are increasing in that area. What do you think is the prospect of future negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know the United States has been working very hard, with the help of Ambassador Bunker, to attempt to work out a solution which would make the kind of military action which is now taking place unnecessary. We have not had success. I believe that Ambassador Bunker is discussing this matter now with responsible officials of the United Nations to see what further action could usefully be taken. But I hope that the proposals of Ambassador Bunker would be considered very carefully by both sides, because we would be very concerned if the situation in that section of the world disintegrated or degenerated into a complete military conflict between these two countries. So we're--Ambassador Bunker is in New York today on that very matter.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-05-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon. Any questions?,[1.] Q. Mr. President, with the word \"scandal\" again in the wind in Washington, would you care to comment on the Billie Sol Estes affair and tell us if you believe that Secretary freeman has handled the case properly?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the Billie Sol Estes case came to public attention when the United States Government indicted him on April 5. We requested a bail of $500,000 which was not granted--it's down to $100,000--and since that time we have been conducting a very thorough investigation with nearly 75 members of the FBI involved in this investigation. These affairs are most complicated. Billie Sol Estes dealt through almost 23 companies.,In addition, we have taken immediate action against all of those federal employees, of whom there have been four in the Department of Agriculture, who have been involved in improprieties. The investigation is continuing and will continue. The Department of Justice, Internal Revenue, Senator McClellan in the Senate, Congressman fountain in the House--all of them are involved in attempting to determine whether any federal employee or member of Congress were involved in any improper action. I can assure you that if any members of the executive branch are involved, any improprieties. shown, they will be immediately taken action against--immediately disciplined appropriately.,Now in regard to Secretary freeman, I've stated already my high regard for him. Secretary freeman I think has had a matchless reputation. He worked his way through the University of Minnesota; he was a football player, graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He had most of his jaw shot off at Bougainville as a captain in the Marines; he was Governor of Minnesota for three terms. He's the head of this Department, has over 100,000 employees, and it's been a most challenging job, and I have the greatest confidence in the integrity of Secretary Freeman.,I point out again that the matter of Billie Sol Estes came to public attention in the way that it has because the United States Government, this administration, indicted him.,Q. Mr. President, in the same vein, a little more philosophically. This sort of thing, a scandal where one or more federal employees are involved for private gain with people on the outside, this sort of thing seems to recur administration after administration; it doesn't seem to follow any political pattern. How do you propose, or do you have any ideas on how to prevent this or wipe it out?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I agree that we have over two million employees, you've got a good many people that take advantage or attempt to influence them, seek private gain. As a result of congressional intercession, or as a result of special favors in the administration, a good many of the decisions that these men make involve large sums of money, contracts, and all the rest--pressures are put upon them. Some succumb. Most do not. What we attempt to do is to provide for procedures whereby any improprieties will be immediately detected. We attempt to establish the highest ethical standards which are possible. We take immediate action when an impropriety is revealed, and we attempt to maintain the morale and discipline of the United States Government.,Improprieties occur in a good many different kinds of life, whether it's labor, management, Government. Not all people are able to withstand these pressures. But we intend that the personnel of the United States Government will meet the highest ethical standards possible, and when they do not, action will be taken. My experience is that the great, great majority of them do. They are not paid very highly in most cases. They are dealing with matters of vital concern, and I think on the whole they do a good job. When they don't, it is most fortunate and most regrettable because all of us want the federal service to be of the highest possible standards.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, there have been published reports that you have made up your mind to appoint Dr. Weaver as head of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department, when a vacancy occurs. Can you give us your comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. I have made no decision because, of course, no vacancy has occurred. When it does, I will announce a successor-if one does--immediately.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, General de Gaulle, a couple of days ago at a news conference, made some points which seemed to underline the differences between Paris and Washington. He spoke of his determination to proceed with his nuclear deterrent in order not to rely upon the United States in that respect. He also spoke of the confederation rather than a more intimate political unity in Europe, and discounted the efforts of the United States in the Berlin negotiations, which I think he said was trying to square the circle. Some people believe that these differences between France and the United States are more fundamental and pose a greater danger to the Western alliance than those between Bonn and Washington, which have been more publicized.,I was wondering if you would care to address yourself to the question of difficulties between France and the United States, and more particularly whether you believe, a year having elapsed since your meeting with General de Gaulle, that it would be worth while for you and the General to get together again.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on two of those-one of those three matters, of course, is a matter which involves completely the European: this question of the federation versus confederation. That is a matter which the Europeans must decide. Our interest in Europe is only that we believe that the freedom of Europe and the defense of Europe are bound up with the freedom and defense of the United States. Therefore, we have made large expenditures in men and money, we have committed ourselves, we have participated as a very active member of NATO. The nuclear deterrent of the United States, I think, has helped defend Europe for a great many years. But as to what the relationship should be between the countries of Europe, that is a matter of course, primarily for them.,On the matter of Berlin, it is a matter of the greatest concern to us. We wish to have some voice in events there because if the moment of truth comes, it is the United States which is expected to take the very vigorous action which could involve our security as well as that of Western Europe. And to use an old familiar American expression, we wish to be in on the take-off of these matters.,I've already commented on why I think it desirable to continue these conversations with the Soviet Union over Berlin. It's a vital matter which involves the interest of both; it's highly charged. I see only advantage in carrying on a conversation. Before any conclusions are reached, of course, we would attempt to have an agreement among our allies.,Now, the third matter is more from a philosophical stand. We do not believe in a series of national deterrents. We believe that the NATO deterrent, to which the United States has committed itself so heavily, provides very adequate protection. Once you begin, nation after nation, beginning to develop its own deterrent, or rather feeling it's necessary as an element of its independence to develop its own deterrent, it seems to me that you are moving into an increasingly dangerous situation.,First France, and then another country and then another, until a very solid and, I think, effective defense alliance may be somewhat weakened. That, however, is a decision for the French. If they choose to go ahead, of course they will go ahead, and General de Gaulle has announced they are going ahead. We do not agree, but he cannot blame us if we do not agree anymore than we blame him if he does not agree with us.,Now, as to the long-range future of Europe. This is a matter, as I have said, of debate inside France and inside Europe. But I will say, speaking personally, that however difficult becomes this dialog with General de Gaulle over what I would call the Atlantic Community and the respective roles of each country within it, I would think it would be a far more difficult situation if General de Gaulle were not as stalwart in his defense of the West. We do not look for those who agree with us, but those who defend their country and who are committed to the defense of the West. I believe General de Gaulle is. So we will get along. I'm not sure that we would get any greater agreement if we meet. There is a limit to the advantages of these kinds of dialog, but we will continue, at least, to maintain a contact which I hope will not be acrimonious-certainly in this case.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, could you bring us up to date on the Laotian situation since the dispatch of our troops to Thailand? Specifically, do you feel that we have increased the chances of our getting caught in a shooting war in Southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. We are continuing to hope that there will be a national--government of national union, which has been our policy, as you know, for a year. We are going into Thailand at the decision of the Thai Government. Our own decision provides for the defense of Thailand. The latest information indicates no further breach of the cease-fire. We also have indications that the three princes will engage in conversation shortly. I hope they will produce a government. That is our object. As I have already indicated, the great hazard is of a shooting war in Asia--in the jungles of Asia--and it is our object to bring about a diplomatic solution which will make the chances of such a war far less likely.,Q. Mr. President, in light of your answer to this question, sir, could you give us any idea how long the American troops will be needed in Thailand?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot at this time.,Q. Have you any idea under what conditions they might return?,THE PRESIDENT. I cannot at this time. They have only been in there for a very short while, and we can't tell when they will come out. It will depend a good deal on what conditions are in Thailand and the neighboring countries.,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us, please, what you would consider the restoration of an effective cease-fire? Would this involve the withdrawal of the Communist forces to their position before the attack on Nam Tha, or more or less acquiescence which would permit the talks to go forward on the government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, naturally, we would prefer as great a withdrawal to the line that was in effect a week or so ago as we could get. I would think, however, that the peace along the line which now may exist, of course, is essential.,Q. Mr. President, would you review for us the considerations that you had in mind last weekend when you took this rather swift action to move more American troops into Thailand?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We're concerned about the breach of the cease-fire, the sign of deterioration in Laos, which brought Communist forces to the border of Thailand up in the--near the Mekong River section of--not too far from Nam Tha, and we did not know whether this was an indication of a general breach of the cease-fire which, of course, would immediately imperil Thailand. So that in our desire to stabilize the situation we got in touch with the government, which was already in touch with us, and worked out the proposed course of action.,[5-] Q. Mr. President, the railroads and five operating unions broke off talks today. There has already been a Presidential commission report on this dispute, so the next step may be up to you. Can you tell us if you have any action in mind, and when you might act?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we are keeping very close contact with it. They have the recommendation of the Board, and Secretary Goldberg is watching it very carefully. If there is anything that we can do appropriately, we will do it.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, President de Gaulle seems intent on creating a defense community apart from NATO. If he continues in this way, do you think there is any danger of reviving an isolationist sentiment in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be quite a long time before members of Europe, all of them, would feel in a position to defend themselves without the presence of the United States. The United States does not maintain nearly 300,000 troops and spend over a billion dollars--in dollars, and therefore in gold--in Europe because it chooses to do so against the wishes of those who are present. We have been asked to come and asked to stay. If we were not asked to stay, then we would take, I think, a different view of it. But I have not heard anyone suggest that the United States today withdraw from Europe or that it relax its guarantees which consist of all kinds of defense procedures.,Now the day may come when Western Europe may feel that it can maintain its own security. Of course it would relieve the United States of a very heavy burden. But that day has not come. We want Western Europe to be independent and free. We want to prevent the outbreak of a war. We want no one to be in any doubt about the intentions of the United States. You've obviously seen on two occasions, when war broke out in Europe, there was some question of what the ultimate attitudes of the United States would be. NATO does not leave that in question. NATO guarantees. So this is the important defense for Europe and important defense for us and every evidence I have is that the Europeans wish that to continue. Now, the day may come when their power is such that they can proceed on their defense without the United States, and no one in the United States that I know of wishes to stay a moment longer than our presence is desired or desirable.,[7-] Q. Mr. President, former President Eisenhower in connection with the Estes case has suggested that all of the investigative agencies, in contrast to his own administration, are under one political party. He suggested the possibility that you might wish to follow the precedent of President Coolidge and invite some Republicans in to lay before them some of the information on the Estes case, that they might not know of. Do you regard this as a good idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have great regard for Senator McClellan, who I do not believe approaches any matter such as this on a partisan basis, and his committee is made up of Republicans and Democrats. All the information which we have will be made available to that committee, and all of the reports of the FBI. As I've stated before, this matter came to public attention because this administration indicted Mr. Estes before a State agency in Texas or any place else moved. In the case of some of the recent matters, to which reference was made, they were not brought out by the administration in power, but brought out by congressional investigating committees. We did not have any evidence by either Republican or Democrats of a major concern about the possibility that Mr. Estes would be involved in so many operations which had such little basis. So that I can assure you that the information which is collected will be turned over to the congressional committees involved, to the Republicans and Democratic counsels of each committee, and that Senator McClellan will, I'm sure, Congressman fountain in the House, and all the others will meet their responsibilities very fully, as we are attempting to meet ours.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, today is the 8th anniversary of the Supreme Court school desegregation decision. Do you feel that progress in this area has been rapid enough?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we can always hope that more progress can be made in the area of civil rights, or equal opportunity, whether it's in employment or education or housing or anything else. There is a good deal left undone, and while progress has been made I think we can always improve equality of opportunity in the United States.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, why is it that we have no intercontinental ballistic missile warning system to the south of us in the Gulf or South America, in view of some of the recent reports that the Russians have said that they might come at us from the south?,THE PRESIDENT. Because our early warning system, as you know, was first developed for airplanes, which were coming from the north. Then it was converted to missiles, and it is being completed for missiles in the north. The flight to the south is an extremely long trip, which does not permit the kind of accuracy which a northern flight would permit, and as we develop Minutemen and other missiles which can take off with very little notice, the advantages of a long trip with relative inaccuracy will be far less to the Soviets. Their hope, in other words, of knocking out our ability to strike them after they might have struck us, of course, is far less to the south. But my judgment is that as time goes on, such a system will be developed.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the stock market slump lately seems to indicate a lack of investor confidence in the economic outlook. Do you have any comment on the behavior of the market?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that--I would not attempt to figure its ups and downs. As you remember, it took a very sharp slump in 1956 just before we had an extremely good year the next year. At that time, I think in 1957, the value of the stock compared to the earnings was about 12 to 1. At the time of the high year it was around 22 to 1. But every indication we have indicates that this is going to be a record year in profits, wages, productivity. The new figures which I think have been announced this afternoon call for a construction at an annual rate of 1.5 million housing units, which is the highest we've had for three years, so we believe that the United States economy should have confidence. But the question of the relationship between stock prices and earnings is a matter for those who are in that business.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to answer former President Eisenhower's charge that many bills you support would put too much power in the Presidency, and that's the real threat to liberty in this country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he gave--I don't want to get into a political discussion with President Eisenhower. I think he gave five examples. One was our farm bill. Let me make it very clear that one of the problems in agriculture, of course, has been the tremendous increase in commodities which must be stored. And one of the problems in the Estes case is this very one.,The fact of the matter is there was in 1953 about $2.5 million of surpluses that had to be stored. Now it's 19 billion, for which we pay $1 billion a year. Mr. Estes went into the grain storage business way back in 1959. In fact, of the $7 million which the federal Government has paid to him for storage, about $5 million of it was paid prior to January 1961.,Now we're going to have an agricultural bill before the Congress in the next 2 or 3 weeks, and I think the American people should understand very clearly that if the bill we propose is defeated, we will then go back automatically by statute to the Benson program, which provides no effective controls on production, a support price which will increase by large amounts the amount of materials that we have to store away, and the burden to the taxpayer.,This could involve billions of dollars over the next 4 or 5 years. Unless we can bring into balance supply and demand more effectively than we've done--and we have done it in cotton and tobacco--unless we can do that in grain, you're going to have not 19 billion to be stored away, but 11, 12, 13 or 14. We spend $6 billion as a budget item for the Government every year on agriculture. It will go up 7, 8, 9, so I think that we have to have an effective balance of supply and demand or otherwise you will have these situations where grain storages are bursting at the seams. And you have the kind of pressures which we have been witnessing in recent months.,I think that the best hope represents this legislation. And, let me make it very clear, if this bill is defeated it will cost the taxpayers of the United States $4 billion more in the next 4 years for agricultural appropriations as well as storage. So this represents, in my opinion, a chance to do something for the farmer that's effective for the consumer and also for the taxpayer. And those who oppose it are committing us to an expenditure of at least 4 or 5 billion dollars over a very short period of time as well as taking our storage problem up to 11, 12, 13 billion dollars. I think it would be a great, great mistake. And I think this represents our best chance to do something about the kind of situation which resulted in Mr. Estes' manipulations.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, we have unofficial estimates that the 1963 budget will be from 4 to 7 billion dollars. Have you any report from your officials as to what it will be?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we don't. It depends, of course, upon the state of the economy. As I've said from the beginning, if the economy reaches the level that we had hoped it would, and if the Congress takes action on postal legislation, and if it meets its responsibilities as I hope it will in the field of agriculture, our budget should be within balance.,Now, if the economy falls, if the Congress takes no action on postal rates, and if it defeats our efforts in farm legislation, then there will be a very different problem which we will have to face up to. But I do want to point out that one of the most important steps we can take in the general public interest is the support of this legislation. Because people who vote against it, feeling that we don't want any new legislation on the books have to realize that there is permanent legislation on the books which then goes into effect, which is known as part--which was identified with Mr. Benson, which did not bring prosperity to the farmer or wellbeing to the federal budget.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Ambassador Dean indicated this week that after we finish our tests, and the Russians finish their tests, that perhaps there would be a very good atmosphere to achieve a nuclear test ban. Do you share this view, and also do we have any reason to believe that this might be true?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we have to wait until the situation develops, where our tests are concluded. I understand there seems to be evidence the Soviets may test, and we will then have to see what the situation is.,[14.] Q. Following up last week's discussion on misunderstandings between ourselves and the West Germans, sir, you've talked to the West German Ambassador. So has Mr. Rusk, and in addition Mr. Dowling has been to see the Chancellor. Can you tell us, sir, are our relations with the West Germans back on the track or moving in that direction now?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think they are. We are now waiting, as the result of the conferences in Athens and as a result of our suggestions directly to the German Government and the Chancellor, for their comments and any proposals they might make on the access authority which was the matter of most immediate concern. We shall hear from that--from them shortly.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of your insistence on price and wage stability, what is your reaction to the decision of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers yesterday to demand a 35-hour week from employers?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe we should have a 40-hour week. I've said that from the beginning.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, your earlier answer on the European problem about the possibility of Europe some day being able to defend itself suggests a good possibility that Europe might some day become what some people call a third force. Do you think that this could happen and still be in the interest of the whole Atlantic Community, or would this so disrupt the Atlantic Community that it would be a detriment?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be most regrettable to attempt to break what has been built by so many men of good will in every country, the Atlantic Community. There is a--when you talk about third force, of course, it has a number of meanings. But my judgment is that the security of the West is best tied to a continuation of the Atlantic Community and its expression through NATO. Within NATO, of course, there will be the European Community, which will form a very effective, I hope, and strong and vital force for the stability of the West, and we've supported that. Every administration, including this one, has supported the building of the European Economic Community even though it may not be, in every case, in our economic interest, because we believe it builds a stronger Europe. That's why we support the admission of Great Britain. So there is no difference of opinion between Europeans on this matter and ourselves. What I would regret would be any effort which would attempt to divide Europe from the United States and perhaps Canada, because I believe that the oceans should unite rather than divide. I do not anticipate that that will come. I think the mutual dependence is so obvious. But I do suggest that if that day should come, we would not want to give anyone the impression that we were in Europe in order to impose ourselves, but really rather to meet our common obligations. We have been accepted in Europe on that spirit, and we will stay in Europe as long as the desire is there for us to stay. And I've seen no serious evidence that anyone desires us to leave, because I think they realize that that would affect adversely the security of Europe and the balance of power.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, it seems un-contradicted that Mr. Estes was around town spreading quite a little bit of money around trying to be helpful, and I wonder if you have run across any indications that there was any favoritism or negligence resulting from this in the appointment of the man to the National Cotton Advisory Committee initially, or in the cotton allotment pools at a later stage, or the grain storage pattern generally?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, these are all matters being investigated. I think Secretary freeman has already suggested that he has not been able to determine such favoritism. But I believe that we should wait until these investigations are completed. I am not informed about all the details of all transactions. All I know is as of today it does not appear that Mr. Estes was given, as Secretary freeman has said, but I don't take anything for granted in this matter. That's why we have 76 FBI agents working on it, and, as I have said, the Department of Agriculture has assigned a penalty against him of nearly $600,000. We have carried out -- I'm sorry--our bail was not accepted at a half a million dollars--and this Government is staying right on Mr. Estes' tail.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, what was the legal basis for our sending troops to Thailand? Was it a bilateral arrangement that we have with the Thai Government, or was it a SEATO arrangement?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, the actual legal basis was to put us in a position to fulfill our obligations under the SEATO treaty.,Q. Well, Mr. President, are the other members of the SEATO treaty organization doing the same?,THE PRESIDENT. They have been asked to do so, and there has been indication of a favorable response from several of them. This is a decision for them. But we have responded and met our obligations.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of Presidential power, there have been some reports from Massachusetts of the use of administration aid and comfort to the senatorial campaign. I wonder if you've laid down any line as to what should be the role of yourself and your associates in this primary contest?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've already commented on that. I'm not becoming involved in this campaign. I don't know what you're referring to, but I'm very sympathetic. I'd like to comfort my brother, if that's what you mean, but I'm not involving myself in this campaign.,Q. What about your associates, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what are you referring to? What actually are you referring to?,Q. I mean, is there a rule as to whether they should go up to the State or not?,THE PRESIDENT. No member of the White House staff is planning to go to the convention, nor will be, to the best of my knowledge, in Massachusetts between now and the convention.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, back on the subject of Southeast Asia, has there been any indication that the Pathet Lao intended to march against Thailand or against the capitals of Laos and, second, under what conditions would the United States send its troops into Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. In answer to your first question, I don't know what their intentions may be. I am hopeful their intentions will be to maintain the cease-fire. Obviously, as I've said, the breach of the cease-fire in the case of Nam Tha was a blow to the concept of the cease-fire. That is what initiated our action in the case of Thailand. On the second matter, we have to wait and see. I think it's very important that the princes form a government of national union for the preservation of their own country.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the situation to which Mr. Smith alluded and the occurrence of the Estes situation, do you plan any steps to notify or to tell people in your service and in the departments to remind them of the problems involved in influence and so on in the Government? Do you plan any stepped Up--,THE PRESIDENT. We have, as you know, at the beginning of the administration, set down what we regarded as ethical standards for the members of the administration. I think the fact that action has been taken, in each of the cases where any impropriety occurred, immediately, I think is the best evidence that we do not wish to have anyone who serves even indirectly or can be suspected of serving two masters. So that I think it's very clear that wherever this occurs we will take immediate action.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-05-09","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] I have one announcement, a statement. Because mail received at the White House and by Members of the Senate indicates that a great number of people have been badly misinformed concerning one feature of the pending tax bill, I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on our proposal to collect taxes which are due on dividends and interest.,The paid advertisements and circulars financed by the savings and loan associations, who have made great profits in recent years and paid very little in taxes--I think something like $51/2 billion, while paying $70 million in taxes--by banks and others, have led many people to believe (1) that this is a new tax or a tax increase; (2) that it will take money unjustly from honest taxpayers; (3) that it will create a mountain of red tape costing more than it will bring in; and (4) that it will harm the elderly, the widows and orphans, or others in low income.,Not a single one of these charges is true. This bill simply proposes to collect taxes on dividends and interest income in the same fashion that it has been collected on our wages and salaries for the past 19 years This is not a new tax. It has been on the books for years.,Those recipients of dividends and interest who already pay their taxes will not be affected in any way. Those whose income is too low to be subject to tax will not be affected, for they can exempt themselves from withholding by a simple statement. The only ones affected will be those individuals who are not now paying the taxes they owe on this income, either through neglect or for some other reason.,That is tax evasion, tax evasion of $800 million a year which must be made up by other taxpayers who pay their taxes. And it should be remembered that about 80 percent of dividend income goes to fewer than 7 percent of the taxpayers whose income exceeds $10,000 a year. In short, defeat of this provision will not help older people with small incomes who would be either exempt from it or could file each quarter for a prompt income by filling out a simple slip at the Post Office or bank, as is done every year by those who are involved in withholding. It will help--the defeat of this bill-only those whose evasion of present taxes is costing every honest taxpayer dearly.,More enforcement, more education, more electronic brains cannot do the job, but withholding, as we have seen for the past 20 years, will treat all taxpayers fairly. And this country has prided itself on being willing to bear its heavy burdens honestly, and here is $800 million in taxes which have been on the books for years which is not now being paid and which must be made up by every other taxpayer, particularly those who find themselves, their wages, withheld on wages and salary.,So I am hopeful that those who oppose this bill, particularly savings and loan banks, who have benefited so greatly, who have not been paying their taxes of almost any kind, and who wish to defeat the bill because it does place a just burden on them, and who wish to defeat it by misinforming so many millions of people--I hope they'll start to send out the correct record.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, the newspapers in Detroit and Minneapolis have been closed by a series of strikes for about a month now. The unions, or some of the unions involved, have been taking turns in calling these strikes one at a time in shutting down the newspapers or keeping them shut. I wonder whether you would comment on these strike tactics and whether this blackout on news in these two major cities affects the general welfare and the public interest of the country to a point of being a matter of national concern in your frame of reference?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as to the last part, there's nothing in a strike of this kind that involves national emergency legislation, but of course, any newspaper strike is unfortunate because it affects not only the people involved on the paper, but it affects the whole community, the distribution of news, and business. It's my understanding that on these strikes federal mediators have been involved in attempting to be of assistance. And this matter was brought up to me this morning and I discussed it with the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Goldberg, who said he would be glad to be of any use that he could, if the parties felt that he could be helpful. I'm hopeful that a speedy solution can be reached.,It seems to me, as I've said on several occasions recently, these responsibilities must be borne by the parties. These aren't matters which can be settled by Government edict, or that should be. But I am hopeful that these and other matters can be settled, and Secretary Goldberg would be glad to be helpful, and the federal Mediation is already on the scene and has been for some time.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, perhaps in this connection you would comment for us on the press in general, as you see it from the Presidency. Perhaps, its treatment of your administration, treatment of the issues of the day?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am reading more and enjoying it less--[laughter]--and so on, but I have not complained nor do I plan to make any general complaints. I read and talk to myself about it, but I don't plan to issue any general statement on the press. I think that they are doing their task, as a critical branch, the fourth estate. And I am attempting to do mine. And we are going to live together for a period, and then go our separate ways. [Laughter],[4.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment on yesterday's election results, insofar as they affect your administration--the primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. I am pleased at the result of the last few days, in Florida and Texas.,Q. You have in the past endorsed some candidates in primaries, where there was opposition.,THE PRESIDENT. I endorsed Congressman Fascell and Senator Smathers, at the dinner in Miami.1 I think those are the only fights which I took an active part in, in the primaries.,1 See Item 77.,Q. I was thinking of Hale Boggs, too, but that's not important.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is to Congressman Boggs! [Laughter],Q. I meant it was not important to quibble about.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right, I understand.,Q. But, does the administration have a favorite in Texas between Connally and Yarborough?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know whether \"endorse\" is the proper word. I spoke as highly of Congressman Boggs as I could, because my opinion of him is that high. But in the case of Texas, I was pleased that both candidates who had been attacked for their connection with the administration did very well. But they're electing a Governor in Texas. This is a decision for the people of Texas, and I am sure they would resent any outside interference and an attempt to talk from Washington about who should be Governor of Texas. They are very qualified to make a judgment, and I'm sure that they will make one which suits them.,[5-] Q. Mr. President, my problem concerns the negotiations with the Soviet Union over Berlin. Chancellor Adenauer, as you know, has been critical in recent days over both the proposal for a 13-nation access control organization, and also toward the idea of the exploratory talks in themselves. Do you contemplate any change in signals in view of the Chancellor's objections?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think, at least from what I can gather--it's not easy. I don't think that that would be a correct interpretation of the German Government's position as of this time, as my understanding is that they are interested and support our exploratory talks on the access authority. What has concerned them is the makeup of the access authority, and this has been--since this matter was brought out into the public some weeks ago, before the Athens meeting, this has been the subject of a discussion between the two governments. So I place that in one category. The access authority, itself, which has been before us, really as a suggestion for many months, is not in controversy. It is the organization of the access authority, the relative power and position of the various members of it which has been the subject of some exchanges, which is quite natural.,It's not easy. The United States is attempting to carry on negotiations for several powers and all of them have different ideas how it ought to be done. And we have to attempt to coordinate it, and at the same time present a position which has some hope of working out in a peaceful way. So I put that as one area.,Now, on the talks themselves we have never had any statement from the German Government, or Chancellor Adenauer, that these talks should not continue. These talks are going to continue. As I understand the Chancellor's statement--and I think it is worth reading his entire speech in order to understand exactly what he means, and not fragments--he's not very optimistic about these talks. In fact, he quoted Secretary Rusk as saying that he did not believe that these talks--given the positions of the two parties--that these talks would produce a fruitful result. And maybe they won't. We have never said that they would, and we have never expressed high optimism about them. One of the members of the foreign Office today said that they support the talks, but that the Chancellor was concerned that there was undue optimism. We have never been unduly optimistic. But we believe that there should be a continuation of these talks.,Everything that was said at Athens, everything that's been said before, everything I have heard in the last 2 days--the German Government supports the position that we should continue the exploratory talks. And I believe we should. No country has done more than the United States in the last 12 months to strengthen our military forces in order to protect our commitments. But we hope, in calling up 160,000 men, adding billions of dollars to our defense budget, which was not done by many other countries who speak with vigor now--I would feel that the purpose of it, we hope, is not to fight a nuclear war but to establish an environment which permits us to have a useful exchange. As Winston Churchill said, \"It is better to jaw, jaw than to war, war,\" and we shall continue to jaw, jaw, and see if we can produce a useful result. We may fail, but in my opinion the effort is worth it when we're dealing with such dangerous matters, and when we've seen the history of this century, when statesmen, and leaders, and others have brought about failure and brought about war as a result. So we're going to see what we can do.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, last February at a news conference you told us that the cease-fire was becoming frayed in Laos and in the event that it was broken, it could lead to a very serious decision. I wonder, Mr. President, now that the cease-fire has been broken, and if efforts should fail to reestablish it, would it cause a reexamination on the part of the United States towards its policy there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are concerned about the break in the cease-fire. And, as you know, the State Department, the Acting Secretary of State--the Assistant Secretary of State today met with Ambassador Dobrynin--this afternoon. We've already indicated to one of the cochairmen of the British Government our great concern about it. Our Ambassador in Moscow met with the foreign Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko. We do believe, and have said from the beginning, that the negotiations should move much more quickly than they have. The longer this rather frayed cease-fire continues, the more chance we will have of the kind of incidents we've had in the past few days. That's why we were hopeful, after the meetings at Geneva last summer and fall, that the negotiations between the parties involved would take place last fall, and we could organize a government, rather than trying to continue to hold lines which in some cases are exposed and which are subject to this kind of pressure.,So that has been our view. The longer it goes on, and the longer there is not an agreement on a government, the longer some groups stand out from these kinds of conversations, then the more hazardous the situation becomes.,On the particular incident, however, it's a clear breach of the cease-fire. We have indicated it and we hope that the Soviet Union, which is committed to a policy based on the statement at Vienna, in regard to Laos-we are hopeful that we can bring about a restoration of the cease-fire. But we've got to use the time to try to move ahead in our political negotiations. Now, I agree it's a very hazardous course, but introducing American forces which is the other one-let's not think there is some great third course--that also is a hazardous course, and we want to attempt to see if we can work out a peaceful solution, which has been our object for many months. I believe that these negotiations should take place quickly. This is not a satisfactory situation today.,[7'] Q. Mr. President, on another labor-management issue, there's a matter of some concern in northern California. The construction industry there may face a general shutdown because of the dispute between employers and the labor unions. The employers association appealed to the administration for help some time ago, and there has been a strike spreading during this time. Have you personally concerned yourself with this?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not aware of the appeal. In what way was the appeal made? The federal mediators are there. In what way was it suggested?,Q. It was an appeal they addressed to the White House, sir, and it has gone as far as the Secretary of Labor, I believe.,THE PRESIDENT. What is the suggestion that they want? What do they want us to do?,Q. They simply want some form of help, from the administration.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what--do they want us to settle it?,Q. I don't know.,THE PRESIDENT. I want to point out that as I said to the Chamber of Commerce, and as President Wagner of the Chamber of Commerce said, labor and management should settle these matters by themselves. We cannot settle labor matters in disputes across the country, unless they involve those areas where there may be a great national basic industry. But we cannot go from city to city, unless we are going to change the whole pattern of labor-management relations, and you get in, then, to wage and price setting, which we are opposed to. So that we are attempting to set down general guidelines in as effective a manner as we can, which we hope will govern these negotiations. I would hope that they would have an effect upon the construction industry, and its employees, as well as upon other industries. And I know that the Mediation Service is involved in this. I know that the Secretary of Labor in this case also is glad to be of assistance in providing his good offices. But this is a free society, and these gentlemen finally have to make their agreement themselves.,Now, if a shutdown occurs which involves the health and safety, then of course it involves the National Government. But I have the impression that there is a great desire on every side to settle these matters without the United States Government. And we want to give them a fair opportunity to do that.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, back to your relations with newsmen. According to a poll released this morning, a large percentage of our people, or the people who were polled, believe that the newsmen attending, and news ladies, do not ask you really important questions. I want to know what you think of that and at the risk of repetition, one of the questions they seemed to think was most important: Did you have any ideas towards any new steps to ease tensions and promote world peace?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are attempting in two areas, which are both critical areas. One, I said we're continuing our conversations in Berlin. We have attempted in the last 2 or 3 days to indicate our concern about the matter in Laos. We are participating in Geneva in the disarmament talks. We have put forward the most far-reaching plan of any administration or the American Government ever, in regard to disarmament. We have labored for a long time--even to the point of--it's well known to us--to get an agreement on a cessation of nuclear tests. We are attempting to--lacking an accord, we have maintained our military forces so that through that means we can, as I've said, set an environment for parleys. And we have supported the United Nations in the Congo and elsewhere, which we regard as a very valuable arm in this struggle for peace. We are prepared to go any distance in order to maintain the peace, providing it does not involve the breaking of any commitments of the United States or involve any diminishment of the basic national security of the country.,Q. Do you think we've overlooked any important questions, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure we have--,Q.--I meant the newsmen asking you.,THE PRESIDENT. --in the sense that we are trying, for example, to strengthen the Alliance for Progress. We've--I exchanged correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev about 2 months ago about our willingness to provide for the cooperation in space. We have supported resolutions at the United Nations which I believe in, in regard to the peaceful uses of outer space. We have thrown our space program open. It's been maintained chiefly under civilian control and therefore peaceful control. And we are attempting, on every level, cultural exchanges and all the rest to see if it's possible in these two different worlds to let them live together without destroying each other.,But I think we always have to do more and we shall continue to do so. But it really requires a response in order to have peace, and so far we have not been able to evoke a response of sufficient force.,[9-] Q. Mr. President, on the question of the administration's guidelines for wage increases, Mr. Reuther, in his report to the United Auto Workers, said that he disagreed at least in part with the guidelines. He said that the principle of tying increases to productivity should be applied only after certain catch-up wage increases. Now, just before you made your speech up there, he issued a statement indicating that he agreed with the administration. Has the administration been in touch with Mr. Reuther and has there been a meeting of minds on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've been in touch with Mr. Reuther, yes. As I say, I went up there yesterday, and I did see his statement. And I thought it was a fine statement that he made, in which he indicated his general agreement with what we are attempting to do.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, at the time of your controversy with the steel industry, you were quoted as making a rather harsh statement about businessmen. I am sure you know which statement I have in mind.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. You wouldn't want to identify it, would you? [Laughter],Q. Would you tell us about it, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Would I want to comment on it?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, well, the statement which I have seen repeated, as it was repeated in one daily paper, is inaccurate. It quotes my father as having expressed himself strongly to me, and in this I quoted what he said and indicated that he had not been, as he had not been on many other occasions, wholly wrong.,Now, the only thing that was wrong with the statement was that, as it appeared in a daily paper, it indicated that he was critical of the business community--I think the phrase was \"all businessmen.\" That's obviously in error, because he was a businessman himself. He was critical of the steel men. He'd worked for a steel company himself. He was involved when he was a member of the Roosevelt administration in the 1937 strike. He formed an opinion which he imparted to me, and which I found appropriate that evening. [Laughter] But he confined it, and I would confine it. Obviously these generalizations as repeated are inaccurate and unfair, and he has been a businessman and the business system has been very generous to him. But I felt at that time that we had not been treated altogether with frankness, and therefore I thought that his view had merit. But that's past, that's past. Now we're working together, I hope.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the so-called reverse freedom rides, whereby some southern segregationists are attempting to send Negroes north?\nTHE PRESIDENT Yes. Well, I think it is a rather cheap exercise in-- You know, in this country people are moving every day by the thousands. Twenty-five percent of our population live in different States in the last decade than they did. There are hundreds and thousands of people coming from one State to another. So that this, rather, exercise in publicity to indicate, if I--this man, it seems to me, really doesn't merit very much comment. I think he's--we have difficulties in every area. We have people who are out of work in every area. There are people who are inadequately housed in every area. And we ought to do better in every area. But it seems to me, as I said the other day, there is no city, traditionally, that has enjoyed a happier reputation than New Orleans. And that reputation, in my opinion, based on my visit there Friday, is highly deserved. And I would not let one man possibly blacken it.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there have been rumors in print in and out of Texas that Vice President Johnson might be dropped from the Democratic ticket in 1964. I'd like to ask if you have any reason whatever to believe that either end of the Democratic ticket will be different in 1964?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know about what they will do with me, but I am sure that the Vice President will be on the ticket if he chooses to run. We were fortunate to have him before--and would again--and I don't know where such a rumor would start. He's invaluable. He fulfills a great many responsibilities as Vice President. He participates in all of the major deliberations. He's been in the Congress for years. He is invaluable. So of course he will be, if he chooses to be part of the ticket.,[13-] Q. Mr. President, it has been the stated policy, as you said earlier, for this Government to restrict outer space for peaceful objectives only. Will not the proposed H-bomb explosion 500 miles up jeopardize this policy and objective?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. I know there's been disturbance about the Van Allen belt, but Van Allen says it's not going to affect the belt, and it's his! [Laughter],But it is a matter which we are--I've read the protests and it is a matter which we are looking into to see whether there is scientific merit that this will cause some difficulty to the Van Allen belt in a way which will adversely affect scientific discovery. And this is being taken into very careful consideration at the present time. So that I want you to know that whatever our decision is, in regard to the Van Allen belt, it will be done only after very careful scientific deliberation, which is now taking place--during this past week--and will go on for a period. In regard, generally, what we are attempting to do is to find out the effects of such an explosion on our security, and we do not believe that this will adversely affect the security of any person not living in the United States.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, a special emergency panel has recommended a 10.2 cent an hour pay raise for about 500,000 railroad employees, which is estimated to cost about $100 million a year. You have observed that the Board said it would be noninflationary. Do you believe it would be noninflationary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would--the Board stated it would be noninflationary, and I stated it was my judgment that they should negotiate a noninflationary statement, a settlement. Now the railroads have objected to the arrangement by saying it's too much, the railway unions too little.,I am hopeful that the parties will negotiate, and we would, of course, be glad to be of any technical assistance we could, if we are asked, in order to determine the extent of--what effect it would have on the cost of living. But it was a good board. They made a very flat statement in regard to it, and I think that what is now incumbent on both parties is to see if they can reach what I would consider a noninflationary agreement.,[15-] Q. Mr. President, there have been various congressional and executive studies in an effort to develop a uniform patent policy covering inventions made under Government contracts, and we're wondering if you intended to submit any legislation to spell out a uniform Government patent policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's a difficult problem, because you have to balance off the gains on the one hand and at the same time the incentives to companies to spend their own funds in order to develop patents which would give them a return in other years. So that we have some differences in the Space Agency problem, the Department of Defense, and perhaps another agency of the Government. But it is a matter which is being reviewed now by those agencies which are most involved. And if we have any changes to make at the conclusion of that, then I will send recommendations to the Hill.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, more fundamental, perhaps, than the numbers game that is being played between Bonn and Washington over the international access authority and how many members it ought to have, there seems to be a sense of insecurity in Bonn at the moment and in Germany, generally, about the degree to which this administration will support the basic position of no recognition of East Germany, no degree of recognition at all. I wonder if you could define that point just a little bit. How far are we prepared to go?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've never suggested that the access authority--which was a proposal which could have easily been rejected and alternate language suggested in accordance with the normal exchanges between governments, which is the reason we sent it--it was never suggested that that constituted a de facto, or de jure recognition of the East German regime, which we have not supported, because we have supported the concept of the reunification of Germany.,We, after all--the East German Government, or regime, and the West German Government were participants in the same room at the 1959 Geneva conference. They didn't sit at the table, but they sat in chairs just behind the table. Now, what did that constitute? After all, the East German regime controls over 90 today--supervises over 90 percent of the traffic into Berlin, and there are these exchanges in regard to that traffic. What does that constitute? I don't think it constitutes recognition. And it doesn't by either de facto or de jure.,We participate in the Laos convention in Geneva with the Chinese Communists in an attempt to work out an accord in Geneva on Laos. We don't recognize them either way.,So that what we're attempting to do is to work out a solution which will provide more security for the people of West Berlin. Because when the difficult times come, it is the United States that carries the major burden and is looked to take the major actions which will sustain the freedom of the city. So that I think we have some rights to at least explore the possibilities of finding a better solution than we now have.,But in answer to your question, we did not believe and do not believe the proposals that we made constitute a kind of recognition. For example, among the 13 of the proposals there was a West Berlin, which is not a separate government, and there was an East Berlin, which is not a separate government. So that it was an authority, which might be compared to the Port of New York and not a government, a governmental group, or a group of governments. But this sort of necessity to debate this matter for a month makes it very difficult to carry on any negotiation with the Soviet Union because all of our proposals are on the table and fought out in public even before they become our official position. So that it seems to me the best thing to do would be to--if anybody has any objection, to tell us--and we have said from the beginning that in our efforts to reach an accord, we certainly recognize the necessity of maintaining unanimity in the alliance.,I don't know whether this is the best way to carry on these negotiations if these matters are going to become so publicly debated. If this isn't the best solution, perhaps some other way should be done, and we'll be glad to hear that suggestion. But we carry the major military burden, we enforce, and have the major military buildup--160,000 Americans called up since last July--and it is not difficult to make suggestions and say, oh, well, you shouldn't do this or that, and at the same time some countries do not play as active a role as we've been willing to play in an attempt to work this out.,Q. In that connection, sir, I wonder do you have any theory or any information as to the reason for the agitation, the degree of agitation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think a lot of it--I must say I read his Monday's speech in which he stated--Chancellor Adenauer-that the most important result of Athens can be summarized in one sentence: the unity of the free West. If you think back to the ministers' meeting of NATO in 1961, unless my memory fails me, it was in December-this was Chancellor Adenauer--\"there the unity of the free people of the West did not look good. And the unity of the free people of the West, I am convinced, is the best asset of freedom.\",But he said this: \"The whole political future in the East of Germany finally depends on the unity of the West. And I believe we can be very satisfied with the way this NATO conference went.\",So I think that some of this is speculation which does not serve the cause. Mr. Drew Middleton in the Times made a very strong article on the work Secretaries McNamara and Rusk had done. He said that they had witnessed \"a striking demonstration both of the United States reasons for leading the West and its ability to do so.\" So I think we had pretty good unity as of Saturday or Sunday, and I hope we will this Saturday or Sunday.,[17.] Q. Would you care to comment on the voting in the Senate today on the cloture petition on the literacy test bill, and whether you think this is possible as a piece of legislation this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there were two votes. One was on the motion to table, and that got a rather large vote against tabling. If that vote indicates that the members are for it, that would be very encouraging--I think it was 63 to 33 or 34. On the motion, however, for cloture, which would permit us to have a vote on this matter, then the members voted differently.,As I understand it, Senator Mansfield is trying again Monday, but if we don't succeed, if the Senate doesn't succeed--if the country doesn't succeed in getting the vote by Monday, cloture, then of course there's no use saying you're for it, because it won't ever come up. And I must say I find it extremely difficult to understand how anybody can--though I respect Senator Cooper, and I know his concern is constitutional, and I respect the others who have various things-but I must say this involves the right to vote. And I've seen these cases of people with college degrees who were denied being put on the register because they supposedly can't pass the literacy test. It doesn't make any sense. So I'm hopeful the Senate will vote, and there'll be another chance on Monday.,Q. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-04-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] The United States has today tabled at Geneva an outline of basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world. It provides a blueprint of our position on general and complete disarmament as well as elaboration of the nature, sequence, and timing of specific disarmament measures. This outline of a treaty represents the most comprehensive and specific series of proposals the United States or any other country has ever made on disarmament. In addition to stating the objectives and principles which should govern agreements for disarmament, the document calls for the grouping of individual measures in three balanced and safeguarded stages. We are hopeful through the give and take of the conference table this plan will have a constructive influence upon the negotiations now in progress. I want to stress that with this plan the United States is making a major effort to achieve a breakthrough on disarmament negotiations. We believe that the nations represented at Geneva have a heavy responsibility to lay the foundations for a genuinely secure and peaceful world starting through a reduction in arms.,[2.] Secondly, I believe it would be appropriate to say a few words to follow up last week's events concerning steel prices.,First, let me make it clear that this administration harbors no ill will against any individual, any industry, corporation, or segment of the American economy. Our goals of economic growth and price stability are dependent upon the success of both corporations, business, and labor and there can be no room on either side in this country at this time for any feelings of hostility or vindictiveness.,When a mistake has been retracted and the public interest preserved, nothing is to be gained from further public recriminations.,Secondly, while our chief concern last week was to prevent an inflationary spiral, we were not then and are not now unmindful of the steel industry's needs for profits, modernization, and investment capital. I believe, in fact, that this administration and the leaders of steel and other American industries are in basic agreement on far more objectives than we are in disagreement.,We agree on the necessity of increased investment in modern plant and equipment. We agree on the necessity of improving our industry's ability to compete with the products of other nations. We agree on the necessity of achieving an economic recovery and growth that will make the fullest possible use of idle capacity. We agree on the necessity of preventing an inflationary spiral that will lead to harmful restrictions on credit and consumption. And we agree on the necessity of preserving the Nation's confidence in free, private, collective bargaining and price decisions, holding the role of Government to the minimum level needed to protect the public interest.,In the pursuit of these objectives, we have fostered a responsible wage policy aimed at holding increases within the confines of productivity gains. We have encouraged monetary policies aimed at making borrowed capital available at reasonable cost; preparing a new transportation policy aimed at providing increased freedom of competition at lower costs; proposed a new trade expansion bill to gain for our industries increased access to foreign markets; proposed an 8 percent income tax credit to reward investment in new equipment and machinery; and proceeded to modernize administratively Treasury Department's guidelines on the depreciable lives of capital assets; and, finally, taken a host of other legislative and administrative actions to foster the kind of economic recovery which would improve both profits and incentives to invest.\nI believe that the anticipated profits this year for industry in general--and steel in particular--indicate that these policies are meeting with some measure of success. And it is a fact that the last quarter of last year, and I think the first quarter of this year, will be the highest 'profits in the history of this country, and the highest number of people working, and the highest productivity. So that while there are serious economic problems facing us, nevertheless I believe that progress is being made and can be made and must be made in the future.,[3.] Third, the vast majority, as I stated, of our reservists have responded to the call of service in accordance with our best traditions. Unfortunately, the widespread publicity given to the complaints of a-small minority have subjected many of these men to unaccustomed pressures. Upon learning that a private first class faced a court-martial for writing a letter critical of my actions, I contacted the Secretary of the Army who has the difficult task of maintaining proper discipline, and he agreed with me that such offenses are more misguided than criminal in intent. Therefore, I have asked the Army to cancel the trial of Pfc. Larry D. Chidester at fort Lewis, Wash., and in the same spirit of the Easter Week I have directed the Army to remit the balance of the sentence of Pfc. Bernis G. Owen, at fort Polk, La.,[4.] Next, we are releasing today the reports submitted by the Presidential Commission on Campaign Costs.1 I want to express my 'profound gratitude to this group made up of very experienced men representing those who've been active as students and as participants in the political process, fund-raisers, in both parties, who've come forward with a unanimous report which is now being examined by the administration, and will be the basis of legislative recommendations sent to the Congress which I think can provide a significant advancement of the public interest in this very vital field.,1 \"Financing Presidential Campaigns, Report of the President's Commission on Campaign Costs,\" dated April 1962 (Government Printing Office, 1962, 36 pp.).,[5.] And lastly, I am happy to announce that Mrs. Eisenhower has agreed to serve as honorary cochairman, with Mrs. Kennedy, of the National Cultural Center. The National Cultural Center, begun in the administration of President Eisenhower, is the most significant cultural undertaking in the history of Washington and is of enormous importance to the cultural life of our Nation as a whole.,I am gratified that Mrs. Eisenhower will be part of this undertaking which we hope to bring to success in the coming months.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, how does the change in the situation between last week and this affect the grand jury investigation in New York? There have been reports it will be soft-pedaled. Are these true or are the potential monopoly aspects still such as to warrant pressing the investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the grand jury has been called in order to investigate a possible violation of the law and this is a matter now before the grand jury. And of course in accordance with the procedures provided this matter will be brought to a--continue to see if such a violation occurred.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, does there remain any considerable doubt on your part as to the necessity for resuming atmospheric testing shortly, and if and when you do resume testing, do you intend to announce it in advance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the situation is the same as it was on March 2. The United States desires to achieve a responsible agreement to prevent future tests, providing for an effective inspection system. We stand ready now to conclude that test.,The response we received and that Prime Minister Macmillan received to his letter last week, would indicate that the chances of securing that agreement now for an effective inspection have--seem to be very negative; and if we do not get that agreement, then of course we shall proceed, as I stated on March 2.\nIn regard to any announcements to be made, they will be appropriately made at the time.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that some of your top military advisers are urging the United States to help France with the development of its nuclear striking force. Have you given this problem any consideration, and what do you think about it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the policy of the United States, of course, continues to be that of being very reluctant to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are attempting to, in our disarmament offers that we've made we are attempting, and in my speech last September before the United Nations I said that I thought it would be regrettable if nuclear weapons proliferated, or spread. So that our policy continues on that basis, and will continue unless we feel that security requirements suggest a change.,[9-] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable speculation that the victory you have won in the steel situation will be of great assistance for the passage of your legislative program in Congress. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hope it's of assistance in passing the tax credit, which is intended to provide, combined with price stability, a means for our industry to modernize itself, and in fact to encourage it. I'm hopeful--in my opinion if the rise in prices had been permitted to stand, it would be extremely difficult to secure the passage of this legislation. I think that the line that has been held provides a much better atmosphere, and I think that if this legislation is passed it will materially help the steel companies and industry in general. And I'm very strongly in support of it.,As far as the rest of the program, I think that that part of the program which is involved with the economy, I think will be helped by the fact that we've been able to maintain at this time a stable price level.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, you said several weeks ago that you would take another look to see if you should request a supplemental appropriation this year to revive the Federal flood Insurance Act of 1956. Have you reached any decision on that?,THE PRESIDENT. There is a meeting, as you know, of some of the Governors who were involved. It either has been in the last few hours or is today, and they're meeting with some of our Government officials. This is one of the matters being considered by the Governors and by the Federal Government.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Rockefeller told me last night that he thought it was terrible that service wives, of which his daughter Mary is one, cannot join their service husbands abroad. So now we have not only gold and lonely hearts but also politics injected into this situation. And I'm wondering if now that steel prices aren't going up, the ban on service couples getting together might be lifted. It's been more than 7 months.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I understand, and I think I attempted in the last press conference to respond to the question. I stated we have a very serious problem involved in gold, that as I said last time, we're asking the Secretary of Defense to reduce our overseas expenditures by a billion dollars, and the responsibility fails very heavily upon him and upon all of us. We do not desire-obviously, it's against our national social interest to separate these families and we have done it to the extent that we have done it only because of a very serious crisis. Now, we-that crisis--at least that situation in regard to gold continues and Secretary McNamara is continuing to analyze the best way to provide for the saving of a billion dollars.,Q. Yes, I realize that, and I know that the gold situation is very serious, and I am wondering if you directed Secretary Dillon to look into the serious situation of American companies setting up plants abroad so often to escape American tax dollars or to take advantage of the cheaper labor abroad.,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, in the bill which passed the House of Representatives, there is a section which deals with the problem of companies established abroad in order to evade taxes, and that's a matter now before the Senate. And it is an attempt to discourage that drain on our--on the dollar and gold by tax policies, and so we are attempting to meet it in a whole variety of ways.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, two questions in the wake of last week's developments. First, assuming that a price increase in steel would eventually be necessary and justified, do you have any thoughts as to how this price increase should be reached? And secondly, if some major labor union made excessive demands for wage increases, would you move as sharply against that union as you did last week against steel?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, to take the second part first, we had worked very closely with the steel union in an attempt to persuade them that it was in their interest and the country's interest to meet the standards set by the Council of Economic Advisers, and it was done. And that is why this matter came into particularly sharp focus last week.,Now, as far as the first part, I think that my original statement discussed our general views on it. This is a free economy. These matters are reached by the process of competition and collective bargaining. What we are attempting to do is to try to have them consider the public interest, which after all is their interest--the problems involving price stability, national security, and all the rest. They're very much interrelated, and this is .particularly true in the basic industries. But the--our power is that--if the industry is competitive, prices are reached through the normal process of competition, and collective bargaining agreements are reached in the normal way. But we would like both labor and management to be very conscious of the public stake at this time, and that's what we are attempting to bring forth. We hope they'll--be conscious of it.,Q. Mr. President, I asked the first question specifically because the Wall Street Journal and some other spokesmen of business have accused you directly of having set the price in steel.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm aware of the accusations. What we attempted to do was project before the steel companies the public interest. And it was a combination of the public interest placed upon the table in front of them, and competition which I think brought the price down, by the fact that several companies refused to increase prices, and therefore competition worked its will. We want to be sure that competition is an active force in our economy. But I would not accept the view of the Wall Street Journal in regard to at least my feeling of the description of my actions or of the public interest.,Q. Mr. President, Chairman Miller and other Republican leaders have focused a good deal of criticism on the nocturnal activities of the FBI. Could you shed any light on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they were attempting to--reporters have called up a good many people in the middle of the night themselves--[laughter]. And I--all we were attempting to do was to find out so that we could decide about the grand jury meeting, whether the reports in regard to the quotations which said one thing, and then there was a statement that they were misquoted, and then the next day there was a clarification. We wanted to get the facts on this.,Now, both the reporters were cooperative; I didn't realize they would be woken up at the time they were. The decision was made early in the evening, and I suppose making the connection, the FBI followed ahead, and I--and as I say, all the reporters except that of the Wall Street Journal were most cooperative. But the intention was not to disturb the reporters. The intention was to get the information as quickly as possible so we could determine what action we would take before the grand jury, and as always the FBI carried out its responsibilities immediately.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to comment on developments in New Orleans where the Archbishop excommunicated three people for hindering school desegregation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the action of the Archbishop related to private acts and private individuals, which did not involve public acts or public policy, so that carrying out the spirit of the Constitution which provides a separation between church and state, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, last week you stated that the administration had not asked for assurances from the steel industry that prices would be kept where they were when the contracts were ratified. I wonder if you can tell us whether you received such assurances, either directly or indirectly, and I am prompted to ask because the day the contracts were ratified you stated that the settlement was noninflationary.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct--that's correct. I think we responded to this last week, when I stated that I did not ask, for the reasons which I gave, the steel companies to give a commitment that they would not increase prices. But I stated at the time that it was very clear that our whole effort was to secure a noninflationary settlement.,Q. But my question, Mr. President, was directed as to whether such assurances were given to you, regardless of--,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said last week--I said they were not. If you read last week's interview, you will see that they were not asked and they were not given.,Q. And not given, is that right?,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. On the other hand, during the conversations which were held, it was made very clear the purpose of our attempting to persuade the steel union not to accept an inflationary settlement. And no statement was made during any of those conversations that a price increase would immediately follow the wage accord, particularly if that wage accord were noninflationary. So that while no request was made for a commitment, on the other hand no statement was made which would have indicated to us that if the union cooperated and accepted a very low increase, that on the other hand there would then still be an automatic price increase.,Q. Mr. President, you agree that it's important for the steel companies to modernize their plants. Does the Government have any ideas about helping steel to do this, that is, aside from the 8 percent tax credit?,THE PRESIDENT. And also the rewriting of schedule f, the depreciation allowances, and already a study has been on for some weeks. We've already done that in the textile industry and we are now analyzing steel and certain other basic industries in order to improve their depreciation position.,Secondly, I do want to say that in regard to profits that the last quarter, and as I said the first quarter, were the highest profits in the history of the United States and, therefore, I feel that while some particular companies and some industries may have special problems that the overall profit situation is not unsatisfactory.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Tsarapkin, Soviet delegate to the disarmament conference in Geneva, told representatives of the Women's Strike for Peace that Russia would negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty with the United States if the United States would close down just one of its missile bases overseas as a gesture of good faith. When the women reported to Ambassador Dean he suggested they refer the proposal to you. Would you give us your view, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've never heard that proposal made by the Soviet Union. In other words, they would agree, as suggested-well, now, I don't think you can read the letter of the Chairman to the Prime Minister and get that impression. There's no--I--we have never heard that they would agree to an effective test ban, an inspection system, if we would close down one base, and my judgment is that there's no evidence for believing they would.,Q. Well, this--they told this to these private people.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at the conference at Geneva--and I'm sure that if there's--Mr. Dean will be glad to ask if that is so. But my judgment would be based on all the conversations which have gone on for many weeks and, in fact, the 3 years of negotiations. There is no evidence that they would do this. It's a lot different from saying we'll agree to negotiate about it if such an action is taken. They are now negotiating about it. We've been negotiating about it for 3 years. We were negotiating last August when they began testing. So I think that it indicates the long gap, as I said before, between an agreement to negotiate and negotiate an agreement.,Q. Sir, I would like to ask you if the reports from Geneva on the radio this morning about the U.S. disarmament proposal are correct, and that is that the U.S. proposes to scrap all armies and weapons and have a U.N. police force. I could not find out if this was the draft, because the drafts have not been made public to the American people or to all members of Congress yet.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, they're being made public today, Mrs. McClendon, and the description you have given is not an accurate one of our proposal.,Q. You say it is not inaccurate?,THE PRESIDENT. Not--not an accurate one of our proposal.,Q. Would you tell us what it is?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mrs. McClendon, the treaty will be made available to the members of the press today and will describe the various stages upon which we propose that disarmament might be taken, what actions we will take during these various stages, what protections are given to the security of the United States, and I think that when you have read the entire treaty you will realize that my response--the description you have given is not--at least is not comprehensive.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, over the weekend, as you know, there has been somewhat of a flap over some proposals which the United States might make to the Soviets on Berlin. Could you tell us in this connection, sir, whether you would think it desirable to give the East Germans a technical voice in any international authority which might control access to West Berlin, provided it is part of an arrangement which guarantees our existing rights?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would have to examine that language again that you've just submitted to me. [Laughter] The question really is the status, the position, the authority of the East German regime in regard to any access authority. That really is one of the--that has been a basic issue since these discussions started. So that I could not attempt to respond to your question unless we had definitions of the technical commission, its power, the status of the East German regime in that authority, whether they had the authority or whether it was held by the four Powers, what were the means by which the four Powers exercised their rights--these are all the questions which are the subjects of negotiations between the Soviet Union and ourselves. This matter, however, certainly is one of the points which are now under discussion with the Soviet Union, how we can reconcile the problem of access, and maintain our position there. But I think as the Department of State has said, the government in West Germany has been kept informed and the proposals that we have talked about before, that we're talking about now, are in the general channel of previous proposals that have been discussed with the Soviet Union.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, some of your critics feel that you set prices or have gone into the field of price control by Executive fiat in the steel situation, and further that this sets a precedent which you have to follow in future situations. Do you feel that you have set a precedent, that as these situations arise you would again have to invoke this sort of power?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the steel--I've stated I think in our statement what I believe to be the general policy of this administration in regard to prices and wages. Everyone is quite aware of what the powers are of the Government, and the limitation on those powers, and what the presumptions are--that collective bargaining will be free, and that the competitive system, the competition within industry, will maintain prices at a reasonable level. I've attempted to state the public interest involved in all these negotiations and we will have to try to continue, as we have in the past, to bring these matters before labor and management in an attempt to provide the kinds of agreement which will maintain price stability. We're going to attempt to do that. But I have not suggested that our power--that we have powers to set or that those powers would be desirable to set prices or to set wages. But we can attempt, it seems to me, to bring before the parties in the most effective way possible, the public interest that is involved, and must be involved, particularly in these basic industries, when competition, our balance of payments all involve our national security and our military forces abroad. The interrelationship makes the public interest mandatory in these matters, and it's our responsibility to present it to those involved, which is what we tried to do in steel.,[18.] Q. In that connection, Mr. President, the next major round of negotiations appears to be with the aerospace and missile aircraft industry, with the two unions, the machinists and auto workers, already asserting that they want wage increases considerably above the formula laid down by the Council of Economic Advisers. And they point out that the Government is really a major party to these negotiations since they have the contracts. Would you assert the public interest in these negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the public interest is very definitely involved, but I--in asserting the public interest we have always recognized the proper limitations of that--of the power of the Government to enforce any collective bargaining agreement. We do not have that power. That power has not been given to us. But we will certainly attempt to describe to the people involved, particularly in a program which is so important to the national security, we will attempt to describe the public interest, which, after all, is their interest as well as that of the Nation. Now, whether these parties will be responsive, as the steel union was, and as, on Friday, the steel companies were, of course, is a matter that will be seen in the future.,[19.] Q. Following up the question on Berlin, sir, our negotiations with the Russians have been carried out in behalf of the other occupying powers as well. In view of the flurry he referred to over the weekend and in view of the definite French reservations, would you tell us a little bit about how we stand as, in effect, the spokesman for the four Powers at this moment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that Mr. Von Eckhart, speaking for the West Germans, made a statement that they had been in consultation with us, and that they had confidence in our efforts. The French have had reservations from the beginning in regard to these probes, and we are continuing these probes in order to determine whether there's an effective basis for high negotiations. And we shall continue. The United States--this is a very dangerous area, involving vital interests of both sides, which could--even though at this present time the temperature has been lowered--could blow up anytime. And I don't think that we are meeting our responsibilities to our own people if we do not make every effort, in addition to strengthening ourselves militarily, and indicating a determination to protect our vital interests, to see if an accord can be reached. Because we--obviously it would be in the international interest if this particular area which is so susceptible to pressure because of its geographical position could be--an agreement could be reached. So we're going to continue to do it. Now before any agreement is finally signed, if we ever get that far, of course, the French and the British and the West Germans would all be very much participants. But the stage we're at now is to see whether such an agreement can be reached.,Q. Can we take it, sir, that as of this moment, the West Germans as the party most directly affected support these proposals that we are putting forward?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the West Germans are--should really speak for themselves. But f have no reason to believe that the West German Government does not support the efforts we are making to determine whether an accord can be reached. But as far as their own position on each particular matter, I think they would--should state that.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in view of what you have called the very negative prospects for obtaining an effective nuclear test ban agreement with Russia, have you now set a specific date for the United States to resume testing in the atmosphere?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the time was described in the March 2d speech.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a good deal said recently, and I think you have addressed yourself to the fact that,THE PRESIDENT. But in answer to your question, there's not a specific day been set, no.,Q.--that labor's gain should be tied to productivity and that their wage increases would be. Not much has been said as to whether the investor should also share in this productivity, and apparently they didn't in the recent steel negotiations.,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, the productivity. No, the owners of steel stocks have shared very much in the last 10 years. I don't think there's any question. I think there has been a split of--six times in the United States Steel stock since 1948-49, and they've been paid a very good dividend, and they have very strong equity. And what is true of U.S. Steel is true in even greater extent in other steel companies, and, as I've said, in industry in general. So that I think the shareholders--and the shareholders will do very well. For example, one of the problems is to increase the cost of steel at a time when you are only using 60, or 65, or 70 percent of your capacity. If you could--there would have been perhaps about a $260 or $270 million present capacity increase in profits of the steel companies, but if you could get the capacity of steel up to 85 or 90 percent, you would have had--you would have a $500 million increase in their profits at present prices. So the real problem in the steel industry is unused capacity. But in answer to your question, the shareholders have participated in increased productivity.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-04-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last 2 days in Viet-Nam--and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.,If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.,It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defenses, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security commitments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt responsible price and wage policies.,The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which does not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be non-inflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, \"employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958.\",The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has been generally operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.,In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.,The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy. The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.,Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.,Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.,[2.] I've got one other statement here. Mr. Hatcher is going to release a statement in regard to the release of the Guards. Let me say in summary that Secretary McNamara and I have carefully reviewed our progress in achieving permanent increases in our military strength. We have concluded that the rate of progress of this effort is such that if there is no serious deterioration in the international situation between now and August, we shall be able in that month to release all those who were called involuntarily. Our continuing strength after this release will be much increased over what it was a year ago.,Just as an example, the number of our combat-ready Army divisions in active service after the release will be 16, as against 11 a year ago. The release is not the result of any marked change in the international situation, which continues to have many dangers and tensions. It is the result, rather, of our successful buildup of permanent instead of emergency strength.,The units we release will remain available, in a new and heightened state of combat readiness if a new crisis should arise requiring their further service. I know that I speak for all of our countrymen in expressing our appreciation to all those who've served under the adverse conditions of living in camps and being taken away from their families. And their service and the willingness of the great, great majority of all of them to do this uncomplainingly, I think, should be an inspiration to every American.,[3.] And lastly, last Saturday I issued an Executive order creating a Board of Inquiry to inquire into the issues involved in the current labor dispute in the west coast maritime industry. The Board of Inquiry filed its written report with me today. In its unanimous report, the Board stated:,\"The current strike, if continued, will affect approximately 130 cargo and passenger ships, including those which constitute the principal mode of transportation of passengers and vital cargo to and from the State of Hawaii.\",Other reports I have received clearly manifest that a continuation of this strike imperils the national health and safety.,I have therefore instructed the Attorney General to seek an injunction against this strike under the national emergency provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. While an injunction will restore the west coast maritime industry to full operation and return the striking members to work for 80 days, it should not, and I hope will not, interfere in any way with efforts towards full settlement.,I call upon the parties to make that effort, to achieve that settlement quickly. However, the public interest does not permit further delay in applying for an injunction. Consequently, I have made the decision to direct the Attorney General to apply for an appropriate order.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, the unusually strong language which you used in discussing the steel situation would indicate that you might be considering some pretty strong action. Are you thinking in terms of requesting or reviving the need for wage-price controls?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that my statement states what the situation is today. This is a free country. In all the conversations which were held by members of this administration and myself with the leaders of the steel union and the companies, it was always very obvious that they could proceed with freedom to do what they thought was best within the limitations of law. But I did very clearly emphasize on every occasion that my only interest was in trying to secure an agreement which would not provide an increase in prices, because I thought that price stability in steel would have the most far-reaching consequences for industrial and economic stability and for our position abroad, and price instability would have the most far-reaching consequences in making our lot much more difficult.,When the agreement was signed, and the agreement was a moderate one and within the range of productivity increases, as I've said, actually, there will be reduction in cost per unit during the next year--I thought, I was hopeful, we'd achieved our goal. Now the actions that will be taken will be--are being now considered by the administration. The Department of Justice is particularly anxious, in view of the very speedy action of the companies who have entirely different economic problems facing them than did United States Steel--the speed with which they moved, it seems to me, to require an examination of our present laws, and whether they're being obeyed, by the Federal Trade Commission and particularly the Department of Justice. I'm very interested in the respective investigations that will be conducted in the House and Senate, and whether we shall need additional legislation, which I would come to very reluctantly. But I must say the last 24 hours indicates that those with great power are not always concerned about the national interest.,Q. In your conversation with Mr. Blough yesterday, did you make a direct request that this price increase be either deferred or rescinded?,THE PRESIDENT. I was informed about the price increase after the announcement had gone out to the papers. I told Mr. Blough of my very keen disappointment and what I thought would be the most unfortunate effects of it. And of course we were hopeful that other companies who, as I've said, have a different situation in regard to profits and all of the rest than U.S. Steel, they're all--have a somewhat different economic situation.,I was hopeful particularly in view of the statement in the paper by the president of Bethlehem in which he stated--though now he says he's misquoted--that there should be no price increase, and we are investigating that statement. I was hopeful that the others would not follow the example, that therefore the pressures of the competitive marketplace would bring United States Steel back to their original prices. But the parade began. But it came to me after the decision was made. There was no prior consultation or information given to the administration.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, now that General Clay is coming home from Berlin, don't you think that the service wives have borne the brunt of our gold shortage long enough, and should be permitted to join their soldier husbands in Europe? After all, you can almost say that service couples have had to bear a cross of gold alone, and in a very lonely way. And spring is here and everyone knows that the GI's--[laughter]--get into much less trouble and do their jobs better if their wives and kids are with them.,THE PRESIDENT. I agree. And, we're very sympathetic. We are trying to make an analysis of how important this saving is to our general problem. As I've said, it costs us $3 billion to maintain our forces and bases overseas. That money must be earned by a surplus of exports over imports. And that's--I've asked Secretary McNamara to try to reduce that in the next 12 to 18 months by $1,100,000,000, in order to try to bring this gold flow into balance. And that means taking a third out of the Defense Department without reducing its strength. So that's why these women are bearing hardships--and these families. And that's why I contrasted such unhappiness to the last 24 hours, because the fact of the matter is, if we're not able to compete, this results in a larger increase of imports from foreign markets, and therefore lowers our dollar values-and those wives are going to have to stay home.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, when the Strategic Air Command had a false alarm for a few moments last fall, were you notified? And if not, do you think you should have been? And have you made arrangements to be, if there are any cases in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. That story, in my opinion, was overstated. There was a breach in the communications between the base at Thule and at--and our Continental Command. As you know, we were in a 15-minute alert. This lasted for a few seconds. General Power alerted those forces which were on a standby basis. There are constant drills. It was not that we were, as I saw in some papers--primarily those in Europe--a few seconds from war, because the fact of the matter is it would have taken many, many--several hours before they could have taken off and begun to fly, and we were always in control. So that I thought General Power took the right action before anything was done which would in any way have threatened the security of the United States. Of course, the communication would have come immediately. But there is always this problem of being on the alert.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, if I could get back to steel for a minute, you mentioned an investigation into the suddenness of the decision to increase prices. Did you--is the position of the administration that it believed it had the assurance of the steel industry at the time of the recent labor agreement that it would not increase prices?,THE PRESIDENT. We did not ask either side to give us any assurance, because there is a very proper limitation to the power of the Government in this free economy. All we did in our meetings was to emphasize how important it was that there be price stability, and we stressed that our whole purpose in attempting to persuade the union to begin to bargain early and to make an agreement which would not affect prices, of course, was for the purpose of maintaining price stability. That was the thread that ran through every discussion which I had or Secretary Goldberg had. We never at any time asked for a commitment in regard to the terms, precise terms, of the agreement from either Mr. McDonald or Mr. Blough, representing the steel company, because in our opinion that is--would be passing over the line of propriety. But I don't think that there was any question that our great interest in attempting to secure the kind of settlement that was finally secured was to maintain price stability, which we regard as very essential at this particular time. That agreement provided for price stability--up to yesterday.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, could you interpret for us the significance of General Clay's return? Does it mean that the administration now believes that the Berlin crisis is negotiable?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, no. When he came with us, as you know, he was the responsible officer in the Continental Can Company. And he said he would take a leave of absence to January. And then in January we asked him to stay further. But he has said for several months now that he really felt that his obligation was to return. We have--he's recommended very highly the responsible Americans who are there. When he comes back tomorrow I'm going to ask him, and I'm sure he will respond, to continue to act as consultant to me on the matter of Berlin; to make periodic visits and to be available to return there at any time that we should conclude that his presence would be valuable. So that we have--I notice Mayor Brandt said that General Clay might be more helpful to the cause here than he would be even there. And I think what the Mayor meant was that his experience there and his work in the last 7 months would be very valuable to the administration. So his service continues and the problem of Berlin continues.,[9.] Q. In your statement on the steel industry, sir, you mentioned a number of instances which would indicate that the cost of living will go up for many people if this price increase were to remain effective. In your opinion, does that give the steelworkers the right to try to obtain some kind of a price--or a wage increase to catch up?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Rather interestingly, the last contract was signed on Saturday with Great Lakes, so that the steel union is bound for a year, and of course, I'm sure would have felt like going much further if the matter had worked out as we had all hoped. But they've made their agreement and I'm sure they are going to stick with it. It does not provide for the sort of action you've suggested.,Q. Still on steel, Senator Gore advocated today legislation to regulate steel prices somewhat in the manner that public utility prices are regulated and his argument seemed to be that the steel industry had sacrificed some of the privileges of the free market because it wasn't really setting its prices on a supply and demand, but what he called administered prices. Your statement earlier, and your remarks since, indicate a general agreement with that kind of approach. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think that I'd stated that. I'd have to look and see what Senator Gore has suggested, and I'm not familiar with it. What I said was that we should examine what can be done to try to minimize the impact on the public interest of these decisions, but though we had, of course, always hoped that those involved would recognize that. I would say that what must disturb Senator Gore and Congressman Celler and others--Senator Kefauver--wilt be the suddenness by which every company in the last few hours, one by one as the morning went by, came in with their almost, if not identical, almost identical price increases, which isn't really the way we expect the competitive private enterprise system to always work.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, would you clarify, please, the United States position in the New Guinea dispute between the Netherlands and Indonesia? Recently there have been reports of displeasure from the Netherlands that proposals put forward by the United States were not fair to the Netherlands.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I agree, I think everybody is displeased, really, with our role, because our role is an attempt--Ambassador Bunker's role has been, under the direction of U Thant, to try to see if we can bring some adjustment to prevent a military action which would be harmful to the interests of both countries, with which we desire to be friendly. So I suppose it's hard to think of any proposal that we could make which would be welcome on both sides.,I'm hopeful that if we can be useful, we'll continue to try to be. If both sides feel that we cannot be, then perhaps others can take on this assignment, or perhaps it can be done bilaterally. But I--Ambassador Bunker is a diplomat of long experience and great skill, and our only interest is to see if we can have a peaceful solution which we think is in the long-range interest of the free world, of our allies--with whom we're allied--the Dutch and the Indonesians, whom we would like to see stay free. So that the role of the mediator is not a happy one, and we're prepared to have everybody mad, if it makes some progress.,[11] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the steel situation again, is there not action that could be taken by the executive branch in connection with direct procurement of steel under the administration of the Agency for International Aid--I mean the aid agency. For example I think the Government buys about a million tons of steel. Now, could not the Government decide that only steel--that steel should be purchased only at the price, say, of yesterday, rather than today?,THE PRESIDENT. That matter was considered, as a matter of fact, in a conversation between the Secretary of Defense and myself last evening. But at that time we were not aware that nearly the entire industry was about to come in, and therefore the amount of choice we have is somewhat limited.,Q. Sir, too, on this thing, in the case of identical bids which the Government is sometimes confronted with, they decide to choose the smaller business unit rather than the larger.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm hopeful that there will be those who will not participate in this parade and will meet the principle of the private enterprise competitive system in which every one tries to sell at the lowest price commensurate with their interests. And I'm hopeful that there will be some who will decide that they shouldn't go in the wake of U.S. Steel. But we have to wait and see on that, because they're coming in very fast.,Q. Mr. President, 2 years ago, after the settlement, I believe steel prices were not raised.,THE PRESIDENT. That is right.,Q. Do you think there was an element of political discrimination in the behavior of the industry this year?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not--and if there was, it doesn't really--if it was--if that was the purpose, that is comparatively unimportant to the damage that--the country is the one that suffers. If they do it in order to spite me, it really isn't so important.,Q. Mr. President, to carry a previous question just one step further, as a result of the emphasis that you placed on holding the price line, did any word or impression come to you from the negotiations that there would be no price increase under the type of agreement that was signed?,THE PRESIDENT. I will say that in our conversations that we asked no commitments in regard to the details of the agreement or in regard to any policies which the union or the company--our central thrust was that price stability was necessary and that the way to do it was to have a responsible agreement, which we got.,Now, at no time did anyone suggest that if such an agreement was gained that it would be still necessary to put up prices. That word did not come until last night.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a price increase in Cuba as well. Mr. Castro has increased the price that he's put on human life in the release or tentative release of the prisoners captured in the abortive invasion attempt last year. Would you comment on this, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that all of us had hoped that the day when men were put on the block had long ago passed from this hemisphere. And it had from every country, until very recently in Cuba. I think Mr. Castro knows that the United States Government cannot engage in a negotiation like that, and he knows very well that the families cannot raise these millions of dollars. It's rather interesting, so what he has done really in effect is sentence them to 30 years in prison. It's rather interesting that Castro himself, when he engaged in an operation under a dictator whom we've been harshly critical of--that he was let out of prison after an open trial in 15 months. He regards for his own countrymen--not the countrymen who from his point of view may have been wrong, but who fought in the open, and who took their chances, and were young men--he regards the appropriate treatment for them and for thousands of other Cubans to be this long prison sentence of 30 years which, in my opinion, is why Mr. Castro is increasingly isolated in the company of free men.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the steel industry is one of a half dozen which has been expecting tax benefits this summer through revision of the depreciation schedules. Does this price hike affect the administration's actions in this area?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it affects our budget. Secretary Dillon and I discussed it this morning. Of course, all this matter is being very carefully looked into now.,[14.] Q. The Presidents of Mexico and of Brazil announced a principle of adherence to nonintervention between the Communist and the capitalist blocs. Does this accord with what President Goulart told you when he was here in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I haven't seen the joint statement, but I'm sure it does. I think we are bound together through the Organization of American States, and it's difficult to comment on a joint statement that I've not read, but I think President Goulart says the same in Mexico as he does in Washington.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, General Lemnitzer has recently conferred our Legion of Merit on a Japanese officer who apparently planned the Pearl Harbor attack. Can you think of any particular reason for this award?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The reason given was that he had been a distinguished officer of the Japanese Air force; that his relations with the United States had been extremely cooperative. He was acting as a military officer. And I--I think that this kind of-the days of the war are over, and I thought that it was appropriate. He's a distinguished flyer, and while we all regret Pearl Harbor and everything else--but we are in a new era in our relations with Japan, fortunately.,[16.] Q. Sir, what are you going to do about the American soldiers getting killed in Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm extremely concerned about American soldiers who are in a great many areas in hazard. We are attempting to help Viet-Nam maintain its independence and not fall under the domination of the Communists. The Government has stated that it needs our assistance in doing it. It's very--and it presents a very hazardous operation, in the same sense that World War II, World War I, Korea--a good many thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans died. So that these four sergeants are in that long roll. But we cannot desist in Viet-Nam. And I think that it is the fact that these men, operating very far from home, very far indeed from Saigon, under great danger--and there are many others--the fact of their contributions, as well as the Wisconsin and Texas National Guard, it is in that setting that I look at the present actions.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-03-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] It is with extreme regret that I announce the retirement of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Charles Evans Whittaker, effective April 1. Justice Whittaker, a member of the Supreme Court for nearly 5 years, of the Federal Judiciary for nearly 8 years, is retiring at the direction of his physician for reasons of disability. I know that the bench and the bar of the entire Nation join me in commending Mr. Justice Whittaker for his devoted service to his country during a critical period in its history.,[2.] Next, I want to take this opportunity to stress again the importance of the tax bill now before the House of Representatives. An attempt is being made in that House to defeat this bill by sending it back to committee, and if it is killed we will have lost a most valuable opportunity to find jobs for the college and high school graduates who will be seeking those jobs in June of this year. We will lose our best hope of modernizing our machinery and our equipment, and giving our industry an inducement to step up their investment so that they can compete on more equal terms with foreign investors and producers.,We will be abandoning an effort to dose all foreign tax havens that drain our jobs and dollars away from our shores. And we will be permitting $630 million a year in taxes due from stockholders and bondholders to go uncollected, even though these taxes are on the books. Even though one third of these people are paying their taxes in good faith, yet because of the difficulty of collecting them, nearly $630 million due to the Treasury does not come in each year, which means that those wage earners, the small businessmen, and others who have their taxes withheld from their salaries and their paychecks must pay more.,We need this bill, finally, to help close off our loss of gold and our balance of payments. To make that less, we must modernize our equipment and our businesses so that they can compete, and we must dose the loopholes which permit and encourage industry to invest overseas. I hope that every member of the House of Representatives who believes in spreading the tax burden fairly, who wants to improve our balance of payments position, who wants this country to grow in new equipment and new jobs, will support this bill as the best means of achieving these goals today. And I find great difficulty in understanding the position of any political party which makes it a matter of party objective to defeat this bill at this most important time.,[3.] Third, I have a statement which Mr. Hatcher will have for you on the problems of nuclear test inspection.,Let me just say in summary that after hearing Mr. Rusk's report of the work that's been done in Geneva, of his excellent work, I am convinced that the problem of inspection has now emerged clearly as the central obstacle to an effective test ban treaty. We cannot accept any agreement that does not provide for an effective international process that will tell the world whether the treaty is being observed. The Soviet Government so far flatly rejects any such inspection of any shape or kind. This is the issue that has been made clear in Geneva. We remain earnestly determined to work for an effective treaty, and we remain ready to conclude such a treaty at the earliest possible time.,Q. Mr. President, is the situation such in regard to nuclear testing that there is no longer any doubt, that there are no further reservations that we will resume testing at the end of this month?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are going to continue to work. The position remains the same as it did in our speech of March 2. We desire an effective treaty but, as I have stated, what is preventing the passage of an effective treaty or its acceptance is the refusal to permit any inspection on the territory of the Soviet Union.,While it's possible for us to pick up by seismic means an explosion underground, we cannot make a distinction by seismic means between an earthquake, of which there may be three or four hundred a year, from the Soviet Union and a nuclear explosion, without an actual inspection. And that is the issue upon which the conference is now divided and we are going to continue to work to see if we can get a treaty which will permit inspection.,[4-] Q. Mr. President, what's your reaction to the apparent general agreement between both parties on a steel contract?,THE PRESIDENT. The steel contract, of course, has not been agreed to. It's necessary on Saturday for the executive committee, which has been called together by President McDonald, to meet to consider any agreement and that meeting must be followed by the wage policy committee of the Steelworkers Union, which is composed of representatives, I think 230 of them, of the rank and file. They must consider the matter, too.,At the end of those considerations, and after these bodies have made their judgments, we can make a determination whether an agreement will be reached.,Let me say that both the union and the company have worked long and hard. I have been most impressed by their willingness to consider this contract ahead of time, by their desire to meet their responsibilities to the country here and abroad, and I commend them both, and I am hopeful that in the next few days we will have an agreement. But the agreement must depend upon the approval of the responsible parties in the company and in the union.,[5.] Q. Would you give us your assessment, sir, of the recent events in Argentina and their possible impact upon the Alliance for Progress?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the events there are still uncertain enough, and the reports are still not clear enough and I think therefore, it would be unwise, lacking the kind of precise information, for us to make comments at this time on events in another country.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, have you accepted the rules on carpet-bagging that were laid down last week for California?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I thought that the thing just sort of worked out--I thought it was handled very satisfactorily from my point of view on each side.1 [Laughter],1 As reported in the New York Times, Richard M. Nixon, a candidate for Governor of California, was asked how he liked having the President and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in the State. Mr. Nixon is said to have referred to the President and his brother as carpetbaggers. The White House Press Secretary replied at a news conference in Palm Springs: \"I don't know anybody in the United States, no matter in what State he resides, who considers the President of the United States a carpetbagger, wherever he is.\",Q. Mr. President, you once told us you had an opinion as to whether Mr. Nixon should enter the race for the California governorship, but you never did tell us what that was. Could you tell us about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think I said at the time I'd be glad to confide it to him and he has not as yet spoken to me about it. I'll be glad to go back to California and talk to him about it. [Laughter],Q. Mr. President, Mr. Nixon in his book has indicated that he feels he won three of the four debates. In view of this, do you think that future debates are advisable?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that they would be--they'd be part of the '64 campaign. I've already indicated I'll be glad to debate, even if I did, as the Vice President suggested, lose three out of the four. [Laughter],[7-] Q. Mr. President, one of the several mysteries about Soviet foreign policy seems to be the fact that despite 3 1/2 years of threats since November 1958, Mr. Khrushchev has not actually forced a complete showdown on Berlin. In the light of what information Mr. Rusk has brought to you, have you any inkling as to why he has followed this line of what might be called casual urgency, and do you feel that there is any hope involved in it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't--I would not want an impression to be created that we in any way underestimate the urgency and the immediacy of the problem. This is a matter of vital concern to both countries. I think that both sides must realize that any effort to push this thing beyond a certain point could result in a great damage to the vital interests of both countries and would lead to all sorts of hazards. So I think that we continue to talk because we are anxious to see if it's possible to prevent a situation arising where excessive action might be taken by either side to advance its own interest which could lead to a response which, as I say, has a good deal of potential danger in it.,So in answer to your question, Mr. Morgan, I would say the situation is a very difficult one. I think that it is a matter of importance to both sides, and, therefore, I think both sides have proceeded with a good deal of care, because they realize it is so important and therefore could bring about, we hope, a very happy solution, though none has been forthcoming, but could, if miscalculations were made or mistakes made by anyone, could bring about a very unhappy one. So that we proceed with care and we welcome the care with which others may proceed.,[8.] Q. There appears to be a situation of deadlock in Laos, Mr. President, with the Royal Laos Government not going ahead in the formation of a government of national union. Do you anticipate any review or reevaluation of our policy towards the Royal coalition government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we believe strongly as the best way of protecting interests of Laos and the interests of Southeast Asia, that we should have a neutral and independent Laos under a government led by Souvanna Phouma. That's our policy and I think that opposition to that policy is somewhat unwise. The alternatives are not very bright. And if the cease-fire should end, I think it would present the people of Laos with a good deal of danger. I think we should reach a solution based on the government, the coalition government, under Souvanna Phouma, and I hope that the Royal Laotian Government will support that position. I think it represents, it seems to me, great hazards to them not to.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, did the Secretary of State tell you anything regarding his talks with Mr. Gromyko in Geneva that would indicate that the climate for a possible summit this year might be better than it has been in recent weeks?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think I've explained my position on the summit. I don't think I can add to it. The matter of a summit has not been discussed by the Secretary since he's been back, with me.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us any more about your talk with General Eisenhower last Saturday?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we had a very useful talk, and I think, as Mr. Salinger said, we discussed some of the problems the United States faces around the world and also I attempted to tell him more or less what our status was in each of those particular crisis areas.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be some growing differences between Fidel Castro and leaders of the Communist Party in Cuba. Could you comment on this and what it may portend for American foreign policy toward Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think the situation is unclear there, and while it is true that revolutions frequently devour their children, it's still not clear enough for us to make any judgment as to the power struggle that may be going on there.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, would you comment on the Supreme Court reapportionment decision, and say whether there is anything the Federal Government could do to support it?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, as you know, when the matter was before the Supreme Court the administration made clear its endorsement of the principles implicit in the Court decision, as a friend of the Court, and I don't think it's probably appropriate to comment on the merits of a specific case in litigation, but I think our position on the general principle was quite clear. Quite obviously, the right to fair representation and to have each vote count equally is, it seems to me, basic to the successful operation of a democracy.,I would hope that through the normal political processes, these changes to insure equality of voting, equality of representation, would be brought about by the responsible groups involved, in the States, and in the National Government.,Now, in the case that was involved here, for many years it was impossible for the people involved to secure adequate relief through the normal political processes. The inequity was built in and therefore there was no chance for a political response to the inequity. The position of the Government, the Federal Government, the administration, as I say, was made clear by Solicitor Cox. And I would hope now the Court having taken a position, I would hope that those responsible in the various States--and this is a matter not confined merely to Tennessee, but it is true of Massachusetts and other States--I would hope that because of the change in population areas that every State would reexamine this problem and attempt to insure equality of voting rights. There's no sense of a Senator's representing 5,000,000 people sitting next to a Senator representing 10,000 people, and then when no relief comes, to say the Court is taking action where it should not. It's the responsibility of the political groups to respond to the need, but if no relief is forthcoming, then of course it would seem to the administration that the judicial branch must meet a responsibility.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, what about a successor to Justice Whittaker? This will be the first opportunity, the first occasion you have had to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Do you have any general thoughts on the process you would follow in selecting one, and is Secretary Ribicoff one of those whom you would consider?,THE PRESIDENT. We will have--what I am announcing today is the resignation of Justice Whittaker. I think it would be appropriate to announce his successor on another occasion, and his successor will be announced shortly.,Q. In that connection, will there be any general principle you would follow? Would you consult the Bar Association, or how would you go about the process of selecting a successor?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that we could--when the time comes that we make the selection, I think it would be appropriate to respond in any way that anyone would like to ask me the reason for the selection.,[14.] Q. Could you comment on the visit here of the President of Brazil next week?,THE PRESIDENT. We welcome him. Brazil is a vital country in Latin America, the largest, and we are therefore extremely anxious to have the President visit us.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, a two-part question on steel: Although the contract is not yet buttoned up, in view of what you now know about the proposed agreement, do you see any justification for an increase in the steel industry's prices this year? The second part: If the steel industry gets the multimillion dollar tax saving envisioned in the investment press, and also the faster write-offs that Mr. Dillon plans to grant this spring, should the steel producers reduce their prices?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that on the question of the steel, until the contract is signed I think it would not be appropriate to make any comment in response to your question or in response in detail to the potential agreement, itself. I think that the company and the union have carried on their negotiations. I think we should permit that process to be completed before we make any statement. And that won't be done, if it is done, until this weekend.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, in view of economic conditions and in view of the message that you sent to Congress last--or the request that you sent to Congress last Monday, for a public works bill appropriation of $600 million, two things about the budget: one, do you expect that it will balance next year, and two, do you feel that it should balance next year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we can make a better judgment on the budget prospects after we have gone through, really, I would think, not only the March figures but also the April buying, and it's been our hope that the budget would balance. If business recovers in the way that we have hoped it would, the budget would be in balance. In regard to the proposal we sent up, what we are concerned about is that even though unemployment has dropped and even though there is a recovery, an increase of, I think, nearly $45 billion in the Gross National Product since last year at this time, an increase in wages for our manufacturing workers of nearly 6 percent in the last 12 months, an average of almost $4.80 a week, even though consumer resources are almost $20 billion higher than they were a year ago, all these things give us hope that this recovery will be sustained. And we can get a better--and if that is sustained then the budget will be in balance. The problem, of course, is that even in a period of recovery there are these islands of unemployment which have been left behind for many years as a result of successive recessions and technological changes. And these people, with some of them the unemployment may average 10, 13, 15 percent in places like sections of northern Minnesota, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southern Illinois, and so on, I think we ought to help these people. In addition, this would benefit construction workers, and their rate of unemployment is twice that of manufacturing, so I'm hopeful Congress will pass this bill.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, this morning Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek is reported to have said that an invasion of the mainland may come at any time. Under our treaty arrangements with the Republic of Formosa, consultation is required with this Government. Could you tell us whether in fact there have been such consultations under that treaty, and what the view of this administration is toward this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not seen the General's statement. There has not been consultation under the treaty of the kind envisioned in the treaty.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, could you elaborate on the idea attributed to you in a magazine article that there may be circumstances under which we would have to take the initiative in a nuclear war?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think Mr. Salinger's statement made it very clear that this was intended to be merely a restatement of a traditional position where if a vital area-and I think the area that Mr. Salinger used was West Europe--were being overrun by conventional forces, that the United States would take means, available means, to defend Western Europe. It was not intended to suggest, as Mr. Salinger said, that this meant that the United States would take aggressive action on its own part, or would launch an attack, a so-called preventive attack on its part. That's not our policy nor the policy of previous administrations. The article read in context makes it clear that we're talking about if there was an attack of overwhelming proportions by conventional forces in an area such as Europe, we would meet our treaty commitments.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, your brother, Ted, recently on television said that after seeing the cares of office on you, that he wasn't sure he'd ever be interested in being the President. I wonder if you could tell us whether if you had it to do over again, you would work for the presidency and whether you can recommend the job to others.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the answer is--to the first is \"yes\" and the second is \"no.\" I don't recommend it to others--[laughter]at least for a while.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary freeman tomorrow is going to reduce support prices for dairy farmers. This is the same thing that Ezra Benson did 8 years ago, to correct a surplus situation. Now, does this mean that the administration's farm 'program is the same as the Republican's when the going gets rough?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it isn't at all. As you know, the administration requested agreement by the Congress to permit us to maintain support prices at the present levels till next December, in the hope that in the meanwhile it would be possible for us to work out general legislation which would assist the dairy industry to meet the present problem of overproduction and under consumption. The agricultural committees of the House and Senate, with the Republican members unanimously voting and joined by some Democrats, voted against giving us this permission.,The law compels the Secretary of Agriculture, therefore, unless agriculture is in short supply--dairy products or milk is in short supply, to reduce the support price, so that he is compelled by statute to take this action.,Now, we have as you know a great surplus of butter and of milk and this has been a matter of concern for some months. I think it would have been far more satisfactory, however, in fairness to the dairy farmers who will be adversely affected, if we had been given consent to carry on our present support price to December. And I think in the meanwhile we could have taken actions, legislative and administrative, which would have given them some relief from the present burden which will be thrust upon them.,I wish the agricultural committee had not taken the position it did, and I wish they would reconsider it.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, could you restate our policy on the Chiang Kai-shek situation? Is it merely to support the Nationalist Chinese on Taiwan, or would we help them in an effort to recapture the Communist mainland?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that--I'm not aware of the statement that's been made. We have not been consulted about, as I stated, in the way that the agreement would call for, and therefore, I would think that there'd be no use in explorations of potential situations. Quite obviously, there's the desire that--of the people of Formosa--that they be returned, but we have to consider all the responsibilities and problems which all of us bear. And I've not heard that any new proposal is now under consideration.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, again on the court decision. It's been suggested that it might be well for the President of the United States to provide some special leadership and direction as a follow-up to the apportionment decision. How does that strike you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's incumbent upon all of those of us who hold office in the States and in the National Government to take every action that we can to have this matter settled by the responsible political groups. And in my earlier statement, I urged these States and State legislatures to carefully reconsider this problem. As I say, those who object to the court taking the action they are taking, it seems to me, are not on very solid ground when they also do not support actions in the States to bring redress. So that I think all of us, in the States, the National Government, the Congress, ought to consider the matter very carefully.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, supporters of your trade expansion bill feel that you have misjudged the implications of your decision to raise the carpet and glass tariffs. Do you acknowledge the danger of Common Market retaliation, and renewed efforts by every protectionist industry and union to demand further restrictions on imports?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't see the logic of that. I've stated in our first bill, in the bill that we sent up, and I stated at the time, that we would attempt to provide protection to those companies which might be adversely affected. In the new legislation, it gives us a number of means by which that protection can be effectively granted. In this case, there have been seven cases by the Tariff Commission which have come to my desk as President. In the case of three of them, I believe, they were by split decision, four of them were unanimous, two were accepted by me, and two were rejected. Now, in this case there has been unemployment and loss of jobs which have assumed serious proportions in the carpet industry and in the glass industry. I recognize that this places a burden on foreign producers. But in the cases which we're now talking about, our unemployment is substantially greater than theirs, their balance of payments situation is substantially better than ours--in the case of Belgium, they've been adding gold rather than losing it, their unemployment rate is half of ours. We have therefore, with reluctance, determined that the situation in these two industries is sufficiently serious so that they must be given some protection of the kind which is provided under present law.,Now, I know that this will be a disappointment to those involved abroad, but we have very serious problems in the United States. We are losing gold, we have high unemployment in some industries, and therefore I considered that on balance this protection should be granted.,Now that doesn't, in my opinion, mean that we shouldn't have effective trade legislation. The purpose of the trade legislation is going to be stimulating employment on both sides. But there are areas where, which I hope under the new bill, we'll be able to give protection to the workers through the various provisions which are suggested, which are far broader and far more effective than the ones under the present law.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, there are now a number of Midas and Samos spy satellites circling the earth. Do you think the perfection of these satellites will eventually give the United States the type of surveillance over the U.S.S.R. which will make inspection effective?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't envision that situation.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, as a general proposition, what do you think of the denial of the will of the majority as expressed in the free election, even though this majority may want to promote a non-democratic form of government?,THE PRESIDENT. IS this a--have special application to a situation?,Q. As a general proposition?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that-I would have to--I have stated, in answer to your question, in a general way in--I think in my interview with Mr. Adzhubei 1 where I commented on what the position of the United States is in regard to free elections and the choice of the people. And providing the free choice continues, of course, they must make their judgment. But I'd prefer to keep it--I'll be glad to talk to you about it sometime as an academic question.,1 See 1961 volume, this series, Item 483.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, on nuclear testing, last winter from Palm Beach there was a comment that underground testing didn't particularly advance the art of weapons. Why, then, is it necessary--this may be a naive question--but why is it necessary, then, to insist on inspections which will detect every last underground test?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think our inspection system says that. I think there should be, however, a potential. And I'm not sure that we can--the view which was--which you state that I had--I think the underground tests potentially could be more rewarding than they may have been in the past, number one. We don't say they should investigate every test. There is a--I think we could-we have said we would settle for a limited number of inspections, but I don't think that we could. As we are an open society, obviously we could not test; they could test. And unless we have at least the right to, on occasions, examine whether tests are being carried out, I would think that we were not being responsive to the security of the United States. They could carry on their underground tests, then carry them, and suddenly begin as they did their atmospheric tests, in breach of the treaty, in breach, certainly, of the understanding of the moratorium last summer. So that I think we have to have some inspection.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, there are a number of bills before Congress urging Federal aid for construction of new State hospitals for the treatment of narcotic addicts. Would you indicate your attitude toward such legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. There is legislation which has been--,Q. It proposes--,THE PRESIDENT. --building the hospital in New York?,Q.- building of new State hospitals for treatment of narcotics addicts.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, I would certainly support a sufficient number of hospital beds to provide effective treatment for addicts. And if our hospitals in Texas and Kentucky, our two hospitals are not sufficient, I will certainly support others. And I know that there's been a good deal of interest in the hospital in New York, which is now being examined.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-03-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have one announcement. I've received this morning Chairman Khrushchev's reply to my letter of March 7 on outer space cooperation.1 I am gratified that this reply indicates that there are a number of areas of common interest. The next step clearly is for the United States representative on the U.N. Outer Space Committee, Ambassador Francis Plimpton, to meet in New York with the Soviet representative to make arrangements for an early discussion of the specific ideas of the Soviet Union and the United States. I have designated Dr. Hugh Dryden, Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to take the lead for the United States at this time in subsequent technical talks with Soviet representatives.,1 See item 96.,The United States is deeply committed to making all possible efforts to carry forward the exploration and use of space in a spirit of cooperation and for the benefit of all mankind. I am hopeful that there will be in this area prospects for practical cooperation.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, in Geneva in the talks that are going on now, the Russians have expressed the feeling that any onsite inspection in connection with an atomic test ban treaty would be an invitation to espionage and even be insulting. The British, on the other hand, have spoken in the last 24 hours of settling for an absolute minimum of verification.,I wonder what you consider an acceptable minimum of verification. In other words, would the United States accept any sort of inspection system that did not embrace the right of international inspection teams to be on Soviet soil as well as U.S. soil?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's much better to permit the Secretary of State, Arthur Dean, and Mr. Foster, who are carrying the lead for the United States, to conduct the negotiations. We have--it's possible to pick up a number of disturbances from observation posts outside the Soviet Union. But, of course, the great difficulty is that you cannot distinguish by seismic means alone, at this range, between an earthquake and a possible nuclear explosion. And it is for that reason that we have felt that there must be onsite inspection and the ability to make that determination if a suspicious event should occur. It does seem to be a very basic difference between the Soviet Union and the United States because they have suggested that they would not be prepared, even if the devices were located off the territory of the Soviet Union, they would not be prepared to permit an inspection team to come on to make the precise determination as to the location and kind of disturbance which had taken place. So there is a disagreement between the Soviet Union and ourselves. I think that on the details of the discussion in the negotiations, we have sent very able men to represent us and I think they will represent the interests of the United States in this matter.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Jackson says that this administration and the last have been putting too much stock in the United Nations and that a strong Atlantic Community offers the best avenue to peace. What is your view on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I see nothing contradictory in a strong Atlantic Community and the United Nations. Nor is there anything contradictory in a strong Organization of American States and the United Nations. In fact, the United Nations, when it was written in 1945, gave room for these regional organizations, of which there are a great many and of which the United States is a member. I support the United Nations very strongly and I think the American people do, not because its power is unlimited and not because we commit our policy to the United Nations so much as' because we believe that it serves the interests of the United States and the interests of the United States are in an association of free people working together to maintain the peace.,Now, I would be very unhappy if the United Nations were weakened or eliminated. You would have a great increase in the chances of a direct concentration in some place like the Congo between the great powers. It might involve the United States directly and perhaps the Soviet Union on the other side. The United Nations serves as a means of channeling these matters, on which we disagree so basically, in a peaceful way. But that doesn't suggest that we have to choose between the Atlantic Community and the United Nations. We believe in the Atlantic Community; we are committed to strengthening it. We are attempting, for example, to do that in a number of ways-and in fact, our association is constantly growing more intimate. And we also support the United Nations. Senator Jackson is a very valuable Senator who's done very effective work and anything he says deserves a good deal of attention. I do want to point out that on this matter, certainly, there's no disagreement between us.,[4.] Q. There have been reports from Geneva, sir, that for all practical purposes the discussions there are deadlocked, not only in the field of disarmament but on such other topics as discussions with the Soviets concerning Berlin. Do you subscribe to that, sir, or do you think there is additional hope for further talks?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I think the talks should go on. The conference has only been in session for--I'm not prepared to abandon it in any degree, and I think it would be a mistake for us to feel that its prospects are finished.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your remarks about the United Nations, we have recently read criticism of the U.N. bond issue proposal and about the bill that has come out of the Senate foreign Relations Committee. Would you comment on these matters, too, please?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there has been an alternate suggestion put forward for meeting the financial crisis of the United Nations. I think most people are aware that the United Nations faces a very serious financial crisis--that unless it receives assistance by one means or another, that the operation in the Congo, upon which so much depends, will end and we will have a very difficult and 'perhaps chaotic situation which will, I think, be far more costly to us in the long run and far more hazardous. So we have to come to the assistance.,The second problem, of course, is that we have been meeting our assessments and we've been paying over 50 percent of the special assessments which were developed as a result of the Congo operation and as a result of the operation in the Middle East to keep the peace. Now, it seemed to us, and to the General Assembly--and I think this is an important point--it may be possible to suggest other plans but this is the one that the General Assembly has adopted.,The General Assembly puts forward this proposal which will make it compulsory in the future, and this will be ,particularly true when the World Court renders its opinion, and our judgment is they'll render an opinion that these special operations must be paid as regular assessments, otherwise the country involved will lose its voting power.,Now, this is the plan the United Nations has adopted and we have committed ourselves and we hope the Congress will support this effort. We said we would buy $100 million worth of bonds. The foreign Relations Committee stated we would buy $25 million worth of bonds and up to $100 million if the other countries met their quota.,Now, so far over $50 million has been pledged by other countries. Senator Aiken and Senator Hickenlooper--Senator Hickenlooper was a member, I think, of a delegation to the U.N., Senator Aiken has been a long time supporter. This is not a hostility to the U.N. on their part. They feel that this plan is preferable. But in my judgment it would mean that the United Nations would be faced with attempting to pay back $100 million in 3 years. I don't think that there is any evidence that they can do it. It would have to be submitted to the General Assembly to be voted upon after they voted upon a different plan. The smaller nations definitely could not contribute to it, and in my judgment it would be back in our lap at the end of 3 years.,Now, the General Assembly has moved. We are moving on a plan which I think offers a hope of success. As I say, already a number of countries have met their responsibility. We hope they'll go higher to the $100 million. I think we ought to go ahead and I'm hopeful the Senate and the House will, because in my judgment failure to go ahead in this ground is going to mean a collapse of this special effort, and then what's going to happen in the Congo and the Middle East? I think it would be a great mistake, and I'm hopeful that the Senate will consider it very carefully.,In my judgment, every survey shows that 80 to 85 percent of the American people realize the importance of the United Nations. And this is vital to the life of the United Nations, this issue.,Q. Mr. President, on the bond issue again, when you sent your message up to Congress you said that the proceeds of the bond issue would be used to liquidate the debts of the United Nations for the Congo and Middle East operations. And a few days later when Mr. Rusk went up, he said that the proceeds would be used to pay for these two operations for 18 months beginning next July 1st. The Senate foreign Relations Committee was not able to get this straightened out in testimony. I wonder if you could state what the--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't--I think-I'm not familiar with--I'm not aware that there is a disagreement between the statement that I made and Mr. Rusk made. I'd have to check his testimony and my statement to see if there was a disagreement. But there is a debt, and there will be need for funds. And therefore it seems to me that in a sense both positions are in accordance with the--both Mr. Rusk's statement and my statement are not exclusive. We're going--this goes to meet the debts, and to maintain these special operations for the next 18 months.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be some continuing difference of opinion between yourself and Mr. Nixon, and I wondered if, in view of yesterday's statement, you feel that the CIA should have briefed you about the Cuban operation during the 1960 campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought that yesterday's statements by the White House and by Mr. Dulles were very clear, and I think that closes the matter as far as I'm concerned.,[7'] Q. Sir, about this agreement that the U.N. Committee is now working on to get peaceful uses for outer space for the United States and other nations--it has been mentioned several times that this agreement would be patterned after the Antarctic Agreement, and, if so, would this not mean that we would give up any future scientific or territorial gains and would have to submit to inspection by foreign nations? And how would you separate your peaceful uses from your military uses, because wouldn't all of these scientific gains go together?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's hard to--I would say that this is a--I had not heard this comparison. I'm not sure that there is a precise comparison between the Antarctic and outer space. I do think that this is a matter that will be negotiated. I think that the interests of our country will be protected in that negotiation. I can assure you, in fact, they will be. But we are anxious to assure, if possible, that outer space is used peacefully in order to protect the interests of the United States. So I think we should go into the negotiations and see if it's possible for us to cooperate, because there's not much security, as space continues to be more and more under the hazard of being used for military purposes.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the critics of your medical care plan have charged that this will be the opening wedge for socialized medicine in this country. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is an old argument, when a case is lost, to argue that it is all right here, but what is it going to mean for the future. Under that argument, there would not have been any progress on any social legislation in this country. That was the argument that was used against the Social Security Act in the thirties. It was the argument used against the minimum wage, it is the argument used against any agricultural program. It is the oldest argument in the world. The fact of the matter is, this is a useful program, it is developed for a special purpose, and, in my judgment, it's going to be adopted. I believe it has a good chance this year, if not, in the future, and it's in the economic as well as the social interests of the people of our country. But to say, \"I am against it because in a future date somebody else may do something\" doesn't seem to me to be a rational argument, and it was the kind of argument which was successfully defeated on many occasions during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.,[9-] Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to the news that the 1200 prisoners from the Bay of Pigs are going to be tried as war criminals in Cuba? Specifically, do you feel there's anything this Government can do for them?,THE PRESIDENT. We would--have been attempting--as you know, the Red Cross has been attempting to secure an entrance into Cuba to see about the feeding of the prisoners. Of course, it is a matter of great national as well as personal distress.,[10.] Q. Many people not farm experts are perplexed by the continuing food paradox--a million starving even outside Communist countries, while we're up to our necks in surplus. And they wonder why we can't go far beyond extending Public Law 480, church distribution, and so forth, and really make tremendous amounts of surpluses that we can't seem to get rid of available to the hungry. Would you discuss economic or other factors preventing this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are putting a good many hundreds of millions--in fact, billions--into this program. I think the-there isn't any doubt that we could produce more food. We could produce, really, more of almost everything in the United States. There is a limit to what the United States is able to maintain. We spend, as you know, billions of dollars each year on our agricultural program. It isn't as if this--the limitation, in answer to your question, is really a financial one. How much can the United States afford to put into its agricultural program? We're putting in $6 billion; we're giving away, as I say, hundreds of millions, indeed some billions of dollars worth of food, in an unprecedented effort. I agree we should always try to do more. But in answer to your question, the reason is only the limitation of available funds. This food has to be bought, and it has to be appropriated for, and it has to come out of the taxpayers of the United States. We do an awful lot, not only on this program of food but also on foreign aid. In fact--and have done it for a great many years. And I think we should. But I think that--I would certainly contrast the record of the United States in this regard to other countries, even those with a surplus of agricultural abundance, and what we've been able to do through private agencies and through the Federal Government.,[ 11. ] Q. Sir, a clarification on your comments on the bond issue. Do you find the Senate foreign Relations Committee plan an acceptable one?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do. I do.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the Attorney General has suggested that the price of stock in the proposed communications satellite corporation be reduced from $1,000 to $100. Has any thought been given to reducing this price to $1 so all the taxpayers could get in on the ground floor?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the--of course the limitation is that there may be quite a long period of time before there is any return on this investment. We attempted in the program we set up to balance off the need for large investments by--which only a few companies can make, and also to permit it to have a broader distribution than just a few large companies. We're attempting to make an adjustment. As you know, a good many companies are unwilling to invest in the satellite, because it would require a good many years before they would get a return. And I don't know--I would have to examine whether it's in the public interest to lower the price. I don't think that the return would be, to the American people, in dollars and cents, except as part perhaps of a participation in a great new effort. I'm not sure the dollar and cents return would be comparable to what they might be able to get in other areas, at least for a great many years.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, the Soviet Union has recognized an Algerian Government before it has formally taken place. Would you say what you think about this, and what the United States might possibly do towards recognition and at what time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you correctly say, there is a cease-fire now in effect in Algeria. A government has not been established. There is still--in the field of foreign policy France still bears responsibility. A government will be developed and at that time the United States will take the proper action. I think that this matter, as I've said from the beginning, is a very sensitive and difficult matter that's been handled with great skill by President de Gaulle. It's been handled by those on the Algerian side with a desire to--not to destroy but rather to build, and I think the United States should take a similar attitude rather than attempting for political purposes to exploit a situation. I think we should wait until the proper moment and the proper moment finally will come.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports from Guantanamo Bay of a buildup in Cuban military strength in the fortifications outside the American naval base there. Do you consider this a threat to the base, and do you have any plans for increasing the base's defenses?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're always concerned about the defense of American territory wherever it may be and would take whatever proper steps were necessary. We have no information that there's a, if that is your suggestion, that some attack on Guantanamo is about to take place. We see no evidence of that.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Porter Hardy's subcommittee has been having some troubles getting hold of some records from the State Department, and they have contended that lawyers at the State Department are barring them from these records which deal with the foreign aid in Cambodia, which was used in a Russian-sponsored hospital. Now I realize this took place before your administration took power, but there is the contention by the committee that the State Department at the present time is withholding the records. I wonder if they have consulted you on this, and if you have given the State Department any instructions?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm generally familiar. My understanding is that they have turned over the cables to the committee, but they have not--they have agreed, I think, and this may be subject to change afterwards, my understanding is that they have agreed to turn over the names that might be involved in an executive session. But we cannot run the executive branch of the Government if every foreign Service officer, or everyone else who is acting in good faith-and if there's evidence that it is not in good faith, then we ought to bring that right out and he ought to be, he ought to have some action taken. But if he's acting 'in good faith, then how can we expect honest reporting from them? Or how can we expect that they're going to--if they feel that this might be, 6 months or a year from now, be used against them in some hearing, about which they can only presume?,The responsibility is on us to carry out the foreign policy of the United States with the cooperation of the Congress. And we don't--I'm sure the Congress would not want us to be inhibited in getting our information upon which our judgments must be reached. We desire to cooperate with Congressman Hardy. I believe he said he was going to--he's seen me on one occasion about another matter last year. I think I saw somewhere or heard some place that he is planning to discuss this directly with me. And I'll discuss it, and I'm hopeful that we can work this out as other matters have been worked out, in a spirit of comity. But I do think there are important issues at stake.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, Dr. Hans Bethe has commented favorably on a zonal disarmament inspection plan that has been put forward by Professor Louis Sohn of Harvard University. The plan would operate on a random sampling basis, and would supposedly satisfy the United States desires by opening up territory to verification on a sampling basis, while at the same time pleasing the Russians by not opening up their entire territory to what they say they fear would be espionage. I wonder if you would comment on whether parts of this proposal offer constructive possibilities?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think one of the suggestions in the matter of preparations which have been discussed, which we all recognize is a rather difficult matter, of determining if preparations are being made for testing, was this. I'm not sure that the genesis was the same as the one you've suggested, but it had been suggested that a sampling system might be used.,But I think once again this is a matter which I think should come forward in the proper way at Geneva. But I am familiar with the--a proposal which is either the same or similar.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, at some of our military camps there have been demonstrations by mobilized reservists, including in one case an attempted hunger strike. I wonder if you couldn't comment on these demonstrations, and couldn't you give the reservists some notion of when they might be released?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I understand the feeling of any reservist, particularly those who may have fulfilled their duty and then they are called back. And they see others going along in normal life, and therefore they feel: how long are we going to be kept?,We have stated that we are, as you know, building two new divisions which will replace these reservists, and which will come into effect--I think the dates are August and September.,Now, on the question of releasing the reservists, we will release them on the first possible date consistent with our national security. They were called up because of the crisis in Berlin, and because of the threats in Southeast Asia. And I do not think that anyone can possibly read the papers and come to the conclusion that these threats do not continue. There is no evidence that we are going to quickly reach a settlement in either one of these areas.,These reservists are doing a very important job. In my judgment, the fact they were called up and the fact they responded has strengthened the foreign policy of the United States measurably since last July and August.,Now, secondly, there is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It's very hard in military or in personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair. But I do hope that in many ways--some people are sick and others are well--but I do hope that these people recognize that they are fulfilling a valuable function, and that they will feel, however humdrum it is, and however much their life is disturbed and the years been yanked out of it, they will have the satisfaction afterwards of feeling that they contributed importantly to the security of their families and their country at a significant time.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us whether the reports you've received on the talks between Secretary Rusk and Mr. Gromyko in the last day or two on the Berlin problem have produced even a glimmer of a possibility of a modus vivendi of some sort?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think it would be wiser to let the talks continue, which they are, and then to make a judgment as to our prospects when these talks have reached a more final stage, which they have not as yet.,[19.] Q. Would you care, sir, to evaluate for us the quality of congressional support the administration's domestic program is getting at the present time? I ask this because in some circles there is a belief that certain congressional leaders in your party are more prone to negotiate the terms of surrender even before they start fighting for your program.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I read the same-[laughter]--I think that we've secured--I think they blame the leadership and they blame me and they blame the Congress, and I think we've secured the passage of important legislation already: one we signed the other day, the pension and welfare bill; the one the week before, the manpower training. We have, I hope, passed good bills in the House and Senate on higher education. I hope that the conference will not give us the worst features of both but, rather, the best features of both, the House and Senate bill.,We are moving ahead in the committees in other areas. So I think we can make a much fairer judgment on the quality of the Congress and the Executive as the session goes into the summer, than we can today. But I have had complete cooperation from Senator Mansfield and Senator Humphrey-the leader and the whip--from Speaker McCormack, from Congressmen Albert and Hale Boggs, and from George Smathers. So I must say that they've been very faithful and I think they're doing the best they can.,You have to remember that this House of Representatives is somewhat evenly balanced. We only won the Rules Committee fight at the beginning of this session, at the time Mr. Rayburn put his enormous prestige on the line, by only six votes. These are not easy matters. We are very critical, frequently, of failure of other countries to take needed action, but we have to realize it's a hard fight even in our own country.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, I understand that an exchange of letters at the summit has settled the question of the B-70, or the RS-70. Can you tell us who won what and from whom?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that if you took the powers of the Executive and the powers of the Congress and pushed each to its logical, or at least its possible conclusion-not its logical but its possible conclusion-you would have, in a Government of divided powers, you would have a somewhat chaotic situation. If they refused to appropriate the salary of members of the Government, if we took actions which failed to consider the responsibilities of the Congress--in a country where the constitution gives divided responsibilities we have to attempt to adjust the strong feelings on both sides.,In my opinion, there was no winner and no loser except, I think, the relations between the Congress and I think the public interest.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, you used the words \"American territory\" in relation to Guantanamo Bay. Is that not subject to an incorrect inference of the true position of that bay?,THE PRESIDENT. My answer was an attempt to not particularly select one area or another. It's the legal definition of Guantanamo, maybe not precisely, though I would have to look that up. I would say it's an area which the United States, under a treaty with Spain, at the turn of the century, Was given rights to maintain and to hold, and whether it's--it may be, as I say, incorrect legally to call it a territory, and I would not want to launch a new description of Guantanamo, and I may be very well subject to correction-only that it's an area which is under the responsibility now of the United States. That may be a more precise term.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, in explaining the need to resume nuclear tests in the atmosphere, you said we're spending huge sums on some military programs, including hardened missile sites, and that we can't be certain how much of these preparations might turn out to be useless when we know more about thermonuclear explosions. In the wake of increased missile accuracy and warhead yields and the fact that the Russians can build very large bombs, can you tell us, as Commander in Chief, why we're expanding what would appear to be an increasingly vulnerable land-based missile system, rather than putting our efforts in mobile land-based systems, or directing more of our deterrent to sea where they cannot be zeroed in?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that--as you know, the Secretary of Defense, and those who have particular technical competence, made a judgment that the present arrangements were more satisfactory than the so-called mobile Minuteman. That is filled with difficulties, too; transporting always-24 hours a day--around the railroads of the United States, missiles to be fired at any moment, is not--offers--has a debit side too. So that in balance this was felt to be the most satisfactory device. And, in addition, as you know, we have the alert, those that are in the air, and we also have Polaris. So that the--I think the reason is a desire not to commit all of our resources to any one particular weapons system. But I do think a judgment was made that the efficiency of the mobile, at the present time, was not sufficiently demonstrated over the hardened site to warrant a program in that regard, particularly as we develop more successfully devices for interpreting a possible missile attack. So that we have a warning system which would be sufficient to get our Minuteman off the hardened base. But I think the more they looked at the trains going through America, the less desirable it seemed.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, did I understand you to say that we had offered to withdraw our demand for control posts for nuclear test bans inside the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. NO.,Q. And they had refused?,THE PRESIDENT. No. What I said was that those who advocated a system of attempting to--and there are those--to carry on an inspection system by having devices located off the territory of the Soviet Union, I think would also agree that you cannot make a successful distinction by this means between an earthquake and an underground nuclear explosion. And that therefore there has to be even under this system, which is not the one the United States is now--has put forward-even under this system you would have to have an inspection in order to make that distinction. So that the--and the Soviet Union has rejected that kind of inspection. So that I was merely attempting to indicate that those who advocated that policy did not have a policy which gave any assurances of success and which the Soviet Union has already in effect--has rejected.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-03-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT.[1.] I have a letter which we are releasing which is to Secretary Rusk, and I will read the most significant paragraph in regard to the opening of the disarmament conference and American policy there.\nIt says:,\"My earnest hope is that no effort will be spared to define areas of agreement on all of the three important levels to which Prime Minister Macmillan and I referred in our joint letter of February 7 to Premier Khrushchev.,\"Building upon the principles already agreed, I hope that you will quickly be able to report agreement on an outline defining the over-all shape of a program for general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world. I have submitted such an outline on behalf of the United States to the United Nations General Assembly last September, but an outline is not enough. You should seek as well, as areas of agreement emerge, a definition in specific terms The President's News Conference of measures set forth in the outline. The objective should be to define in treaty terms the widest area of agreement that can be implemented at the earliest possible moment while still continuing your maximum efforts to achieve agreement on those other aspects which present more difficulty. As a third specific objective you should seek to isolate and identify initial measures of disarmament which could, if put into effect without delay, materially improve international security and the prospects for further disarmament progress. In this category you should seek as a matter of highest priority agreement on a safeguarded nuclear test ban. At this juncture in history, no single measure in the field of disarmament would be more productive of concrete benefit in the alleviation of tensions and the enhancement of prospects for greater progress.,\"Please convey on my behalf and on behalf of the people of the United States to the representatives of the nations assembled our deep and abiding support of the deliberations on which you are about to embark. I pledge anew my personal and continuing interest in this work.\",[2.] Q. Mr. President, we had the announcement this morning of a new Democratic candidate for the Senate in Massachusetts, a young man I believe you are familiar with. I wonder, first, if you could tell us whether or not you advised him for or against his decision, and whether you approve it; and two, aware of his stated preference that you not get involved in his campaign and your strong endorsement last week of Senator Smathers of Florida, what the guideline is for your participation in party contests of this nature?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, in part, I am aware of the campaign. I think that my brother stated, and I think Mr. Salinger stated earlier today, that he was running, seeking the Democratic nomination. This is a judgment for the people of Massachusetts. I will not take part in that campaign, except I will go to vote in the primary in September. But my brother is carrying this campaign on his own and will conduct it in that way.,Now, in regard to Senator Smathers, Senator Smathers is an incumbent Senator, and I would--and I think that--I was hoping he would get elected. Congressman Fascell is the incumbent Congressman. Both, as a matter of fact, have been active in the Democratic Party and were active in my campaign. I was delighted to endorse them. But Teddy is running, as he stated, on his own.,[3-] Q. Mr. President, about the first of the year while you were in Palm Beach over the Christmas holiday, Mr. Salinger announced that you had accepted an invitation to visit Mexico, but left the date open, and it was our understanding then that you would go in the first half of the year, possibly in the late spring. I wonder what the status of that trip is? Do you still intend to go to Mexico by, say, some time in June?,THE PRESIDENT. I still expect to go in the of the Presidents first half of the year; that's correct. The trip is on, yes.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, some of the economy experts on the Hill have indicated they are going to take the ax to your request for foreign aid funds. Could you tell us what any sizeable cut might mean to your plans and program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know foreign aid--it's always open season on it. But I must say, if anybody will look at a map, as I tried to say in the message, of our obligations in Europe and in NATO, the assistance which we have committed ourselves to, and the importance of the countries--countries like Greece, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan-the importance of India being able to maintain a viable economy, our commitments to Thailand, Viet-Nam, the Republic of China, South Korea, Africa itself, and now, with the great commitments to Latin America and the Alliance for Progress, it seems to me that it would be extremely unwise not to give us the resources to assist these countries to maintain their independence.,We spend $51 billion-odd on defense alone as well as other billions for the Atomic Energy Commission's work and so forth. Here are these countries which are right in the line of fire, which are dependent upon us for assistance, and we are unwilling, in other words, to give them the help? In Latin America, these countries which are trying, with staggering problems in some of these countries, with mass unemployment, or an average income of $100, no schools in many cases, turn to us for help; India, with an average income of $60, the fight at a crucial stage; in fact, those who seem to, on some occasions, to want to put the ax to foreign aid hardest are the ones that make the most vigorous speeches against communism and call for a policy of victory.,In my opinion the fight is being fought in these towns and cities and states all around the world. And I believe this program is just as important as our national defense. Over half of it is directly tied to arms assist. ance, which means that it represents an additional appropriation, in a sense, for the Pentagon. And I would think it would be the most unwise act possible to cut our assistance program.,I am more conscious of that than I ever was, sitting where I do. We bear great responsibilities, and if anyone feels that these countries are unimportant, or that it doesn't make any difference if Latin America is taken over, or if significant countries are, by Communists, and if they're not interested in this fight, then they should cut it.,But I am interested. I think we should carry it on. It's been supported by people in both parties. It is a bipartisan issue and I'm hopeful that the Congress will recognize how vital this program is to our security.,[5'] Q. Mr. President, a domestic question, please. You conferred earlier this week with labor leaders. They left the White House saying that in their opinion our economy was dragging in its forward thrust. Later, published reports said that you had agreed with them. Would you comment, please?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I stated to them that, of course, we were not as happy about January, that the figures in January were not as high as we hoped they would be. The preliminary estimates we've got now for February indicate that February is much better. My position, I said to them, is the same that I expressed at the press conference a week ago. I think we should wait. We do have confidence in this economy. The problem, of course, that concerns them is that there may be increases in productivity which--and there may be increases in capital investment and consumer spending and all of the rest, but you still have these large pools of employed in places like Detroit, Pittsburgh, or Gary, where you have technological changes.,You have steel now where there is 85 percent capacity which is the highest that we have had for a long time and yet you have, according to Mr. McDonald, that day nearly 125,000 people out of work in the steel industry. So that this is a serious national problem, unemployment during a period of prosperity which--or relative prosperity.,Now I think that we have sent up a number of programs which I believe will be of help. Manpower retraining, which has now been passed, I think will be of help. And youth employment opportunities, I'm hopeful action will be taken on that. I think our trade program itself would be very helpful. I think that the programs I've suggested for stimulating the economy-for example, I think it would be certainly in our national interest to pass the bill providing for permanent national standards for the payment of unemployment compensation, so that those who are affected will be benefited.,I'm hopeful that they'll pass the so-called Clark bill, public works bill, and also give us additional powers to fight a recession if it comes again.,These are some of the proposals which we have suggested and which they support and we may come forward with others as the year goes on if our economy does not show sufficient vitality. But it is a problem and a matter of concern to them as well as to us.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you have said that you would go to a summit conference at Geneva to ratify agreements, and you also said that you might go to help resolve disagreements. Under what circumstances would you not go to a summit conference at Geneva this spring?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not sure that the description you have given of my position is precisely the one that I've given. I stated that I would go there to ratify an agreement, that I would go there if we were on the brink of a war or a serious international crisis, where my presence would make a significant difference. I would add a third one: I would go if I thought it was in our national interest.,Now, that's really--we'll have to make a judgment whether any of those three conditions have been met before I would go. I am not--I do not intend to go unless there is--a situation develops which I believe would make such a trip fruitful and rewarding. And my position, it seems to me, is constant, and we will have to wait to see whether events make such a trip useful.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, will you go to Congress for approval before committing combat troops in Viet-Nam or elsewhere?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if--coming back to the phrase, if you mean would I go to the Congress before committing combat troops, as you know, there are a good many Americans who are now there who have not, as I said before in a press conference, fallen under the description which is generally used in using the phrase \"combat troops.\" I have described what their mission is and what instructions they're operating under. If there is a basic change in that situation in Viet-Nam which calls for a constitutional decision, of course I would go to the Congress.,In the meanwhile, I have consulted with the leaders of Congress and those who bear particular positions of responsibility in the matter.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there is a school of thought which believes that we should include in any nuclear test ban treaty a provision which would permit us to conclude our scheduled April tests. This is based on authoritative reports that the Soviets in their recent nuclear tests have sufficient data to develop an anti-missile weapon, and that we vitally need our own atmospheric tests to catch up with them. Would you care to comment on this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, I've not seen authoritative reports which state as a result of their recent tests they have developed an anti-missile system.,Q. Data, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Data? Well, data, everything contributes to the development of data. We're carrying on a Nike-Zeus test ourselves which will contribute data. That's the first point. The second point, I'm not aware that our tests will contribute data. But I am not convinced, nor have I known of anyone else, that they would provide a breakthrough in this very complicated area of the anti-missile missile. I think Mr. McNamara has expressed some views on the difficulties of developing an anti-missile system. And the third point is that if the position of the United States stays as it is, we would prefer to secure a test ban treaty. We believe that to be not only in the interest of the peace and the world but also in the interest of the United States. In our opinion, our security position would be strengthened if there were no more atmospheric tests because--and we believe that if the others are going to test then we have to test. But we would prefer to have no test. Therefore, I prefer an effective treaty.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, many Latin Americans are wondering whether the recent expulsion of Cuba from the OAS and the trade restrictions by the United States will help free Cuba of communism. Could you tell us what positive action the United States could take to make Cuba less dependent upon the Communist bloc?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are attempting to work with the hemisphere to isolate the expansion of communism in the hemisphere. And that has occupied a good deal of our attention and it was the purpose of the meeting at Punta del Este. And I believe that that purpose was achieved in that the nations of the hemisphere unanimously, with the exception of Cuba, went on record as considering communism alien to the hemisphere.,Now, we have also carried out certain trade actions indicating our position in regard to Cuba, and we are continuing to consider what can usefully be done to expand freedom in this hemisphere.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that some Western officials at the disarmament meeting at Geneva have expressed doubt that any system of inspection and control, no matter how rigid or comprehensive, could possibly either prevent or detect secret preparations for nuclear weapons tests in an area as large as the Soviet Union. Would you give us your view on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously, I think that we could develop a system which would predict, or which would detect, significant tests or tests which could lead to significant results with an effective inspection system. Preparations-of course, there is no guarantee, because preparations are another matter, there is no guarantee that any inspection system can be worked out that can predict all inspections. But I think that we could work out a system that would detect a series of tests. And that would be most useful. We could also, and will suggest, some proposals to at least make it more difficult to prepare-make preparations. But I've never suggested that we could develop a foolproof system on preparations. And I don't regard that as significant, as being able to detect the tests themselves, because once--preparations are only important if they lead to tests. Once the tests come, then if the system is satisfactory, we receive a notification and could take action ourselves. There would be a time loss, but it would not be as--the important thing is to have some ability to detect preparations and also a very effective ability to detect the tests themselves.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I believe as a Senator about 6 years ago you were a cosponsor of legislation passed by Congress entitled The federal flood Insurance Act of 1956, setting up a program of federal insurance and coinsurance against property loss by floods and other damage, water damages. That program never got off the ground because of lack of appropriations. In view of the devastating northeaster on the East Coast last week, and the importance of some kind of insurance against water damage, which is not provided by the insurance companies in the rebuilding of these areas, would you consider requesting appropriations to get this flooded federal insurance program under way again?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, I know that your--why this has become a matter of--living--[laughter]--and I must say that I think your experience indicates the desirability of legislation. The legislation is still on the books--the authorization--the Senate passed the appropriation, but the House did not. So I would support it if--in fact, I will take another look at it and see whether we should recommend a supplemental appropriation in regard to the matter. But I do think the bill was useful and I think the experiences in the recent storm generally along the coast would indicate the desirability of the bill and the appropriation.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, the Russians have been playing a very dangerous game in the Berlin air corridors, dropping tinfoil fragments and so on. Does this Government contemplate any countermeasures to discourage them from carrying their harassment further?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, the harassment makes it more difficult to reach accord on Berlin and has been the subject of very vigorous representations by Secretary Rusk and by Lord Home at Geneva. And, obviously, it makes it, as I've said, more--it presents additional hazards in securing a satisfactory accord.,If the Soviet Union desired to see this matter settled peacefully, it would seem to me that all sides, both sides, should bend every effort during these days, particularly during the time of the Geneva disarmament conference, to avoid incidents that are liable to lead to actions and counteractions which can only intensify the danger. But we are waiting to see what effect the representations of the two Secretaries have had on the Soviet Union in regard to the chaff, which is a particularly dangerous kind of action.,[13.] Q. Sir, during your 1960 campaign, when you spoke of getting the country moving again, a lot of States and a lot of voters interpreted this to mean jobs for themselves. And now, recently, States such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been complaining that some of their defense contracts have been going elsewhere and the ones they had under the previous administration, that is, the level has not stayed even as good as it was. Do you have any comment on this situation?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would have to--in my opinion, I don't think that in any of those three cases, even though this matter of contracts is a matter of continuing concern-defense contracts--we have a particularly difficult problem in Detroit, which has been the subject of a recent discussion. I don't think that the contracts in any of those three States--and I'd have to check it--are less than they were before.,The question is whether the distribution of the contracts is as equitable as it can be. The Defense Department, when manpower policy No. 4 was repealed in 1953, was given express indications by the Congress that they were not, except for the set-aside portion of the contract, that they were not supposed to attempt to steer contracts into areas where there might be unemployment. I supported Defense manpower policy No. 4, but since that time the Defense Department has not been able to take that into consideration.,On the other hand, equity dictates that these contracts be assigned in areas which are not only efficient but where there is a work force which can be effectively used. But I will say that we have been considering the problem. Governor Lawrence discussed the problem of Scranton with me when he came to see me. We were talking about the problem of Detroit. My judgment is, and I would have to recheck it, that probably in these States the contracts are equal to or greater than they were the year before. But there is a concentration of contracts in a relatively few States which is historic, and I am concerned that in the case, as I say, of Detroit and two or three others where there's high unemployment, we do try to get some work to them, and it's a matter now which we are discussing.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that the United States Government has been considering an application to export from $75 million to $100 million worth of wheat per year to Communist China over the next 3 years. Could you say if there is any bona fide request from the Chinese for such an export of wheat, and if so what do you think about it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I've heard of no requests from them for the wheat. There have been two companies in the United States which have put in a request for a license to--one was the International Trading Company, I believe, of Seattle, and one other company--which have put in requests for the right to export wheat to China. But there is no information that they are working on an assignment or as an agent, and the United States Government has no information that the Chinese Communists have requested us for wheat.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, if Congress should pass legislation directing you to spend additional funds for the B-70, would you feel bound by any such direction?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that we should wait until the Congress has acted and the Appropriations Committees have acted and then we can make a much better judgment as to what the final situation will be. But it's a matter which I am confident that--I'm very hopeful can be adjusted satisfactorily. And I think we ought to wait on action.,[16.] Q. I wonder if we could be quite clear about what seemed to be an emendation of your statement of last month about the necessity for inspection against clandestine preparation for nuclear tests. Then you seemed to lay great emphasis upon the necessity for inspection against preparations. I understood you to say just now that you thought that the detection of tests themselves was more important than the inspection against preparations.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. I said that because quite obviously you could prepare for years and have no tests. So the tests themselves, which carry out the results of the inspection, of course are a matter of particular significance because you could be preparing indefinitely. That is not to say that preparations are not important. We are going to make proposals in regard to inspection of preparations. I merely attempted to balance off two important matters and give you what I considered to be the one with the greatest weight.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, much of the criticism of the Alliance for Progress centers on the charge that the Latin American countries are slow in submitting development plans for their countries and in effecting the reforms that are a precondition of getting that aid. I think only three countries have submitted plans, and three countries have made no attempt at reforms. I'm curious as to whether the Government has considered setting a cutoff date for reforms, or perhaps cutting off aid to countries which don't effect tax reforms and land reforms, as a way of making this program more popular.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we should have some sense of perspective about the Alliance for Progress. It was, after all, only--the organization took place only 7 months ago. This is a whole new communal effort. I attempted to describe yesterday some of the things which have been done during that 7-month period. Some of these countries have made great efforts, with great difficulties, to carry out the kinds of reform which would make our assistance most useful. Some other countries are in the process. But there--every one of these issues must be fought out within each country because if it were easy it would have been done long ago. So I do think that we should not--having set our hand to a program which I believe has great potential, we should attempt to work as closely as possible with each one of the governments in assisting them. It requires in many cases personnel which they do not have; it requires experience and technical training which they do not have. The problem of the Marshall plan was rebuilding; here it's a case of building, in many cases. So this is an extremely difficult task. There are a good many local 'pressures which make this fight harder. In many cases countries must put in fiscal reforms which cause-which have a deflationary impact, with all the political hazards that they produce. In some of these countries they are carrying out these reforms and these reforms--as I say, each one of them hurts some group in that country at the beginning. And, therefore, they're very difficult. And yet they have to carry them out when they're hanging, in some of these cases, with Communist minorities who are exploiting every discontent. So that while I feel we should be very positive in our efforts in this community effort, I do think we should have some understanding of how complicated this task is and give this child a chance to build some strength before we psychoanalyze him.,[18.] Q. The House Agriculture Committee last week, sir, rejected your temporary dairy price support program, and there are indications they will make some substantial changes in the rest of the farm bill. If the Congress does not approve a bill that carries most of your recommendations, do you foresee some cutoff or specific time when you would recommend the ending of the existing programs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the decision of the House majority of the Agricultural Committee, and which I thought was unfortunate, meant that the dairy farmers would not have till December to adjust themselves to the production standards which the agricultural bill set. Instead they must adjust themselves, unless there's some change made in that decision, by April, which will, I would say, would have a great--it would produce a harsh effect on the dairy farmers. And I would hope that the Agricultural Committee of the House would reverse that decision. It--I must say I found it to be inexplicable, because it's-we are asking them and putting burdens on them and restraining them, and to compel them to do it in as brief a time as this, I think produces unnecessary hardship.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could clarify a little further your position on defense contracts? At one of your recent press conferences you discussed this in relation to areas of unemployment, and this seems to have become an issue in the California gubernatorial campaign. Former Vice President Nixon takes the position that you are injecting politics in the allocation of defense contracts, and Governor Brown takes the opposite position. I wonder if you could clear it up?,THE PRESIDENT. What action is it of mine that has injected politics into the--,Q. I think at your last press conference you discussed this.,THE PRESIDENT. No. I was asked a question with regard to a matter that was before Secretary Goldberg, and I think the reporter who asked me specifically said nondefense expenditures. Now, the fact of the matter is that defense expenditures in California are higher than they were under the previous administration for both defense and space, and in fact, as you know, in California the contracts amount to a--traditionally and historically since World War II, to a high percentage. So I was responding to a question which was asked in regard to nondefense expenditures and a suggestion of the Presidents Mr. Goldberg's that perhaps we could use these contracts in nondefense areas, in areas of high unemployment. So that I didn't really see that that was a fuse sufficient to light off Mr. Nixon. [Laughter],[20.] Q. Mr. President, this week you accepted an invitation to address a mammoth rally in behalf of health care for the aged in Madison Square Garden in May, I believe. Is this part of an all-out administration effort to obtain a vote on this issue during this session of Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. Then it is not true that the administration leaders will hold off for another year?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, no, this plan will come to a vote, in my opinion, definitely in the United States Senate, and I am hopeful in the House, before the end of this session.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-03-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. I have two announcements.,[ 1. ] I have today sent the following telegram to the chief executive officers of the major steel companies and to the president of the Steelworkers Union, and I quote:,\"I appreciate your willingness to commence negotiations early and I share your regrets that the parties to the steel labor negotiations were unable to conclude a settlement in their negotiations of the past few weeks, despite earnestness and good will on both sides. The present temporary recess should enable both parties to reappraise their position. The best way to achieve a desirable settlement in the public interest is through free and responsible collective bargaining. An early labor settlement consistent with price stability in steel would be in the public interest, as well as in the interest of the parties themselves. The Nation as a whole I am sure shares my conviction that such an agreement would materially strengthen our economy and country. To this end I am requesting the parties to resume collective bargaining at an early date. I hope they will be able to meet together by next Wednesday, March 14.\",[2.] The second announcement is that I want to comment on the tariff and trade agreements which have just been concluded at Geneva with the European Common Market, the United Kingdom, and 24 other The President's News Conference of countries following the largest and most complex negotiations in history. The specific details of the agreements we reached in the negotiations will be available this afternoon.,In summary, we obtained from the Common Market and other countries tariff reductions and commitments not to increase duties on $4.3 billion worth of annual exports. In return we granted similar concessions or gave up concessions previously accorded us on $2.9 billion of annual imports. These agreements were very satisfactory and very important. We obtained new concessions, both industrial and agricultural, on those very items which are most essential to the maintenance and expansion of our foreign trade, our export markets, and our effort to sell abroad to offset our balance of payments losses.,This was a good indication, moreover, that the United States and the Common Market will be able to work together and bargain together. Due to the limited bargaining authority we had under the present law, it was necessary to breach the peril points in a number of cases to avoid a complete breakdown in negotiations and to obtain worthwhile concessions for our own businessmen and farmers, but every effort was made to restrict such breaches to items that would not have significant impact upon the American economy.,These agreements, however, are as far as we can go until new legislation is enacted. The real opportunities offered us by the Common Market, and to the people of Europe, and the competitive challenge it presents to our enterprise system--all this is still ahead, and will always be beyond our reach, with all of the adverse effects it will have on our economy, unless a strong trade expansion act gives our negotiators the authority they need to speak for our country in these most important matters.,[3'] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your speech last week on nuclear test resumption and the forthcoming negotiations in Geneva, do you think the American public and the public of the world is justified in attaching to the Geneva negotiations any particular hope or expectation that these negotiations will be more fruitful than similar meetings with the Russians in the past?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am sure they attach hope. Expectations is perhaps another matter. But hope should certainly be attached because these--this meeting is extremely important. I am not making optimistic predictions about its success, but I could make pessimistic predictions about its failure.,So that we go to the conference trying to get an accord. That is our interest. We believe it's in the best interest of the United States, the security interests of the United States as well as the security interests, really, of the entire world. So we just have to wait and see. But we're going there with a genuine effort because we believe it's most desirable to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union. Anyone who has read the history of the 20th century knows that increases of tensions, especially those which are worldwide, which engage great powers, are always dangerous, and when new and unprecedented weapons are thrown into this mix it makes anyone hopeful about Geneva, and the consequent easing of the tensions which would come from an accord.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Khrushchev has recently stated in meetings at Moscow that his country is suffering quite a bit from a lack of food. Now, regardless of whether they ask or not, have you considered the possibility of loaning, selling, or giving the Soviet people any of our surplus food stocks?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we do send food to Poland, as you know, and have sent a substantial quantity to Yugoslavia. There is no evidence that the Soviet Union has ever asked for it and my judgment is they do not want it. I think what Mr. Khrushchev addressed himself to was how they could improve domestic production. And therefore, in answer to your question, there has been no discussion of it, no consideration of it, and I do take some satisfaction from our difficulties which are overproduction under our free agricultural economy, even though it is a problem which has haunted good men.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, our rate of economic recovery has been very low indeed, and much less than anticipated. What further actions do you believe the administration should take now to speed up the slowdown in our recovery?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's premature to suggest. I can't accept all the premise of your question. Mr. Goldberg, the Secretary of Labor, I believe this afternoon announced some figures, which said that the seasonal adjusted unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is the lowest level in 19 months and total employment which is 65,789,000 set a new all-time February record. And I think that we should wait till--let the winter go, and let's see what happens in February and March, then we can make a judgment as to whether there is a recovery.,You will recall that in August and September we had a leveling out, and then the economy took off again in October, November, and December. In addition, there's-I saw, as a matter of fact, reading the other day in the Wall Street Journal, that profits were up for companies--22 percent, I think the highest in history. There's our price-in the last 12 months, prices only increased one-half of 1 percent, I think, which has only happened in this decade once, in 1955.,There's not an excessively high level of inventory buildup. I think that Mr. Heller, who has spoken on this matter, who I do not consider a natural optimist--I think he's been speaking what he believes. And therefore I think that this economy has more vitality in it than some of its premature mourners.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, now that you have seen all the available evidence in the Powers case, do you agree with Representative Vinson that Mr. Powers' U-2 was shot down at 68,000 feet by a ground launched rocket?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the report of the CIA and the comments--the statements which Mr. Powers made, it seems to me, dealt with this matter. I have no other information beyond what you have seen in those two matters.,Q. Sir, I meant that Representative Vinson said the CIA believes that he was shot down by a rocket fired from the ground. I was wondering if you have any comment on that.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any comment beyond what the CIA has said and what Mr. Powers himself has said.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, could you define for us what might be acceptable at Geneva as a safeguard against secret preparations for testing, and specifically whether this would include an increase in onsite inspections?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the American negotiators at Geneva will have some suggestions to make in that area, and as this conference is going to begin in a week, I believe it would be preferable to let them make their proposals at that time.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have said, and I think more than once, that heads of government should not go to the summit to negotiate agreements, but only to approve agreements negotiated at a lower level. Now it's being said and written that you are going to eat those words, and go to a summit without any agreement at a lower of the Presidents level. Has your position changed, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm going to have a dinner for all of the people who've written it, and we'll see who eats what. [Laughter],Let me state that I would go to the summit if--as you've stated--if some agreements had been made which could be climaxed most effectively by a summit meeting. I've also stated at an earlier press conference if I thought a trip to the summit might avert a war or if we were faced with an extremely dangerous situation, then I think it would be appropriate to go to the summit without prior agreements. But I think to go to the summit without having an understanding of what is going to be accomplished there, and some meeting of minds, I think disappoints rather than helps the cause, and that's why I've held the view that I do, and that's why I continue to hold it, and that's why I am looking forward to the spring.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, since a number of governments have expressed their support for either nuclear free zones in different parts of the world or for a so-called nonnuclear club--among those governments, aside from the socialist communities, there is Brazil, Ireland, and Sweden--what are your feelings, sir, about those proposals, and what would be the position of the United States Government at the Geneva disarmament conference in this respect?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there are two or three different points in the question. I think the United States--I said at the United Nations that I thought it would be desirable to come to some agreement in regard to the transfer of nuclear weapons from one country to another. Now, when we get into--so that's one position which the United States has already taken and indicates its support of. Your other question was in regard to a nuclear free zone, and that, it seems to me, is a matter which must be examined. What else will be in the zone? What other forces will be in the zone? Where will this zone be? These are matters, I think, that could--will be discussed, I imagine, along with many other matters affecting armaments at Geneva and in other conversations.,But I think that we have to see what the language is, what the proposal is, what the effect of the situation is, before I could answer that question.,In addition, I'm not convinced that this makes a--is a total solution. If you have a missile that can carry a bomb 5,000 miles, does it really make that much--a significant difference, if you don't have a bomb stationed in this area but you have it 5,000 miles behind, which can cover that area?,So, therefore, I think it's a matter which should be discussed at the appropriate place.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, this morning before the Advertising Council you dwelt with some earnestness about the great burdens the United States is carrying. Are we safe in assuming this is another way of saying that you think some of our friends around the world should do more in the way of helping underdeveloped countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm hopeful they'll do more. I know that a good many Americans are concerned, as I said this morning, about the balance of payments, and as I have stated, the balance of payments problem of the United States could be settled overnight if we withdrew our security efforts around the world. It is the combination of the $3 billion that we spend keeping our defense forces overseas, combined with assistance we give in other ways, which provides for our dollar drain.,Now, those countries which are building up their reserves, I am hopeful will be willing and some of them have, France, for example, which has really spent a larger proportion of its national income for assistance to the former French community, really, than any country in the world. So, some countries are. But the United States bears a very heavy load, even in the consortiums that we go to, the United States loans frequently are soft, repayable in local currency and the loans of others may be at 3, 4, 5, 6 percent, so that this is a matter which involves us all.,Now, as Western Europe gets stronger and stronger, I'm hopeful that they will play a larger and larger role in this struggle in which we are involved. Because the United States--the reason our gold drain has been in the last 10 years, is due to this matter. The balance of trade has been in our favor every year, except one in the last 10 years.,It's been due also to investments abroad and some short-term capital movement. But if we were not making the great effort we've made, really since the Marshall plan, we would have a major convulsion because there would be a concentration of gold.,Now when we are carrying this heavy load, I would hope that the free countries would work together to attempt to assign this balance evenly.,We don't--we're ready to carry it, in the United States, to the maximum of our ability, but we carry it in Berlin and Saigon, and Latin America, and Africa, and the Middle East, and Pakistan, and India, and in a good many other countries, and this is a matter which should concern all free men.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a scattering of very favorable news stories out of South Viet-Nam, but we don't have any overall coverage. I wondered if you could tell us how the subterranean war is going there, because the Pentagon won't put out anything; and also if you'd want to comment on the possibility of the use of tactical nuclear or antipersonnel weapons in that area?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't really-I don't think you could make a judgment of the situation. It's very much up and down, as you know, from day to day, and week to week, so it's impossible to draw any long-range conclusions. And on the second matter, it's a--I'm not familiar with it, and it's a matter, really, I think, of the Defense Department, but it has not come to me. In any case, it's a matter, really, for the Vietnamese.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, to get back to Mr. Scherer's question about payments that other nations make. There have been some suggestions in Congress, as alternatives to your U.N. bonds purchase plan, that part of the United States outlay be in matching funds to what other nations buy or possibly to make a loan to the U.N. instead of purchasing bonds. Will you comment on these alternatives?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they're both before the foreign Relations Committee. I felt that the plan we sent up represented the best interest of the United States and the U.N. and was financially sound. So I would like to stay with that. Now I think the foreign Relations Committee has my recommendations and knows my views, and I think they're wholly competent--a very responsible committee--and I think they are wholly competent to make a judgment. I do hope that we can keep the U.N. moving, and they do depend upon a program of the kind I suggested. But I think the details I would much prefer to leave to them because it is now in their hands.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary of State Rusk has said that it is entirely possible that at Geneva there will be discussions about Berlin and Southeast Asia. Would you favor such discussions at Geneva?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that if these matters come up and if any progress can be made on them, of course I favor them. This is not the purpose of the disarmament conference, but anything that can ease relations or anything that could improve the situation in Berlin or in Southeast Asia, of course, ought to be talked about. I think that's quite obvious and we shouldn't miss any opportunity.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us any ideas of the areas in which we might explore peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union in the exploration of outer space? What your specific thoughts might be?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've written a letter today to Chairman Khrushchev, putting forward some proposals, and I think it will be released as soon as he has received it. But I do think it should wait till that. But the Presidents we did make some suggestions in that letter.,[15.] Q. Mr. President this is a twofold question: In the event that there is an Algerian, independent Algerian government established, do you contemplate recognizing it? And, second, should that government request or apply for economic and military aid, would you grant it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that this matter is so sensitive and coming to such a climax now, and being handled I think with skill, I believe on both sides, that I really think that it would be the wisest course to permit the situation to develop there before we begin to discuss what our actions would be at a later date. So that I think in the interest of the relations between the different parties involved that I will--but I will be glad to discuss that question as soon as a final solution has been reached.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the Attorney General, when he was visiting in Japan, received many inquiries about U.S. intentions towards Okinawa, and I believe you had a Presidential body look into this question. Can you say now what the situation is there insofar as your intentions to give them more self-government?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General said that it was really the matter which came up more in his conversations than any other matter, and is a matter of great concern to the Japanese. There was a very responsible committee went out and made some recommendations to us, which have been considered by the Joint Chiefs and others, and we are going to have some suggestions to make to the Japanese Government on this matter, though--in the next days--though quite obviously this is a very vital base. And from that base security is provided for a whole variety of countries in Asia. And so that we have to balance off the defense needs and also the legitimate interests of the people of Okinawa and of Japan. We are going to attempt to do the best we can, given those limitations, and make some suggestions very shortly.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, have you any steps in mind to take, any moves to make, if the steel companies and unions do not respond to your view?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd put that with the-France, Algeria, in the sense that I think we ought to wait till we see what happens in the negotiations. These companies are free and the unions are free. All we can try to do is to indicate to them the public interest which is there. After all, the public interest is the sum of the private interests, or perhaps it's even sometimes a little more. In fact, it is a little more. But the federal Government has no power in these negotiations, unless there was a strike which threatened the national health and safety, and that would be sometime late in the summer. So all we can do is attempt to persuade the parties to go around the bargaining table and point out to them how vitally the public interest is involved.,In the first place, this is a basic industry. We are in a period of recovery which we want to maintain. This is going to be regarded symbolically as a test of our ability to manage our economy in a competitive world. It will be looked on in Europe. I think the public interest is so involved, I think there's enough community of interest between the company and the union after their '59 experience that I am hopeful they can reach an accord, and I'm hopeful when they go back in March that they will do it. But we are limited by the Constitution and statutes and proprieties to the areas which I've discussed. But this--I hope they work it out, because it's in their interest as well as the public.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the Congress has been in session for about 2 months now, and has not accomplished very much. Would you care to comment on how you feel about this present pace?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I must say that always in the first part of March we read about--that the Congress hasn't done much, and in fact last year at this time I think that not a single bill had been passed of any proportion--at the end of the year almost 30 bills. Now we have taken action in four or five areas. The higher education has passed both the House and Senate, and the conference hasn't met. I think the conference has come to a conclusion on the manpower retraining, the pension and welfare disclosures. The tax bill is about to come to the floor. I think that legislation is going to come really pouring out of these committees in the next month or 2 months. So I don't have any criticism at all of the pace of the Congress. The test would be whether the legislation which involves not only the well-being of a good many Americans, such as medical care for the aged, but also those pieces of legislation which will help us fight the next economic turn down--whether those pieces of legislation will be passed. And I'm hopeful that the Congress will consider those very carefully or their alternates. But I must say I think you cannot--I think the Congress is moving ahead. I think in some ways it's further ahead than last year, and I think we're going to get a good deal of legislation from the Congress this year.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, I know you don't want to prejudice your position in advance of Geneva, but I want to ask you this: Prospects for disarmament and/or a nuclear test ban treaty are indeed pretty dim. What happens if those prospects don't brighten? Do we continue testing? Do the Russians continue testing, escalating the nuclear arms race, ad infinitum?,THE PRESIDENT. I suppose that is certainly the danger, and the reason why we are attempting to get an agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests. The reason why I said I thought it would be perfectly proper for us to discuss Berlin and Germany or South Asia is because these matters directly influence the progress of armaments. Without the Korean War--after all, our budget went from $14 billion up to what it is now, and we ourselves have had to spend a good deal more because of Berlin and South Asia, so that I do think there is a direct relation between these political questions and armaments and disarmament. But if we fail to get an agreement on testing, then of course, as I've said, we test. And I presume that others will test. And I regard that as a very risky, in the long run, procedure for the future of the human race.,On the other hand, if we do not test and others test, that has a risk. And I made the determination that that would be the greater risk. Now we're going to try here before the end of April, and we'll also continue trying after the tests begin, if we're unable to get agreement before then. Because I'd much prefer a test agreement than to continue this kind of competition.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, strong forces in Congress are talking about legislative action to direct you to spend procurement funds for the B-70. I wondered if you could give us your thinking on the B-70 substantive issue, and on the power of Congress to direct you to spend money in such a way.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on the substantive issue, as you know, we put in funds to develop three different prototypes of the B--70. And the--it was proposed by the Air force that they would have 140 B-70's which would cost $10 billion, which would be ready by 1970 or '71, and that is a large sum of money, and we have a good many manned aircraft. We have over 640 B-52's as well as an extensive missile armory, which is coming in: Polaris we have now, Minuteman we will have, Titan we have now, Atlas we have now. So the question really is whether we should put that large sum of money into manned bombers which will be available in '70 and '71. That's the first point.,The second point is that, according to those who have studied it in the Defense Department, we really can't spend the money now. A good many of the equipment--much of the equipment which would go into a B-70, some of it, first, hasn't been developed yet, and we really won't have our major flights in the B-70 till '63 and '64. Now if it's decided in '63 and '64 that we have a strategic need for the B-70, we should then go ahead with it. But to get the money today, when we haven't developed the prototype, seems to me to be-or at least it seemed to Secretary McNamara, who has given it a good deal of study, and to General Lemnitzer, and, I think, to Admiral Anderson and the other members of the Joint Chiefs--Decker--with the exception of the Air force, it does seem to me to be a--not the most judicious action.,Now, the Congress has a great authority and responsibility. They know a good deal about it. So I think that this is a matter which I hope we can talk about--the Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee of both the House and the Senate, and we can get a better judgment as to what the language will be at the end. But I hope we take a cold look at when this force will be ready, what position it's in today, whether we are prepared to go ahead with production, and what will be the use of this particular force in 1970 or '71 with all of the progress that's being made in missiles, ground-to-air missiles against planes, and in view of the fact that we are going to spend over a billion dollars equipping our present force of B-52's with Skybolts, which will extend their life and their effectiveness. But in the final analysis, this' is a matter on which I have relied very heavily on Secretary McNamara, in whom I have the greatest confidence.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, the pictures of the Attorney General's overseas trip showed him saying that he was there as the representative of the United States Government. Now, outside of speaking to students, will you tell us what his mission really was and what he achieved?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I, his mission was to-as I said at the previous press conference, his particular mission and interest was to try to talk to students and to intellectuals and others who are among the future leaders of these countries and whom we have not always enjoyed, for reasons which have not always been precise to us, the happiest relations. So I think that that stimulated his visit. He is an official of the United States Government, and I think that those who are in official positions were anxious to talk with him and discuss their problems. The fact of the matter is that five other Cabinet officers went to Japan last fall. I don't know whether you--and a good many Cabinet officers, Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Hodges, have been to Africa. I think that people who hold positions of importance in the American Government ought to travel, and they learn. I call on them for advice as members of the Cabinet, or the Security Council, and, in addition, they tell these people that we have a very vital, moving country here. And I think his trip was very worthwhile.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, against the background of the Brazilian seizure of an American-owned telephone company, Congressman Adair, and I believe Senator Long, and others, have introduced legislation which would, in effect, cut off assistance from the United States to nations where American assets have been expropriated without compensation. Would you comment on the desirability of that, and also on the impact of that seizure on America's--on the American public's support of the Alliance for Progress program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, as you know, the telephone company was seized by the governor of a province who has not always been identified particularly as a friend of the United States and we have been attempting to work out an equitable solution with the Brazilian Government. Nobody has ever questioned the right of any government to seize property, 'providing the compensation is fair. The United States is involved with the Brazilian Government in attempting to adjust this matter. I can think of nothing more unwise than to attempt to pass a resolution at this time which puts us in a position not of disagreement with a governor of a state, who is not particularly our friend, but, instead, really, with the whole Brazilian nation, which is vital and which is a key and with which we must have the closest relations. So that we want this matter settled. It is in our interest and in the interest of Brazil.,Private capital is necessary in Latin America. There isn't enough public capital to do the job. And, therefore, we are working on it and the Brazilian Government has been responsive in attempting to work out a satisfactory solution. President Goulart is coming here in April, and we will be discussing many matters which involve our relations. And I must say that if you look at the map and realize the vitality of Brazil, I think that we ought to keep a sense of proportion. We don't want to make the work of those who dislike us easy by reacting to things which happen in a way which strengthens them and weakens the influence of the United States.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, you have suggested that the Indiana Dunes, a natural area comparable to that on Cape Cod between Nauset and North Truro, be reserved to the Nation as a national park. It is now in danger of being destroyed by the erection of a steel mill and an artificial harbor. Do you think there is any chance of federal action to save this area for the Nation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we made our recommendation and we'll follow and see what the Congress does with it. It's highly controversial. But we expressed what we thought was in the best interests, with the large number of people who live in that immediate area. And we'll continue to watch it through the Congress."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-02-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I have one statement. It is increasingly clear that the impact of Colonel Glenn's magnificent achievement yesterday goes far beyond our own time and our own country. The success of this flight, the new knowledge it will give us, and the new steps which can now be undertaken, will affect life on this planet for many years to come.,This country has received more than 30 messages of congratulations from other heads of state all over the world which recognize the global benefits of this extraordinary accomplishment. And I want to express my thanks to them and at the same time pay tribute to the international cooperation entailed in the successful operation of the Mercury tracking network, and express particular appreciation to those governments which participated in this international program by permitting the location of 18 such stations all around the world, including those in the Grand Canary Island, Nigeria, Zanzibar, Australia, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Canton Island in the Pacific.,One of the messages that I received was from Chairman Khrushchev in the Soviet Union, suggesting that it would be beneficial to the advance of science if our countries could work together in the exploration of space. I am replying to his message today, and I regard it as most encouraging, this proposal for international cooperation in space exploration, including specifically Soviet-American cooperation, which I spelled out in my State of the Union Message of last year, and in my address to the United Nations. You may recall that last year in January of 1961 in the State of the Union Address, I said, \"Specifically, I now invite all nations--including the Soviet Union--to join with us in developing a weather prediction program, in a new communications satellite program and in preparation for probing the distant planets of Mars and Venus, probes which may someday unlock the deepest secrets of the universe.\",Previous to that, under the previous administration, many suggestions were made for international cooperation. On one occasion, the Vice President, then Senator Johnson, acting on behalf of President Eisenhower, presented a proposal to the United Nations for the peaceful uses of outer space.,We believe that when men reach beyond this planet they should leave their national differences behind them. All men will benefit, if we can invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. We look forward to visiting with Colonel Glenn on Friday and welcoming him to Washington next Monday.,It has been said that peace has her victories as well as war, and I think all of us can take pride and satisfaction in this victory of technology and the human spirit.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us the nature of your actual response to Mr. Khrushchev on this proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. We will indicate in the response our desire that space be explored peacefully and that we will be glad, in the United Nations and in any other forum, to discuss how this can best be done so that this new ocean which I referred to yesterday may be a peaceful one. I think it's particularly important now, before space becomes devoted to the uses of war. So we will be prepared to discuss this matter, as I say, at the United Nations, or bilaterally, or any other way in which this common cause can be advanced.,Q. Mr. President, on the same subject, do you think it would be wise, or can you conceive of a situation where we would have Russian observers at a space shot by this country without United States observers being allowed to view up close the Russian shot?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, today we permit observers from all countries, members of the press from all countries, to come and watch our shots, and this has been a very open procedure, and one of the reasons why I think we all take satisfaction is because we took our chances out in the open, and our delays, which were well publicized and which may have caused some satisfaction to those who were not our well-wishers--it seems to me we have a double pleasure when it goes well.,I do feel that, of course, if there's any cooperation it must be in the sense we are now discussing--it must be wholly bilateral, and I think that that, of course, would be one of the matters which we would discuss.,Q. Mr. President, pursuing this subject even further, do you have any indication beyond the rather nebulous but hopeful remarks of Mr. Khrushchev in his congratulatory message that they are really willing to get down to cases in cooperation in these areas?,One recalls that they did actually do something in this respect in the International Geophysical Year and I just wondered if between the time of the State of the Union Message and now any other tangible developments have come up beyond or in addition to his statement yesterday.,THE PRESIDENT. No, We have seen no evidence that we would be able to confidently expect in the last 12 months that this kind of cooperation would take place. But we, I might say, now have more chips on the table than we did some time ago. So perhaps the prospects are improving.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, can you say whether up to this day the international scientific community or American scientists have received any data from the Soviet space flights of Titov and Gagarin?,THE PRESIDENT. You mean other than those we might have picked up ourselves?,Q. Yes, I mean through the international scientific community or any published works in the Soviet?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, except for those that may have been published. I am not sure that we have. But before I give you a final answer perhaps I can ask Mr. Salinger and Mr. Hatchet to see if before the end of the press conference we could find out if there's been any more detailed information made available to us or to anyone else, so I'll come back to that.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, on a more local level, the Washington Daily News suggested today that since Colonel Glenn's achievements illustrate the ultimate in physical and scientific discipline, that all the school kids and all the surrounding schools in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington be let out to welcome him here Monday. Would you go along with that suggestion?,THE PRESIDENT. We always follow the Washington Daily News--[laughter]--and I believe that that is being done. In this particular area, Washington, D.C., and 'perhaps those that may be nearby in Maryland and Virginia, we would be glad if they followed the example.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there have been published reports to the effect that you have decided on a policy of disengagement in Laos after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Could you clarify the situation as you see it in Laos and South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would say that our policy has been quite consistent since last April, when we agreed to the cease-fire, and we have, since that date, been attempting to organize a government and secure agreements from the parties who are involved internally and externally for a neutral and independent Laos. That is our objective, and we're continuing to work for it.,Many months have passed, but that remains the star by which we guide our course there, and therefore, it would be improper at this time to talk about disengagement. We are engaged in the task of attempting to build a neutral and independent Laos, and it is to that end that we are directing our effort. And it would be, as I say, not precise to state that on the advice of the Joint Chiefs or for any other reason we are withdrawing our interest before that task has been accomplished.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, Chancellor Adenauer is reported to have said while talking with the parliamentary group of the CDU that possibly the time has come to break off the Thompson-Gromyko talks and throw the Berlin question into a Big four foreign ministers conference. Do you have any comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know that there was a newspaper report based on, supposedly, what the Chancellor said in a conversation, but I think there is some question as to whether that represented an accurate description of his views. I will say that that is not the impression that we have received, and, in fact, we have received an opposite impression, and that is that these probes, or these talks, while they have not been productive so far, nevertheless the subject is not exhausted, and we should continue. If, and I've said this from the beginning, there is some evidence that by raising them to a ministerial level that we would be more successful, then I think we ought to do it. But I do think that the conversations at this level now at least permit us to see whether there is any ground for a hopeful negotiation. I presume that what you mean by four powers would be the Soviet Union, the British, the French and ourselves, and not West Germany, the British, French, and ourselves. As you know, General de Gaulle has been unwilling to have a four power foreign ministers conference, at least for France, until there is some evidence that such a conference might produce a useful result. So far the resuits have been comparatively minor, or minuscule.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, recalling your own interest in Algeria as a Senator, have you any comment on the cease-fire agreement that apparently has now been reached between the rebels and the French Government?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm hopeful that there is a cease-fire agreement, that it will permit an orderly and satisfactory solution, and we are, of course, most interested in the efforts that are being made to achieve that. I think that we should wait, as far as the United States is concerned, and watch the evolution with very concerned and friendly interest, which has been our policy for many months.,[7'] Q. Mr. President, no doubt you are aware as to what Congress has done on the urban affairs proposal. Would you care to comment, sir, on what your next step would be regarding the plight of the cities, and also what the future might hold for Mr. Weaver?,THE PRESIDENT Well, I think there's going to be an urban department some time. There isn't going to be one now, but there's going to be sooner or later. You have too large a percentage of our population living in the city, 70 to 75 to 80 percent. They face many problems. The mayors of the country and others who are most concerned with them have supported this proposal. We're going to have an urban department. It may not come this year, but in my opinion it will become as necessary and inevitable as the Department of Agriculture or HEW. Now, the difficulty, of course, is that many of those who do not live in urban areas are opposed to it. But if we in this country began to adopt the system that everyone who lives in a city area voted against those things which were of assistance to the farmer, and everybody who comes from a rural area voted against those policies which provided a better life for people in the city, and everybody who lived outside the Tennessee Valley voted against the Tennessee Valley Authority, and everyone who lived in the East voted against the development in the Northwest, or the development of natural resources, this country would come to a grinding halt.,So I am hopeful that after a longer look is taken at this proposal, and it's analyzed on its merits, that in my judgment the Congress of the United States will support an urban program. I believe it's vitally important, and I regret that Congress did not see fit to adopt it. I don't think it is so much the administration's loss as it's a loss for the city and the country.,Now in regard to Dr. Weaver, he would have been admirably qualified as the head of the largest division which would have been included in the urban department. I see now that various people who opposed the urban department are now ready to support him for any Cabinet position he wishes, Defense, State, Treasury, or anything else. I consider him admirably qualified the Presidents fled for this particular position because he's had long experience in it, and while I'm sure he is grateful for those good wishes for a Cabinet position where there is no vacancy, I think he feels that he would have been-that this country would have been better served to have voted for an urban department, and permitted him to continue his service in that capacity. Mr. Weaver will get along all right, but I think the question is, the people in the cities are the ones who have been defeated.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Soviet planes are continuing to fly through the Berlin air corridor despite our objections. This comes at a time when the Soviets are increasingly critical about the alleged lack of progress in the Berlin talks in Moscow. Do you think this could be a pressure move by the Soviets to force us to come up with additional concessions in Moscow?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't attempt to draw any conclusions except to say that we've continued to fly the air routes into Berlin. And while those flights have not passed without some interference, I think the fact is that, of course, our rights in this area are being maintained. I'm hopeful that the Soviet Union and ourselves will be able, as I said from the beginning, to reach an accommodation, because obviously, any interference with these kinds of rights or rights which may be on the Autobahn, all these things carry with them hazards which none of us should welcome if we look to the possible end of the road.,So I would not make any judgment. I merely hope that it will be possible for them to desist.,[9.] In answer to Mr. Lisagor's questions, it says some exchange between the Soviet and U.S. scientists of informal nature, but only medical information. There was no technical information in regard to the exchanges which have taken place in space.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us any information on the present whereabouts of U-2 pilot Powers and when he will be available for questioning by the press and Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. There is, as you know, a board of inquiry which is examining whether Mr. Powers completed his contract. That board of inquiry is under the leadership of Judge Prettyman and represents outstanding citizens. Mr. Powers has been cooperating fully. He will be available for the Congress-this inquiry will be completed by the middle of next week--and he would then be available to the Congress and to the press. And I must say that there is so far no evidence that he did not comply with his contract, but I think we could make a more precise judgment at the next press conference, or a more final judgment, I would say.,[11.] Q. In your view, Mr. President, is the South Vietnamese Government now carrying out the administrative reforms and creating the political conditions in which our increased assistance can be most effective?,THE PRESIDENT. We're working with them to accomplish both of these objectives. And these objectives, I must say, are hard to carry out. This country's been in the struggle now for a number of years. It has not--it had not many skilled administrators when it got its independence in '54, and it had been at war for really, in a sense, with the Japanese occupation and the war with the French, for almost 15 years before that, so that it's a very difficult assignment. It is a fact, however, that the gross national product, agricultural production, health, education, all these things materially increased in the last 6 years. But I think it's a matter for which the Vietnamese Government must be concerned about. We're prepared to offer every assistance we can in making that Government a more effective instrument for the people.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, concern has been voiced by church leaders that wives and children of servicemen cannot accompany them to Europe and live with them. They are worried about moral implications, breakup of homes. Since the logistic requirements are no longer so urgent, it seems, is there a chance that this order may be changed soon?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, most of the servicemen in Europe have their-who are married--have their families with them. There may be some who may be there for a more limited time who do not. In addition, of course, we're concerned about the gold flow which comes because of our troop commitments to Europe. I've said before that we spend $3 billion a year in maintaining our military forces around the world, and our bases. So if we are able to cut that somewhat, we shall do so. But to be more specific, most of the servicemen now in Europe have their families with them. There are some who do not, and the purpose of it, of course, is to limit this drain.,Q. Mr. President, may I ask, was there not a memorandum on September 6 by the Defense Secretary forbidding the travel, though, for wives and children?,THE PRESIDENT. We have attempted in recent weeks and months to limit the number of families going overseas, and the only reason for it has been that we are losing dollars and gold, and we have to attempt to bring it into balance, and this has been one of the ways which we've considered. We have left the families over there which were already there, but we're attempting to limit those that may go. This presents a hazard and a difficulty. But we're also very concerned about attempting to bring this flow into balance. And one of the ways is to try to cut that $3 billion to $2 billion or $1.9 billion, and one of the ways in which we can do this is to attempt to limit family travel even though quite rightly it does present burdens to those involved.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, I hope this isn't repetitious, but the United States Air force has a great reputation in Western Europe for clearing the sky of interference. And it has been reported out of Germany that you are weighing a decision about giving fighter escorts to the transports in and out of Berlin. Would you want to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Every plane that has set out has completed its mission. Every plane that has set out to fly from West Germany to West Berlin has arrived.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in considering the conditions under which the United States might refrain from a resumption of nuclear testing, I wonder if you would comment on the following suggestion contained in a recent letter to the editor of the New York Times: \"Let both sides be allowed to maintain preparations at the ready for immediate tests should the other side be detected setting off a surprise explosion.\",THE PRESIDENT. Well in the first place, that's part of the problem but not all of the problem. Part of the problem is the fact that the Soviet Union already had set off its tests, and--while the moratorium was in effect. And therefore we have to consider the effects upon our security of those tests. So that this suggestion does not meet the whole problem.,Secondly, it's more difficult for us to maintain ourselves at the ready to be prepared for tests. Some months have gone by since the Soviet tests. We have been making our preparations, as I have said. It takes many months, and we are concerned, that if we had another moratorium, that the Soviet Union would set a target date and be prepared and once again it would take us a period of time, perhaps not quite as long as this time, to carry out our own tests.,I would say the greater concern is the effect of the Soviet tests and the extrapolations which can be gained from them in making the judgment as to whether we should carry out our tests. But I did read the letter in the Times, and at least it is a suggestion which I considered and which others considered.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the Attorney General, your brother, has encountered evidence of a certain amount of hostility from student groups in various countries. Inasmuch as this has happened before with other American visitors in the past administration, have you given any thought to what it is about us that students in particular seem to resent? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, one of the reasons that I was anxious to have the Attorney General make the trip was because of this very--rather curious factor, because you would feel that students, who are intellectually curious, would be attracted by a free society which gives that intellectual curiosity a chance to develop, rather than a totalitarian society. And therefore, as you know, in the Attorney General's schedule, on nearly every occasion he has spoken at colleges and universities, so I'm sure he will have some views of that. What has also interested me is the stereotype of the United States. It is a view of the United States almost 50 years old, and there is no doubt that it is a--Marxist oriented, and the--even in those cases where they may not be Communist.,There are many explanations for it. In the first place these were colonial areas. They were held under subjugation in many cases by Western powers. The road 6f revolt was in many cases because the Communists were most active. They dominated the thinking. And I don't think that the students have caught up with the tremendous changes which have taken place in the United States in the last 50 years, or with the fallacies in the Marxist system which have become obvious in the last 20 years.,In addition, I don't think we are able emphasize those facets of American life which should be most attractive. I said yesterday that the University of California has more Nobel prize winners than the Soviet Union. They find in this country, and there are 40 or 50 of them, a climate which permits them to function most effectively. And all of the cultural efforts here, all of the intellectual efforts, all our great schools and universities, these are the part of the story we ought to tell.,I think the Attorney General attempted to communicate that, but of course, he is one voice. But he is attempting to--as you know, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. But I do agree with you that this is one of the most serious, and I think in many ways stimulating, problems we face-how to tell our story in a way that makes it new and exciting to young students and also have them examine objectively under the light of present circumstances the serious failures of the Marxist system, which can be told from the Wall to China. And I think that is our job, and I think the trip's been worthwhile for that purpose alone.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable discussion regarding possible tax reduction. Would you tell us what the prospects are for an income tax cut within the next few years?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you were--I was set to answer that till you said \"the next few years.\" I don't know what's going to be our economic situation in the next few years. Obviously, our present tax structure brings in, in good times, a tremendous revenue and if we do not have a recession and our present tax structure remains we would be in a position, obviously, where a tax reduction in a few years or in a period of time might be possible. The fact of the matter is that if we had not had the Berlin crisis, which required a $3.5 billion additional expenditure last summer at the time when we were considering our tax reform bill, it might have been possible to make changes in some of the categories. That was denied to us.,Therefore, for the present there is not a chance of a tax reduction. The key will be whether we can have continued prosperity, and I therefore urge again that the Congress consider very carefully the proposals that we've made which we hope can keep the economy moving ahead. I regard that as a problem which should engage our best efforts of both parties. And we sent up a number of proposals on which at least we have our ideas: capital expenditures, the income tax for a period of time if we begin to have a slump, retraining, youth employment, and all the rest. Now, if these aren't the proper means, I'd like to have other suggestions. But you can't look at '49 and '54 and '58 and '60, and say that nothing needs to be done. So I would hope that those who do not agree--and there seem to be some--with our suggestions, I think they're obligated to come forward with some of their own. And I can assure them we will look at them most carefully, because if we have another recession in '63 and '64, it will affect our gold problems, it will affect our problem of unemployment, and all the rest. So I think it's a matter we all ought to be looking at and it's the kind of dialogue to which both of our parties ought to be addressing themselves, rather than some of the rather ancient arguments which it seems to me were settled in the days of Franklin Roosevelt.,[17] Q. Mr. President, in view of your remarks on the military dependents' travel, is it correct to believe, then, that such travel will not be resumed until the gold flow situation improves?,THE PRESIDENT. I would prefer to talk to the--have you talk with the Defense Department who can perhaps give us more up-to-date information than I'm able to do today. And I can perhaps supplement that after the press conference with Mr. Salinger.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, if we could go back to the space question, we have been talking about a race in space, for example a race between the United States and Russia to get to the moon. Suppose now we should get this international cooperation that you've been talking about. What form would it take? Would it go so far, for example, as a joint United States-Russia mission to the moon? Would it go that far? Or just how would it work?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be premature to attempt to suggest, because all we have now, so far, is an indication of interest, and we know from long experience that it's more difficult to transform these general expressions into specific agreements. So I think that we should wait until we see what response we get from the Soviets to our answer to Mr. Khrushchev and then decide what it is we can do. We are spending billions of dollars in space, and if it's possible to insure that space is peaceful and that it can be used for the benefit of everyone, then the United States must respond to any opportunity we have to insure that it's peaceful. But I can't give you an answer until we see whether the rain follows the warm wind in this case.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Goldberg is understood to be considering a plan to permit 100 percent set-asides for labor surplus areas in selected civilian agency procurement contracts. If he indicates his approval of this plan, will you give yours in the form of an Executive order authorizing these increased set-asides?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'd be very responsive to that, if we can do it. I think one of the great concerns--we have a rather limited amount of contracts, both defense and civilian, that go to areas of maximum unemployment. Partly that's because there aren't sufficient plants in those areas. But in answer to your question, if Mr. Goldberg suggests it, I would be inclined to approve it, though I'd like to--I'd first have to examine it in more detail than I have up to this time.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-02-14","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have one statement.,[1.] There have been a number of questions directed to the White House and other governmental agencies about our release of Col. Rudolf Abel, and the freeing of Francis Gary Powers and Frederic Pryor from detention in the Soviet Union and East Germany, respectively.,Let me say first that I'm deeply pleased that the pilot, Mr. Powers, and the student, Mr. Pryor, have been released and reunited with their families. I shall be doubly pleased if their release turns out to be a sign of possible significant progress in the lessening of world tensions.,As for the whereabouts of Mr. Powers, I can state at this time only that he's in this country, that he has seen his father and mother, and that his wife is with him. He is undergoing important interviews by appropriate officials of this Government. Mr. Powers is cooperating voluntarily with the Government in these discussions. At the conclusion of these discussions, the information derived from these interviews will be made available to appropriate committees of the Congress, and Mr. Powers will be free to testify before the Congress, should the Congress so wish. Mr. Powers will be made available to the press at the earliest feasible moment.,Q. Mr. President, when Mr. Powers completes this interrogation and he's free to testify, what will his status be? Will the Government still have any claim on his services or will he be a free agent to go as he pleases?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he's a free agent, as I've said at the present time, to go as he pleases. He is cooperating voluntarily with the Government, and at the conclusion of the present discussions, he will be free to carry on whatever work he should choose.,Q. Mr. President, is it possible to say now how Powers was brought down in Russia, whether he was shot down or whether it was mechanical trouble?,THE PRESIDENT. It would seem to me that this question and others relating to it really should wait until the interrogations have been completed, and until the Government has finished talking about all these matters with Mr. Powers. Then, as I say, he will be available, and will give whatever information would be in the national interest to give.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, can you comment on Prime Minister Macmillan's statement yesterday that there will be no testing on Christmas Island before the opening of the Geneva conference, and have developments in the last week affected our plans?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that statement of the Prime Minister of course is correct, and nothing in the events of the last week--if you're referring to the exchange of communications with Chairman Khrushchev which we had and the letter back, and now our letter back to him--that has not changed our plans. As I've stated, by the end of the month we will have concluded our analysis of our relative positions and we will be in a position to make a decision. But in any case, whichever way the decision would go, there would be no testing, as the Prime Minister said, on Christmas Island before that date.,Q. Mr. President, to refer to your letter to Premier Khrushchev this morning, without meaning to exclude other examples, could you give us one example of the kind of progress in the disarmament talks that might lead you to participate personally in a summit conference?,THE PRESIDENT. If the discussions at Geneva indicated that genuine progress could be made which would provide for a responsible disarmament agreement, an effective disarmament agreement, with effective inspection which, of course, must be a part of any disarmament agreement, if it's going to be--truly meet the international needs, then of course, if we are moving ahead in that kind of area, and my presence at a meeting in Geneva would advance that cause, of course I would go. But our point is, in the letter, that what we want to do is try to make that progress in the negotiations. Then if we are making it and a meeting of heads of state would complete it or would materially advance it, then it would seem to me that every head of state would want to go.,Q. Mr. President, have you received any Indication from the neutralist countries, particularly India, whether or not they would send foreign ministers or heads of state to the March 18th meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't know what the decision will be of the heads of the other governments to which Mr. Khrushchev addressed his letter.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, our Labor Department estimates that approximately 1.8 million persons holding jobs are replaced every year by machines. How urgent do you view this problem--automation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is a fact that we have to find, over a 10-year period, 25,000 new jobs every week to take care of those who are displaced by machines and those who are coming into the labor market, so that this places a major burden upon our economy and on our society, and it's one to which we will have to give a good deal of attention in the next decade. I regard it as a very serious problem. If our economy is moving forward, we can absorb this 1,800,000, even though in particular industries we may get special structural unemployment. We've seen that in steel, we've seen it in coal, we may see it in other industries. But if our economy is progressing as we hope it will, then we can absorb a good many of these men and women. But I regard it as the major domestic challenge, really, of the sixties, to maintain full employment at a time when automation, of course, is replacing men.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with the view attributed to Ambassador Beam that any arms agreement the West reaches with Russia must ultimately include Red China to have real value?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I would think there would have to be an agreement that would cover the world, if it is going to be valuable.,Q. Mr. President, you have indicated you would like some priority to the nuclear test ban at the meetings that open on March 14. Would the United States be willing to stand by the draft treaty of last April, that was laid before the Soviet Union then?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've stated that we will--that it may be necessary to bring that treaty up to date. But basically we have indicated that we would sign an agreement which would have as its basis certainly the April proposal. There might be some new additions that could be made to it, but that is the basic thesis on which we've been acting since last April.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in the past year you have had an experience with a whole variety of diplomacy and forms of diplomacy. Could you tell us what your thoughts are now on the practice of summitry?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my view is the same as it has been, and that is that a summit is not a place to carry on negotiations which involve details, and that a summit should be a place where perhaps agreements which have been achieved at a lower level could be finally, officially approved by the heads of government, or if there was a major crisis which threatened to involve us all in a war, there might be a need for a summit. But my general view would be that we should climb to the summit after careful preparation at the lower levels.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Nelson Rockefeller on Sunday said that in his view the results of Punta del Este amounted to a diplomatic failure for the United States. Is there anything you would have to say on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I disagree. I think that all of the countries of the hemisphere together made a finding that Cuba and the Communist system were not--should not be considered part of the inter-American system. And in my opinion that was a most important declaration, because it put the inter-American system squarely and unanimously against Communist infiltration. So that I do have a different view of the results, even though there's a division, of course, among countries as there is bound to be, as to the best methods of containing the expansion of communism. But on the general opposition to its expansion in this hemisphere, I think there was unanimity, and I regard that as most important.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, some Congressmen are again critical of the fact that they don't know how much they're voting for CIA or, due to the fact that the requests are hidden in other budgets, even when they're voting on CIA. Does this have any validity, do you think?,THE PRESIDENT. The budget for the CIA is handled by the members of the Appropriations Committee of the House and Senate. It's bipartisan, and includes members who are the most senior and the most experienced in the area. They are fully informed. Quite obviously, there are some limitations on what we're able to reveal in the national interest, but in my judgment the budgetary procedures which have been followed in the past have combined congressional responsibility and also protection of our vital interests.,[8.] Q. This being Valentine's Day, sir, do you think it might be a good idea if you would call Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina down to the White House for a heart-to-heart talk--[laughter]--about the whole disagreement over the censorship of the military speeches and what he calls your defeatist foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that that meeting should be probably prepared at a lower level--[laughter]--and then we could have a--,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the Republican National Committee publication has said that you have been less than candid with the American people as to how deeply we are involved in Viet-Nam. Could you throw any more light on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, as you know, the United States for more than a decade has been assisting the government, the people of Viet-Nam, to maintain their independence. Way back in December 23, 1950, we signed a military assistance agreement with France and with Indochina which at that time included Viet-Nam, Laos, and Cambodia. We also signed in December of 1951 an agreement directly with Viet-Nam.,Now, in 1954, the Geneva agreements were signed and while we did not sign those agreements nevertheless Under Secretary Bedell Smith stated that he would view any renewal of the aggression in Viet-Nam in violation of the aforesaid agreements with grave concern, and as seriously threatening international peace and security. And at the time that the SEATO Pact was signed in 1954, September 8, though Viet-Nam was not a signatory it was a protocol state, and therefore this pact, which was approved by the Senate with only, I think, two against it, under article 4 stated that the United States recognized that aggression by means of armed attack against Viet-Nam would threaten our own peace and security. So since that time the United States has been assisting the Government of Viet-Nam to maintain its independence. It has had a military training mission there and it's also given extensive economic assistance.,As you know, during the last 2 years that war has increased. The Vice President visited there last spring. The war became more intense every month; in fact, every week. The attack on the government by the Communist forces with assistance from the north became of greater and greater concern to the Government of Viet-Nam and the Government of the United States. We sent--I sent General Taylor there to make a review of the situation. The President of Viet-Nam asked us for additional assistance. We issued, as you remember, a white paper which detailed the support which the Viet Minh in the north were giving to this Communist insurgent movement and we have increased our assistance there. And we are supplying logistic assistance, transportation assistance, training, and we have a number of Americans who are taking part in that effort.,We have discussed this matter--we discussed it with the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats when we met in early January and informed them of what we were doing in Viet-Nam. Mr. Rusk has discussed it with the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. McNamara has discussed it with the Armed Services Committee. The leadership on both sides, Republicans and the Democrats have been--we have explained to them our concern about what is happening there, and they have been responsive, I think, and evidenced their concern. So that there's a long history of our effort to prevent Viet-Nam from falling under control of the Communists. That is what we are now attempting to do, and as the war has increased in scope, our assistance has increased as a result of the requests of the government. So that I think we should--as it's a matter of great importance, a matter of great sensitivity--my view has always been that the headquarters of both of our parties should really attempt to leave these matters to be discussed by responsible leaders on both sides, and in my opinion, we have had a very strong bipartisan consensus up till now, and I'm hopeful that it will continue in regard to the actions that we're taking.,Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you have told the American people as much as can be told, because of the sensitivity of the subject? Is that right?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I've just indicated what our role is. We have increased our assistance to the government--its logistics; we have not sent combat troops there, although the training missions that we have there have been instructed if they are fired upon to--they would of course, fire back, to protect themselves. But we have not sent combat troops in the generally understood sense of the word. We have increased our training mission, and we've increased our logistics support, and we are attempting to prevent a Communist takeover of Viet-Nam, which is in accordance with a policy which our Government has followed for the last-certainly since 1954, and even before then as I've indicated, and we are attempting to make all the information available that we can consistent with our security needs in the area. So that I feel that we are being as frank as we can be. I think what I have said to you is a description of our activity there.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago you told us of your hope of sending Mr. Eugene Black of the World Bank to India and Pakistan to see what could be done about the Kashmir dispute. Apparently Prime Minister Nehru doesn't like that approach, or feels it should be done another way. Do you have any present 'plan to try to move this issue off dead center through some other approach?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the United States did make an effort in this regard. We are giving assistance to both countries. We would like to see the assistance used most effectively, and anything that increases the tension between them or causes our aid to be turned into military channels as a result of tensions with each other makes our aid less effective, and therefore we suggested Mr. Black might be able to fill a useful role. The decision was made by the Indian Government that that would not be appropriate at this time, and therefore--there is an election going on in India--I'm hopeful at the conclusion of the election that the two parties can make some progress in settling it among themselves, which is evidently what they prefer at this time.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, on the question-there have been persistent reports that the Attorney General is still going to visit the Soviet Union, before he returns from his trip abroad. Is there any such possibility?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, on the basis of your talks with King Saud, can you tell us what the prospects are on the renewal of our base rights at Dhahran?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've never requested the renewal of our base rights. It's not a matter which is at issue between the two governments.,Q. You would expect it to lapse, then?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we do, and we've made preparations for that, and that's what is the desire of both countries. So it has not been a subject, really, of discussion between us.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, a few moments ago I believe you said that on the joint British-American draft agreement on disarmament, that it should be brought up to date. I wonder if you could expand on that a little. Are you speaking of an inspection of preparations, specifically, for testing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that my statement last week indicated our concern about that matter but--and I think that the positions that we would take at the conference will be presented at that time. I don't mean to--I don't think anything particularly significant should be read into my response. We have stated that we will be ready to sign an agreement which provides for effective inspection and that is our position, and our position is based upon our proposal of last April. I'm not aware that there would be any significant change in that. If there is, it will be presented by the time the disarmament conference begins.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the question of unemployment, some 13,000 workers in one plant on Long Island are facing layoffs as a result of the Defense Department's decision to phase out one type of aircraft. Do you see any need for new steps to offset the economic impact of changing defense requirements such as cases as this?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the figures of the possible layoffs are not--are overstated in your question, because to the best of my information they would be substantially, very substantially, less than the figure that you gave, and that would be our--it is a matter of considerable concern, however, that anyone will be laid off at that particular factory, and we are concerned about it. In fact, I think that your publisher wrote me about the matter last week. We even heard from the Congressman and we are concerned about seeing if we can maintain employment at the highest possible level at that plant. The difficulty, of course, comes because the particular plane that they are manufacturing is not being continued and that presents us with a difficult decision at a number of areas. But we are very conscious of the problem that's faced at that plant and we are going to try to see if we can maintain employment as high as it's possible for us to do so, even though some cut, but of a much less figure than you mentioned, will perhaps inevitably come.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, would you approve a bill which would increase the size of the House by three members to solve a Massachusetts political problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I would wait. It seems to me it's a decision which the House will have to make, and after the House has acted, the Senate has acted, and I see what the bill is, I'd make a judgment about whether it'd be approved or not.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, in the past it has been thought that the Russians might persuade the Red Chinese to agree to any nuclear test ban agreement that they might reach with the West. Now, it seems that the Russians' ability to persuade the Chinese to do very much is limited. How, then, do you see bringing the Red Chinese into any inspection and control system?,THE PRESIDENT. Well it's obviously very difficult, but there is really no use in having an inspection system agreed upon between, say, the Soviet Union and the United States and some other countries and then have another country--large--carrying on intensive armaments preparation. Quite obviously, that would not protect our security. So this problem of bringing them in is a problem that must be considered before we would be able to have confidence in any disarmament agreement.,I quite recognize the hazards and the difficulties of attempting to bring them in. But if we are making progress--and we have a good deal of hurdles to overcome before we come to this particular question--it is a question which waits for us before the end of the road is reached. And it would be a very difficult one, but one that we certainly should have in mind as we start on this conference.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, last week the Capitol Hill paper, Roll Call, published an interview with the leaders of the Soviet parliament, in which they urged establishment of ties and exchange of delegations between the United States Congress and the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. What is your personal opinion about the desirability of such contacts?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that--I am very interested in any exchanges. I think the matter of whether the Congress should go is really a decision which the Congress themselves should reach. As far as my general interest, of course, I think that exchanges are very useful; but on the matter of the Congress itself, I think that it's a matter which the Congress can make a judgment on as to whether the national interest would be served by their going.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the avowed solidarity of Communist Cuba with the Soviet Union, what is the present status of the Monroe Doctrine?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, the--Mr. Salinger passed up a note saying that the OAS--the Organization of American States--has just excluded Cuba from its deliberations, which I think indicates the unanimity of the hemisphere in regard to this. We are attempting to carry out our policy through the Organization of American States, through the hemisphere. Quite obviously we have our own national interests to protect and our national security to protect, which we will do. And therefore, we attempt to accommodate the policies in a whole variety of ways, in order to serve the national interest.,[19.] Q. Sir, my question concerns the postponement of Colonel Glenn's flight today. This is the eighth time, I believe, that his flight has been postponed, and among other things there's been a considerable ordeal on Colonel Glenn himself.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. Do you think, sir, that it would have been better, that it would be better even now, to, say, move up the date much deeper in the spring to a point where we would be more certain of the weather, instead of running the risk of repeated delays?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is unfortunate. I know it strains Colonel Glenn. It has delayed our program. It puts burdens on all of those who must make these decisions as to whether the mission should go or not. I think it's been very unfortunate. But I have taken the position that the judgment of those on the spot should be final in regard to this mission, and I'll continue to take that judgment. I think that they would be reluctant to have it canceled for another 3 or 4 months because it would slow our whole space program down at a time when we're making a concentrated effort in space. But I am quite aware of the strain it's caused everyone, and it's been a source of regret to everyone, but I think we ought to stick with the present group who are making the judgment, and they are hopeful still of having this flight take place in the next few days. And I'm going to follow their judgment in the matter, even though we've had bad luck.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to the proposal for a permanent summit White House at Newport, R.I.? Have you reached a decision on that?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Mr. Udall--the proposal was made by, I think, Senator Pell and Senator Pastore, and it went to Mr. Udall, and I have not discussed the matter with him, and--though he is looking at the matter and is going to reply to them, I'm sure I will discuss it with him before a final decision is made.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a notable lack of activity in the Senate on postal rate increases. There is some indication this is tied to efforts to tie together rate increases with postal wage increases. Do you have any comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we ought to move ahead on the postal rate increase bill. I am hopeful that the Senate will. The House met its responsibilities; I'm hopeful the Senate will. Then we can take up the question of pay increases. The administration has some recommendations in that area, but I think it would be a mistake to so intimately link them.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, could you evaluate the situation in Laos in light of continuing Communist attacks at Nam Tha?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's--as I've said, the cease-fire is becoming increasingly frayed. It's my understanding that Souvanna Phouma has an audience with the King, and I'm hopeful that progress, which has been very slow in the last 30 days can be made in attempting to agree on a government. Obviously every day that goes by increases the dangers.,The Communist forces move forward. The government forces reinforce their people at the town. The town is very close to the Chinese border, so it's a very dangerous situation, because if the cease-fire should break down, we would have--be faced with the most serious decision. So I'm hopeful the cease-fire will continue to prevail, and that the various groups within the country will come to an agreement which will permit a neutral and independent Laos which has been the objective of our policy.,[23.] Q. Sir, you have already stated that it is our national policy to carry out the deletions that the censors were carrying out in the Defense Department, and State, and you said you did not want to divulge the names of these censors because they were carrying out your policy.,THE PRESIDENT. No, that isn't what I said. I said--the names have been revealed in the military and in the State Department of those who have been involved in reviewing speeches.,Q. But you said you did not want to divulge the name of the specific censor who did the specific censoring.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is correct.,Q. My question, sir, now is: Would you tell us why it has to be national policy to delete from the speeches of admirals and generals such phrases as \"emerge victorious.\" \"victorious, .... beat the Communists,\" and phrases like that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, those particular phrases I am not familiar with and, therefore, I don't know whether or not they were deleted. But I would say that if the--the purpose of the review is the same purpose that I stated a month ago, and that is to make sure that governmental policy is--that the government speaks with one voice. Now, to give an example of the kind of thing that makes these reviews necessary, there was a speech which was brought to the White House, I think on January 23, which was to be given by Admiral Burke. We had a new administration. Admiral Burke, himself, sent the speech over because he wanted to be sure that anything he said which would be interpreted as being the policy of the new administration was in accordance with the new administration.,Admiral Burke was not aware that we were then carrying on negotiations for the release of the RB-47 pilots. So that it indicates how desirable it is. As I said, it also applies to me. I sent, as I said before, the State of the Union Address to both Defense and to the State Department so that they could see if there were any parts in it which they would want to comment on.,The Admiral Burke example, I think, indicates clearly how desirable it is to have speeches gone over by those who represent the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. Now there's no doubt that on some occasions those reviews may have been unwise. After all, $200 speeches came in, in one year, and I would not attempt at all to defend every change that's been made. But I do state that they were acting in good faith in every occasion, even though their judgment may not be as good as other people's may be.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, in the light of the apparent easing of tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly with respect to Berlin, can you say with any precision now when the military reservists might be released?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The crisis continues and the reservists--the need for reservists continues until there is an easing of the crisis or until we've been able to replace them with other men. As you know, we are building two new permanent divisions which will be ready in August--one division--and September, the other division. And, of course, that will then present us with an entirely different situation in regard to their need. But until we have an easing of the crisis in Berlin or these two new divisions, the need for the reservists, of course, will continue.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, a number of your right-wing critics say that your foreign policy is based on a no-win policy in the cold war. Would you address yourself to this charge?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, every American whoever they may be, wants the United States to be secure and at peace and they want the cause of freedom around the world to prevail. Quite obviously that is our national objective. And what we are anxious to do, of course, is protect our national security, protect the freedom of the countries, permit what Thomas Jefferson called the disease of liberty to be caught in areas which are now held by Communists, and some areas where people are imprisoned. We want to do that, of course, without having a nuclear war. Now, if someone thinks we should have a nuclear war in order to win, I can inform them that there will not be winners in the next nuclear war, if there is one, and this country and other countries will suffer very heavy blows. So that we have to proceed with responsibility and with care in an age where the human race can obliterate itself. The objective of this administration, and I think the objective of the country, is to protect our security, keep the peace, protect our vital interests, make it possible for what we believe to be a system of government which is in accordance with the basic aspirations of people everywhere to ultimately prevail. And that is our objective and that's the one that we shall continue.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-02-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have two announcements to make.,[1.] In the next days and weeks, there will be a good deal said and written about two American policies, one in the field of disarmament, and the other in the field of preparations which have already been announced, to be in a position to test in the atmosphere if our national security indicates that it's desirable.,There is no inconsistency here in my judgment, because I think that we would be deeply irresponsible not to follow both courses. We are making necessary preparations for testing because of the wholly new situation created by the secretly prepared and massive series of 40 to 50 tests conducted by the Soviet Union last fall while active efforts for a test ban agreement were still going forward.,This Soviet action took place in the face of a whole series of actions and efforts on our side. In the last year we have made at least a dozen new moves in a search for an agreement, and we have restated again and again our willingness to sign an effective treaty. We stated it before, during, and after the Soviet tests. The Soviet tests not only ended the moratorium; they presented us with grave questions as to the long range safety of avoiding all atmospheric tests while the U.S.S.R. remains able to prepare in secret, and then test at will.,We are amply strong for today and tomorrow, but we must consider the future, too. These questions are still being reviewed. And there will be no testing that is not clearly necessary, but I have ordered preparations because I shall not hesitate m order the tests themselves if it is decided that they are necessary to maintain the effective deterrent strength of the United States.,Any other course would imply unilateral disarmament, and would serve no try course of peace. But at the same time, and with equal energy, we shall go on seeking a path towards a genuine and controlled disarmament. What this means for atmospheric testing is methods of inspection and control which could protect us against a repetition of prolonged secret preparations for a sudden series of major tests. If and when effective agreements can be reached, no nation will be more ready than ours to see all testing brought under control, and nuclear weapons as well. The fact that we must prudently meet our defense needs in the meantime is only one more reason for working towards disarmament. So I repeat that these two courses are consistent with each other. We must follow both at once. It would be a great error to suppose that either of them makes the other wrong or unnecessary.,I wholly disagree with those who would put all their faith in an arms race and abandon their efforts for disarmament. But I equally disagree with those who would allow us neglect of our defensive needs in the absence of effective agreements for controlled disarmament.,[2.] Secondly, I want to take this opportunity to express my pleasure at the Senate's action yesterday, retaining in the college aid bill the provision for 212,000 college scholarships. It is urgent that this provision be retained in the conference and not dropped out or compromised by another student loan program. A loan of $4,000 or $5,600 would enable many bright but needy students to receive 4 years of college, working his way for the balance. But one-half of all American families earn less than $5,600 a year, and they simply cannot take on that kind of debt. Colleges which are caught in financial squeezes themselves can afford to offer scholarships to only about 10 percent of their students. All American parents want their children to have an opportunity to go to college, but only a few are able to put aside the $7,000 which the average 4-year course now requires. The cost has nearly doubled since 1950 and, as I said in my message, this Nation as a result loses each year the talents of hundreds and thousands of our most talented high school graduates who cannot afford to postpone earning a living for 4 more years. This is a real national and individual loss, and I hope the Congress will keep the scholarships in the bill.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your public school bill, two points: As I understand it, last year's piece of legislation is, for all intents and purposes, dead in the Rules Committee, and Mr. Powell has said he won't move unless urgently requested by you to do so. And now today, Cardinal Spellman said passage would bring an end to the parochial school system. Should your message be interpreted as that urging that Mr. Powell has talked about, and can the religious question be beaten?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, when the Rules Committee, by a vote of eight to seven, tabled the bill last year, the procedures Would now require a two-thirds vote of the Rules Committee to send it to the floor. I wish we could get a two-thirds vote. If we cannot, then another bill would have to come out of the House Education and Labor Committee, and I am hopeful that members of the Labor Committee--Education Committee-who did send the previous bill to the Rules Committee in the hope it would go to the floor--I'm hopeful that they will take action again. And, because I think it is such an urgent matter, I will do everything I can to have the Congress take favorable action on this subject this year.,Now, in regard to the second part of the question, I took the oath to defend the Constitution. The position which I've taken on this matter I've taken after legal advice from the Attorney General, and from the counsel at the Department of HEW.,It is a--I said the maximum which I thought we could carry on under the United States Constitution, and as I take my oath to defend it, that would be my position, unless the Supreme Court decision should change the previous interpretation which had been made of that constitutional provision. So I am going to continue to take the position I now take, unless--based on constitutional grounds--unless there is a new judgment by the Supreme Court.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be some doubt, at least on the local level and in the region where this is going on, as to the right of the American people and the rest of the world to know the extent of the battle in South Viet-Nam. Could you tell us, sir, what the situation there is? How deeply are we involved in what seems to be a growing war and what are the rights of the people to know what our forces are doing?,THE PRESIDENT. There is a war going on in South Viet-Nam. I think that last week there were over 500 killings, assassinations, bombings. The casualties are high. It's a-I said last week--a subterranean war, guerrilla war of increasing ferocity. The United States, since the end of the Geneva accord setting up the South Vietnamese Government as an independent government, has been assisting Viet-Nam economically to maintain its independence and viability, and also had sent training groups out there, which have been expanded in recent weeks as the attacks on the government and the people of South Viet-Nam have increased.,We are out there on training and on transportation, and we are assisting in every way we properly can, the people of South Viet-Nam who with the greatest courage and under danger are attempting to maintain their freedom.,Now, this is an area where there is a good deal of danger and it's a matter of information. We don't want to have information which is of assistance to the enemy--and it's a matter which I think will have to be worked out with the Government of Viet-Nam, which bears the primary responsibility.,[5.] Q. My question concerns the impasse which has arisen between Secretary McNamara and the Senate subcommittee inquiring into the alleged muzzling of the military at the Pentagon. Do you support the Secretary, sir, in his refusal to identify the reviewers who have made specific changes in speeches, and have you any suggestion on how the impasse may be resolved?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'd like to first review exactly what the Secretary of Defense has made available to the committee. He has made available every speech that was given; he has made available all the changes, in each speech, which was suggested by the 14 or 15 reviewers, two-thirds of whom are military officers, most of whom have had distinguished military records; he has made available the names of all of the reviewers. He has made--he has told the committee that he will make all of the reviewers available.,He has also informed the committee that he will send an explanation for every change and the arguments for it. What he has not done, and what he, in my opinion, should not do, is attempt to subject each of these men to a long interrogation as to, personally, the reasons for which they might have taken on this word or that word. The responsibility is Secretary McNamara's and he is going to accept that responsibility and, in my opinion, that is the only way that a department can function. If he is going to get honest and loyal support from those who work for him in carrying out his policies, then Secretary McNamara must accept the responsibility, and he does accept it.,And I think he has been extremely cooperative with the committee, and I don't think that Mr. McNamara or I, however, can agree to a harassment of individuals who are only carrying out the policies dictated by their superiors. And I think that Mr. McNamara has cooperated very fully and will continue to do so in the areas which I've named.,Q. Well, sir, would you recommend that he invoke Executive privilege, if necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. If necessary, definitely.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, your statement that a wholly new situation has been created by the Soviet nuclear tests suggests, or might be interpreted to mean that they have made some breakthrough, perhaps even overtaken us in nuclear capability. Can you tell us what your estimate of our strength versus theirs is in the light of their tests?,THE PRESIDENT. My statement today indicates our feeling about our relative position today and tomorrow, but this is a matter, of course, which is of continuing concern. These tests were very intensive. They have been in preparation for many months. And we--we could see a period go by possibly of another year or year and a half secret preparations being made--and, suddenly, a new series of tests. And then extrapolations from those tests. And particularly when matters involving, for example, the antimissile missile may be involved, you have to consider very carefully what the situation is going to be not today, not next year, but 3 years or 4 years from now. The United States went far along the road in an attempt to get an agreement, not only the previous administration, but this administration. As I've said before, it was obvious that these preparations had been going on for many months. Our preparations, which I have announced before, have taken many months since the Soviet tests. This is a long, drawn-out matter. And we cannot permit these tests to go on year after year, and at the same time expect that the security of the Western World is going to be protected. So I would say that my statement describes what I think is our present position, what our future risks are, and before any definite action is taken, any final decision is made, I will comment in detail to the American people for--the reasons for whatever decision we make.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in the circumstances which you have now described and with the preparations which you have ordered presumably going forward, have we now reached agreement with the British on the use of Christmas Island?,THE PRESIDENT. A statement on that will be forthcoming very shortly, in the next 24 hours or 48 hours.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Rockefeller had some harsh things to say about you last Thursday. It was in connection with your urban affairs proposal. I think he accused you of political fakery. I'm sure you know what he said. Would you want to comment on it?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I was interested in the statement because, as you know, in 1956 and 1957, Governor Rockefeller recommended the exact proposal that we recommended. The only difference, and I was recently examining his recommendations to President Eisenhower, was that he recommended that civil defense be included, but as we have placed civil defense under the military, that really is the only significant change. So he must have, for one reason or another, changed his point of view on it.,The second reason he criticized me was because I, in response to a question, said Mr. Weaver was going to be appointed. Now, obviously, the Governor has forgotten that on March 12, 1953, when President Eisenhower sent up the proposal for the reorganization of the establishment of the Department of HEW, on the 13th it came from the White House that he was going to appoint Mrs. Hobby to be the Secretary. And the only reason that I was astonished that the Governor then forgot it was that he then became her deputy. [Laughter] And--so that it seems to me that the situation is not altogether dissimilar. However, I did read that--Mr. Reston's column in the Times, where Mr. Fulton Lewis had said that no one could get to the right of Barry Goldwater, but now I'm not so sure. [Laughter],[9.] Q. Mr. President, in the event the seemingly impossible task of a complete and checked to 100 percent disarmament could be arranged with the Soviets, some have speculated this would provide a very severe blow to our economy. Would you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the disarmament agency has made a study of that, and talked about some of the problems that might be forthcoming economically. But of course, we could never have a change comparable to the change we had in '45 when we went from a tremendously high expenditure, at a time when our gross national product was far less than it is today, into a terribly sharp drive, and had 3 very, very prosperous years of full employment, so that that would be the last reason, I think, that we would benefit. We can do so many more useful things from a social point of view with--if we had the funds that were available, so I don't think that's any argument against disarmament. The problem, of course, is to make sure our security is protected and that the inspection systems be adequate, and that's what's hung us up in the past.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask you to amplify your statement on nuclear tests. Did you mean to suggest that any decision taken by this Government to resume atmospheric tests will be contingent upon further or future Soviet tests?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it will be contingent upon our judgment as to the effects on our security of this series of tests, and the lessons and extrapolations that could be taken from them and what effect this might have on our security at a later date.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, last week in transmitting the report of the Disarmament and Arms Control Agency to Congress, you spoke not only of the hope but the expectation that significant progress toward workable disarmament would be made at Geneva. In the light of recent events, could you clarify this \"expectation\" part of it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I put more stress on our hope and our earnest desire and our feeling that this arms race is--in the long run really doesn't provide really very great security for the human race or for all of those who are involved in it. And it's our hope, and I'm sure that we're going to make a major effort at this disarmament conference to see if we can call a halt, because nuclear weapons are spreading to other countries, and if we try to look at what the world is going to look like in 1970 or 1975, with all of the dangers that we will have with weapons of this size in the hands of a good many nations, we're going to make a major effort. I was merely attempting to indicate why I did not feel that our situation in these two' areas was necessarily paradoxical.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, a businessman and politician named George Romney has accused your administration of not doing enough for business and your party of being dominated by labor unions. Would you take this opportunity to reply to those charges?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that I'll just let Mr. Romney--I saw the program and the statement. I think that he said that neither this administration nor the previous one had done enough for business, and I think that we'll have to wait and see what--as Mr. Romney's positions evolve I think there may be a time for an appropriate comment-but I think it's still too early. [Laughter],[13.] Q. Mr. President, the Democratic organization has been criticized as unfairly attaching the John Birch Society to the Republican .Party, sort of guilt by association. Do you believe that such far right radical groups properly belong in the Republican Party? [Laughter] And since General Walker is running as a Democrat in Texas, do you believe he properly belongs in the Democratic Party?,THE PRESIDENT. That question must have taken some--work. I will say that President Eisenhower has been as vigorous in his denunciations of the John Birch Society as l have. I think that it certainly has no place in the Republican Party of President Eisenhower, and I'm sure that among the responsible heads of the Republican Party, it has no place in their party. I quite agree, it is totally alien, I think, to both parties.,Now, in regard to the second question, everybody is free to run, and the people will decide, in either party.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, I understated that our Congo airlift has now surpassed the Berlin airlift of 1948. Could you tell me just what these supplies consist of and are we footing the bill entirely, or are the other U.N. nations also helping?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the cost of the airlift is being paid for by the United Nations, to which we contribute. One of the ways in which we had hoped to lessen our contribution, as I have said, or to make our contribution more effective, rather, was through the bond issue. But they've been carrying--since the United Nations has assumed a responsibility in the Congo, we have been carrying supplies into that area for many months. And in order to fulfill the purposes of the United Nations which I think extremely important to the Congo, and I think that the support we've given to the operations in the Congo in my opinion should be a source of satisfaction to us all.,Q. Mr. President, that U.N. bond issue proposal is meeting sharp criticism, at least vocally, on the Hill, one argument against it being that we are putting in more than our share, and another one that the interest rates are--there's a discrepancy. Mr. Stevenson, as you know, however, this morning, testified that it would be worth it if we just even had to give the $100 million to the U.N. Will you comment on the subject with your own thoughts?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have put a good many millions of dollars into support of the U.N., and we've done--we've put a lot of money in the support of a lot of operations which are designed to permit people to be free. I indicated we put a lot of money over the last 8 years into Laos. We have contributed a good deal in the effort in Viet-Nam. So that these efforts have all required expenditures of money. But we do it because we feel this is the only way that these countries can remain free. I think this bond issue represents a very sound investment for us. I am hopeful that other countries will match our effort.,The United States is carrying a heavy load, but not only in the United Nations; it's carrying a heavy load around the world. The United States is making a major effort, for example, in Berlin and Viet-Nam and in Latin America. The burdens that we carry are greater than any other free country. But I must say that if we did not carry them, in my opinion, the cause of freedom would collapse in a whole variety of ways. And, I'm hopeful as Western Europe is strengthened and the Common Market strengthened, that they will assume--not turn in, but rather out, and use the increased economic power of Western Europe to assist in maintaining the independence of these areas all around the globe, because we have been strained in our efforts to do so, although I think we ought to continue to do so, because the alternative will be a steady expansion of Communist power in all those areas, which I think would be far more expensive in the long run.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you have just concluded talks with the Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Stikker, and also talks with General Norstad, the Supreme Commander of NAT(). Could you tell us, sir, if and how far advanced are the plans to convert NATO into an independent nuclear power?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no comment at this time. This is a matter, of course, coming from the proposal which was made by Secretary Herter and in which I stated again at Ottawa and which is a matter now of concern to the NATO Council. When the matter has proceeded to the point when decisions might be needed, then would be an appropriate time to discuss it.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, we have had several apparent setbacks and delays in our space field with the attempted moon shot, multiple satellite shot, and the postponement of the astronaut launching. What is your evaluation of our progress in space at this time? And have we changed our time table for landing a man on the moon?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we--as I've said from the beginning, we've been behind and, of course, we continue to be behind. And we are running into the difficulties which come from starting late. We, however, are going to proceed. We're making a maximum effort, as you know, and the expenditures in our space program are enormous. And, to the best of my ability, the time schedule, at least I hope, has not been changed by the recent setbacks.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, stockpile information is no easier to come by than it was prior to your statement last week that a lot of this stuff ought to be declassified. Is there a disposition to hold this up for the Senate investigation or can you light a fire under some of these agencies?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I set up today a committee under Mr. McDermott, who is the head of the agency, with the Secretaries of Defense. State, Commerce, Labor, to look into the needs, our national needs, in the event of an emergency and also to consider the declassification of various matters.,I think all this will be completed by the time the hearings begin, and then I think the hearings will make the information very complete.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the nuclear test question has been under consideration for some months now. Could you give us some idea of the time schedule you perceive from here on with respect to completing the studies and making your decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we should know of--the studies and the examinations and the consideration by the Government should be, I would think, completed within the month.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that Mr. Gromyko, in Moscow, has adopted such a negative attitude in his discussions on Berlin with Ambassador Thompson that the administration has decided that if the talks are to continue, that the Soviets will have to take the initiative in seeking the next meeting. Could you tell us whether this is true and could you discuss your outlook and reaction to these talks?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we have not made very great progress in the talks. There has been a setting forth by each side of various positions. But I think the talks should continue and we are prepared to cooperate in continuing them--because the alternatives are not satisfactory--if we can possibly reach an accord. So we will continue to work even though the so-called probes have not produced any satisfactory common ground as yet.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, would the United States be willing, without further nuclear tests in the atmosphere, to sign a formal treaty with the Soviet Union banning such tests?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've stated that our concern would be--we stated it before, since and, as I said, afterwards--that we would sign an agreement which provided for adequate inspections system--that's correct. But adequate inspection in regard to preparations, as well as testing. Because, otherwise--,Q. My question was hinged on further tests in the atmosphere.,THE PRESIDENT. I understand that. We will support the passage of an effective treaty which provides for effective inspection, but we cannot take less in view of the fact of our experience of the past months, where it takes us many months to prepare for tests in the atmosphere. The Soviet Union could prepare in secret, and we would--unless we had adequate protection against a repetition of that incident. Any such test agreement obviously would be extremely vulnerable.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your forthcoming statement on Christmas Island, I understand that the United Nations Trusteeship Council, particularly Russia and India, will attempt or has attempted to prohibit all atmospheric testing in the Central and South Pacific. My question is: Is this true? If it is true, how much does it weigh in your decision to resume this testing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that one of the reasons that Christmas Island becomes a matter of importance is because of our special trustee relationship with Eniwetok and because we are anxious to maintain the spirit' as well as the letter of the trustee agreement. But in my opinion, that would not inhibit any action we might take in Christmas Island because the situation is entirely different legally and the responsibilities are entirely different, and that's also true of Johnston Island.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to the steel contract negotiations, you've said that you neither want a strike, itself, and you would like to get the contract settled soon enough to prevent the ill effects of anticipation of a strike. Do you have a date in mind by which time you think it should be settled, and how are you keeping in touch with the parties?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't have a date in mind, though I think the earlier the better because of the danger of stockpiling which will, in my opinion, produce later unemployment, if it is permitted to build up until June and July. Secretary Goldberg has been in contact with them, and I've indicated myself my strong feeling that the public interest and each of their private interests would be served by an early agreement.,Q. You have been in contact with them yourself, haven't you?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have, yes.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, just a minute ago you expressed the hope that because of our burdens the other nations would match our purchases in the bond issue. Several Senators yesterday were suggesting that we match their purchases. Would you be willing, the administration be willing, to turn this around so that--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we have to wait and see what the legislative prospects are. I think we ought to buy the $100 million worth. I think the other countries ought to buy $100 million worth of bonds. We are prepared to meet our responsibilities. I hope they will be. I think we should take an affirmative attitude towards the prospects of this and also to recognize how essential it is. Now, if this fails, then the U.N. will be, as Secretary Rusk said yesterday, in dire financial circumstances. It would obviously mean a complete--the emergency operation taking place in the Middle East and in the Congo would, of course, come to an end, unless we put in bilaterally a subsidy which would cause other countries to do a bilateral action of their own, and you would have chaos in the Congo and a defeat of any attempts to set up a stable and free government. I must say that I think to--that the promise there is of success against this disaster, which both administrations have been attempting to prevent, which is chaos and massive civil war and insurrections and all the rest in the Congo--I really feel we ought to go ahead on both sides. And I'm hopeful they will.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, on the test issue: if I understand what you've been saying correctly, you've introduced a new element into these negotiations--that is, inspection which would cover any possible secret preparations for tests. Is this in fact a new element that the United States is introducing and, if so, how might you meet that problem in an inspection system?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a matter which should be discussed at the disarmament conference. But I think that any agreement--if we're not to have an agreement whereby some time would go by and then, when the Soviets have exhausted the information they have acquired from this series of tests, suddenly overnight begin another series of tests, meanwhile 2 years have gone by and many scientists and others who might have been working on this may have gone into other occupations.,This is a--I think it's a deadly business, this competition. And I don't say that much security comes out of it. But less security would certainly come out of it if we permitted them to make a decisive breakthrough in an area like an ICBM. So that we would have to have some assurances against a repetition of this summer's incident before we would feel that the treaty was a satisfactory one. But it is a matter which should be discussed, I think, in March at the disarmament conference.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-01-31","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] I want to--I take pleasure in welcoming the editor of Izvestia and Mrs. Adzhubei, to this Presidential press conference. He is, as I said, editor of a paper which carried our interview last November, and he's also a member of the Central Committee, and therefore combines two hazardous professions, of politics and journalism, and also Mrs. Adzhubei, who is the daughter of the Chairman. We're glad to have them here to observe an ancient American custom.,[2.] Secondly, I want to express my satisfaction, and I believe that of all Americans, at the action taken by the Organization of American States at the Punta del Este conference. Six resolutions, representing a six point program, were passed by the conference early this morning. Not a single nation joined Cuba in voting against these resolutions. The 20 other nations of this conference joined in a vigorous declaration against Communist penetration of this hemisphere, in full support for the Alliance for Progress, and to expel Cuba from the Inter-American Defense Board. For the first time, the independent American states have declared with one voice that the concept of Marxist Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system, and they have taken explicit steps to protect the hemisphere's ability to achieve progress with freedom.,[3.] Thirdly, I have an important announcement to make about the national stockpiling program. The purpose of this program over a period of several years has been to store for future use those strategic materials which might be essential to the Nation in the event of an emergency. After a review of this program, upon assuming the responsibilities of office, I was astonished to find that the total stockpile now amounts to some $7.7 billion worth of materials, an amount that exceeds the CCC's total inventory of farm products, and of more importance, an amount that exceeds our emergency requirements as presently determined by nearly $3.4 billion. In some cases the Government had acquired more than seven times the amount that could possibly be used. For example, the value of the aluminum in this stockpile exceeds the amounts we would need for 3 years in the event of war by $347 million. The excess supply of nickel is $103 million. This administration has taken steps to halt any new acquisitions to the stockpile with the exception of three items, still critically short, and on which we have spent less than $2 million. Unfortunately, the surplus of other materials is still growing, as the result of contracts negotiated prior to this administration's taking office.,It was apparent to me that this excessive storage of costly materials was a questionable burden on public funds and, in addition, a potential source of excessive and unconscionable profits. Last spring a detailed check was ordered, and our information to date has convinced me that a thorough investigation is warranted. The cloak of secrecy which surrounded this program may have been justified originally to conceal our shortages, but this is no longer the case, and secrecy now is only an invitation to mismanagement.,I have therefore discussed this matter with Senator Symington, chairman of the Senate stockpiling subcommittee. He agrees that the program should be completely explored, and without delay. I have assured him that we will make available to his subcommittee all the material we have already discovered and that the executive branch will cooperate fully with any investigation.,In the meantime, I have directed the various departments and agencies to accelerate their review of materiel requirements and I am appointing a commission to make a detailed review of our stockpiling policies, programs, and goals, in the light of changed defense strategy and improved technology. I am very much aware of the intricate and interrelated problems involved in this area, including the difficulties experienced by certain domestic mineral industries, the impact on world markets, and the heavy reliance of certain countries on producing one or more of these minerals. And I can say that we will take no action which will disrupt commodity prices.,All of these factors in a careful review of the program will be taken into account, but the full facts on this matter must be open to the public.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, do these recent manifestations of cordiality between the United States and Russia--I am speaking specifically of your hospitality to Mr. Adzhubei, Mr. Salinger's conference in Paris with Mr. Kharlamov, Mr. Salinger's forthcoming visit to Moscow--do these evidences equate in any way with an increase or improvement in the prospects for settlement of such basic issues as Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, we would like to have a settlement of the basic issues which have divided the Soviet Union and the United States. The meetings--I think two meetings took place between Mr. Adzhubei and Mr. Salinger, and out of those meetings came an interview which I think was very useful in helping us to express the viewpoint of the United States on serious problems to the people of the Soviet Union.,The conversations in Paris last weekend were directed to the same question. Mr. Salinger's visit in response to an invitation that he's received, is also directed to improving communications. We hope that as communications improve, that the problems which cause tension and danger to the world will lessen. The negotiations on these matters, however, of policy, are matters which are being conducted in this case by Ambassador Thompson, who, I believe, has a meeting with Foreign Minister Gromyko, tomorrow, at the third meeting, so-called probes in regard to the matter of Berlin.,We're hopeful that these will bring a happy result. But I believe that any exchange of information, any exchange of views, any cooperation of any kind in these very hazardous times is very useful, so we're glad for them. And we are glad when they treat Americans as they do with courtesy when they visit Moscow.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, in your statements on stockpiling, is there any implication of wrongdoing by an individual?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that--no, I'm not making any implication. The only thing is I think that this is a large amount of money to be invested. I think the whole matter should be carefully looked into, contracts and all the rest, profits and so on. I would make no statement other than to say it's a matter which lends itself to a careful scrutiny by Senator Symington's committee and Senator Symington is most anxious to initiate such an investigation, which we both discussed last week and which we feel is overdue.,But we'll certainly wait, in answer to your question, on the investigation, before making any judgments.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, have you any reaction to the failure of some of our neighbors to the south--I am thinking of Argentina and Brazil--to go along with us all the way in our ambitions at Punta del Este?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that I've indicated what I consider to be the most significant fact, which is on the basic question of the compatibility of the Communist system with the inter-American system. I think there was a unanimity.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, some of the critics of your urban affairs plan charge that it's an invasion of States' and local rights. Would you comment on that, and would you also comment on it in a larger frame? For instance, what do you think of the argument that big government, so called, might not need to be so big if State and local governments were more efficient in fulfilling their duties?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in regard to the specific question on the--I don't believe that such a Cabinet position would interfere with the States. In my opinion it would supplement their efforts. There is a responsibility which the States have for various--and each city has--for certain important functions in the life of every citizen, but the Federal Government also has one.,There is a Department of Agriculture, which has contact with each individual farmer in the United States. That does not interfere with the county responsibility or. the State responsibility.,Now, in the urban message I sent up yesterday, I pointed out that in our 10 leading cities, the citizens pay 35 percent of the income taxes paid in the United States. They have many serious problems which are increasing in time, particularly as our population increases by 3 million a year. I believe that these problems are entitled to a place at the Cabinet table.,Now, I'm interested in charges about big government--and I read these speeches, and then I receive a wire asking for the Federal Government to take over the operations of the New Haven Railroad. And we send a wire back to the States, after having put $35 million into maintaining that railroad: \"What action are the States prepared to take?\",My experience usually is that these matters are put to the Federal Government by the request of cities, of States, or individual groups and it's not a question of the Federal Government anxious to extend its role, but rather that there is a need and no one responds to it and the National Government, therefore, must meet its responsibility. And I believe that with two-thirds of our people in the cities of the United States that they should be up alongside of the others in the Cabinet, so that we can deal more effectively with these programs.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, there has been renewed fighting in Laos. Would you give us your evaluation of the situation there, whether or not this fighting would threaten a political settlement, and also the situation in South Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the--of course if the fighting--hostilities began, the hope of a settlement would be substantially diminished. There have been, as you know, a series of tentative agreements. There is still a disagreement over who shall hold particular cabinet positions. It is my understanding that there is scheduled to be a meeting at Luang Prabang on February 2 between those leaders of the various groups within Laos. It is my earnest hope that both sides will refrain from hostilities after a cease fire which has been in effect generally since last May, so that we can see if a peaceful solution can be reached. Because if hostilities begin, they bring reactions and counteractions, and all of the work which has gone on in the negotiations of the last months could go up in smoke and fire. So that I'm hopeful that both sides will give the parties who are involved an opportunity to meet and continue and see if a solution can be reached, and I'm hopeful that both sides will work earnestly toward that goal.,The situation in Viet-Nam is one that's of great concern to us. There were, I think last week, nearly 500 incidents, deaths, ambushes and so on. It's extremely serious. The United States has increased its help to the government. I'm hopeful that the control commission will continue to examine that and come to some conclusions in regard to the Geneva accords.,We are anxious for a peace in that area, and we are assisting the government to maintain its position against this subterranean war.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, a political question, sir. The Republicans are holding leadership conferences around the country, including one here in Washington today, with the purpose of upsetting the Democratic balance of power in congressional elections that are coming up. Would you care to comment on the task these Republican teachers have, and with what hope they might look toward success in the fall?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think that--I'm sure that I don't know who's giving the leadership direction but I'm sure that they'll have a varied program!,[10.] Q. Mr. President, as part of our effort to show our good faith as a result of the Punta del Este meeting, is there any possibility that this Government might reduce its trade with Cuba? Last year I understand we purchased from Cuba about $17 million worth of goods in excess of what we sold, largely in the field of tobacco. I was thinking of giving up cigars for the duration. Is that under consideration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the trade which the things we sell to Cuba have been foods and medicines, which I think the total amount, as I recall, was around $12 or $13 million. I think any decision in regard to trade would better wait until the Secretary returns and we've had a chance to discuss the matter with him.,[II.] Q. Mr. President, visitors who go out to visit Lincoln Park on East Capital Street are dismayed to find it a slum. Congress has authorized and the National Council of Negro Women will erect there a memorial stadium and a statue of the great woman educator, Mary Bethune. Now the transit company proposes to put an eightlane freeway between the park and the Capitol, cutting it off. Could you inquire into that, and see if the freeway could be put further out beyond the park?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I will. [Laughter]\nYou're very gentle today, Mrs. Craig.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, does the United States intend to precondition the purchase of the $100 million of United Nations bonds on support of the other $100 million by other countries, and, if so, would not such a precondition serve to raise a question of earnestness in the support of the U.N. by all nations?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think there's an obvious relationship between the amount that we purchase and the amount that other countries take. We stated that we would take--that we would consider taking $100 million worth of the bonds. It was our hope that other countries would take $100 million, I think the Canadians have indicated around\n$7 million, and the British $12.million, and I think the Scandinavian countries have given it careful consideration. I think Mr. Black, of the World Bank, has written to other governments, so that in answer to your question, there is a relationship obviously between what we could do and what others will do. I'm hopeful that both will meet their responsibilities in the matter.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in the debate just terminated in the Senate over the confirmation of John McCone as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a considerable body of opinion indicated that they were concerned about the supervision over CIA. Have you done anything in your administration to increase Executive supervision over CIA, and what is your view toward giving Congress a greater share over the supervision of CIA?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, Congress does have groups that have a responsibility over CIA. They provide the budget, and they also provide--receive reports and confer and exercise supervision at the present time.,Secondly, I appointed General Taylor some months ago to be my representative in regard to matters affecting intelligence, and there are intergovernmental meetings in response to any activities that CIA might carry out with general supervision and it's a matter which has concerned me personally increasingly. So that those are the areas where there is control and I think it's up to all those who have control, as well as to Mr. McCone and the members of the CIA, to attempt to carry out their functions in a way which serves our interest, which I'm sure is their objective.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of going to Moscow, could you tell us under what conditions you would accept an invitation to visit the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that an invitation--and an acceptance of an invitation-would probably wait on the easing of the tensions which unfortunately surround our relationship. And so that, for the present, of course, until we have significant breakthroughs, that sort of journey would probably not be considered useful by either country. But we, of course, are always hopeful and we're making every effort that we can to bring an easing of tensions. And that's why Mr. Thompson is pursuing his course, and that's why we are making the other efforts that we're making.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us whether you expect any difficulty in Congress with your Alliance for Progress program by reason of the opposition of some of the bigger Latin American countries at the Punta del Este conference?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that I could probably-the Congress, of course, has to make that judgment. In my opinion, the program is very essential; I think it was endorsed by 20 nations, the Alliance for Progress. This is a long struggle to improve the life of the people in this hemisphere. I think we must go ahead, and I'm confident that the Members of the Congress when they come back will feel the same way. So that what has happened recently, in my opinion, makes more desirable and essential the Alliance for Progress. That is where our efforts ought to be, and that's where we can serve the cause of freedom and I think the inter hemisphere system best. So I'm hopeful that Congress will agree.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, two network chiefs recently have expressed fear of Government supervision of the television networks. The FCC has denied any such intention. Can you foresee circumstances under which FCC supervision of television programming might become necessary or useful?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Do you mean of a different kind than now, a different relationship than that which now exists?,Q. Yes, over program content.,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't. I think, as you know, the FCC does have certain regulations with regard to the percentage used in public service. Mr. Minow has attempted to use not force, but to use encouragement in persuading the networks to put better children's programs, more public service programs. I don't know of anyone-and Mr. Minow has already denied considering changing the basic relationship which now exists.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the situation in Laos, is Mr. Harriman in touch with his opposite Soviet number in order to get the cooperation of the Soviet Union in reducing the heavy infiltration of Viet-Nam units in Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Harriman, the Assistant Secretary, has indicated, as has the State Department, as have I, the great dangers in--to both sides in a resumption of hostilities. And we are making every effort to attempt to get an accord before this cease-fire, which appears to be strained somewhat, after many months, to try to get an accord before we have a breakdown of the cease-fire, and that is true of both sides.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, last year the administration put forward no civil rights legislation. Now the administration has submitted a bill on literacy tests in voting and Secretary Goldberg has endorsed \"in principle\" an FEPC bill. Does this mean the administration has suddenly decided to go further on the legislative route in the civil rights field?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that my State of the Union Address said that we would comment on the various bills, of which there are a great many that have been introduced. And that's what Secretary Goldberg did. In addition, I made specific reference to the question of voting, and literacy tests, and Senator Mansfield has indicated action would be on that bill. So it seems to me that we are where we said we would be in the State of the Union Address.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, is there a small war imminent between Floyd Patterson and Sonny Liston?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's a matter that you ought to talk to Mr. Patterson about. He hasn't confided fully in me.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in your statement on stockpiling policy, you referred to three items you felt were under stockpiled. You didn't indicate what those were, and what considerations apply. Could you supply those for us?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that this--as I say, the whole matter of stockpiling is a matter which would wait on Senator Symington. I did say that they involved, I think, the sum of about $2 million, so they're not significant, but they are in short enough supply so that we are continuing those purchases. But they are not of major proportions, though they are in this case significant.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, they told us you took a cab ride or a limousine drive across from your house last night, at Lafayette Square, to inspect it. And in connection with that, you are familiar with the old Belasco Theater on Lafayette Square which now houses the United Services Organization home for the thousands of enlisted military people in the area. That theater as you know is going to be torn down. Does the Government and specifically you, as Commander in Chief, have any plans to place these people in a suitable area?,THE PRESIDENT. The USO?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well I'm sure we'll be delighted to cooperate with the USO in getting satisfactory facilities. Last night I was looking at the question of the building next to Blair House, whether that ought to come down, the court building, whether that ought to come down or trees should be planted there, and I thought that--in agreement with the Fine Arts Commission that trees should be planted there. [Laughter],[22.] Q. Mr. President, what effect do you believe the most recent collapse of the nuclear test ban negotiations with the Soviet Union will have on the possibilities for success in the coming March 14 Geneva disarmament talks? And will this collapse have any effect on your decision, if any, to resume nuclear testing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no progress was being made in developing a test ban which would have adequate inspection, and therefore we felt that it should be moved into the general disarmament conference, which begins on the 14th.,This failure, as I said somewhat earlier, represents the biggest disappointment of my first year in office, and continues to be a disappointment, because every action here as I say, breeds a response, and we have been anxious from the beginning to get an agreement which would prohibit tests with an adequate inspection. Now, we haven't been able to adjust that satisfactorily. Therefore it will put an additional burden and an additional opportunity before the Disarmament Commission. And of course our failure to get an agreement does increase the likelihood of various countries testing. That's one of the reasons why I was anxious that we get an agreement.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, on this question of the changed atmosphere between the U.S. and the Soviet Union of late, just to set the record straight, is this so far entirely a matter of atmospheric or is there in any of the negotiating issues across the board any indication of the possibility of an agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that on the question of Laos, that there has been evidence of a desire by the Soviet Union and the United States to come to the agreement along the lines suggested by Chairman Khrushchev and myself last June. On the question of Berlin and Germany, I don't think that significant progress as yet has been made. But I do think, as I've said, that the means of communication and the channels of communication should be kept very widely open, which has been a basic premise of ours for the last few months; which is the reason that Ambassador Thompson is working. Any way we can lessen the chance of danger, as I said at the beginning, we will explore. So that I think that attempts to separate the facts of the matter from what you would call atmosphere, though atmosphere can be very important in our lives, as we see every day.,[24.] Q. Sir, independent oil producers have urged you to take action quickly, even before completion of the Ellis study about June, to reduce oil imports. Now this week ' the independents are urging Congress to write into your trade program a provision reducing crude imports about 250,000 barrels daily and limiting them in the future to\n14 percent of domestic crude oil production. Sir, do you think that the domestic producers will receive any relief from Executive action in the near future, and do you favor tightening of import controls on oil by such legislation as they propose?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, as you've suggested, this is a matter which is still being examined by Mr. Ellis' commission. In regard to legislation, I'm not familiar with this proposal; it's the first I've heard about it. There are, of course, obvious difficulties traditionally in attempting to write in quota restrictions on various commodities in any kind of trade legislation, because one begets another, and we can find ourselves with a whole series of limitations and exclusions which is the reason, I think, that Franklin Roosevelt originally came forward with the reciprocal trade program. But we are very much aware of the concern, the fact that in some of our States that the wells are down 10 or 11 days a month, and that this is a matter of serious concern to a good many Americans. I'll have to leave it at that at the present time because the study is not complete and I'd have to examine the legislation, other than my general comments on it.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to the Urban Affairs Department, the Republicans say that you were playing politics last week when you said that you would like to have Mr. Robert Weaver, a distinguished Negro, to head that department. They also accuse you of injecting the race issue into this whole matter. Would you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I merely said in response to a question that it was quite obvious that Mr. Weaver is the very successful, able head of the--by far the largest division which would be placed in an urban department. It was well rumored that Mr. Weaver would be appointed to the Cabinet. In fact, it may have played some part in some decisions in regard to the matter, so I think it's much better to get it out in the open. Obviously, if the legislation had been passed, Mr. Weaver would have been appointed. It was well known on the Hill. The American people might as well know it.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Alger of Texas, today criticized Mr. Salinger as a \"young and inexperienced White House publicity man\"--[laughter]--and questioned the advisability of having him visit the Soviet Union. I wonder if you have any comments.,THE PRESIDENT. I know there are always some people who feel that Americans are always young and inexperienced, and foreigners are always able and tough and great negotiators. But I don't think that the United States would have acquired its present position of leadership in the free world if that view were correct.,Now he also, as I saw the press, said that Mr. Salinger's main job was to increase my standing in the Gallup poll. Having done that, he is now moving on--[laughter]-to improve our communications.,As I say, Mr. Salinger and Mr. Adzhubei are responsible for our interview, which I think was very helpful. And I think anything we can do--I don't think we should worry so much about Americans traveling abroad; I think they've acquitted themselves and so will Mr. Salinger. I'm sure that some people in the Soviet Union are concerned about Mr. Adzhubei's visits abroad. [Laughter],[:27.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to your authority to cut taxes as an antirecession measure, a Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee said the other day that no such authority was necessary because a request would go through Congress faster than a declaration of war. What do you think of this and of the argument that this power might be used for political reasons as well as economic?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you recall, in our proposal we harnessed it to a statistical base which was charted on the recessions which you have had since World War II and, therefore, would go off or be prepared to go off after we reached a certain peak of unemployment after a certain period of months. That is the purpose of it. So that it seemed to us it was a tool which would be most valuable.,As you know, Arthur Burns, who was Chairman of the Economic Advisers under President Eisenhower, has endorsed this proposal. It's been endorsed by people on all sides of the spectrum. There is nothing more costly, nothing more expensive than recurrent recessions. And if we can take action early enough, it was felt by economists and businessmen, the Council--for example, the CED and others, that this would be a way of easing the impact.,If you can tell me anything more expensive than the large deficits we ran as a result of the '58 and '60 recessions and the unemployment we had as a result of those recessions--I consider this to be soundly based.,Now, if we cannot get it, then we will have to consider the action that you've suggested. But I think it would be a very important standby tool. This economy is a very--it fluctuates and moves--and we don't want to have a recovery in '62 and a lack of vigor in that recovery in '63 when early action might maintain the economy and maintain employment. I hope this will be given a long look, even though I realize the Ways and Means Committee has other priorities. But in my judgment, in the long run we have a good chance to have it accepted.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-01-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,[1.] Q. Mr. President, the House Rules Committee, I understand, has Just voted down your urban affairs bill. I wonder if in that view you plan to submit it again.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will say this: It is my understanding that the House Rules Committee rejected by a vote of 9 to 6 the proposal which had come out, which we had sent up, and which had come out of the House Committee on Government Operations.,I am somewhat astonished at the Republican leadership, which opposed this bill. It is my understanding that all of the Republican members of the Rules Committee opposed the bill, I had gotten the impression 2 weeks ago, after reading the reports from the meeting in Oklahoma, that they shared our concern for more effective management and responsibility of the problems of two-thirds of our population who live in the cities. These cities are expanding. They face many problems--housing, transportation, and all the rest--which vitally affect our people.,This is a most valuable and important proposal, and for that reason, therefore, I am going to send it to the Congress as a reorganization plan, and give every member of the House and Senate an opportunity to give their views and work their will on this. And we are going to send it up right away.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, could you discuss for us your general feelings about the limits which you feel should or should not be imposed on the public statements of military figures? Do you think that--what degree of review should be exercised over their public utterances?,THE PRESIDENT. I must say I don't think that we could do better than to read the remarks of three distinguished military officers: General White's article in this week's Newsweek, Admiral Burke, a distinguished officer who is now retired, and General Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--all men of long experience, all men who understand the importance of the proper relationship between the military and the civilian. And I must say that after reading those three statements, I am strengthened in my conviction of the good judgment of Mr. Lovetts's words when he said that this flag looks redder to the bulls outside than it does inside. I think that--I commend those three statements to the military and to the civilians, and I think they set a very proper guidance.,I'm glad this matter is being looked into by--particularly by a committee headed by Senator Stennis, who is an outstanding Senator. I am sure that it will be useful. But I do think that the relationship which has existed for so many years, which provides for civilian control and responsibility, and the coordination of speeches which interpret Government policy, so that the United States speaks with force and strength--I believe that we should continue this very valuable policy which has been carried out in my predecessor's administration, and the predecessor before, of giving guidance on speeches, so that particularly when they are given by high governmental officials--I understand 1200 speeches were submitted and given by the Defense Department, I think over 600 of them involved foreign policy matters, and were submitted to the Department of State. When I gave my State of the Union Address, I submitted that part dealing with foreign policy to the State Department for any comments, the part dealing with the Defense Department and national defense, to the Secretary of Defense for his comments. This is the way a government like ours, which is large and which deals with problems which are extremely important and sensitive, and which involve our relations around the world--this is the way we can coordinate and make effective expressions of our views. So that I am confident this hearing will be useful and it got off to a very good start with those three statements. In fact, the military seemed to me to appreciate the problem better than some civilians. [Laughter],[3.] Q. Mr. President, there are persistent reports that you have proposed that Eugene Black of the World Bank lend his good offices to India and Pakistan to settle the Kashmir dispute. Could you say if this is correct, sir, and what your hopes for success might be, if so?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I asked Mr. Black if he would undertake to see if a solution was possible in this most difficult and delicate problem. It creates international tensions, of course, since we are assisting both of the countries. We want our assistance to be used in a way which is most effective for the people.,Obviously, peaceful relations between Pakistan and India are in the interests of world peace and the interests that we seek to promote. Mr. Black is widely regarded. He had a very successful period as negotiator on the Indus River matter and, therefore, he has generously consented, if it was decided by the parties involved that he could be helpful, to use his good offices, and I suggested that they consider this matter.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us what considerations, other than a tight schedule went into your brother's decision not to visit Moscow on his trip.,THE PRESIDENT. I thought his statement was as he described it.,Q. Was there any feeling, Mr. President, that high level talks would be useful until they had made some more conciliatory move on Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the statement he gave was the reason.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a feeling that you are in for a fight on your trade program. Could you say how you think this will develop, mostly along the economic lines, or sectional lines or political lines, or perhaps all three?,THE PRESIDENT. It may be all three. I am hopeful that it will be certainly a bipartisan fight. I believe it will be. This matter received its first impetus from the report of Secretary Herter and Mr. Clayton. It--the general principles have been supported by people like Henry Cabot Lodge in his work with NATO and the Atlantic Council. It has been given a general support by President Eisenhower. So that I am hopeful that it will be a matter of bipartisan concern.,There will, of course, be sectional interests involved and there will be industrial interests involved, but I am hopeful about this because I think the facts, the necessities and our interests are so much on the side of our program that I believe that the Congress will respond.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, are you and your military advisers completely satisfied with the makeup and strength of NATO at the present time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we can improve NATO. I think that it's important that we add to the conventional strength of NATO. We've been emphasizing that. We, ourselves, have increased our contribution. I am hopeful that we can meet the targets which General Norstad stated as minimal if Western Europe is to be successfully defended and also if we are to have, as I have said, an alternative between nuclear holocaust and retreat. So I think it could be strengthened.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the House Rules Committee vote, I wanted to ask you about an article that appeared this morning, and it was described as being based on an authorized interview with you. It included this sentence: \"The President sees at the end of a year how nearly impossible it is to govern under the system of divided powers.\" Would you care to expand on that view?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I haven't given any authorized interview--[laughter]--but if you want to know my views, of course there is a difficulty between a Congress and a President, an executive. We are coordinate branches. There are different views, different interests. Perspectives are different from. one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. I was 14--I've been 14 times longer at one end of it than I have been at the other, so I appreciate the Congress' responsibilities.,I believe that on the particular issue that the Congress should speak its will because I believe it vitally important, particularly as these cities expand, they cross State lines. The mayors come to see us--and they've strongly supported this legislation. They move from department to department where their interests are assigned to different agencies under different conditions. This would be a very important step forward, and that's why I am going to follow a procedure of sending it to the Congress so that in this way we are bound to get a vote on it by the House and the Senate.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, if you are able to create a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing, there have been numerous reports that you would appoint Robert Weaver to this Cabinet position. Would you care to comment on these reports?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Weaver is the head of the Housing Agency and he was chosen for that position because he had long experience. I think he has done an outstanding job.,This would be the most important part of any new agency. If we did receive the authority, I would appoint Mr. Weaver to be the Secretary.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, your brother Teddy, in Massachusetts, seems to be running for something but none of us are very certain just what it is. Could you tell us if you have had an opportunity to discuss this with him and whether you can tell us the secret?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think he's the man--he's the man who's running and he's the man to discuss it with.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, assuming the American air bases in the Portuguese Azores are vital to our security, could you explain to us if you expect the Government will have any difficulty negotiating leases--renewed leases on those bases this year, especially in light of the report from Lisbon of our strained relations with Portugal?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Azores base is very important to us and to NATO and the negotiations will take place this year. We're hopeful that they will continue to permit us to use this base upon which 75 to 80 percent of our military air traffic to Europe depends, so that in these rather critical times in Europe that base is extremely important to us.,I'm hopeful that it will be possible for us to reach an agreement with the Portuguese for continued use of it. But that's a matter which will be negotiated between the countries.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, you said yesterday that more people ought to drink milk. None of the young marrieds I know of lay off it on account of radioactivity. They lay off it because they can hardly buy enough for the children, and not themselves, on account of the price. Now, how is it that with the butter priced off the table and milk so high they can't buy it, we have surpluses that we buy up and give away?,THE PRESIDENT. The price of milk has not--well, I don't have the latest figures here--in the last 12 months, overall consumer prices have not materially increased. Perhaps--so that I'm not sure that the whole explanation of the drop within the last 12 months, which has been quite sharp--in other words, the consumption has dropped by 11/2 percent, while the population was going up 11/2 percent, so that I don't feel, Mrs. Craig, even though I recognize that this is an important element, I don't believe it can be explained by price alone. We are attempting to make judgments as to what can be done to increase the consumption. I don't think that the dairy farmer, who averages about, I think, 82 cents an hour, is being overcompensated for his work. So that while price obviously is a factor, it is not the total explanation.,I was attempting to reassure on radio- . active, and on the matter of--and also to see if we can stimulate it by example. Mr. Salinger drank it this morning--[laughter]-with no adverse effect.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, do you have real prospects that your medical-care-for-the-aged bill will come out of committee finally for a vote up or down by Congress at this session?,THE PRESIDENT. I have real hope that there will be a vote on the medical care for the aged this year, in the Congress, yes.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, what is your view of the House amendment to the postal rate bill which would prohibit the Post Office from distributing mail labeled as Communist propaganda?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it does not give the Attorney General--I just had the language here--it doesn't give the Attorney General very clear guidance as to what he's supposed to label Communist and political propaganda. Is he supposed to label newspapers that may be received or speeches, or whatever they may be, so that the language is somewhat vague? In addition, I think we want to realize that this is a reciprocal matter. I think in the last 12 months, ending March 31, 1961, we sent--a total of 16 million pounds of mail of all types were sent to the Iron Curtain countries. A lot of it went to friends and relatives in Iron Curtain countries, food packages and all of the rest, and we were only receiving 2,300,000 pounds.,Now, there has been a drop in the amount of mail coming in from Communist countries in the last few months, really since last spring. If there is also an effort made by the Communists to deny us ability to send mail, it's going to present serious problems for a good many Americans who have been carrying on correspondence with friends and relatives. Now, I know that that's not the purpose. I think the Senate should examine the language very clearly and make sure that it's effective and is responsive to our national needs, and determine whether the rather generalized instructions to the Attorney General fall within the necessity of legal precision.,I think the American people are used to hearing all sides. I don't think that they are particularly impressed by a good deal of what I have seen of propaganda. We send a good deal of mail out and I want to be sure that our rights to send our mail and our views and our correspondence to all parts of the world are not interfered with. So that I think the Senate should look at it carefully.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, in your comments on the statements about the military censorship issue, you make no reference to President Eisenhower's statement of yesterday. Would you care to comment on what he had to say?,THE PRESIDENT. No. Everyone is giving their views. I've given mine. And my views are--I think I just gave them. President Eisenhower is entitled to hold his views and express them. And as I say, I thought Mr. Lovett and these other three military hit it so precisely that I strongly endorse what they said, and I'm filled with appreciation of the fact that three distinguished members of the military said it.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, two well-known security risks have recently been put on a task force in the State Department to help reorganize the Office of Security.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, who?,Q. William Arthur Wieland, a well-known man who for over a year the State--,THE PRESIDENT. And who--now I think, Mrs. McClendon, I think that--would you give me the other name?,Q. Yes, sir--J. Clayton Miller.,THE PRESIDENT. Right. Well, now, I think the term--I would say that the term you've used to describe them is a very strong term which I would think that you should be prepared to substantiate. I am familiar with Mr. Miller's record because I happened to look at it the other day. He has been cleared by the State Department. In my opinion, the duties which he is now carrying out, he is fit for. And I have done that after Mr. Rusk and I both looked at the matter, so therefore I cannot accept your description of him.,Q. Did you both look at Mr. William Arthur Wieland, too?,THE PRESIDENT. I am familiar with Mr. Wieland. I'm also familiar with his duties at the present time, and in my opinion, Mr. Miller and Mr. Wieland, the duties they have been assigned to, they can carry out without detriment to the interests of the United States, and I hope without detriment to their characters by your question.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, considering that the one ingredient in all these radical right organizations seems to be anticommunism or possibly superpatriotism, would it be feasible or useful for you, or even for the Republican leaders, to appeal to these people to stop tilting at windmills and to make a common cause against the enemy? My question really is, do you think there is any merit in this idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I did attempt in my speech at Seattle, my speech in Los Angeles, and in other speeches to indicate what I consider to be the challenges that the United States faces, and I would hope that--there have been others who have done the same thing and I think we should keep that up. And I am hopeful that we can turn the energies of all patriotic Americans to the great problems that we face at home and abroad. The problems are extremely serious. I share their concern about the cause of freedom. But I do think that we ought to look at what the challenges are with some precision and not concern ourselves on occasions with matters such as character or integrity of the Chief Justice or other matters which are really not even in question.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, it has been reported that you have indicated an interest in the provision of some sort of scholarship aid, perhaps something similar to the GI bill, for the reservists and National Guardsmen that were recently called up. Could you give us a little clearer picture of your views? For example, would you favor something such as Senator Yarborough of Texas' cold war GI bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well now, on the general question of whether we should have a special scholarship program for reservists or draftees, this is a matter that is being considered. Senator Yarborough's bill was not in the administration's program on education this year. It involved a rather large sum of money, $350 million, at a time when we were making rather broad recommendations for our education. But whether there should be some special program of selected scholarships which would be available for competition is a matter which we are looking at, and which I hope to discuss with Senator Yarborough.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, as you have just emphasized, present strontium 90 levels in milk are certainly well within an acceptable range. But since milk is a major source of calcium and adequate calcium in the body apparently does help prevent deposits of strontium 90 in bone, it has been suggested that strontium removal plants, such as the one developed by the Government might be adopted by all the dairy industry to provide the Nation with a nutritious as well as a radiation-free source of calcium. Would you give us your views on this? What would you think of it?,THE PRESIDENT. My information is that-and I think, as I stated yesterday, that this has not reached a point where any action such as you've suggested is necessary. Milk is safe and can be drunk with strong conviction that it's assisting health and not working against good health. Now, if the situation should ever change, we would inform the American people and take appropriate action. But for the present, the cow itself, along with other factors, makes our milk very safe and useful to drink.,Q. Yes, that is what I pointed out. The only thing is it has been suggested that many other foods are not as yet safe and do add to the strontium burden in the body, and if one has a calcium-free source that is free of contamination, this helps build up a resistance for these other things. It was suggested from that point of view rather than because it is dangerous now or even in the future. [Laughter],[19.] Q. Mr. President, in the face of your economic message urging both management and labor to moderate their policy regarding price and wage increases, would you tell us how you feel about the electricians union's contract in New York which calls for a 25-hour week?,THE PRESIDENT. I stated, I think at the Steelworkers convention, before I was elected, and I've stated since then, that I thought that the 40-hour week was the-in view of the many obligations that we had upon us at home and abroad, represented the national goal at this time. In addition, I've also stated that I thought that labor management contracts should be settled within the realm of productivity increases, so that there would be a beneficial effect on price stability.,Now, this contract did not meet either one of those two standards, and therefore I regretted it.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel or how does this Government feel about the political as distinct from the economic integration of Western Europe? President de Gaulle has seemed to stress confederation as distinct from federation, and the British don't seem to be very eager for a common parliament. What is this Government's position?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we support the Treaty of Rome, and of course that must be interpreted, and which is now a subject of negotiation between the Six, and will also be a subject of negotiation with the British, particularly because of their Commonwealth obligations and so on. So we'll have to wait to see how it evolves. But the general position of this administration, and the previous one, was support of the Treaty of Rome, support of the integration of Europe, because as Europe is strengthened we are strengthened. So that while the details are matters, of course, of judgment for them, the general movement we believe to be in the interests of the Atlantic Community.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, more than one-third of the Senate and several influential members of the House have petitioned you today seeking wider trade protection on textiles. In view of their importance to your trade fight in Congress, could you tell us how you plan to meet the request?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I received a letter today from both, a good many members of the House and the Senate in regard to the negotiations which are going to take place beginning next Monday, and they were anxious that in those negotiations, that we would be mindful of the desirability of maintaining a relationship between imports and national production. I believe last year's imports of textiles were around 7 percent-that's 1960--and they had gone from 4 percent to 7 percent from 1957 to 1960, and then dropped to about 6 percent. I think that this was a request for us to be concerned about any agreement which might provide a substantial increase in textiles, and we are very mindful of that, and we recognize the effect of all of this upon the trade bill itself. So this is a matter of concern to us, too.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what the United States hopes will emerge from the present conference at Punta del Este?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that what we--I think--will see emerge is an implementation of the--really rather an effective statement of the concern that is felt by the people of Latin America and this country at the intrusion of communism into this--into our OAS family. And I'm confident that the negotiations that are now going on, and that the deliberations of the countries will be--will make their hostility to communism and totalitarianism very clear.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your views of the bill on educational television which is now pending in the House Rules Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. I am sorry, I don't know enough about it to give you an informed opinion.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, in a very abbreviated interview this morning, the Attorney General said that the Government was looking into racketeering, the operations of racketeering, racketeers, in the stock exchange. Could you give us-could you comment upon this problem or give us any indication of the extent of it?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I would rather have you go back to the Attorney General on it.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech out in Columbus, Ohio, you spoke of a fragmentation in the Communist bloc. Could you elaborate, tell us a little more about this trouble in the Red paradise?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I did make a reference in my State of the Union to the closer integration of the free world at a time when that particular trend had not been the most noticeable trend in other parts of the world. But I think that until the pattern of the future is clearer and relationships are more precise, a good deal of our information must necessarily be surmised, and I don't really feel it would be useful at this time to explore it in more detail.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, it has been suggested by columnists and others that over the course of the past year you have become more conservative, particularly that you recognize that the country may not be ready for the full Democratic platform. Could you comment on this assessment and tell us if you have changed your view of the role of your leadership?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I consider the progress we made last year in implementing the platform was very beneficial: minimum wage, social security, depressed areas, and all the others, advances in the field of foreign aid authorization. We have sent up a good many more programs this year that were suggested in the platform. And I feel we're making, and going to make, progress toward carrying out the commitments of the country and the party. And we're staying at it.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1962-01-15","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1] I have just one announcement. I am sure you are all familiar with the story in this morning's paper of the documentation on the study of comparisons of those in our schools and universities and the kind of subjects which they study which was published by the National Science Foundation. This has been a matter of some concern to me for some time because one of the most critical problems facing this Nation is the inadequacy of the supply of scientific and technical manpower, to satisfy the expanding requirements of this country's research and development efforts in the near future. In 1951 our universities graduated 19,600 students in the physical sciences. In 1960 in spite of the substantial increase in our population, during the last 10 years, and in spite of the fact that the demand for people of skill in this field has tremendously increased with our efforts in defense and space, industrial research, and all of the rest, in 1960 the number had fallen from 19,600 to 17,100. In 1951 there were 22,500 studying in the biological sciences; in 1960 there were only 16,700. In the field of engineering, enrollment rose from 232,000 to 269,000 in the period 1951 to 1957. Since 1957 there has been a continual decline in enrollment. Last year the figure was down to 240,000.,This is a matter of growing concern. It is more than a matching of numerical supply to anticipate a demand, though this alone would be difficult. Because of the seriousness of this problem for the long-range future of the United States, I have asked my Science Advisory Committee, in cooperation with the Federal Council for Science and Technology, to review available studies and other pertinent information, and to report to me as quickly as possible on the specific measures that can be taken within and without the Government to develop the necessary and well qualified scientists and engineers and technicians to meet our society's complex needs--governmental, educational, and industrial.,In undertaking this task, the committee will draw on the advice and assistance of individuals and agencies, including the National Academy of Sciences, which will shortly begin at my request a new study of scientific and technical manpower utilization.\nTo all those who may be within the sound of my voice or who may follow your stories in the papers, I want to emphasize the great new and exciting field of the sciences and while we wish to emphasize always the liberal arts, I do believe that these figures indicate a need on the national level and also a great opportunity for talented young men and women. And I hope that their teachers, their school boards, and they themselves and their families will give this matter consideration in developing their careers.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, as you are aware, there has been nothing official on this, but there have been some unofficial reports stemming .from Ambassador Thompson's first two exploratory conferences in Moscow. These reports are to the effect that the situation with Russia has not changed.,Could you tell us, sir, whether as a result of Mr. Thompson's two meetings in Moscow that you detect any evidence, new evidence, of a possible solution of our differences with Russia over Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. I think--it's my hope that these talks will continue, so that this, matter will be subjected to the most thorough scrutiny and examination, to see whether such an arrangement is possible. Ambassador Thompson, I am hopeful, therefore, will meet with the Foreign Minister again and after these meetings have gone on for a reasonable period, we can make a much more concise judgment in answer to your question. But I think it would be premature today.,Q. Mr. President, in that connection, could you give us any idea of the length of a reasonable period of time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think it would really depend upon what was happening during the negotiations. In other words, if progress were being made, or if there were evidence that progress could be made, of course, then the time would be different than it would be if there was no evidence of any meeting of minds. So I think the important thing now is to continue and I'm--Ambassador Thompson will.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, the United States has made informal but strenuous efforts to reach a peaceful solution of the Indonesian-Dutch dispute. Could you say, sir, if your hopes are in any way possible of fulfillment now, and if our efforts should fail, would we then turn to the United Nations?\nTHE PRESIDENT, We do not have any more precise information than the news story with which you are familiar in regard to the statement of the Dutch. We have been extremely anxious that a peaceful accommodation be reached in this matter and have used our influence to bring that about. I am particularly glad that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. U Thant, has been occupying himself with a good deal of energy to try to see if there is a possibility for a peaceful settlement.,I am hopeful that both parties will respond to his efforts, and that we can prevent an outbreak of hostilities between Indonesia and the Dutch. Great responsibility rests on both of these countries, and I am hopeful that they will give Mr. U Thant every cooperation because the alternative would not be happy for the world, nor, really, I think, in the long run, for the parties involved. A peaceful solution, of course, would be the best thing and that's what we're working for.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, this is a question about your trade liberalization program. Some members of Congress from industrial areas are reporting privately that they are worried about the problems of their support of the program because some of their manufacturing constituents say that unless they are able to get things, for example, like wool and cotton, at world market prices instead of artificial prices, that they can't afford to go along with the idea of reducing trade barters. Can you give us your assessment of how serious you think this problem is and do you see any possible encouragement to them on it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, there are two different--one is cotton, which is in surplus here in the United States, and the other is wool, which we import. In the case of cotton, as you know, we send out, export, about 6 million bales of cotton a year, and we import about 600,000 manufactured bales, textiles. In fact, we export almost as much cotton, manufactured textiles, as we import. So the export of cotton is a very important ingredient in our balance of payments.,I think the Japanese alone buy, I think, almost $240 or $250 million of cotton. I believe, as I said before, that while some industries may not get the same benefit out of this proposal as others will, that generally, it will be very helpful to industry and very helpful to agriculture and most helpful to the United States.,And I think that if the members of Congress begin to examine the figures in their districts and in their States, and these figures are being prepared which show where the balance of trade runs, then I think that we can get a majority support for the legislation. A good deal of concern is expressed about Japan, but we ran a half billion dollar balance of trade in our favor. We sold Japan last year a half billion dollars more than they bought from us. So that I believe the United States can compete.,As I said the other day, the fact is that the Common Market countries have had an extraordinary economic growth, full employment and all the rest, and it is to increase our employment and our opportunities that we are recommending this. So in answer to your question, I believe that when the members of the House and Senate have examined our proposal, examined its safeguards, examined what it can do for employment, I am hopeful, in fact, I feel it very possible, that we can secure a majority, even though it's a sophisticated matter and it is difficult to explain quickly. But I think that when the educational job is done, I think the country will understand that it is in our best interest.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, are American troops now in combat in Viet-Nam?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Freeman has said that it's impossible to expand the food-for-peace program and Mr. McGovern says it should be expanded. Have you been able to resolve this difference?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it should be expanded as we can. I think that Mr. Freeman's concern is with, first, the regular markets of trade, that the food for peace should complement it and not cut across it, the obligations we have to others who are also exporters of agricultural commodities, the question of funds and finances, of how much--if we're talking about the $2 billion a year, which we are now. I am hopeful that we can use our productive power well in this field, but I think that the question of the balance, and I think that Mr. McGovern and Mr. Freeman in my judgment will be in balance by the time they go before the Congress, because I think they both have the same basic interests in using our food well and not having it wasted--in storage.,[7.] Q. What can you tell us about the administration's efforts to speed up the bargaining timetable in the steel industry, and what do you hope to accomplish by this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I was hopeful, of course, from the beginning that an agreement would be reached in the steel industry, which would be, as I said in my letter to Mr. McDonald, which would be within the range of productivity and price stability, and which would come at a time, though I have not said this before, would come at a time which would prevent a repetition of what we saw in 1958 where there was a tremendous increase in inventory, in the first 6 months of the year which adversely affected the economy in the last half of the year, and also adversely affected employment in the steel mills themselves. So while they worked at high capacity for the first 6 months, there were a good many layoffs after the strike.,Now, if an agreement can be reached between the steel companies and the steel union, of course it would be well to have it come early, so that the country and the consumers of steel would be able to make their plans for the future without stockpiling.\nNow this is a judgment for them. This is a free economy, and the Federal Government has no power unless there was a strike which affects the national emergency, but Secretary Goldberg is available for whatever good offices he may perform.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, after 1 year in the office of the Presidency, would you care to give us any of your comments about the first year and perhaps in particular the most rewarding and disappointing events that have come across your desk?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would say the most disappointing event was our failure to get an agreement on the cessation of nuclear testing, because I think that that might have been a very important step in easing the tension and preventing a proliferation of the weapons, and also in making it more possible for us to have progress on disarmament and some of the other matters that divide us. The thing that I think is the most heartening is the fact that first I think there's a greater surge for unity in the Western nations, and in our relations with Latin America, and also I think it has become more obvious that people do desire to be free and independent. And while they may organize their societies in different ways, they do want to maintain a national sovereignty, which I would regard as a great source of strength to us. I've had other disappointments but those are important.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in the past it would seem that coalition governments lean toward Communist control. Are we then taking a chance in supporting a coalition type government in southeast Asia?,THE PRESIDENT. We are taking a chance in all of southeast Asia, and we're taking a chance in other areas. Nobody can make any predictions for the future, really, on any matter in which there are powerful interests at stake. I think, however, that we have to consider what our alternatives are, and what the prospects for war are in that area if we fail in our present efforts and the geographic problems which have to be surmounted in such a military engagement, where there is no easy entrance by sea and where the geographic location is extremely a long way from us and very dose to those who might become involved. So that there's no easy, sure answer for Laos, but it is my judgment that it is in the best interests of our country to work for a neutral and independent Laos. We are attempting to do that. And I can assure you that I recognize the risks that are involved. But I also think that we should consider the risks if we fail, and particularly of the possibility of escalation of a military struggle in a place of danger. So we're going to attempt to work out this matter in a way which permits us to try.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Inter-American foreign ministers are due to meet at Punta del Este next Monday. In advance of that meeting, could you tell us what kind of action you hope the meeting will take to check Castroism?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it is the consensus of the hemisphere that communism is a threat; that it's sustained and supported by alien forces; that it has no place in the Inter-American system; and that we are against dictatorships of the right and left. And now that the Dominican Republic is moving from a dictatorship of the right, we are hopeful that there will be--the voice of the hemisphere will speak against dictatorships of the left which are sustained and supported from outside the hemisphere. I think that we will get that consensus.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the agricultural proposals now under preparation appear to involve a good deal of control of production and marketing by the Government. Following your long conference with Secretary Freeman, do you now hold the view that if the Government is to continue farm price support programs, there must be control or management of production?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, management--I think what we are attempting to do is to prevent the surpluses which we are able to produce because of the extraordinary productivity of our farms. I said the other day m the State of the Union Address that our per capita production has increased nearly 100 percent in the last 10 years, which is faster than our consumption is increasing, and as we have somewhat more difficulty maintaining some of our markets abroad, in my judgment we should attempt to provide with the support of the farmers and the Congress a reasonable balance which will protect their income. Otherwise, these surpluses will break the farmers' income, or they will be piled up so high in the sheds of the United States in storage that the whole program of trying to assist farmers will fall into discredit, and the farmer himself will be damaged. So what we are attempting to do--and this is extremely difficult because of the variety of opinions that are involved--is to try to work with the farmer and the Congress to try to bring about a balance between production for our domestic use, for our world use, for food for peace, and at the same time insure that the farmer's income will not be broken by surpluses, as it was to a substantial extent in the twenties. And that's our effort, and I think it's essential that we succeed if the public interest and the farmers are going to be protected.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, this has to do with the conduct of our judicial system. In the last several years at least two Federal judges have resigned from the bench to go back to practice law. Since Federal judges are appointed for life, would you care to comment on the possible impact of this type of resignation on the judicial system, and its effect upon the ethical standards of the community?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the reason that they are appointed for life is so that there cannot only be no actual improprieties, but no appearance of improprieties. And while I would not make any judgment in the two cases you mentioned, I don't think that anyone should accept a Federal judgeship unless they're prepared to fill it for life, because I think the maintenance of the integrity of the judiciary is so important. So I hope that all judges will stay to the end of their terms.,[13.] Q. Sir, last April, during the generals' revolt in Algeria, you made an offer, but it was not clear from here whether it was of support or offer of aid to General de Gaulle. If a similar instance should occur in the near future, would you make a similar offer to President de Gaulle of either support or aid?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that you've described completely, precisely, the kind of message which I sent to General de Gaulle. And I think that probably proffer of assistance would not be a precise description of it. If we felt that--I would think it would be unwise to speculate about the future. But this was a matter which was handled by the French, and no request was made for assistance, and none was offered.,[14-] Q. Mr. President, in the case of Kashmir, India has failed to keep its promise to hold free elections and has resorted with impunity in attacking Goa on December 17th. Could you tell us what the United States could do to assure that a double standard of action does not arise in the United Nations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are several different questions. We are against a double standard of action in the United Nations, and I think we have attempted to make that clear, and that double standard goes to a whole variety of different things, not just the matters that you mentioned in your question.,Now, on the matter of Kashmir, we have been and are concerned that an accommodation or a solution be reached because both countries have numerous external and internal problems. And we have been assisting both countries to build a more viable economy and quite obviously everything that is put to arms as a result of their friction's, of course, takes it from the general effort, and we're going to continue our efforts.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there are two appeals pending in the Office of Emergency Planning that relate to foreign trade. One seeks protection for the textile industry and the other seeks a reduction in import restrictions on residual oil. Could you tell us what progress is being made on these appeals and, in particular, if any recommendation has come to you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we did make a recommendation about a month ago on residual oil which provided for some increase in the amount that could be imported in, I think most of it from Venezuela. In the matter of textiles, that is one of the subjects which was part of our seven-point proposal to the textile industry, that we would consider.,We have made some progress with the textile industry--the voluntary agreement, which was made by the Under Secretary, Mr. Ball, which is trying to bring about a happier distribution of textile production in a way that doesn't cause dumping. I think that that's been a help to the textile industry-the change we made in depreciation allowances. There are other matters we're now looking into, and this is one of them. But it is a fact that the importation of textiles this year, which had gone from about 4 to 7 percent from '58 to '60, was down for various reasons to 6 percent, so that the import situation was somewhat eased for the textile industry. But to answer your question, both of these matters are before us.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, criticism that we did not tear down the Berlin wall seems to be increasing rather than declining. Just about a week ago the Chairman of the Republican National Committee criticized your administration very strenuously. I don't recall that you've ever publicly discussed this particular phase of the question. Do you think it would be helpful for you to do so now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have discussed it. I stated that no one at that time in any position of responsibility--and I would use that term-either in the West Berlin-American contingent, in West Germany, France, or Great Britain, suggested that the United States or the other countries go in and tear down the wall.,The Soviet Union had had a de facto control for many years, really stretching back to the late forties in East Berlin. It had been turned over as a capital for East Germany a long time ago. And the United States has a very limited force surrounded by a great many divisions. We are going to find ourselves severely challenged to maintain what we have considered to be our basic rights--which is our presence in West Berlin and the right of access to West Berlin, and the freedom of the people of West Berlin.,But in my judgment, I think that you could have had a very violent reaction which might have taken us down a very rocky road, and I think it was for that reason and because it was recognized by those people in positions of responsibility that no recommendation was made along the lines you've suggested at that time. Hindsight is--,[17.] Q. It's been more than 4 months since the Soviets began their series of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and I think you'd agree it would only be imprudent not to assume--to assume that they're not preparing further tests. Can you discuss what the overriding considerations are to cause us to give this potential enemy a gift of that length of time, and can you also tell us when we may expect a decision on your part in this matter of testing in the atmosphere?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we have tested underground, so that in talking about the gift of time, that matter should be taken into consideration. Secondly, of course, we were negotiating at the table in Geneva when the Soviet Union, after many months of preparation, began its tests.,I have announced that we are making our preparations to conduct atmospheric testing if it's considered to be in the public interest when those preparations are completed. So that it's wholly impossible for a free country like the United States, with a free press, to prepare in secret the extensive--make extensive preparations which would be necessary, at the same time we are conducting a very important and vital negotiation. So that the Soviet Union has that advantage. They have advantages as a dictatorship in this cold war struggle. But they have very serious disadvantages, and I think that we have to balance them one against the other.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, during the election campaign you pledged that if elected you would issue an executive order prohibiting racial segregation in federally assisted housing. It's recently been reported that you have decided to postpone the issuance of such an order for some time. I wondered if you could give us your thinking on this timing question--why you want to put it off?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think--I have stated that I would issue that order when I considered it to be in the public interest, and when I considered it to make an important contribution to advancing the rights of our citizens. I will point out that this administration in the last 12 months made more progress in the field of civil rights on a whole variety of fronts than were made in the last 8 years. We have, for example, carried out a great many more suits in voting rights, the appointment of Federal employees, and judges, and their employees, and ending segregation in interstate travel and terminal facilities, the ICC's work, and the work being done in railroad and airports, and we have had--at least the communities involved made important progress in integrating in this field.,So we are proceeding ahead in a way which will maintain a consensus, and which will advance this cause. And I think a proper judgment can be made on this and all other matters relating to equality of rights at the end of this year, and at the end of our term. In my judgment we are going to make significant progress and I am fully conscious of the wording of the statement to which you refer, and plan to meet my responsibilities in regard to this matter.,[19-] Q. Mr. President, would you care to comment on how the bond issue of the United Nations can tip the scale in favor of the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Can do what?,Q. Can tip the scale in favor of the United States.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it can help us strengthen the United Nations, which I think is in the interest of the United States, and I think that if we do not have a bond issue, or a satisfactory substitute, and I have not heard of one, in my judgment the U.N. will go, sail, into very difficult weather in regard to its financing, and could be on the verge of bankruptcy. And I think this is a way, along with the decision which will be rendered by the Court in regard to the payment of their obligations--this is a way to spread the burden more equitably and insure the United Nations has adequate funds. Now, I look at what is happening in the Congo, where progress is being made towards the establishment of an independent Congo, and if Mr. Tshombe and the Prime Minister, based on their agreement at Kitona, can continue to make progress, we may have a real hope there.,So in my opinion, the United Nations justifies the effort we put into it substantially. We rely very heavily, as I said earlier today, on the Secretary General in regard to what is happening now in western New Guinea and Indonesia. So that I believe in it strongly, and I think that this is a way to strengthen it which tips the scale, I think, in the interest of peace, and those nations that wish to be free.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, this afternoon 2,000 American women, many of them from distant places, demonstrated in a downpour in front of the White House in behalf of disarmament and peace. Do you consider this sort of demonstration useful and does it have an influence on you and other world leaders who are responsible for peace?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think these women are extremely earnest and that they are as concerned as we all are at the possibility of a nuclear war. They talked this morning to Mr. Fisher, who is the Deputy Director of our disarmament agency. We stressed the effort we were going to put into the disarmament conference coming up in March. I saw the ladies myself. I recognized why they were there. There were a great number of them. It was in the rain. I understood what they were attempting to say, and therefore I considered that their message was received.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, almost precisely a year ago, President Eisenhower in his farewell address discussed the influence of the military-industrial alliance in the defense spending program. I wonder, sir, if, in your first year in office, you have developed similar concern for this problem.,THE PRESIDENT. I think that President Eisenhower commented on a matter which deserves continuing attention by the President and also by the Secretary of Defense. There gets to be a great vested interest in expenditures because of the employment that is involved, and all the rest, and that's one of the struggles which he had and which we have, and I think his warning or his words were well taken.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the recent negotiations in the Common Market moving into the second phase, their negotiations with us on agricultural products?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had a long negotiation, stretching back over 18 months, on the matter with the Common Market. We sent over Mr. Petersen and the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Murphy, in December. We sent them back again this week. The arrangement which has been developed in the last few days has improved our position. We always will have--and I believe that this is one of the arguments for the powers which I requested from the Congress--a difficult struggle with agricultural productivity rising in Europe, with the balance of agricultural trade. We are sending to the Common Market about a billion one hundred million and taking back about two hundred million from them--it's quite obvious that it's impossible for us to trade evenly with them on agriculture.,So, therefore, we have to trade across the board. Given the difficulties which the Common Market is now running into with agriculture, and which we will see more of when the British negotiations get advanced, I would think that this looks like, from all the information I have, this looks like the best arrangement that we could make and seems to be in the public interest and is, I think, on the whole, satisfactory.,[23.] Q. Sir, there has been much to-do in the papers recently about memberships in various clubs affecting the members of your administration, having to do with the Cosmos Club and the Metropolitan Club, with which you are familiar.,Sir, do you have any particular standards of your own which you apply in your own case as to memberships in various clubs, as to whether they should be coeducational or biracial?,THE PRESIDENT. I have said from the beginning that I thought this was a personal matter which involved not only the members of this Government, but involves everyone in the city and everyone in the country, and every individual must make his judgment in the way that he believes to be right. And I've stated that my application for the Cosmos Club was not being renewed.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, you did not specifically mention doctors in your opening statement. If you get Medicare legislation, where would you get the doctors, nurses, and hospitals to furnish the old people's needs?,THE PRESIDENT. I was talking about scientists on this occasion, but as you know we have asked in the State of the Union Address for some assistance to medical schools and nursing schools. The fact of the matter is that our doctors are falling far behind the rate of increase in our population, and we are going to find it increasingly difficult to serve our people well. I don't think the solution should be to deny medical care to people, however. I think we can do much better than that, and I would suggest that the best remedy would be to assist us in the program we recommended to strengthen our medical schools so we can get the doctors we need.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-11-29","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Are there any questions?,[1.] Q. Mr. President, last week we had a show of force off the Dominican Republic. Under what circumstances would these ships and men actually have gone into action and is this an indication of policy in the hemisphere? Would U.S. forces be used to knock out any attempt by Castro, for instance, to overthrow an existing government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the United States forces which remained in international waters were there because there was some feeling that steps might be taken in the Dominican Republic which would end any hope that a democratic solution could be achieved. Because events in the Dominican Republic proceeded in the way they did, United States forces have been gradually withdrawn.,It's our hope that, as a result of the conversations now going on in the Dominican Republic, that we can make progress towards achieving the kind of government which will permit the Dominican people to control their own destiny.,As to the broader questions, we would, of course, be concerned and have responsibilities as a member of the Organization of American States, if actions were taken by one state against another state through the use of force, and we would be most concerned about that whatever its source and particularly if its source came from the one you describe.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan a trip out of the country any time before the first of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. We have not finalized any plans.,[3.] Q. The Government-controlled press in South Viet-Nam is attacking the United States now, apparently because we are asking for political reforms in exchange for our military and economic assistance. I wonder if this has jeopardized our effort to stop communism there, and if you could throw any light on this situation for us?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there have been stories in the press there that have been critical of the United States and of course there have been stories in the United States press which may in some cases bear a different relationship to the Government than the press in Saigon does to its government but which nevertheless have suggested that the steps which are being taken within Viet-Nam to counter the Communist threat have not been sufficient. We--of course, our ambition is to permit the Vietnamese people to control their destiny, and we are attempting to work with the Government and encourage steps which will increase the sense of commitment by the people of Viet-Nam' to the struggle. These steps are bound to be subject to discussion and controversy, and we are going to continue to have our conversations with the Vietnamese Government.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, what significance do you see in the fact that the Soviet Government at this time permitted you to speak to the Russian people?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I welcomed it. We had expressed, Mr. Salinger had--I think other newspapermen in the United States had expressed their concern that Mr. Khrushchev had been interviewed at some length by three or four American newspapermen, that all his views were carried in full in the Western world and particularly in the United States, but no similar opportunity had been given to the President of the United States or any other American leaders and this view was presented with vigor to Soviet representatives and I am delighted that they decided to give us that opportunity.,Q. Mr. President, when Mr. Khrushchev visited this country a couple of years ago, he had quite a number of chances to speak to the American people on virtually all of our radio, television, and newspapers. Would you welcome such an opportunity to do so personally in the Soviet Union to speak to the Russian people and see them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that Mr. Khrushchev came on invitation of the President of the United States and was a guest of the United States. I have not been given a similar invitation. I think that the important thing now is to attempt to work out a solution to the difficult problems which disturb our relations. The interview mentioned Germany and Berlin. There are also problems in southeast Asia, and that's the immediate task. And I think that probably they hold that view too in regard to any visit by a President of the United States that there are important problems that must be solved before such a visit would be rewarding to either side. No such invitation has as yet been extended.,Q. Mr. President, in your interview with the Izvestia reporter you said that what we objected to was the deprivation of a political choice, and I wonder if you could discuss with us how this criterion would apply to Finland where apparently the only anti-Soviet candidate and opponent to President Kekkonen has been pressured into retiring from the race.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the general thesis which I expressed on Saturday stands. We--what we desire is that the people of these countries will have a free choice. If they choose to follow under a condition of freedom, as I've said, with sufficient opportunity for alternative views to be presented, then we accept that. We would feel also, of course, that if they should choose the Communist system, then they should also be given the opportunity at another date to make another choice.,That is what we regard as freedom. That is not the view that has been held by the Soviet Union. And I would prefer to make that as a general statement rather than apply it to any particular country because some countries are having difficulties and I'm not sure that any statement that we might make at this time would be of assistance to them.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you and your wife and other members of your family have declined to go to private clubs and to take part in other functions, even women's benefits at churches, where there was racial segregation. Now I wonder if you don't think it's simply fair that the President of the United States, members of his Cabinet, U.S. Ambassadors and other officers of this Government should decline to speak at and participate in functions where women newspaper reporters are barred?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel that I have many responsibilities and the press has less and I would think that the press should deal with that problem and I'm sure that--I think it would be most appropriate if the members of the Press Club had a meeting and permitted you to come and present your views to them. [Laughter],I will say that as we are expected, as President, to comment on everything, I will say that in my judgment when an official visitor comes to speak to the Press Club, that all working reporters should be permitted in on a basis of equality. That is not a social occasion but a working occasion.,That happens to be my personal view and the members of the Press Club will have to decide it in the way they want. They are entitled to have any arrangement they would want in regards, I would think, to social occasions, but I would think that when there is an official visitor here as part of--the guest of the people of the United States and there's a meeting held, that all reporters should come on a basis of equality. But that--I am not a member of the Press Club except honorary and therefore--but I give my view as an honorary member, not as President of the United States. [Laughter],[6.] Q. Mr. President, in your interview yesterday--published yesterday--you spoke of the possibility of a commitment to peace between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Senator Mansfield early this month also suggested an exploratory meeting between the members of these two pacts to attempt to work out a better understanding between them.,Are these two ideas, yours and Senator Mansfield's, in the same vein and do you envisage such a meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I stated, as we stated at the time of the visit of Chancellor Adenauer, we hoped that negotiations would take place in regard to Berlin and Germany, and of course, this is a question which would be related to that. And at that time we would attempt to improve the relations between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries.,I think there are some differences in the view expressed by Senator Mansfield and by me, but the purpose was the same--to provide a lessening of tensions between the two blocs and to improve their relations. I think that the details could best be worked out in negotiation, but we cannot have, of course, an increase in harmony between the two blocs until we've come to some. negotiated and mutually satisfactory agreement in regard to Berlin and Germany. After we've done that, then such an arrangement would be meaningful.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what you had in mind when you suggested in your interview with Mr. Adzhubei the creation of an international administration on the Autobahn to Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that--what I'm anxious to do is to work out some system which will permit freedom of access for the people of West Berlin without constant pressures and without harassment's which endanger their freedom and which increase the tensions between the countries.,One of the suggestions which have been considered is to provide some international authority which will control traffic in the Autobahn and, therefore, guarantee its free movement. I think we would have to wait until negotiations began between the Soviet Union and the Western powers before any precise suggestions in regard to this kind of control might be put forward.,Q. May I ask a subordinate question, sir? Does this contemplate international control under the United Nations, or something apart from the U.N.?,THE PRESIDENT. The details, I would think, of what kind of an international authority might be arranged could be, I think, better a subject for the negotiations. There could be many different forms that it would take--four--power, U.N., or some other bodies--but it must be one, of course, which is acceptable to both sides. That would be difficult to achieve, but I believe, would be one of the chief points in any negotiations.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman John Fogarty has criticized as a devastating blow to major areas of medical research, the recent cut of $60 million by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from the budget of the National Institutes of Health.,Also, in the name of economy, the Atomic Energy Commission has announced curtailment of its reactor program.,Would you comment on this, and is any consideration being given to restoring these cuts?,THE PRESIDENT. The difficulty--whenever we have a cut, well everyone wants economy and wants cuts. Whenever any cut is made, of course, there are always complaints about it. Now the fact of the matter is that we substantially increased over the Eisenhower budget the amount that we requested for the Department of HEW, including research--including support for the health institutes.,The House of Representatives increased our request and the Senate substantially increased it. Now the figure which Mr. Ribicoff cut to was, I believe, several million dollars above the figure that the House of Representatives themselves passed, and the fact of the matter is that the figure as it now stands in the area of HEW, cancer research and others, is 25 percent now above what it was a year ago.,So that I think that we have funded these programs adequately. We would spend additional funds if we felt they could be usefully spent. And this matter has been very carefully examined.,And let me reiterate: the amount of money being spent is 25 percent above what was spent last year and it is above what was recommended by the House of Representatives itself, as well as being now above what we recommended in our budget, which was substantially above what President Eisenhower recommended in his budget.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you discuss the recent personnel changes in your administration and the reasons behind them?,THE PRESIDENT. The question was: would I discuss the recent personnel changes in our administration, and the reasons behind it. I think the first sentence of our announcement on Sunday, which said that we thought the changes would provide a better matching of the men with their tasks and responsibilities explains the change.,One of the problems, of course, is that our attention is focused today on--particularly on Western Europe, Berlin, Germany, the Common Market, and the Soviet and bloc tensions with the NATO Alliance and the United States.,We are, of course, also bearing heavy responsibilities and are extremely concerned with the course of events in South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.,Mr. Bowles has traveled a good deal in those areas before and after becoming Under Secretary. He is now going to devote his entire time to our problems and policies in those areas. I believe it's a much more effective use of his extremely--of his obvious talents to use him in this area, rather than using him in the area of day-to-day administration in the Department of State.,I regard this, as I've said, as an increased opportunity for Mr. Bowles, and I think it's vitally important to the United States. We do not want to become so concerned about the problems we face in Western Europe that we ignore the tremendous responsibilities and opportunities that are before the free world in these important sections of the world.,So that I'm encouraged by the changes and I'm grateful to Mr. Bowles for taking on this assignment. I think he can render a real service as he has in the past.,I'm also grateful to Governor Harriman for becoming, after holding probably as many important jobs as any American in our history, with the possible exception of John Quincy Adams, for now taking on the job of Assistant Secretary for the Far East.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there are reports that the morale among the Reservists who have been called up is bad. They claim they don't have--they say they have nothing to do; the equipment is inadequate. Do you care to comment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have seen the newspaper stories. There isn't any doubt that any newspaper can go out and interview men who've been called up. Their lives are disturbed. Many of them are older. They've all got jobs. For most of them it's a heavy sacrifice. And we are not at war.,And they go to camps which have perhaps been newly opened or where the equipment may not be immediately available. And they're bound to be unhappy. I've seen the stories in some cases where newspapers have reported that the Department of Defense is determined to keep these people in for more than a year.,Then when it was proved that that story was wholly wrong, they then write that the Pentagon has changed its mind and not going to keep them in more than a year and then sent their reporters around to examine and interview servicemen and build up the sense that Americans are not ready to serve their country.,Now let me make it very clear what the reason, that we called these men--the reason we called these men is that there is a direct clash of interest in a major area, which is Berlin and West Germany. There also is increased tension in Viet-Nam.,When we came into office, we did not feel that there was sufficient strength in our conventional forces. Of the 14 Army divisions, 3 were training divisions. And the United States has commitments all around the world.,Now, while we rely on our nuclear weapons, we also, as I've said, want to have a choice between humiliation and a holocaust. And therefore, we believe that calling these men up and their willingness to serve increased the chance of maintaining the peace.,There are countries where leaders have talked very strongly about standing firm in various areas, but do not have the military force to support that statement. We require it. The United States is the strongest power and the leader of the free world, and as such we must have the power to make our commitments good.,These men, who may be serving in a very cold and windy camp in Fort Lewis, in Washington, therefore, are rendering the same kind of service to our country that an airplane standing on a 15-minute alert at a SAC base in Omaha is rendering. We called them in, in order to prevent a war, not to fight a war.,And, if our efforts to hold the peace should fail, then, of course, they would be used in a more direct way. But their function today is to indicate that the United States is serious about its commitments; that it means to meet its commitments; that it wants to negotiate a peaceful settlement if it can, but it does not propose to surrender.,And therefore, I would hope that any serviceman who is sitting in a camp, however unsatisfactory it may be, and I know how unsatisfactory it is, will recognize that he is contributing to the security of his family in a most direct way.,And, in these days when weapons are so terrible, the important thing is to attempt to maintain the peace, and they're helping to do it.,And I think it's up to us to make sure that they do get the equipment. It is up to us to make sure that their training is useful. As I have said, we've sent the Inspector General out to Washington to look at the camp and to talk to the people involved.,But I do think it would be well for us all to recognize that in the first place, these men are not going to be kept in longer than a year. There has never been such a proposal in the Pentagon that I've ever heard of--newspaper reports to the contrary, notwithstanding. This has never been suggested.,Secondly, it is our hope to get these men out before their 12-month period.,Third, these men were called in at the request of the administration and with the approval of the Congress, which gave us the authorization to call them in. In my opinion they're rendering a valuable function. We are going to get them out as quickly 'as we can. But they are doing a service and I hope they recognize it and I hope that all of us who are in a position to communicate will explain to them and to their families how important their service is today.,Q. Mr. President, now the--,THE PRESIDENT. This chimpanzee who is flying in space took off at 10:08. He reports that everything is perfect and working well. [Laughter],[11.] Q. Mr. President, now that you have met with Chancellor Adenauer and the British Prime Minister Macmillan has met with French President de Gaulle, will you give us your view, sir, of the present state of Western readiness for negotiations on Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there is one more step to be taken in that series of meetings, and that is the meeting between Chancellor Adenauer and General de Gaulle which is, was supposed to take place this week but has been delayed a week because of the Chancellor's cold, but which will take place before the meeting of the foreign ministers at the time of NATO. And at that time, then, we should be able more precisely to answer that question.,[12.] Q. Could you clarify your rather mystifying remark about a possible trip abroad? Are you thinking of going to the NATO meeting in December?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I'm not.,Q. Could you tell us anything more about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I will as soon as we've made a decision about whether such a trip would be useful, but I'm not thinking about going to NATO. But I don't mean to be at all unresponsive, but the trip has not been--a trip has not been definitely arranged, and until it is, it would seem to me to be-and it depends on circumstances which may develop in the future and therefore it's really in about the status that I suggested.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in attempts to clarify your civil defense policy, it's been reported that you favor community shelter, fallout shelters, over the private shelters. If this was so, could you give us some of your reasoning behind that move?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have never thought that the Government could engage in the task of building shelters in each home because it would be a diversion of our resources and would vitally affect our deterrent strength which remains our best hope of avoiding a nuclear exchange. So that we have stated from the beginning and the decisions made last spring and summer in regard to the markings of available shelters emphasize the community structure.,We made some decisions in regard to Federal policy in relation to community shelters last Friday. We are now going to talk to some of the Governors who are directly concerned and involved in this matter because it requires cooperation between the Federal Government, the State, and the communities so that we will have a program and a budget to send to the Congress in January.,The emphasis will be on community shelters, and information will be made available to the individual as to what he could do within his own home. But the central responsibility, it seems to me, is for us to provide community shelters. It seems--it seemed the most effective use of our resources and to provide the best security for our people.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports of sizable financial contributions to the sort of right-wing extremist groups that you criticized last week. Do you regard this as a danger to the elective process and will you press in the next session for some form of Federal financing of elections?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know we set up a committee to provide for Federal--at least to reconsider the whole problem of financing presidential elections. That was their only responsibility. There is a committee in the Senate which has examined other methods of financing other campaigns. As I understand it, what you're referring to is the contributions by some individuals or groups to right-wing movements, not so much candidates--is that correct?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. As long as they meet the requirements of the tax laws, I don't think that the Federal Government can interfere or should interfere with the right of any individual to take any position he wants. The only thing we should be concerned about is that it does not represent a diversion of funds which might be taxable to--for nontaxable purposes. But that is another question and I'm sure the Internal Revenue System examines .that. But I would not want to interfere with the right of any individual to give his own finances or support to any movement that he chooses to do so, providing it comes within the laws, the present laws of the United States.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, the General Assembly last night voted to urge all nations to take separate and collective action to force South Africa to abandon its racial policies. What specific steps would you favor the U.S. taking to implement that resolution?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not examined the language of the Assembly resolution so that I'm not able to answer that.,[16.] Q. Sir, last year before the session of Congress began you listed domestic and foreign legislation that would be \"must\" for that session of Congress. Can you at this time list your priorities for legislation in the upcoming Congress?,THE PRESIDNT. No, I think that the--I should do that in the State of the Union Address and we will. Quite obviously, we've touched on one of the matters which are of importance--civil defense. I talked previous to this about another matter which is medical care for the aged. But the general program I think should wait till January.,[17.] Q. Sir, could you clarify one thing? There seem to be confusion and conflicting reports about whether you are going to press for a more liberal trade policy. Has the decision been made on that yet?,THE PRESIDENT. A preliminary decision has been made in regard to the matter, yes, and will be announced in January. Once again there are some consultations which must be made and will be made with the members of Congress who have responsibility in the area in the month of December, and then we will go to the Congress in January with our program.,Q. Mr. President, Senator Goldwater has indicated his opposition to us becoming associated with the Common Market. Would you comment on that and perhaps sum up for us the possible effect the Common Market might have on the American economy?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I don't know what the word \"associated\" means in the question. I don't know anyone--I have not heard it proposed that the United States should become a member of the Common Market or associated with the Common Market in the sense that the word is ordinarily used.,What we are concerned about is that we have the power to negotiate with the Common Market to protect our export industry. Now the Common Market will represent a tremendously important market for American production. It is one of our areas where we have concentrated most on in recent years and will--and represents a tremendous potential for us in the future, particularly when Great Britain joins it. But we don't--we want to, therefore, protect our export market.,We want to keep the ratio of exports to imports comparable to what it is today or perhaps even improve it, because if we're not able to export substantially more than we import, we're going to either have to cut off all assistance to countries abroad or begin to withdraw our troops home.,We spend over $3 billion a year in keeping our bases and our troops abroad. That represents a $3 billion drain or potentially gold drain upon us. The only reason we've been able to afford that, of course, has been that we've had a balance of trade in our favor of around $5 billion.,Now in addition we are concerned that American companies who are locked out of the Common Market because of their high tariffs will feel that the only way that they can get into the market will be through investing in Western Europe, and therefore we will have capital leaving, which will cost jobs. Every time an American firm invests in Europe and builds its company there, it hires European workers and not American workers.,Now we believe in the free flow of capital. We do not believe in capital exchange here. Therefore we have to have the ability to negotiate with the Common Market so that American goods can enter the market and we will not have American capital jumping the wall in order to compete.,So that this is a matter of great importance to the American workers and industry and to the American economy, and it is in that--because of that reason, as well as our desire to associate as closely as we can to Europe, which is going to be such an important power and force, that we are considering what our trade program will be. But if you use the word \"associate\" with the Common Market, or \"join\" the Common Market, that is not an accurate description of our policy.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you favor, and did you urge on Chancellor Adenauer closer ties, particularly political ties between the two halves of Germany?,THE PRESIDENT. No. In answer to your first question, the reason I answer it with some hesitation is the question of \"ties.\" At the present time, for example, as you know, the East Germans and West Germans do negotiate in regard to trade. So that we have to decide--and those negotiations may continue and we will have a clearer idea of what form they will take if we get into negotiation.,Political ties could be defined in so many ways that I think that unless you would be prepared to define it more precisely, I think the wiser thing would be to wait till we got into negotiation with the Soviet Union and then to determine what these relationships would be.,I think my interview on Saturday indicated my general view of the Federal Republic and its actions in the future.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, you have espoused more liberal trade barriers. Yet, the other day, you put machinery in motion that could result in a higher import duty on cotton textiles. Now I understand the Japanese have protested. How do you square your policy on lowering trade barriers with this sort of protectionist action?,THE PRESIDENT. I square it in an attempt to achieve a balance which serves the interest of the United States and those countries which are involved around the world.,I will point out that the United States does sell cotton at a price which is vastly lower than an American manufacturer can buy it for. We sell it at the world price which represents a contribution by the United States to each pound or bale of cotton which is sold abroad, which permits a manufacturer in a country around the world to buy their cotton much lower than our manufacturers, which puts our manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage.,We do that for obvious reasons. But we have to try to balance off those burdens.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, a Republican Congressman making answer to your speech in Los Angeles in which you criticized extremist groups went back to 1949 and got a speech you made in Salem, Mass., in which you reviewed the loss of mainland China, and found in that what he considered inconsistencies. Would you care to comment on your view then and now?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I always have felt that we did not make a determined enough effort in the case of China. Given the problems we now see, I think a more determined effort would have been advisable. I would think that in my speech in '49 I placed more emphasis on personalities than I would today.,And I would say that my view today is more in accordance with the facts than my view in '49. But my--I've always felt, and f think history will record, that the change of China from being a country friendly to us to a country which is unremittingly hostile affected very strongly the balance of power in the world. And while there were--there is still, of course, room for argument as to whether any United States actions would have changed the course of events there, I think a greater effort would have been wiser. I said it in '49, so it isn't totally hindsight.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, earlier you said that information would be made available to private citizens as to what they can do individually to protect against fallout. Do you have an opinion as to whether individuals should build private shelters or not?,THE PRESIDENT. I stated that we are going to send out a booklet when it is ready. I hoped it would be ready by the end of November. The booklet will reflect the decisions we made in November, and I think it will tell them what the Federal policy will be; what we hope to do, and what each individual can do in his own home, which will provide greater assurances if an attack should come.\nI want to emphasize that the best defense still remains the American deterrent.,But I do think that within each individual home that some steps can be taken which are not expensive, but which would, if a disaster should strike us, provide a greater security, though of course, there is no security against blast.,And there is bound to be, particularly as these new weapons increase in power, there are obvious limits to what any of us can do. But in answer to your question, the booklet which will be sent out, I hope shortly, will inform each individual what he can do within his own home as well as within his community.\nReporter. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-11-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, I have several statements to make.,[1.] I am delighted to announce that General Eisenhower has agreed to serve as the first chairman of the board of trustees of a new people-to-people. organization. The purpose of the new organization will be, and I quote: \"To foster contacts between citizens of the United States and people of other lands in every way possible.\",The original people-to-people organization was formed in September 1956 by a group of leading American citizens at a White House conference.,The new organization will provide a private, centralized coordination and fund-raising leadership for the activities and projects of the people-to-people program, which has been a matter of great interest to General Eisenhower.,I consider it a great honor to be able to serve as honorary chairman of this outstanding citizens organization.,[2.] Secondly, General Taylor has returned and he and his colleagues have reported their findings to me and to other members of the administration. In the next few days we shall be considering carefully the grave problems which have been posed by both externally supported violence and the natural disaster of a great flood .in South Viet-Nam. Our-concern is to find the most effective way of sustaining the progress of the people of South Viet-Nam, and obviously this is a matter on which we shall need to coordinate our activities with those of the Government of South Viet-Nam.,Therefore General Taylor's findings will need review not only in this Government but discussion with the Government of South Viet-Nam, and at this stage I have no public announcement to make.,[3.] Third, finally, I want to comment on the success and significance of the first meeting of the joint United States-Japan committee on trade and economic affairs, which was held in Japan last week.,This joint Cabinet group was led by Secretary Rusk on our side and Foreign Minister Kosaka for the Japanese.,It succeeded in extending the concept of American-Japanese partnership to the economic and trade field and, I think, was a most important step forward in the relations between both of our countries.,Japan is our second largest trading partner and we are her largest trading partner.,Moreover, our merchandise export to Japan greatly exceeds the imports that we receive from her. In the first 6 months of this year, our merchandise trade surplus with Japan totaled $433 million.,In addition, Japan also plays a key role in the economy of Asia, and free world economic objectives depend to a very important extent on her cooperation.,This conference was characterized by a frank exchange of views, and I believe that economic cooperation between our two countries can be expanded by further meetings, and we are looking forward to the next annual meeting of the joint committee to be held in Washington in 1962. Thank you.,[4.] Q. During the past campaign, the political campaign last year, specifically in October, you and others spoke of the serious deterioration of our military strength in relation to that of Russia. In recent weeks, however, you and the top officials of the Pentagon have spoken of our measurable superiority to Russia in military strength. I'd like to ask you, sir, what's happened since the campaign and now? Did you during the campaign possibly not have as much information as you derived later, or do you say, sir, that the improvement in our military position has resulted from the activities solely of your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the phrase that I used in my announcement last week was that the United States would not trade places with anyone.,My statement to which you referred was echoed by a good many members of the previous administration as well as members of my own party. I think President Eisenhower himself said, and I quote him, that we are somewhat behind in the long-range missile field. General LeMay, in testimony before congressional committees, expressed concern that in overall military strength we would be behind in 1959. Admiral Radford expressed concern about the defense of the United States--the continental United States.,We have, as you know, since coming into office made requests for over $6 billion in increase in our national defense, and we have speeded up our Polaris program, our Minuteman standby capability; we've increased the number of SAC which is on a 15-minute alert--now 50 percent of SAC-and we have made important contributions to strengthening our conventional forces.,We attempt to keep our information up to date, and we are doing so to the best of our ability. And, based on our present assessments and our intelligence, we, in my words, would not trade place with anyone in the world. And that represents our judgment as of now. But it's a matter to which we must give continuing study.,We're going to ask for additional funds for defense next year, and we are going to continue to maintain the most careful assessments of our intelligence and capabilities and that of our adversaries, as well as our commitments, so that statements that I made represented the best of my information based on public statements made by those in a position to know in the late years of the nineteen fifties.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us your view of the elections Saturday and yesterday--whether they may reflect public reaction to your administration or to the part that you and Mr. Eisenhower took in them? Can this type of election be a political barometer?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am always reluctant to claim that what happens in one election with one set of candidates necessarily means it will happen again at a later date with a different set of candidates. But as I believe if Mr. Gonzalez and Mayor Wagner and Judge Hughes had lost, that it would have been interpreted as a stunning setback for this administration. I will break my rule and say that the fact that they all won constitutes a source of satisfaction to us.,They won because they were effective candidates. But they all ran as Democrats. And I believe that it indicates that the American people believe that the candidates and parties in those areas as well as nationally are committed to progress, and that's what they're committed to. So I'm happy and I suppose someday we'll lose and then I'll have to eat those words. [Laughter],[6.] Q. Can you give us the latest, sir, on the Berlin crisis, which seems to have quieted down a bit, and also your views regarding the talk of possible trips to the summit again to discuss this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. No. In answer to your last part of the question--I know of no proposed trips to the summit. In the first matter, this is a matter of continuing, of course, concern. And Chancellor Adenauer is coming to the United States shortly and I think that his trip is of vital importance in our consideration of the entire matter of Berlin, Germany, Europe. We are anxious to get his views. We are anxious to make sure that our policies are concerted, and therefore I'm delighted that he is coming and I'm delighted that he's bringing members of his new administration with him.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, this is the first anniversary of your election last year, and in the campaign that preceded that election there was considerable talk on the part of both candidates and both parties about a number of very specific subjects--Cuba, for instance; the economic growth of the country; the prestige of the Nation with other countries; hard-core unemployment, and an Executive order to end racial discrimination in housing. I wonder if you could assess for us these issues in the light of your year in office and if we might know, if you were campaigning again today, if the emphasis of your campaign might be somewhat different?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it would be exactly what it was. We have met a good many of these commitments and I'm hopeful before our term is ended that we will meet the others. But we have passed a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour. We have made it possible for men to retire at 62. We did pass the area redevelopment bill for areas of chronic unemployment--which had been vetoed twice. We did pass the most broad-range housing bill that had been passed since 1949. We did provide additional funds for pollution. And we did, I think, in a whole variety of areas, take actions which benefit the people.,The fact of the matter is that since we took office in January, our national income or gross national product has gone up from around $501 billion to--it is our calculation by the--within the two quarters immediately ahead, our gross national product will be $565 billion and--which represents a substantial increase and, I think, is of particular importance in sustaining our many burdens.,Unemployment in October now stands at 3,900,000. There are more people working than ever before--67,800,000. The number of people in industry has gone up 2,000,000 since we took office in January--who have jobs.,Now I am not saying that these problems are solved because, in a sense, they're never solved. And there are areas which are still unfinished. Medical care for the aged, which we are going to recommend to the Congress in the coming session.,We have, I think, made substantial progress in the field of civil rights. To conclude there have been more suits filed to provide for voting and there will continue to be a concentrated effort by this administration to make it possible for every citizen to vote under the laws and the directions provided by Congress.,We have put more people to work, under our Vice President's committee--unemployment-than there was ever done in the previous 8 years in the last 8 months.,And I think that in voting, in the activities of the Justice Department, in education, in other areas, we are making substantial progress with a good deal left unfinished. And we'll meet our commitments before we're finished.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in view of our overall military position and your statement that you would not trade places, many people are wondering how you might eventually justify the possible resumption of nuclear testing in the atmosphere.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've stated that I felt it incumbent upon us to maintain our lead; that we have not concluded as yet our analysis of Soviet tests, and if we felt that our present position in this very vital area has been endangered by Soviet tests, then we would have to take action to protect our security. So that, I also said, we would not test for political or psychological reasons unless we feel it militarily necessary. And, in the meanwhile, because there is a long time gap, we have ordered preparations to be made.,The Soviet Union tested while we were at the table negotiating with them. If they fooled us once, it's our own fault; if they fool us twice, it's our fault.,Q. On this question of nuclear testing, sir, Soviet officials have asserted in recent days that the United States in total has fired a larger quantity of megatons than all the Soviet tests. Is this statement true?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet Union with the most recent tests have put into the air about 170 megatons, the United States and Great Britain combined about 125 megatons, France less than one megaton. What is significant in this area, of course, is the amount of megatons put in the air and the condition under which the bombs may be exploded as it might affect fallout. And I don't think that there is any doubt the Soviet Union is first in that very dubious category.,[9.] Q. Last spring the Secretary of State indicated that an embargo was about to be imposed on imports from Cuba-sugar--not sugar, pardon me--tobacco, molasses, vegetables. Nothing has happened; that's months ago. Could you throw some light on that point, please, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, when the limitations were put on trade by the previous administration, there was exempted food and drugs which amount to around $12 million a year. And it would be impossible for us to break, to stop, that trade unless we enforce the Trading With the Enemy Act.,This has been a matter continually before us, but we are not anxious to be in the position of declaring war on the Cuban people by denying them essential food and also denying them medicines, and therefore this administration, like the previous administration, has been reluctant to take that action, but it's a matter that will be before us continually, and if it seems like the proper action, we'll take it, but our dispute is not with the Cuban people but with the Communist control of Cuba.,[10.] Q. Could you enlighten us, sir, as to why you're not having these press conferences more frequently, especially as to whether anything in particular you don't like about them or anything we might do on our part to encourage you to meet with us more often?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I like them. But-sort of--(laughter)--but I will--let me just say that I'll hold these--I'm anxious to hold press conferences as often as I believe it to be in the public interest. Now, we do hold--Mr. Salinger holds one or two press conferences a day. We put out a good many statements from the White House, members of the Cabinet speak around the country, we attempt to carry out communications to the extent possible. We're even having these regional meetings.,We are involved in a number of very sensitive matters on the question of Berlin, and I'm--I talk not only to the American people but also to our allies, to those who are opposed to us and our enemies, and those who are neutral, and, therefore, I feel that the schedule as we have recently had it is in the public interest. But I would have no objection to having them two or three times a week if I thought at that time it was in the public interest.,I had them nearly every week and I'm sure I will again when Congress is back. But most of the matters now before us deal with matters of foreign policy, and this seemed to be the most appropriate schedule in view of the public interest.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about the Postmaster General's statement that he yielded to political pressure to reinstate a postal employee considered unsuitable?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that Mr. Day probably feels that he would like to recast that statement, and, as I understand it, it was submitted to a board of review. The charges, although with the exception of one, were dismissed unanimously. One was considered and there was a 2-to-1 vote. It seems to me that that is the procedure that is best to follow without resort to political pressures of any kind. And I think that's what the Post Office and everyone else should do, and I hope they will. But--and I think that's Mr. Day's view.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, what significance to the West, in the course of the cold war, do you see in the current open rift between Red China and Russia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that it's not--that none of us can talk with precision about the details of the relationships between Russia and China. It is a matter of surmise, and on this experts may differ. Therefore, I don't feel that it's probably useful now for us to attempt to assess it. I think we can judge better by actions. And we can--we'll have an opportunity to witness those actions in the coming weeks and months.,That's what really counts, not the--altogether the dialectics, but what result the varying philosophies which animate the Communist world--what resultant actions-their different view of Marx and the different interpretation of the Communist doctrine; what action it brings them to, and what threats it poses to the free world. That will give us a more precise answer to your question.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, there is a great deal of confusion among the public in regard to fallout shelters. Many people--people apparently aren't sold on building home shelters. Do you have any comment that might be helpful today on any aspect of this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, as you know, none of us were really interested--I think that includes us all--in civil defense really until this summer and until we began to recognize the change in weapon technology which gave the Soviet Union the power to reach the United States with missiles as well as bombers, the destructive nature of the weapons, and also the fact that our two systems were in conflict in various areas.,We asked for additional appropriations, therefore, this summer for civil defense. We are--we asked for five times and received five times as much as we had the previous year.,Now, it's very difficult in a large country, with varying problems of geography, with 180 million people, to suddenly organize a civil defense program when so much depends on the cooperation between the Federal Government assigning it its proper responsibility, the State government, the local community, and the individual.,I stated that in July--that we were going to send a book giving the latest information that we had to every household, and I'm hopeful that that book will be completed before the end of this month.,But I'm--we are very conscious of the difficulties. We are very conscious of the desire of people to have accurate and precise information.,But it was not really, in my opinion, until August that this became a matter of great public urgency. The responsibility for shelters was then transferred to the Department of Defense and I believe that the booklet will be helpful, but it will be a--must be recognized that each family, each community, each State, and the Federal Government are all going to have a role, and we desire to interpret that role with precision so that we are moving ahead on it.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, some of the press in your country and India say that our Prime Minister is more pro-Communist and pro-Russian than he is Western. Now that your talks have concluded after the last 3 days, please tell us how you feel? Do you believe that he was either consciously or unconsciously against the interests of the United States or Western countries? Do you believe that he was for the cause of world peace? And please give us some idea of your talk with him?,THE PRESIDENT. In answer to your question, I have never thought, quite obviously, that--to use your phrase--that Mr. Nehru works consciously or unconsciously for the Communist movement, and I know of no rational man in the United States who holds that view. There are matters on which we differ, as the Prime Minister said in \"Meet the Press\" on Sunday, that \"geography dictates a good deal of policy\" as well as internal conditions, so that, quite obviously-and tradition, culture, the past, all this affects foreign policy.,So that there are areas where we differ, but I do not know any figure in the world, as I have said on other occasions, who is more committed to individual liberty than Mr. Nehru, and I think the people of India are committed to maintaining their national sovereignty and supporting liberty for the individual as a personal and cultural and religious tradition. We are going to disagree, but I'm sure it's possible for us to disagree in the framework of not charging each other with bad faith.,I have a high regard for the Prime Minister. It has become higher during our conversations. I've attempted to explain to him some of the areas of responsibility which the United States faces, and he has given me his views on a number of important questions, so I regard the talks as most valuable--[ inaudible ]--all matters affecting our countries and the personalities that may be involved.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, during the recent German crisis there's been a great deal of anxiety both in Germany and in this country about what our views are on the problem. Now that Dr. Adenauer has been invited to this country, can you give us a general idea of what you see as the future role of Germany, including East Berlin and East Germany, and also the question of rearming Germany or arming her with nuclear weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that these are some of the matters which we will discuss with Chancellor Adenauer and involves his country and our country, and I think that it will be better to wait a few days when I will have a chance to see him.,On the question of arming them with nuclear weapons, as you know, Dr. Adenauer has stated West Germany does not intend to do so. And on the general matter of arms, I know that charges were made in regard to the remilitarization of Western Germany. Western Germany has almost no air force, very limited navy, has now nine divisions. Eastern Germany, which is far less in population, has substantially larger ground forces. And I think the effort to suggest that Dr. Adenauer, who is a distinguished European, who has brought about a reconciliation between France and Germany, who has brought the Common Market--helped bring the Common Market about, who has met his responsibilities under NATO, is a--represents a revanchist attitude, I think is wholly wrong. But on the details, I think this is what we should talk to Dr. Adenauer about.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, recently there have been statements by several people inside and outside the Government that the United States needs a major change in its trade policy, a major liberalization in trade policy. We haven't heard from you on this score during this immediate period of policy formation. What is your feeling about the need for change and, specifically, do you feel that the administration should seek to have the change made next year.,THE PRESIDENT. We have had several meetings in the administration about the matter and we'll be having others and will make recommendations to the Congress at the first of the year. I think that, quite obviously, we have to begin to realize how important the Common Market is going to be to the economy of the United States. One-third of our trade generally is in Western Europe, and if the United States should be denied that market, we will either find a flight of capital from this country to construct factories within that wall, or we will find ourselves in serious economic trouble.,On the other hand, we have obligations, for example, to Japan, and we have concern about our relations with Latin America, and what will happen to them, dependent as they are upon raw materials and on western European markets--where will they be left? These are all matters which we are now considering.,But I think that the people of this country must realize that the Common Market is going to present us with major economic challenges and, I hope, opportunities, and that this country must be ready to negotiate with the Common Market on a position of equality, as far as our ability to negotiate to protect our interests and the interests of those that are associated with us.,I think that one of our problems in the United States--and I think that it's illuminated by the statistics on Japan--we've read a good deal about the threat of Japanese goods coming into the United States, and I can understand where it is a concern. But here is a country where in the last 6 months a half billion dollars has been on our side, a balance of payments contributing to our dollar surplus and our gold balance.,Well, now we cannot just sell and never buy, and if all those who recognize the benefit to the United States--workers, industry-in an almost $5 billion to $6 billion surplus which we have every year, recognize how essential that is to our security, will speak as loudly as those who are hurt, we can get an adjustment, I think of the public interest.,But, in answer to your specific question, we are considering the matter and we will come to the Congress in January and make our recommendations. But the matter is by no means complete. The details of the Common Market, for example, and its effect upon us, will not be obvious probably until '63 or '64, and we have to attempt to go to the Congress at a time when we can be most successful. My judgment is that the time to begin is now, but as a matter of final decision, I think we'll have to wait about 2 or 3 more weeks.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, how much more do you think you will have to do to assure American business leadership that you are not anti-business and, in fact, do you think they need any special assurance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if to be an--to stop them from saying we're anti-business we're supposed to cease enforcing the antitrust law, then I suppose the cause is lost.,There has been a--nearly a 10 percent increase, as I have said, in our gross national product. We have cut the flow of gold since January 1 even though we still have a serious dollar problem--it was almost $1 billion last year in gold lost, it's $76 million so far this year. We have had a very slight increase in the cost of living. In fact, wholesale prices are down. We've had less strikes than we've had any time in 20 years.,This country cannot prosper unless business prospers. This country cannot meet its obligations--its tax obligations and all the rest--unless business is doing well. Business will not do well and you will not have full employment unless they feel that there's a chance to make profit.,So that there is no long-range hostility between business and the Government. There cannot be. We cannot succeed unless they succeed. But that doesn't mean that we should not meet our responsibilities under antitrust, or that doesn't mean when we attempt to pass a bill on taxes to prevent tax havens abroad or a flood of capital which affects our gold balances--that doesn't mean we're anti-business. It means that we have to meet our public responsibilities. So that I think in the long run that most businessmen know that we are allied--as we are with labor and the farmer--in trying to keep this country going.,[18.] Q. On nuclear tests, in view of the fact that the Soviets have exploded 31 or more devices in the atmosphere, I think it's generally agreed that they're improving their nuclear weapons technology. Now this means that they're getting stronger in relation to the United States. Wouldn't it also mean that if we do not test in the atmosphere, that we're willing for the United States to become weaker with relation to the Soviet Union than we were, say, last summer?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've stated that I thought that the United States was in a position that was powerful--Mr. Gilpatric said \"second to none.\" I said it was our obligation to remain so. And that is what we intend to do. And therefore, as you suggest, these calculations will have to be made and a decision reached. And pending these calculations, we are making our appropriate preparations.,Q. Mr. President, Dr. Pauling said that the biggest Russian bomb would cause 40,000 gross mutations in the next three or four generations. This remark has been criticized by some scientists because he didn't say that this--if this was true--it would be spread over 34 billion people, and that this leads to an exaggerated fear of fallout. Do you think there is in the popular mind an exaggerated fear of fallout, because of statements like that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that anyone feels that if one individual, whether it's among many billions, is--particularly an individual three generations from now--finds their life warped by radiation, of course it's a concern to anyone. And we should, therefore, approach atmospheric testing with the greatest caution and hesitancy, as I've already indicated.,On the other hand, of course, we have a responsibility to the freedom of hundreds of millions of people--including the citizens of our own country. So we cannot--we have to attempt to balance off our needs. But I've said we would never, because of the reason whether Mr. Pauling's statistics are accurate or not, one is enough--that we would never test for political or psychological reason, but only if we felt that the security of the United States was endangered, and therefore the free world, which does affect this generation and others to come. So we must balance off our risks.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the Democratic platform in which you ran for election promises to work for equal rights for women, including equal pay, and to wipe out job opportunity discriminations. Now you have made efforts on behalf of others. What have you done for the women, according to the promises of the platform?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm sure we haven't done enough. [Laughter] I must say I am a strong believer in equal pay for equal work, and I think that we ought to do better than we're doing, and I'm glad that you reminded me of it, Mrs. Craig. [Laughter],[20.] Q. Mr. President, the boys and girls of the high school at Columbus, Ind., sent you a wire a week or so ago in which they reminded you that you had invited them to bring you any problems that they had. Their problem was that Joseph Turk, their Russian instructor--a very hard-to-find gentleman--was being taken off to be a clerk-typist in the Army. Has their request come to your attention and have you taken any action on it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it hasn't come to my attention, and we will give it to the responsible groups. I agree that the problem of bringing teachers in is a difficult one. But I think we ought to let the Defense Department make that judgment.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-10-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] You will recall that in my recent address to the United Nations General Assembly I expressed concern of this Government over the situation in southeast Asia, particularly in the attacks on the people of South Viet-Nam.,With this situation in mind I've asked General Taylor, with the wholehearted endorsement of Secretary McNamara and General Lemnitzer, to go to Saigon this week to discuss with the President and American officials on the spot ways in which we can perhaps better assist the Government of Viet-Nam in meeting this threat to its independence.,General Taylor will be accompanied by a small staff from the various departments of Government which are concerned.,[2.] Secondly, I have today announced my intention to appoint a panel of outstanding scientists, doctors, and others to prescribe a program of action in the field of mental retardation.,This condition strikes those least able to protect themselves from it. It affects not only the people involved but also the members of their family.,It is a serious personal matter to at least 1 out of every 12 persons, disables 10 times as many as diabetes, 20 times as many as tuberculosis, 25 times as many as muscular dystrophy, and 600 times as many as infantile paralysis.,At one time, there was practically no effective program in the field of mental retardation. Wherever possible the children were committed to institutions. They were segregated from normal society and forgotten except by the members of their family. Only in isolated cases was an effort made to bring them back into useful lives in the community. They suffered from lack public understanding and they suffered from lack of funds.,The situation today is better. Most attempts still take the form of therapeutic research and treatment. The central problems of cause and prevention remain unsolved. And I believe that we, as a country, in association with scientists all over the world, should make a comprehensive attack. It is a matter of the greatest possible interest to me, and I am going to meet with the panel next week. Thank you.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, at our last news conference you were hopeful but not, as I recall, wholly sanguine about prospects for a Berlin settlement. In the meantime, have there been any developments, including the Gromyko talks, or any new information in hand, to raise hopes for a solution?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would say that we are still anxious to have a solution which will lessen the threat of war and which, we would hope, could improve the security of the people of West Berlin. We have had not negotiations but exploratory talks--Mr. Rusk with Mr. Gromyko on three occasions, and I had a talk with him and the Prime Minister yesterday--in an attempt to determine the precise position of the Soviet Union on the various questions dealing with access, the free city, the question of boundaries, and all the rest. We have not, as I have said, carried out any negotiations, nor will we.,We will now continue the talks with Ambassador Thompson in Moscow, I hope. He is back here for that purpose and will be returning shortly. And we are going to be now in the process of consulting with our allies in order to determine a common Western position on these matters which are at issue.,So that I don't think that we can come to any conclusion as to what the ultimate outcome will be, though the talks which we had with Mr. Gromyko did not give us immediate hope that this matter would be easily settled.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, I believe recently you spoke to a group of New Jersey publishers about your forthcoming plan involving fallout shelters that might be quite economical. In this general range of interest, sir, do you have personally fallout shelters in any of the residences that you frequently use? I'm thinking particularly of your house in Hyannis or in Middleburg or in Palm Beach or at Newport.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they're not all my residences, I'm sorry to say--[laughter]-but I would say that there are naturally provisions for the protection of those in the Presidency and in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others who would have to maintain responsibility in case of a military action. Though of course there's no sure answer for anybody.,We--obviously you cannot build a shelter in the accepted sense of the word for the kind of money which we have talked about. But we can provide directions whereby a family can take steps to protect themselves on a minimum basis and give them--members of the family--some hope that if they're out of the blast area they could survive the fallout. And by the middle of November we hope to suggest some of the steps that every homeowner could take.,My own feeling is that these shelters are most useful and most important, and we're going to live through a long period of constant tension with these dangerous weapons which will be proliferating, and, therefore, anything that we can do to increase the chances of protection for our families ought to be done.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, a recent public opinion poll showed that a majority of the American people are more worried about a war breaking out now than they have been in any time in recent years. Would you address yourself to this poll, sir, and Whether you share that view or just how do you feel about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that they're naturally and quite correctly concerned because there is a collision in the points of view which the Western powers have taken in NATO with that of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw bloc countries over Berlin, and this area is extremely vital.,Western Europe is an area of great resources and the Soviet Union has long had policy ambitions in this area, so that this is a very, very serious matter unless we can reach a peaceful accommodation.,In addition, there are other areas where we can become involved. And as the weapons now are so annihilating, it causes the American people to be quite rightfully concerned.,Our ambition is to protect our vital interests without a war which destroys and doesn't really represent a victory for policy.,But we happen to live--because of the ingenuity of science and man's own inability to control his relationships one with another, we happen to live in the most dangerous time in the history of the human race.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, Communist China's Foreign Minister has indicated that high-level talks at the foreign minister level with the United States would be, as he says, acceptable, provided the United States took the initiative. How do you feel about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well I--we are, of course, having conversations at the present time at Geneva. The Chinese Communists are represented at the conference over Laos, and there are therefore many channels through which any exchange of views could flow.,We have been meeting periodically, for the last 3 or 4 years, for a period at Geneva and, of course, most recently at Warsaw in which we talked about the question of the exchange of prisoners, or rather the release of prisoners, and other matters. So that I would feel that these efforts will continue at Geneva and they will continue at Warsaw.,But we have not seen any evidence as yet that the Chinese Communists wish to live in comity with us, and our desire is to live in friendship with all people. But we have not seen that attitude manifested. In fact, just a few days ago there was a statement about Berlin that was quite bellicose.,[7.] Q. There have been charges that we have not adequately maintained the strength or the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and that we also have not fully convinced the leaders of the Soviet Union that we are determined to meet force with force in Berlin or elsewhere. What is your reaction to those charges?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have made many statements. I have made them and they've been as precise as I could make them. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, other Western people in positions of responsibility have all talked of our determination to maintain our vital interests in this area.,I think probably--aside from any domestic reasons for this kind of criticism--it's that everyone realizes that these weapons are, as I said, extremely dangerous and that the Soviet Union has a long-range bomber and missile capacity, as we do, and that, as I've said, we move through a period of maximum hazard. So that naturally anyone would be reluctant, unless all else had failed, to destroy so much of the world.,But we have indicated that we will meet our commitments with whatever resources are necessary to meet them and we also add that we hope it will be possible that accords can be reached which will protect the interests and freedom of the people involved without having to go to this--these extreme weapons.,Now I would like to point out two or three details about the effort we've made in the field of national security and national defense.,Since January, we have added more than $6 billion to the national defense budget, which is more than a 14-percent increase over the previous budget.,In strategic forces, which are the nuclear forces, we have ordered a 5n-percent increase in the number of Polaris submarines to be on station--battle station--by the end of 1964; a 5n-percent increase in the number of strategic bombers on 15-minute ground alert at the end of runways, which is already in effect; a 100-percent increase in our capacity to produce Minuteman missiles against the day when that production capacity may be needed, and a similar increase in Skybolt and other programs which affect our strategic arm.,Now to strengthen our nonnuclear forces--and I think this is important--we have called up two additional divisions and many thousands more--particularly in the air; we've increased by 75 percent our modern long-range airlift capacity; we've increased our antiguerrilla forces by 150 percent; we've stepped up the delivery of the M-14 rifle from a maximum of 9,000 a month to 44,000 a month and taken other steps to bring the Army, Navy, and Marine units to full strength in terms of manpower and equipment. And we still have some-way to go.,But it does indicate our feeling that we should be stronger and also that there should be a balance in the forces that we have.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, following up this same subject, sir, it has been reported that you have been angered or at least disturbed by what has been described as partisan criticism of your foreign policy.,It has also been reported that some members of your administration, possibly including yourself, have felt that sharp Republican warnings against appeasement have constricted the room that you may have to negotiate with the Russians. Would you discuss these points?,THE PRESIDENT. No--I'm going to attempt to, as I have said, to protect our vital interests and see whether it's possible for us to reach an agreement in this matter which will not necessitate a war which could mean so much destruction for so many millions and millions of people in this country and elsewhere.,Now, I'm going to continue to do that and we'll do the best we can and we'll see what happens.,Everyone is free to make any attacks they want. I think what would be most helpful to the Nation today would be constructive and frequently critical alternatives--suggestions for alternative courses of action--and not merely rather generalized statements which throw very little light on very complicated and dangerous matters.,But I would never suggest that the battle of the mimeograph machines between the Republican Committee and the Democratic Committee should cease, only that it should perhaps be wiser.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in your July speech you said that you didn't want to negotiate on a basis of what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. In your talks with Mr. Gromyko, sir, what did you talk about that was theirs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think really it's particularly useful at this time to attempt to go into precise detail. Most of the--a good deal of the information in the talks has already been printed in the press. These talks, if they're not going to turn into merely exchanges of propaganda, should at least have the value of some degree of privacy.,I've stated that we have not been engaged in negotiations, no agreements have been reached but merely an attempt to explore what are the positions of the various powers.,I've already characterized my view of these talks and I think that with the information, which has been quite lucid and only slightly inaccurate, I think we can proceed on to additional talk.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, in reference to your decision to send General Taylor to Viet-Nam, there may be some interpretation of that decision as implying confirmation of reports that you intend to send American forces to Viet-Nam or to Thailand or to Laos. Can you give us your appraisal of the conditions under which you might find it necessary to send troops in?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're going to wait till General Taylor comes back and brings an up-to-date description of the situation, particularly in Viet-Nam. As you know, in the last 2 or 3 months there has been a large increase in the number of the forces that have been involved. There has been evidence that some of these forces have come from beyond the frontiers. And General Taylor will give me--and the Joint Chiefs of Staff--an educated military guess as to what the situation that the government there faces. Then we can come to conclusions as what is best to do.,[11] Q. Mr. President, if it becomes necessary for the House to elect a new Speaker, would you be likely to express, either publicly or privately a preference for any candidate?,THE PRESIDENT. The House has a Speaker; and the House will elect its next Speaker; and I would think it would be unwise for anyone outside the House to attempt to indicate a preference. This is a matter for the House. I'm sure they'll choose wisely.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in addition to the criticism that's been heard in some quarters of your foreign policy, there's also been some criticism of your domestic program and it encountered some trouble in Congress. Does your decision to make speaking engagements in the West and the announced series of appearances of some of your Cabinet members indicate a feeling that it's now time to take your program to the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, on the last part, we are having the members of our Cabinet speak at nonpartisan meetings upon invitation in various parts of the country to talk to them about some of the domestic programs that we have worked on and could work on in the future.,My own trip is very limited. I'm going to speak in Washington at the 100th anniversary of the University of Washington, and also at a dinner--the 25th anniversary of Senator Magnuson's service in the Senate-and will then go the next night to speak at the 50th anniversary of Senator Hayden's coming to the Congress, in Arizona. And those are my only speeches.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, going back to Berlin, I think the American people are confused by what they read and hear about Berlin. One day they read or they're told that American officials are encouraged by the outlook. Another day they read that they're not encouraged, that they're gloomy. One day we're going ahead, the next day we're going back. Mr. President, does the real situation fluctuate that much? As a one-time journalist who became President, how does it look to you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, a lot of journalists had bad luck--[laughter]--and I know these stories based on recent conversations that there have been, I think, from New York, exchanges between Mr. Rusk and Mr. Gromyko.,There seemed to be more hope in the stories that came out of my meeting with Mr. Gromyko. I think it would be--I see no evidence as yet that there is any clear solution to Berlin. There still seems to--there still are very major differences of view.,Now I feel that the three talks he had and the talk I had at least helped to make more precise those differences.,We now will continue some more and in addition--and I think this is most important-the Germans will have a new government shortly and be able to participate with perhaps more vigor in making Allied policy with the other NATO countries, and then we can get a better idea as to how it's all going to end up.,There is--I would say that there have been, as I have said, no negotiations in the sense that we made proposals and they made them.,What there has been is a description of the kind of solution that they would like to see. And I must say that I have not found substantial changes in that policy as it was previously expressed some months ago.,There has been, and I think this may explain the stories, a desire to discuss these matters and a--statements about a desire to reach a peaceful accord. But on the substance we are not in sight of land.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any feeling about whether members of your administration should belong to the Metropolitan Club here in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. It seems to me that where everyone eats and the clubs that they belong to--private clubs--is a matter that each person must decide himself, though I personally approved of my brother's action--the Attorney General.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, written into the foreign aid bill is a clause which says that there should be more stress on giving aid to friendly countries, countries that share our view on major world problems. In view of the decision to review aid to Ghana's Volta River project, could you elaborate on how far you think a country should go towards agreeing with us on these major issues?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that they should--what--we're not attempting to use our aid in order to secure agreement by these countries with all of our policies. The phrase that was used in signing the mutual security bill was that we should give particular attention to the needs of those countries which share our view of the world crisis.,Our view of the world crisis is that countries are entitled to national sovereignty and independence. That is all we ever suggested. That is the purpose of our aid--to make it more possible.,Now if a country has ceased to choose national sovereignty or ceased to choose national independence, then, of course, our aid becomes less useful. But that is a different matter from suggesting that in order to be entitled to our assistance, particularly as a good percentage of our assistance today is in the form of loans, that they must agree with us, because quite obviously these people in the underdeveloped world are newly independent. They want to run their own affairs.,They would rather not accept assistance if we have that kind of string attached to it. Therefore, I think we ought to make an educated guess. But it's not an easy matter. These countries are passing through very difficult times and they're going to swing one way and then another. But in general, our object is that they maintain their independence. We hope it's theirs.,[ 16.] Q. Mr. President, considering what we may know now about the--may have learned now from the Russians on nuclear shots and what we do know now about our own underground explosion, do you think it's probable, in order to keep up with the state of this art, that we'll have to go to atmospheric testing in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, quite obviously if at the conclusion of this immediate series of tests, the Soviet Union was to propose an un-inspected moratorium--that would not be very helpful in view of the experience we've gone through this year. We will be glad to negotiate, but we will not feel that the moratorium will be extended during the period of negotiation.,As to what kind of tests we will operate, we--I am extremely sorry that we were not able to get the Soviet Union to accept the proposal to ban atmospheric testing by the Prime Minister and myself.,They've made over 20 tests in the atmosphere, and we have to make a judgment as to what is in the best interests of our security, and that is a matter which is being studied. For the present, our tests are underground, and we feel that's in accordance with our security.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the Nation has reacted positively to your May 25 appeal to send a man to the moon? And do you feel that progress is being made on Projects Mercury and Apollo?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, until we have a man on the moon, none of us will be satisfied. But I do believe a major effort is being made. But as I said before, we started far behind, and we're going to have to wait and see whether we catch up.,But I would say that I will continue to be dissatisfied until the goal is reached. And I hope everyone working on the program shares the same view.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, did you make the decision for us not to use force to stop the building of the wall in Berlin? And if you had it to do over again, would you make the same decision? Or what would have been the alternative if you had not made that decision?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, Eastern Berlin and East Germany have been under the control of the Soviet Union; really, since 1947 and '48. There's not been four-power control and they have controlled this area.,There are many things that happen in Eastern Europe, as I said in my United Nations speech, which we consider to be wholly unsatisfactory--the denial of liberties, the denial of political freedom, national independence, and all the rest.,And that is a matter of equal concern in the action which you described. These are areas which the Soviet Union has held since the end of World War II, for over 16 years.,Q. Mr. President, you spoke of seeking a common Western position. Are we far apart and at what level do we have to seek it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we're going to be meeting next week in Washington and by those who are particularly competent here among--we've had almost daily conversations, and as I say I'm hopeful that when the new German Government assumes its responsibility we can come to more final conclusions as to what our next approach should be to the Soviet Union.,I believe there are basic agreements among the Western Allied powers, but these are matters which should be carefully explored and I think we can only explore them with success since the talks with Mr. Gromyko because I think they've helped illuminate the matters which we must decide.,[19.] Q. We are told that your defense expenditures this year and next year will be vastly increased. Will they be increased so much that they will curtail your legislative program, especially for revision of the tax structure?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, in answer to the last part of your question, we had hoped before the Berlin crisis came out that we might have a, if business came back, we might have a $3 billion surplus which would have permitted a tax reduction. As you know since the July callup decision, which was $3,500 million we've lost that hope.,We still have a strong desire to balance our budget. But I cannot predict what extra military demands may be made in the next month or two which may lessen that chance. But our present intention is to balance our budget unless military increases--and only military increases--threaten that object.,Q. Mr. President, in your July speech on this same subject, you said that if it was necessary to balance the budget you would increase taxes. Do you still feel that way?,THE PRESIDENT. I would, if we can--for example, there isn't any doubt that if we had been able to persuade the Congress to accept the $600 million or $700 million increase in postal rates it would have assisted us in our responsibility. We will increase--we will secure sufficient revenue to balance the budget unless there is excessive and substantial-and they may come, because of the events in southeast Asia or Western Europe.,Whether we should--at that time we will then make a judgment as to how much we can cut from nondefense expenditures and, secondly, how much of a tax burden can be sustained without strangling the recovery.,We don't want to--which I think is one of the difficulties--the recovery of '58 which was aborted in 1960, so that we don't want to provide a tax structure which already is very heavy--and brings in tremendous receipts at full employment--we don't want it to result in waste of resources and manpower. So that's the judgment we must make.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your assessment of the vigor of the economic recovery, particularly in the light of statements by organized labor that we may have five and a half million unemployed by next February?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've had a 10-percent increase in the second quarter and a 5-percent increase in the third quarter, and we are going to continue to have a substantial increase in the next quarter.,I think we're producing more cars this quarter probably than any year since 1950 and we've had less increase in the cost of living in a recovery than we've had in 10 or 12 years. So that the private sector is moving ahead.,The problem of unemployment continues because of technological changes and increases in the population and we do not have--unemployment is now at about 4 million. We do not--I am still as concerned as they are that we could have a great boom and still have the kind of unemployment they describe.,[21.] Q. Sir, do you believe your letter to the steel companies has had the desired effect that there will not be a steel price increase this fall?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the steel companies are going to make a judgment based on what they consider to be in the public interest and in line with their own responsibilities, and I think it's their judgment and I'm hopeful that they will make a judgment which will assist our economy.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, on Berlin, the Russians seem to be making a considerable effort to cut any relationship between West Berlin and West Germany, even the relationship which now exists. Do you consider that any settlement of the Berlin issue will have to include free access for West Germans and West Berliners back and forth and other relationships between the city and the country as well as access to the Allied forces themselves?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that without going into the details, as I said at the beginning, it's quite obvious that we're not only talking about the freedom of the city but also its viability, economic as well as political, and it operates under the greatest possible difficulties, 100 miles within an area controlled by the Soviet Union, so that this tie with the West--West Germany and other sections of the west--is very vital to its remaining more than just a shell, so that we will be concerned with the viability and vitality--economic vitality--of the city in any agreement that we're able to make--if we can make an agreement.,Reporter. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-08-30","text":"PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I have several announcement to make.,[1.] First, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Governor Vandiver of Georgia, Mayor Hartsfield of Atlanta, Chief of Police Jenkins, Superintendent of Schools Letson and all of the parents, students and citizens of Atlanta, Ga., for the responsible, law-abiding manner in which four high schools were desegregated today.,This was the result of vigorous effort for months by the officials of Atlanta and by groups of citizens throughout the community. Their efforts have borne fruit in the orderly manner in which desegregation was carried out--with dignity and without incident.,Too often in the past, such steps in other cities have been marred by violence and disrespect for law.,I strongly urge the officials and citizens of all communities which face this difficult transition in the coming weeks and months to look closely at what Atlanta has done, and to meet their responsibilities, as have the officials and citizens of Atlanta and Georgia, with courage, tolerance, and, above all, respect for the law.,[2.] Secondly, as agreed at their recent meeting in Paris, the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States will again be joined by the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, and they will meet in Washington on September 14. This meeting will constitute a further stage in the process of continuing consultation by the four powers and our NATO allies with respect to Germany and Berlin in light of the Soviet challenge to our position there.,[3.] Three, I am appointing Gen. Lucius Clay to be my personal representative in Berlin with the rank of Ambassador. The situation in Berlin is a serious one, and I wish to have the advantage of having on the scene a person of General Clay's outstanding capacity and experience.,While this appointment will not change the existing responsibilities of our military and diplomatic officers in Germany and Berlin, General Clay will be in close touch with such men as Ambassador Dowling in Bonn and General Watson our Berlin commandant, and the appointment adds to our resources of judgment and action by placing in a most important city an American in whom the Secretary of State and I have unusual confidence.,We are most grateful to General Clay for once again resuming his long career of public service. General Clay will take up his duties on September 15, will proceed then to Berlin, and will serve as long as this special arrangement seems desirable.,[4.] Lastly, I am sending the following message to the conference of unaligned states convening in Belgrade on September I:,\"It is always encouraging when responsible world leaders join together to consider the problems that beset mankind. We recognize that most of the countries at Belgrade do not consider themselves committed on certain of the issues which confront us today, but we do know that they are committed to the United Nations Charter. The people of the United States share this commitment.,\"We know that those gathering in Belgrade are committed to finding a way to halt the waste of the earth's resources in the building of the implements of death and destruction, and the people of the United States have constantly pledged themselves to this goal.,\"We believe that the peoples represented at this conference are committed to a world society in which men have the right and the freedom to determine their own destiny, a world in which one people is not enslaved by the other, in which the powerful do not devour the weak. The American people share that commitment, and we have pledged the influence of this Nation to the abolition of exploitation in all of its forms.,\"The peoples represented at Belgrade are committed to achieving a world at peace in which nations have the freedom to choose their own political and economic systems and to live their own way of life, and since our earliest beginnings this Nation has shared that commitment.,\"All this and much more the leaders at Belgrade have in common. This and much more the people of the United States have in common with them. So for myself, and I'm sure for the American people, I express the hope that their deliberations there will bring us all nearer these goals.\",[5.] Q. Mr. President, there have been increasing statements on both sides about the prospects for Western negotiations with Russia on the Berlin question. Could you spell out in any specific terms just what areas there are for negotiations and what will you hope to gain in view of recent Communist words and actions?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think that it would be useful at this time to attempt to spell out the areas of negotiation.,We have indicated--and I've said before that we are prepared to participate in any exchange of views, to use all available channels which are open to us to see if a peaceful solution can be reached on the problems in Europe and in Germany--any solution which can provide greater guarantees to the people of West Berlin that they will have the right to live out their lives in a way of their own choosing and that we will be glad to participate in any conversations which we have hopes will advance that prospect. This is particularly true because the situation in this area is so fraught with danger.,Q. Do you think, generally speaking, sir, that the crisis in Berlin has a better chance of being settled through negotiation, as you have suggested, rather than by force, as the Soviets have threatened upon occasion?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't see that there could be any solution--which would serve the world--to Berlin by force, and therefore I'm hopeful that all people involved will realize that in these days of massive forces available on every side that for the future of the countries involved and for the human race--that we should attempt to work out a peaceful solution and that neither side should attempt to impose its will by brute force because in that case it would be unsuccessful and disaster would be the common result.,[6.] Q. On a domestic question, Mr. President, in view of the House action today on your school aid measure, how do you view the future prospects for such legislation?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, it's very difficult because everyone is for education but they're all for a different education bill. And it's very difficult to get a majority who will support legislation that has a prospect of getting out of the House committee and the Senate committee--and through the House committee and through the Senate committee-and be signed by the President.,So that it's going to require a good deal of good will on all sides, because the only one who loses today is not the administration but schoolchildren who need this assistance.,So we will be back next year. But it's going to require a recognition by all groups that--and our experience this year shows that there has to be some recognition that what we're concerned about is advancing education of the young people of this country, which, of course, is our most important asset and responsibility.,I'm hopeful that before the session ends there will- be an opportunity for the Congress to vote on our aid to higher education, because that is desperately needed. In the next 10 years we're going to have to build more school buildings than we have built since the beginning of this country.,And the Federal Government, since our earliest beginnings, has had a responsibility in this field. This responsibility continues.,And therefore, though the defeat today was quite clear, and though the defeat today indicates it will be difficult to find a satisfactory formula, we will attempt to do so.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your views on .the wish of the Senate to question Dick Goodwin? Mr. Hatcher said this morning that he did not think the question of Executive privilege was involved.\nTHE PRESIDENT, NO. I've--Mr.--I think Mr. Goodwin is going to be available to members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow afternoon at 5 in an informal meeting, and will be glad to discuss the entire report on the Punta del Este meeting, and all of its activities. And I'm sure other members of the delegation will be doing likewise.,Q. Sir, if I may pursue that just one second. You spoke of an informal meeting. Does this meet the problem of Executive privilege and not--,THE PRESIDENT. The question of Executive privilege has not been raised.,Q. Would it not be raised if there were formal meetings? is what I'm really getting at.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the question of Executive privilege has not been raised in the request that was made by Senator Morse for Mr. Goodwin to appear. And Mr. Goodwin attended the Punta del Este meeting as a member of the delegation, and I would be delighted, and I think it would be most helpful, if Mr. Goodwin appeared under the circumstances that I've described. Does that answer your question? [Laughter],[8.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you a two-part question: Do you think that Mr. Nixon should run for Governor of California, and as a politician, Mr. President, what do you think of the advisability of a political party giving a defeated candidate a second chance at the Presidency?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think, in answer to your first question, if Mr. Nixon asked my view as a fellow practitioner of the--follower of the political profession-I'd be glad to give him my opinion, as I do have an opinion on the matter. [Laughter],But, second, I think that history is filled with the case of men who have been defeated for offices who have continued their public service, and I think we've seen it very much in the last few years, and I'm sure we'll see it in the next years.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you think the Peace Corps should dismiss Charles Kamen because of the complaints that have been made about him?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Peace Corps, as Mr. Shriver has said, should make a judgment as they do. I don't think Mr. Kamen is as yet a member of the Peace Corps. He's in training, as a good many other men and women are, and then he will either be accepted or rejected. It's a matter which I'm sure the Peace Corps will deal with in a responsible way. And I've every confidence in the judgment of those who make the selections.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, there's a very hard core of unemployment still. Do you have any special plans now beyond those you've already suggested?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are concerned still about unemployment, which is four and a half million and on a seasonally adjusted rate would be about five million, which is still too high.,We have had in the last a or 3 months a tremendous economic recovery, but population increases and because of productivity increases and technological changes, we still have a hard core, particularly in some of the major industrialized areas, as well as some of the areas which have had chronic unemployment, we still have this hard core.,I'm hopeful that as the economy begins to move ahead more that there will be a further decrease in the number of those unemployed.,In addition, I am hopeful that Congress will take action before they go home, on job retraining, because some of this is technological and even if we had a complete economic recovery you would still find some men left behind because of the change in skills.,So I do think that legislation would be helpful, and if these programs do not work, then we're going to have to consider what other steps we can take. But we have a large deficit and it's difficult to think that we could usefully increase that in order to effect employment without adversely affecting the cost of living. That's our difficulty there.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Nixon has called the movement of American troops into West Berlin a useless gesture, which Mr. Khrushchev might interpret as weakness rather than strength. At the same time, the Republican National Chairman has said that your administration's attitude in general is one of appeasement toward communism throughout the world. Do you have any comment on this criticism by top spokesmen of the opposition party?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. We are in a situation in Germany which is fraught with peril and I think that anyone who is aware of the nature of the destructive power that's available to both sides should, I would think, be careful in attempting to take any political advantage out of our present difficulties.,Now, in regard to the statement of the Vice President, I'm quite aware that Berlin is, from a military point of view, untenable, if it were subjected to a direct attack by the Soviet Union. What we hope will prevent that direct attack is the awareness of the Soviet Union that we mean to defend our position in West Berlin, and that American troops, who are not numerous there, are our hostage to that intent.,It would seem to me, and I think at the time, that the West Berliners would benefit from a reminder of that commitment, and it was for that reason that those troops were added to the garrison of West Berlin. I don't see really how that weakens our commitment. If troops were withdrawn, would that strengthen it?,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the fact that the economy is recovering, what steps is the administration prepared to take to prevent a breakdown in the auto negotiations in Detroit?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they're being carried on at the present time between the Auto Workers and the automobile industry, in the hope that they will come to a conclusion which will make it possible for work to be maintained and that it will make it possible for an agreement to be reached that will not provide for an increase in the cost of cars.,This is a matter in which the public interest is involved, quite obviously, but it's a matter which should be left, at this time, to the--those on both sides of the bargaining table, who are bargaining in a free economy.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, I'm not clear from your answer to Mr. Spivak whether we are actively seeking negotiations with the Russians at this time on the question of Berlin, whether Mr. Thompson or any other official of the Government is trying to set a date, time, and place for talks on--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think Mr. Thompson is going to be returning, under his regular schedule, in the next few days to Moscow and, as I have said, we will be using those means which are available to us to attempt to exchange views among all the parties that are interested, and see whether a satisfactory solution can be reached. And I feel I should leave it at that point.,[14.] Q. Do you believe that there is anything the Government can or should do to try to head off a hike in steel prices? And if so, what would you plan to do?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm hopeful that the steel companies themselves will reach a conclusion that the October increase in wages can be absorbed without an increase in steel prices.,The inflation which marked our economy before 1958 was, I think, tied very closely to the increases in steel prices. Since 1958 the steel prices have remained relatively stable. And it is a fact that during that same period the cost of living has remained relatively stable.,Now my economic advisers inform me that it would be possible for the steel companies to absorb the increase, without increasing-- the increase in wages--without increasing prices, and still insure to the steel companies, and their owners, a good profit.,I am concerned that an increase in steel prices would set off another inflationary spiral, and also make us less competitive abroad, serve as a brake on our recovery, and also affect our balance of payments.,So that I am very hopeful that these private companies will--and I'm sure they will-concern themselves with the public interests that are involved in their decision.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you described the present session of the Geneva nuclear test ban conference as critical. Does the Soviet reaction to our latest proposals bring us closer then to a resumption of tests, or what is our next step in this area?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Dean is going to continue during next week, and I would think that by the end of next week I think they're meeting every other day--we should have a much--we'll have an answer as to whether it's going to be possible to reach an agreement.,He will then return home, and as I said before, we would then be expected to make the appropriate decisions.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the language adopted last night by the conference committee on the foreign aid bill gives you authority to make long-term commitments for development lending. If both houses approve this language, would you then think that there is at least a kind of moral obligation upon the part of the Appropriations Committee to honor those commitments with appropriations?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I would think that the Appropriations Committee would have to make their own--meet their own responsibilities. But it would mean that--if the conference report is accepted by the House and Senate--that the House and Senate and those committees which have particular responsibility for foreign affairs have set this figure.,This figure does represent a cut in both economic assistance and military assistance. And as we do have heavy responsibilities in the coming years in these areas--we've accepted a particularly heavy responsibility and commitment, for example, toward the countries of Latin America--I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committees and the Congress will come as close as possible to the figures that the conference has set, because any cut would diminish by that much our ability to do the job.,I think the compromise, while of course not in the language which was originally suggested, I do think gives us a very valuable tool. And I'm therefore appreciative of the work that was done by the conference.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, everything in the past 3 months that's been said by you and written about you indicates that you have a grave sense of your responsibility for involving this country and the world in a nuclear war over Berlin. Yet everything that's been said by Mr. Khrushchev and written about Mr. Khrushchev indicates he doesn't seem to share this grave responsibility.,Do you think there's been a failure in our diplomacy and our policy that he is not yet convinced about his responsibility in setting off a nuclear war?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, every country operates under different systems and every-Mr. Khrushchev--there has been a good deal of brandishing of nuclear weapons, but I am hopeful, as I've said, that anyone--and I'm sure Mr. Khrushchev knows very well what the effect would be on the people of this world of ours if nuclear weapons were exchanged in a massive way between the countries which possess them--and I'm conscious of this and I'm sure Mr. Khrushchev is--and we will have to wait and see now whether from that consciousness on both sides peace can be achieved, which is our objective.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, what is your view of the interference in the internal political affairs of Brazil by Castro in sending a message of encouragement to the leftist elements there, and what is your general view of the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's a matter which should be left to the people of Brazil. It is their country, their constitution, their decisions, their government, and I'm confident that they are going to solve the problem themselves without outside interference by any country.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the Berlin situation and the common threat, you have called up 75,000 reserves and have called in aircraft and naval ships. Can you tell us whether you're satisfied with what our NATO allies are doing to increase their strength, and can you tell us what they are doing and what they are planning to do if you have any knowledge of that?,THE PRESIDENT. There have been some increases, but we do not have a final judgment on what our NATO allies will do nor will we finally, I think, until the end of September. In addition, the United States is going to be considering what other steps it could take.,We have in the meeting of the foreign ministers in early August urged very strongly that the NATO countries commit larger forces to the defense of Europe. It involves their security and it involves peace in this area and I'm hopeful that all the countries that are involved will make the kind of effort which is required.,And I think if they do not, then, Europe has diminished to that degree. I am hopeful that we're going to meet our responsibility and we're asking them to meet theirs. And by the end of September we'll know whether that's going to be done.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, on steel do you have any thoughts or specific plans for meeting the situation if the steel industry does not seem to be persuaded by the arguments that you have been presenting against the price increase?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm hopeful that the view which has been expressed today, and been expressed on other occasions, and the problems--and the public responsibilities of people involved, I'm hopeful that they will have an effect, and I prefer to leave it at that for the present.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, Ambassador Dowling has delivered a message to the Soviet Ambassador in Germany insisting-and that was the word of the note--that the Soviet Union take the necessary steps to insure continued unrestricted access to East Berlin without hindrance as to place or time. The East Germans have restricted some of the entry points into East Berlin for us and for the West Germans. Can you tell us how you intend to follow through on this?,THE PRESIDENT. We--the communication between East and West Berlin is open. And the situation which you've described has existed for a number of days.,Q. Do I understand that we consider the present situation to meet these requirements of unrestricted access?,THE PRESIDENT. We--I don't feel the-situation in East Berlin is satisfactory in any way. And we have made clear that we have--do not consider it satisfactory. But it is also a fact that communication does exist between East and West Berlin, and that it's possible for those who have official responsibilities, as well as private citizens, to pass.,It is limited--it is not, in our opinion, in accordance with the agreements; but it does exist. What we are concerned about in addition, of course, is the whole question of access to West Berlin itself.,Q. Mr. President, on Berlin, if one takes the public statements of the two sides at face value, it would seem the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are on something of a collision course here.,Do you have any feeling from private information, or other sources, that there is somewhere in all this wordage going back and forth, some room for diplomatic negotiation, and possibly a peaceful settlement of this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not have such information at the present time. Though I am hopeful that--as I have said--that negotiations can be successful. There have been some statements which have been made which would indicate that there would be a recognition under all conditions of the rights of the people of West Berlin. Other statements have not been precise.,So we will know as time goes on. As I've said before at a previous press conference, it was important that we try to get at the real meaning of words--dealing with access, and rights, and freedom and the rest.,But in answer to your question, I am-do not have information today which would make me wholly sanguine about present prospects.,[22.] Q. Sir, there has been some indication that in the Cabinet, and elsewhere in the Government, that some of our top officials are deferring to the State Department for matters of decision involving the military and defense. There've even been papers sent from the Defense Department over to the State Department for clearance. I wonder if this is done at your order?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, ma'am, if you would be more precise, I could perhaps tell you.,Q. Well, sir, recently at a press conference, Secretary McNamara was asked several questions about the future in Berlin. He said, I can't answer those questions, you'll have to go to the Secretary of State.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it depends what questions they were. If the questions dealt with matters which come under the competence of the State Department, then it seems to me Mr. McNamara was quite right.,My judgment and experience has been that Mr. McNamara is fully competent to deal with the military--his military responsibilities, and so does. And Mr. Rusk does.,There are a good many matters that overlap. This is a government which is supposed to communicate. And that's what they're doing. But I've never heard it suggested that Mr. Rusk that Mr. McNamara was turning over his responsibilities to Mr. Rusk, or vice versa.,But I would think that it would be the height of folly not to have the most intimate communication on a matter as important as Berlin.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, can you at this time discuss with us some of the contents of the letter you received from Chancellor Adenauer this morning?,THE PRESIDENT. No, the main thrust of the letter was in regard to what measures might be taken by the countries which have responsibilities in the area to any further steps which might be taken by the Soviet Union or the East German regime to limit access of the people of West Berlin or our access to West Berlin, and it dealt with that matter of countermeasures.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, what is your view of the bitter Democratic primary fight in New York City, and do you favor one Democratic group over another?,THE PRESIDENT. No. [Laughter],[25.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some concern expressed over the amount of time it takes the allies to consult on the specific steps necessary to handle the Berlin situation. I think you, in one of your press conferences, recently indicated you weren't quite satisfied with the amount of time it took to draft a note. Could you tell us whether you are satisfied with the present tempo of such consultations?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, well they're meeting almost every day--in any case every other day--the ambassadors of the countries that are directly involved. There are four countries that are involved and there is also NATO, so quite naturally it takes a longer time.,When it's a matter of involving a direct interest of the United States, however, we have attempted to make our responses immediate. For example, last week, when there was some suggestion that air traffic might be interfered with, we did get out the same day our response, because we thought the matter was so important.,But there is very--there is daily consultation, and I'm hopeful that through that consultation and through advanced planning we can meet some of the problems that you suggest, but it's difficult to meet them all satisfactorily.,[26.] Q. Time magazine today publishes a version of the Cuban invasion in which they say that Secretary Rusk canceled the air support for the landing force and that you supported his viewpoint. Could you comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I said from the beginning that I would not comment or attempt to, on the matter because I didn't think it was in the public interest. I'll merely state that this is the most inaccurate of all the articles that have appeared on Cuba. [Laughter],Q. Sir, in a recent interview with Senor Castro he told me that you have said in the inaugural speech that you would not fear to negotiate and will not negotiate in fear.,It was a question I could not answer and maybe you could give us an idea on it because he says that the United States negotiates with the Russians and big powers and seems to be afraid--that was his words--to negotiate with Cubans about all the problems that concern both countries.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Well, I've expressed my view that as long as Cuba makes itself a willing--the Cuban Government makes itself a willing accomplice to the Communist objectives in this hemisphere, that we could not have successful negotiations. And that, in my opinion, is what their status is today. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-08-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I have three announcements.,[1.] I read last week with great interest the statement by Prime Minister Macmillan, calling for negotiations looking toward Great Britain's entry as a full member in the European Common Market. I am gratified that this statement has been well received by the governments that are already members of the Common Market, and by the Commission of the European Economic Community. The United States Government, under the leadership of both parties, has steadfastly supported the political and economic integration of Western Europe. We are convinced that the continuing progress of this movement can bring new vitality to the Atlantic Community, and mounting strength to the free world. We welcome the prospect of Britain's participation in the institutions of the Treaty of Rome and in the economic growth that is the achievement and promise of the Common Market.,During the progress of the negotiations, the United States will of course give close attention to all developments affecting our own economic interests, and those of other friendly states in this hemisphere and elsewhere.,The enlargement of the European Community will necessarily result in some changes in the pattern of trade, but the necessary adjustments can be greatly facilitated if the European Community builds on the principle of broad and increasing trade relations with all other nations. It is our hope that progress towards this end can be made during the tariff negotiations under way in Geneva, in which both the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom are participating.,[2.] Secondly, I now have a report from the special panel on nuclear testing. This panel has examined a broad range of issues concerning our capabilities to detect and identify nuclear explosions. It has also gone into certain technical questions relating to nuclear weapons development. Although the report is made up of highly classified materials and cannot be released for that reason, I can say that as far as I am concerned this report has made me feel more urgently than ever that without an inspection system of the kind proposed by the United States and the United Kingdom at Geneva no country in the world can ever be sure that a nation with a closed society is not conducting secret nuclear tests.,In view of this report and in view of the deep longing of the people of the world for an effective end to nuclear testing, I am asking Ambassador Dean to return to Geneva on August 24 in an effort to ascertain whether the Soviet Union is now prepared to bring a safeguarded test ban agreement into being. It is my hope that he will succeed in convincing the Soviet representatives that the test ban treaty which we have proposed and stand ready to use as a basis for serious negotiations is a necessary and rational means of reducing the likelihood of nuclear war, and if we were successful, would be an admirable beginning in the long road towards general disarmament.,His return to Geneva is with our hopes and prayers, and I believe with the hopes and prayers of all mankind who are most concerned about further developments of this deadly weapon. This meeting is most important, most critical, and I am hopeful that we will find a favorable response by those who will participate in this negotiation.,[3.] Finally, I would like to say that while we face many problems about the world, one of the most encouraging features of recent months has been the wholehearted response which so many young men and women have given to the proposal for the Peace Corps.,We have an opportunity, particularly in the area of teaching, to send hundreds and hundreds of young men and women who are skilled in this area throughout the world, teaching them English. And English opens up not only a key of communication, but also opens up all of the great cultural, historical, judicial areas which have become identified with the Anglo-Saxon world, and which are so vital in these difficult days.,I am hopeful, therefore, that the Congress will support this effort. It has had a most promising beginning, and we have an opportunity, if the amount requested by the Peace Corps is approved by the Congress, of having over 2700 volunteers serving the cause of peace in 1962, fiscal year.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in your reading of Mr. Khrushchev's recent speech and statements, have they increased, reduced, or left unchanged the chances for a peaceful settlement of the German problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I thought Mr. Khrushchev restated the position which he took at Vienna and which he took in the Soviet aide memoire, and that there were no new proposals in that speech. He did state his desire, as I have done before, to have negotiations on these matters which are in dispute, and I can say that it is the strong conviction of the United States Government that every means should be employed, every diplomatic means, to see if a peaceful solution to this difficult matter can be achieved.,I think that we will, in the coming months, as I have said, use every device available to us to see if we can reach an equitable solution, and to see if we can get a more precise definition of the phrases and words and thoughts which the Soviet Union has expressed in the matter of Berlin, Germany, and Central Europe.,Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask your judgment on a passage in Mr. Khrushchev's speech. He says that in connection with a peace treaty between the Soviet Union and the East German Government: \"We do not intend to infringe upon any lawful interests of the Western powers. Barring of access to Berlin, blockade of West Berlin, is entirely out of the question.\" Is there a catch in this, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you have to read the speech in total. I believe it was stated that we should engage in negotiations with the East German Government in order to achieve the result which has been suggested. There have been a number of proposals about the rights of the East German Government to control access, and also to control the territory of West Berlin, and, therefore the speech should be read in total.,But I do believe that we should use, as I have said, every means available to us to make a determination whether a peaceful solution can be reached which will protect the rights of the people of West Berlin and our own rights.,[5.] Q. As a former member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, sir, how do you feel about proposals to increase the size of the House from the present number of 437?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a former member of the House, I would feel that it should be left to the members of the House of Representatives. [Laughter],[6.] Q. Mr. President, as a matter of prudence in these tense times, have you given any thought to making formal arrangements for the exercise of Presidential power in the event that you might become unable to function?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I have entered into the same kind of an agreement with the Vice President that my predecessor, President Eisenhower, entered into with Mr. Nixon in the case of Presidential incapacity or inability to fulfill his constitutional functions, and I will ask Pierre if he could, at his noon briefing, put out a statement on what that agreement consists of.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, recently you have appealed to our allies to make a greater effort in the conventional force field. In the light of that, are you satisfied with the results of the Paris conference which just concluded?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Rusk, after the Paris conference, went to Rome to talk to the Prime Minister of Italy, and I think was going to see Dr. Adenauer in Italy also and should be back very shortly, and then I think we could--I could give a precise answer.,That was one of the subjects which was discussed, and I think that I'll suspend any precise answer until Mr. Rusk has returned. In addition, those who participated at the Paris conference, the French Foreign Minister and, of course, Lord Home, have an obligation to report back to their governments to find out what the policy will be, as well as the members of NATO.,So I think it's still premature to make a determination. I am hopeful that the members of NATO will carry out the commitments which have been made in NATO on previous occasions, and particularly during these difficult days.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, in the event that Mr. Dean fails in his mission in Geneva, do you have in mind any deadline--any possibility of setting a certain date when you will decide to resume nuclear testing?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we will be able to tell almost immediately whether the Soviet Union has made any change in its insistence upon the Troika, and therefore a unilateral veto on any inspection system. That of course is the fundamental issue which has up till now made it impossible to secure the acceptance of a treaty. Quite obviously, if that were written into any treaty, the treaty would be self-policing, and we would have no treaty, and as I've said in my statement, it's impossible to make a precise determination without inspection of whether nuclear testing is going on. We'll be able, therefore, to tell quite quickly whether there is any prospect for success, and if there is not, Mr. Dean will come home and I will then make the appropriate decisions.,Q. Is this our last try, then, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. We will try always if there's any genuine hope of success. But as I have indicated, this is probably a decisive meeting, because we will now find out whether there's any prospect of bringing an end to nuclear testing. And if we cannot agree on a system for effective inspection system on nuclear testing, which is really the easiest kind because of the various mechanisms that are available to determine testing--which is the easiest kind of disarmament in a sense, or at least limitations on arms, to police--how possibly can any country which will refuse to accept an effective inspection system on nuclear testing, how can they possibly say and argue in the General Assembly or anyplace else, that they're really for disarmament?,[9.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable argument in Congress in recent weeks about the proper role of military officers in educating the public on the dangers of communism. Senator Fulbright wrote a memorandum on it. There have been some orders issued in the Defense Department on the subject of proper conduct of military officers in this matter. I wonder if you could give us your views on this subject?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Senator Fulbright sent a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense at the request of the Secretary of Defense and expressed his views about a matter which is of course of concern to the Department of Defense. The United States military, due to one of the wisest actions of our Constitutional Founders, have been kept out of politics, and they continue their responsibilities regardless of the changes of administration. I have no idea what the politics are of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I've appointed two of them since I've been President, and I have no idea what their views of politics are. This is a most important protection for our country, and it's equally important protection for the military. It prevents them from being exploited or discriminated by political people in either party. So therefore the problem always is, is how can the military remain removed from political life and how can civilian control of the military be effectively maintained and at the same time the military have the right and the necessity to express their educated views on some of the great problems that face us around the world. So I think this is a continuing matter which the Secretary of Defense is giving attention to. There is no desire to restrain or prevent any military man from speaking. What we are concerned about, however, always is that they not be exploited for any partisan purpose.,And I think basically it's for their own protection as well as the protection of the country. So in answer to your question, some of this arose because of an NSC decision in 1958, which placed special responsibilities upon them. And I think that it's therefore an obligation upon those who place those responsibilities upon them to clarify it in such a way that the common interest is protected.,So in my judgment, Senator Fulbright performed a service in sending his viewpoint to the Department of Defense and I am hopeful that every member of the Senate on this and every other matter will continue to give the administration the benefit of their judgment. That is why we are all up here.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, some members of your administration and others have privately expressed concern that the continued large flight of East German refugees to the West might result in an act of violence. Senator Fulbright suggested that the border might be closed. Could you give us your assessment of the danger and could you tell us whether this Government has any policy regarding the encouragement or discouragement of East German refugees moving West?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think we have attempted to encourage or discourage the movement of refugees, in answer to the last part of the question. Of course, we're concerned about the situation in Eastern Germany, and really in Eastern Europe. There has been a tremendous passage from East to West which, of course, I know is a matter of concern to the Communists because this tremendous speedup of people leaving the Communist. system to come to the West and freedom, of course, is a rather illuminating evidence of the comparative values of free life in an open society, and those in a closed society, under a Communist system. In answer to your question, however, the United States Government does not attempt to encourage or discourage the movement of refugees and I know of no plans to do so.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied that the United States compromises in the agreement at Punta del Este on the public information program and the committee of experts will not weaken your Alliance for Progress program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we haven't concluded the negotiations. So far I have been very satisfied with what has been done, and I have the greatest possible hopes for this meeting. I hope that all of us will not get so occupied with other matters occurring in this hemisphere that we forget that perhaps one of the most significant meetings in the history of the Western Hemisphere, in this century, is now taking place in Montevideo, and that if we can reach a successful conclusion we can come out of that meeting, all of these republics, with a real hope that we can move ahead in improving the life of the people of this continent. And that's where the great struggle is going on. If we fail there, and if we fail here in the United States to recognize that this is the issue to which we should now be devoting our attention, then the spread of communism is--and the failure of the free society--is going to be far more assured.,So I am hopeful that the meeting will be successful. I am hopeful that the country and the people of this hemisphere will look at what's going on there, because that is the most significant event of recent weeks.,[12.] Q. Sir, have you asked your aides, or your science aides, to prepare for you some kind of a study on whether a greater focus can be put in our space efforts in some possible arrangement similar to the Manhattan project during the last war?,THE PRESIDENT. We are now attempting to devote--we are spending as much money and devoting as large a percentage of scientific personnel, engineering and all the rest, as we possibly can to the space program. We are constantly concerned with speeding it up. We are making what I consider to be a maximum effort.,It may be possible to improve it as we go along and we will attempt to do so. But we asked for all the money for this program that those in positions of responsibility felt could be usefully employed for this purpose, because beyond this we begin to get into diminishing returns on personnel and all the rest.,We may be able to improve it and if we can, we will, but it is our hope to make the largest possible effort.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, if fighting should break out over Berlin, that is, if peace efforts fail, do you believe it can be limited to a conventional war or would it lead to the use of nuclear weapons?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are hopeful that we would be able to reach peaceful solutions to these problems.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the Budget Director testified at the Capitol a week ago and said that your administration was a little unhappy with the policy planning and the generation of ideas in the State and Defense Departments and cooperation between them. Can you tell us what that problem is in a little detail and what is being done to improve the situation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think he also expressed satisfaction that some progress was being made. One of the problems, of course, is that nearly every international problem involves several governmental agencies: certainly the Defense Department, State, and in many cases at least one other agency. And therefore, the problem of coordinating these different agencies in an effective way represents a major problem of administration. We have, of course, as you know, on a number of the most important international problems that we faced, set up task forces which meet frequently and render at least weekly reports to the NSC, but it's a matter of constant concern, though I think we have improved our techniques recently.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, several congressional committees have issued reports that were quite critical of the handling of foreign aid in the past in Peru and Laos specifically, and they centered much of their attention on two or three individuals: Mr. Theodore Achilles, Mr. Rollin Atwood, Mr. Graham Parsons, who still have some positions of some responsibility in the Government. I wonder if you contemplate, or your administration contemplates, any action--removal of these individuals from positions of responsibility, or any studies of their role today, and do you have any specific plans for tighter administration of these programs in the light of the past record?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am hopeful, if we are able to secure passage of legislation now before the Congress, that our administration will be more effective. In addition, we hope to bring in, if we are effective in the Congress, 5 new area administrators, and between 45 and 50 new country heads, into the administration of foreign aid. Now, on the three names you gave me, I am familiar with two of them. One of them is an Ambassador now to Sweden, and the other is at work here in the State Department, and I am not informed about the third. I am not aware of anything in their records that throws any question, of course, on their integrity, and we are satisfied that they can meet the responsibilities which they now hold.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, would you give us your views on the latest hijacking plane incidents involving,THE PRESIDENT. The Cuban one or the American one?,Q. Both. [Laughter],THE, PRESIDENT. It's my understanding that the hijacking which took place yesterday of the American plane was done by a-at least the information I had before I came in--by a Frenchman who had been treated earlier this year for mental aberrations at Bellevue. The hijacking a week ago was done once again by two men, one of whom had also been treated for mental weakness. It does indicate that the lunatic fringe, those who are desirous of seeing their names in the paper, and all of the rest, have seized upon this technique.,I am, of course, wholeheartedly opposed to it. I am hopeful that we can make it possible to work out satisfactory procedures so that every government involved takes steps to prevent hijacking which endangers the lives of innocent people.,Now, let me say that we are--have ordered today on a number of our planes a border patrolman who will ride on a number of our flights. We are also going to insist that every airplane lock its door, and that the door be strong enough to prevent entrance by force, and that the possession of the key be held by those inside the cabin so that pressure cannot be put on the members of the crew outside to have the door opened.,In addition, I am hopeful that governments everywhere will use their maximum influence to discourage this kind of action which endangers the lives of the crew and of the people involved, and which is an exercise in futility. And that is the view of this Government and we will take every means that we can to prevent not only the hijacking of our own planes but the hijacking of other planes. I'm hopeful that all concerned will do the same. It just endangers the lives of people who should be protected.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there seems to be some doubt in the country as to whether the Russians really did put two men in orbit around the earth, as they have claimed. Are you satisfied from the evidence available to you that they did do what they said they did?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Mr. President, after this latest Soviet space effort, Senator Long of Missouri, among others, said that the real problem was not our present space effort but the lack of young Americans going into science. He pointed out that the Soviets are still graduating three times as many scientists as we are. Can you, sir, see anything that the Government can and is doing to step up this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are hopeful that we can secure the passage of the Aid to Education Act as well as the NDEA, both of which offer scholarships to talented young men and women, and that we can increase the number of scientists who may be graduated.,In addition, of course, we have a good many very talented scientists, but we did not make a major effort in this area for many years, and we are now behind and paying the price of having the Soviet Union exploit a great propaganda advantage now on three separate occasions, with the flight of the Sputnik, the flight of Mr. Gagarin, and the most recent one. They are still, as I've said before, many months ahead of us. And therefore, we can look for other evidences of their superiority in this area. We are making a major effort which will cost billions of dollars. But we cannot possibly permit any country whose intentions toward us may be hostile to dominate space. What I would like to see at the United Nations and elsewhere is an effort made to have space insured for peaceful purposes. And the United States delegation to the General Assembly is going to make a major effort in that regard this year.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently about the developments of a neutron bomb. Can you give us your estimate of the feasibility of developing a weapon which would destroy human beings without destroying real estate values?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[19.] Q. Could you tell us, sir, whether your report from the experts on the test situation changes the general belief in this country that while we have no evidence that the Russians are cheating, we have no evidence that they are not cheating?,THE PRESIDENT. I think my statement -stated that we could not make a precise determination whether testing was going on in a closed society by present techniques.,[20.] Q. Sir, I wonder what you think of a proposal by Senator Styles Bridges to amend the Mutual Assistance Act whereby we will deny any aid to any country exporting strategic goods to a country dominated by Russia.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a language somewhat similar to the Battle Act, and I'd have to look at the language of Senator Bridges and compare it to the Battle Act before I could give you a judgment on it.,Q. If it's an extension, I think it might hit at some of our allies, mightn't it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll read the language,[21] Q. Mr. President, when you were a Senator, you were actively in favor of legislation to broaden our immigration laws and establish a more liberal and equitable quota system. Under present laws, many of the foreign born scientists and scholars who contributed so largely to our national strength might not be admitted. What plans does the administration now have in this area of immigration?,THE PRESIDENT. We have consulted with Congressman Walter and others as to what we can do to improve our immigration laws and we are going to continue to do so.,[22.] Because yesterday's hijacking aroused such great public excitement, and the week before, even though we now see that neither one of these hijackings was done by Cubans, does, it seems to me, make it important for us to act with the prudence which is worthy of a great power which bears responsibilities for the defense of freedom all around the globe, and not to make determinations on policy until our information is more complete.,In addition, we should realize that over 25 planes have come to the United States, 14 have been returned, 9 have been sold in response to a court order, and that, therefore, we should, I think, concern ourselves with procedures which will prevent a repetition and which will make sure that our own responsibilities are fully met in this regard.,The point I want to make is that what is going on in Montevideo is so important that we should not get overexcited about matters when our information is so faulty, so incomplete.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the Berlin crisis, there has been quite a bit of speculation about one or more summit conferences. Would you tell us what your attitude is at this time toward summit negotiations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the attitude which I have held and still hold is that no summit between East and West is useful unless the groundwork has been laid beforehand which will insure some success. As far as a summit of Western leaders, I think that if it should prove important in coordinating our policy on any matter, Berlin, I think that that meeting should be held and would be prepared to do so.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, during the foreign aid debate, there has been some concern expressed by legislators based upon the reports from Montevideo that some of the Latin American nations are not, apparently, eager to institute the self-help measures which you've made a condition of your program, and that the administration may not insist upon those conditions. Do you intend to insist upon those conditions?,THE PRESIDENT. We're prepared to make a major effort in this regard and we're hopeful that other countries who also have high living standards will do so. But of course it would be completely useless unless an effort were made by all concerned. One of the proposals which have been made in Montevideo which is of particular interest is that under the aegis of the Inter-American Bank, that a study by independent experts be made of each country's economic planning and progress and commitment, and it seems to me that this is a great basis for a hemispheric effort. We're not interested in making the contributions which I think we have to make unless we feel that they're going to improve the life of the people. And, therefore, there's a responsibility on us all, for us to contribute to the success of this goal and for the countries involved to make sure that this effort helps the people, because otherwise the effort will fail and those societies will inevitably be wiped away--unless some real progress is made.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-07-19","text":"THE PRESDENT. [1] I have a statement on Germany and Berlin. I'll read a few paragraphs of it and it will be available for distribution right after the press conference.,The Soviet aide memoire is a document which speaks of peace, but threatens to disturb it. It speaks of ending the abnormal situation in Germany, but insists on making permanent its abnormal division. It refers to the Four Power Alliance of World War II, but seeks the unilateral abrogation of the rights of the other three powers. It calls for new international agreements, while preparing to violate existing ones. It offers certain assurances, while making it plain that its previous assurances are not to be relied upon. It professes concern for the rights of the citizens of West Berlin, while seeking to expose them to the immediate or eventual domination of a regime which permits no self-determination. Three simple facts are clear:,1. Today there is peace in Berlin, in Germany, and in Europe. If that peace is destroyed by the unilateral actions of the Soviet Union, its leaders will bear a heavy responsibility before world opinion and history.,2. The people of West Berlin are free. In that sense it's already a \"free city\"--free to determine its own leaders and free to enjoy the fundamental human rights reaffirmed in the United Nations Charter.,3. Today the continued presence in West Berlin of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France is by clear legal right, arising from war, acknowledged in many agreements signed by the Soviet Union, and strongly supported by the overwhelming. majority of the people of that city. Their freedom is dependent upon the exercise of these rights--an exercise which is thus a political and moral obligation as well as a legal right. Inasmuch as these rights, including the right of access to Berlin, are not held from the Soviet Government, they cannot be ended by any unilateral action of the Soviet Union. They cannot be affected by a so-called \"peace treaty,\" covering only a part of Germany, with a regime of the Soviet Union's own creation--a regime which is not freely representative of all or any part of Germany, and does not enjoy the confidence of the 17 million East Germans. The steady stream of German refugees from East to West is eloquent testimony to this fact.,The real intent of the June 4 aide memoire is that East Berlin, a part of a city under four power status, would be formally absorbed into the so-called German Democratic Republic while West Berlin, even though called a \"free city,\" would lose the protection presently provided by the Western Powers and become subject to the will of a totalitarian regime. Its leader, Herr Ulbricht, has made dear his intention, once this so-called \"peace treaty\" is signed, to curb West Berlin's communications with the free world and to suffocate the freedom it now enjoys.,The world knows that there is no reason for a crisis over Berlin today--and that if one develops it will be caused by the Soviet Government's attempt to invade the rights of others and manufacture tensions.,A city does not become free merely by calling it a \"free city.\" For a city or a people to be free requires that they be given the opportunity, without economic, political, or police pressure, to make their own choice and live their own lives. The people of West Berlin today have that freedom. It is the objective of our policy that they will continue to enjoy it.,Peace does not come automatically from a \"peace treaty.\" There is peace in Germany today even though the situation is \"abnormal.\" A \"peace treaty\" that adversely affects the lives and rights of millions will not bring peace with it. A \"peace treaty\" that attempts to affect adversely the solemn commitments of three great powers will not bring peace with it. We again urge the Soviet Government to reconsider its course, to return to the path of constructive cooperation it so frequently states it desires, and to work with its World War II Allies in concluding a just and enduring settlement of issues remaining from that conflict.,[2.] Secondly, preliminary estimates of the gross national product in the second quarter of this year have been completed. The Nation's output of goods and services rose sharply to an annual rate of $515 billion, a $14 billion increase over the first quarter, reversing three consecutive quarters of decline.,Total personal income has risen steadily. In June it reached nearly $417 billion, $10 1/2 billion above its recession low of last February, and as you know the Federal Reserve Board Index of Production increased 2 points in June to reach a level of 110.,There are still, however, serious problems of unemployment in this country. As I said some time ago, unemployment is bad enough when there's a recession, but it is intolerable when there is prosperity, and I believe it important, therefore, that the country, the administration, and the Congress remember as we move into a period of advance that there are still 5 million Americans who are unemployed, a million who are employed part time, and we have to develop programs and actions that will make it easier for them to secure their jobs.,[3.] Finally, as you know, I had hoped to be able to attend the forthcoming meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council at Montevideo. However, during early August the Congress will be dealing with many of the most important issues of this session, including the foreign aid bill itself. Therefore, I consider it in the best interest of the Alliance for Progress that I remain here and work for those proposals on which our Latin American program and, indeed, our future relations with the entire free world so largely depend.\nThe delegation that I'm sending to Montevideo will be led by Secretary of the Treasury Dillon, and will consist of high-level, responsible people from other departments of the Government. They carry with them proposals to which I've given a good deal of personal attention and which have occupied the attention of the Government for some months, and which will, I believe and hope, mark an historic turning point in the life of the Americas.,Our task at Montevideo will be to build the framework of procedures and goals within which we can construct an American community of democratic states moving towards a better life for their people. This conference is the most important international gathering since the beginning of this administration, for on its success very largely depends the future of freedom in this hemisphere.,[4-] Q. Mr. President, are you now considering a declaration of national emergency, limited or otherwise, in order to call up National Guard or Reserve units?,THE PRESIDENT. We are concluding this afternoon our review of what actions we might take towards strengthening the military position of the United States. Those decisions will be brought to the attention of our allies this week, who also bear heavy responsibilities in this area. They will be part of a speech which I will make to the country next Tuesday evening, and will be presented to the Congress a week from today, and at that time the details of what we now plan to do will be made public.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, some months ago you suggested that our allies could contribute to Western security by increasing the strength of their conventional forces. Since then, nothing much seems to have happened in this direction. Could you tell us whether you are satisfied with the pace of developments in this field?,THE, PRESIDENT. We will this week be talking with our allies about what we intend to do, and we will also have consultations with them about what we can in common do. There is going to be a foreign ministers conference in early August in Paris which will be preceded by preliminary consultations and at that time this will be one of the matters which will be before the foreign ministers. We have the problem of concerting our activities with 14 other countries.,Napoleon once said that he won all his successes because he fought allies. We are anxious that we make the consultations between our allies on all these questions--military, political, information, economic--that we try to work out procedures which will permit close harmony in the actions of all the countries which bear responsibility as members of NATO. Therefore, in answer to your question, we will be discussing-this will be one of the subjects which will be discussed in the next 2 weeks.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in the note on Berlin yesterday, it said on several occasions that we are not wedded to the present situation in Berlin. In view of that, are we now planning to take an active lead in bringing about orderly and beneficial developments on Berlin and, specifically, how do you look upon the idea of an international peace conference on this subject?,THE PRESIDENT. The statement of yesterday plus the statement of today represents the view I want to express at this time on Germany and Berlin, and other views will be expressed, of course, as the time moves on. But this is where I stand for the present.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, if your proposals for meeting the Berlin situation require substantial additional defense outlays, would you favor taxing to pay for this, rather than adding it to deficit spending? The Senate majority whip has suggested that we ought to meet this kind of cost with higher taxes.,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, our budget-if the economy is proceeding at what we hope will be a steady rate of growth the present tax structure would bring in very substantial resources. I think we discussed at a previous conference that that tax structure is so strong that it contributed to strangling the recovery after the '58 recession. Therefore, the judgment on taxes and on expenditures will be made in light of what will produce the best economic situation for the United States in the coming months. We will make it clear at the time that we complete our review and announce them--as to what exactly we propose on taxes.,I will suggest, however, while we're on it, that both the previous administration and this administration recommended nearly $840 million of tax increase in postal payments. That amount has been steadily scaled down, and yet we've been unable to get a vote in the House of Representatives on the issue, and no hearings have been held in the Senate. This is a matter which I'm hopeful that Congress will deal with, because it represents an agreement between this administration and the last administration that we should not permit nearly $1 billion in deficit in the Postal Service. And a bill has just passed the Senate providing increased benefits for the employees, which will add another 60 or 70 million dollars to the deficit, which will take it over $1 billion if passed and signed by the President. So that here is at least one area, preliminary to a decisive answer to your question, which will come in the next few days, that I think we should move on.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the whole bundle of your school legislation was torpedoed in the House Rules Committee yesterday, and it's clear that one of the things that largely helped to sink it was the religious issue. Will you discuss that problem, including the report that you have just about given up on passing school legislation in this first session of this Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know that we were defeated in the Rules Committee by a vote of 8 to 7. I will say that 7 out of those 8 votes came from members of Congress who were not sympathetic to the legislation nor supported me in the last election. They have, of course, their responsibility to meet. But the fact of the matter is that there are procedures available to the House of Representatives to adopt this bill, in spite of the action of yesterday, before the session ends.,Now the Senate passed it by a generous majority and it came out of the House Committee with support. I consider it to be probably the most important piece of domestic legislation. I'm hopeful that the members of Congress who support this will use those procedures which are available to them under the rules of the House to bring this to a vote, and that a majority of the members of Congress will support it. Every study that we make indicates the need for the legislation. There is broad general support, in my opinion, for improving our educational system. Anyone who has a child wants that child to be educated to the extent of its talents. This program is most important.,In addition, included within that bill is a provision for the so-called impacted areas, and the July 1st date is past and those impacted areas are working on an emergency basis. So I feel that the impacted area part should stay in this bill, that it should be, I'm hopeful, considered by the House and that a majority of the members will vote \"aye\" or \"nay\" on it.,This matter has been involved. Education is a very important part of the life of this country and there are strong feelings-the matter of religion has been brought into it, other issues have. My view is that assistance for public education should be passed by this session. I'm hopeful a majority of the members of the House will agree, because I think it would be a most important step forward and I'm confident that Congressman Thompson and others in the House, Senator Morse in the Senate, who've been working on it, will continue to use all of their energies to get this bill by. I would sign it with the greatest possible pleasure.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us a broad estimate of approximately how much more defense funds you might be asking next week?\nTHE PRESIDENT, No, Mr. Lawrence. We are meeting in the National Security Council this afternoon, at which a final judgment will be reached; we do have an obligation to communicate our views to--particularly those who are involved with us in Berlin. It will be presented to the Congress early next week and to the American people early next week.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, will you give us your view of the Freedom Riders movement?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Attorney General has made it clear that we believe that everyone who travels, for whatever reason they travel, should enjoy the full constitutional protection given to them by the law and by the Constitution. They should be able to move freely in interstate commerce.,Now, I'm hopeful that that will become the generally accepted view, and if there are any legal doubts about the right of people to move in interstate commerce, that that legal position will be clarified. We naturally want those rights to be developed in a way which will permit them to be lasting and which will permit them to meet the needs of those people who have--who wish to travel.,In my judgment, there's no question of the legal rights of the freedom travelers--Freedom Riders, to move in interstate commerce. And those rights, whether we agree with those who travel, whether we agree with the purpose for which they travel, those rights stand, providing they are exercised in a peaceful way. We may not like what people print in the paper, but there's no question of their constitutional right to print it. So that follows, in my opinion, for those who move in interstate commerce.,So the basic question is not the Freedom Riders. The basic question is that anyone who moves in interstate commerce should be able to do so freely. That's a more substantive question, not the question merely of the Freedom Riders.,[11] Q. Mr. President, in your consideration of the military requirements now in dealing with the Berlin situation, and of the allied military reevaluation, are you basing your judgment on the assumption that it is conceivable that we might fight a ground war in Europe over Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm making my judgment on what I consider to be the relative power balance between the Communist bloc and ourselves, the attitude which the Communist bloc is now taking, and what possible needs we might have in protecting our commitments and vital interest. I think that we have to realize that we are--our commitments are far flung. We operate at the end of a long supply line, and others in some cases operate at the end of a short supply line. All this indicates the needs, the very heavy burdens, placed upon this country. We have commitments in Southeast Asia and we have commitments in Berlin, and we are being very vigorously challenged.,Now, in answer to your question, I think that we'll make public--and you can make perhaps a better calculation after we give our figures--and as I said before those figures should not be discussed, in my opinion, until at least those who share this burden with us have a chance to be informed.,This alliance--NATO alliance-is going to move through very difficult periods in the coming months. Every country has its own strategic and tactical problems and carries particular burdens which other countries do not. If this alliance is going to move in concert, in my opinion we have to improve our consultation.,It took us, as you know, some time before we were able to come to a conclusion on the language of the aide memoire. We're going to have to improve our consultation so that we can come to decisions more quickly. But I think we should realize--as anyone who has studied the history of alliances--how enormous a task it is to have 15 countries moving down a stream all together over an issue which involves the security of them all. So we will inform them, and then the Congress, of what we plan to do, and the Congress will make the final judgment.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us some details of the speech that you plan for the Nation next Tuesday?,THE PRESIDENT. The speech will be a discussion of what our responsibilities are, and what our hazards are, and what I think the situation appears to be at the present time, what its consequences could be, and what we must do and what our allies must do to move through not merely the present difficulties but I would say we have to look forward to many challenges in the coming months and years.,So, we'll try to discuss at least the general problem that the United States faces in the security field in the summer of 1961, not merely that tied to Berlin, but generally.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us whether the space program--the launching of a man into orbit--is going to come a bit faster than we might have expected in view of the fact that a second short ballistic flight was scheduled for today? I don't know whether it's come off or not.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not familiar with-that there's been any step-up in the previously announced schedule. If there has been I'll speak to Mr. Webb. But as I understood it, it was at the end of this year that we were talking about the orbit, but that may not be a precise date now. I'll have to look into it.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, many countries receiving foreign aid from us are concerned because their expanding populations nullify the aid. The President of Pakistan referred to this in his speech to the joint session of Congress and also in his speech at the Press Club. Since you are asking billions of dollars more in foreign aid, will you help countries control their expanding populations if they ask you?,THE PRESIDENT. I've said before, Mrs. Craig, that this is a decision which goes very much to the life of a country, and it is a personal decision and a national decision which these nations must make. The problem is not altogether an economic one. We help countries which carry out different policies in this regard and it's a judgment, in my opinion, which they should make.,[15.] Q. Although the White House has commented on the fact that Under Secretary of State Bowles is remaining in his job at this time, there still remains some doubt as to your own confidence in him, sir, and your own ideas on how the administration of the State Department is proceeding.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, I've never, contrary to some reports, never asked Mr. Bowles for his resignation, nor has he ever offered it. I have always expected that he would be part of this administration until it concluded its responsibilities.,I have a high regard for Mr. Bowles. He was my adviser on foreign policy last year. And all my conversations with the members of the State Department, the members of the Defense Department, and the members of the intelligence community have gone to the question of how we can best organize our talents--in the White House--how we can best organize our talents so that everyone is being used in a way which makes maximum use of their abilities.,Now, when General Taylor was appointed it was regarded as a diminution of the responsibilities of the Joint Chiefs, which it is not. But it came about as a result of conversations between the Joint Chiefs and Secretary McNamara. We have the Killian committee now examining the structure of the intelligence community. We have been talking about how we can make more effective the structure and the personnel of the State Department. We'll continue to do so, because they're faced with unprecedented hazards.,As I said, when Mr. Rusk is going to be meeting with the foreign ministers on the very vital question, Berlin, Secretary Dillon will be meeting at Montevideo and this puts great burdens on the Department of State, which is the arm of the President in foreign policy.,Mr. Bowles has my complete confidence. He is going on the trip which will take him to Africa and Asia, consulting with heads of states and with allies, and I expect that his trip will be most valuable and I'm confident that everyone who talks to him, Americans or heads of other states, will recognize that Mr. Bowles will be, I hope, a valuable part of this administration as long as it continues, and that he has the confidence of the President and the Secretary of State.,Q. Mr. President, does your answer mean that there is a possibility that he may be shifted, though, to some other responsibilities more in keeping with his talents?,THE PRESIDENT. We have reached no judgment on how we're going to organize any of these departments or people. I've put the general principle forward that we are going to attempt to maximize the abilities of everyone working in the Government. If I came to the conclusion that Mr. Bowles could be more effective in another responsible position, I would not hesitate to ask him to take that position, and I am confident Mr. Bowles would not hesitate to take it.,My judgment is now that he should stay as Under Secretary of State and if there's going to be any change, I'll make it very clear at the time. But he will continue as Under Secretary of State, and I have no plan to ask him to assume a new responsibility. But any time I think that he or anyone else in the administration can do their job better in another way, I will certainly ask them, because as long as I'm going to bear the responsibility of the Presidency I'm going to attempt to make sure that it's implemented to the best, at least, of my ability.,[16.] Q. Congressman Powell said yesterday, sir, that it's your intention to veto any bill that may be passed for aid to education in federally impacted areas unless the general Federal aid bill is approved. Would you veto a bill for impacted areas if the general aid bill isn't--,THE PRESIDENT. My judgment is that the impacted school bill should be part of general public assistance. That's the position of the administration. Therefore, I'm hopeful that the Members of Congress who are anxious to secure the passage of this legislation should also recognize that we are not meeting our responsibilities if we merely pass the impacted area, that we should pass them both together and that's what we're working towards doing. As far as what action we'd take, of course, we have to wait until Congress has made its judgment. But my view is that the best way to secure the passage of that bill is to treat this as a unit, which I believe it is.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in your reply to the Soviet aide memoire, you stressed several times the lack of the right of self-determination among the peoples of Eastern Europe, and within the week you have issued a proclamation looking to the freedom of captive nations. Can you conceive in the event of any popular uprisings in Eastern Europe of a more active role for the United States in support of those uprisings than was the case in Hungary in 1956?,THE PRESIDENT. I think--I'll stand on the statement which we made at this time.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you personally favor passage of aid to private schools as part of the National Defense Education Act, as part of the school package, which Congress should enact this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know--the bill which we sent to the Congress continued the previous assistance given to nonpublic schools to meet certain technical and defense requirements. The Office of HEW, I think, indicated to the House committee that the amendments which they added were not unconstitutional. Whether they are in public policy or not, and whether that would affect the final passage would be a judgment we would reach. They're not unconstitutional because they do not go across the board in a way which in my opinion is clearly unconstitutional. But the program which we support and which we hope the Congress will pass is the program we sent up there. Now, the Congress has to make its judgment on those bills. But in my judgment the best bills were the ones that--the most effective in meeting the problem was the legislation that we sent up there.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, Soviet Ambassador Menshikov is reported to have said that he did not think the United States people were either prepared or ready to go to war over Berlin. Do you think Ambassador Menshikov is sending back a correct assessment of the mood and temper of the American people?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I saw that this report came out of some function. I don't know how accurate it is, and whether that represents Mr. Menshikov's view. But I don't think that it's possible that anyone could read the aide memoire or the other statements which have been made by other governments and this Government without realizing that this is a very basic issue, the question of West Berlin, and that we intend to honor our commitments.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, tomorrow as you doubtless know marks the end of your first 6 months in the Presidency. In view of Laos, Cuba, and now Berlin, I wonder if there is anything you would care to tell us about the vicissitudes of the Presidency.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will say that we've had a--I think I said in the State of the Union address about the news will be worse instead of better. I would also say that Mr. Khrushchev would probably agree with that, in the sense that I think we are always conscious of the difficulties that we have. But there are a good many difficulties which should be taken into calculation in considering future bloc actions, in considering their own problems--whether it's the food shortage in China or the difficulties in other parts of the bloc empire, relations between Certain bloc countries, and all the rest.,Now, as far as the United States, we've been pleased with the progress we've made internally, as far as the economy, the progress the :country has made. We do feel we still have this problem of rather chronic unemployment. I'm glad that some of these: bills which have been discussed for a number of years have passed. I'm hopeful that we can add education to that and long-term borrowing authority for foreign aid. My judgment is that the American people and this Government and the Congress must realize that we're in a long struggle which we'll be involved with for a great many years against very powerful countries, nearly a billion people in them, with strong economies in some cases, and that we cannot look for success on every occasion.,But I think if we have the patience and willingness to take some setbacks without taking unwise actions, recognizing that there are also other successes which may not be as dramatic to us but certainly come within Mr. Khrushchev's calculations, that we can move through this period, I hope, protecting our vital interests and our commitments and also maintaining the peace. But no one should think that it's going to be easy.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-06-28","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.,[1.] I want to first of all express my regret at the information I've just received in regard to the death of our colleague in these press conferences and a fine newspaper man, Ed Koterba, who, I understand, was killed in a plane crash last night.,He was a most--he was an outstanding newspaperman who was associated with Scripps-Howard, and we want to express our sympathy to members of his family and also to the papers with which he was associated. I want to say personally that I'm extremely sorry to have heard the news.,[2.] Secondly, I should like to comment briefly on Germany and Berlin.,Soviet and East German leaders have followed the recent Soviet aide memoire with speeches Which were apparently designed to heighten tension. It is of the greatest importance that the American people understand the basic issues involved and the threats to the peace and security of Europe and of ourselves posed by the Soviet announcement that they intend to change unilaterally the existing arrangements for Berlin.,The \"crisis\" over Berlin is Soviet-manufactured.,The Soviets illegally blockaded the city in 1948 and lifted the blockade in the spring of 1949. From that time until November 1958, almost a decade, the situation in Berlin was relatively peaceful.,The peoples of West Berlin developed a thriving and vital city. We carried out our responsibilities and exercised our rights of access to the city without serious incident, although we were never completely free from irritating difficulties that were put in our way.,In November 1958, the Soviets began a new campaign to force the Allied Powers out of Berlin, a process which led up to the abortive summit conference in Paris of May last year.,Now they have revived that drive. They call upon us to sign what they call a \"peace treaty,\" with the regime that they have created in East Germany. If we refuse, they say that they themselves will sign such a treaty.,The obvious purpose here is not to have peace but to make permanent the partition of Germany.,The Soviets also say that their unilateral action in signing a \"peace treaty\" with East Germany would bring an end to Allied rights in West Berlin and to free access for that city.,It is clear that such unilateral action cannot affect these rights, which stem from the surrender of Nazi Germany.,Such action would simply be a repudiation by the Soviets of multilateral commitments to which they solemnly subscribed and have repeatedly reaffirmed.,About the exercise of the rights of the principal powers associated in World War II: If the Soviets thus withdraw from their own obligations, it is clearly a matter for the other three allies to decide how they will exercise their rights and meet their responsibilities.,But the Soviets say that when we do so, we will be subject to the designs of the East German regime and that these designs will be backed by force.,Recent statements by leaders of this regime make it very plain that the kind of \"free city\" which they have in mind is one in which the rights of the citizens of West Berlin are gradually but relentlessly extinguished--in other words, a city which is not free.,No one can fail to appreciate the gravity of this threat. No one can reconcile it with the Soviet professions of a desire to coexist peacefully.,This is not just a question of technical legal rights. It involves the peace and the security of the peoples of West Berlin. It involves the direct responsibilities and commitments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. It involves the peace and the security of the Western world.,In the interests of our own vital security, we and other Western countries entered in a defense arrangement in direct response to direct Soviet moves following World War II.,These alliances are wholly defensive in nature. But the Soviets would make a grave mistake if they suppose that Allied unity and determination can be undermined by threats or fresh aggressive acts.,There is peace in Germany and in Berlin. If it is disturbed, it will be a direct Soviet responsibility.,There is danger that totalitarian governments not subject to vigorous popular debate will underestimate the will and unity of democratic societies where vital interests are concerned.,The Soviet Government has an obligation to both its own people and to the peace of the world to recognize how vital is this commitment.,We would agree that there is unfinished business to be settled as concerns Germany. For many years, the Western nations have proposed a permanent and peaceful settlement of such questions on the basis of self-determination 0f the German people.,Moreover, we shall always be ready to discuss any proposals which would give increased protection to the right of the people of Berlin to exercise their independent choice as free men.,The proposals which have now been placed before us move in the opposite direction and are so recognized throughout the world.,Discussions will be profitable if the Soviets will accept in Berlin, and indeed in Europe, self-determination which they profess in other parts of the world, and if they will work sincerely for peace rather than an extension of power.,[3.] I have a second statement. The Soviet Union's refusal to negotiate seriously on a nuclear test ban at Geneva is disheartening to all those who have held high hopes of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and the pace of the arms race. It also raises a serious question about how long we can safely continue on a voluntary basis a refusal to undertake tests in this country without any assurance that the Russians are not now testing.,Consequently, I have directed that the President's Science Advisory Committee convene a special panel of eminent scientists to take a close and up-to-date look at the serious questions involved, including two questions in particular.,First, what is the extent of our information on whether the Soviet Union has been or could be engaged in secret testing of nuclear weapons?,Second, to the extent that certain types of tests can be concealed by the Soviet Union, what technical progress in weapons could be under way in that area without our knowledge?,These answers will be received and reviewed by myself, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council in the light of what they mean to the security of the free world.,In the meantime, our negotiating team will remain at Geneva, our draft treaty is on the table there, and I urge the leaders of the Soviet Union to end their intransigence and to accept a reasonable and enforceable treaty which is our wholehearted desire.,[4.] And lastly, Chairman Khrushchev has compared the United States to a worn-out runner living on its past performance and stated that the Soviet Union would out-produce the United States by 1970.,Without wishing to trade hyperbole with the Chairman, I do suggest that he reminds me of the tiger hunter who has picked a place on the wall to hang the tiger's skin long before he has caught the tiger. This tiger has other ideas.,Premier Khrushchev states that the Soviet Union is only 44 years old but his country is far older than that, and it is an interesting fact that in 1913, according to the best calculations I can get from governmental and private sources, the Russian gross national product was 46 percent of the United States gross national product.,Interestingly enough, in 1959 it was 47 percent. Because, while the Soviet Union was making progress and improving the material standards of her people in the ensuing years, so was the tired-out runner, and, on a per capita basis, the Soviet product in 1959 was only 39 percent of ours.,If both countries sustain their present rate of growth, 3 1/2 percent in the United States and 6 percent in the Soviet Union, Soviet output will not reach two-thirds of ours by 1970 and our rate will be far easier to sustain or improve than the Soviet rate, which starts from a lower figure.,Indeed, if our growth rate is increased to even 4 1/2 percent, which is well within our capability, it is my judgment that the Soviet Union will not out-produce the United States at any time in the twentieth century.,This faster growth rate is a primary object of the various measures I've submitted and will submit in the future, tax incentives, education, resource development, research, area redevelopment, and all the rest.,Mr. Khrushchev obviously sees the future differently than we do and he has urged his people to work hard to develop that future. We in the United States must work hard, too, to realize our potential.,But I believe that we can maintain our productive development and also our system of freedom. We invite the U.S.S.R. to engage in this competition which is peaceful and which could only result in a better living standard for both of our people.,In short, the United States is not such an aged runner and, to paraphrase Mr. Coolidge, \"We do choose to run.\",[5.] Q. Would you care to comment on recurrent reports that the administration is considering a partial mobilization to meet the threat in Berlin?,THE PRESIDENT. No such proposal has been placed before me at the present time. As you know this matter of what steps we would take to implement our commitments to Berlin have been a matter of consideration. Mr. Acheson, the former Secretary of State, was named to consider this matter in the middle of April. His report will be coming in--we're going to discuss it this week and we will be considering other proposals which might be put forward in order to make meaningful our commitment. But the proposals are still--have not still come to the White House officially and I'm therefore not able to comment because we have not seen any such proposal as you suggested at the present time, though of course we will be considering a whole variety of measures which might be taken.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in some retrospect, how do you now view the Cuban tractor deal? It seems pretty well off. What's the next move there? How do you plan to get those prisoners out of there now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the tractors--the committee offered Mr. Castro, as I understand it, the 500 agricultural tractors which he mentioned in the original speech. Mr. Castro has not accepted these agricultural tractors but is insisting on a different kind of tractor--far larger, which could be used for other purposes besides agriculture. The committee has therefore felt that Mr. Castro is not interested in permitting these prisoners to be released in return for agricultural tractors and, unless he changes his view, the situation will remain as it is.,I wish the prisoners could be free. I wish that it had been possible to secure their release because they are, as I said at my first statement, men in whom we have great interest and who are devoted to the cause of freedom. But I think the committee did everything that reasonable men and citizens could do. They were motivated by humanitarian interests. I think that they demonstrated, by exploring with Castro in detail, exactly the nature of Castro's interest.,If the--our first response had been negative, it might have been possible for Mr. Castro to say that we had refused to send agricultural tractors in return for these men. This committee went to every conceivable length in order to demonstrate their good faith. Mr. Castro did not accept it.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, I think we'd like to hear you say how you are feeling now.,THE PRESIDENT. Very well, very well. I'm feeling better, even, than Pierre Salinger.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, with respect to the Cuban operation, would you tell us what General Taylor's findings were and what reorganization or adjustment in our intelligence activities you contemplate as a result of this report?,THE PRESIDENT. General Taylor made an oral report to me, which I asked him to make and which I think will be useful to me. In addition, of course, General Taylor has been--is now a member of the staff of the White House as our military representative with special responsibilities in the field of defense matters and intelligence and coordination in those areas.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, will you tell us about the reorganization plan, if any, with respect to our intelligence activities because of his appointment?,THE PRESIDENT. No, that matter will--has not been completely--completed. In addition, we--the Killian committee is looking at the same matter and when the Killian committee has finished its preliminary surveys, we may have some changes.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, approximately 200 Members of Congress have protested to you regarding the Department of State plan for distributing low-priced textile imports among other Western nations. They urge abandonment of the plan because they feel it commits the United States to an unreasonable high level of low-priced imports in the future. Could you tell us whether this State Department plan has your unqualified support or whether you would favor modifying it to meet congressional objections?,THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, there's no plan yet. No solution has been devised to this problem of how we're going to provide for an orderly flow of textiles from the newly emerging countries which concentrate on this kind of commodity and how we're going to provide for an orderly flow between those countries and the consuming countries so that we protect the interests of the producing countries and the consuming countries.,It's an extremely complicated task. No decision has been reached as to what the formula would be. It is proposed that we discuss the formula, and I think that the conference should go on and we should discuss it. If we come to any conclusion about What should be done, and we have not reached that conclusion, as yet, we will inform the American people and the members of the Congress.,I do want to point out that we do export nearly 7 million bales of cotton every year. We sell more cotton to Japan than we import in textiles from all over the world. This is not a matter on which we can say we'll take no imports and at the same time feel that we can continue to provide this tremendous outflow of cotton.,We export nearly 7 million bales of cotton every year. We import a total of about 600,000 bales of cotton, manufactured into textiles a year. So that we have to consider the economic interests of the United States as well as other people. We sell Japan--I think last year we sold them $150 million more than they bought from us, totally. So that while I'm concerned about, and I am concerned about the problem of the textile industry, which is one of the reasons why this conference was called, as a result of the protests which were made by members of Congress because the imports have increased in the textile industry, and it is hard hit. I think it came, it increased in recent months and recent years from around 41/2 to 7 percent and therefore the trend is against, has been sharply--has provided for increases.,I do feel that we ought to take into account that this is a balance matter. In addition, some of the States which sell cotton overseas which may be adversely affected by textile imports--we also export a lot of textiles. We also, for example, export tobacco, which is an export product, so that we have to consider the general economic interest. We cannot expect that we're going to be able to cut off completely the importation of textiles and then think that we're going to have anything but ruin for our cotton exporters.,So it all has to be balanced, and one of the ways that the economic interests of all can be balanced is in this conference, and I support it.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, without respect to the current maritime strike, do you plan to take any action on the American-owned flags of convenience, or runaway ships, as you once described them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are concerned about the--as I have said before--about the problem of runaway ships in the sense that ships who are put by American owners under other flags in order to avoid paying the wage scale which we have for our American merchant marine, the United States Government pays a large share of the bill for important segments of the American merchant marine, including these wages. So when these ships leave us and compete against us, in a sense it affects not only the welfare of the seamen involved but also affects governmental policy and governmental obligations. So we are concerned about the matter.,But in regard to the actual details, I would prefer for the present to wait until the Cole committee makes its report in regard to Taft-Hartley. And we are also considering what we could do to see if we can work out some solutions which will ease the burden of the people involved.,There is also an obligation, let me say, on the representatives of the American merchant marine, an obligation of Mr. Curran and Mr. Hall to make sure that the problems of the American merchant marine in its competition with other areas are taken into consideration. They cannot merely consider it isolated. This is a competitive business. And we could very well find, instead of flags of convenience or so-called runaway ships, that the ships were actually put under the--which, and in those cases the American, the United States Government has some control over the ships. They could actually put them under the flags or have contractual relationship with the British or the Norwegians and then we would not have the control in case of a national emergency and we would still be being undercut.,So it's an extremely complicated question to which Secretary Goldberg and the Secretary of Commerce and the members of the committee are giving a good deal of attention.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in considering the resumption of nuclear testing, have you requested or do you propose to request a report and recommendation from the Federal Radiation Council regarding the consequences of fallout that may result from such a resumption of tests?,THE PRESIDENT. All these matters, of course, would be considered before any decision were reached.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel now in retrospect about summit meetings and do you foresee any more of them in the future?,THE PRESIDENT. Well I've never described the meeting in Vienna as a summit meeting. I think the meeting in Vienna was useful to--certainly to me in meeting my responsibilities, and perhaps it was also to Mr. Khrushchev. Because, as I've said from the beginning, these issues which we're now talking about are extremely serious issues which involve the well-being of a great many people besides even the people of the United States, and decisions have to be made on the basis of the best information we can get, and they involve the security of the United States and they involve also the peace of the world, and therefore if those decisions can be made more educated by such a meeting it was useful. Now there are no plans to have any further meetings that I know of.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, Vice President Nixon seems to be taking a dim view of your administration. He said in a speech yesterday that never in American history has a man talked so big and acted so little. Do you have anything to say about this?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't comment on Mr. Nixon. He has been engaged and busy and I sympathize with the traveling problems he has and his other problems but--[laughter]--I don't have any response to make. We're doing the best we can and will continue to do so until 1964 and then we can see what the situation looks like. [Laughter],[15.] Q. Mr. President, you said that if the United States can attain a rate of growth of 4 1/2 percent, that Russia will not catch up with us in the twentieth century. What is our rate of growth now, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, culling it from 1953 to today, it's about 3 1/2 percent.,[16.] Q. What are we doing to attain a rate of growth?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we're going to have a sharp--from the recession of 1960, winter of '61, we ought to have a substantial rate of increase. The big problem will be to sustain it over a period of time and that will require--I mentioned some of the things--a tax system which provides a stimulation to growth, education, and research, also the development of the natural resources of this country and also monetary and fiscal policies which will recognize the necessity of preventing a recurrence of these successive dips.,Now we had a recession in '54, we had a recession in '58, we had a recession in '60. The '60 recession came right on the heels of the '58 recession. Two of the reasons why it may have contributed--it was the movement from a $12 billion deficit in '58-59 to a prospective $4 billion surplus, which was a change of more than $16 billion in the potential receipts of the Government, which did have a restraining influence on the recovery.,Secondly, of course, the long-term interest rates were extremely high. Now we have to--the Federal Reserve will meet with Mr. Martin frequently. It's a very uncertain science, but we have to figure out what steps we can take--with this free economy--that will provide not only a recovery now, and we hope a reduced unemployment rate, but will also sustain it, not just through '62 but over a period of time. That we have to do if we're going to defeat Mr. Khrushchev, but it's within our potential and, therefore, I think, my judgment is that if the United States considers this problem and the people of the United States and the Government working together attempt to master this uncertain science in a more precise way, that we will remain not only ahead on a per capita basis but also on a national income basis in this century.,We have to recognize, of course, that the Soviet Union is working extremely hard and enjoys some advantages in being able to mobilize its resources for this purpose in the sense that a totalitarian society enjoys that advantage. What we wish was that they would do it under a system of freedom, but that is their decision.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there's been some criticism of our handling of inter-American affairs, particularly on grounds that you have a multiplicity of advisers in the White House duplicating and sometimes overruling people in the State Department. I wonder if you could define for us the relationship of policymakers on your staff as against those in State and perhaps in the Pentagon?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have in the White House a number of people who have responsibilities in various areas. And one of the areas in which we're particularly interested is Latin America. Now I've read the--I think it's--I was sorry that we did not secure a replacement for Mr. Mann more quickly. I did talk to almost eight people. We had assurances in a number of cases which lasted some days, but we finally did not--in every case we were not successful. I think we were very fortunate to have Mr. Woodward and perhaps maybe we should have started with Mr. Woodward. That's the first point.,Secondly, we are particularly interested in Latin America. My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial, beautifully coordinated, and all the rest it may be that there isn't much going on. I've never heard of any criticism of--I do not hear any criticism of our organizational structure in several areas of the world which I know are rather inactive as far as anything being done. So if you really want complete harmony and good will, then the best way to do it is not to do anything.,Now we haven't done so much in Latin America in the last decade. It has not been a matter of great priority. We are attempting to do something about it. And we've been fortunate to have the services of Mr. Berle who is completing the work of his task force. Mr. Goodwin from the White House has given it a great deal of attention, particularly the meeting of the IAECOSOC in Montevideo through the end of July. The whole refinancing of the Brazil debt, which could have been a most serious crisis in that very vital country, was handled in cooperation between the Treasury, the White House, the State Department, the Export-Import Bank, Food for Peace and ICA. We've also given particular attention to the economic problems of Bolivia.,So we are attempting to do something about Latin America and there's bound to be a ferment. If the ferment produces useful results then it will be worthwhile. But I must say I don't think--my experience is you can't get very much done if--when things are very quiet and beautifully organized, I think it's the time to be concerned, not when there is some feelings and interest and concern.,In addition, Governor Stevenson went down and made a tour there as a prelude to our meeting at Montevideo, which I think was useful. So I would say we have given more thought in this administration to the problem of Latin America than on almost any matter involving our foreign policy.,In answer to your question, when Mr. Woodward comes here next week he will be the responsible officer in the State Department and will work closely, I'm sure, with the Secretary of State and with me.,[18.] Q. Do you feel that the Berlin threat is serious enough for you to plan a personal meeting with the British and French to map our strategy there if the situation becomes indeed very hot?,THE PRESIDENT. It is a matter which we discussed with General de Gaulle and Mr. Macmillan. In addition, they've had--Lord Home was here--the French Government has had a representative, as well as the British Government, talking about the response in the aide memoire. I've no doubt that we will have close exchanges with Mr. Macmillan and General de Gaulle and when the matter reaches a point where a meeting would be useful, we would have it.,[19.] Q. On your statement this morning about a committee to go into the extent of information on Soviet testing, is there any suggestion here, sir, that we have an intelligence gap in this field? Or to specify, did not the Eisenhower administration and does not your administration pretty well know what the Soviets have been doing in nuclear testing during this,THE PRESIDENT. No, there's--in what way?,Q. I just wondered if you had information about what testing they may have been doing.,THE PRESIDENT. No, we do not--this is a matter which the committee will look into. But in answer to your question, I have not seen any information, nor did the previous administration have any knowledge, which would state that the Soviet Union had been testing--information either by seismography or by any other means. What is of concern is, is it possible to test without those evidences being secured? Is it possible to test underground, for example, without a determination being made that such a test is being carried on? That's the matter which we wish to have explored. But it would be inaccurate to state that we have information that would indicate to us that the Soviet Union is now testing. What we're concerned about is that our information is quite incomplete and we want to know whether it's possible that they could be testing without our knowing and what the chances are that that might be true.,[20.] Q. It has been almost 6 weeks, sir, since the conference on Laos has been under way. There seems to have been little progress, at least little understanding, between the two sides. Do you consider it worthwhile to continue the conference?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the cease-fire is generally in operation. What we're now concerned about are the details of the ICC's power, and I'm hopeful that we can secure effective instruction for the ICC, so that it can meet its responsibilities. I would continue the conversations to see if that can be obtained.,[21.] Q. Realizing that the Acheson and other contingency reports have not yet been finished, could you, nevertheless, give us at least a hint this morning in what areas the public may be involved in supporting your strong stand on Germany? I ask that question against this background: that it's generally considered that your words to Mr. Khrushchev in Vienna were highly impressive, but it's necessary to follow them up with decisions and deeds.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, well, that's the matter which is now engaging the attention of the United States Government; it is one of the matters which will be discussed at the Security Council tomorrow. But as of now, no report of the deliberations of the Pentagon and others as to what actions might be usefully taken have officially--have been finalized.,In addition, I would point out that we are talking about matters of extreme seriousness and I think that we should wait until a judgment has been reached as to what action we should take before it's useful to discuss it publicly. As of today, these considerations and recommendations have not yet come to the White House. One of the matters which will be discussed, as I say, tomorrow will be this matter at the Security Council.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, can something be done to require mortgage bankers to quit enriching themselves off of the FHA system of making loans? I refer to the many complaints that are coming in to FHA on this matter from widows and poor people who--buyers and sellers--who are losing, say, several hundred dollars on the sale of a small house to these mortgage bankers who laugh at the people and say FHA and your Government condones this system whereby we charge side payments for financing these loans.\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I think--I will look into it and Mr. Salinger will have a statement to make on it by tomorrow afternoon.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-05-05","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] This week Ambassador Arthur H. Dean has reported to me upon the status of the nuclear test ban conference at Geneva. On the opening day of the resumed conference, the United States in closest cooperation with the United Kingdom presented a series of new proposals, and on April 18, 1961, presented a complete nuclear test ban draft treaty. The new U.S. position represents an earnest and reasonable effort to reach a workable agreement. It constitutes a most significant overall move in these negotiations. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union has introduced a new proposition into the negotiations which amounts to a built-in veto of an inspection system.,The Soviet proposal calls for a three-man administrative council to direct inspection operations and other activities of the control arrangements. This proposal reverses a position to which the Soviet Union had previously agreed. In earlier negotiations before this session in Geneva, it had been agreed that the inspection system would be headed by a single administrator, operating within a mandate clearly defined in the treaty. The Soviet Union would substitute a directorate, representing the Communist bloc, the Western Nations, and uncommitted countries. Each member of this triumvirate would have to agree with every other member before any action could be taken. Even relatively detailed elements of the inspection system would be subject to a veto or a debating delay.,We recognize that the Soviet Union put forward its proposition before it had considered our new proposals. It is now considering our draft treaty, and we hope it will do so in a positive manner, as of course we are most anxious to secure an agreement in this vital area--a responsible and effective agreement.,Ambassador Dean is leaving for Geneva today to resume the negotiations. The United States will continue to strive for a reliable and workable agreement. I have asked Ambassador Dean to report to me within a reasonable time on the prospects for a constructive outcome.,[2.] Secondly, I have asked Vice President Johnson to undertake a special fact-finding mission to Asia. The Vice President has agreed to do this. I consider this an extremely important assignment and I will be looking forward to receiving the Vice President's firsthand reports when he returns.,The Vice President will report directly to me upon his return. It is expected that the State Department will make public the itinerary and the technicians who will accompany the Vice President as soon as possible. It is anticipated that in the course of his trip the Vice President will consult with top governmental officials and conduct discussions on the highest level relating to the situations in those countries.,[3.] Next, I have today instructed the United States representatives on the Council of the Organization of American States to propose the convocation on July 15th of an extraordinary meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council to be held at the ministerial level. The purposes of this meeting should be to initiate and develop planning and arrangements related to realistic economic development in the Americas, as well as to elaborate the objectives of the Act of Bogota in all key areas of economic and social betterment. This will be an important aspect of the cooperative program which I have set forth in the concept of the Alliance for Progress.,[4.] Finally, I was asked at a previous press conference what the Government was going to do about the aluminum extrusion plant that it owns in Adrian, Mich. I am pleased to announce that the General Services Administration has completed negotiations for the sale of the plant to the Harvey Aluminum Company of California and one of the conditions of the sale was that the plant be kept in production.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, you said earlier today that today's space flight should provide incentive to everyone in our Nation concerned with this program to redouble their efforts in this vital field. Do you have any specific proposals as to how these efforts should be redoubled, and would you want more money for space now than you have already asked from Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer to the question is yes, we are going to send an additional request for appropriations for space, which I hope will have a beneficial effect on the program. We are going to make a substantially larger effort in space.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in the speech prepared for delivery in Chicago last Friday which you did not read, you said that the principal adversary was not the Russians but rather our own unwillingness to do what must be done. Could you clarify for us your thinking on that and indicate some field in which the American people have not done what their governmental leaders asked?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the latter is not the correct--I said \"our,\" not to make a distinction between the Government and the people. I was talking about the common problems of our free society.,I do wish that some of the speeches I give would get as much attention as the speeches which I do not give. [Laughter],I do think there are a number of things that can usefully be done. We are going to require a larger effort in space. We are going to require a larger effort in other areas of the national security and we will be making our suggestions to the Congress.,I will say that this is a free society and it is not--it really requires a good deal of voluntary effort. On the matter of space, I've asked Secretary Goldberg to cooperate closely with Senator McClellan, to see if we can get a responsible, consistent effort by labor and management in the field of production of our missile program.,What is true there is true of other programs essential to our national defense. We have meeting at the White House, under the leadership of Secretary Goldberg and Secretary Hodges, a panel composed of the leading business and labor leaders of this country and public members, to see if we can persuade labor and management to come to useful national conclusions on problems of price and wages which will affect our balance of payments, and also address themselves to the problems of automation.,Now the Federal Government cannot compel that. All we can do is indicate the need. We are asking the people of this country to spend a good deal of money on mutual security and foreign assistance, which is not a popular program but which I believe to be essential. We have asked the people to support a greater effort both of the National Government and in their own communities--to improve education. We are asking the people of this country to try, regardless of their own personal views, to reach--to come closer to the constitutional concept of equality of opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their race or creed.,There are a good many of these areas which are within the private sector where each person can contribute usefully to strengthen education, to improve the opportunity for all Americans, to pay heavy burdens as they do in taxation to maintain programs which they may not always wholly agree with but which at least many of us feel to be in the national interest. In their own private work they consider the national needs, and we will continue to try to point out where we need a national effort.,Q. May I ask one follow-up question, sir? When you use the word \"our,\" are you suggesting that it's the unwillingness of Government and people to do what must be done?,THE PRESIDENT. I had not subjected that sentence to the--but what I do think is a problem is to, in a free society, to attempt to come to actions which permit us to compete successfully with the discipline of the Communist state. And I think it's probably not only true using the \"our\"--I would use it not only in the national sense, but also in the international sense.,There isn't any doubt, reading today's news from one country and another, that the forces of freedom are in many areas on the defense, partly because they have not always been 'willing to take those progressive steps which will associate the governments with the progressive aspirations of the people so that when I use \"our,\" I use it really in the sense of speaking of the common purpose of the free world, which affects other countries besides ourselves. But as time goes on, I think the point made in the question is a good one.,I think we should continue as much as we can to indicate where the people, other than in the payment of taxes or in their acceptance of military obligations, where they can usefully contribute to the advancement of the national interest. I have suggested several areas, and I will suggest others in time.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you would be prepared to send American forces into South Viet-Nam if that became necessary to prevent Communist domination of that country. Could you tell us whether that is correct, and also anything else you have regarding plans for that country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have had a group working in the Government and we have had a Security Council meeting about the problems which are faced in Viet-Nam by the guerrillas and by the barrage which the present government is being subjected to. The problem of troops is a matter-the matter of what we are going to do to assist Viet-Nam to obtain its independence is a matter still under consideration. There are a good many which I think can most usefully wait until we have had consultations with the government, which up to the present time--which will be one of the matters which Vice President Johnson will deal with: the problem of consultations with the Government of Viet-Nam as to what further steps could most usefully be taken.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, is the administration satisfied that the Indian Chairman of the International Control Commission in Hanoi has pressed as vigorously as he might have the right of the Commission to go to the Hanoi airfield, where the Soviet planes have been putting down on the way to Laos? Specifically, has he at times declined to have the Commission do that?,THE PRESIDENT. There has been, as you know, some disagreement as to the authority of the International Control Commission. I would hope that--and after all, this is a matter which the British have, and the Indian Government, as well as the other two members of the Control Commission, the Canadians and the Poles--I would hope that they would use maximum influence to make the Control Commission as effective as possible. And we would be--this Government would cooperate in every way to make it effective.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, is it anticipated that the United States will continue to train and arm the Cuban exiles in this country or elsewhere, or will that operation be disbanded?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no plans to train Cuban exiles as a Cuban force in this country or in any other country at this time. There are, of course, Cubans who live in this country or have the opportunity to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. But if your question means are we planning now to train a Cuban force, as I understand your question, we are not now training and are not now planning to train a Cuban force of the kind that your question would suggest.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you embarrassed or is the Government harmed in any way by the rather frank statements that Senator Fulbright has made on foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Am I embarrassed--and what was the other word?,Q. Or is the Government harmed in any way in its foreign relations by a member of your party speaking as he has?,THE PRESIDENT. No, Senator Fulbright and I spent an hour together last evening, and we've had--I've talked to Senator Fulbright, I think, at least on five different occasions. in the last 4 or 5 weeks, and I expect to continue to confer with him. He is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he is a valuable citizen, and I think his counsel is useful and I think that he should say what he thinks. And if he has indicated disagreement on occasions, then he has indicated general support on a good many other occasions, although that has not become as newsworthy.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, about 10 days ago you sent a message to Congress on the conflict of interest laws and in that message you mentioned that public confidence is the basis for effective government, and that when that confidence appears to falter or does-falter then we are in some sort of trouble. Since that time one of your Cabinet members, Secretary of the Interior Udall, has been involved in a situation in which one of his friends, believing to have acted on his suggestion, solicited members of the oil and gas industry for contributions to a $100-a-plate Democratic Rally.,Now, in this instance, do you believe that ethical standards have appeared to falter or have you had any advice for your Secretary in this case?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know that the Secretary attempted, I believe, according to what I read of his press conference and the conversations that I have had with him myself, did--when he heard of the letter that had gone out which he had not envisioned--did attempt to have those letters recalled.,I think this whole question of trying to raise funds for campaigns is a very difficult one and it leads to embarrassments. I wish and I hope that before we get into another presidential campaign that we can work out some system by which the major burdens of presidential campaigns on both sides would be sustained by the National Government, as suggested by Theodore Roosevelt, as suggested by Senator Neuberger--Dick Neuberger--when he was here. Because, to try to raise $6 million or $7 million, which a presidential campaign must, from people, is a very difficult task and leads to embarrassing situations. I made it clear in the campaign, and I make it clear again, that no one should contribute--that while we are glad to have support, no one should contribute to any campaign fund under the expectation that it will do them the slightest bit of good, and they should not stay home from a campaign fund or dinner or campaign under the slightest expectation that it will do them a disservice.,I'm satisfied that that's Mr. Udall's view, from my knowledge of him. But I do think that every member of the Cabinet, every member of this administration, should bend over backwards to make sure that there are no misunderstandings of the kind that could have arisen from this incident.,Secretary Udall understands that. I hope everybody else does. But I think the best way to prevent an embarrassment to a Cabinet officer--and I think that Mr. Udall was embarrassed by this incident--and embarrassment to an administration, would be to try to work out some other way of raising funds for these presidential campaigns, because there isn't any doubt that people give--and I am talking now not about this incident, but about generally--under the expectation that they should, or it is expected of them. As long as we can't get broader citizen participation, I think it ought to be done through the National Government, and I would support that strongly if the Congress would move in that direction.,Q. Have you spoken to Mr. Udall about this, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I have.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, has the administration made any determination with respect to an embargo on trade with Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. We had a meeting of the National Security Council in which we discussed the problems of Cuba. As you know, the only kinds of supplies that are now being sent to Cuba involve food and medicine, so that we have to consider carefully all of the implications of further action and that is being done.,Q. Is a decision imminent?,THE PRESIDENT. That will be considered carefully.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, in addition to the statement you issued earlier, will you here give your evaluation and reaction to today's successful launching of an American astronaut into space and back?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I first would like to repeat what I said about Major Gagarin, which was that as a human accomplishment and as a demonstration of courage, I think' everyone, whether they are citizens of this country or citizens of another country, take the greatest personal satisfaction in the accomplishment of another member of the human race.,As an American, I am, of course, proud of the effort that a great many scientists and engineers and technicians have made, of all of the astronauts, and, of course, particularly of Commander Shepard and his family.,We have a long way to go in the field of space. We are behind. But we are working hard and we are going to increase our effort. In addition, we are making available the scientific information which we have gathered to other scientists in the world community and people who share our view that the probe into space should be peaceful, and should be for the common good, and that will continue to motivate us.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, leaving aside the matter of the space trip today, I think many of us are concerned by the relentless knelling of the gong of gloom and doom by some of the administration officials who participate in foreign affairs. I was wondering, sir, if you could tell us if there are any bright spots on the international horizon?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we have grounds for encouragement. I am hopeful that NATO will be strengthened by the meeting in Oslo, and that we will make a more determined effort. I believe that as other situations become more difficult, that there is a common recognition of the need for closer collaboration. That is true of NATO.,Secondly, I am hopeful that our ties with Japan can become strengthened as the weeks and months pass, and I have a good deal of encouragement from the effort which India is making on its third 5-year plan, which if successful could make a tremendous difference in the cause of freedom throughout all of Asia.,Then I feel that there is a greater recognition in this hemisphere of--I don't think that there is any doubt about this--that there is a greater recognition of the urgency of a common hemispheric approach to the problems of poverty and a common hemispheric effort to improve the life of the people. In addition, I think there is a common hemispheric awareness now that there is cause for alarm in the determined effort which Communists are making to seize control of the liberal revolutionary movements which are endemic to the Western Hemisphere, and turn them to their own ends.,And, quite obviously, I think that we are happy about what happened this morning. I am not a pessimist about the future, but I think that we have a good many problems, but that doesn't,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you have emphasized on several occasions in public the necessity to find new nonmilitary ways to assert and support our foreign policy. Can you suggest to us this afternoon any ways in the immediate future that we might do that in meeting the Communist threat in Southeast Asia, specifically?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the United States can play an important role. And I think in considering the problems in our own hemisphere we have to remember that the United States is holding back--is protecting the integrity by its guarantees of a good many countries which are in the direct line of hazard in the Middle East, in Asia, and in Western Europe--and that in itself is a substantial accomplishment. We can assist these countries by our guarantees or at least we can protect these countries by our guarantees against outright military invasion. We can assist them through economic assistance to improve the life of their people. We can assist them through defense support in strengthening their armed forces against internal guerrilla activity. But in the final analysis they have to--and we cannot do it for them--they have to organize the political and social life of the country in such a way that they maintain the support of their people.,There is a limit beyond which our efforts cannot go. I think that I have described what our efforts can do. In the final analysis, then, the responsibility rests with the people involved to maintain the support of the people, to identify their government with the people.,One of the reasons why it has been a satisfaction to have the President of Tunisia here, Mr. Bourguiba, is that he has done that. He has stood for freedom; he has identified himself with a common effort--national effort--by the people under freedom, and that's what we need to do around the globe.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, what are you and the Defense Department doing to better prepare the one-half million dependents, more than half of whom are wives, sons, and daughters, of Peace Corps qualifications, for their roles while living overseas with their husbands, in the case of wives, and fathers, in the case of sons and daughters?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think the Defense--did you say the Defense Department?,Q. I asked what you and the Defense Department, because I was referring primarily to Armed Forces wives and sons and daughters who are of Peace Corps qualification.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that really is a responsibility of the Peace Corps, which is to-- may not be.,Q. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. [Laughter] We have at least 485,000 dependents of our Armed Forces--,THE PRESIDENT. In order to make themselves more effective?,Q. Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I see. I think that is a good--I don't know whether we are doing enough. I am not informed about the matter. I think it is a good point, and I think that the Defense Department and the State Department and the White House should see if there is anything more effective we can do, so we will.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the communistic declarations of Cuba's Castro, what is the position of the United States now on the Monroe Doctrine and how do we expect to enforce it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Monroe Doctrine and other treaties which the United States has committed itself to, of course, govern the foreign policy of the United States in this hemisphere. I have discussed the problem, and the Secretary of State has made other references to it. It is a matter of some concern now on an individual and hemispheric basis.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, how would you appraise your first 100 days in office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I feel I can read what you gentlemen write about it and I wouldn't attempt to contradict you.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of ties with Japan, as you did, do you think it might still be useful for General Eisenhower to visit Tokyo in the fall, or is that still under consideration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think whatever the judgment would be of the President, I would accept, and--,Q. The State Department has asked him not to, if I recall correctly.,THE PRESIDENT. I have looked into it and it is--I saw that statement and I have talked to the State Department, and we are attempting to come to a more definitive conclusion as to what we might suggest to him, though, of course, what we would do is give him all the information we have and then see what his best judgment was. I think that President Eisenhower could very usefully travel abroad as an individual and also, of course, as a respected citizen of this country. When and where he should go is a matter on which he would make a judgment. But we would, in the meanwhile, provide him with all the information we had as to the appropriateness-as, really, to the wisdom of exactly when those trips should be taken and where. The final decision will be made by the President--President Eisenhower--but We will make available to him all the information that we have.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you repeatedly mentioned the plight of laundry workers in some of our big cities, being paid substandard wages. How do you feel about both Houses having passed a minimum wage bill which specifically excludes them from coverage?,THE PRESIDENT. I wish we could include them in the coverage. I am hopeful that we will not settle with what we now have, but that we will get the laundry workers in. One of the problems with laundry workers, of course, is that they are paid quite badly now. I would say they are among the lowest group--almost the lowest group in the American economy. Laundries are not a prosperous business at the present time. The passage of the minimum wage of $1.25 would increase the cost of the laundry owners by a substantial sum because manpower represents a high percentage of their cost, and they are competing with home laundries, which now have become a rather easy alternative in many cases, so that the argument .is made that we would liquidate a substantial percentage of the industry and throw them out of work. So it is not the easiest problem. But, nevertheless, considering all that, in my judgment they should be covered. And that goes for hotel and restaurant workers, too--it was necessary to drop them in order to get the coverage we did. The coverage we passed, which was 3,600,000, is the first time that we expanded the coverage since 1938. It's a hard fight, but I am hopeful that we will come back to them and get those groups covered.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, does your administration have plans for further spending in public works as an attack on unemployment, and do your remarks that a substantially larger effort is needed in the space program indicate that you prefer to channel any extra spending into the military field?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I think we can make a judgment as to what additional efforts should be made in retraining or public works, and so on, based on our judgment of the economy, and also what other expenditures we have to make in the fields of national security and related--we are making a study of what greater effort should be made in the field of conventional forces at the present time. All these will be completed before the end of the month, and will be made public. So that we are trying to make a judgment on the state of the economy, of what usefully could be done, of the international and national needs. I cannot today give you an answer to the--,[22.] Q. Mr. President, is there any evidence that the Soviet Union is making available to the scientists in other countries the knowledge which it recently acquired from its man in space?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not heard it. Now, I don't want to be inaccurate. It is possible they have, but it has not been brought to my attention. And there was our statement this morning in which we spoke of the fact that we were going to disseminate it to other scientists. We did. It was suggested that others who have pioneered in this field have not made that information available.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in that connection, were you satisfied with the coverage given today of the space shot, and if you were, and it was not a successful thing, would we be back in the orphanage?,THE PRESIDENT. Back in the what?,Q. In the orphanage.,THE PRESIDENT. I agree that if it had failed, having had some experience with that, it would be a very difficult time for NASA and for us all. But fortunately, it succeeded. I have not got the answer, however, to the question of the buildup.,What I think is somewhat unfair is when pressmen themselves, or editorial writers, criticize NASA for attempting a big buildup with all of the implications it would have to our prestige and standing if there is a failure. We are not responsible, at least we are making every effort not to be responsible, for encouraging a press concentration on this event, because quite obviously if we fail we are humiliated here and around the world.,But in a free society, if a newspaperman asks to be represented, and to come, then he can come. So I think everybody ought to understand that we are not going to do what the Russians did, of being secret and just hailing our successes. If they like that system, they have to take it all, which means that you don't get anything in the paper except what the government wants. But if you don't like that system, and I don't, then you have to take these risks. And for people to suggest that it is a publicity circus, when at the same time they are very insistent that their reporters go down there, does seem to me to be unfair.,What is fair is that we all recognize that our failures are going to be publicized and so are our successes and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it or should.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-04-21","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, I have several announcements to make.,[1.] I know that many of you have further questions about Cuba. I made a statement on that subject yesterday afternoon. We are continuing consultations with other American Republics. Active efforts are being made by ourselves and others on behalf of various individuals, including any Americans who may be in danger. I do not think that any useful national purpose would be served by my going further into the Cuban question this morning. I prefer to let my statement 6f yesterday suffice for the present.,[2.] I am pleased to announce that the United States has offered concrete support to a broad scale attack by the United Nations upon world hunger. I have instructed the Food for Peace Director to offer $40 million in food commodities towards an initial United Nations reserve of $100 million. This will be administered by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. I am informed that other United Nations members will also make similar contributions. The food will then be used to relieve hunger and to improve nutrition in underdeveloped countries of the world. Our participation in this project will complement rather than diminish our existing Food for Peace program.,[3.] Third, I am pleased to announce that the Veterans Administration will pay a special insurance dividend of $230 million, in a decision made this morning, to approximately 5 million holders of GI life insurance, beginning July 1. These dividends have been speeded up in order to assist the economy.,[4.] And lastly, I am pleased to announce that the Peace Corps is proceeding with its first project. At the request of the Government of Tanganyika, an African country that will gain its first independence on December 28, the Peace Corps will send to that country a party of surveyors, geologists, and civil engineers to help Tanganyika's own technicians map and construct roads. Twenty surveyors, 4 geologists, and 4 civil engineers will provide some of the skills needed to accelerate the development plan. There is nothing more important in Tanganyika than the development of roads to open up the country, and I am delighted that some Americans have volunteered to help in this important effort.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us anything about your talk with Vice President Nixon last night?,THE PRESIDENT. I brought--the Vice President came to the White House at my invitation, and I informed him of brought him up to date, on the events of the past few days.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us the status of the mid-April economic review you promised?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I stated at a previous conference at the end of I think 75 days we were going to undertake a review of the economy. That is now under way under the direction of Dr. Heller, and I hope when that survey is completed that we will have a statement to make on it.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, respecting your feeling of not going beyond your statement of yesterday on Cuba, there still is in print this morning, quite widely distributed, a published report that you took the decision to continue training Cuban refugees with arms provided by this Government and for releasing ships and fuel for launching the current operations in Cuba.,Furthermore, this report says that you reached this decision against the advice of Secretary Rusk and Mr. Bowles. Now, is this true?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the facts of the matter involving Cuba will come out in due time. I am sure that an effort will be made to determine the facts accurately. As for me, I am confining myself to my statement for good reason.,Q. Mr. President, this is not a question about Cuba; it's a question about Castro.,Could you tell us whether any intelligence that you have received can shed any light on the reports that the Prime Minister has been incapacitated, that he has not been heard from since Monday or Tuesday, or reports to that effect?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I cannot. I saw some, I think some reference was on the ticker this morning that Mr. Castro was seeing some members of the press today, so I suppose we will have a better idea of that later on.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the leaders of House and Senate Republicans told us yesterday at a press conference that they are setting up special study committees on the effect of automation and technological improvements in agriculture as well as industry.,Are you hoping that your Democrats in Congress will set up similar study committees? Do you need them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I do think that on the Subcommittee on Labor, a subcommittee headed by Congressman Holland, of Pennsylvania, has been conducting studies on the effect of automation for some months.,In regard to the effect of automation on agriculture, I think it is--some of our most serious problems which have arisen in agriculture have been because of research combined with automation, which have brought an extraordinary increase in production, with far less manpower, so that I know that this problem is a matter of substantial concern to all of us.,I am glad that the Republicans are conducting this study, because I think all the attention we can get by both parties into what I consider to be a genuine national problem, automation--what happens to the people who are thrown out of work--I think will be most useful. And agriculture, where we have a great increase in production, with around 4 million people less than we had several years ago, some years ago, in many ways is one of the most extraordinary and admirable facets of our national life.,I think it is unfortunate that we are not able to bring it more to the attention of the world where so many people, including in the Soviet Union and in China, are spending most of their time on subsistence agriculture, that we are able to have this extraordinary production with very few people. But like all blessings, they bring problems with them. And I am glad they are conducting the studies.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, at your last news conference you expressed hope that the Soviets would agree within a few days to a cease-fire in Laos. More than a week has gone by since then and the Soviets have not agreed yet. Could you tell us how much longer you will wait before contemplating other kinds of action?,THE PRESIDENT. I understand that the British and the Soviets are conferring at the present time, using it in a general sense, and we are hopeful that a cease-fire can be obtained in Laos. We continue to be hopeful.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Nixon, on the Ev and Charlie Show yesterday said that he was going to give you to days' grace to produce on your campaign promises that certain things would be done by 90 days. Did he go into this or other domestic politics in your White House meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there was nothing stated about--on politics. Mr. Nixon and I discussed matters of national concern, and it was done in a wholly nonpolitical way. Mr. Nixon's response was most helpful.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would tell us what your grounds, your investigations of the Maj. Gen. Ted Walker incident in Europe--if you will please tell us what grounds you found for relieving him of his command for allegedly teaching troops anti-Communist doctrine?,THE PRESIDENT. When I saw the stories in regard to the things which had been said, or at least alleged to have been said in regard to General Walker, I called Secretary McNamara and asked him to investigate. Secretary McNamara then, I believe, suspended General Walker--and my term may not be precise--\"pending a completion of investigation,\" but no decision has been made in regard to General Walker until the investigation has been completed, to find out exactly what was going on.,I do not believe that Secretary McNamara took even that limited action, however, merely because he felt that General Walker was teaching--talking against the Communists. That was not the ground for concern. But no final decision, to the best of my information, has been made on the matter of General Walker. He will be given every opportunity, and those who have been critical of him will be given every opportunity, to present their case. And a final decision will then be made by Mr. McNamara, who will then bring the matter to my attention and I will then review it, without prejudice to General Walker.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, you don't seem to be pushing the space program nearly as energetically now as you suggested during the campaign that you thought it should be pushed. In view of the feeling of many people in this country that we must do everything we can to catch up with the Russians as soon as possible, do you anticipate applying any sort of crash program, or doing anything that would--,THE PRESIDENT. We have added, I think it was $130 million to the budget on space several weeks ago, which provides some speedup for Saturn, some speedup for Nova, some speedup for Rover. And I will say that the budget for space next year will be around $2 billion. Now, we are now and have been for some time attempting to make a determination as to developing larger boosters, whether the emphasis should be put on chemical, nuclear rockets or liquid fuel, how much this would cost. And some of these programs have been estimated to be between 20 and 40 billion dollars.,We are attempting to make a determination as to which program offers the best hope before we embark on it, because you may commit a relatively small sum of money now for a result in 1967, '68, or '69, which will cost you billions of dollars, and therefore the Congress passed yesterday the bill providing for a Space Council which will be chaired by the Vice President. We are attempting to make a determination as to which of these various proposals offers the best hope. When that determination is made we will then make a recommendation to the Congress.,In addition, we have to consider whether there is any program now, regardless of its cost, which offers us hope of being pioneers in a project. It is possible to spend billions of dollars in this project in space to the detriment of other programs and still not be successful. We are behind, as I said before, in large boosters.,We have to make a determination whether there is any effort we could make in time or money which could put us first in any new area. Now, I don't want to start spending the kind of money that I am talking about without making a determination based on careful scientific judgment as to whether a real success can be achieved, or whether because we are so far behind now in this particular race we are going to be second in this decade.,So I would say to you that it's a matter of great concern, but I think before we break through and begin a program which would not reach a completion, as you know, until the end of this decade for example, trips to the moon, may be 10 years off, maybe a little less, but are quite far away and involve, as I say, enormous sums--I don't think we ought to rush into it and begin them until we really know where we are going-to end up. And that study is now being undertaken under the direction of the Vice President.,Q. Mr. President, don't you agree that we should try to get to the moon before the Russians, if we can?,THE PRESIDENT. If we can get to the moon before the Russians, we should.,Q. Mr. President, isn't it your responsibility to apply the vigorous leadership to spark up this program?,THE PRESIDENT. When you say \"spark up the program,\" we first have to make a judgment based on the best information we can get whether we can be ahead of the Russians to the moon. We are now talking about a program which may be--which is many years away.,Q. The Saturn is still on a 4n-hour week, isn't it, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. We have, as I say, appropriated $126 million more to the Saturn and we are attempting to find out what else we can do. The Saturn is still going to put us well behind. Saturn does not offer any hope of going to the--being first to the moon. The Saturn is several years behind the Soviet Union. I can just say to you that regardless of how much money we spend on Saturn, the Saturn is going to put us-we are still going to be second.,The question is whether the nuclear rocket or other kinds of chemical rockets offer us a better hope of making a jump forward, but we are second, and the Saturn will not put us first.,I want, however, to speed up, if we can, the Saturn, and the Vice President is now leading a study to see what we ought to do in this area.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, do you anticipate that there will be a vote in both Houses of Congress this year on your medical care program?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. If we had a vote in the House it would depend, of course, on the action of the Ways and Means Committee, so that I'm not--I haven't any information yet as to whether we will get a vote in the House. It is possible that there will be one in the Senate, which is not restricted by the same rules.,Q. There have been reports on Capitol Hill that this administration has reconciled itself to no vote on medical care this year.,THE PRESIDENT. In either body; in either House?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I haven't seen the reports and I would not make that assumption. I am hopeful that--we are dependent in the House on committee action. There can't be a vote in the House without action by the committee because of the rules of germaneness. In the Senate, however, there is a somewhat different situation, but there is no rule of germaneness.,So it's possible that somebody might offer the bill in the Senate as an amendment to another bill. I don't know that yet, but it is very possible that you could get a vote in the Senate this year.,The House is a different problem. You can't get a vote unless the Ways and Means Committee acts.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, your order to investigate General Walker suggests that you look askance at the teachings of the John Birch Society. Can you tell us how you feel about that organization?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think that their judgments are based on accurate information of the kinds of challenges that we face. I think we face an extremely serious and intensified struggle with the Communists. But I'm not sure that the John Birch Society is wrestling with the real problems which are created by the Communist advance around the world.,I would hope that all those who are strongly concerned about it would address themselves to the kinds of problems which are created by Laos, Viet-Nam, by internal subversion, by the desperate life lived by so many people in this hemisphere and in other places which the Communists exploit.,These are the kinds of problems that we are dealing with. I said something about them yesterday. The use which the Communists make of democratic freedoms and the success which they are able to--once they have seized power--success with which they are able to maintain their power against dissent.,This seems to me to be the problem. We have talked about and read stories of 7,000 to 15,000 guerrillas operating in Viet-Nam, killing 2,000 civil officers a year and 2,000 police officers a year--4,000.,Now, there's been an election in Viet-Nam in which 75 percent of the people, or 80 percent, endorse the government. And yet we read how Viet-Nam is in danger because of guerrilla operations carried on by this small well disciplined, well supplied, across the border group of guerrillas.,How we fight that kind of a problem which is going to be with us all through this decade seems to me to be one of the great problems now before the United States. And I would hope all those who are concerned about the advance of communism would face that problem and not concern themselves with the loyalty of President Eisenhower or President Truman or Mrs. Roosevelt or myself or someone else.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, was your speech yesterday before the editors intended to suggest another approach or a new departure in the administration's dealing with the Russians?,THE PRESIDENT. No--I didn't--no.,Q. You have practiced what has been described as the quiet diplomacy approach and your speech yesterday seemed to suggest that you have perhaps decided upon another approach.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't attempt to make a judgment or response to that. I think that--I am concerned about the kind of problem which I just described. I don't feel satisfied that we have an effective answer to it yet and I think it's a matter of greatest possible concern to all of us because I think events have been moving with some speed.,The use which the Communists make of democracy, and then when they seize power, the effectiveness with which they manage the police apparatus so that dissent cannot arise and so that the people can no longer express their will--liquidation by gunfire of the opposition or by forcing them out of the country to be refugees--this suggests the kind of a problem which we are going to have in this decade.,And in my judgment it's an extremely difficult matter for the free nations to deal with. But I must say that it's a matter to which we must address all of our energy and all of our attention.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, how would you evaluate the present state of your domestic program in Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we've done better recently. Yesterday the Senate passed the $1.25 minimum wage. There was action on aid to dependent children and on social security. The vote in the Senate was very ample on the minimum wage. I think there were only 28 votes against it so I think that at least yesterday there was--we made progress.,Q. How much more, sir, do you think needs to be done in order to give you a satisfactory score on your hoped-for legislative program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm hopeful that we can move ahead on the various other parts of the program, including education and housing. We are making progress on social security, distressed areas, and minimum wage. There may be other proposals which we might make to the Congress after we've considered--completed our review of the economy and made a judgment as to exactly what peak or plateau the economy is going to reach this year. And that is what we're attempting to do now and to see whether any additional Government programs may be necessary to encourage it.,[17.] Q. Sir, since last Saturday a certain foreign policy situation has given rise to many conflicting stories. During that time reporters in Washington have noticed that there's been a clamming up of information from formerly useful sources. To my knowledge the State Department and the White House have not attempted to take a representative group of reporters and say, \"These are the facts as we know them,\" and this morning we are not permitted to ask any further questions about this foreign policy situation. In view of the fact we are taking a propaganda lambasting around the world, why is it not useful, sir, for us to explore with you the real facts behind this, or our motivations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think, in answer to your question, that we have to make a judgment as to how much we can usefully say that would aid the interest of the United States. One of the problems of a free society, a problem not met by a dictatorship, is this problem of information. A good deal has been printed in the paper and I wouldn't be surprised if those of you who are members of the press will be receiving a lot of background briefings in the next day or two by interested people or interested agencies.,There's an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan. And I wouldn't be surprised if information is poured into you in regard to all of the recent activities.,Now, I think we see some of the problems, to move from this particular case into the problem of space where in the Soviet Union no reports were made in regard to any experiments that they carried out on \"our man in space.\" I saw in a national magazine about some student who said the Americans talk a good deal about their man in space, the Soviet Union says nothing and yet it wins. That is one of the problems of a democracy competing and carrying on a struggle for survival against a dictatorship.,But I will say to you, Mr. Vanocur, that I have said as much as I feel can be usefully said by me in regard to the events of the past few days. Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility because I'm the responsible officer of the Government--and that is quite obvious-but merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation.,But as I say, I think you'll be informed and some of the information, based on what I have seen, will not be accurate.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, have you any assurance your tax investment incentive plan will be supported in Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I think it will be a hard fight because the plan when it was sent up was intended to secure as much revenue as may have been lost because of the tax credit plan. The tax credit plan puts special emphasis on stimulating new industry and therefore new employment, but in order to make up the revenues we lost by the tax credit plan we have had to take control of other revenues, and of course those people are going to object--the expense accounts and the dividend credits and so on, so that I think we will have a hard fight.,Q. You asked for it at this session--do you think your educational program will be persuasive this session?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope so because I really believe that the tax credit program, in fact, the whole tax bill, was carefully considered by people in the Treasury as well as the Council of Economic Advisers. It had the strong support of Mr. Dillon and others who have given this matter great consideration. I am hopeful that Congress will respond favorably. But it is a technical matter, it involves important interests. And I think it will have a--be very soberly considered, which I hope it will be. But I am hopeful that it will pass and I think it would be useful if it would.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, are you contemplating visiting any other countries besides France on your trip at the end of May to see General de Gaulle?,THE PRESIDENT. I am planning--my only present plan is to go to France.,Q. There had been some talk that you're going to London, I understand, to christen the Radziwill baby.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that has been considered but I've not reached any judgment on it. I think there is some interest by the family. and it would really be a question of whether we could--whether it would be the best thing to do.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, would you explain the reason for the dropping of espionage charges in Chicago recently against the Russian spy Melekh, and was that a part of a bargain for the RB-47 fliers?,THE PRESIDENT. In answer to the last part of the question, it was not. There was no connection. The dropping of the charges was made after an examination of the details of the case and of the national interest and it was felt that it would be useful to take the action we took. I am sorry I can't be more responsive but I will say it was not in regard to the RB-47 fliers.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, we have demonstrated a great capability in space and communications and meteorology. While these are not as dramatic as a man orbiting in space, there has been a strong feeling among scientists the world over that the country that would first develop a space telecommunications system to bring communications within the reach of every nation in the world at the price they could afford would make an even greater impact than the country that orbited man first in space.,Are you considering putting more funds, because you have cut some, in both communications and meteorology--are you considering adding more funds to the budget?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I believe that we have, or are about to, if we haven't already done so, put an additional--and I just have to go from memory now, of a decision made several weeks ago--I am under the impression that we decided to put another 25 to 27 million dollars into a communication satellite as part of this general program.,Q. Yes, but industry also has been interested in putting its funds in it, and there was a statement by Mr. Webb that we weren't going to at this point put any of this program into industry's hands until we had investigated further. Since they're willing to spend money, are you considering perhaps allowing them to share the cost and advance this program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know enough about the matter to give you a detailed answer, except I do know that we did put an additional sum of money for a communications satellite, amounting to the sum that I suggested there. Now if there are any other further things that can be done, or if anyone else wants to put their money into it, I am sure that Mr. Webb would be agreeable. But I must say from examining this and other programs, I find that the Government puts most of the money into them.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, do you intend to send Vice President Johnson to Southeast Asia soon?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been considering the Vice President going to Southeast Asia, and I think a decision will be reached on that in the next--perhaps over the weekend or the next few days.,[23.] Q. Given the stress that you've put this morning and in recent days on this problem of fighting the indirect Communist tactics, do you still-and also given the rather harsh language out of Moscow, including Mr. Khrushchev's note to you-do you still feel that it is useful to go ahead with efforts at the diplomatic level to negotiate formal agreements with the Soviet Government?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we still continue to hope that some agreement could be reached on the cessation of nuclear tests. We are, of course, very discouraged by the newest insistence of the Soviets on a veto. It's quite obvious that the Senate would not accept such a treaty nor would I send it to the Senate, because the inspection system then would not provide any guarantees at all.,Now, I noticed the language used by Mr. Khrushchev himself, not merely one of his representatives, in Mr. Lippmann's article, a strong insistence on the tripartite and on unanimous agreement in regard to the inspection system. I am hopeful that there may be a change in that. But if there isn't a change in that position,-it is going to be very hard to get an agreement. But I believe that Mr. Dean should continue because if these test conversations should break up, then of course our hopes of getting any agreement on disarmament would be substantially lessened and we could look for a proliferation of atomic testing in other countries.,So that I feel that Mr. Dean should continue, though we have been discouraged by the Russian position.,Q. Do you feel, sir, that it is possible to have really a two-level operation here, an undeclared kind of warfare which you have been talking about, and yet a formalized effort not only in the test ban negotiations but in terms of exchanges and other types of negotiations? Are these two things compatible?,THE PRESIDENT. The incompatibility may rest in the fact that it's hard to get an agreement on any matter when there is suspicion between the two systems and when one of the systems are pressing their interest with great vigor around the world.,It makes the chances of getting any agreement far less. I thought the best hope was the nuclear testing, even though it was always true that the obstacles were large.,But if there is any chance at all of getting an agreement on a cessation of nuclear tests, regardless of what appear to be the obstacles,\nI think we should press on.,So in answer to your question, I still believe that Mr. Dean should continue to work at Geneva.\nReporter. Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-04-12","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements.,[1.] Today is the 16th anniversary of the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is also the anniversary of the announcement of the vaccine which has been discovered to prevent paralytic polio. Today over 90 million Americans have been vaccinated with the Salk vaccine. Over 80 million remain unvaccinated. Almost 4,800,000 children have not been vaccinated and a majority of these are under 5 years of age. I hope that the renewed drive this spring and summer to provide vaccination for all Americans, and particularly those who are young, will have the wholehearted support of every parent in America. I hope that they will, knowing some of the long-range suffering which comes from an attack of polio, with this miraculous drug, I hope that everyone takes advantage of it.,[2.] Secondly, I wish to announce the formation of an advisory group, the members of which will be assisting Mr. Labouisse and other governmental officials in bringing about the much needed change in our foreign aid program which we announced in March. Mr. Eugene Black, President of the International Bank, and other distinguished members of the banking community who are familiar with the problems of development assistance abroad will be working with us. We have also secured the services of a distinguished member of the New York Bar, Mr. Theodore Tannenwald, who has agreed to assist us in the drafting of the new legislation; and Mr. George Gann of the Ford Foundation, who is giving us the benefit of his experience in the organizational aspects of the work. And finally, and in the most important phase of the effort, we are fortunate to have the services of Robert Blum of the Asia Foundation, William Dale of the Stanford Research Institute, and Samuel P. Hayes, of the University of Michigan, Don Humphrey of the Fletcher School in Massachusetts, and Professor Arthur Smithies of Harvard, who will work with Dr. Max Millikan of MIT, and Mr. Frank Coffin, Director of the Development Loan Fund, to shift the aid to a sound and economical basis.,[3.] Thirdly, I wish to announce that the U.S. Naval Ordnance Plant at South Charleston, W. Va., will be sold to the Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation of New York City. The General Services Administration has accepted the bid of $4,320,000, and this company is proposing to provide a development which will, they hope, stimulate the economy in this area and in this State, which is a matter of particular interest.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, has a decision been reached on how far this country will be willing to go in helping an anti-Castro uprising or invasion of Cuba? What could you say with respect to recent developments as far as the anti-Castro movements in Cuba are concerned?,THE PRESIDENT. First, I want to say that there will not be, under any conditions, an intervention in Cuba by the United States Armed Forces. This Government will do everything it possibly can, and I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba.,Secondly, the Justice Department's recent indictment of Mr. Masferrer, of Florida, on the grounds that he was plotting an invasion of Cuba, from Florida, in order to establish a Batista-like regime should indicate the feelings of this country towards those who wish to re-establish that kind of an administration inside Cuba.,Third, we do not intend to take any action with respect to the property or other economic interests which American citizens formerly held in Cuba, other than formal and normal negotiations with a free and independent Cuba.,The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the United States and Cuba. It is between the Cubans themselves. I intend to see that we adhere to that principle and as I understand it this administration's attitude is so understood and shared by the anti-Castro exiles from Cuba in this country.,[5.] Q. Could you give us your views, sir, about the Soviet achievement of putting a man in orbit and what it would mean to our space program, as such?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is a most impressive scientific accomplishment, and also I think that we, all of us as members of the race, have the greatest admiration for the Russian who participated in this extraordinary feat. I have already sent congratulations to Mr. Khrushchev, and I send congratulations to the man who was involved.,I indicated that the task force which we set up on space way back last January, January 12th, indicated that because of the Soviet progress in the field of boosters, where they have been ahead of us, that we expected that they would be first in space, in orbiting a man in space. And, of course, that has taken place. We are carrying out our program and we expect to--hope to make progress in this area this year ourselves.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, your white paper,1 last week, referred in very diplomatic language to the takeover by communism in Cuba. Is it your view that Fidel Castro is personally a Communist?,1 \"Cuba\" (Department of State Publication 7171, Inter-American Series 66, April 1961).,THE PRESIDENT. Well, he has indicated his . admiration on many occasions for the Communist revolution; he has appointed a great many Communists to high positions. A great many of those, I think, in the white paper--well, rather, the state paper--he indicated that two-thirds of those who had been members of his first government had fled Cuba, people who had a strong feeling for the revolution but who did not propose to see it come under the domination of the Communists.,So I would not want to characterize Mr. Castro except to say that by his own words he has indicated his hostility to democratic rule in this hemisphere, to democratic liberal leaders in many of the countries of the hemisphere who are attempting to improve the life of their people, and has associated himself most intimately with the Sino-Soviet bloc, and has indicated his desire to spread the influence of that bloc throughout this hemisphere.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in your talks with Prime Minister Macmillan, did you come to some common understanding on the best way to handle the problem of Red China in the United Nations next fall?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we discussed the problem. We also discussed the differing approach which the United States has followed. We discussed the problem of the admission of Red China. We also discussed the fact that there was a difference in approach between the British and ourselves. I made it very clear that the United States was going to continue to meet its commitments to the people on Formosa--the government on Formosa--and I also did discuss the fact that the vote on the moratorium was very close. And that we had no--cannot make a final judgment as to what the vote on the moratorium will be on the admission of Red China. But I must say that the report I saw this morning of that conversation from London was not accurate in that it indicated that the United States had changed its position on the moratorium. That we have not done. And I want to take this opportunity to emphasize that the United States supports the Taiwan, Formosa, Government in its membership in the United Nations and is exploring with all interested parties what the position will be in the discussions at the United Nations next fall. The Prime Minister made his own position clear and that of his government.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, how do you reconcile your concern with unemployment in connection with the closing of about 50 military installations, which will throw thousands of civilian employees out of work?,THE PRESIDENT. I might say just to make it perfectly clear, in response to Mr. Hightower's question, in conclusion I would say that the United States is opposed under present conditions--continues to be opposed under present conditions to the admission of Red China.,Now, on your question, we stated in the-we have asked for a substantial increase in expenditures for the national defense. This will affect, beneficially, employment. I think we said in our statement very clearly that we did not think that defense bases should be kept going when they no longer had a--when there was no longer a need for them in order to maintain the defensive strength of the United States. I think that is a traditional position and one which this administration will follow. We will attempt to the best of our ability to maintain jobs for the people who are involved, but we cannot get a strong national defense if we continue defense systems or bases which are archaic and outmoded, and which no longer represent a real need. I am hopeful that the country's economy generally will be strong enough to absorb those who may be thrown out of work because of structural changes in our defense system. But I think it is a serious problem; as we change from planes to missiles you affect employment not only in the bases but in the defense industries themselves. This is a serious matter for the Government, but we cannot permit ourselves-we are paying in the $40 billions for national defense, which represents a heavy burden, and we have to make it as efficient as possible. So we will try to do that with due regard to the needs of people who are involved. But I am hopeful we can meet their needs on a broader national basis, and not merely maintaining bases for which we no longer have a need in our defense structure.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any indication that the Russians may be about to release the U-2 pilot, Francis Gary Powers?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not. I have seen the story, but we do not have any information on the matter.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, the Russians seem to be taking their time in replying to the urgent call for a cease-fire in Laos. In the meantime, there are reports that they have stepped up their airlift of weapons to the rebels. How long can you afford to wait before the Soviets reply?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not sure that there is evidence that a step-up--there may have been an increase of 1 or 2 days, but over a period of 10 days or so, or 2 weeks, I don't think that there is any evidence that there has been very marked increase in their supplies. The supplies have continued, but I don't think it is fair to say, or accurate to say, that there has been a sharp step-up in the last few days.,I am hopeful that we are going to get an answer, I hope, this week, shortly, so that we can get a cease-fire and so that the supplying of forces on both sides could be ended. Our supplies to the government forces are continuing.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Kefauyet and Representative Celler say that we must have legislation to bring down the prices of medicines for sick people and protect the purity of drugs. They have introduced legislation to do that by amending the patent and antitrust laws. Are you for that? Can you do anything executively, or can you do it through the Department of Justice?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that it may be that we can take some action executively without the Congress, and I will be glad to look into that. The Federal Trade Commission also, I am sure, will concern itself with this problem and with other related problems. Mr. Dixon was the counsel for that committee, who is the new chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.,I will be looking with interest to Mr. Kefauver's efforts in this area because the prices are high. I do think, moving away from your point, which I think is a good one, that all this effort would be useful and I think it would also be useful to provide medical care for the aged tied to social security as another facet of the problem of helping our people pay for--afford good health.,[12.] Q. Sir, will you help, actively, Senator William Blakley of Texas to get elected? He is running in the primary on the Democratic ticket, and he has opposed your program quite a bit, and also opposed some of your nominees.,THE PRESIDENT. He has been nominated by the party, but to the best of my knowledge I haven't heard--he hasn't asked for me, my assistance, as yet. If he does, I will certainly be glad to do what I think is useful. [Laughter] But I'm for Democrats in these fights between--I have read Mr. Tower's speech and so I think probably the people of Texas can decide these things. It isn't very useful, ordinarily, for people to come from out of State, whether it is the President or Senator Goldwater or anyone else, and I think probably the people of Texas can make a very effective judgment without external advice. But I would be glad to give it, if asked.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, this question might better be asked at a history class than a news conference, but here it is, anyway. The Communists seem to be putting us on the defensive on a number of fronts--now, again, in space. Wars aside, do you think that there is a danger that their system is going to prove more durable than ours?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we are in a period of long drawn-out tests to see which system is, I think, the more durable, not better, but more durable. And we have had a number of experiences with this kind of competition--a dictatorship enjoys advantages in this kind of competition over a short period by its ability to mobilize its resources for a specific purpose. We have made some exceptional scientific advances in the last decade, and some of them--they are not as spectacular as the man-in-space, or as the first sputnik, but they are important. I have said that I thought that if we could ever competitively, at a cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water, that it would be in the long-range interests of humanity which would really dwarf any other scientific accomplishments. I am hopeful that we will intensify our efforts in that area.,I think that if we could increase the techniques for improving education in uneducated sections of the world--by using the latest devices of science--that that would be an extraordinary accomplishment. I do not regard the first man in space as a sign of the weakening of the free world, but I do regard the total mobilization of man and things for the service of the Communist bloc over the last years as a source of great danger to us. And I would say we are going to have to live with that danger and hazard through much of the rest of this century.,My feeling is that we are more durable in the long run. These dictatorships enjoy many short-range advantages, as we saw in the thirties. But in the long run I think our system suits the qualities and aspirations of people that desire to be their own masters. I think our system suits better. Our job is to maintain our strength until our great qualities can be brought more effectively to bear. But during the meantime, it is going to require a united effort.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, one aspect of the problem you have just been discussing is the strength of our economy. There has been increasing comment from both within your own administration and outside to the effect that even when we pull out of the current recession, we are going to be left with a very large, serious amount of unemployment. It has been suggested that measures quite different in character from what you have proposed, more far reaching, will be necessary to cure that. And I wonder whether you have anything further in mind?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, I would like to see the measures that we have suggested be passed. We haven't yet secured the passage of the depressed area bill. We haven't yet secured the passage of the aid to dependent children, which has passed the House and I hope will pass the Senate shortly.,We have not yet secured the passage of the social security changes, one of which provides for earlier retirement which will, I think, provide some relief. But these steps--the unemployment compensation which is going to begin to flow into the hands of people in need in the next week, the aid to dependent children, the early retirement, the aid to depressed areas--all these will be useful.,Now, we are also considering what longer range steps could be taken. In some of them which involve different changes in monetary policy, of course, we are rather limited because of the effect on the outflow of gold. Where for our domestic needs we might want to proceed differently, we are limited, because we don't want to start to stimulate the gold outflow again. But we are giving it a good deal of consideration.,These matters are not easy. You want to affect this hard core of unemployment which may continue after we have had a recovery without providing for inflation, without providing for an outflow of our gold. But we are now, in the administration, considering what other measures could be recommended to the Congress which would assist in this area. But I must say it is one of great complexity.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, a Member of Congress said today that he was tired of seeing the United States second to Russia in the space field. I suppose he speaks for a lot of others. Now, you have asked Congress for more money to speed up our space program. What is the prospect that we will catch up with Russia and perhaps surpass Russia in this field?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Soviet Union gained an important advantage by securing these large boosters which were able to put up greater weights, and that advantage is going to be with them for some time. However tired anybody may be, and no one is more tired than I am, it is a fact that it is going to take some time and I think we have to recognize it.,They secured large boosters which have led to their being first in sputnik and led to their first putting their man in space. We are, I hope, going to be able to carry out our efforts with due regard to the problem of the life of the man involved this year. But we are behind and I am sure that they are making a concentrated effort to stay ahead.,We have provided additional emphasis on Saturn; we have provided additional emphasis on Rover; we are attempting to improve other systems which will give us a stronger position--all of which are very expensive, and all of which involve billions of dollars.,So that in answer to your question, as I said in my State of the Union Message, the news will be worse before it is better, and it will be some time before we catch up. We are, I hope, going to go in other areas where we can be first and which will bring perhaps more long-range benefits to mankind. But here we are behind.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, the White House News Photographers Association bars Negro members. Do you feel that a group attached to the White House should follow such a policy?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. I hope they will let everyone in. Everyone comes into the White House and I would hope that those who are involved in that organization--I am sure when the matter is brought to their attention that they will permit everyone who is accredited and is a photographer to come to the White House. Anyway, I'd certainly like to see it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Gomulka said in a speech released yesterday that persons who are now high in your administration, unnamed, had given some assurance during the campaign last fall that if elected you would consider the present Polish-German frontier to be final. Have you given any such assurance?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I saw the story but' I am not informed as to who had the conversation with Mr. Gomulka. In fact, I haven't been able to determine who that might be. But in answer to the--and quite obviously at that time we were not in any position--in any case I was not informed of any conversation then or since then. It may have taken place with Mr. Gomulka. In regard to the question itself, I think that the satisfactory' solution of the line should be part of a general solution of the problem of Germany, of the question of Germany, involving the peace treaty with Germany and all the rest.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the domestic economy and the lag in Congress on the real program, how do you feel that a greater sense of urgency can be developed among the American people generally? Apparently some Congressmen feel that back home at Easter-time there was not enough push and drive and interest among the people there to give them that interest in your program.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when you have 7 percent unemployed, you have 93 percent working, and therefore it is a fact that you have these pockets of unemployment, which are extremely serious. Some Congressmen can come back who represent West Virginia and some parts of Pennsylvania, and Gary, Ind., and southern Illinois, and all of the rest, and eastern Kentucky, and tell you that there is a great sense of urgency in this matter. Others who represent other areas may not feel it. But I think it is a serious matter. When you look at the rate of economic growth in Italy, Germany, and France this year, and our economic growth, I would say that it is a matter of the greatest urgency. And in addition, anyone who honestly is. seeking a job and can't find it deserves the attention of the United States Government and the people, particularly those who are fortunate enough to work, and that includes us all.,[19.] Q. Sir, the United States administration-your administration--has resisted with vigor, especially through its Ambassador to the U.N. Soviet attempts to change the structure of the world organization. Will the administration, now that General de Gaulle has indicated his displeasure with the structure of the U.N., resist with equal vigor any French attempts to change its structure?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we would not favor the change in the structure. I am not sure that there is an agreement--there is certainly not an agreement. They may both disapprove of the structure, but their disagreements are based on different factors, General de Gaulle and the Soviet. I would be opposed to changing the United Nations in the way the Soviets proposed. I support the United Nations and its present organization. We can, I think, perhaps provide more effective representation among the civil servants structure of the United Nations among all countries and all continents. And we also, I hope, can consider how the newly joined countries can play a greater, have a greater voice in the Security Council. But these are the kinds of improvements I would like to see in the United Nations-not tripartitism of the kind suggested by the Soviet Union, which would make it impossible for the United Nations to function. And I regret that this same principle has been suggested in the Geneva talks.,[20.] Q. At the beginning of the news conference, sir, you told us what the United States cannot do in Cuba. Last night in the broadcast you said, \"I think Latin America is in a more critical period in its relations with us. Therefore, if we don't move now, Mr. Castro may become a much greater danger than he is to us today.\" Can you explore, sir, what we can or are doing in the line of that now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we attempted to indicate some of the areas where I hoped we could take affirmative action, in the speech I made to the ambassadors in March. Mr. Dillon is in Rio at the meeting of the Inter-American Bank. And we are, in the months of April and May and June, going to attempt in other ways to implement the concept behind alianza para progresso. I hope that the Congress will appropriate as quickly as possible the $500 million suggested by the Act of Bogota. That would be at least an important start. We will have other proposals to make, but I think that it's important that we seize the initiative and do not permit those who are not friends of freedom to become the spokesmen for the material aspirations of the people of Latin America. So that I hope we identify ourselves with both the social, political or the social and the material aspirations of the people of Latin America.,Q. Mr. President, in that same question, you said that--you pointed out that this Government has indicted a pro-Batista Cuban. But I am not clear from your answer, sir, whether this Government will oppose any attempt to mount an offensive against Castro from this country. Could • you clarify that?,THE PRESIDENT. If your phrase \"to mount an offensive\" is as I understand it, I would be opposed to mounting an offensive.,Q. Are we barred by our own neutrality acts or by the OAS treaty from giving any aid or arms to anti-Castro elements in the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are, of course, as I stated--there is a revolutionary committee here which is, of course, extremely anxious to see a change in government in that country. I am sure that they have-that they are very interested in associating with all those who feel the same way. Mr. Castro enjoyed some support here in the United States and received some assistance when he was attempting to carry out his revolution. In fact, some Americans were involved in the military actions with him. That latter is what we are particularly anxious to--,[21.] Q. Would you say, sir, to what extent the United States can lend its good offices to disputes that arise between some of the new countries and their former colonial countries? I am thinking particularly of the West New Guinea dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are going to see Mr. Sukarno, and I am sure that that will be one of the matters we will discuss. I did not have a chance to--that was one of the matters touched upon by the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands. It is rather difficult for the United States to offer its good offices unless we were asked by both parties to do so. To the best of my knowledge, we have not been asked by both parties to mediate that dispute.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, returning to that Texas election for a moment, what significance, if any, do you see in the vote there in terms of enacting your congressional programs? In other words, was this purely a local election or did it reflect some sort of a reaction to the administration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think it would be probably unwise--I don't know how profitable it would be then, let's say that--to attempt to make a judgment. You could--each side can claim some comfort out of the Texas election. But I think that Senator Blakley runs as a Democrat, and I think that his prospects are--I think that he will probably run an active and vigorous campaign. And we will see what happens. But I wouldn't attempt, in the divided field with over 71 candidates, to make any judgments about which way Texas is going.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-03-23","text":"THE PRESIDENT. [1.] I want to make a brief statement about Laos. It is, I think, important for all Americans to understand this difficult and potentially dangerous problem. In my last conversation with General Eisenhower, the day before the inauguration on January 19, we spent more time on this hard matter than on any other thing. And since then it has been steadily before the administration as the most immediate of the problems that we found upon taking office. Our special concern with the problem in Laos goes back to 1954. That year at Geneva a large group of powers agreed to a settlement of the struggle for Indochina. Laos was one of the new states which had recently emerged from the French union and it was the clear premise of the 1954 settlement that this new country would be neutral-free of external domination by anyone. The new country contained contending factions, but in its first years real progress was made towards a unified and neutral status. But the efforts of a Communist-dominated group to destroy this neutrality never ceased.,In the last half of 1960 a series of sudden maneuvers occurred and the Communists and their supporters turned to a new and greatly intensified military effort to take over. These three maps [indicating] show the area of effective Communist domination as it was last August, with the colored portions up on the right-hand corner being the areas held and dominated by the Communists at that time; and now next, in December of 1960, 3 months ago, the red area having expanded; and now from December 20 to the present date near the end of March the Communists control a much wider section of the country.,In this military advance the local Communist forces, known as the Pathet Lao, have had increasing support and direction from outside. Soviet planes, I regret to say, have been conspicuous in a large-scale airlift into the battle area--over 100--1,000 sorties since last December 13th, plus a whole supporting set of combat specialists, mainly from Communist North Viet-Nam, and heavier weapons have been provided from outside, all with the clear object of destroying by military action the agreed neutrality of Laos.\nIt is this new dimension of externally supported warfare that creates the present grave problem. The position of this administration has been carefully considered and we have sought to make it just as clear as we know how to the governments concerned.,First, we strongly and unreservedly support the goal of a neutral and independent Laos, tied to no outside power or group of powers, threatening no one, and free from any domination. Our support for the present duly constituted government is aimed entirely and exclusively at that result. And if in the past there has been any possible ground for misunderstanding of our desire for a truly neutral Laos, there should be none now,,Secondly, if there is to be a peaceful solution, there must be a cessation of the present armed attacks by externally supported Communists. If these attacks do not stop, those who support a truly neutral Laos will have to consider their response. The shape of this necessary response will, of course, be carefully considered, not only here in Washington, but in the SEATO conference with our allies, which begins next Monday.,SEATO--the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization--was organized in 1954, with strong leadership from our last administration, and all members of SEATO have undertaken special treaty responsibilities towards an aggression in Laos.,No one should doubt our resolutions on this point. We are faced with a clear and one-sided threat of a change in the internationally agreed position of Laos. This threat runs counter to the will of the Laotian people, who wish only to be independent and neutral. It is posed rather by the military operations of internal dissident elements directed from outside the country. This is what must end if peace is to be achieved in Southeast Asia.\nThirdly, we are earnestly in favor of constructive negotiation among the nations concerned and among the leaders of Laos which can help Laos back to the pathway of independence and genuine neutrality. We strongly support the present British proposal of a prompt end of hostilities and prompt negotiation. We are always conscious of the obligation which rests upon all members of the United Nations to seek peaceful solutions to problems of this sort. We hope that others may be equally aware of this responsibility.,My fellow Americans, Laos is far away from America, but the world is small. Its two million people live in a country 3 times the size of Austria. The security of all Southeast Asia will be endangered if Laos loses its neutral independence. Its own safety runs with the safety of us all--in real neutrality observed by all.,I want to make it clear to the American people and to all of the world that all we want in Laos is peace, not war; a truly neutral government, not a cold war pawn; a settlement concluded at the conference table and not on the battlefield.,Our response will be made in close cooperation with our allies and the wishes of the Laotian Government. We will not be provoked, trapped, or drawn into this or any other situation; but I know that every American will want his country to honor its obligations to the point that freedom and security of the free world and ourselves may be achieved.,Careful negotiations are being conducted with many countries at the present time in order to see that we have taken every possible course to insure a peaceful solution. Yesterday the Secretary of State informed the members and leaders of the Congress-the House and Senate--in both parties, of the situation and brought them up to date. We will continue to keep them and the country fully informed as the situation develops.,Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what reaction you may have had from the Russians, either directly or indirectly, perhaps through the British, with respect to the approach you suggest on this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. The British have had a conversation with the Russians, but I think that it's impossible at the present time to make any clear judgment as to what the nature of the response will be. We are hopeful that it will be favorable to the 'suggestion that we have made--the suggestion that the British have made for a cease-fire and for negotiations of the matter.,[2.] Q. Mr. President, a number--or several, rather--relatively highly placed economists in Government have said recently that the state of the economy is improving and that an upturn may be expected in April or May. How do you, sir, view the current state of the economy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that there are evidences of some improvement in the economy. The question, of course, is whether the upturn which usually comes in the spring will be sufficient to reduce the unemployment percentage, which is high today, to a figure which is more in accordance with a full employment in our society.,We also have to consider whether the upturn will bring us to the use of our national capacity and whether that upturn will be the beginning of a sustained economic growth this year and in the immediate years to come. It is impossible to make any judgment at this time in March on these factors with any precision.,[3.] Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that some portions of our Navy, some portions of our Marines, have been alerted and are moving toward that area. Could you tell us something of that, sir, and would it be safe to assume that we are preparing to back up our words as you have outlined them here?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that my statement is clear and represents the views I wish to express at the present time, and I'm hopeful that it will be possible for us to see a peaceful solution arrive in a difficult matter, and I would let the matter rest at this point with that.,Q. Is there any kind of indicated deadline or time limit by which this Government will consider that further action is necessary unless hostilities have ceased in Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. No time limit has been given, but quite obviously we are anxious to see an end to overt hostilities as soon as possible so that some form of negotiations can be carried on. And we are--but there has been no precise time limit set.,Q. Sir, I did not mean an ultimatum. I did mean in terms of an indicated time limit in our own minds if this drags on for a week or two weeks or three weeks, is there some time in there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the matter, of course, becomes increasingly serious as the days go by, and that's why we're anxious to see if it's possible at the present time to reach an agreement on a cease-fire. The longer it goes on, the less satisfactory it is.,Q. Mr. President, that map would indicate that the Communists have taken over a good part of Laos. Have your advisers told you what the--how dangerous the military situation is there? Is there a real danger that the Communists will take over the whole kingdom?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, quite obviously progress has been made on the--substantial progress has been made by the Communists towards that objective in recent weeks. And the capital--royal capital of Luang Prabang--has been in danger, and progress has been made southward towards the administrative capital of Vientiane. So that it is for this reason that we are so concerned and have felt the situation to be so critical.,Q. Yes, sir. Is there any--do you know how much time the supporters of the Laos Government might have for diplomacy? In other words, is there a danger of a quick takeover by the Communists in a matter of--,THE PRESIDENT. I would say that we are hopeful that we can get a quick judgment as to what the prospects are going to be there. I think that every day is important.,Q. Mr. President, you mentioned earlier in your statement that there were dissident elements in Viet-Nam who were carrying on this warfare. There have been many reports of North Vietnamese troops involved. Do we have any intelligence or information that would bear out these reports?,THE PRESIDENT. The phrase \"dissident elements,\" I believe, referred to the internal group, and I also stated that there have been, has been evidence of groups from Viet Minh or North Viet-Nam who have been involved.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, have the events of the past week changed your view on the advisability of a meeting between you and Mr. Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, we're getting conflicting reports in the Capitol as to your willingness to accept a compromise on this minimum wage bill, particularly in regard to coverage. Can you give us a little information on what your position is on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm anxious--I've supported the bill that came out of the committee for $1.25 with the expanded coverage over a period of time and also expanded coverage of nearly 4 million. I'm hopeful that that bill will pass, or a bill as close as possible to it would pass.,I find it difficult to know why anyone would oppose seeing somebody, by 1963, paid $1.25 in interstate commerce. And in the new coverage we're talking about businesses which make over $1 million a year. And I find it difficult to understand how anybody could object to paying somebody who works in a business which makes over $1 million a year, by 1963, $50 a week. I think that anyone who is paid less than that must find it extremely difficult to maintain themselves and their family.,I consider it to be a very minimum wage. So that I'm hopeful that the House will pass legislation as close to the bill that came out of the committee as possible, and--because I must say we are talking about a standard for fellow Americans, and millions of them--and I must say I think that it is in the public interest to pass' that bill as closely as possible to the House committee bill.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, there appears to be some national unawareness of the importance of a free Laos to the security of the United States and to the individual American. Could you spell out your views on that a little further?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, quite obviously, geographically Laos borders on Thailand, to which the United States has treaty obligations under the SEATO Agreement of 1954, it borders on South Viet-Nam--or borders on Viet-Nam to which the United States has very close ties, and also which is a signatory of the SEATO Pact. The aggression against Laos itself was referred to in the SEATO Agreement. So that, given this, the nature of the geography, its location, the commitments which the United States and obligations which the United States has assumed toward Laos as well as the surrounding countries--as well as other signatories of the SEATO Pact, it's quite obvious that if the Communists were able to move in and dominate this country, it would endanger the security of all, and the peace of all, of Southeast Asia. And as a member of the United Nations and as a signatory of the SEATO Pact, and as a country which is concerned with the strength of the cause of freedom around the world, that quite obviously affects the security of the United States.,Q. Mr. President, the United States has made the position all the way through on this that we want a neutral Laos. But isn't it true that Laos has a nonviable economy and it can't exist as an independent country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it can exist. That was the premise under which the 1954 agreements were signed. It may require economic assistance, but there are many countries which are neutral which have received economic assistance from one side or the other and many of those countries are in Southeast Asia and some of them are geographically quite close to Laos, so that I don't think that the final test of a neutral country is completely the state of its economy. The test of a neutral country is whether one side or another dominates it and uses it, a phrase I referred to, as a pawn in the cold war. We would like it to occupy a neutral category as does Cambodia.,Q. Mr. President, what is your evaluation of the theory that perhaps the Russians are so active in Laos to keep the Chinese Communists out?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't attempt to make a judgment about a matter on which we have incomplete information. I think that the facts of the matter are that there has been external activity and that it has helped produce the result you see on the map, and this is of concern to us. I'm hopeful that those countries which have been supporting this effort will recognize that this is a matter of great concern to us and that they will be agreeable to the kind of proposals which we have made in the interests of peace.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, are you planning a visit to Venezuela or any other areas of Latin America within the next several months?,THE PRESIDENT. To Latin America?,Q. Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I'm not.,Q. Caracas?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no plans for a trip.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, the Civil War Commission has decided it has no authority to provide hotel rooms for Negroes who attend sessions in the South. What is your reaction to that decision?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Centennial is an official body of the United States Government, Federal funds are contributed to sustaining it, there have been appointments made by the Federal Government to the Commission, and it's my strong belief that any program of this kind in which the United States is engaged should provide facilities and meeting places which may--do not discriminate on the grounds of race or color. I have received the response to my original letter to General Grant, and I am in contact, going to be in contact again with General Grant to see if we can work out a solution which recognizes the principle that I've just enunciated, because we cannot leave the situation as it is today.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, in the event that your strong efforts to reach a neutral Laos go unheeded, would you possibly consider it necessary then for SEATO to intervene, or would you spell out a little more clearly what would have to take place?,THE. PRESIDENT. I think a careful reading of my statement makes clear what the various prospects are and the critical nature of them.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, your foreign aid message, particularly the provision for long-term borrowing, has had a rather mixed reception on the Hill. I wonder, sir, could you tell us, in view of the traditional congressional abhorrence of long-term commitments, what steps you are planning to persuade the country that this is necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that it provides far more effective use of the funds that are available. It's very hard for us to say to x country that \"We are prepared to join you in economic development if you will make the following contributions towards your own development: investment, tax changes, and all the rest,\" if we are only able to say that we can do this only on a 12-month basis. If we could say \"We will join on a 5-month--over a 5-year period of development for the economy of this country which will give you some hope of improving the standard of living of your people and maintaining freedom,\" it seems to me that's a far more effective use of our money.,One of the reasons why so much money, I think, has been wasted in mutual security programs in recent years has been because they are financed on a year-to-year basis and no evident progress is made within the countries towards a viable economy. So that I must say that I recognize that the Congress has clear responsibilities for annual appropriations. We are only talking about long-term funding for loans. The Congress would still continue to have its annual appropriations for any other funds, including those which involve military grants. And I would feel that the kind of program we suggested offers the best use of the dollar in these areas. I think progress can be made this way. If we don't get it, I think we'll continue to see some of the drift we've seen in these programs in the past.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, what are your plans for coordinating our transportation to save the railroads and keep them running, especially to move missiles?,THE PRESIDENT. I think--I've seen no evidences that the missile, the movement of missiles has been--is endangered at the present time or in prospect. The problem of commuters, the problem of the financial integrity of the railroads and their movement is in danger--is in critical position in some areas. It's a matter of concern to the Congress and this administration and we are examining what we can usefully do.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you made a pledge, I believe, that if you became President you would issue an Executive order to ban segregation in Federal housing projects. I wondered if you had any plans to implement that pledge anytime in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. We are considering those areas. We've already, as you know, in one area, the area of employment by Government contractors, issued an extremely strong, the strongest Federal order that's ever been issued, with detailed facilities for implementation. We are considering other Executive orders that could be usefully issued. In addition, we are--the Department of Justice is moving ahead in carrying out the congressional mandate in regard to voting. So this matter of use of Executive authority in order to establish equality of opportunity in all areas is a matter which will have the continuing attention of this administration.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, taking the aggressive Communist attitude on Laos together with the negative Russian posture at the opening, the reopening of negotiations in Geneva on test ban, does this combination of circumstances disappoint you about the prospect of really improved relations with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. I am hopeful that it will be possible for the United States to make progress towards lessening tension in our relations with the Soviet Union. Quite obviously this is a critical area, and I think the kind of response that we get to our efforts for peace in this area will tell us something about what kind of a future our world is going to have. We'll have to wait and see what that response will be, and then I could perhaps give you a better answer as to what our long-range prospects will be after we see what happens here.,Q. Mr. President, if these responses aren't forthcoming and aren't favorable on your proposals here, would you--and we have to shoot--would you use your Executive orders and authority, or is the purpose of Mr. Rusk going to the Senators in preparation of asking for a declaration of war in case it really becomes a shooting matter out there?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that it would be best to consider it as I stated it in my statement. The prospects, alternative responsibilities-I've stated them, I think, as clearly as today they can be stated. We will know a good deal more in the coming days.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, concerning another aspect of this Communist threat, Russia and Red China publish an estimated 3 to 4 billion books a year, sending a large proportion to the noncommitted nations, and an AP story says that our USIA was able to send only a trifling fraction to these countries--last year, I guess less than 5 million. Does this book gap--doesn't this present a tremendous obstacle to our winning the minds of the uncommitted peoples, and does our administration plan to close this gap?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I agree that both the Chinese Communists and the Russians have poured large sums of money into subsidizing cheap book publications which have poured into many sections of the world and is a matter of concern. I think the point is excellent. Mr. Murrow has been considering what we could do in an expanded way in this area. There are other areas where they've also made a greater effort, radio broadcasts to Africa and so on as well as exchanges. So that we have the whole problem, of which books is a part, in this struggle between freedom and control.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, I have a question about conventional forces in relation to the Laos situation. You have been reviewing the recommendations of your Secretary of Defense on conventional forces. Have you come to any decision on building them up, and have you found them adequate to deal with the Laos situation in case of--,THE PRESIDENT. We will be sending a message on Monday or Tuesday on those changes we are going to make in defense and at that time we'll give, I think, a more adequate response than I could give here to your question, because we're going to discuss the entire military budget. Quite obviously, we are stretched around the world with commitments to dozens of countries and it does raise the question of our-whether a greater effort should not be made.,Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what in your opinion this country has obtained out of its roughly $310 million worth of aid sent in the past 6 or 7 years to Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Laos is not yet a Communist country and it's my hope that it will not be.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, are you contemplating a further--a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko within the next week or have you one scheduled with him?,THE PRESIDENT. A further meeting? I've not seen Mr. Gromyko.,Q.A meeting.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no plans for a meeting.,[17] Q. Mr. President, because it was such an obvious move, could you tell us what Mr. Salinger handed you just then? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, he handed me--I will not draw the cloak of Executive privilege around it. The point was made that Viet-Nam--these are the sort of things he knows--that Viet-Nam is not a signatory of the SEATO Pact, but is a protocol country of--under the SEATO Pact. [Laughter],[18.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Secretary Dillon's estimate that the corporate profits for fiscal '62 will be about $3 billion under President Eisenhower's estimate, and, if so, will your budget take these lower revenue estimates into account?,THE. PRESIDENT. The budget estimates will be lower than were estimated in January, substantially lower than they were last October, and a good deal lower than they were estimated to be a year ago. We are sending a budget message up tomorrow which gives our opinion on what those receipts will be. But the economy, as it has slowed down, of course, the profit squeeze has been on, and the returns to the Government have been lessened, which have affected the budget picture.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-03-15","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several brief announcements to make.,[1.] First, the Secretaries of the military departments have been instructed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense to take steps to provide a greater percentage of defense contracts for small business. Specifically, the military departments have been asked to set a goal increasing individually in fiscal year 1962 small business participation by 10 percent over the year for fiscal 1960. Contracts for small business in fiscal year 1960 amounted to $3,440 million, or 16 percent. We are going to try to increase that by at least 10 percent.,In addition, we are going to provide an increase for small business participation in research and development contracts. During that year this category of contracting amounted to only $180 million, or 3.4 percent of the total. In addition, we are asking the Department of Defense to examine how additional contracts can be steered into distressed areas. At the present time we are not doing as much of that as I hope we can in the future.,[2.] Secondly, I am sending to Congress a request for funds to resume detailed planning of our largest remaining damsite in the Upper Columbia--the Libby Dam in Montana. It will be the first step in the development of the Columbia River Basin in coordination with Canada on an international basis. Yesterday the Foreign Relations Committee reported out unanimously the treaty that will make this dam possible. The Libby Dam will provide the power that we desperately need in the Northwest United States. It will help control the floods, that are devastating northern Idaho. And it will prevent the projected power shortage for that area.,The beginning of this project will give impetus to a new period of cooperation with Canada.,[3.] Next I want to announce that the Export-Import Bank is authorizing $25 million credit in favor of the Government of Israel, to purchase agricultural machinery in the United States, to help consolidate Israel's agricultural settlements, and electrical power equipment and construction items for the expansion of Israeli seaports.,This decision, I think, will help speed the development of Israel's economy.,[4.] And then lastly, I want to announce that we will hold a President's Conference on Heart Disease and Cancer, which will be held at the White House beginning April 22. The Department of HEW will then invite a number of distinguished medical leaders throughout the country to participate in this program.\nThank you.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us, please, if you have any plans to appear personally at the United Nations General Assembly currently in session and, if so, when you might go up?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to and I do not expect to appear at the Assembly.,[6.] Q. Could you give us your views, sir, about the possibility of reaching some accord with the Soviet Union on general disarmament as well as nuclear test bans, and would you be willing to meet with Mr. Khrushchev face to face if you felt this was necessary to reach a truly genuine agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, this matter is now being discussed, at least the procedural matters leading up to what we hope will be progress in the area of general disarmament. It is now being discussed at the United Nations, and Ambassador Stevenson has been discussing with the State Department the American position.,We--now that Mr. Dean has left to resume the discussions in Geneva, Mr. McCloy is working full time on developing an American position on disarmament. We have indicated before that we may not have completed our analysis until this summer, and we have suggested that we will be prepared to resume either the Ten-Nation Conference or some other similar structure, conference structure, in, we first suggested, September, and now we have suggested August at the latest. So we are going to concentrate our attention on disarmament now. We hope progress can be made, and we will--I will consider what usefully could be done to advance progress.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, in addition to the $700-odd million in highway money that you have instructed the Commerce Department to make available to the States ahead of time, Governor Rockefeller has asked whether it would be possible for the States to get an advance on the money for highways for fiscal 1962. Have you any ideas on the subject?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I received a letter from Governor Rockefeller and we are considering what action can be taken. We have to--the Congress has taken a very clear position on pay as you go, and we have to consider what funds can be made available between now and next July, and we have to consider what action the Congress is going to take on our request for additional funds in order to keep the program going.,So that all this is now being considered and an answer will be given to Governor Rockefeller after we have made a judgment as to what funds will be available, which depends in part upon what our response will be in the Congress.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, you have stressed the constitutional issues in the school-aid fight. Regardless of the constitutional question, do you think it is wise public policy to make Federal loans to parochial and private schools below the college level?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have stated my views in the previous White House conferences, and what I hope would be the procedure followed by the Congress, which continues to be my view. We will--when we see proposals, and what form they take, because as the previous press conference developed, loans take many different forms, and I indicated some fall within one category and some within another, and this administration will be glad to cooperate with the Congress in considering the matter.,But I am hopeful that, as I have said before, that the view taken by the administration of the desirability of passing the public school matter first--I am hopeful that that will be the decision which the Congress will adopt. But this is a matter that they are considering and we will consider with them.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, Cardinal Spell man in a statement this week indicated that tax exemptions for the parents who pay tuition for their children to go to private schools might be one possible approach. Do you think, sir, that this would be a constitutional way of perhaps compromising the issue?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that all this matter should be examined carefully by the Congress. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Morse, has asked the Secretary of HEW to send up a brief on all the various kinds of assistance which are given to nonpublic schools and colleges, which the Secretary is preparing to do. The committees then of the House and Senate, and the House of Representatives, can consider what kind of program they wish to put forward and at that time we can consider what the constitutional problems might be. But it is very difficult as new proposals are made for me or for anyone else to be giving constitutional opinions on each of them as they come up, without seeing the definite language. That obviously is not my function.,I would be glad to have the departments of Government participate in considering these matters with the Congress. But my view on procedures which I hope the Congress will follow are well known. I am hopeful we can get the program which we sent to the Hill out of the way. Then the Congress will have to consider what it wants to do in this other area. And the administration will be delighted to cooperate. But I could not possibly, unless I saw exactly what kind of language, give even a private opinion as to its constitutionality.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, are you able at this time to tell us something of Ambassador Thompson's report on his meeting with Premier Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, I have no statement on it at the present time.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, Prince Souvanna Phouma, a representative of the Laotian rebels, said after a visit to the rebel area, that Moscow had provided 20 times as many weapons to the pro-Communist side as we have provided to the Royal Laotian Government. Can you tell us whether we are considering a step-up in such shipments as part of a new look at this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have been watching Laos with the closest attention. As I have frequently said, and as the Secretary has said, it is our hope that from all of these negotiations will come a genuinely independent and neutral Laos, which is the master of its own fate. The purpose of these discussions among the various people who participate in them at Pnom Penh is to make this possible. However, recent attacks by rebel forces indicate that a small minority backed by personnel and supplies from outside is seeking to prevent the establishment of a neutral and independent country. We are determined to support the government and the people of Laos in resisting this attempt.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, labor unions want a shorter workweek to cope with the automation and unemployment. Your Secretary of Labor is against that. Are you for it and if so, would you prefer a shorter workday or a 4-day week? I don't mean yourself, personally, but the--,THE PRESIDENT. I prefer it for myself-[laughter]--but I would say that I am opposed to a shorter workweek. I am hopeful that we can have employment high at 5 days a week and 40 hours, which is traditional in this country, and which is necessary if we are going to continue economic growth, and maintain our commitments at home and abroad.,So, I would be opposed to any arbitrary reduction of the workweek. And I am unhappy when I see the workweek reduced artificially, in the sense that the pressures of a declining economy reduce it so that we get averages of 38.5 hours a week instead of the 40 hours a week. In any case, to answer your question, I would be opposed to reducing the workweek.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, your Latin American statement the other day was quite sweeping in calling for political and social reforms in those countries. Have you had any indications before or since of how much acceptance there is in Latin American countries for this kind of reform?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that it would be premature to make a judgment as to what the response will be in Latin America. I am hopeful it will be favorable; I am hopeful that we can begin discussions throughout the hemisphere which will lead to the kind of internal and external planning which will provide for a steady rate of economic growth throughout the hemisphere, which would be a cooperative effort. So that as of today I couldn't tell you what the response will be. I am hopeful it will be favorable, and I am hopeful that it will result in a joint effort of the kind that we saw in Western Europe in the late forties.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, recent public opinion polls and other reports indicate a high degree of public acceptance of your acts since you have become President, and of your program, at the same time that certain basics of the New Frontier legislative program are in considerable trouble in Congress. How do you go about translating public approval into congressional support?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is a matter, of course, on which every Member of Congress must reach his judgment. I think that the people are interested in high minimum wage, they are interested in improving our schools, they are interested in medical care for the aged, they are interested, I believe, in fiscal responsibility and the development of the highway program. Now, the problem, of course, is that there are--and they are interested in an agricultural program which provides some more adequate return for the farmer.,Now, I recognize that there are important and powerful and well-organized interest groups in this country which oppose all of these programs, and that they are extremely active, and that they have been successful in developing mail campaigns of one kind or another which tend to give an impression that there is widespread opposition to increasing, for example, the minimum wage.,Now Mr. Gallup's poll the other day showed that over 75 percent of the people were in favor of increasing the minimum wage. I think that increase in the minimum wage is highly desirable. I don't think that anyone should be expected to work for 80 and 85 cents an hour in some of these jobs. We have seen them particularly in retail stores, in a business which makes over $1 million a year.,I think the more orderly way to finance medical care for the aged is through the social security system. I am hopeful that when these matters are brought to the floor of the House and Senate that a majority of the Members will support them. I think that a majority of the people support them.,I know, however, that we face very vigorous opponents who are well organized, and who bring a good deal of pressure to bear on this administration and on the Congress. But we are going to continue to work for these programs, and I am very hopeful that before the year is out they will have passed.,The members of the committees of the House and Senate, I think, have done very well. And I am hopeful that an opportunity will be given to each Congressman to vote on these basic programs this year, and then the people can make a judgment as to what--how their interests are being represented. But I am confident that we are going to get a favorable response.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the Air Force and other branches of Government organizing these side-bar corporations and using taxpayers' money to circumvent the Civil Service and pay large salaries to get scientists and others? Isn't this sort of incongruous with the call for volunteers for your Peace Corps?,THE PRESIDENT. I think a subcommittee of the Congress has been looking into this matter. One of the problems, of course, is that valuable technicians are required to make a substantial economic sacrifice when they come with the Government. Therefore, the services, faced with this problem of where these men who are essential can secure much greater pay outside the Government than inside, have had to resort to the devices to which you refer. And we are looking at the matter, but I would not want to give an opinion today which would deny the services of these valuable scientists. On the other hand, we want to make sure that the way the matter is being conducted is in the public interest. So we will have to say, Mrs. McClendon, that it requires a further examination because it is not an easy matter to solve.,I don't know anyone who has come to work with the Government that I am familiar with that has not taken a--has not made a financial sacrifice in doing so. But most of them have been willing to meet that sacrifice. And we are going to examine. the particular problem that you have suggested.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, your election in November was widely hailed as among other things a victory over religious prejudice. Do you think, as some speculation has already indicated in print, that the seemingly inflexible stand on the part of some spokesmen for the Catholic hierarchy on the school legislation may provoke more religious prejudice?,THE PRESIDENT. I am hopeful that it will not. I stated that it is a fact that in recent years when education bills have been sent to the Congress, we have not had this public major encounter. I don't know why that was, but now we do have it.,But everyone is entitled to express their views. The Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish clergy are entitled to take their views. I think it is quite appropriate that they should not change their views merely because of the religion of the occupant of the White House. I think that would be unfortunate if they-I think they ought to state what they think. They ought to express their views, they are entitled to do that. Then I will express mine, and Congress will express its.,I am very hopeful that though there may be a difference of opinion on this matter of Federal aid to education, I am hopeful that when the smoke is cleared there will continue to be harmony among the various religious groups in the country. And I am going to do everything that I can to make sure that that harmony exists because it reaches far beyond the question of education and goes in a very difficult time of the life of our country to an important ingredient of our national strength. So that I am confident that the people who are involved outside the Government, and Members of Congress and the administration, will attempt to conduct the discussion on this sensitive issue in such a way as to maintain the strength of the country and not to divide it.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some speculation that in order to finance some of your aggressive programs you may possibly seek a national sales tax or even possibly a penny a bottle tax on soft drinks. Could you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have no such plan.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a controversy in recent days between the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the Chairman of your Council of Economic Advisers as to what constitutes a reasonable expectable level of unemployment. What is your view on this matter?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there has been--I am not so sure that the controversy is as significant as perhaps it has been reported in the paper. Mr. Martin has made the point that a good deal of structural unemployment exists and I think we have to say that in coal, steel, and perhaps some in aviation, it does exist, structural unemployment, and will continue to be a problem even if you had a substantial economic recovery. It would be far less if you had a substantial economic recovery. I do not see that there is a basic clash between these two views. But I think that they are both important and both ought to be considered. In other words, I do not think that regardless of whether the unemployment we now have is structural or not, and some of it is structural and some of it is not, I do not believe we should accept the present rate of unemployment as a percentage that we should live with. In other words, we have to reduce that percentage. I hope that we can reduce it down to 4 percent, but we are going to have to reduce it. But I do agree with Mr. Martin that even as we attempt to overcome unemployment in this country we are faced with a very serious and important structural unemployment which results from technological change, which the Canadians have also, and which even in good times would cause us serious concern.,In other words, even in eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, southern Illinois, and Pennsylvania, and even in 1959 and in 1957, you still had serious pockets of unemployment which were concentrated, even though the overall national figure was rather limited. It is my understanding that the Joint Committee on the Economic Report may call back Mr. Martin and Mr. Helley to discuss this further. I think that would be useful. It is a very important national problem, but I don't think from my conversations with both of them that there is a serious disagreement between them.,[19] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the farm bill now in conference in Congress, the principal fight seems to be over the section which would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to sell grain into the market to hold the market price down. Do you feel that this enforcement feature is an absolute requirement in connection with the bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am hopeful that the conference will reach a decision which gives the Secretary powers in this area, if not the specific language of title III, at least language which will protect, provide protection for the bill. If we don't--if the Secretary lacks power--this bill isn't going to be successful, and a good many people from the urban areas who voted for the program with title III in it, in the House of Representatives, have a right, it seems to me, to expect that the Secretary will be given sufficient powers to protect the program from noncompliers who, if they are--who may use the program, if title III is out, for speculative and exploitive purposes. So that I consider it most important that title III remain in, or otherwise some alternate language which will give the Secretary substantial powers provided in title III should be provided by the conference. Otherwise, we are not going to have any relief.,I am sorry to see the important agricultural leaders opposing giving us the protection which is required. You cannot have the Federal Government supporting agriculture in important ways unless there is some control over production and if there is some limitation, some provision for crosscompliance. Otherwise, the program will continue to cost a lot of money, the farmers' income will continue to drop, and we will have a gradual deterioration of agriculture in this country. The program we suggested and sent to the Hill in my opinion was one that was well balanced, and I am hopeful that a well-balanced program will come out of the considerations of the House and the Senate.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, this has to do with the labor-management conference which is scheduled for March 21. The past history of such conferences has shown a high percentage of failures, except at times of national crisis. Do you feel the present state of urgency is great enough to anticipate some success, and how do you plan to go about communicating that sense of urgency?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it is. One reason alone I think makes it extremely important, and that is the problem of our being able to be competitive abroad. There are some indications that last year's favorable balance of trade which protected to some degree our gold supply--that we may not have as successful a year abroad. And I would think both manufacturers and labor unions, and certainly the public, would want to see American industry remain competitive. If we are not able to be competitive with a very strong and thriving industrial economy in Western Europe, we are going to find ourselves in serious trouble. There are also serious domestic matters, automation, technological change, unemployment, the wage-price spiral. I am extremely concerned about all these matters. I am sure they are. They live with them. And I am hopeful that we can encourage a public interest philosophy among all the groups which will provide progress. We have not been successful in the past, but I don't--these are the only things we can do. We lack any other powers.,Q. Sir, may I ask whether you plan to have the first meeting of the labor-management conference at the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Yes.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, have you sent Ambassador Dean back to Geneva with authority to lower our demand for inspection sites within the Soviet Union, to bring it closer to the Soviet figure?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Dean goes back to Geneva with the hope, the administration's hope, that it will be possible for the United States, the British, and the Russians to come to an agreement on nuclear--for a nuclear test ban, which would provide adequate security to all the countries involved.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, is it a fair inference from your answer to Mr. Knebel's earlier question that the constitutional issue aside for the moment, you do not have a personal opinion as to whether it would be wise public policy to expend Federal funds on elementary and secondary nonpublic schools?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have--my previous discussions have rested on the constitutional questions.,Q. And you do not wish to speak on the other question?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would have to see what kind of loans they were, Mr. Roberts. As I said before, in 1958 I did vote the loans for education, science, and technology. I voted for that program. I voted against, as a Senator, across the board loans.,So that I have looked over recently the number of programs which the Federal Government has in these areas, impacted areas, aid to particular kinds of colleges-we sent up a program providing for actual grants to medical schools for private colleges, which could be sectarian. So that there is a whole spectrum of programs, some of which raise constitutional questions and some of which do not.,So it is difficult to give an across the board answer. Across the board loans, I have indicated the constitutional question which it raises. There may be other programs which do not raise a constitutional question, which may be socially desirable, and there may be other programs which do not raise a constitutional question which may be socially undesirable.,All I could say is that because of the complexity of the issue it would be better to consider this as a separate matter, and when we have an actual bill before us, this administration could give its views on both the constitutional and the socially desirable elements of the program.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, a study was made recently by the Michigan Law School that recommended that the regulatory responsibility for atomic industry be under an agency other than that which is responsible for its development. The study indicates there is a dangerous paradox in allowing both regulation and development responsibilities to remain within the Atomic Energy Commission. What are your views on this? This has come up during your time in Congress, too, this question of separating health and regulation from--,THE PRESIDENT. Health and regulation?,Q--from development of the industry itself.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there has been some separation of the health with the Public Health having responsibilities in this area, and I think that members of the Atomic Energy Commission agree that there should be some external check on their research and development programs, and I think that there is a fair balance today. It was a matter which was discussed when I was at the Atomic Energy Commission.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, before your inaugural, you expressed the hope that you would be able to use former President Eisenhower in some capacity in your administration. Are you still of that opinion, sir, and do you have any plans in that regard?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans at the present time. I have not been I have not discussed the matter with the President, and if we do have an area where he could be helpful and where he felt he could be helpful, then I would discuss it with him. At the present time I think he is still continuing his vacation, to which he is very much entitled.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, Adrian, Mich., is deeply concerned over what disposition the Government will make of the surplus Air Force metal extrusion plant there. Twice, when GSA has received bids, a firm which reputedly would dismantle the plant has been high bidder while the firm which ultimately might employ as many as 2,500 has been second highest. Appeals for retention of the plant for the local industry have been directed to you. Would you comment on what you have done or plan to do?\nTHE PRESIDENT, Well, I have talked to Mr. Moore about it. I have expressed my hope that an arrangement could be worked out to transfer the plant so that employment can be permitted. One of the problems, of course, is that it would require the transfer of the plant at a price which--at least what is now being examined is whether the transfer of the plant could be made at a price which would be justified. But I quite agree that if it is possible to use this plant for employment, it should be done. I am hopeful, and I am glad that you reminded me of the matter. I am hopeful that we could perhaps get a decision out of Mr. Moore's agency this week, and I will press for that. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-03-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] First, I want to say a word on behalf of Radio Free Europe, which is now making its annual appeal for support from all of our citizens. For more than 10 years this enterprise has been reaching out to people in Europe--Eastern Europe; truth, devotion to liberty, is its message. For this radio is at work, with listeners numbering in the millions. The competition of ideas in these countries is kept alive. Individual Americans by giving to Radio Free Europe may be sure that they are bringing a beacon of light into countries to which millions of us are tied by kinship, and whose hope for freedom all of us must share.,This is a peaceful concern but a firm one. Radio Free Europe needs and deserves our generous help.,[2.] Secondly, Mrs. Kennedy and I are giving an afternoon reception at the White House next Monday for the Latin American Ambassadors to the United States, the Council of the OAS, as well as members of Congress concerned with Latin American affairs. I will take the opportunity at the close of the reception to make a major statement of some of my views about the problems of the Americas.,[3.] Third, pursuant to my instructions, each Federal department and agency has renewed its procurement and construction plans for the remainder of the current fiscal year, through June 30, 1961, for the purpose of speeding up its contracts and purchases with available funds. The total of obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year is now planned to be $660 million higher than before the directive. If this acceleration proceeds as planned by the agencies, direct Federal purchases of goods and services will be increased in the January-March quarter by an annual rate of about one quarter of a billion dollars, and in the April-June quarter by an annual rate of about three quarters of a billion dollars.,[4.] Next, I wish to announce that the Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr. Erlander, will make an informal visit to the United States for a period of 10 days, beginning March 28. The Prime Minister and I will meet together on the 29th, after which Mr. Erlander will visit other parts of the United States. I am very pleased with the prospect of meeting the Prime Minister, for we Americans have many close ties with Sweden and its people. And I extend a most hearty welcome to him.,[5.] It has been brought to my attention, next, that 5,000 Indian and Eskimo children under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior are not in school--cannot attend school until facilities are built for them. These children live on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona and New Mexico, in Alaska, and in the Choctaw Reservation in Mississippi. In addition, other thousands are housed in overcrowded and obsolete boarding and day facilities, some hazardous to their health and safety.,I have instructed the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Udall, to submit to the Congress without delay plans to correct the situation.,[6.] I am announcing the appointment and scheduled departure this evening of a special mission to review the status and effectiveness of the United States economic policies in Bolivia. The chairman of the three-person mission is Dr. Willard Thorpe, and the other two members are Mr. Jack Corbett and Mr. Seymour J. Rubin. This mission will arrive in La Paz on March 9 and spend approximately 2 weeks before returning to Washington to report their recommendations for a plan of action to be followed by United States agencies in Washington and Bolivia. An adviser to the mission, Mr. Coerr, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, has already arrived.,[7] Finally, I want to say that in response to the first Executive order the number of people receiving surplus food has doubled from 3,500,000 in December to 6,100,000 at the present time. The value of the food being distributed monthly has doubled--$12.80 before the expanded program went into effect, $24.40 in retail value at the present time. In addition, this has doubled the protein value of the direct distribution of food.,[8.] This is the last statement. The Cuban Red Cross, the American Red Cross, and U.S. Navy today combined in a three-way effort to combat a polio breakout in Guantanamo City, Cuba, some 31 miles from the naval base. Early today the Red Cross directorate at the U. S. naval base in southeastern Cuba had a phone call from a male Red Cross nurse in Guantanamo City saying there was an outbreak of polio, with 3 children dead and 10 more stricken.,All available vaccine had been used by the hospitals in Guantanamo City. And aid was needed to give vaccine for at least 100 more children which they were unable to obtain. The Red Cross director at the base got permission from Adm. Edward J. O'Donnell to send all the vaccine which could be spared. She carried and sent enough vaccine for 160 first inoculations to the northeast gate, where she met the Cuban Red Cross ambulance where the transfer was made.,I want to take this opportunity and this incident to emphasize again that our differences of opinion on matters affecting Cuba are not with the Cuban people. Rather, we desire the closet, and harmonious and friendly, and most sympathetic ties with them.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, you told us last month that you expected to have an answer from the Defense Department about this time on whether there is or is not a missile gap. Are you able to say at this time whether there is or is not?,THE PRESIDENT. We are. concluding our review of the recommendations which the Defense Department has made for changes in the Defense budget. I am hopeful that this survey can be completed in the next few days, and then we plan to send the results of our study to the Congress. And at that time we will indicate what I believe to be the relative defensive position of the United States and other countries and what needs to be done to improve it.,[10.] Q. I am sure you are aware, sir, of the tremendous mail response that your news conferences on television and radio have produced. There are many Americans who believe that in our manner of questioning or seeking your attention that we are subjecting you to some abuse or a lack of respect. I wonder, sir, in this light, could you tell us generally your feelings about your press conferences to date and your feelings about how they are conducted?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you subject me to some abuse, but not to any lack of respect. [Laughter] I must say that I do know that there are difficulties, and I know that it places burdens on members of the press to have to stand up, particularly when I am not able to recognize them. On the other hand, if it were changed and one member stood up, then perhaps that would not be a satisfactory device. So I think that along with the old saying about \"don't take down the fence until you know why it was put up,\" I would say that we should stay with what we now have.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, the approach to a peaceful settlement in Laos seems to have run into a dead end, with rejection by two of the proposed members of the three-nation neutral commission, and the Soviet Union apparently still insists upon the approach of an ICC 1 action there and an international conference. I wonder if in your review of the situation you have reached any conclusion as to what step the United States should now take to avoid the expansion of the war in Laos?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the United States had been hopeful that it would be possible to set up some procedures where neutral nations could guarantee the security of Laos and also isolate it from military pressures on both sides. We are going to have to consider what other procedures might be followed to achieve that goal. But this is a matter now of discussion with our friends and with others, and I am hopeful that we can achieve a result which will bring stability to Laos, permit it to maintain its independence, and bring peace to the area, and self-determination. Those are very difficult goals to achieve, given the situation which we found upon assuming our responsibilities. But we are going to continue and are now continuing to take every step that we can to achieve that goal.,1 International Control Commission.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there has been considerable comment that your program up to now has illustrated what the country can do for the people. I think a lot of people have asked me and I am asking you, sir, at what point does your program tell what the people can do for the country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are trying to do two or three things in the domestic program. We are trying to protect and provide jobs for people--that is, I think, a matter of concern to all Americans. We are committed to that goal, and the programs which we have sent up to the Hill have that object in mind. We are also trying to strengthen our educational system, which needs to be strengthened over the long period in which we are going to be tested. We are trying to provide for more orderly and effective programs of medical care for the elderly. Now, these programs, in my opinion, are in the public interest, and they are being assessed in that regard.,I would say, as I have said from the beginning, that in time I have no doubt that all of us will find ourselves tested in our attempts to maintain the independence of the United States and the independence of those countries to which we are committed. These programs are an attempt to provide for a viable economy, which I think is essential for the security of the United States and for the security of those countries which are dependent upon it. It is also an effort to provide equality of opportunity to the extent that at least we can do so for all Americans because I think it is in the public interest.,[13.] Q. Sir, would you help to clarify the aid to private schools issue? The National Defense Education Act, passed in 1958, provides loans for private elementary and secondary schools for equipment. And existing provisions, as well as your recommendations, allow for construction loans for private colleges. I wonder if you would give us your view on proposals to add to your school bill provisions for loans, as differentiated from grants for private and parochial elementary and secondary schools.,THE PRESIDENT. You have mentioned three rather different programs, which involve different purposes and different constitutional problems.,The first program was the National Defense Education Act, where loans were provided for nonpublic schools for specific purposes--languages, I believe, and also for science and engineering. Twenty million dollars was provided of which, interestingly enough, only about $1,300,000 has been used for loans. That was the first.,Now the second type of program you discussed--I supported that program. In my opinion it was--there is not evidence as yet that that suggests a serious constitutional problem because it is tied very closely to national defense.,The second program we are talking about is loans to all colleges. And in my opinion-and also, of course, scholarship assistance to the students. That is in a different position, at least to the best of my judgment, from secondary education. Secondary education is compulsory. It is provided for every student, every citizen. Every citizen must attend school. We are providing a program which we have sent to the Congress, of grants for public schools. And, therefore, in my opinion, that is the program which I hope will be passed.,Now, the problem of loans to secondary education does institute serious constitutional problems. I do not think that anyone can read the Everson case without recognizing that the position which the court took, minority and majority, in regard to the use of tax funds for nonpublic schools, raises a serious constitutional question.,I have expressed my view on them. I think the Congress should consider carefully what its view is on them, and what kind of programs it wants to recommend in this area. The Congress, as I say, has recommended grants to private colleges in the past--I used, I think, a week or two ago, I gave that as an example--in the National Defense Education Act it used loans for specific purposes.,Whether across the board loans are constitutional is a question which, in my opinion, raises a serious constitutional question.,I am hopeful that the Congress will enact grants. If the Congress, the Congressmen, wish to address themselves to the problem of loans, which is a separate matter--we are not talking about, in this bill, loans to secondary education--then I am hopeful that it would be considered as a separate matter, that the Congress will consider the constitutional problems and then consider what action it would want to take.,We will be glad to cooperate in every way. But I am hopeful that while that consideration is being given, that we will move ahead with the grant program.,Q. Mr. President, are you suggesting that Congress, if it wants to provide for long-term, low-interest loans for private and parochial schools, ought to have a separate bill?,THE PRESIDENT. I definitely believe that we should not tie the two together. I think that there are sufficient constitutional questions which the members of Congress will have to consider. I believe in view of the fact that this act is directly, in its tide and in its purpose, directed to giving grants to public schools, that we should proceed with that bill.,Now, any other matter, I think--seems to me should be taken up as a separate issue if we want to then discuss loans. I have given my view of the constitutional problems involved in across the board loans. As the questioner indicated, there have been some kinds of loans to nonpublic schools which have been supported by the Congress and signed by the President and about which no constitutional problem has yet been raised, and the National Defense Education Act is the best example.,But across the board loans, as this group knows, this matter was not brought up in the last--President Eisenhower sent several messages to the Congress dealing with Federal aid to education. I believe there were one or two times when it was voted upon in the House. I do not recall that there was a great effort made at that time to provide across the board loans to an aid to education bill. The only time, in my knowledge, that it was brought up was about the end of the last session in August, by Senator Morse, and then just in the Senate. But it was not made a matter of great interest at that time, and I am concerned that it should not be made an issue now in such a way that we end up the year with, again, no aid to secondary schools.,Q. Mr. President, you said last week, as I recall it, that there was no room for debate about this matter.,THE PRESIDENT. That's right. There is no room for debate about grants. There is obviously room for debate about loans, because it has been debated. My view, however, is that the matter of loans, to the best of my knowledge and judgment--though this has not been tested by the courts, of course, in the sense that grants have been-but by my reading of the constitutional judgments in the Everson case, my judgment has been that across the board loans are also unconstitutional.,Q. Does that suggest that you would veto a bill that provided for across the board loans, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I made my view very clear. I think it is always a mistake before we even have legislation to talk about what I am going to do. But I think it is very clear about what my view is of grants and loans across the board to nonpublic schools. Now, colleges are in a different category. Specific programs of grants, even to colleges which are nonpublic, have been supported by the Congress and signed by the President. Loans and even grants to secondary education under some circumstances might be held to be constitutional. But across the board to all nonpublic schools, in my opinion, does raise a serious constitutional question which after reading the cases and giving it a good deal of thought, in my opinion--at least to my judgment would be unconstitutional.,Now, the President has an obligation, and the Congress, to consider this matter very carefully. I am extremely sympathetic to those families who are paying their taxes for public education and also sustaining the rights--sustaining their children in nonpublic schools. They carry a heavy burden. But I have made my position very clear for many months and I have to make my position dear now, at least as long as I am here, on what I believe to be the constitutional problem. And I also point out that this matter was not made an issue in recent years until this time, except in the case of the amendment offered at the end of the last session by Senator Morse which was just offered in the Senate and was not offered in the House of Representatives, to the best of my knowledge.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, you have taken Executive action in the field of civil rights. Do you feel there is a need now for legislation in this area, and if so do you plan to offer any at this session?,THE PRESIDENT. When I believe that we can usefully move ahead in the field of legislation, I will recommend it to the Congress. I do believe that there are a good deal of things we can do now in administering laws previously passed by the Congress, particularly in the area of voting, and also by using the powers which the Constitution gives to the President through Executive orders. When I feel that there is a necessity for a congressional action, with a chance of getting that congressional action, then I will recommend it to the Congress.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, you and the Democratic Party are on record in opposition to the changing of Indian treaties without the consent of the Indians. The Army Engineers are about to build a huge conduit dam on the upper Allegheny River which will flood a third of a western New York Indian reservation in direct violation of a treaty that was signed by George Washington with the Seneca Indians. Have you any inclination at all to halt that project in favor of the so-called Morgan alternate project which would not violate the treaty?,THE PRESIDENT. My recollection is that this matter has been tested in the courts, has it not?,Q. Yes, it has. The Supreme Court has upheld it.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not--I have no plans to interfere with that action.1,1 The President later reviewed the problems involved in the Kinzua Dam project. See his letter to the President of the Seneca Nation, Item 320.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, on the assumption that Mr. Thompson has by now caught up with Mr. Khrushchev, I wonder if you could tell us the contents of your message to the Soviet Premier and what thinking was behind this message at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that it would be more properly a matter that would best be left to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Khrushchev. It is a letter from me and I think it would be discourteous and unwise to reveal such a letter without any indication that it has been received and some response given. As far as the purpose,of the letter, the purpose of the letter was to give, in general, some of my views on the questions which are at issue now around the world, and also to indicate my strong confidence in Ambassador Thompson to speak for me and for our country at this time in any discussions he might have with Mr. Khrushchev.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, back on the subject of education. There has been rising speculation that the openly developing fights over the issues of segregation and religion as they are involved in the legislation may well stop them before they start. How do you assess the possible damage of those issues as pertaining to your legislation on building schools and loans to teachers' salaries, and do you intend to carry the issue more strongly to the public directly?,THE PRESIDENT. This matter, of course, these two, and of course other groups who are opposed to any action in this area, have all contributed to the fact that this matter has been debated for a number of years, passed the Senate at least two or three times, but we have never gotten legislation, so that, obviously, it is going to be a difficult matter to secure the passage of legislation this year. But I do not think that there is anything more important than to have good schools, well-trained competent teachers. When the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established, one of the first acts that were taken was the establishment of a public school. The Northwest Ordinance, the land grant colleges, all indicate the long traditional interest which our Government and people have had in strengthening our education. We are as good in the long-range sense as our schools are and, therefore, I am extremely interested in seeing the country this year place additional emphasis on education-additional support to education.,In one area alone, as I mentioned some time ago, those people who were first thrown out of work are at the bottom of the educational ladder. The papers are filled with ads requiring scientists, technicians, engineers, on the west coast and all across the country. People who can't find jobs are people who were not well educated at the beginning. I think everyone should have a maximum chance to develop his talents. I do not believe that that can be done effectively without passage of this bill this year. I am therefore hopeful that however strong the feelings may run--and I am very conscious of them--on all these other matters, that the program of scholarships for college students, of loans to colleges, because we are going to have double the number of children in 1970 that we do today applying for admission to our colleges, and grants to public schools--I am hopeful that that will be passed this year.,[18.] Q: Mr. President, in order to avoid another snafu, as the one that involved the 45 pieces of machinery that were originally scheduled to go to Russia, what instructions have you issued to the Departments of Defense and Commerce regarding export license for American manufacturers to Iron Curtain countries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am hopeful the procedures can be improved. There was a difference of opinion between the Commerce Department and the Defense Department, and there was a difference in emphasis in the Defense Department's position over a period of time, though they did take the view from the beginning that it was not in the national interest.,It has been, I think, quite unfortunate the way it was handled. I am hopeful that in the future we can set up better procedures so that a better judgment can be made. But I must say that it is extremely difficult for those who are making the judgment. Caution tells them to send nothing and therefore--on the other hand, we are anxious to permit some degree of trade which does not weaken our security or increase our danger to be carried on with countries. After all, countries in Western Europe are carrying on very intensive trade with the Soviet Union, and some countries with Communist China. So what they cannot get here they get there. So we wish to bring some reason to it. It is a difficult matter. But after this experience, which has been not always satisfactory, Governor Hodges has given this matter close attention with Secretary McNamara to see if we can improve our procedures. This was not the best example of Government in action.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, I have a two, part question on the RB-47 fliers. First, could you tell us now where and when and under what circumstances the fliers were shot down? And, second, are such flights being continued?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the fliers discussed the matter quite fully with the press last Friday.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with trade, some domestic groups, including labor unions, are turning to economic boycotts as their answer to import competition. I wonder if you could state your position on this approach to international trade difficulties.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am hopeful that those boycotts will not spread. It is not the--Congress has set up certain procedures by which those industries that are hard hit can protect themselves--the peril-point, escape clause, the procedures before the Tariff Commission. Congress is going to have an opportunity to consider the whole matter of reciprocal trade, I believe, next year. I recognize that these workers are hard hit. But they are not always able to make a judgment of what the total national need is and also the need--international need. I have seen some cases where boycotts have been suggested where the percentage of imports is fractional compared to the domestic market, 1 or 2 percent. Well, now, if we are not going to follow the procedures set down by the American people acting through their Congress, but instead every group is going to take it into their own hands, then, of course, we are going to have action taken against us in those countries. We sent abroad a good deal of important goods that employ hundreds of thousands and millions of people. And, as I have suggested before, the balance of trade has been in our favor by four or five billion dollars.,Two can play this game; and, therefore, unions in other countries can refuse to unload our goods. Pretty soon we will find ourselves with an exacerbated situation among friendly nations and also which will be harmful to the gold flow.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us your thinking on the problem of Communist China in view of the latest word from the Warsaw negotiations, that is, that the Chinese will not consider the admittance of the 32 American correspondents and they will not consider the release of the prisoners? I believe there was some hope that if we could exchange correspondents with the Chinese that it might be a step towards more harmonious relations.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that was our hope and if they are unwilling to do that, of course that hope has been dimmed. They have been, as we know, extremely belligerent towards us, and they have been unfailing in their attacks upon the United States. But, of course, I think part of that has been because they recognize that the United States is committed to the defense of--committed to maintaining its connections with other countries, committed to its own defense and the defense of freedom.,But they have been extremely harsh in their attacks upon us and I would like to see a lessening of that tension. That is our hope from the beginning. But we are not prepared to surrender in order to get a relaxation of tension.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, during the debate on the Meriwether nomination, Senator Morse raised some questions about whether this nominee had a police record and he said you had sent up to see him one of your legislative aides who had read certain notes from the FBI files. I wonder if you can enlighten us as to what are the facts so far as this--,THE PRESIDENT. I informed the conference and the Senate that I looked over Mr. Meriwether's FBI record before I sent it to the Senate. Mr. Meriwether is now a member of the Export-Import Bank, confirmed by the Senate, by a rather large figure, and I am confident that he will do a good job.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to the Peace Corps, to do away with the objection of some countries which may not welcome American corpsmen, the suggestion has been made that you propose a United Nations corps of which the American corpsmen would be a part. Do you have a comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that that could usefully be considered. It is not intended that any member of the American Peace Corps would go to any country where he was not warmly welcome. In addition, as I have said from the beginning, we are putting our major emphasis, at the beginning, on teachers and I am hopeful that those countries which are interested in understanding our country and our traditions will welcome these young men and women. But they will be sent only where they are welcome and I would certainly feel that we should consider with the United Nations how we can bring our programs into harmony.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-03-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have three or four announcements which I will make.,[1.] We have extended an invitation to the Chancellor, German Chancellor Adenauer, to come to the United States, and he has accepted our invitation, and we are delighted that he is going to be here in Washington on April 12th and April 13th. I am looking forward very much to meeting him and to having an exchange of views.,[2.] Secondly, I am writing to the Congress, to Congressman Vinson and to Senator Russell, a letter recommending that they consider legislation to restore former President Eisenhower to his military rank of General of the Army. President Eisenhower's outstanding military record and his long public service to our country in war and peace, I think, with that long experience it would be an appropriate act by the Congress if they should restore him to his former military rank.,[3.] Third, it is with some satisfaction that I am able to announce that the week ending today is the first week since last July that there has been no net outflow of gold from this country to foreign countries. While we realize that this complete halt is only temporary, I believe it does signify the confidence in the dollar throughout the world is being restored.,[4.] Fourth, our objective now is to help make effective at the retail level the influence of the Federal Reserve on the wholesale supply of money. We intend first to facilitate the flow of mortgage funds into the hands of prospective home buyers. I have requested Mr. Joseph McMurray, Chairman Designate of the Home Loan Bank Board, to meet with leaders in the savings and loan field, and to urge them to reduce mortgage rates so as to expand the flow of money into mortgages. His first such mission will be to California, where mortgage rates have been among the highest. We trust that his efforts here and around the country will mean real gains for home owners, the housing industry, and the economy.,[5.] And lastly, I have today signed an Executive order providing for the establishment of a Peace Corps 1 on a temporary pilot basis. I am also sending to Congress a message proposing authorization of a permanent Peace Corps. This corps will be a pool of trained men and women sent overseas by the United States Government or through private institutions and organizations, to help foreign countries meet their urgent needs for skilled manpower. It is our hope to have between five hundred and a thousand people in the field by the end of this year. We will send Americans abroad who are qualified to do a job. We will send those abroad who are committed to the concept which motivates the Peace Corps. It will not be easy. None of the men and women will be paid a salary. They will live at the same level as the citizens of the country which they are sent to, doing the same work, eating the same food, speaking the same language. We are going to put particular emphasis on those men and women who have skills in teaching, agriculture, and in health.,1 Executive Order 10924, 24 F.R. 1789.,I am hopeful it will be a source of satisfaction to Americans and a contribution to world peace.,[6.] Q.. Mr. President, you said in your State of the Union Message that you had ordered a reappraisal of our entire defense strategy and that you would ask the Secretary of Defense to give you his conclusions by the end of February. Can you tell us what any of these conclusions are and would they involve any increased reliance on conventional as opposed to nuclear force?,THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary of Defense has passed to me his conclusions, and at the end of, I would say, about 2 weeks I will have finished our study of it, my study of it, with him, and will then send our recommendations to the Congress.,Secondly, in answer to your question, part of his recommendation is to strengthen conventional forces.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, some economists have voiced the opinion that perhaps the recession has reached a rock-bottom and that the economy is on an upturn. Would you give us your views about that, and also answer some suggestions in your political opposition that perhaps some of your antirecession legislation may not be needed because of this expected upturn?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hope that an upturn does take place, but I must say that I think the Department of Commerce today is going to release some statistics and figures which do not indicate that an upturn is taking place as yet.,I would say there are still a great many hundreds of thousands of Americans who are dependent upon unemployment compensation. There are many--several millions of Americans who can't find work. Members of Congress and others with whom I have talked report from various sections of the country that they still face a most serious situation. I think it would be premature to make a judgment that our economy is on the rise and that therefore there's no necessity for action. I don't take that view at all. I think all of these programs are needed.,And I am hopeful that it will be possible--I am hopeful that we will see the economy move up in the spring and summer, but we can make no predictions about it. And there's not sufficient evidence at hand yet by any Government department to indicate an upturn has taken place as of today.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, under the present U.N. troop command in the Congo, the pro-Communist Gizenga Government seems to be gaining ground, expanding its influence there almost daily. Is this Government satisfied with the conduct of that command and, if not, have we made 'any representations to Secretary Hammarskjold about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the situation is very uncertain in the Congo and it is not possible to wholly accept the premise upon which your question was based.,The United Nations resolution and, therefore, the new mandate given to the Secretary, is really only a week old. I am hopeful that the resolution will be carried out effectively. We are going to continue to concern ourselves, as members of the United Nations, with its successful implementation.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, what is the role of Mr. Sargent Shriver in the Peace Corps, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. He has been working in organizing the Peace Corps.,Q. Will he continue in this--will he head it now that it is set up?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are going to make a judgment about who will be the head and what its staff will be in several days. He has been working on a voluntary basis up to this time.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, back in January the Civil Rights Commission recommended that Federal funds be withheld from public colleges and universities that discriminate on grounds of race, religion, or national origin. How do you feel about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is not part of the--this matter, this recommendation, as you know, is not included in the legislation that we sent to the Congress. As to whether we should by Executive order withhold funds from certain schools, that is a matter which is under consideration. It will be for--as a part of our general overall study of where the Federal Government might usefully place its power and influence to expand civil rights.,We hope in the next few days to have an Executive order forthcoming which will strengthen the employment opportunities, both in and out of the Government, for all Americans, and it will be followed as time goes on with other actions by the Federal Government to expand employment possibilities.,One of the areas which is being considered, of course, is the field of education; another is the field of housing. There are a great many areas where action might be taken. The one that will be taken first will be in the field of employment.,[11.] Q. It has been suggested, Mr. President, that when we give food to hungry people in other countries, we put it into an international pool so they will not know where it comes from. My question is, if our system can produce an overabundance of food, and the Communist system is not able to produce enough sometimes for their own people, why should we not advertise this to the world and label it, \"A gift of the American people\"?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we should. And Mr. McGovern informed me--one of the matters I discussed with him was this question, and he told me that in his trip through Brazil, that on all the food that he saw being distributed which had originated in the United States there was clearly marked on it, \"A gift of the people of the United\nStates,\" which I was glad to hear.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there is a great deal of interest abroad in your attitude and feeling toward the Algerian peace talks that are going on now. Would you comment, please, on what progress you feel might be made?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would hope that they are fruitful.,[13.] Q. New England would like to know, sir, if your administration is going to take the limits off of the imports of residual fuel oil.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the Secretary of the Interior recently provided for an increase in the importation of oil or residual fuel oil, which I hope will be helpful.,Q. Do you think he will take the limits off completely? They say that is not sufficient to help New England.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have to consider the needs of the coal industry and the domestic producers, the needs of New England, and we are trying to reach a balance which will protect the public interest.,One matter which has concerned me, of course, has been the sharp increase, 12 percent, in the cost of fuel in the East and Northeast United States. That increase has seemed excessive and, as you know, several agencies of the Government are now investigating to find out what was the cause of that, what I would consider to be an excessive increase.,But in answer to your question, we are attempting to reach a balance.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, on the nomination of Charles Meriwether, is there anything in this man's background that might embarrass your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I have sent Mr. Meriwether's name up there after reading the FBI report and other records.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report that Vice President Johnson is setting up a special office across the street from yours. Does this indicate, sir, that you plan to place before him broader, perhaps unprecedented, Executive responsibilities?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have already indicated that he is going to have special responsibilities in the field of space. We are going to recommend to the Congress shortly that the space agency be reconstituted, with the Vice President instead of the President as chairman. In addition, he will have responsibilities in the field of employment opportunities. And also he is concerned-as a member for many years of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate as well as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Preparedness, he has been concerned with national security matters generally. And, therefore, it would seem to me appropriate that he would have some offices in the Executive Office Building so that he could meet these responsibilities most effectively.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, what sort of a response have you gotten from ordinary citizens as a result of your appeal a couple of weeks ago for ordinary people to write in about examples of waste in the Government spending that they have noticed, and have you any other examples which you could tell us about besides the $2,000 officers' club--$20,000; excuse me.,THE PRESIDENT. We have received some letters, and their recommendations are being investigated to find out if the facts are as they state them. But we have none to announce as yet. The investigations haven't been completed.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, your roving Ambassador to Africa has been widely criticized for some of the statements he has made, that is, Mr. Williams, including the one of \"Africa for Africans,\" and the like. Do you find any validity in this criticism, and would you consider that his tour of Africa has been a plus for the United States policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I don't--I think Governor Williams has done very well. I am wholly satisfied with his mission. It's a very difficult one. Africa is not an easy matter to--the problems of Africa are not easy. And there are a good many conflicting forces that are loose in Africa as well as all parts of the world.,The statement \"Africa for the Africans\" does not seem to me to be a very unreasonable statement. He made it clear that he was talking about all those who felt that they were Africans, whatever their color might be, whatever their race might be. I do not know who else Africa should be for.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Sheppard, who is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction, stated that the Air Force missile base program, any way you look at it, is in a terrible mess, although he conceded there was some slight improvement in recent months. Do you care to comment, or will this forthcoming report that you mentioned before comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are a great many difficulties. It is an extremely elaborate system to construct. A good many of the cost estimates were underestimated at the time. There are elaborate communications facilities that have to be developed, and it's not been proceeding altogether satisfactorily.,I think the congressional investigation was most helpful. And I think the Department of Defense will benefit from it, and we will attempt to improve the program.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, the Russians seem to have taken the position that Mr. McCloy's remarks the other day about the general and complete disarmament proposal of Mr. Khrushchev was a slogan, in McCloy's words. The Russians seem to take the position from this that your administration has now rejected this Soviet concept of disarmament. Is that a fact, or what is your attitude about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think Mr. McCloy was pointing out that you have to, in addition to trying to work for disarmament, you also have to work for a mechanism which will permit an orderly settlement of disputes between nations, settlements which under present conditions might be settled by military action, but which in some future date, if the goal of disarmament was achieved, would have to be settled by another means.,Now, I think it would be premature to make any judgments on what progress can be made in the field of disarmament. It is going to be some time before we have completed our study of what the American position will be on disarmament.,We are proceeding immediately ahead, of course, on nuclear testing. But I did not read into Mr. McCloy's statement any broad position, any broad administration policy, because we have not reached that policy on disarmament.,Q. Do you accept, sir, the view that disarmament is really not a legitimate word for what we are trying to do, that really it's arms control that the West, including the United States, is after or should be after?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we want to proceed with arms control, leading to disarmament. But, of course, this Complete disarmament in 4 years is a goal which has been talked about for a great many years.,I am somewhat familiar with the conversations which took place in Geneva under much less strained conditions from '28 to '29, through '33 and '34. It is extremely difficult to reach satisfactory agreements on disarmament. At that time the world was not divided as sharply as it is today, and yet rather limited progress was made. So this is an extremely difficult matter. I think the first area, of course, is in nuclear testing. That, I am hopeful, we can reach an agreement on.,But we also are going to be concerning ourselves with our position on disarmament. And I hope by this summer we will have completed that analysis. What progress can be made will depend upon the good will on both sides and their willingness to accept realistic inspection systems.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, recently documents were made public indicating that the ideological split between Red China and Russia is perhaps greater than many people have thought. Do you feel that this split might be to the benefit of the United States? And to what extent? For example, do you think that this might bring Russia and the United States closer together, over the long run?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't attempt to make a judgment about what our future relations are going to be. I am hopeful that we can work out a relationship which will permit us to live in peace and maintain our security and the security of those countries with which we are allied. That is our object.,I am hopeful that the Soviet Union will come to that conclusion also. What factors will be in their minds in making their policy, of course, can only be surmised. But we are attempting, and will be attempting in the coming months, to determine whether any effective agreements can be accomplished with the Soviet Union which will permit a relaxation of world tension. And we should know that in some months.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, one of your campaign complaints was that fewer than a hundred people in the whole Federal Government were working in the field of disarmament and planning for negotiations. Can you tell us how many people you have working on that problem now and what progress you are making towards building up what you would regard as an adequate staff to deal with this question?,THE PRESIDENT. We have, of course, the problem, and have had it, of going into the negotiations in late March. There have been voluntary groups, particularly one led by Dr. Fisk, which has been concerning itself with our position in those negotiations. I discussed with Mr. McCloy the setting up of a longer range operation on disarmament and nuclear testing, and we are now considering whether that should be established as a separate agency in the executive branch or in the State Department, with permanent personnel and a budget under a statutory action by the Congress. I am hopeful--Mr. McCloy is considering it, and we hope to be able to make a recommendation to Congress about the long-range buildup of our disarmament activities in some days.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, what significance, if any, do you attach to the fact that the Russians put part of your news conference on their television, and would you welcome more of this?,THE PRESIDENT. . I would welcome more of it. And I am glad that they are doing it, and I hope that it can be expanded so that it gives an accurate reflection of the point of view of this country.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, this last weekend, Vice Chancellor Erhard in Germany suggested that West Germany was not necessarily going to continue aid to underdeveloped areas beyond r year. Was it your understanding with the Foreign Minister, Herr von Brentano, when he left here, that this would be on a continuing basis?,THE PRESIDENT. It is my understanding that it would be on a continuing basis, and I am sure that that would be the point of view of the German Government. As to how much they will be able to do on a continuing basis, that is a matter which they have to determine and I am sure will be a subject of discussion between the United States and the Germans and other interested countries. But my impression was very precise, that it would be on a continuing basis. But I do not say that the figures which have been reported in the papers as to how much would be provided on a continuing basis, I did not have any understanding that those were the figures that they would finally reach. The idea of continuity was clearly accepted, and the idea of the figures is a matter of course which would be before the Germans and on which of course we will be talking with them.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Anfuso has recommended that this country take the initiative and officially invite Soviet space scientists to meet with U.S. scientists to work out plans for cooperation and peaceful exploration of space in line with your own recommendations. Would you comment on this, and could you tell us what plans you may have now to achieve this end?,THE PRESIDENT. We are attempting to improve our exchange program on a reciprocal basis with the Soviet Union--and have been engaged in that activity for some time.,Q. Yes, but have you defined any special areas in which you could cooperate without any harm to our national security?,THE PRESIDENT. When we have been able to work out any successful exchanges or new exchanges, we will announce them. But we are of course concerned that they will be reciprocal, and national security will be protected, and also that it would contribute to some useful purpose. We have, as you know, had recently here in Washington a meeting which had been arranged some months ago on meteorology, in which the Soviet representative was unable to be here, which was a source of regret. There are other proposals we have made for the long-range exploration of space, weather control, and so on, and we are going to continue to attempt to engage the Soviet Union in a common effort in that kind of activity.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, you told an earlier press conference that for every new program you set up, you would suggest a source of revenue. Does that mean, for example, in the case of the education program that you are going to suggest some special way of financing that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, what I said was that for the proposals that we would make, we would have a suggested source of revenue, and by the end of the month, when we send up our completed budgetary recommendations for '61-62, we will also suggest sources of revenue.\nNow, in the case of unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, social security, highways, and medical care for the aged, we did suggest the appropriation.,On the suggestion of the appropriation on agriculture and on education there is no direct tax link to those, but we will have some proposals to make before the end of the month to bring that section of the budget which we have effected in line with the revenues.,I have excluded, of course, from the beginning, what we do in the field of national security.,Q. A sort of an overall balancing out is what you have in mind in the case of education, and not a specific source, but some general program for changing the revenue?,THE PRESIDENT. I think as I have stated, we are going to suggest revenues for any expenditures that we make which do not have by themselves or linked to them a source of revenue as the other programs did.,Q. Have you made any estimate whether there will be a deficit in fiscal year 1962?,THE PRESIDENT. We will send to the Congress, I believe on March 23, our view on what the '62 budget will look like. We have not completed our programs, and we have not completed our analysis of tax revenues at this time.,Q. Mr. President, there is a report that there is a billion and a half deficit in sight. Is that correct?,THE PRESIDENT. I would prefer to wait until we are able to complete our programs because the amount of the budget is tied pretty much to what we recommend. All these programs, with the exception of defense, will be finished by the 20th, and we will then be in a position to--Of course, the final budget deficit will depend quite a lot on what we do in the field of national security. And I have not finished making a judgment on how much we should recommend in addition to the present '62 budget.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, the aide memoire which was handed to Dr. von Brentano emphasized the need for burden sharing on defense and foreign aid in the Atlantic Community. Can you speak somewhat more precisely of your ideas on this burden sharing?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I hope that all the members of the Atlantic Community will contribute according to their resources for the maintenance of NATO and for the assistance to the newly emerging countries, and that the burden will be commonly assumed, and the OECD discussions, the discussions-the bilateral discussions with the Germans, discussions which are going to take place in March and in April in Europe--I am hopeful will lead to that result.,[27.] Q. Sir, in view of the criticism that has occurred, could you elaborate on why you have not recommended Federal aid to public and--to private and parochial elementary and secondary schools?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Constitution clearly prohibits aid to the school, to parochial schools. I don't think there is any doubt of that.,The Everson case, which is probably the most celebrated case, provided only by a 5 to 4 decision was it possible for a local community to provide bus rides to nonpublic school children. But all through the majority and minority statements on that particular question there was a very clear prohibition against aid to the school direct. The Supreme Court made its decision in the Everson case by determining that the aid was to the child, not to the school. Aid to the school is-there isn't any room for debate on that subject. It is prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has made that very clear. And therefore there would be no possibility of our recommending it.,Q. But you are free to make the recommendations you have made which will affect private and parochial colleges and universities?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the aid that we have recommended to colleges is in a different form. We are aiding the student in the same way the GI bill of rights aided the student. The scholarships are given to the students who have particular talents and they can go to the college they want. In that case it is aid to the student, not to the school or college, and, therefore, not to a particular religious group. That is the distinction between them, except in the case of aid to medical schools, and that has been done for a number of years. Because that is a particular kind of technical assistance the constitutional question has not arisen on that matter.,[28.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to Mr. Meriwether, it has been alleged in the press and in Congress that he was campaign manager to former Admiral Crommelin. Now in fairness.--,THE PRESIDENT. In 1950.,Q. Yes. In fairness to Mr. Meriwether, can you state whether this is true and whether it entered into your thinking?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, he was campaign manager; had association with the campaign in 1950. That's correct.,[29.] Q. Regarding your opening remark about the recommendation by the Defense Secretary to increase our conventional arms strength, would you please give us some of your thinking as to the rationale for this shift, if it is a shift, in our defense spending?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not say it is a shift. I would say it's--there are proposals made by the Secretary which talk about a general strengthening of our Armed Forces, including many areas. So I am not sure that the word \"shift\" is the most descriptive.,[30.] Q. Mr. President, could you say whether any strengthening of our conventional forces will imply or mean a lessening of emphasis on nuclear weapons, or in our capacity to use them in a pinch?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not heard that. We have reached no decision which would indicate that there has been a change in our reliance. When--if we do reach a change in our reliance in new weapons, we will make it very clear. But no such change has been reached at the present time. What we are anxious to do, of course, is to see conventional forces strengthened not only in Western Europe but throughout the world. And that, it seems to me, was the gist of the Secretary's memorandum and his testimony yesterday and his public statements.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-02-15","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several statements to make first, and then I will be glad to submit to questions.,[1.] Ambassador Stevenson in the Security Council today has expressed fully and dearly the attitude of the United States Government towards the attempts to undermine the effectiveness of the United Nations organization. The United States can take care of itself, but the United Nations system exists so that every nation can have the assurance of security. Any attempt to destroy this system is a blow aimed directly at the independence and security of every nation, large and small.,I am also, however, seriously concerned at what appears to be a threat of unilateral intervention in the internal affairs of the Republic of Congo. I find it difficult to believe that any government is really planning to take so dangerous and irresponsible a step. Nevertheless, I feel it important that there should be no misunderstanding of the position of the United States in such an eventuality.,The United States has supported and will continue to support the United Nations presence in the Congo. The United States considers that the only legal authority entitled to speak for the Congo as a whole is a government established under the Chief of State, President Kasavubu, who has been seated in the General Assembly of the United Nations by a majority vote of its members. The broadening of the government under President Kasavubu is a quite legitimate subject of discussion, and such discussions have been going on in Leopoldville and in New York. But the purported recognition of Congolese factions as so called governments in other parts of that divided country can only confuse and make more difficult the task of securing Congolese independence and unity.,The United Nations offers the best, if not the only possibility for the restoration of conditions of stability and order in the Congo.,The press reports this afternoon that Prime Minister Nehru has stated, and I quote, \"If the United Nations goes out of the Congo, it will be a disaster.\" I strongly agree width this view. Only by the presence of the United Nations in the Congo can peace be kept in Africa.,I would conceive it to be the duty of the United States and, indeed, all members of the United Nations to defend the Charter of the United Nations by opposing any attempt by any government to intervene unilaterally in the Congo.,[2.] Secondly, I have a statement that we have today recognized the Government of El Salvador. It has announced its determination to bring about free and democratic elections in that country, and it seeks solutions for the economic and social difficulties which that country has faced. These objectives are in consonance with our goal of a free and prosperous Latin America. Manifestos of the government and its agencies have indicated a clear determination to improve the standard of living of the people of that country, particularly those engaged in agriculture. We hope to be able to assist El Salvador in reaching these goals under the spirit of the act of Bogota.,[3.] Thirdly, this country is most concerned about the very serious problem of unemployment which we have faced this winter and the more than five and a half million Americans who want to work and can't find a job.,We are particularly concerned about the more than 600,000 Americans who have exhausted their unemployment compensation checks and who are now on relief. We have sent to the Congress a program which we believe would be of assistance to the country and to them this winter. We do, as you know, provide for an extension of unemployment compensation benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits. We provide aid to unemployed workers. Today under the law a child of a worker who is out of work can only receive necessary assistance if his family splits up. We would correct that situation.,We sent a program up for aid to distressed areas.,We have sent up legislation improving the minimum wage.,We have sent up legislation to the Hill which will provide for an increase in social security benefits, and it will be followed by other programs as time goes on.,We have also provided for Executive action increasing the amount of food available in those areas of the United States where people live on these food packages.,I hope that we can get action on these programs as soon as possible. Today the Ways and Means Committee of the House held hearings on our program to extend unemployment compensation benefits. I am hopeful that we can move forward this winter so that some relief can be given to our fellow Americans.,In order to provide a stimulus to our economy I have provided, with the cooperation of the departments of the Government, for a speedup in programs using funds now available. Over $250 million, as we have said, will be distributed immediately under the GI dividend program. There are $4 billion for tax refunds which are coming due. As soon as those who are available for these refunds can put their applications in, we will attempt to stimulate and improve and quicken distribution of these funds.,We provided under the instructions given through the State of the Union Address for$700 million, committed this month for additional Polaris submarines and airlift capacity. In addition, we are providing through the Post Office a speedup in the programs to build post offices which had been authorized and approved by the Congress previously; but these programs would be developed in a more concentrated period than they would otherwise have been.,For farmers we have provided $75 million additional for loans to speed spring planting costs and also for farm home loans.,For the Federal highway construction program we are going to make $734 million to be available to the States this month. This program of course calls for action by the States and the local bodies. And we are sending, tonight, telegrams to all the State Governors asking if they also can provide for speedup in their programs.,I want to make it clear that we are going to continue to work in cooperation with the Governors and with the Congress, all agencies of the Government, because we want to see the American economy get back on its feet. We want to see these people working again.,In addition, the Small Business Administration plans to increase by 25 percent the criteria for what small businesses there are that are eligible for defense contracts. By increasing this criteria we will make other small businesses eligible who happen to be in areas where there is high unemployment.,I am hopeful that these programs will all be of assistance. Mr. Goldberg's tour showed that in States like Michigan, nearly 350,000 people are out of work; 12 percent of the people in Gary, Ind.--over 200,000 steel workers; and they need our help. I will be glad to answer any questions.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, regarding the situation in the Congo and the crisis precipitated there by the Soviet Union, could you evaluate the impact on Soviet-American relations and your hopes that they might be improving?,THE PRESIDENT. This statement was carefully drawn and represents the policy of the United States at this time on these matters, and I am going to confine myself, in all questions on the Congo, to the statement that we have made. I think this is the most effective way to deal with it.,Q. Mr. President, in a related field, however, Mr. Khrushchev this afternoon, I think in a message replying to you, said that he Welcomed your proposal that you voiced in the State of the Union Message for pooling American-Soviet efforts in space exploration projects. Do you think this sort of pooling and cooperation you envisioned in your State of the Union Message will still be possible under the tense conditions that developed in the U.N. today?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope it will be possible for the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union to develop in such a way that the peace can be protected and that it will be possible for us to use our energies along peaceful and productive and fruitful lines.,The development of space, preventing outer space from being used as a new area of war, of course, is of the greatest possible concern to the people of this country. I am hopeful that it will be possible, if relations between our two countries can be maintained, can be channeled along peaceful lines; I am hopeful that real progress can be made this year. But it is my earnest hope that our relations can remain harmonious and that it will be possible for us to cooperate in peaceful ventures rather than be differing on matters which carry with them such hazards.,[5.] Q. Along this line, sir, could you tell us how you would feel about a meeting at some time in the next few weeks or months with Mr. Khrushchev? Do you think it would be helpful or if it should be delayed?,THE PRESIDENT. There are no plans nor have there been any plans for any meeting with Mr. Khrushchev. As I said earlier, I have not heard whether Mr. Khrushchev is planning to come to the United Nations meeting. There are no other plans for a meeting at this time.,Q. If he did come, sir, would you welcome a visit of Mr. Khrushchev to Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. I would make a judgment as to what could usefully be done once we knew what Mr. Khrushchev's plans were and what--we would make a judgment as to what actions we would take. But I must say I have not heard that Mr. Khrushchev is planning to come to the United Nations at this time.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, you addressed a conference of businessmen here early this week and One of the officials of that conference noticed afterwards with some satisfaction that you hadn't used the word recession. He said he thought this was a good thing because in fact there 'was no business recession. Was your omission because you agreed with him or how do you feel about the word and about the economic Situation?,THE PRESIDENT. As you know, if you are unemployed and out of a job you think there is a recession. If you are working, perhaps the impact of the economic slowdown doesn't hit you quite as hard. I think we have been in a recession for some months and that we have not recovered fully from the recession of '58, which is a matter, of course, of great concern.,We are concerned because while there was an economic slowdown in '49, and '54, and '58, we now have an economic slowdown only 2 years after the '58 recession. So this compounds our difficulties. I think that--well, to--to put it precisely to things, then I would call this a recession.,[7.] Q. In line, sir, with your statement a moment ago that you hoped that the relations between United States and Russia would improve, Adm. Arleigh Burke is quoted in some newspapers today in an interview in which he makes some rather sharp comments on American and Russian relations and among other things says that the United States Navy would sail into the Black Sea if it so chose. I am asking, sir, is this in line with your administration policy that all high officials should speak with one voice?,THE PRESIDENT. I have been informed--and perhaps Mr. Salinger can correct me--that that interview was given on January 12, which was before the administration took over January 20 and before we gave any indication that we would like all statements dealing with national security to be coordinated. I would say that this makes me happier than ever that such a directive has gone out. [Laughter],[8.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to change the scene here to Cuba, if I may, for a moment. A member of Congress has raised the issue of possible conflict in our trade policy towards Cuba. He points out that under President Eisenhower's order all exports from this country to Cuba were barred. On the other hand, we are now importing considerable quantities of Cuban goods. Specifically this member of Congress pointed out one liquor company has purchased $12 million of Cuban molasses. Also we are importing considerable quantities of Cuban fruit and vegetables. Have you done anything about it or are you looking into this matter or contemplate doing anything about it?,THE PRESIDENT. The molasses has not been purchased as yet. It was intended, as I understand, to be purchased during the next month, and that is a private transaction. There are seventy, I think, or eighty million dollars worth of fruit, tobacco, and so on which are coming in, mostly to Florida. We are now making a study of what would be the most beneficial action we could take in regard to that.,On the molasses there is some question as to under what conditions we could intervene in that transaction, but, of course, it has been my hope that that transaction would not be consummated. I am not convinced that we are totally without resources and we are considering what we could take to consider that particular transaction. Twelve million dollars, I believe, is supposed to be made into gin--and I am not sure that that is in the public interest. [Laughter],[9.] Q. Sir, on the space probe towards Venus made by the Soviets recently, do you think this would point up any space gap between our two countries, and do you see there is any need for a speedup in our efforts in that field?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet Union, as I said in the State of the Union, of course, is ahead of us in boosters and there is an indication they are going to be ahead of us for some time to come. This was, as I said in my statement at the time, this is a scientific achievement that is an impressive one. We have made exceptional gains in space technology, which may not be as dramatic as Sputnik or as a probe to Venus but which in the long run does, at least I think should, give all Americans satisfaction in the efforts that we have made.,Boosters, however, we are behind on and it is a matter of great concern. The Soviet Union made significant breakthrough in this area some years ago. They have continued to maintain their lead, and it explains why they were ahead of us in Sputnik and it explains why they have been able to put larger objects into space. We have to recognize their chances of continuing to do that unless we are able to make a breakthrough before the Saturn booster comes into operation. Unless we are able to make a scientific breakthrough we have to recognize that we are in a position--secondary position on boosters. It is a matter of great concern. We have sufficiently large boosters to protect us militarily, but for the long, heavy exploration into space, which requires large boosters, the Soviet Union has been ahead and it is going to be a major task to surpass them.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, this is a question on the sound dollar. A relative of yours, a Republican relative, Mr. Bayard Auchincloss of Oklahoma City, has started a one-man campaign to regain--to restore the sound dollar. He has said that the public needs to be inspired by some forceful leadership in Washington to lead them in one major phase--and that is: fighting Government waste. Sir, do you propose to spark such leadership from the White House, or do you have other means in mind by which the public can assist you in regaining the sound dollar?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't want to deny kinship. But I--to the best of my knowledge, he is not related to me.,Q. Your step-second cousin. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Wall, then he is related to me. But we have not met; I have not heard from him directly. We want to--as a matter of fact, several members of the Congress--I was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Reorganization which attempted to put through some of the Hoover Commission recommendations--we are going to continue to work with a smaller staff beginning, of course, from the White House. And I am hopeful that all members of this Government will not consider now that they have been placed in position of responsibility that the test of their good work is the size of their staff. We are going to continue to try and will seek the cooperation of every citizen of this country in making sure that we get value for every dollar that the Government spends.,The Government spends a great deal of money. In fact, I asked, yesterday, Mr. Bell to talk to Senator Douglas and Congressman Hebert, who conducted hearings on waste in the Pentagon and have suggested it might be possible to save more than $1 billion, to meet with them. And we are going to continue to meet with every citizen, whether he is my relative or not--I would be glad to hear from Mr. Auchincloss. It is an important problem. When the Government spends over $80 billion we know we can do a better job in spending that money more wisely. And I would be delighted and I welcome the view of Mr. Auchincloss or any other citizen and all members of this administration to try to maintain a balance between revenue and expenditures.,[II.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to your program to distribute surplus foods to needy people in other countries, 2 weeks ago Dr. Fry, who is head of the World Council of Churches, advocated that this be done through Government channels and not through church or other private agencies. He said. that the private agencies just can't insure that the food is going to reach the most needy, which our Government regulations require. Has your administration formulated a policy on this, or do you have a comment on it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course some does go through the governments and then we have relied upon private agencies. I would be very reluctant to abandon private agencies because they have done a first-class job in assisting us to get this food out.,I would be glad to see his comments and see what his suggestions would be. The alternative, of course, would be for us to distribute through the government involved, and we have never felt that that was better than having it done through voluntary groups. But Mr. McGovern is now in Latin America and he is looking at what we can do in that area, in food for peace, and I am sure that he will come back with some proposals on how we can make this distribution more effective.,Q. May I just say, excuse me, sir, Dr. Fry does not suggest clothing and so forth--he still wants that which is contributed voluntarily to be distributed through the church. But just our Government surplus food.,THE PRESIDENT. We will look into that.\n[12.] Q. Mr. President, have you deter mined whether any employee of our State Department was responsible or had any part in advancing the Communist foothold in Cuba, and if so, sir, will you take steps to remove them from office?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that probably miscalculations were made by our country in assessing in Cuba, but I have no evidence that anyone did it out of any other motive but to serve the United States.,[13.] Q. Mr. President, to clarify an earlier answer you made, is it your view that we can proceed in serious negotiations with the Soviet Union in such areas as arms control and nuclear test ban while they continue to agitate the situation in the United Nations and in the Congo? In other words, can we conduct relations with them in compartments?,THE PRESIDENT. . I am hopeful that all countries that are members of the United Nations will make a determination to operate in the Congo through the United Nations. I think that that is essential. As I said in my statement, unilateral intervention by one country or a group of countries outside of the United Nations, would endanger the United Nations and endanger peace in Africa. I am hopeful that that will come to be the judgment of all members of the United Nations. And if it does, I think that we will find ourselves with the prospects of peace increased.,[14.] Q. Following up Mr. Kent's question, Mr. President, the Republican Party as a whole seems to also take the view that your administration has overstated the economic recession. I wonder, sir, if you have given any thought to conferring with the Republican leaders in Congress in hopes of getting their support for your program to solve the economic recession, and if you have made available to them all the information that your administration has on the economic situation?,THE PRESIDENT. To answer your second part, we have made available all the information that we have. I have described it. Everyone can look at these figures and come to the conclusion that--their own conclusion. I see no necessity or desirability of minimizing our problems. I think only by facing the problems with precision is it possible to get action.,I want the cooperation of the leadership on both sides and will make every effort that I can to seek the support of Members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle. But anyone who looks at the million cars in inventory today, who looks at the figures on unemployment, who looks at the steel capacity operating at about 50 percent of capacity--who looks at the 600,000 Americans who have exhausted their unemployment compensation, who looks at five and a half million Americans who are out of work, who looks at our decline in economic growth since last spring, I would say would come to the same conclusion that I have: that it is necessary for us to take action.,The fact that a judgment was made the last year about what 1960 would be--1960 was not the most prosperous year in our history as had been estimated earlier. We are now--find ourselves obliged to take action this winter. And by calling it a recession or calling it--saying it is not a recession, calling it a plateau--that's no excuse for not taking action. In my opinion it is essential that we move forward this winter because we don't want to find ourselves in the winter and the spring and the summer debating about our problem of whether we are in an economic recession or whether we have an economic decline and finding at the end of the congressional session that no action has been taken, only that all of my statements have had impact, I believe, of a snowflake in the Potomac, which was the description used by a distinguished Member of the Congress. I hope they have more effect than that.\n[15.] Q. Mr. President, your task force on distressed areas considers an independent agency with an administrator directly responsible to you the most efficient way of coping with this urgent problem. They are fearful that it might get fragmented if it were made a bureau in the Commerce Department. Do you have any objection to the creation of an independent agency under your authority?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that it would be most advantageous to have it in the Department of Commerce with all of the resources of the Department of Commerce to supplement its work. That would be my first choice. If the Congress makes a different judgment, however, I would accept that and say that an independent agency would be useful. But I do think that with Governor Hodges, who is committed to the program, with a Cabinet officer to represent their views at Cabinet meetings, and with the broad range of responsibilities which the Department of Commerce has, that this is the best place to put it. But this is a matter on which I would certainly listen to the Congress if they came to a different conclusion.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, if other nations become reluctant to assign troops to the U.N. for police work in the Congo, would you tell us whether we would consider contributing American units?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are now hopeful that the policy which the Secretary General has followed, of securing troops for the Congo from Africa and Asia--we are hopeful that that is going to be successful. And until that fails--I don't think we should go under any assumption that he is going to fail, and if he does fail then we will have to make a new judgment. But I am hopeful that those countries which are most involved with maintaining the security and independence of the African countries and peace in Africa, that they will continue to respond to the Secretary. General's appeal for support. And that is also true, of Course, of Asian nations who are also concerned, particularly the smaller countries. We hope that they can maintain control of troop movements and not begin to have troops from larger countries with all of the hazards that that might bring.,Q. Mr. President, in view of your remarks about the Congo and other world problems, do you regard the future developments in the Congo as a kind of good faith test for the prospect of improving the international atmosphere as a whole?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, if we fail--if the United Nations fails in the Congo, if we who are members of the United Nations fail, then of course the future usefulness of the United Nations will be impaired. And I think that this would be particularly serious for smaller countries.,As I said in my statement, the United States is not a small country. We can defend ourselves. Countries which I think must rely particularly upon the United Nations are smaller countries. The smallest country in the United Nations has the same vote in the General Assembly as the Soviet Union and the United States. And therefore I would think that they would be reluctant to see the United Nations fragmented, to see its usefulness impaired, to see the authority of the Secretary General, who represents all the members of the United Nations, to see it lessened. So I regard this as a most important test of the future effectiveness of the United Nations.,Q. Mr. President, do you find that the United States as a great power, as you have described, with legitimate interests all around the world, is sometimes hampered in the pursuit of these national interests by its membership in the United Nations? Could you conceive of a situation perhaps in Latin America where we would be hampered in a place where we had a vital interest by United Nations action?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I suppose it is possible always to conceive of situations, but I will say that the United Nations action in--for example, the fact that they maintained troops in the Gaza Strip for a number of years, I think, has been helpful in maintaining peace in that area. And the Congo has been an extremely difficult assignment and responsibility for the United Nations. But at least we have not had as yet massive unilateral intervention by great powers with all of the risks of war that that might bring, and with all the dangers to the peace that that might bring, because of the way the United Nations has met its responsibilities. So, I am a strong believer in the United Nations and while it is possible to say that they might interfere with some legitimate interest of ours in the future, I am prepared to say that their actions in the past, at present, and I believe in the future represent the legitimate common interest of all members of the United Nations.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-02-08","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I have several brief announcements.,[1.] One, I would like to announce that I have invited the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honorable John G. Diefenbaker, to make a brief visit to Washington, on Monday, February 20, for discussion of matters of mutual interest to our two countries. I particularly am glad he is coming. We will hold a luncheon in his honor at the White House. I think it is most important that harmonious relations exist between two old friends, and therefore I am glad to have this chance to visit with the Prime Minister.,[2.] Secondly, I do want to say a word or two about NATO. This is our central and most important defensive alliance, but in the larger sense it is much more. The members of NATO must be leaders also in and out of NATO itself, in such great causes as the integration of Europe and the cooperative development of new nations. We for our part mean to go on as full and energetic partners in NATO, and in particular we wish to maintain our military strength in Europe. Secretary Rusk is making an especially careful study of our policy in this great organization and I am delighted to say that he will have the help not only of Ambassador Finletter, but of an advisory group under the direction of one of the true founders of NATO, a distinguished former Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson.,[3.] Three, with the approval of Secretary Ribicoff, I am directing the Surgeon General to organize and establish within the Public Health Service a Child Health Center, to deal with the special health problems of children. This is a matter of particular interest to me. Some 400,000 babies are born each year with congenital malformations. I don't think as a country, nationally, and as a matter of fact I don't think probably privately we have done enough on research into the causes of mental retardation. And while a good deal of effort is being expended in this country for the care of these children, I do think it is most important that we devote special effort in the coming months and years to research in the causes of it. I am therefore delighted that we are going to proceed ahead with Governor Ribicoff's strong support. Thank you.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, in the past 24 hours there has arisen a somewhat hard to understand situation concerning the missile gap. An official of your administration, who was identified in some newspapers this morning as Secretary McNamara, has been quoted as saying that the missile gap which was expected and talked about so much did not exist, nor did he see prospects of it. Your press secretary, yesterday afternoon, denied this story. Now, I wonder if you can set the record clear, if you can tell us your version of what Secretary McNamara said, and what your feelings are about the missile gap. Does it exist, and how and where does it exist?,THE PRESIDENT. My only conversation with Mr. McNamara was not at any off-therefore meeting, if such a meeting took place, but was in a conversation which I had with him yesterday afternoon after the reports appeared.,Mr. McNamara stated that no study had been concluded in the Defense Department which would lead to any conclusion at this time as to whether there is a missile gap or not. In addition, I talked this morning to Mr. Hitch, who is the Comptroller of the Defense Department, who has been given the responsibility by the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of our strategic weapons in the same way that Mr. Nitze is conducting a review of our tactical weapons. Mr. Hitch informed me that no study has been completed on this matter. He hoped to have a preliminary study completed by February 20th, but he did tell me quite specifically that as of today he is not prepared to make a judgment as to our capacity in strategic weapons.,There are many complicated problems involved. We have the realization that the United States will not strike first, and, therefore, we have to consider what will be available to the United States if an attack took place upon us, not only in missiles, but also in the other arms of our arsenal, SAC, the Navy, Polaris, and all the rest.,So I think in answer to your question, the study has not been completed. It has not come, therefore, across my desk. There will be a study of how the budget for fiscal 1961 and 1962 should be changed in view of our strategic position, but that study will not be completed by either Mr. Nitze or Mr. Hitch, or come across Mr. McNamara's desk to be passed to me, for some days.,Q. Well, sir, during the campaign you seemed to feel very strongly that a serious missile gap did exist then. Do you now feel as strongly?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what I hope to do is to wait until the Defense Department who I have given this responsibility to, Mr. McNamara, and he has passed the responsibility to members of his department--I hope that we will have a clearer answer to that question. Of course, it is my hope that the United States is fully secure. I will be pleased if that is the result. If it isn't, I think it is important that we know about it, and I will say that we will then--I will then take on the responsibility of passing on to the Congress this collective judgment as to our position and what needs to be done.,So that without getting into the discussion of these stories this morning, I do want to say that it is my information that these studies are not complete, and therefore it would be premature to reach a judgment as to whether there is a gap or not a gap.,[5.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what you think about the wisdom--the idea of. these background news briefings where governmental officials do not identify themselves as distinguished from this type of wide-open news conference?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are hazardous in many cases--[laughter]--and I think our Mr. McNamara might agree with that now. On the other hand, I will say that they are important, too. I'd hope it would be possible to work out some satisfactory system where reporters who are charged with covering matters which are particularly complicated, where they would have a chance to discuss with the responsible official on a background basis so that their stories would be more accurate. I believe there have been such conversations in this administration already and they have been, I think, useful. This one, evidently a controversy has arisen from it, but I hope that it will be possible for the responsible officials and the reporters who are particularly concerned with that area, to work out ground rules so that they could be continued.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, in keeping with your statement about NATO, could you tell us how you would look upon a heads of government meeting of the NATO Council in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would not be able to give you a response to that. There is a planned meeting I believe at Oslo, of the foreign ministers, in May. I have seen newspaper reports that it might be turned into a heads of state meeting. But I must say that there has been no judgment reached; I think it is fair to say that the matter is not as yet under consideration.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, you said during one of your recent messages that this Nation was rapidly approaching its hour of maximum danger or peril--I forget the exact words. Some people have suggested that perhaps you were painting the picture blacker than it is for shock purposes. Could you perhaps spell out for us this morning what you have in mind, and whether you really sincerely feel that we are approaching this peril as you said?,THE PRESIDENT. I sincerely believe what I said in my State of the Union Address about our position in the world. I hold this office for the next 4 years, and I believe that the next 4 years will be years in which this country and its capacity to maintain its position and security will be strongly tested. I think that anyone who looks at the globe and looks at the increasing power of the Communist bloc, the belligerency which marks the bloc, particularly the Chinese Communists, I would say would come to the conclusion that we are going to be severely tested in the next 4 years.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, 3 months ago a Federal court in New Orleans ordered two public schools there desegregated. Since then, what is apparently an organized campaign of intimidation has kept most white children out of those schools and effectively frustrated the court order.,During the campaign you spoke of using your moral authority as President in the civil rights field. Can you tell us what you plan to say or do to help the New Orleans families who evidently want to obey the Constitution but are afraid to do so?,THE PRESIDENT. I will--at such time as I think it is most useful and most effective, I will attempt to use the moral authority or position of influence of the Presidency in New Orleans and in other places. I want to make sure that whatever I do or say does have some beneficial effect and, therefore, it is a matter which we are considering.,Q. But you do not have anything to say specifically about New Orleans today or about what has happened there--for example, last week the man who had tried to send his children to school and then in fear left town?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to--I will comment. As far as New Orleans goes, it is my position that all students should be given the opportunity to attend public schools regardless of their race, and that is in accordance with the Constitution. It is in accordance, in my opinion, with the judgment of the people of the United States. So there is no question about that.,Now specifically, what we could most usefully do in order to provide an implementation of the court decision in New Orleans, that is a matter which we are carefully considering. On the general question, there is no doubt in my view: students should be permitted to attend schools in accordance with court decisions. The broader question of course is, regardless of the court decisions I believe strongly that every American should have an opportunity to have maximum development of his talents, under the most beneficial circumstances, and that is what the Constitution provides. That is what I strongly believe.,On the question specifically of what we can usefully do in New Orleans in order to provide a more harmonious acquiescence with the court decision, I would feel that we could perhaps most usefully wait until we have concluded our analysis of it.,[9.] Q. Mr. President, the Congress has spent a good deal of time investigating regulatory agencies and Executive interference in them. Now, your assistant, Mr. Landis, has suggested that a White House office be set up to oversee these agencies. Do you feel this might lead to the same kind of Executive interference that the Congress has been investigating?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Landis recommended such a White House office in his study. I have asked Mr. Landis to come to the White House, not to fill such an office, of course, which is not established, but merely to work with the White House and with the interested members of Congress who are concerned about improving our regulatory procedures.,He is going to stay some months and do that. I conferred yesterday with Congressman Harris, who has a special responsibility as Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and we are going to continue to work together to try to speed up the procedures of the regulatory agencies and improve their actions.,Whether we should have such a White House liaison or center is a matter which we are going to consider. The Congress bears special responsibility for these agencies, and, therefore, I think it is probably not likely that major responsibility in this area would be released to the White House, and I am not completely sure it is wise.,[10.] Q. Sir, this question is a bit on the personal side.. You have available to you at the Catoctin Mountains in Maryland a very fine weekend retreat that has been used by former Presidents. Sir, do you plan to use it and if so, do you plan to rename it back to Shangri-La? And also I believe you have two Government yachts at your disposal. Do you plan to use them, too, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to use the yachts at the present time. [Laughter] I don't plan to use Camp David very often. Now, I will keep-I think the name should be kept Camp David. But I doubt if I will go there very often. On the question of the yachts, we will have to wait and see what the situation is. I believe we have the Barbara Anne, and I am not familiar with the other yacht.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report from Australia this morning, quoting an American scientist as saying that we will have a man in space within 6 weeks. I wonder if you have ordered an acceleration of our space program, or if you consider it for psychological or other reasons that we are in a race with the Russians to get a man into space?,THE PRESIDENT. No, in the first place, I don't know anything about that report. We are very concerned that we do not put a man in space in order to gain some additional prestige and have a man take disproportionate risk, so we are going to be extremely careful in our work and even if we should come in second in putting a man in space, I will still be satisfied if when we finally do put a man in space his chances of survival are as high as I think that they must be.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, it has been rather reliably reported that you and some of your staff members and Cabinet members were quite active on the Hill by phone and otherwise in the recent rules fight. Could you give us your views as to what your activity and that of your Cabinet members and staff members will be in the coming legislative year, as far as getting your program going?,THE PRESIDENT. We have a liaison officer, Mr. O'Brien, and he has Mr. Wilson who is liaison for the House and Mr. Manatos who is liaison for the Senate, and we will attempt to keep close contact between the White House and the House and the Senate in order to give our program the best possible chance that it has to pass. So we will keep very close contact with the Hill, and I hope that they will be harmonious.,[13.] Q. You said in the past that the release of the two fliers recently helped in our relations with the Soviet Union. Would you care to outline for us, sir, any developments you might hope to take place prior to any possible future summit meeting with Mr. Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I said that it removed a serious obstacle to harmonious relations with the Soviet Union, the release of the fliers. Mr. Thompson arrives back this week, and I am going to meet with Mr. Thompson on several occasions this week--on Saturday morning with Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bohlen, and Mr. Kennan--to help chart our future relations with the Soviet Union.,There are some things that I think could usefully be done, and must be done if our relations are going to continue to be fruitful. We are concerned, as I am sure they are, with the situation in Laos. We are concerned with the situation in the Congo, as I am sure they are, and I am hopeful that we can make our position clear to them, and accomplish some useful result.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, the Mexican Americans are very concerned because you have not named one of them to a high place in your administration. They say that they are the only ethnic group that worked for you nationally, in the \"Viva Kennedy\" clubs and GI forums, that has not been recognized. I wonder if you plan to give them some recognition?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have, I think, Dr. Garcia, from the State of Texas, who I believe has gone with Ambassador Whitney to Jamaica this weekend. We did offer a position of responsibility to an American of Mexican extraction who was unable to accept it, but it was a position of high responsibility.,I quite agree with you that we ought to use what I consider to be a great reservoir of talent, and I think this is particularly true in our relations with Latin America. So I will just say to you that it is a matter of interest and that we will continue to see if we can provide for--if we can associate them with our administration more closely.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, last weekend the Russians launched a 7-ton satellite in orbit which they said was a test of a new rocket. This has led to worldwide speculation that there might have been a man aboard. What do we know about this Russian rocket and about the recent rumored Russian attempts to launch a man into space?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have no information about--that there was a man involved. We have no evidence that there was a man in the rocket. We have, of course, some information, a good deal of which has appeared in the press, about the rocket. And it is a large one and it may be part of their experiments leading up to placing a man in space. But at least as of now we have no evidence that there is a man in there. But I am sure that they will continue these experiments leading up to placing one there.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, in your message to Congress on the gold problem, there was one passage in there in which you referred to interest rates on foreign funds which had a sentence that might lead to the presumption that perhaps you had in mind submitting legislation which would give you a little more authority over domestic interest rates in other fields. Is this a reasonable conclusion? Do you have any intention to expand the authority of the Presidency with respect to domestic interest rates?,THE PRESIDENT. No. As you--we have had consultations with the Federal Reserve Board about what action should be taken to provide that the interest rate on short-term securities would not come down while the interest rate--which does affect the gold flow--while the interest rate on long-term securities remains high, which does adversely affect the economy.,But what, of course, we are interested in is to see the short-term rates remain high enough to protect our gold, while the long-term rates be reduced somewhat in order to stimulate the economy. But this is a matter under the control, of course, directly, of the Federal Reserve Board, with the Treasury having, of course, a direct interest in it.,But it is not intended, to answer your question, that we would propose any legislation or any Executive orders which would increase our control directly over long-term rates.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in regard to NATO, have you looked into the problem or the recommendation of the previous administration that NATO be given its own nuclear weapons, or will this be left up to the Acheson group, and when will that group be expected to report?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that was one of the matters, of course, which General Norstad briefly discussed. It is a matter now which is being reviewed by Ambassador Finletter with the aid of Mr. Acheson. That is one of the, I would say, central matters of interest to us now, and both of these men will be working on it.,Q. When will that group report to you, approximately?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't got a time on it, but I think we ought to move with some speed in it.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, the States now can set their own safety and regulatory standards for atomic industrial development within their own borders. Critics of this do-it-yourself provision believe that it increases the danger of nuclear accidents and favor complete Federal control within these areas. Would you give us your views on it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will have to look into it. I am not informed about it.,[19.] Q. Sir, in all the discussions about the gold problem, there keeps coming back West Germany doing more of its share in aiding underdeveloped areas and taking on more commitments in the common defense. Is your administration making representations either through the Treasury Department or through our Ambassador to get the Germans to do more in these fields?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Could you elaborate on it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the proposals that have been made, of course, in our opinion do not meet the problem or the opportunity, and I am hopeful that we can work out a more satisfactory arrangement with the West Germans.,Mr. von Brentano is going to be in the United States, the Foreign Minister, in the month of February. I do hope to see him. In addition, we are considering other methods which could put these negotiations on perhaps a more--a higher level.,Q. Just to follow that up, sir, could you spell out what you mean by \"higher level\"? Are you finding that you are running into problems with them because of their upcoming election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they have a good many responsibilities and problems of their own. In addition to whatever they do in relation to us they have other responsibilities to the French and the British. So in fairness, I must say the matter is not wholly easy for the Germans. However, it is a matter of great importance and I therefore think it might be useful to provide that these discussions should take place on a higher level than they have in the past.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, you spoke during the campaign about the need of getting things moving again. I wonder if you could tell us how well you think you have succeeded so far in creating a new mood in Washington?,THE PRESIDENT. AS far as the domestic economy or as far as generally?,Q. Putting some urgency into it.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we have talented people in our Washington group who are giving it a great deal of time and attention. And therefore I am hopeful-- though we have been in office only 2 1/2 weeks--I am hopeful that before the snow is off the ground that we will have been able to stimulate action in a variety of areas.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, in your State of the Union Address, you remarked that morality in private business has not been sufficiently spurred by morality in public business. In the light of the economy-sized malpractice revealed by--carried on by some of the American leading corporations, would you care to comment on this situation and the impact of such private business morality or immorality on the community itself?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, having participated in the investigation of improper practices in the labor-management field for 2 or 3 years, and having had a good deal of public attention given to it, I am hopeful that the Department of Justice, the Antitrust Division which was very effectively led in recent months, and other agencies of the Government will concern--and the Congress--will concern itself about the problem of conflicts of interest and monopolistic practices, as well as even more illicit practices conducted in the American business community. And I hope that the business community itself will consider what steps it could take in order to lift this shadow from its shoulders.,Q. Do you feel, sir, that perhaps business might well establish codes of ethical practice such as the trade unions have established?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I am hopeful that the unions will live up to these ethical practices which state a very high standard for them; and I think it would be very beneficial if business groups today would consider what they could do to protect themselves from charges of conflicts of interest of the kind that we have recently seen, and also of the effort made by these large electrical companies to defraud the Government. And I must say I would be interested to watch what progress they can make in that area.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, Admiral Burke's speech was originally checked out and cleared of certain things which I believe Mr. Salinger said might have been sources of unnecessary friction with the Soviet Union. Some Republicans in Congress charged that this was appeasement. Could you sketch in for us the rather difficult ground between appeasement and \"unnecessary friction\"?,THE PRESIDENT. NO. All I would say is that I would hope that those who make speeches in the area of national security, Chiefs of Staff and others, and all others, would attempt to have those speeches coordinated with the Department of State and with the White House, so that we can make sure that those speeches represent national policy. I must say it seems to me that Theodore Roosevelt set a very good standard for us all, and one which I hope this administration will follow by speaking softly and maintaining,[23.] Q. Mr. President, on Monday Mr. Rusk said that the United States was prepared to take cooperative action with the other American Republics to end tyranny, he said, against either the left or the right. Is it contemplated that we shall ask the other American States to join with us in some steps on the Cuban problem?,THE PRESIDENT. The Cuban problem and the problem of tyranny throughout all of Latin America is a matter which is of course of special concern to Mr. Berle and his groups--interdepartmental group--and they have not concluded their analysis as yet.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, Castro is reported to have built a new radio station, one of the largest in the hemisphere, which will begin operations within a few months to broadcast pro-Castro propaganda throughout Latin America. Is there anything we can do or plan to do to counter this?,THE PRESIDENT. We are giving the matter of Cuba and its export of its revolution throughout Latin America a matter of high priority. I could not state what actions will be taken yet until Mr. Berle, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Rusk have concluded their deliberations, which are nova going ahead very intensively.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, one of your task forces recommended that you be given discretionary power within limits to cut tax rates as a counter-cyclical device. Can you tell us what you think of this idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, in 1958 there were two proposals to cut taxes. One was made in March and I believe the other was made in June. I voted against it in March and voted for it in June, because it seemed to be, according to the economists I talked to, to be helpful. As you remember, I don't think it got more than 23 or 24 votes. The recession was serious and we ended up with a $12 billion deficit. Now we are going to take another look at the economy in April and make a judgment at that time whether we can expect an upturn in the spring or in the summer.,I will say that I am not convinced at the present time that Congress would entertain that proposal, and I would not make it at the present time because I do think we should have more experience and more perspective on the state of the economy before making a proposal which is quite far-reaching, and which would cost the Federal budget perhaps $4 or $5 billion, which is a serious matter and which would limit, perhaps, our ability to go ahead with other programs which in the long run may be more useful. If you have a tax cut, it may last 6 months, if the Congress should grant it, and you lose $5 billion, which is put back into the economy and expended. With $5 billion or $3 billion devoted to education or health or international security, you can produce a longer range result. So that this is a matter which must be considered from various perspectives. In any case, in April we will try to make another judgment on the state of the economy. What I am concerned about is that the economy will move along, using less than capacity, and it is extremely difficult to take steps which will provide quickly for it to operate at full capacity.,What we are concerned about is that with the tremendous increase in automation that it's possible for business profits to remain substantial and yet for employment to lag. The fact that the steel companies were able to maintain rather substantial profits at a time when they are operating at less than 50 percent of capacity does indicate the kind of problem we face with a good many more than 100,000 steel workers out of work.,In answer to your question specifically, we will come back to what further steps could be taken in April, but I do hope that the Congress will act on the proposals we have now made, which involve most especially the unemployment compensation payments and also the distressed area payments, as well as some improvements in social security. If we could move ahead on those we could get a better idea of perhaps what action should be taken in April.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, the fighting in Laos is continuing. The Soviet airlift is now 2 months old. The Soviet answer to the proposal to revive the International Control Commission has been delayed for some weeks. I wonder if you can tell us how long this Government is prepared to wait before it proposes some new action to resolve this continuing crisis.,THE PRESIDENT. There will be a meeting at the White House this afternoon on the subject of Laos and what new action we should now take. And I am hopeful that some proposal will be forthcoming from that meeting.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, many States are now re-forming their congressional districts as a result of the 1960 census and inevitably this leads to charges of gerrymandering directed at both parties. Can you tell us where you stand on Chairman Celler's bill to control gerrymandering to a certain extent by such devices as making districts be contiguous and control a certain population within a State?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, even if you could pass those proposals you could still have a good deal of gerrymandering. I represented a district which was about 5 to 1 Democratic, which was contiguous, which was geographically associated with an adjoining district, which was marginally Republican. Now it is very difficult for the Congress or for the Federal Government to enforce standards. What should have happened, of course, is probably under some standards is those two districts cut in a different way which would have provided instead of one Republican Congressman with a very marginal majority, while the Democratic Congressman got 5 to 1, it probably would have ended up with two Democratic Congressmen, which may or may not have been in the public interest. [Laughter.],But I do think it is very difficult for us to try to draw these lines. There isn't any doubt that they are unsatisfactorily drawn, not only for the Congress, which is not the worst offender, but the State legislatures, where we have very--and have had for many years--notorious examples of gerrymandering, but which is a responsibility for the States, not the Federal Government.,In any case, I am not familiar wholly with Congressman Celler's proposal and exactly what his standards will be, but I will look at it.,Q. Mr. President, in that same connection, could you tell us where you stand or do you have a position on increasing the size of the House of Representatives?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it is 435 Members now, which is a large body. Congressman Chelf and I believe other Congressmen have proposed increasing it, I think to 450. I will discuss that matter with Speaker Rayburn and get his views as well as the leadership of the House on both sides.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-02-01","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make.,[1.] First is one made at the request of Mrs. Kennedy. Since the election, the birth of our son, and the inauguration, Mrs. Kennedy and I have received over 100,000 letters and telegrams of congratulations and good wishes. They are now building up in available rooms at the White House. Unfortunately, it's not going to be possible for us to acknowledge and answer as we would like to answer each and every message, and therefore I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of Mrs. Kennedy and myself to thank everyone who has been so kind and generous.,[2.] Secondly, I'm happy to be able to announce that the restrictions recently imposed on travel abroad of dependents of service personnel will be lifted as soon as the necessary detailed arrangements can be made in the Defense Department. Secretary McNamara has been able to work out arrangements for equivalent savings in personnel costs abroad, so that this change does not imply any weakening of our determination to protect the value of the dollar.,This is a matter of great importance. The Chiefs of Staff have been most concerned about the effect of this order on morale and on the rate of enlistment, and therefore we have had to make a balanced judgment as to which actions in which areas would be in the national interest, and after giving this matter careful consideration, it is the judgment of the Defense Department that other savings can be made which will be more satisfactory to us and to the position of the Armed Forces.1,1A White House statement of March 6 summarized proposed means for reduction of overseas expenditures by individual members of the Armed Forces, Department of Defense civilian employees, and their dependents in order to effect savings which would have resulted had the number of dependents in foreign countries been reduced as originally directed,,[3.] Third, I'm announcing that there are going to be set up five pilot projects for food stamp distribution, and that these will be in areas of maximum chronic unemployment. All the areas have not yet been determined, but one will be in West Virginia, one in Pennsylvania, one in southern Illinois, and the other in eastern Kentucky, with a fifth yet to be determined.,[4.] Next, the Veterans Administration has been instructed to speed up the payment of the National Insurance dividends. This is a sum of over $250 million, which would be paid out throughout this year. We're going to try to pay it out this winter in order to assist the economy at a critical time.,This, of course--the Veterans Administration fund has very ample reserves, very generous reserves. And I feel that this will be of some benefit.,[5.] Lastly, in order to lower the cost of housing credit and stimulate that sector of the economy, I've directed the Federal Housing Administration to reduce the maximum permissible interest on FHA-insured loans from 5 3/4 to 5 1/2 percent. Complementary action will be taken by the Federal National Mortgage Association.,In addition, I've asked the Community Facilities Administration to reduce interest rates on new loans to local public bodies for the construction of public facilities, and to broaden their eligibility requirements.,And I've instructed the Housing and. Home Finance Agency to hasten those approved projects where a speedup can be effected without waste. Thank you.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, as you know, Adlai Stevenson said the other day it was his guess that you would be happy to meet with Khrushchev if he should come to this country for the U.N. session. I wonder, was he correct in his guess that you would be happy to meet with Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. As Governor Stevenson-Ambassador Stevenson said, I have not discussed the matter with him. I have no idea whether Mr. Khrushchev is coming to the United States or not. There's been no indication, either publicly or privately, that he is planning a visit to the United States, and therefore I think it would be appropriate to wait in regard to what plans we might have as far as seeing him--it would be more appropriate to wait until we have some idea whether he's going to come or not.,[7.] Mr. President, could you tell us something of the reasoning and the background of the apparent restrictions on the RB-47 fliers in publicly discussing their experiences in Russia? We get the impression from the Pentagon that this blackout on any public interviews or discussions of the two fliers is to be more or less an indefinite thing. Now we are told at the Pentagon that this is in the national interest. First of all, I wonder if you could tell us why it's in the national interest, and second, what personal feelings you have in the matter on the reasoning behind this decision to keep these men quiet.,THE PRESIDENT. Well I'll say that when they've finished their short leave and when they have been debriefed by the Air Force, and the Air Force has had an opportunity to have conversation with them, as far as I'm concerned I'd be glad to have them talk to the press. And therefore I would assume they would be available to the press as soon as that leave is over.,[8.] Q. This may be a corollary question, but your administration has indicated that it expects officers of the military on active duty to support, in their public statements, or at least not to be hostile to the foreign policy of your administration. Does this project itself into other areas? What about the Atomic Energy Commission? What about economists working for the executive branch who may have differences about economic policy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that the procedure which we have established is a traditional one. I think that the Eisenhower administration made, according to the accounts that I have seen, over 65 known efforts to make sure that speeches by members of the military were in accordance with the general objectives of American foreign policy.,I think--we're going to continue to do that. If a well-known, high-ranking military figure makes a speech which affects foreign policy or possible military policy, I think that the people and the countries abroad have a right to expect that that speech represents the opinion of the National Government.,Now the speech of Admiral Burke which raised this question--when the speech was drafted Admiral Burke may not have known, nor did any of us, whether these fliers would be released, for example. Therefore, there is some value in coordinating statements made by high-ranking responsible officials of our national--involving national security--coordinating them, and making sure that the State Department, the White House, and Defense are informed about the speeches and that they represent national policy.,That has been the policy followed by President Eisenhower; it is the policy which must be followed by this administration.,Now in the question Mr. Morgan asked, it's not intended that this will serve as a restraint on the ability of people in this administration to speak out, particularly when those speeches do not involve national security. I think the important point here is when they involve national security.,[9.] Q. Do you consider the current business slump serious enough to justify a tax cut?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not at this time. I've stated that we're going to make another judgment on the state of the economy in 2 to 3 months and will then decide what action could be usefully taken. But I have not proposed a tax cut at this time nor do I intend to.,[10.] Q. Mr. President, some critics stated that proposals of added Federal expenditures in your State of the Union Message may force us to \"kick the bottom out of the money barrel.\" Could you give us an idea, sir, of how your proposed increased programs would be furnished and in connection with the previous question could it possibly mean an increase in income taxes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we can spell out our proposed proposals in the series of messages that we're going to send in the next 14 days. And as I have said, the proposals that we will make will not of themselves unbalance the budget.,[11.] Q. Mr. President, your State of the Union Message was both praised and criticized. Some of the critics said that you painted the picture in dark colors so that should there be any improvement you would get the credit. Would you want to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would--I painted the picture as I saw it. I also stated that in my judgment, in some areas involving the national interest the news would be worse before it gets better. And I think that the American people might just as well realize that. So that my statement stands as my view of the problems facing the United States at home and abroad at this time. To the best of my ability, it is an accurate presentation. I'm not a candidate for office for at least 4 years, so that there will be many ups and downs I suppose during that period, so that anybody who thinks that if things get better in the spring that we'll be able to say that they're the result of the administration policy and that's the reason that I painted them unnecessarily dark, misunderstands completely. They are painted accurately as I understand them to be, and anyone who makes the judgment that it was laid on thick for political reasons, I think is making a serious mistake and I hope would give us the benefit of the doubt of an honest view.,Now, other people may look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion. Obviously they have--before my speech and since my speech. But that represents my view as President.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, in the spirit of your Los Angeles campaign speech, are you prepared to move soon by Executive action in the field of civil rights, and if so, in what fields would you make your first step?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been considering what steps could be taken in the field of expanding civil rights by Executive action, and I'm hopeful that we will shortly conclude that analysis and have some statement to make on it. It's not completed as yet.,[13.] Q. In connection with a couple of previous questions, .you have stated several times since your election that the country was in for some substantial sacrifices, or that the year 1961 might be a difficult year to live in, and yet some of the measures you have announced seem to be intended to improve the lot of, let's say, more unfortunate sections of the population. Could you be more explicit on what you mean by sacrifices and the difficulties of living in 1961?\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I would hope that a country as powerful as ours--I said it was the most resourceful industrialized country in the world--would not oppose efforts which we would take to make the life of people who live in these chronic depressed areas--to make it easier. I do not feel that all the burdens of hardship should be placed on them. In addition, I do believe that we are heavily involved in critical areas of the world and I cannot today predict what the results will be of events in those areas of the world. I merely state that the tide has not been running with us, that we are heavily involved--heavily committed--by public statements of the former administration as well as by this administration, and therefore I felt that we should inform the people that there are hazards which lurk around us and which may place heavy burdens on us.,I will whenever I think that sacrifices of a particular nature are required, I will go to the people. At the present time, I merely suggest that the times are difficult.,Now, when we talk about five and a half million people unemployed there are still over 60 million people employed. And I think that may be one of the reasons why there is some feeling that I overstressed the dark instead of the bright in my State of the Union Address. But it is the function, it seems to me, of the President to concern himself with that five and a half million unemployed particularly when so many have been unemployed for such a long period of time.,[14.] Q. Mr. President, some people have interpreted your address to the Congress as indicating that you found conditions very much worse upon taking office than you had anticipated. Is this interpretation correct? And, if so, can you give us some specifics?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the situation is less satisfactory than it was last fall. And I don't--and I'm not convinced as yet that the tide in some of the critical areas in which the United States is involved has turned in our favor.,I think that anyone who reads the daily papers knows of the critical events in Laos, the Communist intervention in that area. I think they're aware of the fact that the situation in the Congo has deteriorated sharply recently, with a steady withdrawal of troops taking place by United Nations countries.,They're also aware of the steps which have been taken in recent months to increase the iron control of Mr. Castro on Cuba; the shipments of thousands of tons of arms to that country; the expansion of the militia.. Those are all factors which affect the security of the United States.,[15.] Q. Mr. President, what proposals might the United States make in regard to the Congo now that you mentioned the situation there is deteriorating because of the pullout of troops?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Timberlake is here for consultation in Washington now, Ambassador Brown from Laos is here, General Norstad, who's our NATO commander, is here in Washington, and Ambassador Thompson will be coming back next week, so that we are considering carefully what policies we should follow in all those areas of crisis. Particularly we are considering the matter of the Congo carefully and what useful steps might be taken which would prevent a further deterioration. I do not have anything further to say just at this time.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan any recommendations on the labor-management relations field in your future messages to Congress since you have not covered this subject in your addresses to date?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd have to wait on that. We have no--it's not within the next 14 days.,[17.] Q. Sir, would you clarify your intentions in the field of unemployment compensation? Do you plan now to propose to Congress the establishment of Federal standards, wider-coverage, higher benefits, and for their greater duration?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the first matter which we will address to the Congress will be the question of emergency payments to those unemployed who've exhausted their benefits.,Later in March, we will send to the Congress--or in April--proposals dealing with a more permanent improvement in unemployment compensation standards, duration, and benefits, because there isn't any doubt that, based on our experience in '58, in our experience this year, the unemployment compensation system has not met the needs of the country satisfactorily.,So we will be sending a second message dealing with the subjects which you discussed in your question.,[18.] Q. In connection, Mr. President, with your statement on the military dependents, is this to be a complete repeal of the existing directive?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,[19.] Q. Do you agree with the general assessment that the narrowness of the House vote yesterday on enlarging the Rules Committee means rough going ahead for your legislative program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Speaker was successful yesterday and that does mean that the House will have an opportunity to vote on all these bills.,I do think that the House is closely divided on a good many matters which involve legislative proposals, and perhaps the country may be divided, too, but at least we will have a chance to have a vote. And I consider that the most important thing. If the House then doesn't want to support our proposals then at least I feel that the country has indicated its judgment and not the judgment of only a small number of Representatives.,But I would say that we're going to have a close debate in both the House and the Senate on a good many matters and which has always been true if the matters do anything; if they provide for any action, there is bound to be controversy about them. The only way we can get general agreement is when you confine yourself to general statements.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, will you ask for the same new revenues that Mr. Eisenhower asked for in his Budget Message?,THE. PRESIDENT. I will. It is a fact, as I suggested in the State of the Union Address, that some of those proposals are generously estimated. For example, I believe that the President's budget calls for a--was it--$900 million deficit in the Post Office; I think the President's budget called for revenue action by the Congress of $843 million. In view of the fact that the Congress has been reluctant in the past I think we have to consider carefully whether we could expect the Congress to ever vote $843 million new revenue on mail and postage.,But nevertheless, we are going to go ahead in general with perhaps--there may be one or two changes but they'll be relatively minor--we are going ahead with the revenue requests of the previous administration.,Q. Have you thought of any new sources of revenue?,THE PRESIDENT. We will be discussing the sources of revenue for any additional programs we suggest, because we will with every program we send suggest a source of revenue for it.,[21.] Q. Mr. President, your predecessor in office called himself a political moderate-said he believed in a middle-of-the-road approach. What do you call yourself politically and how do you define your political philosophy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well I don't call myself anything except a Democrat who's been elected President of the United States and I hope I am a responsible President. That's my intention.,[22] Q. Mr. President, are there plans afoot now for Prime Minister Macmillan or President de Gaulle or any of the others to meet with you personally in the next few months?,THE PRESIDENT. I would not be able to answer that because any announcement on proposed visits should be timed with the countries that are involved and we have-we're not able to make that timing at this time.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with your references to a sound dollar, will you give us your ideas as to whether there is any danger of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. There has been a steady inflationary rise in--throughout the history of the United States. I'm not able to make any judgment as to what would happen to the cost of living in the next 12 months.,We do have the problem--which is before us--of whether the only way we can prevent any increase in the cost of living is to have five and a half million people unemployed, and have only a limited--and have a substantial percentage of our capacity unused.,The question is whether we can maintain a reasonable balance between increase in purchasing power and the cost of doing business with full employment. That is the basic problem. I'm not satisfied to have the cost of living remain constant only by having the economy restrained.,What I was referring to is that we have no intention--two things: first, we have no intention of devaluing the dollar; secondly, we are concerned with price stability. And in all of the programs that we will put forward we will pay due care to the problem of preventing any stimulation of the economy resulting in an excessive increase in the cost of living.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, your budget your State of the Union Message to Congress was taken by some to mean a rather sharp criticism of President Eisenhower's military policy and judgment. Would you care to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. We are making an assessment of whether the plans we now have for the defense of the United States are matched by the military strength to implement those plans. That preliminary judgment will be finished by the end of February. It may result in some different bridged requests and some different command decisions. But until the Secretary of Defense completes that analysis I would not attempt to make any criticisms or suggest that we are going to have to change the plans made by President Eisenhower.,But I do think that the situation grows more serious. The Chinese Communist strength increases. The intervention by the Communists in these critical areas which I mentioned has grown greater and therefore we have to consider whether in the light of this additional threat the strength we now have, not only our nuclear deterrent but also our capacity for limited war, is sufficient. It's not intended as a criticism of any previous action by any previous administration. It merely is an attempt to meet our own responsibilities at this time.,[25.] Q. Mr. President, when you say that your spending proposals by themselves do not unbalance the budget, can you tell us whether you plan to spend more than Mr. Eisenhower proposed spending in fiscal 1962, and if so, how much more?,THE PRESIDENT. I will send to the Congress when the Budget Bureau has completed its analysis our proposals, but they have not been completed as yet.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Pastore during hearings held yesterday and today on amending section 315 of the Communications Act, raised the question of whether an incoming presidential candidate would agree to debate a so-called outsider on television. And the present Attorney General in postelection remarks expressed some doubt that one who is already President would agree to debate with one who wants to be President. Could you help us clear the air on this, sir, and tell us whether if you're a candidate in 1964 you would agree to debate?,THE PRESIDENT. I would, yes.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, you described the agricultural problem as one of the most serious in our economy. And yet you didn't speak of it at any length in the State of the Union Message. Could you tell us what your present plans are for a new farm program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are going to send to the Congress within the next 7 days, I believe, legislation on feed grains and we're going to send to the Congress within the month of February legislation on wheat. And we are also--we had, of course, the meeting in New York; we had the meeting organized by the Secretary of Agriculture of various farm groups and we had our task force report yesterday on cotton, feed grains, and wheat and I must say that the Secretary of Agriculture is working overtime.,These two matters--feed grains and wheat--we are going to move ahead right away. The situation in cotton is different.,[28.] Q. Mr. President, will you increase price supports?,THE PRESIDENT. I think we--I'd better wait until the Secretary of Agriculture sends the bill and we will then at that time announce what our decision will be on controls and also on what the dollar value will be of the price supports.,[29.] Q. Mr. President, can you explain what our policy and purpose is in connection with the Portuguese liner Santa Maria and whether it goes beyond the safety of the passengers and whether you've had any notes from the Portuguese Government in connection with this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Portuguese Government and the Ambassador, of course, have expressed their great interest in securing the control of the ship again. We've been concerned about the lives of the American passengers aboard. There are also other passengers aboard. We're concerned about their lives. We're also well aware of the interests of the Portuguese Government in securing control again of the ship and I'm hopeful that all these interests can be protected.,Now we have no information that the Portuguese Government has-protested or threatened us with a withdrawal of our air rights in the Azores. I believe the Portuguese Government also has denied that, but they are most concerned about it and they've made their concern known to us.,[30.] Q. Mr. President, have you encountered any one particular problem in being the President that you had not anticipated?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, yes, I've--I think the problem of course is the difficulty in securing the clear response between decisions that we might make here which affect the security of the United States and having them effectively instrumented in the field under varying circumstances. It's easier to sit with a map and talk about what ought to be done than to see it done. But that's perhaps inevitable.,[31.] Q. The Germans are reported to be somewhat unhappy because in your State of the Union Message, in speaking of critical areas, you did not mention Berlin or Germany, and this afternoon when you were talking of critical areas you did not mention Berlin and Germany. Is there any significance to your omission? In other words, last fall you anticipated the possibility of some new crisis in Berlin and Germany in the spring. I'm wondering if there has been some change in the situation that has altered your assessment of it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, my view, and I think the United States Government's view, which is the same as the view expressed by the previous administration, remains constant. And it is very difficult to name every area. There is no change in our view on Berlin.,[32.] Q Mr. President, there are six Americans who have been convicted to 30 years' imprisonment in Cuba, and there are five Americans who have been jailed for more than 6 years in China. Could you say what efforts the United States might possibly make on behalf--what new efforts the United States might make on behalf of the six in Cuba and the five in Communist China?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have asked--the Swiss Minister is representing our interest in regard to this trial. We've asked for complete information and we are going to attempt to, within the limits imposed by the nature of the regime in Cuba, to protect the interest of American citizens who are there.,Now, the previous administration on many occasions brought before the Chinese representative--in fact, there were many conversations in Geneva as well as in Warsaw, on the problem of the Americans who have been detained, some of them way back since 1951. This is a matter of continuing concern. And as long as those men are held, it will be extremely difficult to have any kind of normal relations with the Chinese Communists.,There are other matters which affect those relations too. But this is certainly a point of the greatest possible concern.,Now, we have asked for a delay in the meetings which take place in Warsaw, between the United States representative and that of the Chinese Communists, from February to March, because they have become merely a matter of form and nothing of substance happened.,But I'm going to make it very clear that we are concerned about those men in China. The Americans who have been detained in Cuba, and all the circumstances around their arrest, that is a matter which the Swiss Minister is continuing to keep us informed.,[33.] Q. Mr. President, does your statement about the Warsaw talks mean that you propose to have some matters of substance taken up there in March when the talks are resumed, and can you tell us in general what sort of matters you would deal with?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it just meant that we had no business to discuss in the February meeting that made the talk at this time worthwhile.,[34.] Q. Mr. President, what sort of reaction have you had from the Latin American countries to the five-point program that you proposed, that you outlined in your State of the Union Message to help the Latin American countries, and could you be a little bit more specific about when you expect your food-for-peace mission to sort of go into action in Latin America?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the food-for-peace mission will be leaving very--in the next few days. We have announced the appointment of Mr. Berle who's had long experience as head of that interdepartmental task force as an assistant to the Secretary. Mr. Berle headed the task force of ours during--between the election and January 20, and I'm very hopeful that under his leadership, of course with the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Mann, that we will be able to implement our commitments to Latin America.1,1 A White House release of February 8 announced the departure of George McGovern, Director, Food for Peace, accompanied by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., for Argentina and Brazil on February 13. The release also stated that another mission headed by James Symington, Deputy Director, Food for Peace, and Stephen Raushenbush, a staff member, would leave at the same time for discussions in most of the Latin American countries.,[35.] Q. You said in your State of the Union Message, sir, that you planned to accelerate the missile program. I wonder within that framework if you could say whether that includes the possibility of providing funds in fiscal 1962 to start production on the Nike-Zeus antimissile missile?,THE PRESIDENT. Well the Nike Zeus-there are, of course, funds which have been spent in research on the general area of antimissile missile--that is a matter which is now being considered by the Department of Defense and also by the President's Science Advisory Committee--as to whether the amount of money which we are devoting, which is considerable. Unfortunately, in all of these weapons systems the amounts of money that become involved get into the hundreds of millions and then billions, so very careful judgments have to be made. And the--as a matter of fact, I discussed that particular matter with Mr. Wiesner yesterday, so I can't give you a more precise answer than to say that we are considering it.,[36.] Q. Mr. President, in your State of the Union Message, you spoke of juvenile delinquency. There is growing concern expressed by parents, clergy, and J. Edgar Hoover about the effect on young people of crime and violence in movies and on the air, and the Senate committee is investigating this. Is there anything you can do about it, or may you ask for legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. I will have to wait, Mrs. Craig. We--as I said at the time in the State of the Union that we are considering what legislation could be enacted. Now when you get into movies, it's very limited-the amount of influence which the Federal Government can exert is quite limited, as you know--quite properly limited. But at least we are concerned with the general problem.,All the steps we take in urban renewal and housing also affect, of course, the kind of atmosphere, the kind of schools we have, the kind of housing we have, the kind of health conditions we have--all affect the atmosphere in which younger people grow up.,We are very much concerned with that area and we also have--are informed about what the Congress is doing. But this is a matter which goes to the responsibility of the private citizen. The Federal Government cannot protect the standards of young boys or girls--the parents have to do it, in the first place.,We can only play a very supplemental role and a marginal role. So that we can't put that problem on the--Mr. Hoover or on the White House or on the Congress. It rests with the families involved--with the parents involved. But we can do something about the living conditions and the atmosphere in which these children grow up, and we are going to do something about it.,[37.] Q. Mr. President, in your State of the Union Address you said, \"I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report past, present, or future which is necessary for a free and informed judgment of our conduct and hazards.\" Does this apply, sir, to the Gaither report and will you make that available amongst other studies of a critical nature?,THE PRESIDENT. I've been reading the Gaither report. I think there are two matters involved. First, some of its provisions are quite dated and rest on assumptions which are no longer valid. Secondly, some portions of it do involve security information. So that we will make a judgment, I hope, shortly, whether overall it would be possible to release those parts of it which would not adversely affect the security of the United States and which would assist us at our present time.,That is really the question. Does the release of this and the material in it, of a report 3 years old, benefit our security position today and help the people make a judgment on it? And I would have to finish the study of the Gaither report before we give you an answer on that.,[38.] Q. Mr. President, how soon do you expect to submit to Congress your slate of new ambassadors? I'm thinking of posts like London or Paris.,THE PRESIDENT. We are--have of course informed the countries involved and asked for their agreement, which is customary, and as soon as those agreements come back to us we will send the names to the Senate.,Q. Do you plan to do that singly or in a bloc?,THE PRESIDENT. As quickly as possible and if we can get the agreements back en bloc we'll send them en bloc.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"John F. Kennedy","date":"1961-01-25","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have several announcements to make first.,[1] I have a statement about the Geneva negotiations for an atomic test ban. These negotiations, as you I now, are scheduled to begin early in February. They are of great importance and we will need more time to prepare a clear American position. So we are consulting with other governments and are asking to have it put off until late March. As you know, Mr. John McCloy is my principal adviser in this field, and he has organized a distinguished panel of experts, headed by Dr. James Fisk of the Bell Laboratories--and Mr. Salinger will have a list of the names at the end of the conference-who are going to study previous positions that we've taken in this field, and also recommend to Mr. McCloy, for my guidance, what our position will be in late March when we hope the tests will resume.,[2.] Secondly, the United States Government has decided to increase substantially its contribution towards relieving the famine in the Congo. This will be done by increasing the supply of cornmeal and dry milk, by adding contributions of rice, and by airlifting a thousand tons of food supplies, seeds, and hospital supplies from a number of African nations to the Congo.,It is the intention of the United States Government to meet fully the emergency requirements of the Congo for rice, corn, dry milk and other foodstuffs in our surplus stocks. Assurances have been received from the United Nations that with the help of this program the flow of supplies will be adequate to relieve the distress. The United States Government will cooperate fully to help the United Nations prevent famine in the Congo. 1,1 A White House release, dated January 25, describes more fully the Emergency Food Program for the Congo. The release is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 44, p. 218).,[3.] Third, I am happy to be able to announce that Capt. Freeman B. Olmstead and Capt. John R. McKone, members of the crew of the United States Air Force RB-47 aircraft who have been detained by Soviet authorities since July 1, 1960, have been released by the Soviet Government and are now en route to the United States.,The United States Government is gratified by this decision of the Soviet Union and considers that this action of the Soviet Government removes a serious obstacle to improvement of Soviet-American relations.,Our deepest sympathy and understanding go to the families of the men of the RB-47 who gave their lives in the service of their country. At the same time, I am sure that all Americans join me in rejoicing with the Olmstead and McKone families. The families, as well as the men, comported themselves in these trying times in a way which is truly in the best traditions of the military services of the United States. Restraint in these conditions is obviously not easy. But they can be assured that they have contributed in large measure to the final achievement of the objective which we all sought-release of the men.,[4.] Q. Mr. President, this RB-47 case was regarded by the Russians as an overflight although we took a different position. In the light of this announcement, what will be your general policy on overflights and on such things as the U-2 case, or the U-2 flights? Do you conceive of circumstances which might warrant resumption of such things as the U-2 flight?,THE PRESIDENT. The Soviet Government is fully aware of United States Government views with respect to the distinction between the question of the United States Air Force RB-47 and the incident which occurred over Soviet territory on May 1, 1960, involving an American U-2 type aircraft. Flights of American aircraft penetrating the air space of the Soviet Union have been suspended since May 1960. I have ordered that they not be resumed.,[5.] Q. Mr. President there have been reports that Mr. Khrushchev might come to the United Nations General Assembly for the resumption of the disarmament debates sometime in March. If this were to happen, would you welcome a visit by him to Washington for a get-acquainted meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not heard officially of any proposal by Mr. Khrushchev to come to the United States. I've merely seen newspaper reports and I feel that it would be more appropriate to wait until we had some indication of whether Mr. Khrushchev was planning to come to the United Nations.,[6.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us something about what your role was, if you had one, in the release of these fliers? Did this come about as a consequence of some action you took?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this matter has been under discussion by the American Ambassador and Mr. Khrushchev on one occasion and representatives of the Soviet foreign ministry since this weekend. The fliers were released as of 2 a.m. yesterday morning, but in the plane taking off there was a tire that was blown and therefore the plane did not take off. Our last information is that it took off at 5 o'clock our time this afternoon. It will fly to Amsterdam and then we expect the fliers to be brought to the United States tomorrow afternoon.,[7.] Q. Mr. President, one of your task forces recommended that you resist any early move toward general disarmament negotiations until a firm and fixed U.S. policy could be worked out. What is your reaction to that report and how much time do you think it might take to get a firm fixed U.S. position?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. McCloy has responsibility over the area of disarmament as well as nuclear testing. He has, as I've said, set up this committee--advisory committee-on nuclear testing. We expect to also get the American position clearer on general disarmament. There is not the same deadline that we've been facing on the nuclear testing where we were supposed to resume in early February, but I can state that this was a matter which was discussed early this week by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and Mr. McCloy and we are preparing clarification of American positions on disarmament.,[8.] Q. Mr. President, what more can you tell us about the long conversation that Ambassador Thompson had with Mr. Khrushchev, including whether the tone of that conversation was anywhere near as friendly as that of the messages that Khrushchev has sent you?,THE PRESIDENT. I would say the tone was friendly. And as a result of the conversations, as I've said, the decision was made to release the fliers. But the conversations were conducted in an atmosphere of civility.,Q. Could you give us any indication at all as to what other subjects were taken up in addition to the release of the RB-47 fliers?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that I have to stand on my previous statement.,[9.] Q. Does your administration plan to take any steps to solve the problem at Fayette County, Tenn., where tenant farmers have been evicted from their homes because they voted last November and must now live in tents?,THE PRESIDENT. We are--the Congress, of course, enacted legislation which placed very clear responsibility on the executive branch to protect the right of voting. I supported that legislation. I am extremely interested in making sure that every American is given the right to cast his vote without prejudice to his rights as a citizen. And therefore I can state that this administration will pursue the problem of providing that protection with all vigor.,[10.] Q. Sir, would you please tell us how it was possible for you to do by Executive order what Mr. Benson always told us was impossible for him to do without more legislation? I refer to the order expanding the distribution of food to the unemployed and giving them more variety in the diet.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would not attempt to comment on Mr. Benson. I don't think there's any question of our rights to issue the Executive order under the authority given to us by the Constitution and by legislative action. I think we're within our rights. It is a judgment as to what is the best use to make of the funds that are available--the funds are quite limited. The diet which is being provided for the people who are unemployed is still inadequate. But nevertheless we have used the funds that are available to the maximum. And I don't think there's any question that we were within our rights.,[11] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us how and when you learned that these fliers were going to be released?,THE PRESIDENT. I learned as a result of the conversations which Ambassador Thompson had with the Soviet officials and therefore we were informed as to the date that they would be released--the time-yesterday.,[12.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some apprehension about the instantaneous broadcast of Presidential press conferences such as this one, the contention being that an inadvertent statement no longer correctable, as in the old days, could possibly cause some grave consequences. Do you feel there is any risk or could you give us some thought on that subject?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it was my understanding that the statements made by the, by President Eisenhower, were on the record. There may have been a clarification that could have been issued afterwards but it still would have demonstrated, it still would have been on the record as a clarification, so that I don't think that the interests of our country are--it seems to me they're as well protected under this system as they were under the system followed by President Eisenhower. And this system has the advantage of providing more direct communication.,[13.] Q. On the question at issue would you consider reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba and are you considering such a step now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at the--take the last part first--we are not considering such a step at the present time. I may say that the United States is interested, and l think that this administration is extremely interested in movements in Latin America and Central America, or the Caribbean which provide a better life for the people. And if American interests may be damaged by those movements--or revolutions, or whatever term you want to use--we feel that this should be a matter that should be negotiated. What we are of course concerned about is when these movements are seized by external forces and directed not to improving the welfare of the people involved but towards imposing an ideology which is alien to this hemisphere. That is a matter of concern particularly when that intervention takes the form of military support which threatens the security and the peace of the Western Hemisphere.,Now, I'm hopeful that governments will be established throughout all of Latin America and governments which are established will, and I think nearly all of them do, share the same view that we have to provide in this hemisphere a better life for the people involved, that we are interested in that, that we are concerned about it, that American policy will be directed towards that end. But we are also concerned that in the name of that peaceful revolution, when it's seized by aliens for their purposes, it's very difficult for the United States to carry on happy relations with those countries.,So in answer to your question we have no plan at present to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba, because of the factors which are involved in that island.,[14.] Q. You said in the past, sir, that the President should be in the thick of the political battle, and I wondered, sir, if you could tell us what part you're playing in the effort to expand the Rules Committee and whether you feel your domestic program-whether the success of your domestic program in part depends on expanding the Rules Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Constitution states that each house shall be the judge of its own rules, and therefore the Speaker of the House, Mr. Rayburn, has been extremely anxious that the House be permitted to settle this matter in its own way.,But it's no secret that--I would strongly believe that the Members of the House should have an opportunity to vote themselves on the programs which we will present. That, I think, is the reason the people selected them to go to the House of Representatives and to the Senate and selected me as President, so that we could present programs and consider programs and vote on programs which are put forward for the benefit of the country.,Now I feel that it would be--I'm hopeful that whatever judgment is made by the Members of the House, that it will permit the Members to vote on these bills. This is a very difficult time in the life of our country. Many controversial measures will be presented which will be in controversy and will be debated. But at the end the majority of the Members of the House, the majority of the Members of the Senate, I hope, will have a chance to exercise their will, and that a small group of men will not attempt to prevent the Members from finally letting their judgments be known.,For example, we have the housing bill which is going to come before the Congress this year. We have an aid-to-education bill. We have legislation which will affect the income of farmers. Shouldn't the Members of the House themselves and not merely the members of the Rules Committee have a chance to vote on those measures? But the responsibility rests with the Members of the House, and I would not attempt in any way to infringe upon that responsibility. I merely give my view as an interested citizen. [Laughter],[15.] Q. Are any plans being made to implement the recommendations in the Voorhees report on the Cuban refugee problem? Secondly, do you plan to appoint somebody to continue Mr. Voorhees' work?,THE PRESIDENT. We are considering the recommendations of Mr. Voorhees and the whole problem of the Cuban refugees, but I don't have any statement to make on it at this time.,[16.] Q. Mr. President, what is the official Government position in regard to the Portuguese-seized ship? Can the Navy board it if and when it makes contact?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I believe that the location of the ship has been determined, and--[aside to Mr. Salinger]--perhaps we could give the location of it--at the present time the instructions are for the Navy to continue its accompaniment of the ship. The Santa Maria has been located by Navy P2V aircraft, and the position is approximately 600 miles north of the mouth of the Amazon River. It is headed on a course of 117, a speed of 15 knots, and the exact position at 10 minutes after 4 was 10-35 north, 45-42 west. It will be trailed by aircraft and picked up by the destroyers of our African task force.,Now, there are Americans involved; and their lives are involved. But we have not given any instructions to the Navy to carry out any boarding operations. Though, of course, we are concerned about the lives of the Americans involved. And also we are concerned because the ship belongs to a country with which the United States has friendly relations.,[17.] Q. Mr. President, in consequence of Mr. Khrushchev's apparent indication last weekend of willingness to release the American fliers, have you sent any communication to him through Ambassador Thompson or otherwise?,THE PRESIDENT. Well--have I sent a message since the release of the fliers?,Q. Since his communication to us through Ambassador--,THE PRESIDENT. We have had several exchanges with the Soviet authorities. I do not believe that one has taken place since the release of the prisoners but that's partially because there has been this delay about their leaving Moscow.,[18.] Q. Mr. President, there is meeting here now a nationwide group of labor, agriculture, and industry which wants to abolish all restraints of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. They say that it robs us of gold, robs American workers of jobs. What is your position on such a proposal?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that their meeting here is well within their rights as citizens of the United States and I think that we should listen to their views. This is a matter of great concern. I do think we should be conscious of the fact, of course, that the balance of trade has been substantially in our favor in the last year. But we are continually concerned about those imports which adversely affect an entire industry, or adversely affect the employment of a substantial number of our citizens. The present laws--peril-point and escape clause-of course, all take those matters into consideration. But I'm glad to have them here; I'm glad to have them express their views. I think the Congress should consider their views carefully, and I hope that in their consideration they will consider the whole problem of trade, and I do think we should realize that the balance of trade has been in our favor and the gold flow would have been substantially worse if we had not had this favorable balance of trade.,[19.] Q. Mr. President, in relation to the gold problem, the outgoing administration has ordered a cutback in the number of American military and civilian dependents stationed abroad in the so-called hard currency nations. The day before your inaugural the outgoing Defense Secretary advised your incoming Defense Secretary in a manner urging that relief should be sought as soon as possible because of what the outgoing Defense Secretary termed the \"adverse affect of the order on the morale of the military.\" Have you had a chance to make up your mind on that position, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. McNamara and Mr. Dillon have discussed the effect of this order on military morale, military strength, the rate of reenlistment. It's really a question of determining what alternative steps can be secured which would be less harmful but which would protect the flow of gold. 'I do expect to make some reference to this matter of gold outflow in the State of the Union Address. I will send within a 2-week period after the State of the Union Address a message to the Congress dealing with the gold outflow and our recommendations for meeting it and we will at that time come to some judgment as to whether a more satisfactory method of protecting our gold could be secured than providing for the return of the families of Americans serving abroad in the military.,I will say that our study so far has convinced us that the dollar must be protected, that the dollar can be protected at its present value, that exchange controls are not essential, but it is a most serious problem and it will be the subject of a message to the Congress.,[20.] Q. Mr. President, the State of New York gave you one of your handsomest majorities in the 1960 election campaign, but now the Democrats of New York are rather bitterly divided over leadership. As the leader of the Democratic Party nationally, are you going to take some steps to try and heal the splits in New York?,THE PRESIDENT. Well the people in New York, the Democratic organizations in New York, who are interested in the success of the Democratic Party, they have to make their judgments as to what kind of a party they want to build there. I have asked Mr. Bailey, the new chairman of the Democratic Party, to lend a helping hand in attempting to alleviate some of the distress. [Laughter],[21.] Q. Sir, do you have any plans for quick Federal aid for the unemployed?,THE PRESIDENT. We are going to send a message to the Congress right after the State of the Union Address on what steps we think the Government could profitably take to provide protection for the unemployed and also to stimulate the economy. On the immediate question, I will discuss that in the State of the Union Address on Monday.,[22.] Q. Mr. President, now that the Soviets have released the RB-47 fliers, will you estimate for us the chances of you meeting with Premier Khrushchev?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. There is no relationship, nor has there been, in the discussion between the two matters. And therefore I have no--there has been no change in my previous statement that there are no plans at the present time for meeting with Mr. Khrushchev.,[23.] Q. Mr. President, will you tolerate the continued abuse of Executive privilege to suppress information which is needed by Congress? For instance, now that you are President, will you direct the USIA to give the Senate Foreign Relations Committee those prestige polls which you urged the previous administration to make available during the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say that I would have no objection at all to the polls, or at least the results of the polls, being made available. And I'd be delighted to check in and see what we can do about making it available to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House Foreign Relations Committee, if they would like them.,Q. Mr. President, about the abuses regarding the privilege to suppress all sorts of information. What is your position on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's a statement, really, not completely a question, in,Q. Sir, but you yourself agreed,THE PRESIDENT. That's why I stated that I thought that it would be well to release these polls and that's why I said I'd be glad to release these polls. Now if other matters come up, we'll have to make a judgment whether it is an abuse or whether it is within the constitutional protections given to the Executive, and I would hope that we can within the limits of national security make available information to the press and to the people, and I do think that it would be helpful to release the polls which we discussed last fall.,Q. Mr. President, Press Secretary Salinger said today, indicated today, there might be a need for a tightening of information on national security. Doesn't the policy of deterrence require that the enemy have knowledge of our strength and the ability to carry them out and wouldn't there be a risk of possible miscalculation by tightening up information?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the enemy is informed of our strength. I think Mr. Salinger in his statement today at lunch indicated his judgment based on his experience so far, that there had been very ample information given so that the enemy can make a determination as to our strength. I am anxious that we have a maximum flow of information but there quite obviously are some matters which involve the security of the United States, and it's a matter on which the press and the Executive should attempt to reach a responsible decision.,I could not make a prediction about what those matters will be, but I think that all of us here are aware that there are some matters which it would not be well to discuss at particular times so that we just have to wait and try to work together and see if we can provide as much information as we can within the limits of national security. I do not believe that the stamp \"National Security\" should be put on mistakes of the administration which do not involve the national security, and this administration would welcome any time that any member of the press feels that we are artificially invoking that cover. But I must say that I do not hold the view that all matters and all information which is available to the Executive should be made available at all times, and I don't think any member of the press does. So it's a question of trying to work out a solution to a sensitive matter.,[24.] Q. Mr. President, in the past few days the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, has issued statements--one with your name on it--to the effect that this country wants a return to quiet private diplomacy. Could you give us some idea of the meaning behind this, Mr. President? Are you trying to suggest to Khrushchev that you'd like to resort to this for the time being without offending him or making him go off the cordial path he's on at the present time?,THE PRESIDENT. Would you--the last part of that,Q. Are you trying to suggest to Mr. Khrushchev by the tone of these--by what you're saying in these statements--that you don't want a summit meeting now and you'd like to go through private channels, and trying to do this without offending him or getting him off the cordial path he's on now?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would just say-without accepting the question completely as a premise--I would say that the Secretary of State is anxious to explore with interested countries what chance we have of lessening world tension which is--in some areas of the world--is quite high tonight. And therefore there are occasions when traditional exchanges between diplomats and the countries involved are in the national interest. And that, I think, is what Mr. Rusk is directing his attention to. And I'm hopeful that from those more traditional exchanges we can perhaps find greater common ground.,[25.] Q. Sir, do you favor Senator Humphrey's suggestion that we send surplus food to Red China through the U.N. or CARE, or some similar organization?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'd say two things: firstly, Red China--the Chinese Communists-are exporting food at the present time, some of it to Africa, some of it going, I think, to Cuba, and therefore that is a factor in their needs for food from abroad.,Secondly, we've had no indication from the Chinese Communists that they would welcome any offer of food. I'm not anxious to offer food if it's regarded merely as a propaganda effort by the United States. If there is a desire for food and a need for food, then the United States would be glad to consider that need, regardless of the source. If people's lives are involved--if there is a desire for food--the United States will consider it carefully. I do say that in this case, however, there are these examples of food being exported during this present time or recent history and, secondly, there has been a rather belligerent attitude expressed towards us in recent days by the Chinese Communists and there is no indication, direct or indirect, private or public, that they would respond favorably to any acts by the United States.,[26.] Q. Mr. President, the task force report on space has been criticized as partisan opinion. There also has been criticism that the report was made without any contact with NASA officials, without any attempt at liaison during the transition period. And there is concern that no one has so far been named to head the agency. Could you comment on these charges, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't--the task force was free to make the kind of report that in their best judgment the events called for. The task force was made up of men of broad experience in this field. I think it was really a blue-ribbon panel. They presented their views. I don't think anyone is suggesting that their views are necessarily in every case the right views. I am hopeful-we have appointed an acting director-and I'm hopeful that before the week is out we will have a director of NASA.,[27.] Q. Mr. President, you have directed your departmental heads to take a new look at the Eisenhower budget. I wonder--with indications that you may have some partial revisions with this budget-can you now say whether you hope or expect to live within the $80,900 million spending figure which your predecessor laid down?,THE PRESIDENT. I would--that study of the budget is now going on and I couldn't give you an answer yet. We haven't finished our study.,[28.] Q. Mr. President, your Inaugural Address was unusual in that you dealt only with America's position in the world. Why, Mr. President, did you limit yourself to this global theme?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, because the issue of war and peace is involved, and the survival of perhaps the planet, possibly our system. And, therefore, this is a matter of primary concern to the people of the United States and the people of the world.,Secondly, I represent a new administration. I think the views of this administration are quite well known to the American people, and will become better known in the next month. I think that we are new, however, on the world scene, and therefore I felt there would be some use in informing countries around the world of our general view on the questions which face the world and divide the world.,[29.] Q. Mr. President, you have spoken of the situation where there are crises in the world now. One of these crises is Laos. Do you have any hope that a political settlement can be negotiated there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the British Government has presented to the Soviet Union--and to the best of my information an answer has not been received by the British--a proposal to reestablish the International Control Commission. We ought to know shortly whether there's any hope that that commission can be reestablished. As to the general view on Laos, this matter is of great concern to us. The United States is anxious that there be established in Laos a peaceful country--an independent country not dominated by either side but concerned with the life of the people within the country.,We are anxious that that situation come forward. And the United States is using its influence to see if that independent country, peaceful country, uncommitted country, can be established under the present very difficult circumstances.,[30] Q. Mr. President, in discussing with the Soviet Union the release of the RB-47 fliers, did we also take up with Mr. Khrushchev the fate of Francis Gary Powers, a U-2 pilot, and the 11 fliers who are missing from the C-130 which was shot down inside Armenia in 1958?,THE PRESIDENT. The matter of the 11 fliers was discussed and Mr. Khrushchev--the Russians rather--have stated that their previous public statements on these fliers represent their view on the matter: that the newspaper--magazine story which was written by an Eastern German does not represent the facts. So that that would--on the matter of Mr. Powers, we have not discussed him at this time because he is in a different category than the fliers that were released. One was an overflight and the other was a flight of a different nature.,Q. Did the Russians ask any quid pro quo or did we make any concessions to them in exchange for the release of these fliers? If not, how do you account for this remarkable turnabout in their relations with us?,THE PRESIDENT. They did not. The statement which I have made is the statement which the United States Government put forward on this matter, which I read to you earlier in regard to overflights. I would not attempt to make a judgment as to why the Soviet Union chose to release them at this time. I did say in my statement that this had removed a serious obstacle in the way of peaceful relations between the Soviet Union and the United States and I would judge that they desired to remove that serious obstacle.,Q. Mr. President, did they accept a reassurance of no more overflights as an exchange?,THE PRESIDENT. It is a fact that I have ordered that the flights not be resumed, which is a continuation of the order given by President Eisenhower in May of this year.1,1 See 1960-61 volume, this series, pp. 440-441.,[31] Q. Mr. President, your own election has stimulated renewed proposals for electoral reform. Do you have any objection to changing the present method of electing Presidents or do you favor any of the proposals?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I do have some thoughts on it. One, that in the first place, having been through the experience in '56, I think it was, of an attempt to substantially change the electoral college, it's my judgment that no such change can secure the necessary support in the House, the Senate, and in the States of the Union. The area where I do think we perhaps could get some improvement would be in providing that the electors would be bound by the results of the State elections. I think that that is a--would be a useful step forward.,The electors--after all, when the people vote they assume that the votes are going to be cast in a way which reflects the judgment of a majority of the people of the State and therefore I think it would be useful to have that automatic and not set up this independent group who could vote for the candidate who carried the State or not, depending on their own personal views. That would be the first thing.,Secondly, I'm hopeful that the Congress would consider the suggestions made, I think, first by President Theodore Roosevelt and later by Senator Richard Neuberger, of having the National Government participate in the financing of national campaigns, because the present system is not satisfactory. Perhaps it would be useful to go into that in more detail later because I do think it's a most important subject. But I would say for the present that this matter of the electors would be an area where I think we could usefully move.,[32.] Q. Mr. President, on a related subject, without being morbid, have you given any consideration to the problem which President Eisenhower resolved with his Vice President--that is, the problem of the succession in case of injury, illness, or some incapacitation--some agreement with the Vice President such as your predecessor had?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.. Well, I haven't developed that at this present time, though I do think that President Eisenhower's decision was a good one, and I think it would be a good precedent. Nothing's been done on it as yet, but I think it would be a good matter on which. we could proceed.\nReporter: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1961-01-18","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Please sit down.,I came this morning not with any particularly brilliant ideas about the future, but I did want the opportunity to say goodbye to people that I have been associated with now for 8 years, mostly I think on a friendly basis--[laughter]--and at least it certainly has always been interesting.,There is one man here who has attended every press conference that I have had, at home and abroad, and who has been of inestimable service to the Government and to all of you, and I think most of you have never seen him. It's Jack Romagna, and I am going to ask him to stand up. [Shouting and applause],Now, if we have any questions, past, present, or future, why,Q. William J. Eaton, United Press International: Mr. President, more than 2 months have elapsed since Senator Kennedy's election and the problem of transition began. Do you feel this transition period should be shortened or changed in any way?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, my ideas are more radical than that. I think that we ought to get a constitutional amendment to change the time of the inauguration and to give dates for election and assumption of office in such fashion that a new President ought to have at least 80 days or something of that kind before he meets his first Congress.,Q. Thomas N. Schroth, Congressional Quarterly: Mr. President, in the 8 years of your Presidency you have had a Congress of the other party for 6 years. How do you, would you describe that experience? Has the loyal opposition been pretty loyal or have you been frustrated by Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I said, I made a little talk last evening you may have heard--[laughter]--and I said on vital issues I thought that the record of the Congress was really cooperative and no one could fault upon that.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, you had one talk with Mr. Kennedy; you are about to have another. I wonder if you could give us your personal impression of the man.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now you know that's the last thing I would do. After all, this is a new President coming in and I don't think it's up to me to talk about personalities. As I said last evening, I wish him Godspeed in his work because I'll tell you--,Q. Mr. Scherer: I mean, what I mean more specifically, how do you think the transition is going?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh! The transition.,Q. Mr. Scherer: Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's going splendidly, splendidly. As a matter of fact there are no complaints on our part.,Q. William McGaffin, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, you sounded a warning last night of the dangers to our democratic processes implicit in unparalleled peacetime military establishment. But some of your critics contend that one liberty, the people's right to know, has suffered under your administration because you have tolerated the abuse of Executive privilege in the Defense Department and other departments and agencies and because you did not hold frequent enough press conferences.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are critics and they have the right to criticize.,Q. Robert G. Spivack, New York Post: Mr. President, at your first press conference you came into the room here and you said there had been some speculation in the press that there would be a great deal of antagonism develop between you and the reporters over the years. You said that \"through the war years and ever since, I have found nothing but a desire to dig at the truth, so far as I was concerned, and be openhanded and forthright about it. That is the kind of relationship I hope we can continue.\",Do you think during these 8 years we have continued it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will say this: so far as I have known the facts I have given them responsively to every question, and where I thought the national security was involved, I was honest enough to say so.,Q. Mr. Spivack: I meant, did you feel that reporters had been fair to you, too, in their questions?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, when you come down to it, I don't see what a reporter could do much to a President, do you? [Laughter],Q. Robert J. Donovan, New York Herald Tribune: Could you expand a little more on your ideas about a constitutional amendment on the reelection of the President? Do you have any particular dates in mind when the election should be held or--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am going to be talking, as I warned someone the other day, much more in the future than I thought I would; so, I am going to put these ideas out. I don't mind giving the general idea that I just did, but I wouldn't want to put the details and dates right down until I had studied them completely through in this way. But I do think that a President ought to have the task of completing and finishing his Budget Message, his Economic Reports, and recommendations, and his State of the Union Message during a period while he is still responsible.,Q. Mr. Donovan: The new President?,THE PRESIDENT. The new President. That's right. So we can give him a period in which he is responsible for that, before you go before the Congress. Because now the old President has got to put these things in and the new President has different ideas, he just has to start changing them right away. It seems a little bit silly to me.,Q. Mr. Donovan: I wonder if you could tell us for the historical record, this has come up a number of times, could you say whether at any time you advised or counseled Vice President Nixon against engaging in televised debates, and whether you felt that you, your participating in the campaign began as early as it should have?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you have a lot of questions this morning. [Laughter],First, I was not asked for any advice on debates. Secondly, I carried out exactly the schedule that the headquarters of the Campaign Committee asked me to do.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President, can you tell us yet what you think has been your most satisfying achievement and the most heartbreaking failure in your 8 years? You came into the office, I know, with many desires of what you could do.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think possibly, Mrs. Craig, that there will have to be more reflection on my part to give you truly a definitive answer.,The big disappointment I felt is one not of a mere incident, it was the fact that we could not in these 8 years get to the place where we could say it now looks as if permanent peace with justice is really in sight. But, on the other hand, if you take achievement over the long run, let us remember what has happened in these 8 years. Our opponents achieved the nitrogen--hydrogen bomb. They began to build up an arsenal which, of course, we know is many thousands of megatons in expressed power, in its power; and at the same time during those days we were already fighting one war, there was danger that there was going to be a spread of those hostilities. During the entire first 4 years, I think, the Red Chinese were constantly threatening war, saying they were and they were not only threatening, but often making moves in that direction and at the same time the Russians were saying, \"We are going to support our Red China allies.\",Now, there was I believe in this--in the governmental actions of the 8 years, the kind of understanding and firmness and readiness to take the risk that prevented those things from happening because I am perfectly sure that weakness would have allowed them to, and a display of weakness, and I mean either moral or physical would have allowed them to spread this war to the great and disastrous consequences of all the earth. So, the achievement I think, one of the achievements has been that we actually have stopped many of these risks from becoming realities, and on the other hand the disappointment is that we haven't done better in getting a more constructive and positive indication that real disarmament is around the corner.,Now if you want, if you want a very particular incident, I'd say November 8th was one of another bad disappointments. [Laughter],Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us in some detail your work and travel plans for the near future, and also whether you want to do this, or prefer to do this work and travel as a civilian, an ex-President, or would you like to have Congress restore your five-star military rank?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let's start, so I may not remember all your questions, I will start with the end of it.,By Democratic friends of mine in the Congress it has been proposed to give me back my rank that I resigned in July of 1952 and that, of course, would be a satisfying thing to me simply because it was the 40 years that I put in the military service that would give me a title of my own rather than--how do you say \"Mr. ex-President\"? I don't know. [Laughter],But anyway, I understand that that is to be merely a title and no additional pay so that there is no conflict there.,Now, as to what I want to do, I do want to explore my own mind and have a bit of perspective in looking at these 8 years rather than being in the midst of them and seeing whether I have anything that I think is worthwhile to providing for the public; and in doing that, I will possibly do some traveling.,I have, as I think some of you know, I have tentatively agreed to go to Japan in--some time later, I don't know just when, but later and as a matter of fact it has been very gratifying to know of the extraordinary numbers of groups and the really, literally the millions of people that have expressed a desire for me to come back. But that is not as gratifying as the fact that every single election held in that country. since last June has been very, very favorable to the United States and to the treaty that was really at the heart of the whole affair.,Q. William H. Y. Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, have you come to a firm decision on the value of the third-term amendment-no third-term amendment?,THE PRESIDENT. A funny thing, ever since this election the Republicans have been asking me this. [Laughter],No, I think I told you that I had come or, I think at first way back even when I had no intention of ever going more than once that I was sort of against the third-term amendment because I thought the American people had the right to choose who they wanted. But we do know there are possibilities of building up great machines in a democracy and so on, and finally I came, on balance, and I think I so said to this body, on balance to decide that I believe the two-term amendment was probably a pretty good thing.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, this is a question about the past and the future.,Could you tell us what you personally think were the major points which lost the Republicans the election; and do you have any counsel for the Republicans in '62 and '64 to avoid a repetition of November 8th?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think this: yes, of course I have ideas but here is one case that I think it would be better for me to keep still for the moment. I have to meet with these Republican leaders of the future and talk to them and give them the lessons I think I have learned, and where together we can point out what we believe are mistakes, and where together we can say what we believe is the best method to make sure that this country will have balanced government.,Q. Lillian Levy, Science Service: Mr. President, last night you called attention to the danger that public policy could become the captive of a scientific technological elite. What specific steps would you recommend to prevent this?,THE PRESIDENT. I know nothing here that is possible, or useful, except the performance of the duties of responsible citizenship. It is only a citizenry, an alert and informed citizenry which can keep these abuses from coming about. And I did point out last evening that some of this misuse of influence and power could come about unwittingly but just by the very nature of the thing. When you see almost every one of your magazines, no matter what they are advertising, has a picture of the Titan missile or the Atlas or solid fuel or other things, there is becoming a great influence, almost an insidious penetration of our own minds that the only thing this country is engaged in is weaponry and missiles. And, I'll tell you we just can't afford to do that. The reason we have them is to protect the great values in which we believe, and they are far deeper even than our own lives and our own property, as I see it.,Q. Edward V. Koterba, United Features Syndicate: Mr. President, in line with your opening statement and a question earlier, it is agreed that at times over the last 8 years we at the press conferences may not have been too charitable in our questioning of you. Now could you elaborate, sir, and relate to us your feeling about your relations with the press and these press conferences in particular?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know that I can elaborate very much. I'll say this, the other evening I asked the people that they call the regulars around the White House, and you people know them as well as I do, and I guess there was, what, seventy? Seventy people. Now I didn't ask them whether they were critics or particular friends of mine, some of them are, they've been warm personal friends, whether they were Democrats or Republicans or Socialists--but we had a good time I think, everybody seemed to, and I think on a personal basis it was a friendly thing. So I have never objected to penetrating and searching questions. The only thing I object to is something that tries to--it's like the beating of your wife question, I don't like that, and--[laughter]--but I have no one that I could single out and say that they have been annoying nor have I anyone to argue with.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Mr. President, this question concerns your budget, this proposal on the Office of Executive Management. Would you discuss that for us some and tell us, does this not mean that there will be more centralized control over our public works projects, as to whether or not they would be started or they would be stopped?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh, no, not at all. There, you can have supervision not only subjectively, like the Secretary of the Interior over the Interior subjects, but you can have it functionally because you have two great areas that cause a President work and study every single day of his life. One is everything that touches foreign relations. This is his constitutional duty, and here where we used to think of it, those things falling only within the Department of State, we have now--we have representatives of the Labor Department, of the Commerce Department, of the Agriculture Department, we have ICA, we have USIA, and then the Defense Department which now obviously with the stationing of troops abroad everywhere, has a great effect on foreign policy.,Now, it is therefore a very tough problem to keep all of these things always on the same road going the same way. This would be the job of the First Secretary, as I see it, not that he takes the place of the President at all, in the foreign field, but to day by day watch what is going on in the world--keep everybody in all the several departments aware of what they must do so as to have a completely coordinated policy.,Now, in the management field you have everything from rates of pay that are different in all sorts of different departments, you have all different kinds of accounting methods in different departments, you have got different methods of procurement and all of this sort of thing in my opinion ought to be coordinated. Now, you don't get into their business of running the Defense Department or the State Department or the USIA. You make sure that the business arrangements that they carry out are good, and this has nothing to do with the starting of a new dam or not. That is a political decision.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Can you tell us, sir, what you think is the greatest problem confronting your successor?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that is answered almost by the fact that the thing that causes all our problems is the intransigent, unreasonable attitude of the Communist bloc and therefore his basic problem and as a matter of fact not just the President's, everybody else's, is what do to keep ourselves strong and firm and yet conciliatory in trying to meet this--this terrible problem that is none of our making.,Q. Richard L. Wilson, Cowles Publications: One indication of what the succeeding administration may have in mind is apparently contained in the report by Professor Samuelson in which he recommends an increase of $3 billion to $5 billion immediately in certain domestic programs. Do you take the view that the economy is moving into a dangerous period that would require this additional governmental action, or do you feel that the proposals made may be extreme and not necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, put it this way: of course I'm no--while I'm one of seven sons, I'm not the seventh son of a seventh son, so I'm not a prophet.,Now, we believe, and I'm now talking not out of my guesswork, I'm talking about the economic analyses, that the economy is swinging and it will be swinging up gradually but steadily so as to provide more revenue than it currently is doing, I mean Federal revenue.,Now, this business of going into public works all of a sudden to cure what someone believes is a recession, or to stop a recession--I have had a very, very searching study made of this thing and it's not quite complete, but I am going to use it someday in trying to point out that that kind of a problem, or that kind of dependence upon stopping a recession usually gets into effect about 18 months after the recession is all over and you are in your boom period. If people exaggerate the number of men that are going to be put back to work because you appropriate 3 billion or 5 billion, in fact I believe as we go back to this last one of-'58--the biggest thing that the Federal Government did, was most helpful, was this: it picked up the tab for all of the unemployment insurance benefits that had been exhausted by people in the several States and where there was no help. So the Federal Government I think probably put, I don't remember the figures, let's say 600 or 700 million and that 600 or 700 million was far better because it alleviated suffering at the moment and restored some confidence and people naturally began to build and buy again.,I really don't go in very much for the theory that by suddenly expanding $3 or $4 or $5 billion worth of Federal programs that you get a tremendous boost. We are talking of $503 or $504 billion GNP, and this is 3 or 4 or 5 billions now that we are going to put somewhere, and it takes a long, long time to get it used. But it does mean that it stays permanently as a debt that we have to pay sometime.,Q. L. Edgar Prina, Washington Star: How active a role do you plan to play in the effort to strengthen the Republican Party; and can you tell us whether this role will be nearly as active, for example, as Mr. Truman's in his own party? You mentioned making a lot of speeches.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I won't make any comparisons--[laughter]-I'll just say this: I'm now, I think this is the fourth time that I am supposedly going to retire, and I feel this, the Republican Party is necessary to this country, I believe in its general policies and if the leaders of that party want me for any service in which I can be helpful and by that I would assume we were talking about consultation from time to time and not any truly active thing, I will be available. I won't be around trying to lecture them, but I should like to converse with them if they want me.,Q. Mr. Prina: You mentioned you were going to make a great many more speeches than you had planned. Would that be--,THE PRESIDENT. Not speeches; no, not speeches, I'll probably stop that.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Mr. President, you mentioned a short time back the need for the United States to remain firm and strong and at the same time conciliatory. Would you relate that to our policy toward Laos, sir, particularly the reports that the United States had turned down the invitation of Cambodia to attend a 14-nation conference?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at the moment there is no point, of course, of going into a conference unless everybody thinks this would be a good idea. You can't haul anybody into a conference.,Now, the thing that has been proposed most has been a reconvening of the ICC and if that could be done in proper auspices and where it was recognized that the government of Phoumi, which has been now approved by the Parliament, if that was recognized as the proper government I think there might be a useful purpose of reconvening this ICC to be served.,Actually what again causes the trouble is the determination of the Communist bloc, as expressed again yesterday in Mr. Khrushchev's speech to exacerbate and support what he calls wars of liberation and which are revolts of Communist elements to overturn constituted governments in authority.,Now, the United States has tried to do this within the limits of the United Nations Charter. We believe that unless there can become a greater adherence to these principles, and unless that charter can be supported by more of our nations, then the outlook for peace becomes dimmer.,On the other hand, as all of us take the United Nations Charter as our guide and as we have tried to do so earnestly, and I think most of the Western nations have tried to do also, then I think the chances of settling this as well as other problems will be greater.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Sir, the House of Representatives will vote soon on a proposal by Speaker Rayburn to add two Democrats and one Republican to the Rules Committee for the announced purpose of clearing the way for some of these welfare and spending bills that you vetoed in the past. Would you advise the Republicans in the House to vote solidly against this proposal which has been called the packing plan?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think one thing that is scarcely proper for me to comment on is how the two bodies of Congress rule themselves. This, for the reason that I believe the Constitution says that they have established their own methods of operation and I don't think the President has any real right to interfere.,Q. David P. Sentner, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, you referred earlier to the great values to be considered in our way of living. Would you sum up for us your idea of what kind of a United States you would like your grandchildren to live in?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd say in a peaceful world and enjoying all of the privileges and carrying forward all the responsibilities envisioned for the good citizen of the United States, and this means among other things the effort always to raise the standards of our people in their spiritual, their intellectual, their economic strength and generally and specifically and that's what I would like to see them have.,Sterling F. Green, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President.,[The Press Conference was concluded with a standing ovation and applause by the members present as the President left the conference room.]"}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-11-16","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a press conference as such, but we are distributing today a paper--which you will get after we have finished here--that is of such importance that I thought it was worthwhile to come down and tell you something of my own feelings about it.,It has to do with the balance of payments problem. This is a problem that has been engaging the concern of government officials for a number of years. Financial circles and financial pages have been watching it, and, moreover, foreign financial institutions also have been very much concerned about it.,Of course, as the balance of payments gets too unfavorable with respect to any country--in this case ours--you have either to settle your debts with gold or you have to increase your dollar obligations. Therefore the risks or the threat of a sudden movement of gold that could have very bad inflationary effects in our own country are such as to demand great care on the part of governmental officials.,We have been doing what we could over some years. For example, one of the things that you can do to avoid this unfavorable balance of payments is to continue sound fiscal policies here at home and avoid inflation. By avoiding inflation you keep down the costs of your products and as a result you can compete, you can get your share of the income, and you sell enough to pay for all of the outflow of dollars and credits to other nations.,Except for the year 1959, our exports have been very fine. They always have shown a surplus, but I think in 1959 there was only about a $ I billion balance. This year it may reach $4 billion. But that is still not enough to support the outflow that we have.,One of the things that happens is this: if people--other nations which use dollars as well as gold in their financial reserves--get fearful of the American dollar, then there can be what you call a run on it. They want to convert into gold right away, and the outflow of gold would be so rapid that we could, of course, be greatly embarrassed.,Now there are many things we can do. The paper that you will receive today not only describes for you in considerable detail what the problem is, but it will describe what are the actions that we can take now administratively--or at least some of them.,Without going into detail, they are measures to check the unnecessary flow of dollars and credit abroad, and to increase our own sales abroad.,For a long time we have had a committee in the Cabinet that has been coordinating all of our efforts toward increasing exports. Indeed we have worked with our industrial and agricultural activities and institutions, in order to increase these exports--and we have done so. But more needs to be done, both in increasing our exports and decreasing the outflow of credits and dollars.,Now they are outlined, as I said, in the paper you will receive. One of them, for example, is a reduction in the number of dependents of the armed services abroad, and a similar reduction by all of the departments that have personnel stationed overseas--to cut them down to the minimum. But as I say, you will read it in more detail in the paper. 1,1 The President referred to his directive of November 16 concerning the U.S. balance of payments problem. The directive is published in the Federal Register (25 F.R. 12221) and in the 1960 Supplement to title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.,Now I think that's about the story as I see it. I repeat that this problem of balance of payments is not separated from sound fiscal practices in our own country, because as long as other people know that we can, and will, pay our bills as we go, they will not get frightened of our dollar; they will not demand that dollars be exchanged into gold. That is the kind of thing that is always important.,I think that's the story as I wanted to give it to you, and with respect to this one problem, if there are any additional comments of your own, any additional questions, why I would be glad to talk about them.,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, will you discuss this problem tomorrow at the National Security Council meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it may be brought up. I should have pointed out that, of course, our national security as well as our own soundness of our economy are affected by a healthy situation in this balance of payments, but as such, I doubt whether it would be on the agenda. No.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, are there any estimates at all of the amount potentially that might be saved as a result of the directives being issued today?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't ask for that estimate, Felix, but-(confers with Mr. Hagerty)--I just hear from Jim that the Treasury Department is actually trying to make such an estimate today and later in the day may be able to give you such an estimate. I do know that as of now we have about a half million dependents in the Military Establishment abroad. This is a rather expensive business. No one likes to break up families, but when you are sending out gold dollars all the time--that's what they are now under the present situation--why we have to set a limit, and that is what we are trying to do.,Q. William J. Eaton, United Press International: Mr. President, can you tell us roughly how many dependents will be pulled back?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's in the paper. I think they want to come down at the rate of 3 percent and down to a maximum of about two hundred thousand. Three percent per month, I should have said, and down to a maximum of two hundred thousand.,Q. Robert C. Young, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, do you anticipate that this cut in the military dependents would--well, in view of the effect it would have on this balance of payments deficit--would be working any kind of hardship on military personnel?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, it is a most unhappy occasion when you have to set up regulations that do separate families for a period of their service. For example, we have never allowed dependents to go to Korea, but we have shortened the tour of our military personnel. And while there may be some unfavorable budgetary effects here--in other' words, we may have to spend more of our own dollars here, but we will spend them at home. So I would say that one of the compensations would be, possibly, by shorter tours of service. That is normally done.,Q. Daniel Karasik, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, in the proposed ways of saving dollars, is there any suggestion of having the NATO countries help support dependents abroad?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, yes. As a matter of fact, this whole problem is the principal purpose of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dillon going abroad this Saturday. 2 We have been discussing the problem, of course, with numbers of people. We are going to insist that NATO, and particularly the more fortunate countries industrially, which are now accumulating great reserves, should be asked to do their part in carrying the economic aid program to other nations that we want to help have better conditions in the interests of world peace. The industrially strong countries must help to meet the payments that are so burdensome to us, when we are spread all over the world with troops and with aid and all that sort of thing. Of course, we shall insist that they help. That's in the paper, by the way.,2 On November 15 the White House released a statement by Secretary Anderson after his meeting with the President to discuss the forthcoming visit to Bonn with Under Secretary of State Dillon. The statement announced that the President had instructed Secretary Anderson to pursue with Chancellor Adenauer and other representatives of the German Republic matters of mutual interest in the international financial field, including the cost of U.S. troops in West Germany, and assistance to developing countries.,The statement added that the President had asked Secretary Anderson to convey his warmest personal greetings to Chancellor Adenauer, as well as his personal hopes that the talks would result in even greater understanding and mutually beneficial results in the interest of the strength of the free world.,The full text of Secretary Anderson's statement is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 43, p. 864).,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, in the past, there have been persistent reports that crop up to the effect that in order to help close this gap we might consider reducing the actual number of troops that we maintain in Western Europe as a shield for NATO. Could you say anything about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course this comes up all the time, because it's a very expensive business keeping troops abroad. As you know, the American soldier is the highest paid soldier in the world, and there's all sorts of discussions come up when we have them stationed abroad in large numbers. But I would say this: the last thing we would want to do would be to diminish the combat strength of our forces until the NATO countries have found it possible so to solve their problems that they can fill the gaps.,Now, I could go back to January 1951 when I was sent to NATO. It was always thought of as an emergency operation, just as the Marshall plan was thought of as an emergency program. In the Marshall plan you were rebuilding an economy. With NATO you were trying to rebuild a defense until they--Europe--picked up the burden. Well, I think we should never want to reduce our forces so far that people would think we had abandoned the area, or we had lowered our flag in that area. Not at all. But I do think that the time is coming when all of us will have to study very carefully what should be our proper portion of the load.,Q. Harold Davis, Atlanta Journal: Mr. President, is there some thought of reducing diplomatic and ICA personnel also?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's in the directive all right. I propose that the State Department, through its ambassadors, go over this whole business with a fine-tooth comb and see whether there are some people we can take out. I think personally that most of us that have traveled throughout the world have had the impression, at least, that we could do with fewer people. I think there must be a real study job done on it. That would be one way to help, all right.,Q. William J. Eaton, United Press International: Mr. President, is there any consideration being given to reducing or curtailing traveling by Americans abroad?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that would be one of the things we should not do. Remember our great purpose of promoting progress toward peace. One thing we don't want to do is to develop an isolationist practice of staying at home. I would add this: I would like to see our people go abroad, but I would like also to see more Europeans and other people that have money come to our country. Let's have a little reciprocity around here. That would be very helpful. At the same time we want them, not merely because of the dollars, but for the general effect it has on the progress toward peace.,Well, now, ladies and gentlemen, that's the problem, and the subject for the day. And I would again add this: I do think that the paper deserves your very closest study, because it has been tightly reasoned. It has been prepared carefully over a good many days and weeks. I think you will find paragraphs right in the middle of it that are just as important as those that you find at the opening of the paper.,Thank you very much."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-09-07","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Please sit down.,In a very depressing world picture that we see so often, there is one bright spot that seems to me worthy of mention, and that is the settling of the Indus River water problem between Pakistan and India. I think the world--at least, certainly, the free world--should offer a vote of thanks to the people that have been so instrumental: not only President Ayub and Prime Minister Nehru, but Eugene Black of the World Bank and his deputy, Mr. Iliff. This has been brought about by long, patient negotiations with concessions on both sides, and among the governments that of course necessarily had to assist in financing over and beyond what the World Bank could do, and the countries themselves. In both cases I know that this--particularly between the two governmental heads--this negotiation has gone on for a long time. When I was in these two countries we talked about the matter, and their expressed intention there to settle it has finally come to a fruition for which all of us should be very grateful and gratified.,Q. Rutherford M. Poats, United Press International: Sir, in that connection can you suggest to us the breadth of the political possibilities in this step toward a rapprochement between India and Pakistan? Do you see this as a step toward, say, tackling the problem of Kashmir?,THE PRESIDENT. In this sense, yes: that with both these countries water is a tremendous matter--problem, and the agreement here cannot fail to lead, in my opinion, to the settlement of other problems about their refugees and displaced persons, and even it might have some effect on this very touchy question of Kashmir. Certainly that is the hope.,Q. Kenneth M. Scheibel, Gannett Newspapers: Mr. President, Vice President Nixon has said that he will not make religion an issue in this campaign. Now, the other day a prominent American said that the Republican Party is bringing religion into the campaign as an issue through the back door. Do you have any comment?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Nixon and I agreed long ago that one thing that we would never raise, and never mention, is the religious issue in this coming campaign. I have made my position clear before this group, and I suppose I do not need to repeat it.,I not only don't believe in voicing prejudice, I want to assure you I feel none. And I am sure that Mr. Nixon feels exactly the same.,Now, the very need for--apparently for--protesting innocence in this regard now, in itself, seems to exacerbate the situation rather than to quiet it. I know of no one, certainly no Republican has come to me and said, \"I believe we should use religion as an issue,\" or intimate that he intends to use it either locally or nationally. I do not believe that any group of leaders has been more emphatic upon this point than have the Republican leaders. And, I would hope that it could be one of those subjects that could be laid on the shelf and forgotten until after the election is over.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, how do you evaluate reports from the Congo that Russian planes are being used to transport troops outside U.N. jurisdiction?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Scherer, that's one question I knew I was going to get--[laughter]--and so, I have written an answer because I want to make perfectly clear what we feel about it.,[Reading] The United States deplores the unilateral action of the Soviet Union in supplying aircraft and other equipment for military purposes to the Congo, thereby aggravating an already serious situation which finds Africans killing other Africans. If these planes are flown by Soviet military personnel this would be contrary to the principles so far applied regarding use in the Congo of military contingents from the larger powers.,As far as I know, these rules have previously been upheld by the Soviet Union itself. Therefore, it would be doubly serious if such participation by military units were part of an operation in the civil war which has recently taken on very ugly overtones.,The main responsibility in the case of the Congo has been thrown on the United Nations as the only organization able to act without adding to the risks of spreading the conflict. The United Nations maintains very strict principles regarding foreign military intervention in the Congo or in any country. I am sure that within the limits set by the Charter itself, the United Nations is doing what it can to uphold these principles and will do so in the future.,The constitutional structure of the Congo Republic is a question which should be worked out peacefully by the Congolese themselves.,This objective is threatened by the Soviet action which seems to be motivated entirely by the Soviet Union's political designs in Africa. I must repeat that the United States takes a most serious view of this action by the Soviet Union. In the interest of a peaceful solution in Africa, acceptable to all parties concerned, I urge the Soviet Union to desist from its unilateral activities and to demand its support--to lend its support instead to the practice of collective effort through the United Nations. [Ends reading],And I might add that the United States intends to give its support to the United Nations to whatever they find it necessary within the limits of the Charter to keep peace in this region.,Q. William McGaffin, Chicago Daily News: Sir, continuing this discussion upon a very grave question, do you--could you give us the benefit of your thinking as far as you can within security reasons, on our chances of keeping the lid on the Congo, of keeping it from succumbing to communism, and of avoiding another war, Korean-type war there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know that you could describe the type of war. I think this: this job can be done if others see the problem in the same serious way that the United States, and I think the United Nations, does see it. But if they, someone, or if the Soviets insist on acting unilaterally, I can say this would create a situation that would indeed be serious.,Q. Thomas N. Schroth, Congressional Quarterly: Sir, it's often been said that you preferred to stand above politics. I wonder if you would give us your views on the role of the Presidency in political campaigns, and would you tell us whether you personally enjoy political activities?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, I of course am not responsible for the opinions of others saying I like to stay above politics. I've never said so. I recognize that I have, or have had, the responsibility to be the head of a party, a party that upholds the basic philosophy that I believe to be correct for application in this Nation to keep our economy strong and expanding.,Now, believing that, and having been responsible for directing the operations of the executive department for the past 7½ years, it would be odd if I simply became a sphinx and refused to show why I believe these things and what were my hopes for it in the future. Now, I do think this: I think that the President, as long as he is President, still has an obligation to every single individual in this Nation. Therefore, the rule of reason and of logic and of good sense has got to apply in these things if a man in such position, concerned with the dignity of the office, concerned with its standing, he cannot just go out and be in the hustings and shouting some of the things that we see stated often irresponsibly. I believe he does have a right to make his views known to Americans wherever they are.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Sir, Senator Kennedy said yesterday that you cannot get Mr. Khrushchev to bargain seriously about peace either by arguing with him or smiling with him. Now, you've tried \"summitry\" and you tried inviting him here. Do you think it would have been better if you had taken a tougher road, and would you so advise Vice President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. What do you mean by \"tougher road\"?,Q. Mrs. Craig: Not stop nuclear testing, perhaps not had him here.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see anything that would be tough about refusing to see a man as long as there was any possible chance of his agreeing to one of the main efforts we are making toward disarmament. I do not see that it is merely in, as part of the contest between, in perfecting weapons that we want to stop testing. We are talking about everything we can do to bring some peace to the world; that's what we are trying to do. Now, toughness comes in standing in front of the man and telling him what you will do and you won't do. Our country is peaceable; we want peace. Is it tough just to say we won't even talk peace? That makes--that seems to me to be silly. Now, I don't care who says it, you have got to explore every avenue there is, and you've got to work on it day and night and think about it day and night. And I am not concerned about any criticism about my past actions. I have worked for what I thought was the good of the United States and the peace of the world, and I will continue to do so.,Q. William H. Y. Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, on a less serious subject, it appears as though now the world series will be played possibly only 40 miles from here. [Laughter] Would you consider attending one of the games, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Sir.,Q. Mr. Knighton: Thank you.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, on a more serious subject again--[laughter]--you have indicated that you are considering going to the United Nations General Assembly and I am wondering if you have made your decision to go, if you could tell us about that decision; and, secondly, will you possibly see Mr. Khrushchev when he's here?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think the chances of the latter were very, very slim indeed. And there would have to, again, to be some conditions fulfilled because--before that could happen.,I think we must start off with this premise: we must respect the United Nations; we must believe in the United Nations or the case for relieving some of the burdens that mankind is now carrying, for removing some of the worries and the fears that plague men's minds and hearts, will never be achieved. Therefore, I do not intend to debase the United Nations by being a party to a, well, a battle of invective and propaganda.,Now, I have been thinking even more this year than formerly of the possibility of making a pilgrimage to the United Nations. I have done it twice. But every year it comes up. This year there would appear to be very definite reasons for going there, but at the same time I must insist I am not going there in any attempt to, you might say, to debase that organization in the minds of people everywhere. 1,1 on September 14 the Press Secretary announced that the President would go to New York on the morning of September 22 for the purpose of addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations. It was further stated that the President would make specific proposals to the United Nations delegates at that time.,Q. David P. Sentner, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, would you please give us your reaction to the recognition of Communist China by the Castro regime in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems that it's what you might have expected. I think it is a very grave error.,Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, there has been quite a bit of soul searching of late about our national purpose. How would you define our national purpose, and do you think the American people are losing sight of it?,THE PRESIDENT. You know, I think there's a lot of talk about this. The United States purpose was stated in its Declaration of Independence and very definitely in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and as well as the preamble to that document.,I am not concerned about America losing its sense of purpose. We may not be articulate about it, and we may not give daily the kind of thought to it that we should; but I believe America wants to live first in freedom and the kind of liberty that is guaranteed to us through our founding documents; and, secondly, they want to live at peace with all their neighbors, so that we may jointly find a better life for humanity as we go forward.,This, to me, is the simple purpose of the United States.,We have to take many avenues and routes to achieve it. We have to keep tremendous defensive arrangements. We must help others in different fashions, but that is always the purpose, and I see no reason for blinking it or dimming it or being afraid to speak it.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, how do you feel about these NSA defectors, and do you think there is anything that should be done to try to prevent the hiring of this type by our top security agencies?,THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Arrowsmith, I don't know of anything that has-any internal or procedural problem--that has more engaged my attention for these past years. And this is only natural, I think.,I was a commander of an enormous force, an allied force, in which the dangers of leaks and defectors and spies in our midst were always very great and I have possibly been more sensitive to the dangers to our country as created by this kind of weakness, human weakness, than have most people.,Now, I believe that an incident such as this shows that we must be always on the alert, very alert. I would think we must go through our entire procedures to see if there is any one way we could better it. We have every kind of organization--every kind of group--that is possible to be party to these investigations into the backgrounds and character of the people in sensitive positions. I believe we must continue to do so. And, for my part, whenever it's a choice of the Nation's safety in keeping an individual, I will do something to get him out of a place--where he cannot hurt us.,I recognize that even in Government--although Government employment is a privilege and not a right--that the rights of the individual must be respected, but this incident, I believe, should be a lesson to all of us that we must never cease our vigilance in the large and small places at any time.,Q. M. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: Mr. President, you have spoken of the Russian, use of Russian planes to transport Lumumba's troops within the Congo. Do you have any evidence that the Russians, in addition to this, are supplying any arms to Lumumba's forces?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no--and, as a matter of fact, two things: we do not know as of now that there are any Russian [military] crews operating these planes, and we do not know that there are any weapons in the cargoes.,Now, there were 10 planes that, on the request of the Russians, landed in Athens on the condition that they were inspected for the character of their cargo and it was all of a legitimate type for peaceful uses. But I believe, understand that there have been no more requests made to land at Athens. [Confers with Mr. Hagerty],Well, Russian military crews, I'll correct that.,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, in answer to an earlier question you said you thought the chances were very, very slim of your meeting with Premier Khrushchev until some conditions were fulfilled beforehand. Could you spell that out a bit; by \"conditions\" would you have in mind something like freeing the RB-47 fliers which they are now holding in jail?,THE PRESIDENT. That would be one thing that I would expect, yes. But I don't believe I will go into the entire gamut of the possibilities. I think I will let your imagination answer that one.,Q. Edward V. Koterba, United features: Mr. President, again in a lighter vein, on next October 4th, just 10 days before your 70th birthday, you will have passed the age record of Andrew Jackson who became the oldest Chief Executive in history, as he left office at the age of 69 years, 11 months, and 19 days. As this milestone in presidential history approaches, sir, could you give us a few hints on how you've succeeded in maintaining such apparent good health despite the tremendous burdens of your office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, first of all, I believe it's a tradition in baseball that when a pitcher has a no-hitter going, no one reminds him of it. [Laughter] So, I don't take it very kindly that you are taking for granted that I am going to reach October 4th.,As a matter of fact, I see no particular virtue or not that a man should be the eldest President ever to serve. I do think about age in the terms of two men that were going down the road, and one of them was very woeful about the fact that he was getting into so many advanced years. And he complained about this and all of the joys of youth and middle age that he was now missing, and finally the other one could stand it no longer and he says, \"Well, I'm certainly glad I'm old.\" And the fellow said, \"Well, what's the matter; are you crazy? .... Well,\" he says, \"considering when I was born, if I weren't old, I'd be dead.\" [Laughter],Now, I, the way I feel of it, concerning, considering the day I was born, why, I'm glad I'm old!,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Sir, the Congress has gone home without acting on nearly all of the requests you made for legislation. And Senator Kennedy and the other Democratic leaders are saying it's mostly your fault, or the Republicans' fault. And I wondered if you have other reasons than that.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, apparently this other--this other party then is making me responsible for splitting theirs. I think that should be something for self-examination and not for calling for comment from me.,Next, they had a 2-to-1 majority. They were in session for a long time, and they did very little indeed.,I think the record was disappointing and certainly it was disappointing to me, but that isn't important. I think that it should be disappointing to the United States.,Within any little bit of give-and-take which, after all, is necessary in the legislative process, we could certainly have had a reasonable raise in the minimum wage. The administration had asked for it. We could have had some schoolrooms constructed, and which would have been the kind of thing that I think the federal Government could well help out. And we could have had other things like that done with a little bit of give-and-take.,Now, I am not going to start castigating people for motives or anything else. I am merely relating the facts which I think are such as to cause some disappointment, if not dismay, throughout the American Nation.,Q. Mikhail R. Sagatelyan, Tass Telegraph Agency: Sir, at several recent news conferences you repeated, repeatedly stated, that the United States and you personally are ready to do everything which may appear necessary for strengthening peace with justice, and mainly for progress in the field of world disarmament. Would you, sir, tell us what new steps for obtaining the above-mentioned aims the United States and you personally are going to make during the coming session of the General Assembly in which a certain number of heads of governments will participate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether you can say that there is anything new. There will be renewed effort made, there will be renewed effort to place the whole record of America in this field before the world again, to show where are the areas where we want to negotiate, concessions we are ready to make, the kind of agreements we are ready to make, provided only that every agreement has with it the kind of control and inspection that can make each side confident that both are acting in good faith. That is the sole reservation we make in these negotiations, and I think it will be, of course, reemphasized.,Now, as far as any new proposal, I believe there have been one or two made in the United Nations again about a good many tons of U-235, and so on, ready to--[confers with Mr. Hagerty]--I think made by-Mr. Lodge made this before the United Nations just in a matter of a month. We will continue to stand by such offers as that. But in every place we will review the whole situation and say, \"Here is what we stand ready to do.\",Q. Robert G. Spivack, New York Post: Mr. President, in appraising the short session of Congress, how much responsibility do you think the Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans, the coalition, must bear for not getting through the domestic, social welfare legislation you spoke of?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it turns out, Mr. Spivack, that this contest now in which everybody is so interested, and in the context of which all of this record of the Confess is viewed, is between Democrats and Republicans. So, there is where I would leave the Congress.,Q. Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: Sir, in the statements made by the two NSA defectors in Moscow, they indicated that they had made known their unhappiness here, made to a Member of Congress, and there was an indication that the State Department was informed that they were unhappy and contemplating defection. I wonder if any reports coming to you show that there was evidence anywhere in the Government that these men were under surveillance or were suspected of defecting prior to the time they left?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I haven't--this is a new statement in the thing, so far as I am concerned. And, I would say this: the Defense Department has already made quite a statement in--and one of these men, I believe, is--he was investigated by the, originally, by the Navy, the other by the Army, and I think those two services could give you more detailed information on this matter than I can. I know nothing about this, as a specific charge.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-08-24","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, please sit down.,For the benefit of the radio and television industry, I'll tell them that I signed this bill on equal time this morning. 1,Any questions?,1 The President referred to Public Law 86-677 (74 Stat. 554) suspending for the 1960 campaign the equal opportunity requirements of section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 for nominees for the offices of President and Vice President.,Q. Jack Bell, Associated Press: Mr. President, after his version of the medical aid bill was rejected by the Senate yesterday, Senator Kennedy said, and I quote, \"If we are going to have effective legislation, we are going to have to have an administration that will provide leadership and a Congress that will act.\" Would you care to comment on that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether I have got equal time in this debate. [Laughter] I have to watch these things, because I am not a candidate.,The Democrats have a 2 to 1 majority in the Congress, in both Houses. And I don't see how they could want more, or if they do, how. They are having enough difficulty controlling this, because they apparently are not getting anywhere with it. Now, I just say this, for the leadership end of it, they are saying that a brand new program was put before them just to enact within the last few weeks, or couple of weeks. And I have called your attention time and time again, the very same things I sent down in August, I sent in January and in May, and in numerous special sessions. So I don't know why the complaints. They have got the majority--such great majorities they can do anything they want to, if they get together.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, now that you have signed the bill which you mentioned a moment ago, could you tell us how you look upon the prospect of debates between Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kennedy, as a factor in the campaign and in the election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not certain that it all has to be on debates. I think equal time doesn't necessarily have to be in a debating atmosphere. I do think that it is a very fine thing in the public service that the networks will be performing by allowing these people to do this on an equal time basis and without cost. Actually, it seems to me over these years the costs of presenting the issues and cases and personalities to the public has gone way up, and if these networks can help out on this equal time basis, it will be a fine thing.,Q. David P. Senther, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, would you please give us your latest opinion as to the major issues in the campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that we have always agreed that politics ends at the water's edge. But the conduct apparently of foreign affairs is going to be a very important issue, whether or not I would believe it should be. It apparently is going to be, because it has been talked so much.,At home I would say that the basic material question would be the farm, and of course I think we will make, most certainly, sound money or--not sound money but preventing the debasement of our currency, and with fiscal responsibility.,So I think things of that kind are going to be probably debated more than anything else in the campaign.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us why you feel, as Mr. Hagerty mentioned the other day you do, that Captain Powers' sentence was too severe, 1 in view of the fact that, for instance, the United States sentenced Colonel Abel to, I believe, 30 years, and we have given less severe sentences to other Russian spies.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think I regretted that it was so long; I hoped for less, when you come down to it. I have no measure of just what has been done in like cases over the years, for the simple reason that this particular kind of case has never before come up.,1 On August 19 the Press Secretary to the President issued the following statement: \"The President has been informed of the sentence imposed on Mr. Powers by the Soviet court, and he deplores the Soviet propaganda activity in connection with the entire episode, beginning last May, and regrets the severity of the sentence. He extends his sincere sympathy to the members of Mr. Powers' family.\",Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: Mr. President, I wondered if you could tell us under what circumstances and for what purpose you might address the United Nations. Ambassador Lodge said it was a matter under serious consideration.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's a matter that is discussed every year when there comes up the opening of the General Assembly. I did this in 1953, and one other time. I am not sure whether it was on the opening day, but another time.,Now, this time there are so many things that are not completed. We have had this long session of the nuclear tests which now is recessed, and there are a lot of things that probably need to be repeated. But this doesn't mean that I personally would do this unless I think it was something that I wanted sufficiently to emphasize as to ask for time before them. Normally, the Secretary of State would do this.,Q. William H. Y. Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, a few weeks ago Mr. Hagerty, in discussing your political campaign plans for this year, suggested that a great amount of your activities would not be of a traditional nature. He has declined to explain that so far. I wonder if you would care to enlighten us on that now, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will have to say, quoting Mr. Hagerty, he hasn't explained that to me, either. [Laughter],What I think: we have got a thing coming up now where a President wants to help perpetuate his party in the White House, and to increase their strength in the Legislature, of course.,Now, as I pointed out the other day, there are two types of authority, so far as party affairs, that are now to be observed. One of them is the man still responsible for the running of this Government, and will continue to be so until January 20. The other is the mapping out of these campaigns.,Now, I would expect there will be two or three occasions when--and probably no more--where the party as such wants me to do something, and I will probably respond, so far as I can.,Now, on the other hand, I have already a number of engagements that take me through a great deal of this United States, and under various bodies--economic, educational, accountants, charitable institutions. And those I shall fulfill. But they will not be political. So I guess he meant that my activities were going to be nonpolitical as well as political during this time.,Q. Edward T. Folliard, Washington Post: Mr. President, you just said that the farm problem might be an issue--was likely to be an issue. Over the weekend a statement was made that the administration, including Mr. Nixon and Mr. Benson, had brought disaster to the farmers. There are usually two sides to these questions. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. We are operating under laws--some of them go back, way back into the late thirties. The laws have never been reformed. We have struggled for 8 years to get real reform in the farm laws with a basic purpose of making the farm production more nearly responsive to the demand. And we have tried to increase world demand, or at least world consumption, through PL 480, by expanding markets--commercial markets. That is one of the reasons that Secretary Benson has traveled so much and is still traveling--to produce better markets. But to say that Mr. Benson and the administration have brought this problem--this farm problem into its acute stage, whether you call it disastrous or not, is just to my mind a distortion that is used for political purposes, and nothing else.,Q. Andrew f. Tully, Jr., Scripps-Howard Newspapers: Sir, there has been considerable comment that Pilot Powers didn't have a chance because the United States had already pleaded guilty for him. Do you think now, in retrospect, that there might have been an alternative to our acknowledging that flight?,THE PRESIDENT. To my mind, the young man, Powers, that found himself in that position, could not possibly be repudiated by the Government. And therefore, to have tried to have done so would have made him some kind of adventurous fellow that suddenly had designed, manufactured a plane, flew it for himself, for no reason whatsoever. Now, this doesn't make sense to me. And as far as I am concerned, for my part of this, taking responsibility for this kind of action, I have no reason for thinking I would change my mind.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, in view of the indictment of the Castro regime by the American Republics foreign ministers, and particularly the United States white paper along this same line, do you consider that the Cuban problem is now beyond the realm of personal diplomacy, involving yourself; and as a second part, has the Monroe Doctrine been effectively supplanted by the Rio and other nonintervention treaties?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let's take the second part. from my viewpoint, Mr. Belair, I think that the Monroe Doctrine has by no means been supplanted. It has been merely extended. When the Monroe Doctrine was written and enunciated, it had in mind such things as happened when the Austrians and the French--or an Austrian Emperor with some french troops--came into Mexico. Times have changed, and there are different kinds of penetration and subversion that can be very dangerous to the welfare of the OAS.,Now, the OAS is an organization that, for a long, long time we have been supporting, just as strongly as we can. We do want it to use its collective influence, its moral and political influence, in straightening out these things. But that does not, as I see it, inhibit any government, when it comes down to--when the chips are finally down, to looking after its own interests. They must be represented, of course--I mean they must be protected, of course.,Q. Edward V. Koterba, United features: Mr. President, in a follow-up to Eddie Folliard's question, a Midwestern poll shows an apparent resurgence of strong support for the Republicans across the farm Belt. Sir, would you say this indicated a renewed confidence for Ezra Benson, who one Republican referred to last week as a scapegoat for all the farmers' troubles? And could you at this time, sir, give us your judgment on this man who has served as your Secretary of Agriculture for 7½ years?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think I did that a couple of weeks ago, when I said that I have never known a man who was more honest, more dedicated, and more informed in his particular work. He is, moreover, a courageous man in presenting the views of the administration, and with his work I have not only had the greatest sympathy, but wherever I could possibly find a way to do it, I have supported exactly what he has been trying to do.,Now, I don't know about--anything about the effects in the farm Belt at this moment, for the simple reason I haven't had any recent reports of opinion there. I do know this: in the long run, people respect honesty and courage and selflessness in the governmental service. And I don't believe that any of us should be so free as to crucify Secretary Benson. I think he has done a wonderful service.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Mr. President, have you specific plans for active participation in the congressional campaigns comparable to '56 and '58?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have--as I recall, there are three tentative dates that could be called political on my calendar. Now, I don't think they have yet been announced, so I won't try to get things bailed up by being too quick about it. [Confers with Mr. Hagerty] Oh, September 29th. That is the fund-raising--and I am going to speak in one of the things. That will be a 10-minute speech, something like that, during the half hour.,Q. James B. Reston, New York Times: In the last 7 ½ years, sir, you have appointed a great many Presidential commissions that have done a great deal of very good work in studying various national problems. My question is whether you have thought of getting those commissions to bring their work up to date, so that their conclusions could be modernized and presented to your successor, to guide him at the end of the election.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Mr. Reston, I didn't think of it in those same terms. But you have put a thought in my head, and I am going to look and see whether something of this kind could be done. I did appoint a commission to look into all the administrative activities of the Government, and it reported some years back. And we have had the question up right now, whether we should not either reappoint that one or appoint a new one, and to bring this up, because it will take some months. And so in the--since the commission would be questioning and investigating people of real experience, that this would be something to turn over to. a successor and would be very valuable. I do not for a moment question the value of this if we can find a practical way of doing these things.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Mr. President, will you tell us some of the big decisions that Mr. Nixon has participated in since you have been in the White House and he, as Vice President, has been helping you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mrs. McClendon, no one participates in the decisions. Now let's see, we just--I don't see why people can't understand this: no one can make a decision except me if it is in the national executive area. I have all sorts of advisers, and one of the principal ones is Mr. Nixon. But any Vice President that I should have, even if I did not admire and respect Mr. Nixon as I do, I would still keep him close in all these things, because I think any President owes it to the country to have the next individual in line of succession completely aware of what is going on. Otherwise, you have a break that is unconscionable and unnecessary.,Now, if just when you talk about other people sharing a decision, how can they? No one can, because then who is going to be responsible? And because I have been raised as an Army individual and have used staffs, I think you will find no staff has ever thought that they made a decision as to what should be done or should not he done when I was a commander. And I don't think anyone in the Government will find or you can find anyone that would say differently.,Q. Lillian Levy, Science Service: Mr. President, on May 13 you signed an Executive order which allows each interested federal agency to fix its own radiation safety standards and to exceed, if it deems necessary, the standards recommended by the federal Radiation Council. Is there any reason why the Executive order did not provide that any standards set by the individual agency which would exceed the radiation safety levels recommended by your Council be subject to review and approval by the federal Radiation Council which originally was established, I believe, for the purpose of recommending radiation safety standards for all agencies, so that the confusion and conflict--[laughter]--within an agency between keeping to standards of safety on the one hand, and performing its functions in developing nuclear energy on the other, might be eliminated? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a matter of fact, the question is sensible, because I assume, from the way you have read it, that there could be some confusion here if any excess radiation were allowed to escape and were not reported to the proper people. If the order is defective, I will try to find out about it. 1,1 On May 13 the President approved seven recommendations contained in a memorandum entitled \"Radiation Protection Guidance for federal Agencies\" addressed to him by Secretary Arthur S. Flemming, who served as chairman of the federal Radiation Council. The memorandum, prepared as a report by the Council following a study of the hazards and use of radiation, was made public by the White House on May 17 and was published together with the President's statement of approval in the federal Register of May 18, 1960 (25 F.R. 4402).,A further memorandum from Chairman Flemming, made public on October 13 by the White House, stated that 14 federal agencies had indicated in replies to the Council's letter of July 15 that they were conducting radiation protection activities in accordance with the approved guides, and that no deviations from the guides were in effect or planned at the time of reporting. Mr. Flemming noted that a mechanism for regular reporting on these matters had been established.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Mr. President, the Democrats apparently are going to let Congress go home without passing your oft requested bill for additional federal judgeships. They are apparently turning down your offer to share these between the two parties, in a gamble that maybe they can get all of them next year. I wonder, sir, do you think maybe they are playing politics with this, or are you going to make another appeal to them before they leave?,THE PRESIDENT. They will have to make their own decision. Whether they are just ignoring the welfare of the United States and the administering of justice, or for any other reason, I don't know what it is. But I think in every year that I have been here, I have recommended these judges. And I don't know why it was not done.,Q. E. W. Kenworthy, New York Times: Reports from San Jose, sir, this morning indicate that a number of the Latin American foreign ministers have been appealing to Mr. Roa, the Cuban foreign Minister, to speak moderately when his turn comes. Evidently, this has made some impression, because it has been reported that Mr. Roa has asked Premier Castro if he may moderate his remarks.,My question is whether you think the situation is really irretrievable. You spoke just now of cooperation in these matters. Do you think it would be useful if a number of heads of government of the American Republics met with Mr. Castro to try to prevent this situation from deteriorating any further?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Of Course, every time you bring up this question of heads of government meeting, why then there is so much speculation, and then next you have almost an intention, and sometimes you practically have your ticket bought--at least in the papers.,Now, I repeat what I have said many times. Whenever we can see-a number of us, I mean, not only in our own Government but in others-that something of this kind will be useful, I will always be ready to participate. By no means do I want to admit or charge that this situation is irretrievable. Cuba has been one of our finest friends. We were the ones that conducted the war that set them free. And when they got in trouble, we had an occupation, back about 1908, and again we set them on their feet, and set them free. And we have had a long history of friendly relationships, and we have tried to keep our hands out of their internal political affairs. We have not tried to throw out someone we didn't like, or anything like that.,So I would think that the very welfare of the Cuban people finally demands some kind of composition of the difficulties between the American states, including our own on the one hand and Cuba on the other.,Q. Carleton Kent, Chicago Sun-Times: Mr. President, a news story based on another look at the Potsdam papers quotes Marshal Stalin as having called you an honest man who turned over 135,000 German soldiers to the Russians. Would you care to comment on this historical footnote?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know about this. And now I have to call on memory. Under the treaty, or the arrangements made by the several allies--and remember then Russia was an ally--I was ordered to go into the German--the prison camps in our areas and get these people and send them back to Russia. How many there were, I don't remember. But I do remember this: there was trouble because some of them didn't want to go back. And even after the--I think the mass movement was accomplished, then we had to allow on both sides of the line missions to go in to search and to find out whether there was anyone else who should go back to the country of origin.,Now, it is a feeble memory that I have, but that was the story, and I don't remember that there was any 135,000. It strikes me there were more but maybe I'm wrong.,Q. Rutherford M. Poats, United Press International: Mr. President, a moment ago you expressed regret at the possibility that the conduct as well as the issues in foreign affairs would become a major issue in the campaign. There has also been published speculation that both candidates might try to outdo each other in demonstrating how they would stand up to Khrushchev. I wonder, sir, if you could elaborate on your expression of regret and tell us whether you regard this issue of standing up to Khrushchev as one of the dangers you see in bringing foreign policy into the campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. It never even occurred to me to make that as one of the basic issues--what to do with Mr. Khrushchev. I assumed that anyone who has got strong convictions as to the line he should take in negotiation to protect and advance the interests of his own country would push them forthrightly and courageously, and the point of mannerisms would not be particularly important.,Now, this other part of your question--my regret. You must remember I was in the Army a long time, and I had no politics. I served my most important military positions under two Democratic Presidents, and it never occurred to me to--and certainly never occurred to any of them-to ask me what my politics were, if any.,Now, it is in this kind--with this kind of a background, that I would have hoped that our foreign affairs could be truly--and as a matter of tradition almost--conducted in a bipartisan spirit, and true bipartisan action.,If we are going to make these things such an important part of political or partisan debate, I think it is a little bit too bad.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, according to published reports, anti-Catholic propaganda has markedly increased in the campaign. You have already told us that as far as you are concerned, a candidate's religion should not make any difference and should not be an issue. But a man whom you have publicly esteemed, Evangelist Billy Graham, now says that it is a legitimate issue and could be a decisive one in this election. Do you have any comments on that, and do you have any further thoughts on the problem in general?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as I say, my usual answer to this, I go back to the Constitution. We do have freedom of worship, and I think the Constitution means exactly what it says. And I think it is incumbent on all of us to respect the fights of others.,Now, I haven't seen Billy Graham's statement, and therefore I don't know whether it is in context or not.,I would say this: it should not be an issue. But I, on the other hand-I am not so naive that I think that in some areas it will not be. It is just almost certain, because as long as you have got strong emotional convictions and reactions in these areas, there is going to be some of it; you can't help it. But I certainly never encouraged it. And I don't think I would ever admit that it is really a legitimate question.,Q. Charles H. Mohr, Time Magazine: Mr. President, one of your answers to a previous question raises this question: one of the issues in this campaign is seeming to turn on the question of Mr. Nixon's experience, and the Republicans to some extent almost want to claim that he has had a great deal of practice at being President. Now, in answer to the other question, I wonder if it would be fair to assume that what you mean is that he has been primarily an observer and not a participant in the executive branch of the Government. In other words, many people have been trying to get at the degree that he has--I don't want to use that 'word \"participated\"--but acted in important decisions, and it is hard to pin down.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me that there is some confusion here--haziness--that possibly needs a lot of clarification.,I said he was not a part of decision-making. That has to be in the mind and heart of one man. All right. Every commander that I have ever known, or every leader, or every head of a big organization, has needed and sought consultative conferences with his principal subordinates. In this case, they are normally Cabinet officers. They include also such people as the head of GSA, the Budget Bureau, and the Vice President as one of the very top. So the Vice President has participated for 8 years, or 7 ½ years, in all of the consultative meetings that have been held. And he has never hesitated--and if he had I would have been quite disappointed--he has never hesitated to express his opinion, and when he has been asked for it, expressed his opinion in terms of recommendation as to decision. But no one, and no matter how many differences or whether they are all unanimous--no one has the decisive power. There is no voting.,It is just--you could take this body here, and say, \"Look, we are going to do something about the streets down here, about parking around here for you people.\" All right. Now, everybody has got his say. But I have to handle, let's say, around the White House, and so who is going to decide--I am; not this body. So Mr. Nixon has taken a full part in every principal discussion.,Q. Mr. Mohr: We understand that the power of decision is entirely yours, Mr. President. I just wondered if you could give us an example of a major idea of his that you had adopted in that role, as the decider and final--,THE PRESIDENT. If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don't remember.,Jack Bell, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-08-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Please sit down.,I had a few questions about the accomplishments of the Space Agency over the past week, and so I had a short memorandum prepared this morning that will be available at Mr. Hagerty's office if any of you want them. It lists the unusual accomplishments of the week. 1,Any questions?,1 See item 264.,Q. frank Eleazer, United Press International: Mr. President, Francis Powers, the U-2 pilot, pleaded guilty today to spying. Does this indicate to you in any way that he may have been brainwashed or do you have any other comments, sir, on the conduct of the trial so far?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no, it doesn't show evidence that he has been brainwashed. The only thing I would like to comment on would be the past history of the case.,Under international usage--custom--any foreigner who is accused of a crime in any country has been accorded the right to see counsel of his own choosing and to see interested consuls or people of that kind of the other government. In this case, of course, Mr. Powers has been given no such privilege and we have asked that he should have it.,Now, in the actual conduct of the trial, as it goes on, I would have no comment because it certainly wouldn't be helpful to Mr. Powers' case for anyone in my position to be commenting on the conduct of a trial in that other country.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, a number of us talked to Mr. Dirksen and Mr. Halleck after they conferred with you yesterday, and they said that generally they don't look for much from this post-Convention session of Congress. Some of us got the impression that Republican strategy will be to label this a \"do-little\" Congress. Is that he way you see it, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that is the first time that I have heard that word \"do-little\" Congress and I didn't--I suppose they were speaking as legislators, and possibly from past experience. You know, strangely enough, someone called my attention to the fact that the Congress passed in 2 weeks last year 436 bills. And now we have a program that was not only presented last January for consideration during these past some 7 or 8 months, but it has been repeated to the Congress in messages of various kinds during the time. This is not a new program. It is one that was presented some months back. And I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be some action.,Q. Lloyd M. Schwartz, Fairchild Publications: Mr. President, in the closing months of any administration, the President usually has the problem of persuading people not to leave their posts and go back to their private businesses. I wonder if you are having that problem already, or anticipate having it soon?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I haven't in any--there certainly has been no volume of it. I remember one of my staff was offered a different position, and he accepted, with my blessing. But I have always done that, and I have seen no great influx of letters of resignation at the moment.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: Mr. President, since the Democrats do not seem disposed to enact any, or much, of your 21-point program, are you considering at all the possibility that you might call Congress back into session before the elections, or do you prefer to leave the issue to the voters in November?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Roberts, I think it would be a very unwise thing to call a special session of Congress under the atmosphere in which we are now living, unless actual emergency demands it. If Congress doesn't want to act now, what would be the point in bringing them back?,If we are thinking of the public interest and not just of political maneuvering, why, there can be done what needs to be done. Then if the voters are dissatisfied with either side, why, they can make their views known.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, this is a question about your project for an emergency fund for the Congo and Africa, which the Senate foreign Relations Committee approved yesterday. Do you think that a case can be made, particularly at this juncture, for use of some of those funds through the United Nations, or does the administration think it would be wiser and easier to spend the money independently?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't want to comment in such detailed fashion about this question that I would appear to set up a new policy on the spur of the moment. Actually, I believe that we must depend on the United Nations to take the leadership in meeting these situations as they arise. Actually, there haven't been too many of them, you know, when you stop to think that, I believe, with the six nations now soon to come into existence we have got something like 34 or 35 coming into existence since World War II. And in many--most cases--these transitions have been accomplished not only peacefully but in such ways that a certain degree of stability has been achieved almost at once. Here we have had the unfortunate spectacle of disorder and disruption of governmental processes occurring. The United Nations ought to take the lead, and we support it. Therefore, if some of the funds that we have to give to this place go through them, it will be, I think, a proper way to do it.,Q. Mr. Morgan: How do you envision, sir, the use of those funds in other ways? The funds that would not go through the United Nations-how do you expect them to be applied?,THE PRESIDENT. You will recall, I think it says not merely the Congo, but in the other areas of Africa. So you couldn't always do it through the United Nations, because the United Nations probably wouldn't have taken any cognizance of the need expressed to us by that nation.,I would think each one would have to be decided on its merits as it came up. But I think if you will read Mr. Dillon's statement in detail, the one he made before the Committee the other day, it was very explanatory.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, you spoke a moment ago of the U.N. taking the lead in Africa with our support. What will you do, if you can say, sir--what do we do when U.N. troops are arrested over there and also do you have any correspondence on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this last incident--you mean when Lumumba arrested some of them and then released them? Well, you have got conditions that are deplorable, and there seem to be many actions taken impulsively. I still say this: the United Nations must shoulder its responsibilities in such matters, and we must support them. And I think that the vast bulk of the free nations will feel exactly as we do about this. Now, this doesn't mean that things are always going to be easy, and we are not going to have such incidents as occurred the other day--or yesterday, I guess it was. But I think that on the whole, the record of the United Nations gives a great deal of promise that it can continue to handle matters like this expeditiously.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President, regardless of whether Congress did or didn't do what it should since January, do you think it is possible for them now to deal with all of your more than a score of points when the time is so short, or do you think that they should go out and explain their future policies and platforms to the voters between now and November?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have a Congress of the United States, set up in the Constitution, to pass the laws that are seemingly needed for the United States. And under that system we have developed the two-party system. We have now in each House of Congress a two-thirds majority. And as a matter of fact, from my viewpoint at least, such of this legislation as is constructive, and I believe those that I have recommended are supported by the Republican group, I see no reason why you couldn't get a lot of action, particularly when, as I pointed out, there were 436 bills passed in 2 weeks last year.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, I wonder if you have some kind of a priority among these 21 proposals that you could list for us.,THE PRESIDENT. No, no. Actually, after having put these things before the Congress, the Congress will have to decide what it is going to do and what it is not going to do.,Q. Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News: Suggestions were made in the Senate this week that perhaps it would be wise to devise a program, a multibillion-dollar program, for Latin American aid, something on the concept of the Marshall plan. Can you tell us how you would feel about such a program?,THE PRESIDENT. The Marshall plan was developed for a specific purpose. This specific purpose was the restoration of a damaged and, in some cases, destroyed industrial fabric in Western Europe--mostly in Western Europe. Now, this was--this had, in other words, a foreseeable terminating date because it had a specific objective.,When you go into the problem of helping people raising living standards, this has no foreseeable end at the moment; it is a thing that has to be studied year by year, adapted, changed to meet changing conditions, and this is an entirely different thing. I don't believe any man is wise enough today to foresee what will be the ultimate need and set up the program and the money to meet it. I think that this is the kind of thing where a family of nations, like a family of individuals, have to understand they live together; and in living together, new needs come up. And if they are met cooperatively by everybody putting his brains and his resources into it, we will get somewhere. But I don't believe that any nation could at this moment, for all the other 20, say, \"We will put x billion dollars, and here is a program, and if you do this you will be all right.\" I don't believe that for a minute.,Q. Lambert Brose, Lutheran Layman: Mr. President, there has been some criticism in the press of the hopeful signs you gave of our economy at last week's news conference. And Newsweek magazine has taken some of the Government statistics you quoted and shows that, according to Newsweek, that they are not so favorable. May I quote several of them to you?,THE PRESIDENT. It's all right with me. [Laughter],Q. Mr. Brose: You said last week: \"Retail sales continue to go up at a record,\" and Newsweek says, \"Total retail sales dropped during July to 18.3 billion, lowest level in 3 months. It is no higher than it was a year ago, despite rising population and rising prices.\",And then you said last week: \"Right now, they are building houses at a rate of 1.3 million, which is, I think with one exception, as high as we have ever been.\" Newsweek says: \"Home builders are in fact having their worst year, with one exception, since 1954.\",And one more--[laughter]--I just want to mention. You stated: \"Employment is almost 69 million, another record.\" Newsweek says: \"Unemployment, which the President didn't mention, is over 4 million, a high 5.4 percent of the labor force.\",My question is: do you think--[laughter]--the public may have received a slightly more favorable outlook of the economy at last week's press conference than really is justified?,THE PRESIDENT. Allowing for the possibility that any man can always misspeak himself a little bit, I don't admit that I made any error. But I will tell you: you are talking now about a quarrel between Newsweek and the Council of Economic Advisers, and I ask you to go and meet them, and see what they have to say about it. [Laughter],Q. Edward T. Folliard, Washington Post: Mr. President, last week you were asked about your role in the campaign. As I remember it, you said that you would do whatever you could to help the Nixon-Lodge ticket, but you didn't think it would be wise to go out on the hustings. And since then, it has been announced that you are going to make a couple of nonpolitical speeches. What is your reasoning there, Mr. President, that nonpolitical speeches, so called, would be more helpful to the Nixon-Lodge ticket? I was a little puzzled.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, certainly I wouldn't want to hurt that ticket, because I think it is fine. But let's get this thing straight.,There becomes a division of responsibility with respect to the future-you might say the political future of this country--that must be obvious to everybody. I necessarily remain as President of the United States, and I am responsible for every decision taken up, as I say, until January 20, on the actions of this Government.,Now, there is a political campaign up, when by Constitution I am no longer included. I am just a spectator in a way. Therefore, the direction of the political campaign as such--not the Government, but the political campaign--falls into other hands.,Now, they come to me, because after all we have been working together a long time, and they do realize that what I do will have some definite influence on that election. Then they will tell me what they want done.,What I am saying is that I have already accepted, oh, months back, some engagements--like I am going up to speak for my old friend, Cardinal Spellman, in the Catholic Church. I guess we have announced this, haven't we?,Mr. Hagerty: Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. And in Philadelphia, and places like that. Now, what I would do otherwise, I know that there is one--there is one performance coming in where I am going to be part of the political picture, and make a political speech. I don't know how many. But they will give me their ideas, and if I agree, why, that is exactly what I will do, because I am going to do whatever I can to elect Mr. Nixon and Mr. Lodge; you can bet on that.,Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, this administration has prided itself on being budget conscious, yet it is sponsoring a medical care program for the aged that will make a sizable dent in the general Treasury, while the Democratic leadership, which has been criticized in the past on spending issues, is sponsoring a so-called self-funding plan, pay as you go, as they put it. Will you comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I say this. I am for a plan that will be truly helpful to the aged, particularly against illnesses which become so expensive, but one that is freely accepted by the individual. I am against compulsory medicine, and that is exactly what I am against, and I don't care if that does cost the Treasury a little bit more money there. But after all, the price of freedom is not always measured just in dollars.,Q. Sarah McClendon, Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader: Mr. President, I presume from the reappointments in the State Department that you have taken some look recently at the background and actions of--both actions and policy in the State Department on the things that brought about the Communist encroachment in Cuba. Now, I wonder if from your look at that, if you have found mistakes that were made, and if you would tell us who were making the mistakes?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you must be asking for some kind of white paper--[laughter]--that will tell everything that we have ever done in Cuba. I have not heard of any circumstances that would justify the question you have just asked. And I know of no blunder which I can attach blame to anyone for. Therefore--and I have had these reports on Cuba every day, I think, for the last month, either by telephone or personally--I don't know of any reason for apologizing for what we have done in the past.,Q. Mrs. McClendon: Well, sir, may I--,THE PRESIDENT. No, thank you.,Q. E. W. Kenworthy, New York Times: A further question, sir, on aid to Latin America. While the situations confronting the Marshall plan countries and Latin America are quite different, would it be helpful if the Latin American countries would set up an equivalent organization to the--,THE PRESIDENT. Would set up a what?,Q. Mr. Kenworthy:--an equivalent organization to the OEEC, which the Marshall plan countries have, to help plan the aid they want?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't be too quick to give a specific answer on this. I think it would be good. And I am speaking personally, and not having discussed this particular point with others--very competent people in this field. I am sure of this: that the OAS must provide a mechanism where this whole development is going to be on a cooperative basis, and where there is the actual decision made on a group basis, because if it is made unilaterally, and we pretend to be the great experts on Latin America, and everything that we say is to be done and nothing else, then it will not work. It has got to be a very cooperative effort, and if it is an organization something as we developed in the OEEC, why, fine.,Q. Paul Martin, Gannett Newspapers: Mr. President, Marion Folsom said the other day that, on this health bill, Congress should not act this year in a political atmosphere. He suggested that we appoint a study commission, composed of representatives of the insurance industry, medical profession, employers, labor, and so on, with instructions to report next year, and let the next administration and the next Congress, with the basis of facts, determine what they should do. What do you think about that idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, I have great admiration for Marion Folsom. Secondly, I very thoroughly believe in a thorough analysis of all the facts that we can find in such thing--in such affairs, in such vast pro- grams, before we take action.,Now, the fact is that there has been an awful lot of study. We have conferred with the American Medical Association, with the insurance companies, and everybody that seemed to have an authoritative voice in this matter.,And I am not adverse to the studies. I doubt that you ever get a really favorable year to do anything as difficult. People say it is either election year or it is not an election year. Either one seems to be a good excuse for not doing anything. But the fact is that if such studies would give us a better and clearer idea, why, of course, I would have no objections. But I do believe that something ought to be done now, because these people are truly in need for this kind of support and help.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Would you say, sir, how the situation in Laos looks to you now, and if you contemplate any need to pull out American aid and military missions in that country?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Laos is a very confused situation. Of course, the new prime minister is getting ready to present his newly established government to the Assembly, and that is about the only development since last week. And I can say only this: that both in Laos and here in Washington we are following the situation just as earnestly as we can, and certainly to take any kind of action that seems to be indicated.,Q. John V. Homer, Washington Star: Mr. President, now that the American foreign ministers are in session, what do you think that they should do, or what would you like to see them do., about Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that they are brought together there to study everything that is of interest, and particularly that seems to disturb the public opinion in all the Americas, from here on southward. Both by the report made to the foreign--to the Council--yesterday, both Trujillo, the Dominican problem, and the Cuban problem are cited as two of the items which they must study, and decide among themselves what to do. And further than that, I would not want to comment, because I am quite clear in my mind that these matters are for all the states of the OAS. It is not merely because we have had some specific problems and difficulties in these areas. This does not make it our problem alone. If we can't solve it on a cooperative and general basis, then indeed it would look quite bad.,Q. Lillian Levy, Science Service: Mr. President, there have been reports, sir, that there is some feeling among our allies that an agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests cannot be achieved between East and West before the end of your administration. What is your appraisal of the possibility of an agreement between now and January?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course the history of the whole thing doesn't seem too good, for the simple reason that we have been working so hard on this thing up to now. And I would say this: nothing could gratify me more than to achieve, between the East and West, some agreement that would bring a bit more of peace of mind to all our people, and would do so by making certain that that agreement could be policed on both sides-that is, inspected and kept everybody up to snuff.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Mr. President, the polls are now beginning to show that Vice President Nixon is pulling ahead of Mr. Kennedy in the presidential race, and his press secretary says he now has closed the gap, and they are running neck to neck. I wonder, sir, if you have any advice to Mr. Nixon's friends and the Republicans not to get a little overconfident as was done in 1948, and maybe keep working.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wasn't here in '48. But I would say this: in any competitive enterprise, whether it is war or politics or anything else, no one should be pessimistic or discouraged by some straw in the wind, and certainly he should not be complacent with another straw that seems to point favorably in his direction. I am quite sure that Mr. Nixon is correct when he says he is starting a fight as rapidly as he can, and he is going to wage it right down to the last minute of the campaign, because I think he is too old a campaigner to take anything for granted.,Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: I would like to raise the question of the Powers case again, sir. The major Soviet propaganda line in connection with this case is that the United States itself is on trial. I wondered whether you had occasion to give this matter some thought, and what your reaction is to this line.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think it is, whatsoever. When we admitted publicly that the U-2 belonged to us and that it was on a reconnaissance mission, we were doing something that in a modern world was the only way we could find out, to get any information, about a closed society, and a society that is constantly threatening us by their strength, boasting about what they could do to the world, and all the rest of it.,Now, this does not put the United States on trial whatsoever. If they want to say that they are putting me on trial, that is their privilege. But to put the United States on trial in this way is just another piece of their propaganda that distorts fact into their own line of charge and allegation.,Q. Benjamin R. Cole, Indianapolis Star: Mr. President, in connection with that, if the Soviets put the President of the United States on trial, how, then, can they put an American citizen on trial for carrying out a mission under the command of his Commander in Chief?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they can't put him on trial, because they can't take jurisdiction in the sense that you are speaking. What they are trying-they are trying to say that they are condemning the United States before world opinion. Well, I think they have no case whatsoever. The number of spies that we have caught, and cases of bribery and subversion, which have been proved all over the world, gives their--just denies any validity whatsoever to this kind of a charge on their part.,Jack Ball, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-08-10","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Please sit down.,I have a very short statement about this Congolese situation.,[Reading] I believe that the Security Council resolution, adopted early yesterday, represents another step forward in the United Nations determination, under the Secretary General's tireless efforts, to find a peaceful solution to the difficult situation in the Congo. The United States welcomes the steps Belgium has already taken and has said it will take in conformity with the Security Council resolutions.,Belgium has contributed much in past years to the development of the Congo. The United States hopes that loyal cooperation with the United Nations on the part of all concerned will restore confidence between the Belgian and Congolese peoples and enable Belgian civilians to continue their contributions in the development of the new Congolese State. [Ends reading],Any questions?,Q. Jack Bell, Associated Press: Mr. President, both party platforms promised, pledged, an acceleration in defense, and despite the steps you have taken in the last few days and those that you outlined, Senator Lyndon Johnson says that you still do not intend to spend $621 million of the money Congress has made available. Could you tell us why you decided against spending that money?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, can you tell me how you decided that his statement was correct?,Q. Mr. Bell: Sir, I didn't say that his statement was correct. I just said that Senator Johnson--,THE PRESIDENT. You asked me why I decided it. Well, let's don't go that far.,Q. Mr. Bell: All right. If you--,THE PRESIDENT. I know of no reason for anyone to say that I have decided not to spend this money. But I'll tell you this--when you make changes in programs that remove from the budget some one and three-quarters billions of money and put back into it about $1.1 billion for other purposes, now there's a lot of study and tedious allocation and priorities to be settled and it's not done in a few weeks. It's a very difficult thing. And to say that this money has been frozen is--the proposition hasn't even been put before me in those terms at all, whatsoever.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, I wonder if you could give us your reaction to the possibility that Premier Khrushchev may lead the Soviet delegation to the discussion of disarmament in the United Nations, and could you tell us if you might possibly do the same for the American delegation?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, by no means would I disbar myself from going up if I thought it were necessary. Now, Mr. Khrushchev proposed that all heads of state apparently, or of government, head their delegations when it comes to the General Assembly of September 20th, and that was obviously a propaganda thing.,Now someone told me that he has suggested he might bring his disarmament delegation. I haven't even given any thought to that, I just heard of it this morning sometime. [Confers with Mr. Hagerty],Excuse me, I used the wrong date--September the 15th instead of September 20th.,Q. William McGaffin, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, do you regret having kept Ezra Benson on as Secretary of Agriculture in view of the unresolved farm problem that is giving Mr. Nixon such a hard time in his campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Ezra Benson has, to my mind, been very honest and forthright and courageous in trying to get enacted into legislation plans and programs that I think are correct. And, therefore, for me to regret that he has been working would be almost a betrayal of my own views in this matter. I think we must find ways to give greater freedom to the farmer and make his whole business more responsive to market, rather than just to political considerations.,Now, this is what we have been trying to do and, as you know, in January I said--well, I've done everything I could to. try to get the Congress to accept sensible measures, and told them--I gave some very broad outlines, largely economic in nature--that if they would bring up a program that they thought was better, or that anywhere fell within these guidelines, I would approve it. Well, they've never done anything about it and the only bill that was passed that I know of was the Senate wheat bill which was killed by the House.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Sir, Republicans are saying that it's very likely that you will do a good deal of campaigning in the South in behalf of the Nixon-Lodge ticket because you received so many votes down there yourself in the last two elections. I'd like to ask, sir, are you planning to come south on several speaking trips and do you feel confident that the Nixon-Lodge ticket will do very well down there?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the Nixon-Lodge ticket is going to do well. And whatever I can do to promote it, and its success, because of my conviction that it would be good for the country, I shall do. Now this doesn't mean that I possibly should be out on hustings and making partisan speeches. I'm not so sure that it is--that it would be a good thing. I've got a lot of other responsibilities and I've got a lot of other commitments around the country. But I think these two fellows can take care of themselves pretty well and I think they are tops.,Q. Rowland Evans, Jr., New York Herald Tribune: Mr. President, in this special session will you spend more time discussing strategy with the presidential nominee of your party and will you give him a greater voice in your final determination on vetoes for signing various legislation than you have in the past, in view of his responsibility as the candidate or nominee of the Republican Party?,THE PRESIDENT. In the final analysis my decisions have to be made on what is best, what I believe to be best for our country--whether it is a veto or approval of a bill or anything else. Now, I don't see how the Vice President could be more closely drawn into the consultative process than he has been in the past. He's always been there, in every important meeting of which I can remember. But, I repeat, this is my responsibility and will be until noon on January 20th and until--as long as any question is put up before me involving what I believe is the good of the country, I'm going to decide it according to my judgment.,Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, the Democrats have charged that the administration proposed civil rights legislation at this time simply to seek political advantage. Would you care to comment on that, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. I made a proposal in January. I called special attention May the 3d, I believe it was, in this year, and I think it would be completely inconsistent if I failed to point out that in the legislation passed this spring, the one major bill that had been passed before May 3d, two of the provisions that I asked for were omitted and that's what I did. I repeated those and I should like to point out that all this talk about me starting a bunch of new programs is just a little bit silly. Go back and look at what I have been recommending, not only during the months past, but for years in some instances. for example, I know for 5 years I have been recommending an area assistance bill, and have had to veto one that was so completely beside the point that it was no good. But I still want one. Now, I'm just asking for what I have always believed.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Sir, I believe you said that we could not permit a Communist-dominated regime to come into our hemisphere. Do we not now have such a regime in Cuba, and what can we do about it in a domination form?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mrs. Craig, I am not going to propose specific plans of what we might do. But what I have said is: any organization, I mean any government, that was dominated and controlled by international communism--that is, if it were in the same status, let us say, as a satellite--any other satellite--state, this to my mind would call for very definite action.,Now, the mere fact that someone that might believe in a different form of government than I do and established it themselves freely, then I don't see how the United States could properly object or intervene. Now, I don't believe this is going to happen. I don't believe there is any case in the whole world when any group of people have freely voted to make themselves--to regiment themselves. Therefore I think that you have got to take the situation itself, analyze it--what does it mean? What is its significance in the international world? And then finally devise those means that will defeat it.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Despite assurances from leaders of both parties in the Senate, sir, and as some of the questions here this morning would indicate, the first 3 days of the session have gotten off to a rather partisan political framework. I wonder if you intend to address yourself to this point when you meet with the leaders of both parties next week, or whenever it is, and when would that be?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not going to address myself to the business of lecturing them how they should carry out their own duties and to perform in conformity with their own consciences.,Now, what I shall do is lay out a situation in the international field, which I think is important, and I'll put it this way: I'll invite them to come if they should like, to explain further the details of the international situation as I see it and which have been responsible for some changes in my own programs.,Q. Mr. Belair: Has any date been set?,THE PRESIDENT. No.,Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: This is a question about the agreement that the Vice President and Governor Rockefeller reached just before the Republican Convention. What do you think of the principles that they set forth, and do you think, as some members of the party seem to, that the Vice President went too far perhaps in appeasing the Governor?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't think he feels that he was appeasing. I think he thought here was a proper activity for two major figures in the political future of our party, and he decided that he should meet with the Governor, and they did, and they came out with certain things. I don't think any one of us would possibly agree with every single comma and period and word, but I think this: I think that certain of the people have already stated--here is a platform that the Republican Party can follow with honor and with the certainty that it would be good for the United States.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: On that same point, sir, the Nixon-Rockefeller agreement, it was reported in Chicago at the time of the Convention that you were personally upset at what that agreement had to say about defense on the grounds that it was implicitly critical of your administration. Were you upset and did you try to get the platform language changed at Chicago.?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I don't remember that I was upset. As a matter of fact, I didn't see the details of the platform until after I reached--I think it was the following morning, I think it was Wednesday morning, they gave me a pamphlet that had the platform and I read it, frankly, on the way out to Denver.,Now, there were many calls as to what I thought would be a good thing to put in, in the planks of the platform that had to do with defense, and I conferred by telephone with a good many people and for a good many hours. I don't recall anything that I found that I thought of as particularly critical. I have always insisted that you are dealing in a platform with the years as you see them coming up. I've been having to deal with the years that are now in the past, and therefore it would be miraculous if you just said, \"This is adequate for the future.\" And what they say in one decade is not necessarily the same as another. I say one era or one period or one atmosphere might justify one type of action; another era, another atmosphere, might justify something else. In other words, I thought of it as something as building; I hadn't looked at it in the terms that you asked your question.,Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: Mr. President, if Mr. Khrushchev should come either to the Disarmament Commission meeting or to the General Assembly meeting, would you see any advantage in having him down here for a talk, or a meeting in New York?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, frankly, Mr. Hightower, I have considered the possibility so remote that I haven't given it a thought. Now, if I were to come to the conclusion that it was useful for me to see him, why, I would of course invite him to come down if he so chose. But, I haven't even given it the kind of thought that would allow me to make a decision at this time.,Q. Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News: The Vice President is said to be inhibited by the fact that he cannot speak on the Senate floor. Would you have any objections to his holding press conferences about the legislative program?,THE PRESIDENT. I would have none, no. As a matter of fact I am quite sure that while, with the exception of minute detail, he would be saying exactly the same thing I would be, I have no objection to his going and making any kind of public talk any time, anywhere at a place that is applicable or appropriate and say just exactly what he pleases. Certainly the others do. [Laughter],Q. John R. Gibson, Wall Street Journal: Mr. President, there is a lot of discussion and certain amount of uncertainty as to what the economy can be doing between now and the end of the year. What do your advisers tell you about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, the one spot in the economy that everybody watches is steel, which finally got down to 50 percent and is now going back a little bit. Now, we've got to remember about steel, that because of the rather hysterical production before and after the strike that we were operating almost at 100 percent, and this country cannot now consume and absorb a steel production that we are capable of turning out. After all, I think we can do almost 150 million tons a year. So, it would--we couldn't possibly expect to be operating at 100 percent, but that is nevertheless showing one of these ups and downs in the steel production that is always bothersome.,As of now this is the latest report I have from the economic advisers. Gross national product is--for the second quarter--is even higher than we had estimated. Personal income is over $400 billion. Both of these are records. Employment is almost 69 million, another record; and retail sales continue to go up at a record.,Now, these are very hopeful signs and certainly ,there is no reason to read what you might call a receding or any kind of depression-like situation in our economy. People have talked a little about housing, how right now they are building houses at a rate of 1,300,000, which is, I think with one exception, as high as we have ever been. And automobiles--in July were not very good, but one reason is that they are making their--still we are going on a 6 million basis this year and it looks like we will make something over 6 million, which is really a very fine year.,And on top of that the models are probably coming up earlier this year, I have heard, and therefore there may be some hesitancy in buying the new automobiles.,All in all, while you do not see a picture of a burgeoning economy at this particular period you certainly don't see any signs that anyone can call a recession or depression.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Do you see any need, sir, for the United States to reexamine or reappraise its economic and military aid program to Laos in view of the rebel regime that has ousted the government there and invited our forces to leave?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, actually, for I guess about 30 hours now, I have been trying to get some real details on the Laos situation, and we really don't know anything about it. It does appear that all of the country except the capital, taken over by a battalion of parachuters, remains loyal to the royal government. So, until there is some clarification, I don't think we can make any answer whatsoever.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Sir, there is some puzzlement about your message that you sent to Congress Monday on the military program. Is this an about-face on your program to expand the ground forces and give them more modern equipment and increase the capability of SAC and B-70 bombers, is this an about-face or is it a change that you took in light of the world situation or were you influenced to do this by Mr. Nixon or Mr. Rockefeller? [Laughter],THE. PRESIDENT. Well, I wasn't influenced by anybody except my own military and State Department advisers and my own judgment. Now, anyone who does not see evidence that the Soviets have been trying to create a very different atmosphere than what it had been trying to create over the past couple of years is not reading very closely. This being so, it seems to me that it's all a matter of keeping the confidence of your allies and your own people that you are taking anything that within reason shows your awareness of this kind of change and take such effective and reasonable steps as you believe will do something to counteract them.,Q. Charles L. Bartlett, Chattanooga Times: Mr. President, what is your present thinking on the question of underground nuclear testing, and is there any difference on this point between you and the Vice President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well I can't recall what he has ever said specifically about nuclear underground testing. As you will recall, I think it was in December of last year, I said we would be no longer bound by any gentleman's agreement on this matter, but that we were going to hold our hand until we could exhaust every possibility of reaching some worthwhile agreement.,Now, this has been a very disappointing and discouraging thing and we've apparently made no progress. But, I will just simply say this: when we come to the place that progress is not possible, then we have to take care of ourselves. But I will adhere, as long as I am here, to the one promise I made: I will not allow anything to be exploded in the atmosphere that would add anything to the apprehensions of people about their health.,Q. Carleton Kent, Chicago Sun-Times: Can you tell us if there is any substance to reports that there is a possible Soviet overt move in the offing in Europe or in Asia this late summer or fall, perhaps against Berlin or --,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't--where?,Q. Mr. Kent: Against West Berlin or somewhere else in Europe.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the only thing I could think of that is related to your question, is that Mr. Khrushchev continually says something to the effect that he will be ready to sign a peace treaty with East Germany at such and such a time. I believe that he made that statement most recently in connection with his objection to the meeting of the Bundestag in West Berlin. Well, this is something that has been going on for a long time, and I don't know any reason why he should make this statement at this moment. But otherwise, I don't know of anything that would indicate any intention on their part to do anything major.,Q. Ralph de Toledano, King features: The Democrats have indicated that they will block all attempts to enact the programs that you sent up to the Hill. Do you have any plans for going over the head of Congress to the people?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know; possibly I'm doing it right now. [Laughter],I am just simply trying to say that I have been standing for a number of things for quite a while, and I think to--now to desert them and say we'll do nothing about them merely because Congress saw fit to recess and then have what they say is a short session, we cannot just simply say that politicking is more important than the Nation's business, and I don't think it is. I think that the Nation's interest comes first, and we should do what we can about it. And I personally think this: I think all this talk about Congress having to take weeks and months and months to get simple actions carried out and accomplished is a little bit silly. If there is a determination on the great majority that there is now in the Congress, to enact a constructive program, it could be done very quickly, because they've got a 2 to 1 majority in both houses.,Q. S. Douglass Cater, Jr., Reporter Magazine: Mr. President, are you, in your discussions with the Vice President, do you feel that there is any serious difference between you on the size of the defense acceleration that is needed at this time?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. Certainly if there is, he hasn't come to me with it, and we've talked about it.,Q. James B. Reston, New York Times: Mr. President, would you spell out for us the ideas you have in mind for your new Latin American program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, by and large it's this: to find better ways of getting a cooperative effort in these nations to bring about the thing they are always talking about--a rise of living standards throughout their nations. Many of our lending institutions are not geared to this kind of thing. You build roads and docks with what you call soft loans because they are not immediately productive, and you help mines and industry, initiating new industries and all the rest of it with different types like the Ex-Im Bank, but what we need is something, and programs which we can work out ourselves and have enough authorization or intent behind them that we can begin to give more hope directly to people throughout this hemisphere.,Q. Mr. Reston: Could I ask another question about that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Mr. Reston: Well if you do not get in this month, these 3 weeks, the program you want, will you then summon the Congress back at a later date?,THE PRESIDENT. I wouldn't think it--well, it's not a matter I have thought of yet. Congress has been here quite a bit this year, but I am not asking for a specific program, Mr. Reston. I'm saying I would like to have an expression of the sentiment in the Congress and its intent that we would, together, find ways to bring about this raising of living standards and bringing better life to these people generally, rather than just confining ourselves to these particular different types of loans of which I speak.,Now, if we have that then we can go to the Bogota conference and talk definitely--what are the kinds of plans and what are the programs I don't want to make the programs from here for South America, as you can well see. They are the ones that have to make the programs or cooperate with them. Then, if we can find that we can support them with a good heart and knowing that we are serving our own interests as well as theirs, then I think we'd have something really worthwhile.,Jack Bell, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-07-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT [reading]. During my trip to South America in February and in numerous talks in Washington, I have obtained the views of leading Latin American statesmen on the problems which their countries and the area in general now face. They have told me of the aspirations and needs of their peoples for homes and land and a better life, and of their efforts to meet those needs.,I know that other leaders in the Americas are thinking and working along similar lines. I have given a good deal of thought to how the United States might do more in helping these efforts.,The National Advisory Committee on Inter-American Affairs, which I appointed last year to advise the Secretary of State and myself on matters of hemispheric concern, has given us the benefit of its knowledge and experience.,II.,Within the Organization of American States, joint action is underway. The Council of that Organization, on the initiative of Venezuela, voted three days ago to call a meeting of their foreign Ministers to consider matters of extreme gravity in the Caribbean area--matters that involve a challenge to the ideals and purposes of the American community. The United States supported this move.,In September, the economic representatives of the twenty-one American Republics will convene in Bogota, Colombia, to consider an equally important component of our hemispheric future--the problem of social reform and economic growth. This problem is embraced within a joint hemispheric concept known as Operation Pan-America--a concept initially suggested by President Kubitschek of Brazil. This will be further developed at Bogota. 1,1 A statement released July 8 by the Press Secretary to the President noted that the President had been working with the Department of State for some time on a comprehensive plan to be submitted to the meeting at Bogota \"in the hope of making more effective our mutual cooperative work in raising the living and social standards of our respective populations.\" \"The plan,\" the statement further noted, \"will deal particularly with methods for making United States participation more effective.\",These two meetings will give the United States opportunities for frank consultations with our sister republics on measures to advance the political, economic, and social welfare of the peoples of the Americas.,III.,I believe it would be well for me to state the basic ideas which will guide the United States' participation in these forthcoming meetings. first, widespread social progress and economic growth benefiting all the people and achieved within a framework of free institutions are the imperatives of our time.,Second, our nation's history and traditions place us in accord with those who seek to fulfill the promise of the future through methods consistent with the dignity of free men. Our interests and sympathies are with them.,Third, a new affirmation of purpose is called for in our cooperation with friendly developing countries in their efforts to progress.,In the Americas as elsewhere change is the law of life, and the interests of the people will be better served if that change is effected constructively and peacefully, not violently. Clearly, the aspirations and needs of the peoples of the Americas for free institutions and a better way of life must be met. Our desire is to help the American nations to meet their own responsibilities--to help them develop their institutional and human resources, to strengthen the framework of freedom, to protect individual dignity, and to gain a better life for those who are underprivileged, underemployed and undereducated.,Latin America is passing through a social and political transformation. Dictatorships are falling by the wayside.,Moderate groups, seeking orderly reform, are contesting with dictators of both right and left who favor violence and authoritarianism. Many of the extremists frequently endeavor to introduce dogmas which are inimical to the traditions of the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, the foreign Ministers of the American Republics met last August in Santiago, Chile, to consider the problems caused by the blatant intervention of certain extremists in their neighbors' affairs.,The interests of the United States no less than those of all the Americas are directly involved in this struggle, a threat to the security of the hemisphere. It is imperative that institutions be developed and strengthened sufficiently to permit the peoples' needs to be met through orderly processes of change.,A renewed hemispheric determination to preserve principles of liberty and the dignity of man is needed. There is also an urgent need for a broader and more vigorous cooperative attack by all American governments and peoples if adequate economic progress with freedom, is to be achieved.,IV.,Among the specific needs which it seems to me must be met through cooperative action are:,first, we need to consider with the other American Republics practicable ways in which developing countries can make faster progress in meeting their own needs and ways in which their friends can most effectively cooperate with them. A better knowledge and mobilization of resources, their more effective use, and the improvement of legal and institutional means for promoting economic growth are among the subjects which require special consideration.,I have in mind the opening of new areas of arable land for settlement and productive use. I have in mind better land utilization, within a system which provides opportunities for free, self-reliant men to own land, without violating the rights of others. I have in mind housing with emphasis, where appropriate, on individual ownership of small homes. And I have in mind other essential minimums for decent living in both urban and rural environments.,Second, in our common efforts towards these goals more attention needs to be given, in a manner which respects the dignity and rights of all, to improving the opportunities of the bulk of the population to share in and contribute to an expanding national product. Soundly based economic and social progress in any of our countries is of benefit to all. Each nation must of course resolve its own social problems in its own way and without the imposition of alien dogmas.,Third, within this framework we need to consider whether there are better ways to accelerate the trend which is already evident toward greater respect for human rights and democratic government based on the will of the people as expressed in free and periodic elections. The United States with its tradition of democracy is opposed to tyranny in any form-whether of the left or of the right.,V.,Each period in history brings its call for supreme human effort. At times in the past it took the form of war. Today it takes the form of social evolution or revolution. The United States will not, cannot stand aloof. We must help find constructive means for the under-privileged masses of mankind to work their way toward a better life. Indeed, so far as this Hemisphere is concerned, every American nation must cooperate in this mighty endeavor. Even the poorest nation can contribute its spiritual and intellectual strength. The important consideration is that every member of the American family of nations should feel responsible for promoting the welfare of all.,I have requested the Secretary of State to take the lead in conferring with our Latin American friends on these principles and purposes. Assuming their agreement, he will prepare for my approval as promptly as possible specific recommendations along these lines.,I intend to submit a message on this subject to the Congress promptly. I shall seek authority for such additional public funds as we may deem appropriate to assist free men and neighbors in Latin America in cooperative efforts to develop their nations and achieve better lives. [Ends reading],Now, as far as the message itself is concerned, I am ready to entertain two or three questions.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, you mentioned here, I believe, that every American nation must cooperate in this new plan or program. Would that include Cuba, the present Cuban Government?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be only those nations who have shown a willingness and a readiness to cooperate with the others in this great effort--specifically with ourselves, because we are the ones that are making the statement.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, is it possible at this time to give any kind of estimate as to the order of magnitude of assistance contemplated, and would the proposed program operate as did the European recovery program with the so-called shopping lists?,THE PRESIDENT. No. You are talking about the so-called Marshall plan?,Q. Mr. Belair: Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Marshall plan was to repair and rehabilitate a destroyed industrial plant already existing. This is an entirely different problem, and I think it would be unfair to compare the effort we are now talking about--raising the social and economic standards of the people--with the effort of the Marshall plan.,Now, when it comes to terms of magnitude of the sums that would be affected, let us remember this, that I am talking about two meetings still in the future which we are calling with our own friends and which we are examining our own efforts, and it would be impossible to make any kind of even rough guess.,But I do want to say this, which I have said so often: the only real investment that is going to flow into countries that will be useful to them in the long term, is private investment. It is many times the amount that can be put in from the public coffers. And normally, the public loans are made so as to encourage and make better opportunities for the private investments that follow.,Q. Mr. Belair: Does it follow from what you just said, Mr. President, that no larger expenditure would be made than is now being made?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I would think this--I just say this: that in my own opinion, some additional sums would be probably necessary. But there are many ways in which this could be done. for example, all nations could agree to increase the capital and the lending capacity of the American Bank. In other words, I would not think of it just as a great--anything as remotely resembling the Marshall plan.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, I wonder if you would be willing to tell us in what context the current Cuban crisis was considered in your and the Secretary's discussion of this program? We have been told that you were analyzing that situation, too. Is there anything further you can say this morning?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Marvin, this has been on our minds and thinking and even almost written preparation for some months--ever since I came back from South America--and with my associates and the Presidents of those countries that I met or visited, this Cuban problem was discussed. Very naturally, every day that this thing has been under preparation, there has been discussion of the Cuban problem. But I don't for the moment see any benefit in going further in giving our attitude than was expressed in my statement, I think it was the day before yesterday, in answer to the Khrushchev rather crude threat. And I think that statement speaks for itself.,Q. Mr. Arrowsmith: I wonder, you probably have seen that the President of Cuba last night strongly implied that Cuba might demand that we give up the Guantanamo Naval Base. Did you have any discussion of that? Do you have any reaction to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will wait till I hear the demand on that one.,Q. Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: Mr. President, do you have the feeling, or do you have assurances from the other American Republics that they favor going ahead on this regional hemispheric basis rather than appealing to the aid--or accepting aid from powers outside of this hemisphere?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, so far as all the countries I have spoken to personally, this particular question has not been placed in specific terms. But the whole attitude and atmosphere of our conversation was, to make a more effective and stronger organization among all the States to work in a cooperative--I mean all the American States--to work in a cooperative basis rather than to go each individually seeking outside help somewhere. Now, if there's any specific difference outside of what we have seen in Cuba, why I think you should ask the question of the State Department, because I am not aware of it.,Q. Mr. Roberts: If I might rephrase that,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Mr. Roberts.--do you feel the other powers are opposed to any aid coming from outside this hemisphere to any country in the Western Hemisphere--such as the aid that Russia has offered to Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would--I don't want to speculate on what their general attitude is. I know the very cooperative attitude they have shown to me in conversations with me, and I think it's a question I would rather have you put to the State Department, and put it in more specific fashion, and let them give a specific answer.,Q. M. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: Mr. President, you of course talked at some length with Mr. Kubitschek, Mr. Alessandri, Mr. Frondizi, about this plan. from what you know of their aspirations, and what you have in mind in the nature of the size of the American contribution, do you believe that your plan is going to satisfy all their hopes in that respect?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what I would say is this: if we can ever get a true coordination and meeting of minds on the problem itself, and its scope, and how it should be arranged in priorities, then I think the United States would feel it should do its own proper share.,Now I do not believe that any nation can be saved merely by outside help. The first need is the heart and the brains and the wills and the determination and the morale in a nation itself, and to do those things which it can itself do.,When it comes, though, to the need of foreign exchange, and so on, and assistance in technical and scientific fields which can be given from a country such as ours, I think that our nation will never quail from doing what it needs to do. But I do not believe that just great sums of money is the answer.,Q. Daniel Karasik, NBC News: Mr. President, would a question on your Saturday statement be in order?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I put it on this--I wanted to put the questions directly on this, and therefore I don't believe this is the place for that, because I think you'll start a precedent for me.,Q. Frederick W. Collins, Providence Journal: In your soundings, do you have a feeling that the other Latin American Republics would go ahead with a general cooperative plan of this nature if it excluded Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that no nation of course can come in unless it wants to cooperate, and I would see no reason why the others-so that the remaining 20 of us could not go ahead--and as a matter of fact, even if there were 2 or 3 excluded for any reasons of their own choosing, I think this would still be a practicable thing.,Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: Does this require any action by Congress, apart from the funds, for this plan?,THE PRESIDENT. I can't tell for sure yet, Larry, for a very simple reason, that there may be something in the authorization. for example, suppose they want to authorize a little bit different kind of loan in the American Bank, then each country's Congress would have to approve.,Q. Mr. Burd: Are you hoping to get it through in the next session of Congress--,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. And the timing is just something that I cannot predict.,Q. Mr. Burd: Otherwise it might be done after you are gone--after you have left office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that this plan would appeal to any thinking American and so I would--if I have--now I would like to get it done better, of course--quicker, but always as I think it's a soldier's attitude, if you know what you want to do, get it done in a hurry. But in this, you take some time to get exactly the agreements that you want.,Q. Mr. Burd: Have you had any discussions with the Democrats on this?,THE PRESIDENT. Not on this one.,Well, I think, gentlemen, that will cover the subject.,[Speaker unidentified]: Thank you very much, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Didn't know there were so many of you up here!"}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-07-06","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Please sit down. Do you have any questions?,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, I wonder if you could give us your general reaction to the situation in Cuba. Is there any Emit, Mr. President, to this country's policy of nonintervention, and is there anything that can or will be done about the expropriation of American-owned property?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, the Sugar Act just passed by the Congress--it came to my desk just a few minutes ago with the reports from the several departments, and along with that there are our plans for staff study and conferences with me during the course of the day. And I am sure that there will be something said on the whole situation--if not today, then early tomorrow.,And I think the part of wisdom, therefore, would be not to make any casual statements until that has been done.,Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, Senator Johnson said yesterday that we can look forward to the establishment of a Russian submarine base in Cuba. first, sir, do you agree with his estimate and, secondly, assuming that this occurs, what would you suggest that the United States and the other nations of the hemisphere do, if anything?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there is not only the Caracas Resolution, but there is the OAS that is constantly--has a permanent body in which these things are assessed and what might be done about them.,Now I am not going to make any guesses about the possibilities of which the Senator spoke. Always there are such possibilities in the world, but I don't think it is a likelihood. I do say that through the OAS, but if necessary to protect our own interests and to make sure that we are not threatened, why we would have to act as we saw fit.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Sir, can you conceive of a situation where a Russian military base and a United States base would coexist on Cuban soil?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't believe I will comment or try to predict on that one.,Q. Mr. Scherer: Mr. President, you have traveled almost 100,000 miles in the cause of peace this past year and yet, for a number of reasons, your hopes have not been fulfilled. It has not been possible to. reach a detente with the Soviet Union. There was no summit, and the Japan visit was canceled. Could you tell us how you feel about all this, in personal terms--whether, for instance, you think it might affect your place in history, and what part these recent developments in foreign policy might play in the election campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you certainly asked a big question. [Laughter],Well, let's dismiss the simple part at once. My place in history will be derided by historians, and they will probably give consideration to these years and to the war years that they think they deserve, and then they will make a conclusion. And I don't think I will be around to differ with them.,Now, as to the effort to produce better understanding among the free nations, and in the hope that this will lead to a better road for seeking out agreements--negotiations--with the Iron Curtain countries--the Soviets--of course, I have worked on this for a long, long time, and I tried in my talk of a couple weeks ago to try to put this thing in perspective. I see no reason, either, for despairing because such successes as were achieved were not all that you would like to have been. On the other hand, I see no reason for getting pessimistic and not continuing to work.,And I said then, I believe that any future President will find some value in the occasional visit to other countries, and certainly I know that if he is going to respond to the American wishes--the wishes of the American people--he is going to be doing his very best to promote peace. Now, that is all I can say.,Q. Lloyd M. Schwartz, Fairchild Publications: Mr. President, an increasing number of economists appear to be expressing the view that a recession may be edging up on us or may actually be under way. I wonder what your own assessment is of the economic prospects.,THE PRESIDENT. Will you name the economists?,Q. Mr. Schwartz: Well, one in particular is the research director for the Investment Bankers Association, who says that we actually may already be in such a recession.,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen two letters from interested parties, but in the second quarter our GNP was $503 billion, which is an all-time high. In May, the last month for which we have figures, the employment went up a million. The personal income is over 400 billion.,Now, the one thing on which they must be predicting this recession is the fact that steel is operating on the order of 50 percent. Now, there are two things to remember. One, that such a tremendous capacity--productive capacity of steel--was built in the few years in the past that now the 50 percent activity is something on the order of 75 some very few years back. And possibly there is a reserve capacity that is a very good thing. And you would not expect it to operate at 100 percent all the time, because then you would have to build some more and then you would still have a low percentage or a lower percentage.,And the other thing is right after the conclusion of the steel strike, everybody was astonished by the rate of steel production. And inventories were built up, and there is not now the same demand that there was at that moment.,That is the only thing that I know on the horizon that gives legitimate cause for the concern these people have expressed.,Q. Rowland Evans, Jr., New York Herald Tribune: Governor Rockefeller of New York, sir, made a series of statements recently questioning the relative position of the United States versus the Soviet Union. Specifically, he says that we have declined in terms of military, psychological, and economic strength in relation to the Soviet Union.,I wonder, sir, whether you agree with the Governor's assessment, and, too, what effect do you think his campaign along these lines will have on the Republican Party politics?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, let's talk about this thing, about defense and how we have declined militarily. I have put in, I think it is now, a total of eight budgets. In five of those budgets the Congress has reduced the amounts for which I asked. Three of those budgets--and only incidentally I remark that they were election years--they have raised those budgets. Now, what I am at least getting at is this: that the judgment of the Executive Department, which is reached after--well, tortuously, you might say, through the long channels that have to follow before you get to the making up of the budget, has been, by and large, approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress during these years. There is not, in other words, a very great deal of difference between us.,Now, there are individuals, of course, who get very deeply concerned, and possibly even worried, about some of these things and believe that just more money would do a better job.,I will say the Governor is not only entitled to his own opinions but is entitled to express them. And I don't believe that that mere expression will itself tend to wreck any party. That is--it happens to be his conviction; it is not mine.,Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: Mr. President, Mr. Khrushchev has set up his plans so that shortly after a new administration takes office, he may be in position to make very radical or dramatic proposals with respect to Berlin, and so on. Have you given any thought yet, sir, to the idea of a transitional arrangement with a new administration respecting foreign affairs?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'd say only this: When the election is carried out and the results known, my successor, no matter who he may be, will be given every facility to familiarize himself with every going policy, every activity, every connection we have, and he and his associates that he will appoint to take the place of my associates will be given like opportunity, so that this Government can go forward according to the convictions of the administration that comes in and can be informed in so doing.,Now, so far as Mr. Khrushchev's opinions on this and his statements are concerned, I don't believe that either party is--should be--concerned about them, and I don't believe they are concerned about them. They are very crude attempts to involve himself and his influence, if any, in this country into our affairs, and I don't believe that either side is going to try to find any advantage in whatever his advice to both of us may be.,Q. Charles W. Bailey, Minneapolis Star and Tribune: Sir, in the light of your two terms in the White House, I wonder if you could give us your judgment, all other things being equal, on the importance of age as a factor in choosing a President.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't suppose there is any ideal age, because we've had people of all ages. As a matter of fact in my own case, if the good Lord allows me to fill out my term, I'll be the oldest man that ever served in this office.,Now, I have not, in spite of three illnesses, felt that physical defects or a weakness has been any decisive factor with me and in the way I have conducted my office. At times I may doubt a little bit my mind and intellectual capacity and my good judgment, but I'll tell you one thing: I never doubt my own heart and where it stands with America. And I don't think that the physical has had a great deal to do with whatever good I've been able to accomplish or the mistakes I have made.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Mr. President, have you received a report on the amount of the Treasury surplus for 1960, and have you made an estimate of how much, or guess as to what, the 1961 surplus will be?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've got an estimate, but it has not yet been finalized, and therefore I don't want to put the figure out prematurely. I do think it is fair to say that, respecting the '61, after all, we asked for the money that would make up the Post Office deficit and to raise the taxes for aviation gasoline and the tax we--the additional half cent we asked for in highways, of course, went into the trust fund and not into the budget. On top of that, there has been a great deal of money, including just an $800 million slug just the other day for each year; so it would be a miracle if the surplus for '61 should be what I then estimated.,But let's remember that that budgetary estimate lays down the conditions on which it is made; that is, the additional revenues and the estimate as to the prosperity of the country at the time.,Q. John V. Horner, Washington Star: Mr. President, on the subject of Cuba, is the United States making any serious efforts to get across its story to the Cuban people so they will fully understand, some time in the future, that our quarrel is not with them but with the present policies of their present government?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we are. Now, I haven't had a recent report as to how effective that is. But that is exactly what we are trying to do. And I have stated before this group time and again we not only have no quarrel with the Cuban people, we want to be their friends and, indeed, I think we both need each other. They are great producers of sugar, and we consume--or we import--something like over 3 million tons a year from them. It seems to me we have a very fine mutually beneficial arrangement. And it is only the inexplicable actions of the government that caused the trouble, as we see it.,Q. L. Edgar Prina, Washington Star: Mr. President, you and Mr. Nixon have just had a long political talk, we understand. Can you tell us anything about how active a role you plan to play in the coming campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the only thing I know at this moment, I am to be at--I'm to make a talk on the night of the 26th at the Republican Convention and to be there the following morning for breakfast. And then my wife apparently gets a free lunch, and then we are going on from there.,Q. Mr. Prina: But beyond that--,THE PRESIDENT. Now, beyond that there are no plans made that I know of.,Now, I do have, for some reason, an unusual number of prior engagements for nonpolitical meetings and all over the place, but I haven't got any political engagements made for the time being, except that one.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Communist China has been contending that war is inevitable with the capitalist countries, and the Soviet Union has been saying otherwise. What is your opinion of this and to what extent should it guide our future policies?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you mean in the effort to split these two peoples apart, or what do you mean--in our policy in avoiding war? What are you talking about?,Q. Mr. Davis: Our policy in meeting the threat of a nation that believes war is inevitable.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I will say this: if you will go back into the writings of Lenin and even, I think, you will find it in Stalin's book on the problems of Leninism, these same statements were made. Now, as these people have gotten more productive, they have a much bigger collection of productive mechanisms. In other words, they have accumulated wealth, and they've also got a great arsenal of powerful weapons; I think that there is--there comes a time when their views as to the methods they will use to dominate the world should be--might be changed. And I think that there is a change going on there that probably the Red Chinese have not yet decided upon. As of this moment, they seem to be much more belligerent and much more, you might say, quarrelsome than are their associates.,But I would think this: just as always in this world, vigilance, alertness, and strength are the base from which you must work, as you try to bring about conditions in which these things will not come about.,Q. David P. Sentnor, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, as a follow-up to that subject, would you care to comment on the statement of Khrushchev in Austria that he would like to have the Communist flag fly over the whole world during his lifetime?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think he once said in that same statement that he wasn't talking about doing it by violence and by war; he said this was a hope of his, but he said not an expectation.,Now, I may be quoting from a reporter from your newspapers; I'm not sure. But he said it was a hope and not an expectation.,In other words, they, the Communists, have never retreated one step from their conviction, their belief, that the Communist flag ought to fly over the whole world from pole to pole. And so their intention is still the same.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, in view of Premier Khrushchev's derailment of East-West negotiations in the last few months, do you see any way that we could get these talks and negotiations back on the track during the remainder of your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I have directed and I've made sure that there is a clear understanding on the part of the Soviets that we are ready to talk any time, honestly and without any equivocation or evasiveness, on the problems that .have been attracting our attention--I mean our common attention. These are disarmament, nuclear testing, liberalizing movements, and exchange of ideas, and all that sort of thing between our two sides.,Q. Lillian Levy, Science Service: Mr. President, on the subject of disarmament, what were the plans we would have presented on nuclear disarmament at Geneva had not the Russians walked out, and has their walkout affected our decision concerning the resumption of nuclear testing?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, to take the second part, the nuclear testing, there is not yet any indication that they intend to walk out on these particular negotiations.,The five nations on our side--Canada, Italy, Britain, ourselves, and France--that are the part of the 10-nation conference, are staying there for a while, because this gives them such a fine opportunity to refine and agree upon the details of the plan that we should--would have submitted to the Russians on the day they walked out.,Now, this plan has been exposed in its general terms and, as I say, is now undergoing some refinement, and that's all there is to be done on this thing.,Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, this is the first press conference we've had in 8 weeks, and part of that time you've been away, but part of that time you've been in the city. My question is: do you base your decision on whether or not to hold a press conference on some policy consideration, apart from the time element that you have, or how do you decide whether or not to hold a press conference?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, as a matter of fact, I suppose that there is some little bit of whim that comes in there once in a while. But, in fact, I don't try to be talking all the time. I don't try to take charge of the microphone and carry that as my baton.,But the fact is now, one week I made a speech on Monday. I said about all on the subject then that seemed to be engaging the headlines that I could think of, and there seemed to be very little reason for a press conference. And then, as you say, I'm away at times, and other things come up. Whenever the day seems to be free and I can do it, well, frankly, I enjoy many of them, you know. And so it is not any running out on the thing; it's just, as I say, how it happens to strike me, I guess.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: In the matter of nuclear testing, Mr. President, I think it is now approaching 2 years since we volunteered the ban on further testing, and there have not been, of course, any controls or assurance that Russia is not continuing its tests. Is it the intention to continue the ban on our testing as long as the negotiations continue, in view of--what I am getting at, Mr. President, the charge frequently heard that this is gambling with the national security, of which we'll hear more in the weeks ahead, I am sure.,THE PRESIDENT. As of this moment, of course, we are actually proposing certain tests in which the three countries will participate and on, you might say, an equal basis so 'far as that can be established. There are very many legal and technical problems or obstacles to overcome, and our hope would be that in this matter we would have this much--we would have a sufficient, you might say, assurance--sufficient assurance of progress and of honest intent on the part of the other fellow that we could afford to stand for a few more months without testing.,Now, I've made quite clear about--I think it was about last January, or something of that kind--that our promise no longer held. We had said we will not test in the atmosphere, we will not do anything to pollute it. We reserved the right, however, if we cannot get any kind of agreement, to make such underground tests as we would choose. Well, that decision has not been changed. On the other hand, when we will make a decision that we now have to go in our own--in the interests of our own security and defense--that is one that has to be made when we see what happens. I can't--I must say it hasn't been too hopeful in its outlook, but I think it is still worthwhile pressing for some kind of an agreement.,Q. Charles H. Mohr, Time Magazine: During the period right after the summit, Mr. President, when Mr. Khrushchev was releasing a whole waterfall of words and abuse about you, he made a statement that at Camp David you had said that you weren't in favor of German reunification, and that's been dealt with by a White House statement. But it seems Mr. Khrushchev is embarrassed somewhat now because of his own friendly attitude during this period, in view of the Chinese attacks on him. Can you tell us some of the concessions he might have suggested at Camp David and some of the other things that had passed between you on this Berlin question over the months in communications?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, frankly, this talk, like between most heads of state, heads of government, was of informal character, taking from one end of the spectrum and going to the other. And the only concession that was made that I know of was the one that I announced the following morning, I think--let's say Tuesday or Wednesday after that--I guess even before this body, that so far as his attitude on Berlin and his policy on Berlin was concerned he had removed the time limit.,You remember, he had had a time limit that at first he put 6 months, and then he hinted at another one, and he said there would be no time limit, although he said he wanted to negotiate honestly, and we said we wanted to negotiate honestly always, having in mind the basic problem of the reunification of Germany.,Now, that was all that was--that I remember of a substantive concession made by him and certainly we didn't make any, because we didn't have any to make.,Q. Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: Sir, in the past, you have praised Governor Rockefeller as a good Republican. Has your view of him changed, or do you still consider him qualified for a place on the Republican ticket?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know what I've said--I've said this: I've had a good number of years of experience with Nelson Rockefeller, and I have found him a dedicated, honest, hard-working man, and that's what I still think about him. Now this doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with all the conclusions that he has made in a number of fields.,Q. Roscoe Drummond, New York Herald Tribune: Mr. President, I would like to return to an earlier question and ask whether you feel, in view of the great uncertainty of foreign developments, after the election there should be close and recurring personal consultation between you and the incoming President regardless of who is elected?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't feel--after all, just like it takes two to make a fight, it takes two to make an agreement. And assuming that any individual wants this kind of consultation, he will certainly find me quite ready and willing.,Now, I would say this: in my own case, I found that to get into the documents, the budgets that were being proposed at that time--you see, I have to make up a '62 budget and propose it; I have to make up a State of the Union Message, and a whole--recommendations, including those about my convictions about the necessary reorganization of Government and all that. Now, we do have those documents which I think would do him more good than too many--just talks. But he will always be welcome to come in, I assure you.,Q. Kenneth M. Scheibel, Gannett Newspapers: Mr. President, in view of the recent election in North Dakota, do you think the Republican Party ought to adopt a new farm program, or some new policies?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think any general policies. I will say this: right now I think it would be very good for the farmers, to take this one-this troublesome wheat thing--and pass the bill that the Senate did pass and sent over to the House. It has not been passed yet, and I think it would be a very great thing for them.,Actually, we talk about the farm problem like there is just one. There are as many farm problems as there are commodities, as there are different localities in this country, and it is a real mishmash of problems. And there is nobody that I know of that is ever going to cure it completely by governmental action. And anyone that believes that either the economic or the general economic or, more specifically, the farm problems are going to be cured completely by legislation is fooling himself. That's all there is to it.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President"}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-05-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT [reading]. I have made some notes from which I want to talk to you about this U-2 incident.,A full statement about this matter has been made by the State Department, and there have been several statesmanlike remarks by leaders of both parties.,For my part, I supplement what the Secretary of State has had to say, with the following four main points. After that I shall have nothing further to say--for the simple reason I can think of nothing to add that might be useful at this time.,The first point is this: the need for intelligence-gathering activities.,No one wants another Pearl Harbor. This means that we must have knowledge of military forces and preparations around the world, especially those capable of massive surprise attacks.,Secrecy in the Soviet Union makes this essential. In most of the world no large-scale attack could be prepared in secret, but in the Soviet Union there is a fetish of secrecy and concealment. This is a major cause of international tension and uneasiness today. Our deterrent must never be placed in jeopardy. The safety of the whole free world demands this.,As the Secretary of State pointed out in his recent statement, ever since the beginning of my administration I have issued directives to gather, in every feasible way, the information required to protect the United States and the free world against surprise attack and to enable them to make effective preparations for defense.,My second point: the nature of intelligence-gathering activities.,These have a special and secret character. They are, so to speak, \"below the surface\" activities.,They are secret because they must circumvent measures designed by other countries to protect secrecy of military preparations.,They are divorced from the regular visible agencies of government which stay clear of operational involvement in specific detailed activities.,These elements operate under broad directives to seek and gather intelligence short of the use of force--with operations supervised by responsible officials within this area of secret activities.,We do not use our Army, Navy, or Air Force for this purpose, first, to avoid any possibility of the use of force in connection with these activities, and second, because our military forces, for obvious reasons, cannot be given latitude under broad directives but must be kept under strict control in every detail.,These activities have their own rules and methods of concealment which seek to mislead and obscure--just as in the Soviet allegations there are many discrepancies. For example, there is some reason to believe that the plane in question was not shot down at high altitude. The normal agencies of our Government are unaware of these specific activities or of the special efforts to conceal them.,Third point: how should we view all of this activity?,It is a distasteful but vital necessity.,We prefer and work for a different kind of world--and a different way of obtaining the information essential to confidence and effective deterrents. Open societies, in the day of present weapons, are the only answer.,This was the reason for my \"open skies\" proposal in 1955, which I was ready instantly to put into effect--to permit aerial observation over the United States and the Soviet Union which would assure that no surprise attack was being prepared against anyone. I shall bring up the \"open skies\" proposal again at Paris--since it is a means of ending concealment and suspicion.,My final point is that we must not be distracted from the real issues of the day by what is an incident or a symptom of the world situation today.,This incident has been given great propaganda exploitation. The emphasis given to a flight of an unarmed nonmilitary plane can only reflect a fetish of secrecy.,The real issues are the ones we will be working on at the summit-disarmament, search for solutions affecting Germany and Berlin, and the whole range of East-West relations, including the reduction of secrecy and suspicion.,Frankly, I am hopeful that we may make progress on these great issues. This is what we mean when we speak of \"working for peace.\",And as I remind you, I will have nothing further to say about this matter. [Ends reading],Q. Robert J. Donovan, New York Herald Tribune: Mr. President, since our last visit, or conference, Prime Minister Khrushchev has made some pretty vigorous statements about your plans for bringing Mr. Nixon to the summit in case you had to come home. Do his comments in any way change your intentions?,THE PRESIDENT. No, indeed. And, I should clarify something. There seems to be some misunderstanding, because a friend from Congress, a friend indeed of the other party, told me the other day that he had never heard of the latter part of my press conference on this point where I said that if my absence from the conference had to. be more than 2 or 3 days, I would be right back there. And I believe I remarked, although I am not sure, that the jet plane made this kind of a trip possible.,Now, as far as Mr. Khrushchev's statement, I can just say this: he has never asked me my opinion of some of his people. [Laughter],Q. Charles H. Mohr, Time Magazine: In case, Mr. President, that the Soviet Union should reject your proposal for a surprise attack conference, or an \"open skies\" arrangement, do you think that the development of satellites like Samos and Midas will possibly in the next few years erase our worries on the score of surveillance; and also are you doing anything now to speed up those scientific projects?,THE PRESIDENT. I keep in touch with my Scientific Advisory Committee and operators, and I know of nothing we could do to speed these up. They are research items and as such no one can predict exactly what would be their degree of efficiency. So I couldn't make a real prediction of how useful they are going to be.,Q. Mr. Mohr: Sir, do you think that their development will ease our worries on the question of secrecy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I say, I just can't predict what the final results will be. Now, we do know this, right now. I believe it's Tiros that is sending back constantly pictures on the cloud cover all around the earth. That is admittedly a rather rough example of what might be done in photography, but that is being done constantly; and I don't know how many thousands of photographs have been taken. And they send them back on command.,Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, last week you used the word \"if\" in connection with your trip to Russia. Have you changed any plans about that, or think you might?,THE PRESIDENT. NO, not at all. I have no idea, but you can never tell from one day to the other what is happening in this world, it seems, so I just said \"if.\" I put it in the positive sense, I think. I expect to go; put it that way.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: I know, Mr. President, you don't ordinarily tip your hand on disposition of pending legislation before you, but since the legislative leaders more than a week ago said you were very much opposed to the emergency housing bill, may I ask if you have had any change of view about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what it says right now, I don't know; but I have said this: I am very definitely opposed of taking another billion dollars of Federal money and making use of it, making it available for direct loans when we don't need it. And I think it's a very bad way to stimulate housing.,As a matter of fact, while I think there has been some little slowup in the housing field, there is indication it's coming up--back to the level of 1.2, something of that kind. I see no reason for constantly getting excited about this one.,By the way, I've got another paper. [Laughter],Q. (Questioner unidentified): How many more?,THE PRESIDENT. This is something that is good news in this whole economic field, and that is what you are talking about.,I understand the employment rose 1.9 million between mid-March and mid-April, and has reached a total of 66.2 million. This is the biggest April increase by far in the postwar period. There was also a sharp drop in the number of unemployed persons, a decline of more than one-half million.,It has been reported by the Commerce Department that retail sales in April were more than 3 percent above March, and 5 percent above last April.,Finally, figures from the Department of Commerce today show that in the first quarter of this year, gross national product reached 500.2 billion. This means that, in effect, the United States is producing goods and services at a rate of a half-trillion dollars for the first time in our history.,The achievement of these high levels of employment and production, at the same time that prices have been reasonably stable--the consumer price index has varied only one-quarter of one percent in the last 6 months--is proof of the great strength of our free enterprise system and its promise for the future. And if we continue to act responsibly, I think it will keep going.,Q. Edward T. Foillard, Washington Post: Mr. President, do you think the outlook for the summit conference has changed, or has been changed, in the last week or so?,THE PRESIDENT. Not decisively at all, no.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President, when you came into office you obtained a truce in Korea. Do you think a treaty now, an effort to get a treaty now would be useful, and will you discuss that with Mr. Rhee and the acting officials of Korea when you visit there?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mrs. Craig, I have no reason to believe that it would now be easy to achieve a treaty.,Now, as far as my trip to Korea is concerned, it is to be an official one. Assuming the permission of the people now in charge of Korea, and a proper opportunity, I should be glad to see Mr. Rhee who, as I have told you people, I have admired and respected over the years.,Q. Andrew F. Tully, Jr., Scripps-Howard Newspapers: Sir, I know this borders on your rule not to discuss personalities, but Mr. Truman has written an article in a magazine in which he says certain things about you, and I wonder if you would like to speak out in your own behalf for the record.,THE PRESIDENT. I just haven't time.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Sir, now that you have been to Fort Benning and you have seen the wonderful display of modern Army weapons, I wonder if you don't realize that we need a stepping up of production of some of these weapons.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'd say this: of course, your question implies that you know very much more about the military than I do and it's probably true. [Laughter],I can just say this: I do just as good as what the commonsense the Good Lord gave me and my own judgment and experience allow me to do.,Q. Pat Munroe, Chicago American: Mr. President, when an unfriendly cartoon or column appears in the press, that is unfriendly to you, we often hear people say, \"I'll bet they won't let the President see that one.\" Now, what are your regular habits, sir, for keeping up with what we are saying about you?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether you can call it a habit, for the simple reason that it takes a lot of time if I was going to keep track of what all you people say. I take what I call the important sections of the Sunday papers that review world events, go over the things, and those are the things I study carefully. The kind of things that you tall of, cartoons and unfriendly quips, I just can't be bothered.,Q. Ruth S. Montgomery, Hearst Headline Service: Mr. President, to go back a minute, I am very puzzled about this statement by your predecessor. As I recall, you not only participated in the inaugural parade, but you also attended the inaugural ball that night, did you not, in '49?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I went to the ball. I had an invitation from Mr. Royall, then Secretary of the Army. He was very anxious, and he said the administration approved of his request, that I, as a five-star general, ride with him because I believe the Secretary of the Navy was going to have, oh, Admiral Nimitz or somebody, and he felt that he had to have one of these five-star generals which I still was then. So, I went along. Now, I think I went right back to Columbia that day.,Q. Miss Montgomery: I attended a party where you were that evening at George Allen's, and you and Mrs. Eisenhower went in and changed into evening attire and left for the ball.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, then, your memory is better than mine. [Laughter] Can I just say one thing: I have never advanced the theory that my memory is perfect, like a good many others.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Quite aside from your comment about the U-2 plane episode, sir, I wonder if you could give us your reaction to a rather denunciatory speech made this morning, right ahead of the summit meeting, by the Russian Foreign Minister. Mr. Gromyko attributes to this country deeds and efforts which he said amount to dangerous ways of balancing on the brink of war. He says that the United States has deliberately engaged in provocative acts in conjunction with some of our allies. Now, with statements like this, do you still maintain a hopeful attitude toward the summit?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd say yes. I have some hope, because these things have been said for many years, ever since World War II, and there is no real change in this matter.,I wonder how many of you people have read the full text of the record of the trial of Mr. Abel. Well, I think he was sentenced to 30 years. Now, this business of saying that you're doing things that are provocative, why, they had better look at their own record.,And I'll tell you this: the United States--and none of its allies that I know of--has engaged in nothing that would be considered honestly as provocative. We are looking to our own security and our defense and we have no idea of promoting any kind of conflict or war. This is just-it's absolutely ridiculous and they know it is.,Q. Henry N. Taylor, Scripps-Howard Newspapers: Sir, would it be trespassing on your request about the U-2 to ask if you could tell us something about any possible Soviet reconnaissance flights over the western part of the world, and our response to them, if any?,THE PRESIDENT. I could just say this: as far as I know, there has never been any over the United States.,Q. Holmes Alexander, McNaught Syndicate: Sir, this is a question about Quemoy and Matsu; two of the Democratic candidates have said that if elected they would try to get rid of that responsibility. I know you don't deal in personalities, but I wonder if you could tell us as a military man to what extent these islands help us control the air and sea over the Formosa Strait.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not talking personalities because I don't know who said this. I will say this: if you go back to the Formosa doctrine, you will find that the responsibility is placed upon the President to determine, in the event of any attack upon Quemoy and Matsu, whether this is in fact a preliminary to or part of an attack against the Pescadores and Taiwan. If that is true, then he must participate because then it will be the defense of Formosa, one of our allies.,Now, as to the actual value of Matsu and Quemoy, of course we must remember how much this seems to mean to the morale of all the Chinese forces on Formosa. From their viewpoint, any desertion of those islands means a complete surrender--abject surrender. So, it is a factor that anyone who is going to have to make possible decisions in the future has to take into consideration when he talks about the abandonment of these sets of islands. And frankly, no President of the United States can do it by himself.,Now, he can withhold support to Taiwan, but are you going to destroy Taiwan? So, none of these problems is ever a simple, black and white thing. You have got a very great number of conflicting considerations and they take study and heart searching, and you hope and pray that you are right most of the time.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: Last week, sir, you announced that the U.S. would resume underground nuclear testing for purposes of protecting the detection and control system. 1 There seems, however, to be some dispute as to whether this would be joint or coordinated, that is, this testing in conjunction with the Soviet Union. Could you tell us what the argument there is, and what your own view is?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Roberts, having heard of this misunderstanding, I had a discussion with Dr. Kistiakowsky only this morning. These things are not nuclear weapons testing. They are for one simple--and as a matter of fact in many cases I don't think will involve any nuclear explosions except under the coordinated directions of a body made up of the U.K., U.S.S.R., and ourselves. That's the way I understood the agreement, and I believe that you will find that they are not expected to have anything to do either with weapons development or the Plowshare Project, anything else except just finding out how good this testing of the weapons below 4.75 is.,1 On May 7 a White House release stated that the President had that day announced approval of a major expansion of research and development directed toward an improved capability to detect and identify underground nuclear explosions. The release added that the program, to be known as Project VELA, had grown out of the recommendations of the Panel on Seismic Improvement (\"Berkner Panel\"), and that it provided that \"such nuclear explosions as are essential to a full understanding of both the capabilities of the presently proposed detection system and the potential for improvements in this system would be carried out under fully contained conditions and would produce no radioactive fallout.\" The release further stated that Soviet negotiators at Geneva had concurred with the proposal that underground nuclear explosions should be conducted to improve the capability of the proposed control network; that they had also indicated a willingness to discuss research and development in the seismic detection area with the U.S. and the U.K.; and that agreement had been reached to convene a group of U.S.S.R., U.K., and U.S. scientists at Geneva on May 11 to exchange information on the seismic research activities of the three nations as a basis for future determination of the areas in which coordinated or joint research would be most fruitful.,Q. Mr. Roberts: Well, sir, is it your understanding that we would show everything involved, mechanism and so on, to the Soviets under this program?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, now, Mr. Roberts, there are some details I just can't get down to. You know that. But, I would think that everything that they found it necessary to see in order to determine whether this thing is effective, they would see and should see.,Now, I think that to get a little further on the thing you might get that statement of Dr. Kistiakowsky's and show it to him--[confers with Mr. Hagerty],Mr. Hagerty just reminds me of what Dr. Kistiakowsky told me, another point. Our people are leaving tomorrow, they will meet there together-the U.S.S.R. and the U.K. and the U.S.--in determining exactly how we will do this.,Q. Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: Sir, in connection with the Abel trial which you mentioned, the Soviet Government in that case made no effort to defend Colonel Abel. I wonder if an American citizen were arrested by a foreign government and brought to trial as a spy, what the policy of this Government would be so far as his defense was concerned.,THE PRESIDENT. We would certainly offer the good offices of our Embassy, and see whether there was anything we could do. Of course it would be an internal matter there, and we would have to do it with the permission of the other country. I think that if there is anything wrong diplomatically with my answer, you had better ask the State Department, but I think that would be the result.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, many people seem to feel that the result of yesterday's elections in West Virginia once and for all buries the religious issue in politics in America. Do you agree with that premise, sir, and how do you feel about it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know whether I agree completely with the conclusion or not. Certainly I have made as strong a statement as I can, deploring the insertion of the religious issue in elections. As a matter of fact, I think it is very, very bad for this country. But as to what this election means, the only thing it means to me is--as a response to one question I said that I normally read only the Sunday papers, but I have read what the newspapers said were going to happen. Now, this morning, I am a bit astonished. [Laughter],Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, you have said many times that you wouldn't go to the summit under any threats or ultimatums.,Yesterday, as you know, the Soviets in their note threatened retaliation against us if we continued to fly these planes over their territory. Do you regard that kind of threat as within the category you were speaking of?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think that you have to set that aside in a special category. I don't believe it's the kind of thing that you call an ultimatum at all.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: A point of clarification, Mr. President. Do we infer correctly that your prepared statement this morning is the final, complete, and ultimate answer to your critics, friendly and hostile, on the subject?,THE PRESIDENT. I said that at this time I could see nothing more useful that I could say, so that's where I stand at this moment.,Q. Thomas N. Schroth, Congressional Quarterly: You said last summer, sir, that you planned to put before Congress at its final session a plan to reorganize the highest echelons of Government in order to relieve the burdens on some of the high officials. Can you give us any of the details of your plans and whether you expect to send them to Congress?,THE PRESIDENT. I've had to change my plan a little bit, because I became convinced that anything you did this year of extraordinary nature would probably be made political in some form or another. So I decided that regardless of who was elected to my present office, when I go up in January, as I must go under the Constitution--I must go make a statement--I'm going to put in then the plans that I have adverted to in these conferences before.,In general, it is to get closer, tighter day-by-day coordination in everything that touches upon the foreign field through one proper part of the plan; and the other, get all our business affairs, our types of procurement and making of contracts and all that, get that more tightly coordinated day in and day out.,The first one, I think, is tremendously important, because almost every department now has really heavy responsibilities in the foreign field. I think more and more we have to have not merely day-by-day meetings with the department heads concerned; it has to be closer, more tightly done than that.,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, you said in your initial statement that the Soviet account of the downing of this plane contained many discrepancies, and that there was reason to doubt that the plane was downed at a high altitude, as Mr. Khrushchev claims.,Can you tell us, sir, whether the administration at some future time intends to expose these discrepancies, and can you at this time without violating what you have said, give us any more details about how we believe this plane actually came down in the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. You raise a question that is really an auxiliary to the main issue, and so I don't mind saying this: take the pictures themselves, we know that they were not, or we believe we know that they are not pictures of the plane that was downed, and there are other things in their statements.,Now, I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but these things you can be sure will be carefully looked into. Again I say I do not foreclose any kind of statement that in the future may be necessary; I am saying that now I can see nothing more useful to say.,Q. John Herling, National Newspaper Syndicate: Mr. President, in reference to the drop in unemployment to which you referred, the hard core unemployment continues in many depressed areas, including West Virginia. Now, in view of that, sir, is Senator Dirksen correct in predicting that you plan to veto the depressed areas bill?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if I don't approve of the particular depressed area bill, what do you expect me to do? As a matter of fact, as I have so far been reading this bill, the amounts there to be put under this greatly inflated bill of $251 million, or something like that, the amounts that are going into the areas like West Virginia, Southern Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Eastern Kentucky are less than they would be under ours. It's a shotgun--it's getting to be a pork barrel bill, as I see it. So I say I am not predicting anything; I am just saying this: I'll do what my judgment tells me to.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Sir, recently you proposed that the several southern cities having the problems of sit-in demonstrations should have biracial committees to meet and try to solve them.,Yesterday six of the stores in downtown Nashville admitted Negroes to the lunch counters. I wondered, sir, if you felt that was a solution to the problem, do you think that would be a pattern for the other cities to follow?,THE PRESIDENT. Let me say this: let us assume that I had the wisdom of a Solomon. I am still a good many hundred miles away from any of these cities, and any solutions to these problems must take into account local considerations and feelings and beliefs.,We here can talk and believe in the ideals that have been set up for us by the Constitution, and certainly we have a responsibility in helping to enforce or seeing that the constitutional rights guaranteed are not violated.,Now, when it comes to sit-ins, I am just not enough of a lawyer to say just exactly what they do mean--what they mean in the constitutional or legal terms. We, you and I, can talk about it in social terms and you might say on a moral standard, but this is something else.,I would say for that question, you ought to go to the Attorney General. I am just not that much of a lawyer.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: In view of your emphasis on you might go back to the summit, if you had to come back here, have you any idea how long the Paris meeting will go on--how long do you think it will take you to. get to some agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know. But I just want to point this out: I hear that some--I don't know whether this is all of the others or not--do not like the simultaneous translations. Now, let us assume you have called an hour's conference, and one of you, for example, wants to make a, let's say, a 10-minute exposition. When you take seriatum translations, here is already a half hour of an hour's conference gone, and you have had only 10 minutes.,Now, these are very slow and laborious things, and consequently the possibility of prophesying how long this thing is going to be is really remote. Now, for my part, I am perfectly ready to work as many hours as an individual human can to get this thing along the line. I am prepared to go to this thing as long as there is any usefulness whatsoever promised, and even if I am called back--I know I have one date for 24 hours--I am still ready and prepared to go back. That is what I have been trying to insist, that I am not making my own convenience and my own duties here the decisive thing as to how long this conference will last.,Q. Lillian Levy, National Jewish Post and Opinion: Mr. President, are any changes in the present borders of West Germany part of the German question to be discussed at the summit? I ask this, sir, because this issue has been raised by a responsible West German leader and member of Adenauer's Cabinet who recently suggested that Germans be allowed to return to Sudetenland.,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't get the very first clause of your question.,Q. Mrs. Levy: Well, what I asked--were boundaries going to be part of the German question to be raised?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, at this time we wouldn't raise it. As a matter of fact, they've been living with these boundaries for a long time, and I would see at this moment no possibility of changing them except in methods that would be unacceptable. So, it might be raised by someone but I have no plan to do it.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-04-27","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have no announcements.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, the new Acting President of Korea says he still expects you to visit there June 22d. Could you comment on that for us, sir; and in this connection, describe for us the role of the United States in the current Korean crisis-specifically, did this Government ever indicate to Korea that we thought President Rhee should leave office?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you've got a number of barrels on your gun there, but I'll try to remember all your points.,First of all, I have no change of plans whatsoever. I expect to go to Korea.,Secondly, to charge America with interference in the internal affairs of Korea is not correct.,Now, we start off with this: Syngman Rhee is not only, has been not only a great man in his area, but he has been a tremendous patriot. I think he is one of those men that can be called \"The father of his country.\" He fought for its independence from the moment it lost it, I think in 1910; he has never ceased; and as he has grown older, there would be no doubt that here and there there have been mistakes. Now, in this last election there were certain irregularities. And the most that I ever did, and this was as a friendly gesture for a man I know and respect and admire, I said that trouble could come out of such irregularities and hoped that they could be stopped. I said this through the State Department; I believe it was published. No interference of any kind was ever undertaken by the United States; and we had no part in inciting, or know anything about the inciting of, this difficulty.,Just exactly what is going to happen I don't know; but I do know this: both the Communist press of Peking and, I believe, of Moscow have expressed some disappointment that Mr. Rhee has again shown a statesmanlike attitude in saying, \"All right, I'm still serving my people and I'll do what seems to be correct.\",I might add this: there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any Communist inspiration for this unrest that was brought about.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, this question is based on a White House announcement yesterday, that Mr. Nixon might be called on to substitute for you at the summit. Perhaps you have emphasized no theme more emphatically than the need to go wherever it was necessary to go and do whatever it was necessary to do to obtain and secure peace. Could you suggest to us what overriding domestic developments outside of an outright emergency there might be that would call you away from summit deliberations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it's simple. Congress is in session and there are a number of bills that are important that are before the Congress. If they should come at an awkward time for me and I felt that they should be vetoed, now I have quite a tough time schedule. Any important bill that requires a veto not only requires the deepest study in the departments concerned, but it demands daily consultation with me; because I am the one that has got to be convinced that this is a bad bill or a good bill. Therefore you cannot do this, as I say, if these bills are important, from a distance.,Now, the only reason that I happen to have said this in this particular case, we don't know how long this summit meeting is going to be. In 1955 we had a pretty good understanding of the number of days. Everybody agreed that this time it should go as long as it was felt necessary. So, since I am leaving on the 14th and had to fix a date for my visit to Portugal on Sunday, I took the 23d, the 23d to the 24th. This is getting along at a rather long period. So, I said if domestic requirements did bring me back, I would have to ask Mr. Nixon to serve for me as the head of the delegation. This doesn't mean that I expect him to be there, but I simply put the warning.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: For more years than you have been in the White House, the pitiful children of the West Virginia unemployed coal miners have been starving for proper food. We do give them whatever surpluses we have. While you and Congress talk about helping the needy in foreign countries, isn't there something that you could do for needy Americans in this rich America of our own?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mrs. Craig, you say they haven't been helped. I thought they had. Now I'm not going to try to generalize here or make any alibis. I will find out exactly what has happened, because in talking to the Secretary of Agriculture over the years, I assumed that for those people that were really destitute, there were methods for helping them so that they got enough to eat. 1,1 On April 28 the White House issued a press release in response to Mrs. Craig's question. The release referred to the lack of information and understanding about the amount of Federal assistance that had been made available to destitute children and families not only in West Virginia but throughout the Nation. It added \"the facts are that very material assistance has been given to these groups. It should be made perfectly clear that by law and as a matter of policy all surplus foods are made available to needy persons in this country before they are made available for donation to needy persons abroad.\" The release then outlined in detail the nature and extent of Federal assistance in West Virginia through the school lunch program, through the making available to needy families of surplus commodities, and through social security.,The release concluded as follows: \"The Federal Government shares with State and local governments in providing monthly public assistance payments to four needy groups of people--the aged, blind, disabled, and children. In fiscal year 1959 payments to these four groups totalled $34,383,000, of which $26,139,000 or 76 percent came from the Federal Government. Needy children and their families received the major share of this assistance--$21,531,000, of which $16,396,000 came from the Federal Government.\",Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, you and President de Gaulle agreed that disarmament should be a priority subject at the summit. If we should have substantial disarmament somewhere along the line, do you think it would send this economy into a tailspin?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't believe that it would, for this simple reason: we are now scratching around to get money for such things as school construction, a bill that I recommended a year ago. We are trying to build our roads before they become obsolete, and have to get a new program to bring them around. There are all sorts of things to be done in this country in the way of reclamation and so on that have to take over the years. I see no reason why the sums which now are going into these sterile, negative mechanisms that we call war munitions shouldn't go into something positive. Moreover, a greater portion of it could go into investment in the foreign field which in the long run will make us more prosperous than will just putting them in tanks and airplanes.,Q. Mr. Burd: May I ask one more thing on that? What role do you see for the Government in this conversion period if there were disarmament, in the sense of helping industry or not helping them?,THE PRESIDENT. I think, Mr. Burd, you are making one assumption that probably is not correct; that is, that if you got some agreement, that instantly there would be a very--cutoff. I think the thing would be an almost imperceptible decline; and that could be picked up, I think, without any great trouble.,Q. Robert J. Donovan, New York Herald Tribune: Mr. President, in New York yesterday General de Gaulle renewed his pledge of self-determination for the Algerians. I wonder if you could comment on that and tell us anything rise that you and General de Gaulle may have discussed on that point?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I asked him specifically whether he stood by his pledge, and his speech of September 16, 1959, in which he promised a self-determination for the Algerian people with the suggested three-under three methods. He said that he not only stood by that but that it was the continued policy, the official policy as well as his personal conviction about the situation.,Now, the reason I asked the question was because of one or two speeches that he had made, one of them I believe at Constantine, the language as interpreted to us here seemed to mean that he had hardened, that he had changed his attitude. I put the specific question, and I said on that basis, just as I did in September 1959, \"I endorse what you are doing and wish you well in its progress.\",Q. Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, if it should develop that Vice President Nixon were to go to the summit meeting after you leave it, would you expect the other heads of government to stay on, or would you expect them to appoint representatives of comparable rank to continue the talks?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall now, it wouldn't be more than for a couple of days, so they would stay. As a matter of fact I have notified my friends, including Mr. Khrushchev, that this is always a possibility, because when we were trying to discuss the matter of the probable length of the conference, I had to insert this one possible caveat. The others are not under the same kind of compulsion, under certain situations; so if I had to come back, if the thing ran more than 2 or at the outside 3 days that he'd do, I'd be right back there. But in the meantime I would have taken care of whatever I thought was necessary.,Q. David P. Sentner, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, inasmuch as our democratic attitude has brought about free elections in distant South Korea, could you tell us what is our current attitude towards the absence of free elections under the Castro regime in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you say we brought them about. I think that the Korean people brought them about. I believe the Koreans are dedicated to the self-expression of peoples. I believe that they are against communism and they have brought this about by their protests.,Now, I must say this: I deplore violence in these things. I have several times brought out that protests by peaceful assembly to bring to the attention of responsible officials the feelings of people, that's fine. I bitterly resent violence in connection with these things. So I think that we didn't do it. I did say to Mr. Rhee this could lead to trouble, if our reports are correct; but that's all.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, I wonder if you. could tell us some of your hopes for the summit conference in the light of two things: first of all, your visit with President de Gaulle; and, secondly, the recent belligerent statement by Khrushchev on Berlin.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you mean the speech at Baku?,Q. Mr. Pierpoint: Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. Of course, when you come down to it, it is just a reiteration of the same old theme and the same old story.,I don't think that we should take that too seriously; but certainly if he means it as an ultimatum, which I don't believe he does, but if he does then I would have to reply just as I have to him before, and said to him, I shall never go to any meeting under a threat of force, the use of force or an ultimatum of any kind. I'm going there as a free representative of a free country if I go, and I'm sure he understands that. Therefore, I don't believe that his statement means a real change in policy. It's just a mere--more of the same.,Now, you say that you'd like to know about my hopes for the summit. I think the most we can hope for, at this time, is case of tension, some evidence that we are coming closer together--sufficiently so that people have a right to feel a little bit more confident in the world in which they are living and in its stability.,How this might come about, I don't know. There are, of course, the subjects of ceasing of tests and with a controlled system for that, for developing some step in disarmament, and for greater contacts, particularly cultural contacts. I think that there are a number of ways in which this might begin, and that's about all you can say.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: A number of men in American public life recently have spoken up on how they feel about the injection of the religious issue into the political campaign. Could you tell us how you feel on that?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, let me read two items from the American Constitution, article VI:,\"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.\",The second is the Bill of Rights and it is the first one of those rights:,\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .\",Now, my answer, as far as I can give it, has been better given by the Constitution than in any words I can think of.,Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: Mr. President, if Mr. Khrushchev at the summit conference raises a very heavy pressure for his demands on Berlin, and in effect creates a crisis, would you regard such a development as blocking your hopes for an easing of tensions and for some agreement in the field of disarmament?,THE PRESIDENT. I reported to you people that Mr. Khrushchev said that he was going to raise this question, he was going to try to argue it, but that he was not putting any time limit upon an accomplishment.,I think that certainly at that moment he meant it. He knows that there are certain events coming around in the world. There are elections here and abroad and every place else; possibly he wants to see what's going to happen, I don't know. For example, there is a German election in which he is unquestionably interested. And he is probably hoping for some closer relations between West Germany and some of the border states, particularly like Poland. So there are other developments that he could expect or would hope to come about that would help to solve his problems from his viewpoint. But I think that is the reason that he sees there is no reason for putting down an ultimatum at this moment, because otherwise you just run into an immovable object and an irresistible force and there you are. Of course that would have a very great effect on the hopes that we have.,Q. Rutherford M. Poats, United Press International: Sir, I believe in listing your hopes and prospects for the summit you did not mention any settlement on Berlin or Germany. May we conclude from that and your answer just given that you do not have much, see much chance of any agreement there on that subject?,THE PRESIDENT. I think our position has been so clearly stated in speeches over the years, just recently one by the Vice President, one by Secretary Dillon, one by the Secretary of State. The point is that we are not going to give up the juridical position that we have.,It doesn't seem feasible or possible to me that any agreement could now be reached that would settle this whole thing; that we have to remember. But that does not mean that some kind of progress cannot be made, the side issue or side effect of which could be making a better approach toward Berlin in the months to come.,Q. Carleton Kent, Chicago Sun-Times: Mr. President, can you tell us anything of your administration's plans to send Congress a health insurance bill at this session?,THE PRESIDENT. I am preparing now a message for Congress giving my great concern about several bills. The only reason that is holding it up is that we have not yet been able to coordinate, to bring together the various aspects, you might say, of this great problem and try to make a sensible unit out of the literally dozens of different proposals and alternatives suggested.,Everybody agrees that in this field is a problem. Some of it, of course, is exemplified in very pitiful cases. There are all sorts of areas in which this is attacked--local, State, Federal, voluntary methods and every other kind of thing. The only thing to which I am utterly opposed is compulsory insurance in this field; and to put the matter in the OASI by adding on a half percent of taxes, half for the workman and half for the company, does not seem to me to be suitable because I regard that as a compulsory affair.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Could you give us a better idea now of your travel plans for the Soviet Union, Japan, and Korea; and the possibility that you will not disappoint some of your Far Eastern friends by going to the Philippines and Taipei?,THE PRESIDENT. With this last part, every time you undertake a trip someone expresses a hope that you would go to another place. Now, if you continue this far enough, well, I couldn't get back here in time to vote next year. [Laughter],Therefore, there has to be a compromise. I do my best in advance to explain my situation to those of our friends that might have an interest in it. So far, I have not felt able to enlarge the plans which include visits to Russia, Japan, and a very brief call in Korea.,The one in Russia, I don't believe the details are yet fixed sufficiently so that I could give you the actual schedule. I think in a few days I probably could--Mr. Hagerty says in a few days it could be.,Q. John Herling, National Newspaper Syndicate: At long last, sir, preparations are being made for that labor-management summit conference and in your January State of the Union Message you talked about the public interest which required such a getting together. May I ask, sir, why the public is not directly represented in such a proposed conference?,THE PRESIDENT. I think that they will be. First of all, we are starting out to get three representatives of labor and three of business to determine who they believe should be included in the membership of a committee that will do this. So I would rather see three businessmen and three recognized labor leaders determining on the composition of the final commission than I would to just name it myself. Frankly, the only thing I'm doing here is suggesting this thing and getting it started by putting the six individuals together, having seen George Meany and then Mr. Bannow. In this way I hope it will take just as much concern about the public interest as all of the rest of us are. 1,1 On April 26 the White House announced that the President had met with George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, and that he would soon meet with Rudolph Bannow, President of the NAM, concerning the proposed conference. The release stated that the representatives of labor and of management would form a committee of six \"to develop among themselves, without Government participation, understandings on the subject matters of the conference, select such additional conferees as they may decide upon, determine time and place of first meeting, and decide on other matters necessary to inaugurate a series of conferences.\",Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Sir, last December the 2d I asked you a question and you said you'd look into it, and that was about the ex parte conversations of Thomas Corcoran, a lawyer, with members of the Federal Power Commission, and actions that resulted in an increase in rates not once but at least twice. I wonder what you think about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't recall, but I assure you this, that I told them to do it.,Do you have anything [addresses Mr. Hagerty]?,Mr. Hagerty: Yes, but it's too long an answer now. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Come over to Mr. Hagerty's office and see if he can give you the exact answer.,Q. Mrs. McClendon: Sir, I've been over there several times and asked that question--,THE PRESIDENT. Well, do you think you or I should do the correction for Mr. Hagerty? One of us will have to do it. [Laughter],Q. E. W. Kenworthy, New York Times: Mr. President, several leading scientists last week testified before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that the art of concealing underground tests was outstripping the art of detecting them. Would the views of those scientists be taken into account in our negotiations at Geneva or at Paris and would we request an increase in the number of detection stations for a treaty on a nuclear test ban?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know the plan that we suggested was to agree on the methods for eliminating those above the atmosphere, those in the atmosphere, and those under the sea; and then, underground, down. to I believe what they call a seismic index of 4.75 which is supposed to show a size, I believe, somewhere in the order of 20 kt. Up until that point, that would require an inspection system about like that that was laid out in 1958 at Geneva; but to go below that is going to take a very much more elaborate system.,What we have asked is for a group of the three countries that are working on this to get their scientists and see whether they can come up and develop the kind of plan that would be needed for these below the critical point. That is as far as it has gone.,I don't know, I have heard it said the number would have to be multiplied three times, or something of that kind, as to the number that was agreed first; but I am not sure.,Q. Charles W. Bailey, Minneapolis Tribune: Mr. President, earlier this year the Secretary of Agriculture indicated that a wheat bill raising price supports in any way would not fall within the guide lines you set down in your message. More recently Republican leaders have come away from meetings at the White House, including one meeting at which you were present, with the impression that it might be possible to have some small increase in wheat price supports in order to get a new piece of legislation this year. I wonder if you could help us out with your view on that.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am against higher price supports because the only effect I can see of them is that we put more and more wheat in storage; we have surpluses that overhang the market, depress prices, and make the problem much greater--greater and more severe.,Now, if there were any kind of reasonable plan, connected with other features of the thing that could bring something about that seemed to be reasonable and fair to the farmers, well, I would be glad to look at it. As I say, if it looks reasonable to me, I will approve it; because I am just to this point: I know that we are in a bad fix, the farmers are, and I have had correspondence recently with some of my farmer friends, individuals, to get statistics. I must say that it is one, though, that when you take all of the intricacies of actual problems affecting so many humans in such a great industry and then mix that up with politics you have got something that is very difficult indeed to solve.,Q. Richard E. Mooney, New York Times: Mr. President, Senator Bush has said that he has been advised by the White House that Mr. Connole will not be reappointed to the Federal Power Commission. You have received several representations on behalf of Mr. Connole's reappointment, most recently from a group of Mayors. Could you tell us first, are you not going to reappoint Mr. Connole; and second, why?,THE PRESIDENT. First--why--this: because it is my responsibility to appoint people and to get the best people I can. Mr. Connole came to see one of my staff in December to ask about his reappointment, and they said they'd look into it. I think I can get a better man, that's all.,Q. James B. Reston, New York Times: Mr. President, in his speech yesterday in Baku, Mr. Khrushchev repeated the threats which the Camp David communiqué was intended to remove. Now my question is whether you intend to let it stand where it is or will you communicate with him about the Baku speech?,THE PRESIDENT. I have made no particular decision on the point.,Q. Lillian Levy, National Jewish Post and Opinion: President Nasser recently stated that the Suez would remain closed to Israel's ships and shipping and that he has reached no understanding on this matter with you and Secretary General Hammarskjold. Under your leadership, sir, the 1956 Suez crisis was resolved; at that time the United States again reaffirmed the broad principle of free access through the Suez for all nations and expressed its faith that Nasser would uphold this principle.,Since Nasser has rejected it, are you considering now personal intervention, and do you have any reason to believe that your intervention would be less successful today than it was in '56?,THE PRESIDENT. I did say exactly what you said in 1956. Mr. Nasser has given as his reason for doing nothing since that time that they are in a state of war, that this doesn't apply.,Now, I don't know what you can do unless you want to resort to force in such affairs, and I'm certain that we're not trying to settle international problems with force. We have done everything we could to make it clear that we stand by our commitments and we think that other nations should do the same, particularly when it comes to the free use of the Suez Canal. But, I don't know that there is any idea whatsoever of making a new step in this direction or new argument, because I think it's all been said.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-03-30","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I have no announcements.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, in connection with the agreement you reached with Prime Minister Macmillan, do you have in mind a moratorium on small underground nuclear tests that would run beyond your term of office; and, if so, do you feel it would be binding on your successor?,THE PRESIDENT. You will recall that the agreement said that there would be unilateral pronouncement, unilateral action, and therefore it would be Presidential action. I think--my own idea is--that any successor would have the right to exercise his own judgment in the matter.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, yesterday when this moratorium and the duration of it was under discussion at Camp David, did Vice President Nixon have a voice in determination of the American position on that moratorium?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I couldn't possibly answer in particular detail. What happens is this: as you people have known for 7 years, every time there are important conferences, I do my best to have the Vice President present--for the simple reason, if I have an accident or anything happens to me, he has to take over. So, therefore, he is never denied opportunity for discussion in any meeting. But I could never tell you in detail what his particular ideas were, unless we happened to get in an argument of some kind about it.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, another question about Mr. Nixon. He has now twice declared in public speeches that he will not seek election on the record of the administration alone, but on the basis of an expanded program of his own. As far as you are concerned, is he now free to enunciate his own positions, even if they differ or go beyond yours; or is this a prerogative that Mr. Nixon has had all along?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let us say this: Mr. Nixon has been part of this administration and certainly will be until January 20th next, so his voice has always been heard in any discussion as to policy.,Now, I should think he would be absolutely stupid if he said that you were going as far as the record of this administration would carry you and then stop. This world moves. I'll tell you, if I were not so fortunate as to be stopped here and don't have to go any further with this thing, certainly I would be looking for new ways and directions in which to carry on what I conceive to be the responsibilities of the Federal Government.,If he doesn't say that he is going to build on what has been so far accomplished, I think he would be very foolish. So, I completely applaud what he has to say about the thing.,Q. Carleton Kent, Chicago Sun-Times: Mr. President, Governor Collins, of Florida, recently declared that he felt it was morally wrong for operators of variety stores to take Negroes' money in other parts of the store and yet refuse to give them service at luncheon counters. Can you discuss your opinion of that problem?,THE PRESIDENT. I think I have made my position rather clear. I think that eventually the conscience of America is going to give to all of us equal economic and political rights, regardless of such inconsequential differences as race and so on.,As I tried to make it clear, every one of these incidents seems to have some specific slight difference, when compared with any other incident, and they bring up all sorts of possibilities of local interpretation and local action. I cannot possibly be familiar with all of them. I just stand by the fact that I think eventually the conscience of America will bring this about.,Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: Mr. President, could you help us understand a little better the negotiating situation which might arise in Geneva in the light of what you just said about the position of your successor on a nuclear test ban?,As I gather, if a treaty were drafted, it probably would not be completed under the most favorable circumstances for 6 weeks or 2 months or 3 months, something like that. That means that at most, the new-the unilateral declaration would be good for about 6 months. What would be the position thereafter? Would you be in position now, for example, to say to the Soviets that you believed the circumstances were such that your successor would surely continue the moratorium?,THE PRESIDENT. This is, I think, the main point in answering the question: every government understands the powers and limitations of each of the individuals who is responsible for negotiating. Therefore, while you would remind the other governments, it would practically be unnecessary for me to say that in our country we do have a separation of powers. Under a situation where you have a simultaneous and voluntary renunciation of testing for a stated period, if that period went beyond your own term of office, I personally think it would have to be reaffirmed by a successor, if it were to be effective.,I haven't asked the Attorney General for a specific ruling on this point, but I shall do that as soon as I can. That is my own feeling, that would be the answer.,Q. Rowland Evans, Jr., New York Herald Tribune: In view of your well-known concern over bipartisanship in foreign policy, sir, I wonder whether you would discuss the question of Democratic participation at the summit, and whether you think it might be advisable to have a Democrat at that Paris meeting, even if a treaty isn't ready for actual signing on May 16.,THE PRESIDENT. The man that I would think would be the principal one in the Senate who would want to have something to say about this is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I believe he has an understanding with Mr. Herter. I believe, as to the general effect, that when you are having what you hope to be intimate discussions with heads of governments, trying to uncover and discover areas where some kind of progress will be made, that there is no thought of making treaties or the kinds of agreements in which the Senate would be interested.,I think that Senator Fulbright has, before this, intimated or stated that he thought this was not the place for this kind of membership of the group that would go.,Now, I think I have never gone abroad without making some attempt to get a hold of the leaders of both parties, try to tell them what seems to be in the wind, what we are hoping to do, and sort of warning them that you didn't at the moment expect any treaties to be projected. Whenever there is any treaty projected, and we believe should be considered carefully, then I would certainly say you have to have Democratic participation.,Q. E. W. Kenworthy, New York Times: It's been a week and a half since Ambassador Bonsal returned to Havana, and in that time the attacks upon the United States have grown increasingly more violent. Are you satisfied that the Castro Government sincerely wishes to compose the differences with us through negotiation?,THE PRESIDENT. Really, I can't guess on the thing very much. I will say this: any progress in that direction has been disappointing to me. We have sent back Mr. Bonsal because we thought it was a better thing to do, in view of certain statements that had been made; but the whole thing, our attitude stands as it has been before. We stand ready to discuss all of the complaints that the Government of Cuba has against ours, and we certainly think it would be reasonable and decent in discussing them. That is as far as I can go.,Q. John R. Gibson, Wall Street Journal: There is a certain amount of concern, both here and in Western Europe, about the growing trade rivalries between our allies in Western Europe. Could you comment on our policy in this respect, and to what extent if any this has come up between you and the Prime Minister?,THE PRESIDENT. With respect to the Prime Minister, while he mentioned this subject casually to me, he did not in private conversations with me bring it up at all, beyond that. He knows there is a problem.,Now, for our point, our policy has been this: we stand for the policy of cooperating with others to eliminate or to reduce barriers to. trade.,Unfortunately, some of these methods that are proposed, in certain instances would bring down, in other instances bring up, barriers. So, it is not an easy and simple problem, and it is the reason they are going to have this Paris trade council to discuss the thing. It is a delicate thing and it affects every country in Europe; not merely the Six or the Seven, but every other one.,Q. William McGaffin, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, when the issue of ending nuclear tests was first raised in the 1956 campaign, you did not seem to think very much of the suggestion. As a footnote to history, it would be interesting if you could tell us what has caused you to come around to your present position.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that there is any place you could find where I said I was against cessation of tests. I said I was against cessation of tests except by an arrangement which gave mutual right for inspection. At least this was my whole attitude toward disarmament, still is, and this inspection is only one of the fringe subjects--I mean the nuclear tests--the fringe subjects on the whole field of disarmament. So, I think there has been no basic difference, except to this extent: that if we could go so far in setting up these reciprocal intelligence--not intelligence, inspectional--systems, that underneath the so-called threshold we could certainly have a continuation of a moratorium that would permit opportunity for a joint or coordinated study and program for permanent elimination of those tests. But, remember, the heart of it is mutual inspection and verification.,Q. Richard L. Wilson, Cowles Publications: A couple of weeks ago, Mr. President, you were frank in stating your preference for Vice President Nixon as the Republican presidential nominee. I wondered if you could be equally frank with regard to the vice presidential nomination? How about Governor Rockefeller, for example?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Wilson, I said this: we were talking, not between Mr. Nixon and any other Republican that had been mentioned--were there two candidates in the field, I would have to observe my self-imposed limitation that I had always before observed, whether in State or Federal office-seeking--we were talking about a candidate on my side and the numerous ones on the other. I had my preference, and I said even to the point of bias.,I would say this about the Vice President: certainly if Mr. Rockefeller were nominated, he would be one that would be acceptable to me; and I think I have said here several times, I think I can name a score of Republicans of real stature that would be acceptable in this office.,Q. Edward V. Koterba, United Features Syndicate: Sir, at some sessions of the White House Conference on Children and Youth, there has been some talk that the youth of today is soft, less rugged mentally and physically than the children of a few generations ago; and that also, in fact, that goes for the modern parent.,Do you agree, sir, that too many people in the United States these days are more interested in seeking pleasure and comfort and wealth than they are in building up our moral and physical values?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm not going to comment on the moral strength of the thing, because this is obviously something that really gets an expert.,I do believe that if we lose moral strength, we have lost our greatest asset.,Let's take this matter of physical fitness. It is not a matter that we deliberately set about doing; but here is what happens: we are a people that, when we see a new convenience or a new comfort in our lives, we go about it and try to earn enough to buy that kind of thing. So, in Europe today you see children, as you know, by the thousands, bicycling along the Holland roads and the Paris roads and so on. In our country, you don't see it. The children go to school by buses, and if they have to walk more than 4 or 5 blocks, I think their parents get a little bit frightened, there is so much traffic on the roads; and so they want to get them up there. So the child doesn't walk, he rides somewhere.,Here is what happens: the first of these youth fitness conferences that I called back about 1954, Mr. Kelly, from Philadelphia, who has been very interested in this, came down and gave me some statistics. He gave a whole series of physical tests that the children of the United States, I think about 15,000 here, and about four or five thousand in each of the European countries took. The alarming results were--well, they were very depressing.,Now, I think this: all of these people are trying to find ways of correcting this thing. But I don't think that it is anything that we deliberately did and said we wanted to be affluent and soft. It's just our mode of life has brought about something we have to overcome, that's all; and we have to do it very earnestly.,Q. J. F. Ter Horst, Detroit News: I'd like to jump, sir, from the youth to the aged, if I may.,There has been a lot of controversy on Capitol Hill and we understand also within administration circles regarding what kind of medical care should be provided for senior citizens. And, some of the administration critics have even gone so far as to say the President does not understand this problem because he has never had to defray his own medical bills. I wonder, sir, if you could help us understand what your position and what your philosophy is toward what the Government should really do for senior citizens and what they should do on their own.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, I'll start off with this: you start off asking what the Government should do. There are lots of governments, and the thing I object to is putting everything on the Federal Government. I point out to you people all the time, if a city or a county or a State has to raise funds, if they have to do it even by borrowing, they have to go into the market with their bonds. The Federal Government tries to do that also, as long as it is fiscally responsible, but the Federal Government can print money. Nobody else can. So, it is always a little caution that you ought to tuck in the back of your minds when you think just of bringing in new responsibilities and new expenses in the Federal Government.,Now, to talk about this specific thing: I have, from the time this subject was discussed with me very thoroughly and exhaustively away back in 1951 and '52, I have been against compulsory insurance as a very definite step in socialized medicine. I don't believe in it, and I want none of it myself. I don't want any of it.,At the same time, there has been a great deal of progress made in this whole field. The number of people that have come under the voluntary health insurance programs has been very great, increasing rapidly. We still leave with ourselves, however, the problem of those people who are not indigent--taken care of under that State assistance act, I forget the name of it--but the people who are just too low incomed to take care of these catastrophic illnesses.,I think we have got to develop a voluntary program. As a matter of fact, in all our discussions inside the Cabinet, that is exactly what I've instructed the HEW Secretary to do: to get all the people that are interested--the insurance companies, the doctors, the older people, everybody that seems to have a real worthwhile opinion and conviction on this thing--get them in and work out what should be the responsibility of the individual and the city and the State and, finally, the Federal Government.,I want to point out at this time there is not a single State that has a program in this field. It seems to me that the problem does have enough of the local in its character that they should be just as interested as anybody else. Now, we are trying to develop a program that will show exactly where the Federal responsibility in this field should begin and where it should end.,Q. Frank Bourgholtzer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, on this subject of committing your successor in office, are you considering a second and third summit conference; the second one, for example, immediately after the election, to which you would take your successor, and perhaps a third one next spring?,THE PRESIDENT. Why, I hadn't even thought of that. With all of my associates and friends in Europe, the subject is talked about in terms of we should have these things, oh, not at 4- or 5-year intervals, but fairly frequently. That is all that can be said now.,I would think this: after the election, no matter who is elected, I would think there would be a resurgence of all of the questions now placed about my ability to make, let's say, a 1-year moratorium; because I haven't got a year, you see. So the closer you get to next January, why, the more those questions would come up, and I would doubt whether it would be too useful. But if there were some emergency that came up that made it useful, why, of course I'd go.,Q. James B. Reston, New York Times: Mr. President, as I understand it, it would take a year or two to build these inspection sites in the Soviet Union. Now, does that mean that the treaty would be signed and that there would be no inspection for a couple of years before the system would be operating?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the statement, as we stated yesterday, made that perfectly clear--that when the treaty was established and confirmed, then there would be no test under the threshold and you certainly wouldn't have any above, would you?,Q. Mr. Reston: No, but then you would have, then, for a period of 2 years, that you would have an uninspected system over the entire range, would you not?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you would have people over there, and I think that it would begin gradually to develop in efficiency. You have to do something if you are going to get a system established that is going to be mutually acceptable as to its accuracy and reliability; well, then, you have to make some concessions as to stopping this whole business until you're sure of that, that is what I feel. I mean this: you have to put into it every safeguard so that there cannot be dilatory tactics used just to push you off for 10 years. As we said in this suggestion, a 4- or 5-year moratorium is just excessive.,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, the success of the offer that you and Prime Minister Macmillan put forward yesterday would seem to depend to a great extent on how serious and sincerely the Soviets would negotiate on this issue. Now, after months of deadlock on this problem, do you have any reason for believing that at this stage the Soviets are any more sincere in wanting such an agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Again, I can't presume to describe in any accuracy what are the motives of somebody else.,Now, all the signs are that the Soviets do want a degree of disarmament, and they want to stop testing. That looks to me to be more or less proved.,But, the condition on which they want it, the conditions they want to establish for such an accomplishment, are things, of course, that are of their devising--which are, simply, common pronouncement; that's it, just a pronouncement by both parties. That is what they have always said.,They have come a long way since they said, \"Now we are ready to establish these mutual systems.\" So the very fact that they have made this concession means that they want to negotiate further; no question in my mind.,Q. Charles E. Shutt, Telenews: Could you give us your views, sir, on current serious race problems now confronting South Africa?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that I wouldn't want to say anything more about that than the Secretary of State has already said.,Naturally, when we see things of this kind where people are killed and there is so much violence, we deplore it. But it is a very touchy thing where I think that there are probably a lot of people within that country of understanding, human understanding, and want to get a better condition brought about. I'd like to see them do it.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, reports have been published that Vice President Nixon is planning a trip to Communist China. I'd like to ask you, first of all, have you heard anything about these plans; and secondly, what is your reaction to the basic idea?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, that must be the most speculative \"think piece\" I ever heard of in a long time. [Laughter] He has never said such a word to me in his whole life; and I'll tell you, there are just no such plans of any kind.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: Two points on the problem of your successor, Mr. President: was it considered completely impracticable to have a Democrat along with Vice President Nixon at the Camp David briefings; and, second, what is your view on the suggestions that after the nominees are actually picked, they be given high level intelligence briefings?,THE PRESIDENT. The second part, to take that first--always we do that. They did it for me in 1952, and I did it in '56. As quick as the nominees are named, they begin to get it, and for this very practical reason: one of the two of them is the successor. He is the obvious successor, and so you have to keep him informed.,Mr. Nixon--after all, you people must remember, he is Vice President. He is not coming up just to negotiate or to talk, although as I said his opinion is always welcome. He is there because he might be the President of the United States tomorrow, or acting as such, anyway. Now, if that is so, you have got to keep him informed. How can he be ready to operate and act if he had to come out of a vacuum and go into all of the difficult details of such an office? So, it is entirely a different thing.,When the two nominees are set up, they will both be briefed steadily.,Q. Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, the chief Soviet delegate at the Geneva test talks has said that the number of on-site inspections which has been an obstacle in the negotiations, is a matter to be decided politically. Would you then expect that this figure would be subject to agreement at a summit conference?,THE PRESIDENT. That could well be, if you had had now satisfactory progress in a program, and I think that that would be something that might be discussed and maybe even decided there.,I would just like to say one more thing about these summit meetings. If the summit meetings are all plenary meetings, sessions, with the whole room full--as a matter of fact you have a room full of people about like this, you have a big square table and you have around it as many people as you can crowd, and behind that you have two or three rows of so-called advisers--[laughter]--everybody is talking at everybody else, instead of talking with them. And they are also, because so many of these statements are published, they are talking to their own constituents. In other words, they are doing as good a propaganda job as they can. We would do the same if we could think of anything we haven't said already. [Laughter],The summit meeting, if it has got any value, is this: four men sitting around the table with their interpreters and, without anybody having any checks of any kind, by exploring each other's minds, \"What do you really want to do? What could we do?\"--that's the kind of thing that you would do at a summit meeting.,Now, if you get an idea, what do you do? You have to put it now, to all these experts, because they are knowledgeable and they know their stuff. You give it to them and say, \"Now, come up with a little scheme or a plan. Can we put out something now that could possibly be a basis of a treaty or at least a basis for a temporary action of some kind?\" That's the kind of thing that takes place.,So, when you begin to visualize this tremendous group in a summit meeting, that's only the part of it that ought to be for show; the rest of it, in my opinion, the working part of it, ought to be in small groups like I have just described.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: If we could get away from the details of this test ban negotiation for a minute, I would like to ask you this, sir: why is it that you are trying to get a treaty? Is it because you think this would freeze nuclear weapons and make the world safer, or keep other countries from going into the business? What is the driving force behind your determination?,THE PRESIDENT. For me--now I am speaking personally at this moment--the driving force behind me is the belief that we should try to stop the spreading of this, what you might say, the size of the club. There are already four nations into it, and it's an expensive business. And it could be finally more dangerous than ever, merely because of the spreading of this knowledge and this know-how, particularly with newer ways coming up of manufacturing all of this U-235 and so on.,So that is really the big thing. Because as of now, I assure you, the power that exists in the arsenals, certainly of our own and we know of Russia's, is such a tremendous thing that I don't think that testing will necessarily make destruction more likely, I mean, of your enemy or of yourself--I don't mean enemy; I mean of anyone, any nation, or this one.,But the perfection of the peaceful uses of this thing, the perfection of the weapons themselves, in using one pound of something where two pounds was necessary before, that's the kind of thing that goes on all the time.,If we continue to do that, others are going to test in the fields that we have already covered, you see. Finally there will be any number of nations that have it, and I think it ought to be stopped.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-03-16","text":"THE. PRESIDENT. I'm ready for questions.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, for the benefit of some of us who were not present at a dinner you attended Saturday night--[laughter]--we understand that you made some remarks that were regarded as quite politically significant concerning the Vice President, and we wonder, sir, if you can reconstruct those remarks for us today?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I believe at this meeting, it says, no reporters are ever present. I'm certain that no guest would be guilty of talking about something in the public domain that should have been in the social domain.,But as long as it's out by some mysterious way, I don't mind clarifying what I had to say, or at least what I thought; what I had to say could not possibly be reconstructed because I was talking about the geographical areas in which certain people were sitting at a party.,But if anyone is wondering whether I have any personal preference or even bias with respect to this upcoming presidential race, the answer is yes, very definitely. [Laughter],Q. Edward T. Folliard, Washington Post: Mr. President, you have indicated in one way or another that you hope to do something in the campaign insofar as your duties will permit. It's been suggested that you might make a keynote speech at the Republican Convention. Is that likely?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know. I haven't been invited. But I say this: I would want to give such support as I could. I think there are certain limits, for the simple reason that no candidate wants it to appear that he has someone that is the authority that has helped to nominate him and to put him in his position of prominence that he would now occupy. So I think there has to be very good judgment exercised. But if I am asked to give some help, why, I'd certainly want to try to do it.,Q. Mr. Folliard: Did you say, sir, that you have been invited to make the keynote speech?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I said I have not been invited--not invited.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: On the record, Mr. President, you have frequently spoken out, emphasized the importance of what you sometimes describe as human value, including moral courage. I wonder if you consider the current Gandhi-like passive resistance demonstrations of Negroes in the South as worthy of identification as manifestations of moral courage, or whether you disapprove of them?,THE PRESIDENT. It's difficult, Mr. Morgan, to give a sweeping judgment. Some are unquestionably a proper expression of a conviction of the group which is making them; others probably can be otherwise classified.,Now, let me make one thing clear. I am deeply sympathetic with the efforts of any group to enjoy the rights, the rights of equality that they are guaranteed by the Constitution. I do not believe that violence in any form furthers that aspiration, and I deplore any violence that is exercised to prevent them--in having and enjoying those rights. So, while I don't want to make any judgment because I am not in position to--I know about these as they come just briefly to my attention, I do not know what all of them are--I do know, though, that if a person is expressing such an aspiration as this in a perfectly legal way, then I don't see any reason why he should not do it.,Q. Charles H. Mohr, Time Magazine: Mr. President, in an earlier answer you suggested it might be a disadvantage to a candidate to have it thought that he had a patron. Do you think that it might also be a disadvantage to a candidate to have another powerful figure speaking out on the same issue but perhaps not in perfect coordination, and in such a case would you plan to broadly coordinate your position on policies and programs with the Republican nominee?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, if I happen to have any difference with him I would certainly not publicize it.,Now, so far as I know, there has never been between Mr. Nixon and myself, and that's who you are talking about--[laughter]--so far as I know, there has never been a specific difference in our points of view on any important problem in 7 years.,There has been free discussion in every meeting that I have ever held, and he has certainly been, always, not only free but even requested to give his honest opinions on these things. In certain details or points there naturally are differences that I have with everybody, because I seem to have a genius for that.,But I do say this: there has been never an important division of opinion or conviction. Therefore, if I were wanted in this field, in a perfectly proper and restricted activity, I would not feel the need to go down through every word of what I had to say with anybody, including Mr. Nixon himself.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: You have been represented, sir, as supporting the candidacy for Governor of Puerto Rico of Mr. Luis Ferre', whom you gave a ride to Washington, I think, from Ramey. If that is so, does it include his sponsorship of statehood for the Island?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I have talked to Mr. Ferre' one time; that was when I got the opportunity. When he said he was coming to Washington, I said, \"Come with me; I want to hear what you are talking about.\" He is a Republican candidate, I understand. I believe that he is not in any primary struggle or anything of that kind.,Now, he told me about his views. I said these are things that have not been the subject of party policy in the United States, so far as I understand; until they are brought up before that party and studied, well, I have not yet come to any conviction that I would want to express.,Q. Mr. Belair: Do you support his candidacy, is what I wondered. I mean aside from statehood?,THE PRESIDENT. I assume that like all other good Republicans, if I could vote there, I would vote Republican.,Q. William H. Y. Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, in answer to Mr. Smith's question, you used the word \"bias.\" Were you also speaking there of Mr. Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. Was there any doubt in your mind?,Q. Mr. Knighton: No, sir. [Laughter],Q. John Scali, Associated Press: A West German newspaper reported today that Premier Khrushchev in his latest letter to you has promised not to stir up any trouble between now and the next election. Could you tell us whether this is true, and could you discuss with us in general terms the letter that you got from the Soviet Premier?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I have made it clear I will not reveal the tenor and details of messages that pass back and forth between me and any other head of state or head of government unless there is some kind of agreement that this should be done, or because someone else has either deliberately or inadvertently exposed the correspondence; then, I would have to.,I can merely say this: the detail of which you speak had nothing whatsoever to do with the latest correspondence between Mr. Khrushchev and me.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Sir, back to these racial problems in the South, you said they come to your desk briefly. Do we not feel that this situation is of so grave injustice on both sides that it requires your great attention? Could you not call a conference at the White House of Southern leaders to sit down and go over this thing and come to some constructive program about what could be done?,THE PRESIDENT. Do you know what I think? I think there ought to be biracial conferences in every city and every community of the South, which would be much better than trying to get up here and direct every single thing from Washington. I am one of those people that believes there is too much interference in our private affairs and, you might say, personal lives already. And I would like to diminish rather than increase it.,Now, when it comes to the matter of enforcing the Constitution, which is a different thing from having some kind of orderly or even disorderly activity that is involved in the matter of racial equality--that is a different thing than the United States trying to enforce the Constitution, because one is a local matter for local authorities; the other is something with which the United States must be concerned. That is why we are trying to get a civil rights bill through the Congress.,So, you must not in your thinking take a local incident, whether it be a protest meeting or a march through the streets or anything else; that is not in the same category as getting the voting rights of a Negro in the South protected and insured. That's entirely two different subjects.,Q. Lowell K. Bridwell, Scripps-Howard Newspapers: Mr. President, late last summer when you signed the legislation increasing the motor fuel tax one cent a gallon, I believe you requested General Bragdon to make a comprehensive survey of the highway program, particularly as it related to the interstate system. Can you tell us what were the principal findings of that survey and whether you have made any administrative changes as a result?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I couldn't say too much to you about it this morning because, first of all, it was a personal advisory thing to me. In other words, should I recommend to the Congress any differences or should there be any administrative changes within the present law, as to what we should do.,What I was really trying to find out from General Bragdon is, what are we doing and does it seem to accord with the law and the legislative history.,I have not had any thought of putting this out, because it's a matter between General Bragdon and myself.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Mr. President, the United States has fought to preserve democracy in Korea, a country in which we express great concern. Do you have any comment on the election which they have just completed there, and is there a possibility that you may visit the country in June?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no plans with respect to a visit; no plans are yet formalized for any other visits except those that I have already published.,Now, all the reports that I have are that there was some violence, which I deplore. I have no other information from which I could say that there had been any violation of democratic processes in the election itself.,Q. John M. Hightower, Associated Press: Mr. President, yesterday you had an opportunity to talk with Chancellor Adenauer. There have been many reports that the Chancellor was worried or concerned in some manner about your policy line on West Berlin in connection with a summit conference.,Could you tell us something of your discussion with him?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I refer you to the joint statement which was issued last--I guess it was issued last evening--[confers with Mr. Hagerty]--issued last evening. That states, I think, the case exactly.,We agreed that there was no change in policy on either side.,Q. John R. Gibson, Wall Street Journal: On Cuba, sir, you have announced a policy of non-reprisals toward the Castro Government. In line with that, could you explain the reason for your changes in the sugar act that some Cubans are taking as a reprisal?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they have no justification for taking it for a reprisal whatsoever.,The United States consumes a very great amount of sugar every year, and there have been many activities taking place in Cuba that could easily endanger our source of supply. We have been getting on the order of 3,500,000 tons of sugar from Cuba yearly.,I have got the responsibility of trying to make sure that the United States gets the sugar it needs--one of the reasons that, if any of these supplying areas should fall down in supplying its quota, then I should have the right, in my opinion, to go to somebody else to get it. That's all it said, in effect.,I have flatly stated again and again that we are not trying to punish Cuba, particularly the Cuban people or even the Cuban Government. We are trying to get to a basis of agreement with them that is based upon justice, on international usage and law, and so that the interests of both sides are protected.,Q. Ruth S. Montgomery, Hearst Headline Service: Mr. President, can you tell us anything about your plans for retirement and whether you plan to write another book?,THE PRESIDENT. I must tell you, Miss Montgomery, that I have no plans whatsoever.,I am sure you would understand a number of publishers have suggested some possibilities of this kind. My reply has always been, I have no plans yet, I'll have to wait a few months.,Q. Earl H. Voss, Washington Star: Mr. President, the Soviet Union this morning has elaborated somewhat on Khrushchev's 4-year plan for full disarmament at Geneva. They have suggested in the first stage a cut in the armed forces of the United States, Russia, and Communist China, to 1.7 million men in a period of a year to 18 months.,Now, there is another provision that their 4-year package be accepted as a package, this would be a part of it.,Do you envision any kind of negotiation with Communist China over armed forces cuts in a disarmament plan?,THE PRESIDENT. If disarmament, and disarmament programs, come into the realm of practical negotiation and enforcement, as you go progressively along that road, you will unquestionably have to take into account the armaments of Red China. We are not yet into that stage.,The United States has proposed a plan for progressive disarmament and under stages. We think it is a practical and workable plan. We are trying to get the things that now seem within reach, trying to get them accomplished in the first stage, and to go on from there.,So, I should say that in our thinking there has to be a very great deal of progress before we are into the stage of worrying too much about Red China.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: Mr. President, Secretary Herter told us that you had ruled against any change in the 10,000-foot flight ceiling into Berlin. The Russians have backed down on the Berlin pass issue, and some people have seemed to conclude that there is some sort of a working agreement between yourself and Mr. Khrushchev, sort of a--let's not rock the boat before the summit.,Is there in fact any such agreement, or how do you explain this; such incidents as this seem to balance each other to some degree.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't explain anything, and there is no such agreement. I just tell the facts.,Now, you've been told the facts about the passes, and I believe that it was stated publicly--maybe it was speculation, I'm not sure whether it was--it was in a report that Mr. Khrushchev had been said to comment that he did not want to stir up any trouble just now, and because it was before the summit. He never said such a thing to me, and I am not sure that it is true.,Now, for myself, the Chiefs of Staff originally thought there might be an operational need for flying more than 10,000 feet, and therefore study and coordination with our allies was directed. When I came back from South America, the reports that came in were to the contrary, there was no operational need whatsoever. I said, therefore, we will drop it, we will not do it. That's all there was to it.,Q. Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, as a result of your understanding with Mr. Khrushchev at Camp David last September, do you feel obliged to attempt to reach a settlement on Berlin in the forthcoming summit meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. What I have said, and said to him: within the limits that we would not abandon our position respecting our rights in Berlin, and our belief and our conviction that the Berlin question will never finally be settled except with the background of a settlement of a divided Germany, and remembering one more, that what has been called our juridical position will not be touched and will not be damaged--within that context I am perfectly ready to talk about Berlin and Germany at any time.,To deny that you will talk or try to negotiate as long as your position of right and principle has been established would, to my mind, be a great mistake.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Sir, Senator Humphrey of Minnesota and the Southern Democrats seem finally to have agreed on one subject, that is that Paul Butler should go out as Democratic National Chairman. I wondered, sir, if you would like to make that unanimous?,THE PRESIDENT. If the Democrats have any troubles, I am not going to try to help them out. [Laughter],Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, did you find in South America as much concern over the behavior of the Castro Government as there is in the United States? And could you discuss this briefly with us, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, they are concerned because no one understands exactly what is happening, but the talks I had with these several Presidents were confidential, and I wouldn't want to violate their confidences.,This matter, this subject, was brought up numbers of times with different ministers. So far as I can recall, there was no one that criticized the attitude of the United States as has been expressed by myself and by Mr. Herter--that is, of trying to find solutions for these difficulties, avoiding anything that sounds like bullyragging or dominating a weaker people.,We are friendly with the Cuban people and we want to get the kind of understanding with their government that will make mutual progress feasible.,Now, as I say, that policy which our friends down south know was, so far as I heard, approved by them.,Q. Thomas N. Schroth, Congressional Quarterly: Mr. President, two key points in the administration's civil rights bills, those coveting Government contracts conditions and the aid to areas that are desegregating schools, have been cut out of the House version. Are you going to urge your Senate leaders to restore them when the bill gets to the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. I shall continue to say that this bill was brought up after all kinds of conferences I could get. As you know, I am trying to find a moderate, reasonable path that points to progress. So, I believe in this bill, and I'm going to ask for it. Of course, I want the best bill the Congress will give me in this very troublesome and sensitive area.,Q. Lloyd M. Schwartz, Fairchild Publications: Businessmen seem to be somewhat apprehensive about the economic outlook which appears to have lost some of its luster since January. What is your own assessment for the economic outlook for the rest of the year?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is very healthy and very fine.,Now, of course, people are always looking at curves of past performance, and they always want to have a recovery curve mounting more steeply. There were some rather bold predictions made as late as December and early January and even early February. I think that my own advisers have always counseled to take a moderate target, but they have always said this: the outlook for American business is indeed good.,Q. Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune: Mr. President, Vice President Nixon very recently established an independent advisory committee on agriculture to develop some kind of a farm program, independent of the administration. And I wondered if he had ever discussed with you this agricultural situation and expressed any dissatisfaction or anything like that.,THE PRESIDENT. AS a matter of fact I know he was party with the agricultural program that I sent down to the Congress. I don't know about this development you speak of; I suspect it's something to bring into sharper focus some of the local problems that will be encountered in any campaign. I haven't talked further than that with the Vice President about it.,Q. L. Edgar Prina, Washington Star: Mr. President, in reply to an earlier question on lunch counter demonstrations, you said that you believed that all persons were guaranteed equal rights. Now, do you believe that Negroes have guaranteed rights to eat with whites at lunch counters, and if so, do you not then believe that the Federal Government has some role to play in the present situation?,THE PRESIDENT. So far as I know, this matter of types of segregation in the South has been brought time and again before the Supreme Court. Now, I certainly am not lawyer enough or wise enough in this area to know when a matter is such as actually to violate the constitutional rights of the Negroes.,My own understanding is that when an establishment belongs to the public, opened under public charter and so on, equal fights are involved; but I am not sure that this is the case whatsoever.,I was talking about demonstrations, of marching in the streets, or any other kind of peaceful assembly that is trying to show what the aspirations and the desires of a people are. Those, to my mind, as long as they are in orderly fashion, are not only constitutional, they have been recognized in our country as proper since we have been founded.,Now, the different types, different ways in which resentment or defiance could be expressed, I couldn't possibly go into all those details; I don't know.,Q. Rutherford M. Poats, United Press International: Sir, a moment ago you described the Western disarmament plan as a practical step-by-step approach. 'Would you characterize for us, sir, the Soviet plan for a 4-year package approach to this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no, I don't want to characterize anything at the moment. I just believe that our plan is a better one on which to start for a disarmament in some scale than is theirs; but I don't want to characterize it with any adjective or in any other particular type.,Q. Donald H. Shannon, Los Angeles Times: Mr. Butler had some \"leak\" problems himself just recently and he was reported as having said that Senator Kennedy appears to have the leading role, as far as getting the Democratic nomination. I know it's no concern of yours, but if you will be involved very seriously in the campaign, as you said today, does it appear to you that Kennedy is out in front for the other party's nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't say I would be involved very seriously; I said if I were asked, and a candidate from my party thinks I can be useful, then I will do what I can. I am not going to make any predictions for the other side, but this is a political year, and I'll just keep still about it and be wiser. [Laughter],Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-02-17","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I am ready for questions.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, just before your trip in December, you went on nationwide television and radio to discuss that tour. Do you plan to do the same thing in connection with your South American tour and, if so, is there any possibility of your talk dealing as well with national defense?,THE PRESIDENT. I'm expecting to make a television talk of 15 minutes at 6:15 on Sunday evening. I'm leaving early Monday. The talk will be in the general tone of the one that I made before I went to Asia, and I would suppose that such items as security and strength and so on would, of course, be included.,Q. Robert G. Spivack, New York Post: Mr. President, in recent weeks, spokesmen for the Navy seem to have admitted that it discriminates against American ships in trade with Israel.,In the view of--judgment of--critics it does this by discouraging the owners of such ships from bidding on transportation that involves the use of Arab ports, because the Arabs refuse to accommodate the vessel. The effect, these critics say, is to comply with the Arab boycott of Israel. Would you say that this was in line with our foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. Certainly not within our policy. Right after the Suez incident, you recall that the United States joined in saying that if the operation of the canal was not so conducted as to be fair to the traffic of all nations, that this should be a cause of action by the united group. I believe this matter has been up in the United Nations; I know it has-well, I believe it has, put it that way. Certainly the United States has always stood for that principle.,I didn't know about the incidents to which you refer, and I would suggest you ask the Navy Department itself about that.,Q. Warren W. Unna, Washington Post: In this morning's paper, sir, there is an account of an Air Force Reserve Training Manual which is casting reflection on the integrity of the church and possible Communist infiltration of it, as well as the people's right to know what is going on in their Government. I wondered if you'd seen this, and if you have any comment on it, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. It was brought to my attention this morning. I understand the Secretary of Air found out about it very recently, that he has recalled the thing and repudiates it as a statement of Air Force policy.,Q. Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: Sir, in view of the increasing importance of the Vice Presidency and the ever-present possibility that he might succeed to the Presidency, do you feel that the vice presidential nominee of your party should be handpicked by the presidential nominee as he has been traditionally in the past, or that there should be an open convention, or that perhaps the vice presidential contenders compete in State primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn't know any reason for them abstaining from competition in primaries.,One thing we must remember: if we are going to have this closer relationship between President and Vice President, which during these last 7 years has been rather violative of tradition, then these two have to be people that are friends. They have to be people that have a certain mutual respect. That comes about because of the fact that the presidential nominee has some say in who the vice presidential nominee is.,In my own case I don't mind telling you, in 1952 I put down a list of men who would be completely acceptable to me. It was not a long one, but it was certainly comprehensive, and I gave--turned over--to the Convention, or the people in charge of it--I said you can take anybody here and the Convention can have its nominations and so make and give their decision.,There are a lot of factors of that kind in the thing, but I do believe that only in few instances, probably, has there been any case where the nominee, the presidential nominee, has complete authority in this matter.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Can you say, sir, whether in your opinion the United States should pay more for Cuban sugar than the price made available by that government to Russia?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you're getting into a question we've been studying a long time around this Government. The treaty with Cuba is one of long standing, concerning their preferred position in our sugar market. We must not forget that we want to be dealing in such a way that the Cuban people, who are our friends, are treated justly and there is no action taken that in the long run would be detrimental to them.,As I understand it from this latest report coming out of Mikoyan's visit, the Cubans are proposing to sell sugar at the world price and, as far as I can see, on more of a barter basis. We pay more than the world price, and we pay in completely convertible currency, so that they have complete freedom.,Now, there have been a number of traditional economic relationships that have been either repudiated or disturbed or changed by the Cubans in the last few months. I would hope that this whole thing can be worked out so that the Cuban people will not suffer, and that the relationships between those people and our people will remain firm.,Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, in your farm message last week, you suggested to Congress that you would now be willing to accept some things such as stricter controls that you seemed to oppose before. Was that change prompted by, as some people suggested, by the hope that it might help the Republicans win more votes in the Farm Belt this year?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it wasn't done in that particular thing, but I would hope that it would appeal to a lot of people and, therefore, get more votes; of course I do..,The point is, last year I suggested two different methods; before that, I have sent down time and again a rather detailed bill, list of recommendations, that I thought would help the situation. It has gone so long and in such a bad way that no cure can be brought about rapidly, nor in a revolutionary fashion. Everybody knows that.,So I put down what I preferred, but I said within certain guidelines I would accept anything that didn't violate just good sense and trying to get the matter better on the rails.,About controls, I said they must be realistically related to support prices. And that has a very deep meaning in that phrase.,Q. Charles H. Mohr, Time Magazine: Mr. President, Chancellor Adenauer has expressed anxiety that any new interim agreement on West Berlin might erode the Western position there, and be worse than the situation that now prevails. He also seems obviously worried about allied intentions. What are those--,THE PRESIDENT. Allied what?,Q. Mr. Mohr: Intentions.,THE PRESIDENT. All right.,Q. Mr. Mohr: And May 16 is some time off, but can you talk any about what these intentions are? And especially in view of the fact you once called that situation abnormal.,THE PRESIDENT. Of course the situation is abnormal. But this is what would be my answer to your question: the three Western Powers of Britain, France, and the United States, in a variety of ways keep in very close touch and collaboration with the Government of the Federal Republic. We certainly expect, to go to the summit, that any views to be expressed there will represent the common convictions of the four of us. Now, that is all I can say in detail in that matter.,Q. Lambert Brose, Lutheran Layman: Mr. President, you referred before to Mr. Mikoyan's visit to Cuba. And a month or two ago, J. Edgar Hoover, talking about another famous Russian's visit to our country, said that Mr. Khrushchev's visit had some effect in making Americans more receptive to communism. Since it's the FBI's job to detect subversive activities in this country, is Mr. Hoover perhaps understandably but unduly sensitive and apprehensive in this matter, or do you think his contention might have some merit?,THE PRESIDENT. I haven't talked to Mr. Hoover about the effect of Mr. Khrushchev's visit. I have stayed in very close touch with him over the years. He is a man for whom I have the greatest respect, not only for his views but for him as a character, as a public servant.,Now, this is what I do know about his views: once I proposed that we study a matter of just inviting a very great number of Russians, particularly students, into our country. He looked it over and said it would not increase the difficulties in his department whatsoever.,What he thinks about this one, I don't know; I've never talked to him about it.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, in view of Vice President Nixon's troubles in his visit to Latin America, I wonder if the Secret Service or any of our other organizations of that nature are particularly concerned about your personal safety during your trip to Latin America and, if so, could you tell us what special measures they may have taken?,THE PRESIDENT. On the contrary; they have said no word to me about it. And, remember, the Secret Service limit their efforts to giving information and help to the local people. Our Secret Service have no authority in these sovereign countries, and certainly they couldn't widen or, by their own volition, establish a more firm security establishment.,This is what I feel about it: in any place in the world you have some elements that want to cause a little trouble and to show a little bit of discourtesy. They might here. But when you've got a purpose that is directed toward the vast bulk of the people that you meet, you just can't worry about these things; and I don't think the Secret Service worries too much about those. Certainly they haven't told me they do.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, we note that the father of your daughter-in-law is about to embark on a career in Florida politics. I'm wondering, as another old Army man who got into politics, if you had any friendly advice for Colonel Thompson. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Scherer, I learned about this this morning, because my wife seems to read the paper in which there is this kind of news, so she called me in to read it to me. Now, that's all I know about it. And I think if he wanted any advice from me, he'd ask for it.,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, a few days ago France exploded its first atomic bomb. Since then, there have been reports that the French may explode a second one, and possibly a hydrogen device later. Are you concerned by this French action, or do you regard it as strengthening the overall defensive capacity of the West?,THE PRESIDENT. If you go back to 1947, one of the arguments that Mr. Baruch presented in the United Nations, in the committee of which he was the chairman, and to the Russians, that one of the great risks we wanted to avoid was that of having many nations developing this kind of a device, this kind of a weapon.,I think it's only natural that first Britain and then France have done this, in the circumstances of life as we now understand them and know them. I would hope that we could get the kind of agreements among the larger nations, that have already done this thing to make sure that other nations don't want to go into the expense of going into this kind of an armament race, that would stop this whole thing in its tracks.,This is not easy. We must realize that this spirit of nationalism of which we hear so much is not felt just by the underdeveloped nations, the ones that the people want to be suddenly independent; it is felt by all of us. The matters of pride and national prestige impel people to do things, I think at times, that would not be necessary.,But I would say this, that our great hope is for agreement where we can stop the thing where it is.,Q. M. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: Mr. President, in this connection the Russians yesterday at Geneva turned down the plan you proposed last week to ban all tests except the smaller underground ones. They countered with a proposal under which they would permit Western inspection teams to make a limited number of checks of any suspicious explosion in the Soviet Union. Do you think this means we're getting closer together on this? What do you think about their counter?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, as a practical measure, I thought the proposal we put forward was a very good one, and it would certainly establish a very good position while we went along with the technical and political conversations that might lead toward the total ban that both sides profess to want.,Now, the Soviet proposal does seem to change the criteria that they are ready to observe, which would establish the need for inspection. But when they say a limited number, obviously you've got a very long argument coming in, because now you get into the old numbers racket that everybody seems to love so much; just exactly what is adequate would be a very difficult thing.,I say this: it does seem to be a move away from a position that formerly looked completely rigid, and it certainly is going to be studied.,Q. John Herling, Editors Syndicate: Mr. President, President George Meany yesterday said that business groups and the Eisenhower administration have joined hands in raising quote, \"the phantom of runaway inflation\" as a means of depressing wages. Do you care to comment on this observation by Mr. Meany, and do you regard the whole problem of wages, prices, and inflation as a fit subject for the forthcoming summit conference on labor-management relations?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not going to comment on Mr. Meany's remarks, one reason being that he makes his remarks in an entire speech; I haven't read it, and therefore I don't know its context.,To accuse somebody else of bad faith, in my opinion, is just not a way to win arguments. I try to take anybody's convictions and expressed opinions and weigh them against facts and logic as I understand them. I'm not trying to say that someone is guilty of pushing a particular doctrinaire position or doing anything else merely because, in this case, the administration believes that we should have sound fiscal arrangements, avoid deficits that we pass on to our children and therefore spur inflation. Inflation, in the long run, in my mind, is a tremendous and always-present difficulty and risk that we must face every day of our life, as long as we live, in a free country.,Q. Lillian Levy, National Jewish Post and Opinion: Mr. President, in a speech recently, Senator Javits said that it would be in the best interests of this country to join with Israel in a mutual defense pact. He pointed to the fact that Soviet arms and military personnel are flowing into the middle east Arab countries, and expressed the view that a defense pact with Israel would serve as a deterrent to any Soviet-inspired or -encouraged Arab military action there. In view of present tensions in the area, would you comment on Senator Javits' recommendation?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, I didn't read this particular recommendation. I have heard similar ones from many people.,The United States, as a matter of policy, has never been a major supplier of arms for Israel and doesn't intend to be, nor to any other country in the area.,As a matter of fact, I went to the United Nations and, making a talk about the whole Mideast situation, said if these countries could get together in any kind of a program or plan for the economic development of the whole region, the United States would be greatly interested in dealing with the whole group.,Now, with regard to the allegations of the arms the Soviet are sending in there; of course they have. We know they've been in that area, but Israel has also been getting arms from Britain and France for a long time. Frankly, I think we're sending arms to enough nations, really. I think somebody else ought to carry a little responsibility.,Q. Richard L. Wilson, Cowles Publications: Mr. President, there is common speculation in the political community that there may be a difference in approach toward public problems between you and Vice President Nixon in the sense that Nixon would be more a man of action, you more a man to wait until events developed to see whether action was required.,He has stated recently, for example, that there should be a month-by-month examination of our military posture and military--whether our security in the military field is greater now.,Would you, based on your experience with Mr. Nixon, would you be able to discuss or characterize any variations in approach that you might have, as distinguished from his approach?,THE PRESIDENT. All of us are human, and consequently, I don't believe there are any two men in the world, or two individuals, who would find exactly the same methods or use exactly the same procedures in trying to solve a difficult problem.,Mr. Nixon has been close to me now for something over 7 years. In all that time, I know of no occasion when he's been excluded from any important group that is conferring for the making of policy or deciding upon action, and never once that I know of has Mr. Nixon been at any major variance with me.,I think I've made clear many, many times the great respect I have for his capacities and for his character, and I would expect him to have some kind of different methods. He doesn't work with people the way I do; he has his own methods. I've had mine, developed probably over a good many years, and possibly I think they're pretty good.,But I certainly have no thought of trying to guide him as to what he will or should do.,One other comment to your question: far from waiting each month to weigh defense requirements and defense production, we have the National Security Council, in which nobody is barred from bringing up any fear or any matter, any preoccupation on his mind, any anxiety or conviction. Of course, we have to work by agenda, but everybody there is just as free to express his opinion as a man can be. So the matter of reviewing constantly our defensive requirements and measures we take to meet them is a thing that is a day-by-day process.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Mr. President, in your mutual security message yesterday, you said that in March there would be a meeting of representatives of many nations to study the pooling of foreign aid. Could you tell us who will be at that meeting, what will be their objective?,THE PRESIDENT. Wall, I can't tell you exactly at this moment; because if the final charter for the meeting has been drawn up, why, I have not yet read it.,I have visited a number of governments and individuals, talking about this matter. I've found a very great concern about it, and everybody feeling that there is a common responsibility.,There's one thought which I very definitely put into my message that I believe we should talk about a little bit. It is this: we are not just a mere group of industrialized and, say, relatively wealthy nations seeking to give something or put something into another nation according to our ideas of what will help them. I personally believe the whole free world should be in a cooperative effort to raise the world economy. I believe that, in doing the kind of thing that we are now talking about, we will be raising our own prosperity, our own well-being, and our own security. So, I believe that the smallest country can contribute something. As long as it's got the will and the heart to do the major portion of the work itself which must be done, it can increase its output of raw materials, all of the things that it needs to get the foreign exchange which will enable it to purchase from others. In the same way, we get a better market, but we give them better markets all the time.,I really think this whole matter is not just of a group of, let's say, \"have\" nations meeting to see how they will distribute the load that falls on them. I think in the long run we must have a congress of all the free nations where we can work this out.,Q. Mr. Brandt: Does that mean you are going to use the U.N. more than you have done in the past?,THE PRESIDENT. To my mind, of course, the United Nations is something that should be strengthened. I think it's done good work in so many areas; but there are, of course, difficulties because of its particular composition. In any event, I want to get over the cooperation between the primary user and the giver so that we will have an expanding world economy, rather than just saying we are helping some particular group.,I really believe, again I must tell you, there is no program that the United States is pursuing now that is so much to. our own interests as this one of mutual security. I realize it's the whipping boy for everybody that wants to have another dam built or something else done in his area. It's got the political appeal of just an ordinary clod out in the field-none; so therefore it makes a good whipping boy.,But if the United States as a whole can be waked up to our best interests, this program will be supported generously.,Q. Sarah McClendon, Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader: Sir, our Air Force sent a safety crew to Newfoundland to board the plane of Mikoyan to see that he got safely to Cuba. Now, I realize, as the Air Force says, that this is done for reciprocity; but why would we have to send one of our Air Force crews into another country to board the plane of a Russian official to see that he gets into a third country, so that he can go down there and malign us? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. Ma'am, I thought I kept rather closely in touch with all the affairs of this Government. There are certainly many, and I think I do in most of the important things. This is the first time I heard it. I commend you to Secretary Sharp; ask him what he thinks, why this is done. I don't know.,Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, will the administration's recommendations on the Sugar Act contain a provision designed specifically to deal with unfavorable developments in Cuba?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I say what we are doing now is studying the program with everybody that is interested, both outside and inside Government, and that program is not yet ready to go to the Congress.,Q. Charles E. Shutt, Telenews: Mr. President, two of the many charges that your defense critics have made against you and your administration are that the administration has been complacent in advising the people of the danger we face in world affairs. The other is that economy may stand in the way of developing some weapon or a series of weapons we may need.,Sir, do you believe that the administration has misled the American people in any way, or that any money has been withheld from any weapon we might need?,THE PRESIDENT. If anybody--anybody--believes that I have deliberately misled the American people, I'd like to tell him to his face what I think about him. This is a charge that I think is despicable; I have never made it against anyone 'in the world, and I wouldn't unless he were in a bar of justice somewhere to be tried for something that was intolerable.,I would like to see somebody--people like yourselves--take the whole history of our defense organization from 1945 until this minute, and see what has been done. Frankly, this Nation unilaterally disarmed, and it wasn't until the danger or the great surprise attack in Korea came about that we starred in the other direction. In almost every field of development we were behind. We had to change our policy at that time, back in 1950, and from that time on, we sought one thing--adequacy; adequacy in our power to deter and defend ourselves, and particularly to help these areas which are so exposed to the menace of Communist imperialism so that they may give a reasonable defense of themselves and their lives and their rights, while their allies could come to their assistance. This is what I believe we've been trying to do with all our might.,I get tired of saying that defense is to be made an excuse for wasting dollars. I don't believe we should pay one cent for defense more than we have to.,But I do say this: our defense is not only strong, it is awesome, and it is respected elsewhere.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-02-11","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have a statement, but you won't have to take notes, because I believe there will be copies outside. This affects the negotiations for nuclear weapons tests at Geneva.,[Reading] The United States is today presenting in Geneva a proposal, involving the ending of nuclear weapons tests, to end the apparent deadlock in the negotiations. This Government has stood, throughout, for complete abolition of weapons testing subject only to the attainment of agreed and adequate methods of inspection and control. The present proposal is designed to end nuclear weapons tests in all the environments that can now be effectively controlled.,It would end forthwith, under assured controls:,(1) all nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere;,(2) all nuclear weapons tests in the oceans;,(3) all nuclear weapons tests in those regions in space where effective controls can now be agreed to; and,(4) all nuclear weapons tests beneath the surface of the earth which can be monitored.,This proposal will permit, through a coordinated program of research and development, a systematic extension of the ban to the remaining areas, especially those involving underground tests, for which adequate control measures appear not to be possible now.,These are initial but far-reaching and yet readily attainable steps toward a complete ban on nuclear weapons tests. If adopted, they will prevent increases in the level of radioactivity in the atmosphere and so allay worldwide concern. They are steps which offer an opportunity to consolidate the important progress made in the negotiations thus far. It is our hope that the Soviet Union will join with us in this constructive beginning. 1 [Ends reading],Questions.,1On the same day the White House released a further statement, covering the same ground but in somewhat greater detail. The statement noted that the new proposal included provision for a program of joint research and experimentation by the United Kingdom, the USSR, and the United States to improve the detection of small tests underground and thus permit the extension of the ban to such tests. It also noted that extensive research and experimentation was already under way in the United States to improve detection instruments and techniques. The White House statement is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 42, p. 327).,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, every day the public is being subjected to a new chapter in the controversy over the missile gap between this country and Russia. Now, this argument, as you are well aware, is being waged in public by men who are supposed to be expert in the defense requirements of the country. Is there anything you can say to us today to explain this controversy to the public; and, in this connection, sir, are you thinking of a nationwide speech on this subject?,THE PRESIDENT. First of all, let me understand the first part of your question, Mr. Smith. You say, \"waged by people who are supposed to be expert.\" Are you speaking now about the people of the Defense Department?,Q. Mr. Smith: Of the Defense Department and on Capitol Hill, too, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I should think this: it would be fair to use the description \"expert\" with respect to the people in the Defense Department. That is what they're for. [Laughter],They do have different ideas, and the trouble of it is that because one Chief or one Secretary or one individual or one technician, far down the line, has a particular idea and exploits this idea and publicizes it highly, that this, according to him, becomes the great judgment to be made in the defense of this country.,Defense of this country is a very wide and comprehensive problem. It is not decided by such a matter as can you make three or two particular weapons in a particular week, or such numbers as that. It is a matter that involves the study and investigations of many staffs, reaching many months into the future.,So these struggles that you talk about among the people in the Defense Department are those things that are brought about when they are required, apparently, and then leaks occur, as to their personal attitude toward the particular weapon or the particular weapons system, and then that becomes a matter of argument.,This I deplore, particularly the methods of publicizing it and making it look like any one of these particular points is the real problem to solve in America's defense.,I want to point out again--possibly I don't need to--that I have been in the military service a long time. I am obviously running for nothing. I want only my country to be strong, to be safe, and to have a feeling of confidence among its people so they can go about their business. And I just want to point out that in the decisions that I have to make--and there are many of them--in the approval of such a system, that I have heard all of the arguments, pro and con, in this individual type of an opinion of which I have been speaking. I have done the best I can, and I am doing it with one idea in mind only--America.,Q. Pat Munroe, Chicago American: Could you fill us in, sir, on the Vice President's role in reshaping the farm message?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is the first that I have heard about him reshaping it. I required that he read it, because there seems to be a great probability that in the next few months he is going to be defending what I believe, and the administration believes, is the best way to approach this problem. Naturally, he is completely aware of everything that is in the message, but this is the first I have heard of any reshaping.,Q. William McGaffin, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, you're nearing the end of your term, and you've had a good 7 years of experience with it. Could you tell us, sir, what you think will be the major problems of the man who succeeds you and whether you think they will be any more difficult than the problems that you've had to deal with?,THE PRESIDENT. I think what you are suggesting now is we have sort of an informal conversation, rather than any exposition of specific problems.,The fact is that I think there are two things we must remember. America has become a leader in the world. In many of these aspects it is almost a decisive leader. This means that the problems that come to the presidential desk whether it's a small farm in Dickinson County, Kansas, or a village problem somewhere, or urban renewal, or difficulty in the Mideast or with the Russians, whatever--these things have to be viewed in a broad world context, and then they have to be studied very earnestly, both on their short-term and their long-term effects.,I don't believe that anyone can predict what the next President's problems are really going to be. I have tried to describe, time and again, the ones that I see as important as of this moment and the methods in which I approach them. In so doing, I hope that I am helping to establish a pattern for solving these problems in the manner of reasonable men, never giving way to the so-called ultraliberal that has no other purpose than to give your money away for some pet theory of his own, and on the other hand, to repudiate reaction like you would the devil and all his works.,You've just got to approach these things with the best advice, the best knowledge, the best judgment that the individual or the occupant of the chair can bring to bear, and then solve them. I will point out there is one problem that is always with us, will never be properly or at least perfectly solved, but which all of us must work at.,It is this. You people right here have a very big function to perform. The biggest problem there is for the United States today is to make sure that her own people--her own people--understand the basic issues that face us, and form their own judgment. If we can inform these people properly, then we can be sure that the health and vigor of the democracy will solve them properly. Our great danger is that we are sometimes led down blind alleys by demagogues, or we're too lazy to inform ourselves, or we just say that some popular figure will solve them for us. We've got to inform ourselves. This is the greatest problem. And if we ever solve that one, we can do all the others without any difficulty.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: Mr. President, in relation to your statement about the test ban problem, I think there is one question that you left unanswered, and that is this. Assuming that the Soviet Union would accept this proposal, during the period of the development of new techniques to extend the ban on certain of the underground test problems, would the United States during that period resume underground testing?,THE PRESIDENT. It's a question that, of course, itself has not yet been resolved. I have already told you that laboratory testing--not of weapons testing, but of just the nuclear science--go on all the time. But when it comes down to weapons testing, that is something that we would have to decide with our own allies.,Q. Mr. Roberts: Would that be subject to negotiation as part of this proposed agreement with the Russians?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, no. We are not going to make an agreement, Mr. Roberts, when we can't know, when we cannot have any information as to whether or not it will be carried out by the other fellow as well as ourselves. That's what the problem is about. You see, we have been asked, time and again, to stop all testing and, indeed, to eliminate all bombs just by everybody unilaterally and voluntarily doing so. This is the kind of a system we will not accept. We say there must be adequate examination, verification, and enforcement.,Q. Charles W. Roberts, Newsweek: In connection with the first question asked you today, sir, when the congressional leaders came out of your office on Tuesday, they said that they thought the hearings on Capitol Hill concerning our defense--that some people, apparently running for office, had performed a disservice to the country and, furthermore, by undermining morale, that they had also breached security. Do you accept both of these charges?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't read them. I have heard them for the first time right now.,I am trying to keep my own statements outside the partisan field. I am trying to dedicate, as I have in the past, my efforts toward securing the United States in the fields of foreign relations and in defense. I think we should be big enough not to seek headlines. I think we should be big enough to put our heads together and see if we can get a real solution.,While I admit I have not specifically answered your question, I am giving you my belief about the whole matter.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, is there any ready answer to published suggestions that it is somehow defeatist to spend not quite so much money for defense or bigger defense and more and more for fancy tail fins and other things like that? That has been written about lately.,THE PRESIDENT. I don't quite understand your question.,Q. Mr. Belair: Well, you see, the argument seems to suggest, sir-and it came up yesterday at Canaveral--that much more could be spent, for instance, on missile development, to put us nearer to where the Russians now are. The argument seems to ignore what you have already said about our defense planning being based more on the adequacy of a deterrent. But the argument attributes to you, sir, the view that in all of these expenditures we must always have an eye on the budget, to maintain our fiscal responsibility, and that in emphasizing the need for a balanced budget, we thereby hold down expenditures for these purposes to a point that is not really necessary in our economy.,THE PRESIDENT. In this present case it would seem to me their argument is not too good, because I have put in the budget $4,200 million for surplus.,Now, if anyone, by any kind of hysterical argument, is going to make me say that fiscal responsibility in this country is not important; indeed, if they can prove that you can continue to go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, without finally paying a very great cost in the Nation's security, I'd like to see how they prove their case.,Now, that does not mean that any budget I've ever put up has been put together on the basis of just achieving a balanced budget. I have tried to calculate and form the judgments about the needs of the United States, and I must say that I try to put need above pressure-group inducement, before local argument, before every kind of any pressure except that that America needs. I don't believe in putting luxury and extravagance ahead of need. But having satisfied the need, I believe we should go ahead with such policies and programs that the United States believes will be helpful and are in keeping with our Constitution and our institutions, and at the same time get this fiscal business into such control that we can have prosperity in the future as well as thinking we have it merely when we begin to debase our currency.,Q. Lambert Brose, Lutheran Layman: Mr. President, last fall, in connection with the TV quiz scandals, District Attorney Hogan stated that more than 100 people had committed perjury before a New York State grand jury--I think it was New York State. I am sure the American people bear no personal malice toward these individuals, and maybe this is a State matter. But do you have any information, sir: one, whether indictments will be brought--I think only one or two have--and, two, if indictments are not brought, do you think this might undermine confidence somewhat in our system of equal justice under law?,THE PRESIDENT. As you say, it obviously is a State matter.,Now, I don't think it's necessary here for me to stress the importance I put on, you might say, public morality. I believe that public morality finally became involved in this matter, and I think that every echelon of government that may have a responsibility ought to be working on the matter and see that it doesn't happen again.,Q. John scale, Associated Press: Mr. President, Premier Khrushchev had some very blunt things to say to Italy's President, Mr. Gronchi, this week about world affairs generally. He talked about West Berlin, Germany, and Russia's power, generally. And among the things Mr. Khrushchev is quoted as saying is this: \"Our flag is flying on the moon. This means something. Is this not enough to prove the superiority of communism over capitalism?\" What do you think of such remarks?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's crazy.,I tried to point out to you the other day that in an industrial complex of the strength of Russia's, with its vast territory and resources, its people, and its great imaginative and competent scientists, that if it wants to put all of its strength in a particular field of activity--and, remember, secretly undertaken--of course it can come out with spectacular achievements. And let's not try to blind ourselves about it. But my contention is we should not be hysterical when dictatorships do these things.,As a matter of fact, Hitler was rather successful in keeping secret from many people the strength of the forces he actually had when he went in 1939 into Poland, and how much he had with which to smash the Western allies in Western Europe.,All of these things are possible, but they are not things that we should, in what we believe is a broader and better type of civilization, let dismay us.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Sir, in view of your own expressed philosophy that defense should not be a partisan issue, do you not think it was wrong for six top officials of the Defense Department to accept invitations to speak at fund-raising \"Dinners with Ike,\" planned by the Republican Party?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think so. As a matter of fact, are you going to change all the traditions and the habits of America since we formed two parties way back at the time of Jefferson and Hamilton?,Q. Mrs. McClendon: Well, sir--,THE PRESIDENT. Now, just a minute, and I'll finish your question. These people are politically appointed. They are not, and should not, indulge in talking about the failures of others of which I personally, and on both sides of the House, believe there have been many in years going past. Certainly they did in the Indian wars, if we want to get back to a place that is certainly nonpartisan. [Laughter],For these people to report what they're doing and why they're doing it and to show the reasoning in which they have reached their decisions is far from harmful; it is helpful, in my opinion.,Q. John R. Gibson, Wall Street Journal: Mr. President, on the disarmament question, is it your feeling that the U.S., Britain, and Russia pretty well have to reach an agreement on the nuclear test situation before there is much chance for making any further headway on the broader disarmament question, either at the 10-nations meeting or at the summit conference meeting?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not now trying to express the opinions of any study group or any opinions other than my own. I believe that we are probably tackling the most difficult of all problems in this disarmament thing when we put all our attention on nuclear testing and nuclear use. Here is something, our scientists have testified over the years, that even if today you stop manufacturing plutonium and U-235, you could still conceal such an amount of destructive power that, to start at this end of the thing to establish the kind of inspection systems that are necessary, we are probably taking the most thorny thing and allowing that to keep us from other places.,Now, in testing I think the program that we put forward today is a good one and ought to lead finally to even a better one. But I think that we should look at disarmament on such a broad scale that we can find the areas where we can make progress, but not letting this one bar us from some progress along the line. Only as we make progress of this kind is there going to be a real lessening of tension.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, do you have any new appraisal of our missile program on the basis of your visit to Canaveral yesterday?,THE PRESIDENT. On that one I think, possibly except for some secret specification or something else, I think you people learned just exactly as much as I did.,I would say this, as I said that day: I was impressed by the businesslike atmosphere in this whole facility. There seemed to be a minimum of extravagance and luxury and a maximum of efficiency and competence and real dedication to the problem at hand. I felt this: I came back with a very much better feeling than I had before I went down there.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: The Chinese Communists, sir, have said that they would not take part in any disarmament agreement in which they had no hand in formulating. At what point, sir, do you think they should come into a worldwide disarmament agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's perfectly clear that such a big territory and such a great population could not be ignored when you are talking about general disarmament. Once we can make any kind of progress between the West and the Soviets and its satellites, I think that there will have to be some kind of mechanism in which we can bring these people into some kind of agreement, if it is going to be successful.,Q. M. Stewart Hensley, United Press International: Mr. President, with respect to the nuclear test ban, you say that you are proposing to ban the underground tests which can be verified. Is Ambassador Wadsworth going to, at the Geneva talks, put any specific level on that thing? In other words, there's been disagreement between the Russians and our scientists on this, whether it's below 20 kilotons, 30 kilotons, and so forth. Are you going to propose any specific threshold there, or is that a subject for negotiation?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it is a subject for negotiation, but it will, of course, have to go back finally to our technical people--what their conclusions are.,Q. Jack Raymond, New York Times: Mr. President, there have been various figures published on Soviet-United States missile strength. Do you believe that these have damaged the security of the country?,THE PRESIDENT. That what?,Q. Mr. Raymond: Do you believe these figures that have been published have damaged the security of the country, and do you expect to do anything about that?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think the figures mean a lot.,Q. Edward V. Koterba, United Features Syndicate: Mr. President, somewhat in line with your reply to Mr. McGaffin, there have been some published suggestions that you become an honorary Senator after your term as President. What are your thoughts about accepting an official job as advice-giver after 1960?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think that that's one of those questions that the answer would have to await the offer.,Q. Earl H. Voss, Washington Star: Mr. President, if the Russians accept your new proposal on nuclear tests, could you give us your evaluation of the effect this would have on nuclear weapons development? I have in mind particularly our theories which I understand have been proved that, according to the \"big hole\" theory, large nuclear explosions can be concealed.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the very large ones, I don't think could be concealed, not practically, and certainly not periodically.,I would think this: the proposal, with all its ramifications, is going to be studied and discussed. I think we should better wait to see what are the objections and the supporting arguments that are brought forward at Geneva before we try to make conclusions of exactly what the effect will be. There could be all kinds of proposals, but all of them, as I see it, would bring some kind of inspection that so far has not been agreed to by the Soviets.,Q. Jerry O'Leary, Washington Star: Mr. President, the Senators passed a $1,800 million education bill with teachers' salaries as well as buildings. Would you like to see the House scale that down some?,THE PRESIDENT. To go further than that, I would say this: I do not believe the Federal Government ought to be in the business of paying a local official. If we're going into that, we'll have to find out every councilman and every teacher and every other person that's a public official of any kind, or public servant, and try to figure out what his right salary is. I can't imagine anything worse for the Federal Government to be into.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, speaking of public morality and basic issues as we have been today, at the congressional \"payola\" hearings yesterday a disc jockey likened the giving of gifts and money by record companies to these record spinners, as they're called, to the exercise of competing for a teacher's favors with an apple. And he went on to say--I'm quoting his testimony from the New York Times: \"This seems to be the American way of life, which is a wonderful way of life. It's primarily built on romance--I'll do for you, what will you do for me?\",On the eve of Lincoln's birthday, do you have any comments on those things? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I don't think that the shades of Lincoln would have possibly any great approval for what I might think and say. But I'll tell you this, that when we get to the place where the right of people to use the airwaves, under license of Government, and then they can use this just for personal gain over and above the purposes for which they're hired, then I think there is public morality involved. And I think this fellow, whoever he was, talking that way just hadn't thought through the implications of the, let's say, the alibi that he was setting forth.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-02-03","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.,I have one correction I want to make for a statement I made in my last press conference. I said that Ambassador Eban was actually in my office when I made a particular statement about my attitude toward the impending Suez crisis at that time. I have had the staff look up the records. Actually, Foster Dulles came to my office at 6 o'clock in the evening, stating that he was to see Mr. Eban in a few minutes, and I made the same statement that I gave you last night [time] but I made it to him. I had confused that incident from what I said then with other visits, or at least another visit of Mr. Eban.,So, again, it shows that my memory, at least, is not perfect.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Some California Republicans seem to be rather surprised that you did not mention Vice President Nixon in your Los Angeles speech. Now that Mr. Nixon seems to have no opposition for your party's presidential nomination, do you intend to stick to your announced policy of endorsing no one before the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. I admit that such a concern now seems to be a bit academic. But it has been my policy, and I think it is a correct one-we're all human, and we don't know what is around the next corner. I maintain that there are a number of Republicans, eminent men, big men, that could fulfill the requirements of the position; and until the nominations are in as a matter of history, why, I think I should not talk too much about an individual.,I have so often, because of his close association with me, had opportunity and the occasion to express my admiration and respect for the Vice President, I am quite sure at least he is not unaware of my sentiments in this regard.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, the burden of some recent statements on Capitol Hill, primarily by generals, has been that we are well behind the Russians in missile development, with little or no prospect of catching up with them in the near future. I'd like to ask you, sir, as far as man's effort to enter space, as well as the development of military missiles, do you feel any sense of urgency in catching up with the Russians?,THE PRESIDENT. I am always a little bit amazed about this business of catching up. What you want is enough, a thing that is adequate. A deterrent has no added power, once it has become completely adequate, for compelling the respect of any potential opponent for your deterrent and, therefore, to make him act prudently.,I saw Monday morning in the Congressional Record--just after I got back from California--that day's Congressional Record had a statement of America's history in missile development. It's a very comprehensive one. I commend it to your attention to show what has been done--with a very slow start and with a complete neglect for a period--in the period, particularly in ICBM and IRBM development. And the record, I insist, is one to be at least quite gratified about.,As I recall, for 1960 there is, for missiles of all kinds, appropriated $6,690 million. This, it seems to me, is getting close to the point where money itself will [not] bring you any speed, any quicker development.,Q. Rowland Evans, Jr., New York Herald Tribune: Mr. President, you mentioned the word \"deterrent\" in your answer to that last question. Yesterday, General Power said that our deterrent of heavy bombers cannot be properly safeguarded unless it is put on a full air alert. You discussed this with us before, but in view of General Power's testimony yesterday, would you give your view on that question?,THE PRESIDENT. No; too many of these generals have all sorts of ideas. But I do point this out: I have got the Secretary of Defense, whom I trust, and who I know is honest in his study, analysis, and conclusions. That is Secretary Gates. And beneath him, assisting him, is the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, whom I similarly trust; and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with those two, are my military advisers. I have been long enough in the military service that I assure you that I cannot be particularly disturbed because everybody with a parochial viewpoint all over the place comes along and says that the bosses know nothing about it.,Now, I don't think anyone's trying to impugn the patriotism and the earnestness and the integrity of the group I have just mentioned. I think, myself, they are the ablest people we could get. That's the reason they were selected.,Q. Alan S. Emory, Watertown Times: As the No. I Republican in the country, sir, are you seriously concerned about the future and the vigor of the Republican Party, and do you think the party needs more crusaders?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I know it ought to have a lot more recruits. [Laughter],Now, you say vigorously, or whether I am concerned. I don't know whether that's the right word. I am genuinely interested to see the Republicans telling their story more eloquently and better than they have in the past, more often and on a more widespread basis, and to get these recruits that we need.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, quite aside from the military implications of the space race, I believe your head of the USIA, George Allen, said recently before Congress that he feels we are in a race to space with the Russians, whether we want to be or not, and that also the United States prestige seems to be low because of our lag behind the Russians.,Now, I think that last week you told us that you don't believe that the international prestige of the United States is at stake in this race. I wonder if you could straighten out that confusion.,THE PRESIDENT. I made a long trip; and certainly if there wasn't an evidence that the prestige of America was rather high, then I was very badly mistaken in my own conclusions. And I think that most of the people of this group that went along with me, that they would have been mistaken.,It is idle to say that just exactly as we like to see this country ahead in every single activity that seems to us worthwhile, we want to see them ahead in space. This is a spectacular area in which we are now working. But let us remember this one thing: the reason for going into space, except for those activities that are carried on by the Defense Department as having some value to the security of the country, is purely scientific. Therefore, you are not talking about racing them in finding the particular items or in naming the particular course that you are going to run in this race; you work out a proper and an appropriate plan of scientific exploration, and you follow it positively, rather than trying to follow along behind somebody else.,Now, I have said time and again that because the Soviets are far ahead in this very large booster and engine, that, so far as distant space exploration is concerned, they are going to be ahead in that regard for some time, because it takes time to get that engine built.,Just taking over, this Saturn project from the Army: I have, after long study by the space agency, determined that the amount of money that we took over with that particular thing was not sufficient; and there's another hundred million being devoted, or at least recommended for devotion, to it. I believe it will be appropriated; and I believe that implies not only the determination of the United States to go ahead rapidly with this thing, I believe that we can look forward at the proper time to success.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: In the general context of the so-called spirit of Camp David, do you think the fact that the lend-lease talks came to nothing indicates anything about the general Soviet desire to negotiate on outstanding issues?,THE PRESIDENT. Again, I must repeat myself. I wasn't aware of any spirit of Camp David. I have heard it quoted a number of times, and I think that it was originated by people other than ourselves. No one denied that the talks there went on in an atmosphere that was personally friendly. That's the only way the spirit of Camp David could be defined.,But I think that these difficulties, when in this instance the Soviets tried to put two or three other problems together with the lend-lease talks, was a typical maneuver and there was nothing done. But it doesn't mean that sooner or later there won't be something done.,Q. William H. Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, don't you think the country ought to have the benefit of your advice as to who you think the other Republicans are who could be President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'll tell you what: there's a number of them, and I am not going into the business of nominating people. That's not my job. I want to make this very clear: I am not dissatisfied with the individual that looks like he will get it, not by any manner of means. I just simply say there's a number that could perform the duties of the office with distinction.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President, there is concern in the Capital for fear you may fed it necessary to give atomic information, or even actual custody of atomic weapons, to those countries where we're going to have bases for nuclear weapons. Do you want to do that and, if so, inasmuch as we took our bases out of France on that quarrel with De Gaulle, would that mean we might put nuclear bases back into France?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you've got about a three-barreled question there.,But, Mrs. Craig, the law itself says what information the Executive can give to particular nations, and it defines rather accurately the nations to whom you can give this information. As far as giving away the bombs, this cannot be done under existing law.,I do believe this: that where we are allied with other nations and we are trying to arm ourselves in such a way as to make certain of our defense, we should try to arm them in such methods and ways as will make that defense more strong and more secure.,I would not ever, even if the law permitted, give away information that was still, in our opinion, withheld from the Soviets themselves. But when the Soviets have the information and know-how to do things, it's pretty hard for me to understand why we don't do something with our allies, as long as they themselves stand with us firmly in defending against the probable aggressive intent of communism.,Q. Charles H. Mohr, Time Magazine: You made clear in an earlier answer, Mr. President, how strongly you felt that SAC was not vulnerable to being wiped out in an enemy attack. Since this is at the heart of the current argument, I wonder if you could tell us whether you believe that we would get strategic warning of any enemy missile attack or, if you don't believe that, could you give us some of the reasons why you feel that SAC is not vulnerable, in a period of 2 or 3 years, to a very crippling blow.,THE PRESIDENT. If you will take the things that the Soviets could probably do 3 or 4 years from now and then we sit right where we are now and do nothing, well, that's a different story.,I just say this: I don't believe that anyone today can destroy all of our capabilities for retaliation, and they cannot destroy today enough of them that we couldn't retaliate very effectively to the point of destructiveness to them.,Now, as we go ahead, they will go ahead. But I would say that 3 years from now, if we are working as hard as we do now, we are going to be in the same relative position.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: In view of your answer to Mrs. Craig's question and the fact that the nuclear test negotiations at Geneva seem to be stalled, Mr. President, do you feel that it's becoming really impossible to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to the so-called \"fourth\" countries, or do you still look upon the test ban negotiations as a way to do this? Are you prepared to keep on with the moratorium?,THE PRESIDENT. Of course, if you had real test bans that applied to all nations, then the only way other nations could get weapons would be through sale, transfer, or gift.,Of course, it concerns any thoughtful individual as to the problem of the spread of these weapons to smaller and other nations, as the process of their manufacture may become more simple and as just through, you might say, the method of absorption the necessary know-how becomes more widespread.,I am of the belief that, if you could have now a ban on all testing that everybody could have confidence in, it would be a very, very fine thing to stop this--for this very reason, if no other: it is a very expensive business, to begin with. The very first bomb we produced, I think, cost America $2 billion or more before we ever had the very first one. Since that time, although you'd have to look this up, I think our appropriations have never been below $2 billion a year. So it is an expensive business.,Q. Mr. Roberts: Could I ask, sir, are you prepared, in face of the difficulties at Geneva, to keep our negotiator there more or less indefinitely? You put the moratorium on sort of a day-to-day basis months ago.,THE PRESIDENT. I want to keep him there as long as there is the slightest chance of success. We should get this kind of agreement as soon as we can.,Q. Laurence H. Burd, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, where do you expect to be and what do you expect to be doing one year from now?,THE PRESIDENT. I hope, out in the desert or down shooting quail in Georgia--or maybe just sitting in a rocking chair.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Have you decided yet, Mr. President, in connection with the Panama Canal, what form of visible evidence of titular sovereignty should be displayed over the canal?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll tell you, Mr. Belair, here is a question that, if it had been asked me 3 years, I'd have known exactly what I would have said. One of the earliest tours I had in my military service was in Panama. I learned to know the people pretty well. I stayed there something over 3 years, I think, from '21 onward--6 years after I got out of West Point.,I think that not all of the difficulties that have come about have been entirely because of their demands. It is perfectly true there was a treaty made many, many years ago, more than 50, now. And the conditions of that treaty were changed from time to time as the whole condition of affairs in the world so demanded, just exactly like our Constitution has been amended 22 times.,I think that at times, because we did buy the territory--and everyone knows that the primary source of revenues for the Panamanian nation is the wealth that is brought there through the canal operations--that we suddenly decide that we must be a little bit too stern in our treatment of them. They are people that are sensitive. I don't know exactly now what you can do, because we have people that have suddenly gotten themselves into a state that believes that even if you ever had, for example, a flag flown as a courtesy to the nation in which titular sovereignty still resides, that this would be a very, very great abdication of American rights and responsibility. I think that this is getting a little bit beyond the rule of reason, because the treaty says that the United States may act, and in all respects can act, as if it were completely sovereign. Such language means that there is a titular sovereignty in the other nation, in my opinion.,So I haven't decided any particular thing. 1,1On April 19 the White House announced at Augusta, Ga., that the President had that day approved a nine-point program for improvement of relations between the United States and Panama with reference to operations in the Canal Zone (Department of State Bulletin, vol. 42, p. 798).,Later, on September 17, the Associate Press Secretary to the President announced that the President had \"as a voluntary and unilateral decision on the part of the Government of the United States, approved and directed the flying of the flag of the Republic of Panama together with the United States flag on a daily basis in Shaler's Triangle in the Canal Zone.\",Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, there seems to be considerable pressure in Congress for amending the Social Security Act this year. Can you tell us, sir, if the administration is planning to recommend any changes in the Social Security Act and what those changes might be, generally?,THE PRESIDENT. There is under consideration a possible change to run up the taxes by a quarter of a percent to make greater provision for the care of the aged.,There has been no conclusion reached in the administration; I have not yet made any recommendation on it.,Q. John Scali, Associated Press: Mr. President, of late, Premier Khrushchev has started to talk, both publicly and privately, about Berlin and the Soviet demand that the West sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany. In his January 14 speech to the Supreme Soviet, he said that, unless the West agreed to a separate peace treaty with East Germany, the Soviets would go ahead and sign one with all the consequences that would flow from that. Now, do you regard such talk as violating the understanding that you reached with him at Camp David on the removal of threats from the Berlin situation?,THE PRESIDENT. I'll Say this: at Camp David nor anywhere else did he ever retreat from the statement that he had a right, if he so wanted, to make a separate treaty with East Germany; bringing to everybody's attention, of course, the fact that the West had made a special treaty with West Germany. But when he adds that this would immediately-when he talks about the consequences--make all of East Germany, including West Berlin, a sovereign, cutting it off from connections from the West, well, that, of course, would be a very grave situation that would be brought about.,Q. Carleton Kent, Chicago Sun-Times: Mr. President, the Senate yesterday passed a proposed constitutional amendment which abolishes the poll tax, gives the District of Columbia citizens the right to vote and Governors the right to appoint temporary members of the House under certain wartime conditions. How do you feel about this?,THE PRESIDENT. I think they make pretty good sense. Certainly I would think the poll tax, where you abolish it only for Federal elections, and to give the residents of the District the right to vote for the national ticket, I think are reasonable and should be done.,The other one is one that I think is brought about by the realization of the catastrophes that could occur if there should ever be the tragedy of war.,Now, I might add I have a couple more that I think ought to be added. t think Congressmen ought to be elected for 4 years, at the same time with the President, that is, the lower House, so called, the House of Representatives. I think also that the item veto should be an authority of the President and so stated in the national Constitution; because I know one thing: that would defeat pork barrels.,Q. Garnett D. Horner, Washington Star: Awhile ago, sir, while you were talking about the atomic weapons and information to allies, I got the impression that you might lean toward favoring changing the law so that you could provide allies with custody of weapons that Russia has or knows how to make. Was that correct or wrong impression?,THE PRESIDENT. From the very beginning, from what I knew about allied cooperation, and so on, I have always been of the belief that we should not deny to our allies what your potential enemy already has. We do want allies to be treated as partners and allies, and not as junior members of a firm who are to be seen but not heard.,So I would think that it would be better, for the interests of the United States, to make our law more liberal, as long as we classify our countries as those that we are confident, by our treaties and everything else, they'd stand by us, and stand by us in time of trouble.,Q. Edward P. Morgan, American Broadcasting Company: I would like to pursue this discussion about our relative progress with the Soviet Union from a different angle.,Have you considered the possibility that the American public may be confused by a psychological aspect of our struggle with the Russians? They may have more missiles than we. They did beat us to the moon. Their rate of economic growth now is faster than ours, and they are, net, turning out, for example, more trained engineers than we do. Now, individually, none of these factors is decisive. But cumulatively, is it not possible that a state of mind, a dangerous state of mind, is being created under which we would be in a position or be forced into a position to accept a posture of second-best in everything or anything.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think here and there you can find that in a country as big as Russia you are going to be certainly second-best; didn't they win the Olympic games last time?,Q. Mr. Morgan: I believe they did, sir, in many events.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, what did we do with that?,Let's remember this: if they find an athlete, they take him, and it's a national responsibility to train him and build him up until he's the best there is in the world, if they can make him such.,Now we have a free enterprise; we place above all other values our own individual freedoms and rights; and we believe, moreover, that the operation of such a system in the long run produces more, not only more happiness, more satisfaction, and pride in our people, but also more goods, more wealth.,Let's remember that dictatorships have been very efficient. Time and time again, look how we were overawed, almost, by Hitler's early years-overrunning Poland, and then overrunning the West, and going into Africa. Of course, we talked about this great efficiency. This is dictatorship.,If you take our country and make it an armed camp and regiment it, why, for a while you might do it with great morale, too, if you could get people steamed up like you did in wars; you might do this thing in very greater tempo than we now are doing it.,Democracy, we hope, is an enduring form of government. We are, therefore, trying to do these things at the same time we keep these values.,I would like to see our people--and I admit that they get disturbed and probably at times alarmed about something, particularly when the headlines give it an interpretation far beyond its true meaning, like hitting the moon. I've heard people say, \"Well, soon there'll be colonies on the moon and they'll be shooting at the earth from the moon.\" I saw that in one story.,Well, this is long after you and I will be gone; that, I'll assure you.,Now, what we should think about and talk about more in the world are the values which we do treasure. They don't have them. And since we believe that in the long run men do learn to have this same belief about the same values, I believe that there is just as much of the seeds of self-destruction in the Communist system as they claim is in ours--they claim the inherent conflicts within our system are going to destroy it.,I think our people ought to have greater faith in their own system. Let's remember, you people are the bosses of the American Government-you the people, by your votes and your representatives, and so what do you want? All right, you can make the decisions. All you have to do is to inform yourselves and you will make good decisions. And that is exactly what we are doing, to say we want these things or we don't want them. So let's just be sure that we don't kid ourselves that somebody else, different from ourselves--because people in government are just you people. All right, then it's your responsibility to make sure that you are secure, that you are not alarmed and certainly not hysterical.,Q. Mr. Morgan: Then, sir, you don't feel that there is a basic danger of defeatism under the present circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. Put it this way: none in my soul; I'll tell you that.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-01-26","text":"THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I am ready for questions.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, the Cuban Premier, Fidel Castro, recently has stepped up the character and intensity of his attacks on the United States, and the American Government is apparently very concerned about this, as reflected in your meeting yesterday with Secretary Herter and Ambassador Bonsal.,What, if anything, can you do about this situation, Mr. President? Do you feel that specific action is required by the American Government to preserve its position against these Castro attacks?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you are perfectly correct. We are concerned and, more than that, we are perplexed. We don't know really the foundation of these accusations that are made not only by the Prime Minister but appear in the publications in Cuba.,Now, we have had these conferences with Secretary Herter and Ambassador Bonsal, trying to understand more about the motives and what they are really hoping to do. Over the last 2 days, now, with Mr. Herter and Mr. Bonsal, we have prepared a written restatement of our policy, as of now, concerning Cuba. It's in written form and you will get it.,[Addresses Mr. Hagerty] Where is it?,Mr. Hagerty: Outside.,THE PRESIDENT. Outside?,Mr. Hagerty: Yes, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. Right outside the door. You can get a copy.,So it explains our position and exactly what our policy is in the circumstances. 1,1See Item 22.,Q. J. Anthony Lewis, New York Times: Mr. President, in your State of the Union Message you made reference to the Civil Rights Commission proposals and said they deserved a thorough study. Since then, the Attorney General has been studying them and reportedly thinking of some alternative ideas. Do you have anything now that you can say about the proposals?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The Attorney General has another plan that he thinks, within the framework of existing law, will improve very much the procedures that have been followed. It is somewhat technical-exactly what the jurisdiction and the action possible for judges to take. So I would suggest, to get the thing exactly so it is not subject to misinterpretation, you should go to him; because it is a legalistic amendment that it would be difficult for me to describe in detail.,Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post: Mr. President, the last few days there has been some dispute over Secretary Gates with reference to estimates of Soviet military capabilities, and he has expressed the idea that we have changed our estimate from one based on capability to one based on intention. Could you tell us whether you, yourself, have had a part in this? Could you give us your thinking as a soldier on the reliability of an estimate that takes intentions into consideration?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it's exactly correct--what you are now giving as a premise of your question. There was a premise to the effect that you just now suggest contained in a question put to Mr. Gates; he rather ignored that, and therefore his statements were subject to misinterpretation. Certainly his meaning was subject to misinterpretation.,Frankly, what is really happening is that we have better estimates than we had in the past in this field.,Let me call your attention to a little bit of history. Only 3 or 4 years ago there was a great outcry about the alleged bomber gap in favor of the Russians, and there was a great deal of talk about it and, actually, I think we got more--a billion dollars or something like that, $900 million more--for bombers that year than I asked for. Subsequent intelligence investigation showed that that estimate was wrong and that, far from stepping up their production of bombers, the Soviets were diminishing it or even eliminating that production.,Now, I think that we should never talk about an argument between intention and capability. Both of these things are, of course, necessary when you are making any intelligence estimate.,Let me point this out: we've got all of the power that would be necessary to destroy a good many countries. We have no intention of using it. And the whole world knows that.,We also know a number of things about the Soviets. Naturally we think that our intentions, stated intentions, are more trustworthy than those of people hostile to us.,I do say that this whole business of intelligence, of producing intelligence and an intelligence estimate, is a very intricate and a very complex thing. You cannot take any one basis, any one channel of thought, to make a proper estimate on which a government or a commander can act.,I would just say this: I think that Mr. Gates will find ways of clarifying exactly what he meant; because, in my opinion, he is a very splendid civil servant.,Q. William McGaffin, Chicago Daily News: Mr. President, in view of the international prestige at stake, why are we not moving with a greater sense of urgency to catch up with Russia in the field of space exploration?,THE PRESIDENT. JUST start at that again. How did you start it, how did you start that question?,Q. Mr. McGaffin: I said, in view of the international prestige at stake.,THE PRESIDENT. Is it?,Q. Mr. McGaffin: Well, sir, do you not feel that it is?,THE PRESIDENT. Not particularly, no. We have got a record in 5 years in space exploration that is not only admirable, but I think is one to be proud of.,The Soviets have made some very spectacular achievements, but I don't think that we should begin to bow our heads in shame, because in a few years we have gotten up and gone past them in many fields of this work, when they have been working on it ever since 1945.,So I would think that once in a while we ought just to remember that our country is not asleep, and it is not incapable of doing these things; indeed, we are doing them.,Now, I don't deny that this spectacular achievement more excites the public imagination than does the good, hard, steady work of the scientists that are keeping satellites in the air and getting from them information all the time. It is more spectacular, and it has more effect on the casual reader. But in the actual examination of these two programs, I think we've got a pretty good record.,Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, since we last met, the former British Prime Minister, Mr. Eden, has had another recollection, this one about Suez. And he says that the decision to go into Suez by Britain and France was made in June, or many months before the October going in, and that you, sir, were privy to that decision.,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't like to comment on memoirs. As I have said, I think, here several times, Mr. Eden is a very good friend of mine, been one for years, and I had great confidence in him.,Now I do recall this about the decision--or not decision, the action at Suez. As a matter of fact, I'll tell you one or two footnotes of history that might be interesting. I made it clear that the United States was going to stand by its interpretation of United Nations policy and the Charter. This meant that we would apply this to anybody, those that we thought our closest friends as well as those that we thought were in another category.,At about this time--I have forgotten just exactly at what time the invasion started--,Q. Mr. Belair: October, wasn't it?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, sometime in early October, Mr. Eban was going back to Israel for a short time. He came in to see me. And I told him I'd hoped that he would not allow any misinterpretation of sentiment in this country to sway him. Particularly because of possible Jewish sympathy for what seemed to be an intention building up around the mobilization of Israel at that time, I hoped he would not allow this to sway his judgment as to what this administration would do in doing its very best to prevent any outbreak of hostilities and the, you might say, settlement of international issues by force.,I told him that if he thought that this would have any iota of influence on the election or that that would have any influence on me, he should disabuse his mind about it.,In addition to that, both Foster Dulles and I went to great pains to show to Britain and to France what we would do under that set of circumstances. As far as the decision itself was concerned, for the 2 weeks just prior to the action, Foster Dulles told me, there wasn't a single item that came in from the British Foreign Office; as a matter of fact, he referred to it as \"a blackout of news.\",Now, that is all I recall from this time.,I am not trying to impugn anybody else's memory or anybody's interpretation of the facts as they were then. We had telephone calls--transatlantic--in order to try to keep this thing on the rails. But that was our own attitude; that I know.,Q. James B. Reston, New York Times: Mr. President, two other points on Mr. Belair's question.,First, were there recordings of the telephone calls back and forth between Washington and London at that time; and, secondly, are you putting in train any kind of historical, orderly way of gathering the historical material of the last 8 years together?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, Mr. Reston, for a good many years I've tried personally to keep a diary. And every evening I find that I have been a little-bit too tired, and I was going to do it tomorrow morning.,Some of these calls were occasionally from my own room. It just struck me that I'd better get hold of Mr. Eden or someone else and talk to him, Mr. Churchill, or someone. I cannot recall for sure whether I always came back and gave the gist--I'm sure I always told it verbally to Secretary Dulles.,Now, as far as it can be done through my official acts, and even in conversations, there is an orderly record made. For example, one of the types of correspondence that is going to the Presidential Library that will be built to take my papers will be Foster Dulles' personal notations of the conversations between ourselves, because that was a personal thing between him and me. All the others of his papers, as you know, are going to the Dulles Wing of the Princeton Library, as they properly should. He himself made that decision, and it is in his will. And his executors have the direction to keep those.,There are a thousand other things we keep over here in the White House. The Secretary, and my own personal secretary, people like that, keep a record. The trouble is it gets so voluminous until you get experts to winnow it down, it's going to be a very difficult thing to do.,Q. Mr. Reston: How far did you get with that diary, sir?,THE PRESIDENT. Me?,Q. Mr. Reston: Yes.,THE PRESIDENT. I started, as I recall, in Panama in 1921, and I found that, from time to time, as I looked back, oh, I'd find three or four notes over the period of 5 years; and I decided that it wasn't very much. [Laughter],Q. Harold R. Levy, Newsday: Sir, aside from any thought of economic reprisal against Cuba, it has been suggested that our present sugar quota system should be dropped, or at least modified, to permit free competition among producing nations. Do you think such a step would be feasible or desirable?,THE PRESIDENT. As I say, I refer you to my statement as to what our policy is.,But I do want to say this: the American people still have the greatest affection and the greatest interest in the Cuban people. We are not going to be party to reprisals or anything of that kind. At this moment it is not our time to do it, and certainly we are not going to intervene in their internal affairs. But when you read the whole statement, if you have further questions, why, come back to the next press conference and I'll be glad to try to answer them.,Q. Sarah McClendon, El Paso Times: Sir, Mr. Gates has said that he did not make the intelligence decisions and he was not a member of the United States Intelligence Board which uses this intent, or approach. And then when we went to get the names of the U.S. Intelligence Board, we were told that two members had recently been added, about the time, I believe, they started making this new type of approach. But we couldn't get the names. Don't you think that the American people have the right to know who is making these decisions that may affect their security?,THE PRESIDENT. I hadn't thought of this question at all. I'll ask--,Q. Mrs. McClendon: Well, could you ask them to get those names?,THE PRESIDENT. No, no; I won't say that. I'll just ask them what the procedure is.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The joint congressional committee on your Economic Report has made a voluminous study and report which differs somewhat from your Economic Report. This brings up the question of your National Goals Commission, because they apparently established some goals. What is the status of your Goals Commission, and will they make a similar study?,THE PRESIDENT. The study I am talking about is, first of all, to be bipartisan, and that I could not say for the kind of economic report to which you have just referred. This is to be bipartisan, done by scholars and experienced people. I hope that, at long last, we've gotten the thing on the rails and it will get to business. I am disappointed that its report necessarily will not be available in the time that I would hope it could have been, but it has been a long-term job getting it done.,Now, I just point out about this report 1 which I hear is coming out this noon: always before, it has been the practice that, after the Joint Economic Committee gets the President's report and recommendation, they hold hearings; and then they make a report. Well, they're doing it this time without hearings, apparently.,1Senate Report 1152, 86th Congress (Government Printing Office, 1960).,Q. Rutherford M. Poats, United Press International: Sir, while we appreciate that you have not announced, and therefore presumably not made your plans as to additional travel in the Far East, I wonder whether you can tell us now what your thinking is about the desirability and your own personal hopes as to whether you can extend your travels to visit some of the other countries which have invited you in that area.,THE PRESIDENT. This is a big point: time. How can you, during the time that the Congress is in session, how can you so stretch this time as not to get into difficulty in your own country?,Now, we have jet planes and all that sort of thing, but let us take this one point. A bill comes in; frequently, although I am kept informed while I am here what is going on, I have to sign it or refuse to sign it in a matter of 2 hours before the final minute for the action. If I'm gone too long, I run into the difficulty of not having the benefit of that kind of consultation and, therefore, my own constitutional duties are to that extent neglected.,While I can make certain provisions, and always have been able to do so, to hold some of these bills before they leave the Capitol and come to the White House, this is not a process that ought to be usual. And so the thing becomes a question of time.,Naturally, as long as I am going to be in the Far East, I should like to go to a number of places. Some of the people are old friends of mine. But the visit that I talked about was made possible only by the authority of the Soviet Government to permit my leaving it by the eastern exit. That makes it possible for me to go at least to Tokyo. 1,Beyond that, I haven't studied the thing in detail.,1On January 17 the White House announced that as a result of personal exchanges between the President and Chairman Khrushchev it had been agreed that the President would visit the Soviet Union June 10-19, 1960. On January 20 the White House announced that the President would visit Japan about June 20. On April 12 a further release stated that the President's visit to Japan would take place June 19-23, and that he would make a brief visit to Korea on June 22.,Q. Spencer Davis, Associated Press: Mr. President, further along that line, is there a possibility of a second trip out to the Far East when time permits?,THE PRESIDENT. You know one thing--come next July there is no one going to be interested in what my visits are, either you people or anybody else. [Laughter],Q. Donald H. Shannon, Los Angeles Times: Going back to Mr. McGaffin's question about space exploration, Mr. President, you distinguished between space exploration and defense in your State of the Union Message, but a great many people feel that the subjects are not really distinguishable. I wonder if you could say something along your--your views, how you divide them up?,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt that I can say anything more than I said in my State of the Union Message, because I assure you that I worked 3 months on that, and it represents my very definite, fixed conclusion. These things are different. They are for different purposes.,Now, no one has ever denied that if the Defense Department can find some space activity that can contribute to its defense, well, quite naturally, we'd exploit it. But the difference between space activity as such and defense is really quite marked, and not nearly as confused as it is, for example, between, say, Air Force and Navy and the Navy and the Army, and all of the three of them put together.,Q. Robert G. Spivack, New York Post: Mr. President, I'd like to get back to your earlier answer to the question about civil rights. Without getting into the technicalities of what the Attorney General is working on, is the alternative that he is proposing an alternative to the Federal registrars proposal or to the civil rights bill that now is bottled up in the House Rules Committee?,THE PRESIDENT. Oh no, he's not making--we stand by the recommendations we've already made. But he thinks he's got a scheme that will make the insurance of the voting right more firm, and that is the thing you should talk to him about so then you know exactly what he's got in mind.,Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President, our railroads complain that they suffer from competition with Government-subsidized shipping, aviation, highway transport. Now, if we are planning to put the Minuteman and other solid fuel missiles on railroad cars as mobile launching pads, how are we going to save the railroads from being ruined by this competition and not here when we need them?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I thought your question was a pretty good one until you got the Minuteman in it. [Laughter] No one knows exactly how those things will happen now.,No one could be more concerned than I am about the railroads. I think that they are governed by antiquated laws and regulations; and, frankly, I think some of the trouble is their own.,In the great golden days of the seventies and early eighties, when everybody could get rich by either building a railroad or pretending he was going to and selling stock--if you will read in some of the parts of those late sixties and early seventies, you will find it mostly scandal--well, everybody wanted an independent railroad. I think our railroad systems are proliferated into so many different independent things--of course, everybody likes to be president, don't forget that--so you've got these things that are not always economic and efficient. But even allowing for that, I believe we ought to have a real overhaul of all the regulations and the controls, and give them a chance to be prosperous.,I guess 4 years ago now, I had a Cabinet meeting that proposed, in a transportation report, just something of that order. As a matter of fact, my transportation committee remains alive.,I am all for some reform in this whole thing in the railroads, I assure you.,Q. Thomas N. Schroth, Congressional Quarterly: Speaking of next July, sir, last Saturday the Democrats had a great many attacks to make on your administration, and particularly on Vice President Nixon. One of them called him a \"juvenile delinquent.\" Do you care to comment on the remarks of the Democrats last Saturday?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I couldn't comment except to laugh.,Q. William H. Y. Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, at the last press conference, you yourself raised a very interesting point when you suggested that we get an opinion whether a second term President should run for Vice President.,THE PRESIDENT. Not \"should\"--I said \"could.\",Q. Mr. Knighton: Could--yes, sir; could. We can't get an official opinion in our status, but you can. Have you, and if you can run, will you? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'll tell you this much--I'll be more like these nonrunning candidates; I'll be cagey--the afternoon of that press conference, there was a note on my desk saying a report from the Justice Department--I don't know whether the Attorney General himself signed this, but the report was, it was absolutely legal for me to do so. That stopped it right there, as far as I'm concerned.,Q. William J. Eaton, United Press International: Mr. President, there was a great deal of criticism of the Taft-Hartley law during the steel dispute. Do you plan to ask Congress to revise the emergency procedures of that law to deal more adequately with major strikes?,THE PRESIDENT. I have asked the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, and the Chairman of the Economic Advisers to study this matter thoroughly, so that in some timely fashion, if there is anything I should or could do, I'd like to know.,Q. Lillian Levy, National Jewish Post and Opinion: Mr. President, a clause was written in the last appropriation legislation empowering you to withhold aid to foreign countries which discriminate against American citizens on the basis of race or creed. Are you contemplating taking such action against countries that have continually so discriminated, or do you have another remedy that you think would be more effective?,THE PRESIDENT. I have seen no specific case of this kind brought before me on my desk for a long time, and I'll just have to take a look before I can state what my policy will be, for this reason: these exceptions are written in the law so as to put the specific cases before the President and make him decide whether or not such-and-such a thing is to the best interests of the United States.,Now quite frequently such a decision has to conflict with, you might say, the normal or general policy. You have to do it because of specific cases. That is all I can say, because I don't know the cases you are talking about this morning.,Q. Miss Levy: I was referring specifically to Saudi Arabia, which for several years has discriminated against our citizens.,THE PRESIDENT. I think the recommendation of the State Department would be--I'd stop there and then if they have anything to tell me, why, I'll be glad to take it up again.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}
{"president":"Dwight D. Eisenhower","date":"1960-01-13","text":"THE PRESIDENT. I have no announcements today.,Q. Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, there have been demands that this country protest and try to block Russia's announced plans to use the central Pacific to test a powerful new missile. How do you feel about this?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't know it was moon missile. Somebody said larger propulsive engines; isn't it?,Q. Mr. Arrowsmith: I think that's it.,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has always claimed the right in the high seas to use areas there for valid scientific experiment, and has, in doing so, notified everybody concerned, and then taken the proper measures to warn away from the areas involved anyone that might be damaged.,We did this in the central Pacific. We have assumed that this was within the meaning and spirit of international law; and if there is any contrary view, why, it would have to be, I think, studied in that context as to the requirements of international law.,Therefore, it would seem very unusual for us to make a protest when we have done the same thing ourselves and intend to do it again.,Q. Merriman Smith, United Press International: Mr. President, what do you think of the revived suggestion, this time from former President Truman, that you take some ranking Democrats with you to the May summit meeting? Are you considering such a thing?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, I am not commenting on anybody else's suggestion. It is a thing that always comes up whenever there is any international conference. Indeed, so far as I know, it has always been the practice, where there was any prospect of any treaties to be signed, to bring somebody of the opposite party into these conferences, particularly from the Senate, so that when the matter of confirmation came up there could be someone to explain the details of the agreements.,Now, I have never looked at the composition. As a matter of fact, during the Casablanca and Teheran and Yalta and Potsdam conferences, I have no idea whether there were any Republicans there. I wasn't interested in those days whether a man was a Republican or a Democrat.,But there are, of course, certain circumstances where you could say such-and-such a thing is valuable. It is one of those things that is never forgotten and is kept in mind. Certainly if there came up an occasion when you would believe that there was something that might come to a head, whether it be a treaty signed, I would certainly think it would be a good idea to have others along.,Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, two questions about your December trip. You were acclaimed by millions of people, perhaps more people than anyone else in history. Have you had a chance to ponder the meaning of this and, two, can you tell us anything about the substance of your talk with Mr. Nehru?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the first part, I think, is very simple. I believe that there have been a lot of people through the nations that I visited, that were a little bit of the belief that they have been accused of being unfriendly of the American; they have an opposite feeling and they wanted to express it. I believe it is just that simple. Certainly so many young people never knew of an old soldier of World War II--they were too young for that; they didn't come out for any personal thing particularly, although, of course, some of the older ones and some of them who may have been friends and associates of mine in the war did.,Largely this was an attempt to express for the United States some affection and respect for American efforts to promote a peaceful world.,Now, I could say only this about my conversations with Mr. Nehru: I talked to many people, and I wouldn't be at liberty to talk about the specific subjects. The talks with him were not only interesting; particularly those when we were alone were very instructive to me and I think showed a very splendid grasp of the situation, particularly in the areas in which he is so deeply involved.,Q. Robert C. Pierpoint, CBS News: Mr. President, could you tell us your reaction to the withdrawal of Governor Rockefeller and the resulting semiautomatic candidacy of Vice President Nixon?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I was just as much astonished as you were. By the way, he tried to call me up and to give me some advance information. I believe he was very much annoyed because he had given the thing for release at 6:30, and it was released at 2; and so he called me after it was already on my desk in the form of the ticker tape.,I would just say that I was just as astonished as anybody else, but I just take his statement at face value and that's that.,I do agree that it does give a certain atmosphere of no competition, you might say, on the nomination. [Laughter],Q. William Knighton, Jr., Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, under those circumstances, however, do you feel you want to give a formal declaration of support to the Vice President before the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. You know, the only thing I know about the Presidency the next time is this: I can't run. [Laughter] But someone has raised the question that were I invited, could I constitutionally run for Vice President, and you might find out about that one. I don't know. [Laughter],Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President, in a speech last summer you advocated help to the Middle East in development.,The first stage of the Aswan Dam in Egypt has now begun with Soviet help. Are you considering offering help from us to Egypt in further stages of the Aswan Dam?,THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to do that now, Mrs. Craig, through the World Bank.,The World Bank today, in my opinion, is the most knowledgeable instrument that belongs to the West to bring about, first, the probable value of these various public works, and on top of that the best way to go into it, to support the thing.,For example, you will remember when we were into the Aswan business, the dam business--[laughter]--well, I don't want to be accused of profanity around here--[laughter]--we at that time had the World Bank as the central affair.,We were to put in a certain amount of money, Britain was to put in a certain amount of money; and so we have gone pretty well on that theory, that they have got a very fine engineering exploratory service. Then, of course, this special Fund of the United Nations is doing a very fine job in what you might call the pre-exploratory efforts. All in all, I would say we would look at the Aswan Dam in the same way we would anything else--from that basis.,Q. Robert J. Donovan, New York Herald Tribune: Speaking of Vice President Nixon, sir, could you comment on his role in the steel settlement, and tell us how you feel about the settlement itself?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's a very simple affair, really. We'd had this long deadlock, and then there was no evidence of progress even after the invocation of the injunctional proceedings under Taft-Hartley. So, it seemed that possibly new personalities to act as some kind of mediators between the contending parties might be helpful; and I asked Mr. Mitchell, with Mr. Nixon, to act in that capacity.,Now, they were deadlocked; they would not come together, would not reach an agreement. So, finally, these people, acting as mediators, by going to each side separately and working--apparently a very intensive area of working and a period of working--proposed a solution that was somewhere between the two positions.,There are certain facts that ought to be noted. Mr. Blough very properly said this was not an agreement forced by anybody; it was forced by circumstances. Two of the important circumstances were these: the can and the aluminum contracts had already been solved and written; the other one was that all of the information to both sides was that the workers were absolutely going to reject what had been advertised as the last offer of the companies.,You are in that kind of a position when they brought this forward-this proposal. Any idea that there was threat or pressure brought to bear upon the companies is silly.,First of all, I don't know what pressure you could bring of a practical nature. Both sides did, on the contrary, voluntarily accept this solution. They did so, first of all, saying that there would be no immediate price rises--the first time it has happened, by the way, in any steel contract that I know of since World War II; secondly, if the can or the aluminum contracts had been applied--their terms, been applied--to steel, this would have been a higher settlement than the compromise settlement that was reached. So the final word on the thing was, at least the hope was expressed, that if the kind of cooperation that they now believe could be expected between labor and the companies was pursued vigorously we might indeed avoid any price rises as a result of this contract.,Of course there are other influences always at work; for example, higher taxes in OASI, as they come in, and all the rest of it. But that was the thing that happened, and it is the whole story as far as I know it.,Q. Frank van der Linden, Nashville Banner: Sir, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, in his new book, is proposing a single Chief of Staff for all the services, and a much larger defense budget of something like $50 to $55 billion a year. Could you give us your views with regard to both those points?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I should think he has the right to his own opinion.,Q. Sarah McClendon, Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader: Sir, there seems to be sort of an attitude of kissing off defense adequacy, the subject even in your State of the Union Message; and your Republican leaders, as they came out of the White House yesterday, they seemed to think any question of adequacy here is partisanship.,Now, isn't this more of a serious situation? This Polaris submarine you referred to in your State of the Union Message, you said we would have some entering with missiles into the active forces this year. Do you mean \"some\" means one or more?,THE PRESIDENT. Wait just a minute. Are you asking a question or making a speech?,Q. Mrs. McClendon: I am asking two questions, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. O.K.,Q. Mrs. McClendon: Two questions, sir; with an introduction.,One is, is it not more serious, this question of adequacy of defense more serious, than just to kiss it off as a partisan matter; and, two., will the submarines, the nuclear submarines, with the missile that we get this year, be more than one?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not exactly certain as to the time each one of these comes off the ways. I know, and I think the budget shows, how many have been authorized each year. They know that the testing of the Polaris missile is going ahead, and the last one, the very last one that they have just had, has been successful.,I don't take it very kindly--the implied accusation that I am dealing with the whole matter of defense on a partisan basis.,First of all, I don't have to be partisan; and, second, I want to tell you this: I've spent my life in this, and I know more about it than almost anybody, I think, that is in the country, because I have given my life to it, and on a basis of doing what is good for the Government and for the country.,I believe that the matter of defense has been handled well and efficiently in the proposals that will be before the Congress within a matter of a day or so; and I think those people that are trying to make defense a partisan matter are doing a disservice to the United States.,Q. David Kraslow, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, the Cuban Government apparently has rejected another protest concerning the illegal seizure and confiscation of American property. Does the administration plan to take any steps beyond the sending of notes. to secure equity for American property owners?,THE PRESIDENT. In this particular stage of this particular problem, I don't think it would be best to comment at the moment as to the things that may be available to us.,Q. Don Oberdorfer, Knight Newspapers: Mr. President, you asked the Congress to study the recommendations of the Commission on Civil Rights in your State of the Union Message. Do you agree with the majority of the Commissioners that a law is needed to provide Federal registrars when Negroes are denied the right to register or vote?,THE PRESIDENT. As a matter of fact, I don't even know whether it is constitutional.,What the Commissioners said: this was one plan that they thought might have some measure of validity and, therefore, they wanted to study it.,Now, the way I feel about this civil rights, we have one bill that was put in last year in which extensive hearings have been had; and I should like to see the Congress act decisively on this particular proposal, and such other proposals that now become almost controversial from the moment that they are presented would not enter into the process of examining and passing the bill that was already put before the Congress.,What I am trying to get at is, I have no objection to the study of the others. As a matter of fact, I want to study them because I would like to see what everybody thinks about it. My big problem is, though, let's get this bill already proposed on which they have had hearings, let's get that acted on.,Q. Roscoe Drummond, New York Herald Tribune: Mr. President, you have said on more than one occasion that you thought that there were a number of Republican leaders who would be qualified to be the presidential nominee. I would like to ask whether you think it is accurate to say that the Republican leaders in the main do not welcome a contest for the presidential nomination, as has been said, and what do you think of that statement?,THE PRESIDENT. I suppose you refer to the statement of Mr. Rockefeller--I mean in his announcement--in which he said, I think, those controlling the party--something of that kind. Now, if we are talking about political leaders, some of them have no position in the hierarchy of Republican machinery; that is, they are not members of the National Committee, they are not State or county chairmen, or anything of that kind. All I have said is this: there are a number of them that I think are very, very highly qualified people. I have said this ever since 1954, I guess. But I do not know whether they welcome any contest or not.,I am sure of this: some of the leaders think that any contest is good because of whipping up interest, even if they know, or think they know, who is going to win. But I suppose there are other ways; for example, in '56 it seemed to be perfectly well known, once I accepted, that I was going to be the nominee, and I don't see that it hurt that election particularly. [Laughter],Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, in recent days the papers have been carrying a statement from a former British Prime Minister, Mr. Eden, highly critical of the United States foreign policy, particularly in Indochina and that general area, critical of Mr. Dulles.,Well, the way we operate, as you well know, is not to disclose papers that would confirm or throw light on our position at that time.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Mr. Belair: I wonder if in the present instance you might make it possible for us to receive some guidance so that the public could get the true picture of what really happened?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, I do not comment on memoirs, and I must say at times there has been a bit of provocation. [Laughter],I think here that, as an official matter, I wouldn't do. it. But remember this: Secretary Dulles was a very forceful man. He could very well talk about possibilities and ask people about possibilities that might by them be considered as proposals, when they were not meant that at all. It was to put out an idea and study it.,I do know this, that there was never any plan developed to be put into execution in the particular instance that has been talked about.,Now, on the other hand, I must say this: I have known Mr. Eden for many years, from the very beginning of World War II. I have known him in positions of responsibility, and he is not an irresponsible person So I think whatever he is doing, he is writing the story as he believes it to be.,Q. Mr. Belair: What I was wondering, Mr. President, was whether you would look sympathetically on--I mean I understand you could not possibly comment on this business--but would you look sympathetically on some authorized person in, say, the State Department, advising the press and supporting the contrary view, if there is a contrary view?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Belair, I would have to talk to them. I hadn't thought of that, but I will talk to them about it.,Q. Edward T. Foillard, Washington Post: Mr. President, to go back to the question of defense, some critics of the administration's defense program are saying that in talks with Chairman Khrushchev, you would be at a disadvantage because of the prospect that the United States will be second best in the missile field. Do you think that argument has any merit, Mr. President?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let's put it this way: such an argument as that presupposes that I come to any conversation in the feeling of inferiority--that I am a little bit frightened. I assure you I am not.,I believe in the United States power, and I believe it is there not to be used but to make certain that the other fellow doesn't use his. I am not in the slightest degree disturbed by such a possibility as you speak of.,Q. L. Edgar Prina, Washington Star: From what your Air Chief General White said at the Press Club Monday, he believes that the virtual cancellation of the B-70 program was a budgetary decision, certainly not an Air Force decision, and he indicated that he might make his views known on Capitol Hill. Do you have any comment on it?,THE PRESIDENT. I will say this: it is certainly not a budgetary decision because there is money in the budget and, as I pointed out, there was a surplus that I hoped we could pay off some of our debts.,It was my conviction as to the necessity for particular weapons at a particular time. The B-70, as an operational weapon, is going to take a long time to produce, and we certainly ought to be in a pretty strong position in many other ways before those years elapse.,Q. Ronald W. May, Madison (Wis.) Capital Times: Mr. President, Representative Kastenmeier of Wisconsin has suggested that there might be a change in our traditional policy of not using chemical, germ, or poison gas warfare first. He said that Army people have indicated that they believed that maybe we should change our policy and use these first, either in a large war or even in a small war. Is this true?,THE PRESIDENT. I will say this: no such official suggestion has been made to me, and so far as my own instinct is concerned, is to not start such a thing as that first.,Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis Post Dispatch: Can you tell us how you reached the $4.2 billion surplus for fiscal 1961?,THE PRESIDENT. Easily; $84 billion of revenue, and 79.8 of expenditures.,Now, we did it on this basis, Mr. Brandt: we took a $510 billion GNP. Already, we are accused that it is too conservative. I saw one in a financial page the other day, a guess of 524; I saw where several bankers said 514.,We made ours 510; and on the basis of such a GNP and our tax rates, why, it was very simple to get a pretty accurate estimate of our expected revenues. Of course, we are hopeful that the Congress will see the wisdom of the recommendations we have made in the expenditure side, and by that means we hope to have that much to put on the debt.,Q. Mr. Brandt: I can see how you get your 84, but how do you get the 79.8?,THE PRESIDENT. I put that--yes, I said that in the State of the Union Message. It is the total amount of the budget.,Q. Mr. Brandt: Is that variable?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, look: now, let's don't pretend that anyone has got a sacrosanct judgment on something that reaches 18 months ahead. Of course, there are going to be some needs that are increased, and some that probably are decreased--hopefully. But that is our best guess at this time.,A budget, after all, is not a paper that you go to jail on if you happen to be a little bit wrong. A budget is an estimate, a plan for expenditures and revenues, and you get your balances on that basis.,But I do point out that it is absolutely necessary that we have savings to put on this debt that we are passing on to someone else; and possibly we seem to think it will be all right for us and them to. increase it. I think the kind of alleged economist that says that the United States can afford to keep piling this debt on and on and on is not one to be very highly respected as an economist.,Q. Lillian Levy, National Jewish Post: Mr. President, it is reported that our authorities in Berlin have put a lid on press information and requests about officials in the Bonn Government accused of former Nazi affiliations. The excuse offered is that this information might be embarrassing to the Bonn Government. Would you comment on such a reason for a news ban?,THE PRESIDENT. You will have to go to the State Department. I haven't heard any such thing as this. I thought it was all in the papers; at least I have read in the papers about the things that have been going on; so I think you will have to go to the State Department.,Q. Miss Levy: Well, the report was in the Post this morning that press requests for such information are being turned down by our military authorities who have records of Nazi, of officials in the Bonn Government who are accused of former Nazi affiliation.,THE PRESIDENT. That is a very \"iffy\" question. But I assure you of this, that a local military commander is not going to get into political affairs and give out information that has to do about the politics of individuals or anybody else. This is not his business, and while there may be reports of this kind that come to the Defense Department and are passed on to State, the last thing I would think of any local military commander would be to get into any such thing as that.,Marvin L. Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President."}